I'm reading Unwanted Advances by feminist scholar Laura Kipnis, and coincidentally just finished the chapter Sexual Miseducation. She makes a compelling case along the same lines as the Kathleen Stock quote. "In short, harm reductionists want to aim educational efforts at women; preventionists want to aim them at men." (Referring to educational programs intended to mitigate incidence of campus sexual assault.)
Among other things, she points out that there is no evidence that preventionist programs work; and evidence that risk-reduction programs decrease the likelihood of female students being assaulted by as much as 50%. In addition to efficacy, there are other reasons to believe harm reduction is a better way to go. This was something I already believed based on various life experiences, so it was nice to have my hunch confirmed by actual research.
I appreciate the effort to explain Stock's position to those who accuse her of victim blaming, via the bike lock metaphor. I agree with the gist of it, but I fear there are enough differences it will not be persuasive. There is a fundamentally ideological argument going on here. Stock must be wrong, no matter how illogical that may seem, because the unquestionable premise of her detractors' faction is that a) men are presumed responsible/culpable for all sexual interactions and b) women lack agency. Yes, the latter is regressive, from a feminist point of view. Therefore, to suggest women have some agency in protecting themselves from dangerous or regrettable situations runs counter to ideological precepts and must be forcefully rejected.
Logic and clever metaphors aren't going to persuade—or deter—the ones accusing Stock of victim blaming. This is a thornier problem.
Anyway, I mostly wanted to mention the book Unwanted Advances because I'm really enjoying it. It's wry, sardonic, well researched and referenced—and explores this subject in a way that others may find of interest.
I'm reading Unwanted Advances by feminist scholar Laura Kipnis, and coincidentally just finished the chapter Sexual Miseducation. She makes a compelling case along the same lines as the Kathleen Stock quote.
"In short, harm reductionists want to aim educational efforts at women; preventionists want to aim them at men." (Referring to educational programs intended to mitigate incidence of campus sexual assault.)
Among other things, she points out that there is no evidence that preventionist programs work; and evidence that risk-reduction programs decrease the likelihood of female students being assaulted by as much as 50%.
In addition to efficacy, there are other reasons to believe harm reduction is a better way to go.
This was something I already believed based on various life experiences, so it was nice to have my hunch confirmed by actual research.
I appreciate the effort to explain Stock's position to those who accuse her of victim blaming, via the bike lock metaphor. I agree with the gist of it, but I fear there are enough differences it will not be persuasive. There is a fundamentally ideological argument going on here. Stock must be wrong, no matter how illogical that may seem, because the unquestionable premise of her detractors' faction is that a) men are presumed responsible/culpable for all sexual interactions and b) women lack agency. Yes, the latter is regressive, from a feminist point of view. Therefore, to suggest women have some agency in protecting themselves from dangerous or regrettable situations runs counter to ideological precepts and must be forcefully rejected.
Logic and clever metaphors aren't going to persuade—or deter—the ones accusing Stock of victim blaming.
This is a thornier problem.
Anyway, I mostly wanted to mention the book Unwanted Advances because I'm really enjoying it. It's wry, sardonic, well researched and referenced—and explores this subject in a way that others may find of interest.