The University of Colorado has released a list of ways to stop rapists in light of gun control bill
“These tips are designed to help you protect yourself on campus, in town, at your home, or while you travel. These are preventative tips and are designed to instruct you in crime prevention tactics.”
- Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
- Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
- Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
- Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
- If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
- Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
- Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
- Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
- Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
- Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.
Thanks to this list I can pretty comfortably say that gun control laws are sexist. Why should I have to lie, force myself to vomit, or urinate on myself? Why do I need to understand that my actions should lead to more harm? Because I don’t have a gun to immediately stop them and because I fight back they will treat me worse? Or is it considered “worse harm” that I might physically harm him and then I wouldn’t be the only victim? Perhaps the most disgusting item on this list is the advice that passive resistance may be the best option for me. I could be wrong, but are you telling me to just suck it up and take it?
Why, when I am already at a physical disadvantage and taken by surprise by someone with a plan, should I not be able to react in the most effective and least demeaning way? I should be able to arm and protect myself. What I also find disturbing is that NO weapons are recommended on this list. What about pepper spray on your keychain? The end of your key held between two fingers? A knife? A loud alarm keychain? You can even legally buy a hand-held taser (I have a pink one.)It’s completely disgusting and offensive that women are expected to just deal with the fact that their best means of defense is being stripped from them and they are now expected to piss on themselves instead.
Emphasis added in the last two grafs, to highlight their awesomeness.
Women in Combat: Equal Opportunity
Traditionally, there have been three justifications for excluding women from combat. The first holds that women’s presence could produce distracting sexual tension in theaters where separate barracks and the like are not feasible. Experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved those fears misplaced.
The second objection is the belief that men in combat would be so overcome by the sight of wounded women, and so instinctually driven to protect the females of the species, that they would disregard their military objectives and their own self-preservation. But again, combat in Iraq and Afghanistan that has killed or wounded more than 900 female soldiers has revealed that concern equally unsupported by evidence.
The third objection – physical differences between the sexes – has more merit. Those differences are real and significant, as thoroughly demonstrated by the genders’ performance in amateur, Olympic, and professional sports. The concern that the services might water down physical standards to attain a politically driven image of parity – to the detriment of unit puissance – is legitimate. This must not happen.
Yet while most women cannot meet the elite standards and grueling challenges of special-forces units in particular, neither can most men. That does not justify excluding the few exceptional individuals, male or female, who can clear such a high bar.
Critics of women in combat often speak as though the only question worth asking is whether it might entail a higher degree of risk. Elaine Donnelly, head of the Center for Military Readiness, speaks for many when she calls the push for women in combat “dangerous.” But such critics forget why the U.S. has a military in the first place: to fight not only for America’s survival but also for America’s values – high among which ranks the value of equality for all.
The Olympics Is Another Good Time to Ask: Should We End Sex Segregation in Sports?
It seems even harder to justify segregating the sexes in sports—where nothing remotely as important as human life is at stake. If a woman can compete in (say) the NBA, then surely she should be allowed to. Three years ago, NBA commissioner David Stern said it was a “good possibility” that a woman would play for the NBA within a decade. There has been talk of Baylor’s Brittney Griner declaring for the NBA draft (though sports aficionados say she isn’t NBA material). Ann Meyers signed a contract with the Pacers in 1980 but didn’t make the final cut.
And there are plenty of sports besides hoops. Danica Patrick competes with men in auto racing. Nine years ago Annika Sorenstam acquitted herself well at the PGA’s Bank of America Colonial, though she missed the cut in the second round. Many sports that require as much finesse as raw power — bowling, diving, archery, fencing and so on—would do well to let men and women go head to head. (The Swedish Bowling Federation is doing just that.)
But letting women compete in men’s sports raises a complication. We can’t very well say women should be allowed to participate in men’s leagues but men should not be allowed to participate in women’s. And if all the women’s leagues are thrown open to men, then it’s likely some of them soon would cease to be women’s leagues at all—because men who narrowly missed the cut for men’s teams would switch to the women’s leagues and muscle most of the women aside.
One isn’t supposed to say this, at least not publicly, but many people will readily admit it in private: Elite male athletes tend to outperform elite female athletes. (Just compare world records if you doubt.) So desegregating the leagues, or combining them, would lead to disproportionate representation of men.
Is this a problem? Disproportionate racial representation in sports doesn’t seem to be. Example: The 10 fastest records for the 100-meter dash are held by 14 men (because of ties). There is not a single white, Asian or Hispanic among them. Yet no one has suggested segregating the short-distance races to account for this, and nobody in his right mind would dream of doing so.
The notion of proportional representation is a question of fairness, and sports have little to do with fairness in that sense. It is not fair that no woman could possibly go toe-to-toe with boxers like Evander Holyfield or Sugar Ray Leonard. But then, it is not fair that almost no man could possibly do so, either. Neither is it fair that no woman—and almost no man—could possibly outrun Carmelita Jeter, or beat Steffi Graf on the tennis court. Sports is about equal opportunities, not equal results.
Life in Egypt Is Heaven on Earth for the Womenfolk
Egyptian Presidential Candidate Muhammad Mursi, explaining how much better off women have it when you deny them their rights:
“Not a single woman in Egypt – young or old, from a rural area or from the city, Muslim or Christian – has to write down who the baby’s father is when she gives birth at hospital. This doesn’t exist here.
