Detroit is bad, but not that bad!

@s.c.:

If there’s a large stigma around it, I have a feeling women would normally opt not to scream while they’re being raped so that everyone would hear

That’s actually not what I meant. They don’t scream because they’re incapable of it. Sudden fear makes it almost impossible for anyone (male or female) to make sounds. When your worst fears are about to be realized, you lose your voice.

Some years ago, after making King Kong, Naomi Watts was on The Tonight Show and Jey Leno asked her about how difficult it was to scream loudly on the set (in terms of strain on the throat). She did point out that the whole concept was silly, because when someone is terrified, they don’t scream.

(Not to imply that Naomi Watts is an expert on anything, but her point is valid).

Your point about homocide is interesting, its alot harder to treat homocide and rape as the same thing.

My point was not to say they are the same. It was that by any ordinary viewpoint, homicides are really bad. Yet, looking at a societal level, people do have a notion of an acceptably low rate. And likewise for rape (at least some do).

@Sobia:

I understand your point about homicide in Detroit. The only problem is there aren’t just 2 rapes a year.

Well, OK. It sounds like you’re willing to accept 2 rapes in the city of Detroit in one year (currently at almost 600 per year) as being a low figure. Is that correct? Because I got a different notion from an earlier comment of yours.

The numbers of rapes are on the high side nonetheless and therefore not a minor problem.

But that’s the crux of my point all along. IF you’d consider 2 rapes a year low, and also talk about “high” (here and in a previous comment), then you should have a notion of what constitutes a “high” rate.

Obviously, most (including myself) have not really thought deeply about what I’d consider “high”, and I don’t reasonably expect you to answer me with a clear figure unless you’ve put a lot of thought into it. I can’t easily come up with a simple threshold figure myself. Perhaps a range. Doing that in a vacuum is a bit hard – which is why I resort to comparing with others. Perhaps the US was a bad example, because their rate is somewhat high. But if you won’t do comparisons, and do accept a notion of a low rape rate, then you need to define what is considered a worrisome rate, and first start any discussion on the matter with that rate, so that others know what you’re talking about.

And lets not look at total populations when we talk about rape of women. Only count the population of women when speaking of rape of women. So that would cut most of your numbers in half roughly. This greatly increases the rate of rape.

It greatly increases the rate of rape everywhere – roughly by a factor of 2. In my comparisons earlier, this doesn’t affect anything I said, because all quantities are scaled by the same amount.

Thanks for clarifying.

I understand your point about homicide in Detroit. The only problem is there aren’t just 2 rapes a year. The numbers of rapes are on the high side nonetheless and therefore not a minor problem.

And lets not look at total populations when we talk about rape of women. Only count the population of women when speaking of rape of women. So that would cut most of your numbers in half roughly. This greatly increases the rate of rape.

I would fear that in Pakistan stranger rape is probably a little more common than it is here in the West. There have been instances of kidnapping, or women being raped during a home invasion. Again not sure of numbers.

But overall I would imagine that acquaintance rape is also more common there as it is here.

Also, would a woman scream if its domestic rape? Studies have shown that in the west, most women are raped by people they know well, is it the same for Pakistan? If it is then we should consider the fact that domestic rape is considered to be ‘lesser’ (or not even considered ‘rape’) and often goes unreported. Furthermore, (this is just based on a women’s studies course I took, I have not researched this) countries all have different methods of reporting rape, some consider domestic rape as rape, others do not.

The issue of allocating resources may have alot to do with how the justice system defined rape, and if rapes are being reported accurately or not.

Your point about homocide is interesting, its alot harder to treat homocide and rape as the same thing. To be crude, if you’re the victim of a homocide (ie – someone killed you) then you’re no longer around to deal with the long term psychological effects of such a crime and fight for your rights in a really flawed justice system at the same time (although I do not mean to downplay the devastating effects this may have on near and dear ones), the way that rape victims so often do

Theft (assuming it is theft of material possessions, like the store example you mentioned, and that it is not a case of theft + rape) is also different because if someone took away your merchandise, you yourself as a person were not physically subjugated and humiliated, even though financially and security-wise you may feel vulnerable.

In 2006, Detroit had a murder rate of 47.3 per 10000 people – the highest of any sizable city in the country.

That’s over 4000 murders in the city.

If by next year they could bring it down to 2 murders (not rate, but overall), would you agree with the following statement?

“Homicide is not a big problem in Detroit.”

Sobia:

I’m a little surprised that Dude, you consider rape to be something minor.

