Angus Campbell advice to new recruits

The Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Campbell, spoke to new recruits at ADFA and advised them to protect themselves by avoiding the attention of would-be predators. He advised cadets to not fall victim to the “Four As: alcohol, out after midnight, alone and attractive”.

For this sound advice – risk mitigation – he has been slammed as blaming the victim.

Greens Larissa Waters said that Campbell’s comments

disgust me and every woman I know. Rapist and abusers and the institutions that protect them are the problem. It has nothing to do with how women dress or how late we’re out or whether we’re ‘too attractive’. How is this not already understood. Nothing will change while institutions like the Defence Force, Parliament, the church, the police and private schools continue to blame victims for the sexual violence they suffer instead of taking responsibility for their own toxic, boys’ club cultures. Clearly we need consent training in all systems and institutions. Only yes means yes.

In the real world, we know there are murderers, serial killers, rapists, thieves, sadists, and assorted criminals and would-be criminals who can be male, female and transgender. Prudent people assess the risk of a location, and how they stand out to reduce the risk of an assault.

It is not ‘blaming the victim’ to point out the risks and give advice on how to mitigate the risks. Maybe the world would be better if there weren’t badly behaving men and women, but that’s not the world we live in.

DFAT and Defence give advice to their employees on how they should dress and behave in various countries. They do this not to ‘blame the victim’ but to protect their employees.

Wearing modest dress in an Islamic country is pretty obvious, as is not drinking alcohol publicly or eating during daylight hours of Ramadan.

Or is Waters and her cohort saying that one can do what one pleases in Australia, but to be cautious in 0ther countries? Is she implying that Australia is somehow superior to other countries / cultures? Because I thought the Greens argue that all cultures are equal and have embraced critical theory?

The advice of Waters and others is harmful to women, because it increases the chance of them actually being a victim. Avoidance is better than getting into the situation where one might be a victim – and that requires us to recognise we all have agency – men and women – and not parade around mindless to threat falling over inebriated.

About Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

I'm a retired general who occasionally gets called back to save the republic before returning to my plough.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to Angus Campbell advice to new recruits

  1. NoFixedAddress says:

    LQC

    Serves him right and I’m actually tickled ‘pink’ that the useless Chief of the Defence Force was not talking about defending Australia.

    And all that fight and win rhetoric.

    It’s about time.

  2. Fair Shake says:

    I recall being in Year 10 and we had a older lady come in and give some clear guidance to the girls in our class. One part of the advice was how to carry yourself, how to walk. Be confident, walk with purpose. This would make you less of a target for predators.
    Would be interesting if they still teach this.

  3. Herodotus says:

    Without hypocrisy, dirty deals and outright lies, the left would have no tools in the toolbox they constantly employ to denigrate, downgrade and destroy the formerly successful and cohesive western democracies.

  4. Michael says:

    That comment from Larissa Waters could’ve just as believably come from Clementine Ford

  5. Oscr says:

    If Brittany Higgins had been given advice along these lines her situation may have been quite different. And to be consistent Larissa Waters should be calling for the ADFA female cadets to leave the military and the military to be disbanded because maintaining a defence force represents a would be victim of aggression, Australia, of accepting that it has to waste resources on female ADFA cadets among other things when it is the would be aggressors (non-white) whose behavior has to change.

  6. Herodotus says:

    We all knew that breaking down the “mostly male” character of the armed forces was the start of breaking down the armed forces.

  7. Texas Jack says:

    Waters, Hanson-Young, Keneally and their ilk may be helping turn Canberra into a bad version of Salem, but they’re just being rational. They know Morrison is completely spineless. They know his tactics of run-and-hide “I’m too busy creating jobs” only too well. They’ve witnessed the very slight pay-off from the Blasey-Ford episode, where the smearing of Kavanaugh helped add to the wider narrative around a conservative-loaded SCOTUS. They know the Media-Left complex will aid them as they turn ugly smears into a slight voter preference in 2PP terms (just read Savva today). They know nobody will step forward in active-defence of Christian Porter.

  8. Tel says:

    And yet strangely the police can fine the owner of a vehicle for leaving the door unlocked … how’s that for victim blaming?

    Hey cops, I’m paying you to catch the robbers, not to compete to see who can rob me more efficiently.

  9. Trax says:

    That sort of rhetoric from the Greens leads people to think they should provoke a response and expect nothing in return, a sort of power play. Same as with identity politics they know the narrative will always be on their side as a victim which can be played for power.
    The problem is that it also means you should be perpetually naive and agressive, never learning and trying to become the victim.

  10. PB says:

    I’ve found many women in general, and today’s crop of young women in particular, to be pompously full of how things SHOULD be, as opposed to dealing with how things really are. It always seems to devolve to them doing what they want without consequence or effect.