“Abroad, they have that. They are free. A woman is even free to not write the father’s name at all in the birth certificate. We don’t have that. Our society is very stable.
“We don’t have the notion of child abuse. No woman beats her child in Egypt. That concept does not exist here.
“Marital relations here adhere to social norms, even more than legal or religious norms: Husband, wife, family, and stability. In other countries it’s not like that.
“We don’t have the notion of separated [couples], or the notion of ‘living together’ out of wedlock.
“There are tens of thousands of cases filed at police stations, in many countries that purport to give women their rights – cases of sex involving beatings. In Egypt, we don’t have that. It’s forbidden to Muslims as well as Christians.”
Whatever Happened to “Keep Your Laws Off My Body”?
First New York, now Cambridge:
Following in the footsteps of New York City, Cambridge is considering limiting the size of sodas and sugar-sweetened beverages in city restaurants.
Cambridge Mayor Henrietta Davis proposed the idea at the council’s meeting Monday night, saying she brought the idea forward because of the health risks caused by consuming too much soda.
City Councilor Minka vanBeuzekom said she supports the idea of limiting the size of sodas because of the health concerns.
“It’s a very good thing to try and pursue, and in my opinion to ban, but it won’t be easy,” she said.
Five bucks says Cambridge’s officials are uniformly pro-choice when it comes to abortion. And good for them if they are.
So what makes them think they have any business controlling what other people do with their bodies?
Single-Sex & the President
Obama Thinks Augusta Golf Club Should Admit Women
President Barack Obama believes women should be allowed to join the all-male Augusta National Golf Club, the White House said on Thursday, adding pressure on the exclusive 80-year-old organization to change its restrictive policy.
“His personal opinion is that women should be admitted,” White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters, saying he had spoken to Obama about the issue.
“We are kind of long past the time when women should be excluded from anything,” Carney said as the first round of the Masters tournament got under way at the Augusta club in Georgia.
- Reuters, April 6
Obama Gives Barnard Commencement
President Obama gave a rousing commencement address at New York City’s all-female Barnard College on Monday, urging graduates to “fight for a seat at the head of the table” in public life and politics. Obama stressed women’s leadership roles and challenged young graduates to “make this the century when women not only shape their own destiny but the destiny of the whole nation.” His speech was peppered with a few of his policy messages, including health care, education, and sustainable energy. The president also acknowledged the recession’s impact on job opportunities and other aspects of life for new grads, but encouraged them that “as tough as things have been, I am convinced you are tougher.” Obama, who joked about being a graduate of rival Columbia University, mostly focused on equal rights in his speech and vowed to “join you every step of the way.”
- Daily Beast, May 14
Trying to think of a sound argument as to why private single-sex colleges are fine but private single-sex golf clubs are not. Results so far:
Pundits’ Podium: Sex and Bart Hinkle: Males are losers
The estimable Bud Levin takes exception to my last column…. He actually calls me “sane.” Them’s fightin’ words, Bud…!
Bart, normally sane and sober, wrote (20 April 2012, Richmond Times-Dispatch, A-11), “… surely [we] ought to touch on the two places in society where women remain distinctly unequal: (a) war and (b) war’s peaceful analogue, competitive sports.” Many would agree with him. They’d be wrong….
Should We End Sex Segretation in War and Sports?
In February the Pentagon eased some restrictions keeping women out of combat — or, more accurately, out of certain combat-related job specialties; women in the services already get put in harm’s way. (More than 1,000 have been killed or injured in Iraq, for instance.) But women remain barred from ground combat units.
There are two arguments for the policy, and neither is terribly persuasive. The first says women are not up to the job. That might be true of the statistically average woman. But then it might also be true of the statistically average man. Anyway, statistical averages do not perform tasks; individuals do. And some individual women may be physically capable of the rigors of combat. If they are capable, then they should be allowed to serve. We would not say a gifted 9-year-old cannot study calculus simply because the average 9-year-old can’t.
The other argument says male soldiers might be overprotective of females. So what? We train soldiers to overcome even more basic instincts — such as running from danger.
Both of these arguments rest on the premise that women should not be placed in combat because it would cost lives. But the U.S. rarely fights wars of survival. Usually it commences hostilities for the sake of a principle, such as defending democracy or thwarting communism. If the U.S. is willing to sacrifice lives for the sake of those aims, then it seems odd to balk at sacrificing the occasional life for the sake of another aim, women’s equality.
It seems even harder to justify segregating the sexes in sports — where nothing remotely as important as human life is at stake….
Whole thing here.
Exception: New York!
“[I]t is illegal for women to go topless in most cities, yet you can buy a magazine of a woman without her top on at any 7-11 store. So, you can sell breasts, but you cannot wear breasts, in America.”
— Violet Rose, in Three Steps to Better Sex
Never let it be said the Village Voice is not on the case!
And yet, Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to cut back on booze sales. Funny town, New York.
p.s. — Note, “absent a link to some commercial enterprise or promotion.” That’s just begging for clarification … especially in light of the frequency with which New York art galleries put nekkid women in the window.
Are Virginia’s New Abortion Limits the Worst Yet?
Hint: Yes.
(Photo via)
Follow-up question: Did the Commonwealth perform an analysis of the new regulations’ likely cost and impact on small businesses, as required by the Administrative Processes Act?
That measure incorporated SB1218, which was sponsored by Bill Bolling — who cast the deciding vote in the State Senate that enabled the abortion regulations to move forward.