I was wondering where you got that idea until I read:

However, even if no taxpayer money is involved, when I see society as a whole putting too much emphasis on something I feel is minor, and neglecting that which I feel is major, I do point it out. I don’t insist any particular person should change, but my goal is to get them to think about it.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Of course, on an absolutist scale, a rape is not minor. Nor is a theft. Nor is speeding, when it results in an accident.

In the paragraph I quoted, I was talking about society as a whole, and speaking from a relativistic viewpoint – not an absolutist one. Put this way: If I’m a mayor of a city of 10+ million, and at some point this year a rape occurs, I can’t divert as many resources from the fire department, and from the public hospitals, and from traffic police, as I like. If I did, I’d be in a much bigger mess – even if I took care of the rape issue.

I’d be forced to look at the scale of all these problems in the city, and try to give each resources in proportion to the gravity of the problem. And that may mean that if I don’t have that many rapes, but do have an epidemic of robberies that the resources I’d allocate for the former would be “minor” in comparison to those for the robberies.

Would you disagree?

That wouldn’t change the fact that an individual being raped is still horrific.

I’m not seeing the two as being incompatible – perhaps I’m not getting my point across.

it’s very typically “blame the victim”, but I have a really hard time understanding that this view is borne out of cluelessness.

Because when you know nothing about fear and rape, then it sounds very logical. If they don’t realize that the victims are generally incapable of screaming, then they’ll think it’s natural that they should scream. How do you actually expect them to automatically know how a woman will behave in those circumstances?

Let’s say I own a store and one night many valuable items disappear (and I have insurance on them). I call the police to report a burglary. They notice that the lock has not been forced, and all the evidence points to the burglars just walking in. The police will find it suspicious and contemplate the likelihood that I’m trying to scam the insurance agency. It’s not because the police hate me.

The difference is that their reasoning is based on experience and reality. Whereas those of those Pakistanis is borne out of a false reality. It’s not misogyny, it’s ignorance.

Calling others misogynistic simply because they don’t agree with every one of your views on women or on rape will make you part of the problem – especially when other explanations exist. Each and every one of us likely has a ridiculous notion or two rolling around in our heads.

(And yes, a lot of folks in the US think likewise. The reason, I suspect, for both is popular culture – especially if you watch older, nonserious movies. Women always screamed when afraid. I’m not kidding here.)

Then what_are_they?

Clueless and living in a patriarchal society that benefits them?

Basically, yes. That it benefits them does not make them misogynistic. Unless you also think millions of ordinary Americans just happen to hate Iraqis. And millions of people around the world hate all those workers who work in sweatshops to create the clothes many wear.

It’s not hatred – it’s ignorance.

@Fatemeh:

I’ll take your point and perhaps rephrase it when I speak to women in the future. Is that what you intended?

Frankly, though, it’s a perfectly good and valid phrase that just has happened to have been hijacked.

As for “bigger issues”, I’m never of the opinion that no efforts should be made. I’m not one of those who thinks we should not fund space programs and fund medical research instead. My only concern at times is the proportion in efforts.

In any case, on this and many other issues, I have no problem with people who want to dedicate their efforts to tackling a problem. I myself focus on certain things even when I fully know that there are more serious issues out there.

I only get upset when:

1) Someone comes to me and insists I should focus my efforts elsewhere. I suppose I may have sounded that way in my earlier comments, but it was not my intention.

2) Taxpayer money is involved and I think too much is allocated at the neglect of something else.

However, even if no taxpayer money is involved, when I see society as a whole putting too much emphasis on something I feel is minor, and neglecting that which I feel is major, I do point it out. I don’t insist any particular person should change, but my goal is to get them to think about it.

(I don’t want to create more arguments, but one of those cases is when you look at the major conflicts raging about in the world, and see that a small conflict domninates the press, whereas a major conflict with a an order of magnitude greater casualties is neglected).

(Brevity’s not my forte, as I already said).

While I see your points, I always bristle at the phrase “there are bigger issues” when it comes to stuff like this. That phrase is used to silence people and it’s been used to silence Muslim women for a long time (“we can’t give you the right to vote now, we have bigger issues.” or “we can’t allow you to get into the workforce now, we have bigger issues.”) This phrase diminishes the importance of the issue (whatever it is) to those who are fighting for their right to whatever.

I doubt that’s the way you intended it, I just wanted to put out there that I really hate that phrase and I don’t really think it has a place when we’re talking about issues that effect quite a lot of women.