some men don't believe in sexual victimization
No. There are lots of jobs that pay decently and are 40 hrs a week. Also, even at the 60 hr a week shops, it's very easy to just not work 60 hrs a week. You just leave each day at 5 and make no apologies about it. If anyone says anything you simply state 'it's 5' and then leave. I sometimes am surprised that so many developers don't realize that no one can take advantage of you without your permission. It's like the women who go home with a guy and have consensual sex and then the next day they say 'but I didn't really want to do that'. Well, if that is so, then don't do it.
March 14th, 2007 12:10am
It doesn't matter what you want to call it. I don't my kids getting exploited by anyone, whether in the workplace or sexually. So gonna bring them up to be wise to the guise.
Of course, there is also such a thing as out and out rape. That's another story, and no semantics about it.
March 14th, 2007 5:11am
"no one can take advantage of you without your permission" -- this would be more than sophistry if we really had control of the conditions we were handed.
So, if you're given the choice of three jobs, all crappy, no matter which one you take (give your permission to) will still leave you in a crappy job.
It's sweet that you still harbor these kinds of illusions. Unless you use this illusion to say to those who are victimized that it is their own fault, since they "agreed". In which case, it's an illusion used to justify an abusive mindset. Or at the very least, justify a dangerous complacency.
I agree that some women have such a strong urge not to confront, that they agree to situations they should not agree with. I don't think all those situations should be characterized as "sexual victimization", but I'm not going to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
Bottom line -- since we don't have complete control over what life hands us, we don't always get control over the alternatives we have to choose between. Given that this is the case, one should not be too quick to rush to judgement on the choices some people make.
March 14th, 2007 10:14am
That's certainly true, but in nearly all cases one can choose to become more evil. Similarly, in nearly all cases one can choose to become more good.
For pedants out there, I did say *nearly* all.
Well, my comment wasn't to you, Aaron, it was mostly to Megraj up there.
March 14th, 2007 10:37am
And yes, as Victor Frankl pointed out, "The last freedom of a man is to choose his response to a situation", even in a Nazi death-camp. So you can still choose good over evil, even in such an extreme situation.
But that doesn't mean you can (or should) blame a guy for being thrown into the Nazi death-camp in the first place. Some things we really don't have control over.
March 14th, 2007 10:40am
I certainly agree - and I wasn't accusing you of being a pedant. Just pointing out that people frequently underestimate the number and type of choices available.
Bwaaahaaahaaaa. It is all well and good until it is YOUR daughter.
March 14th, 2007 11:09am
> So, if you're given the choice of three jobs,
It's oppression if these are your only choices. But in reality they're not. People can start their own business, their own money-making website, move to a different market. And if they can't move because they decide X (say the nice weather, or the short commute, or they don't want their kid to switch schools) are more important they are actively deciding that weather and short commute and school stability are more important, more valuable.
But they can't both rail against oppression of the employment system, which is quite free for all parties to contract into, and discount the 'oppression' of their own value system. That seems unfair.
March 14th, 2007 12:27pm