Hacker News Reader

Comment by cobrausn | Hacker News Reader

Statistics don't comfort the victims that could have done something but were restricted from doing so, usually by people who already live safe lives and want them to be safer.

And your second example basically says 'we will prevent you from defending yourself, so just take it and hope the system saves you'.

And if you think this culture 'supports rapists and demonizes survivors', you are in need of getting your facts straight.

EDIT:

I'm beginning to take this whole thing a bit personal. I learned a long time ago to call it quits when that starts to happen on the internet, so I'm out.

View on HN

My main point is that most people won't have a chance to protect themselves, although I do agree 100% people have a right to protect themselves. It's important to note that self defense isn't a solution to the overall problem and leave those in circumstances where its difficult to defend themselves without options (e.g. someone with a disability).

My second example was to highlight that people defending themselves faces more prosecution than those actually committing assaults. The system will not help you, generally speaking, if you are a survivor of sexual assault and you are likely to be prosecuted for defending yourself. That is a part of rape culture, btw, the legal indifference towards rapists.

For an overview of rape culture, which is a real thing, see: http://www.shakesville.com/2009/10/rape-culture-101.html

I re-read all of the comments on here and didn't feel like ANYONE said anything about victims being 'restricted' from defending themselves.

People on here were stating that the woman should get a gun, or get pepper spray, or get a taser. Telling women they need to defend themselves in a certain way and it's on them to get a gun and shoot an attacker is what I and a few others were upset about.

Would you rather tell women they are helpless and that there is nothing they can do but submit to the mercy of men?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com