    I work around a lot of women and hear it every day.

  11. Fred says:

    I wonder if the CDF’s critics lock their doors, put their money in the bank or avoid walking down dark alleys.

  12. min says:

    The daughter of a friend is a superintendent in the Police force with awarded honours . She says that women should never put themselves in a vulnerable position because of the lowlife that can be out there.
    There are sociopaths out there that can be dressed nicely and superficially very charming , one never knows .

  13. John Comnenus says:

    So good drivers needn’t wear seat belts? After all the seat belt is protecting the victim from bad drivers. Seat belts are victim shaming. No more seat belts for drivers with all their licence points!

  14. MACK says:

    Larissa just proves again that Greens aren’t very bright. Like Adam “money tree” Bandt.

  15. Spurgeon Monkfish III says:

    The most absurd aspect of that spineless idiot Campbell’s advice was that he felt it necessary to offer it in the first place.

    The individuals receiving the advice are supposed to be adults. Adults that may have to, in the course of their duties, put their lives at risk. The Higgins imbroglio is yet another demonstration of how infantilised many young adults (especially women) are and how completely unaware they are of the concept of actions having consequences*.

    Jill Meagher, the Dixon woman and many others over the last few decades never had the chance to learn such an important lesson, let alone regret the consequences of their actions.

    After all, the concept of personal responsibility is so last century.

    *Having said that, I (vaguely) remember how irresponsible I was back in my yoof.

  16. Gorilla Dance Party says:

    Women shouldn’t serve in the military, police or fire services in any capacity.

    Consent shouldn’t be the basis for sexual morality. Marriage is a better place to start.

    Those should be the first two statements before engaging with this.

    Larissa Waters lives in Bardon which is one of the most lily-white areas of Brisbane and she sees almost nothing of the problems people like her cause through imports and domestic policies. One (particularly from the former), will lead to an increase in sexual assault and training people not to do things that are already illegal is laughable. It mostly isn’t the white guys she imagines committing these crimes — the perpetrators are farmore diverse. If you’re going to keep supporting diversity then more women will be vibrantly enriched.

  17. Dave in Marybrook says:

    The fourth A could be “advertising”.
    Or “arse-wiggling”.

  18. Bruce says:

    This is all starting to look like bits of “Quatermass and the Pit”

    So, here’s a song:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKk_e_-b7z8

  19. Spurgeon Monkfish III says:

    A woman’s choice of clothes is not at all an excuse for any form of assault. It’s not hard to understand

    Good – then go and tell it to the 91.3% of vile sleazy abusive m00zley males who regard western women as sluts and uncovered meat.

    You’re preaching to the wrong congregation here, toots.

  20. Rex Anger says:

    From PB: I’ve found many women in general, and today’s crop of young women in particular, to be pompously full of how things SHOULD be, as opposed to dealing with how things really are. It always seems to devolve to them doing what they want without consequence or effect.

    I work around a lot of women and hear it every day.

    Then from our littlest anklebiter: Unless we are to instruct young women to go about in hijab, they are likely to continue to dress as they believe best suits them. A woman’s choice of clothes is not at all an excuse for any form of assault. It’s not hard to understand.

    More irony in that unfortunate attempt at trolling than the entire ore bodies yet to be mined in WA…

  21. Dave in Marybrook says:

    Asking for it”

  22. theleftfootkick says:

    I find this rather funny in way, so what is the Chief of Defence Force really saying here, is he telling our new cadets the gender neutral ones of course, but the ones with the baby making capability should not be wearing say for example make up? If so does that apply to wearing of camouflage ( I must admit that stuff is a lot different to the usual kind of stuff like Revlon or Max Factor) when out on manoeuvres at some stage. Tongue in cheek, I can imagine them coming across an Alpha male commando who has been running in the jungle a`la Rambo missing all the creature comforts of home, when suddenly he sees one of these gender neutral war warriors sneaking through the bushes, and he says, ‘ wow wee lookie here what I have found, love that camo babe, come here your mine!

  23. 1735099 says:

    The bulk of the responses to this thread indicate that many Cats have exactly the same attitude to women and how they dress as fundamentalist M^slims.
    The irony – it burns…

  24. Rex Anger says:

    From PB: I’ve found many women in general, and today’s crop of young women in particular, to be pompously full of how things SHOULD be, as opposed to dealing with how things really are. It always seems to devolve to them doing what they want without consequence or effect.

    I work around a lot of women and hear it every day.

    Now from Confabulator Bob: The bulk of the responses to this thread indicate that many Cats have exactly the same attitude to women and how they dress as fundamentalist M^slims.

    More irony! Shame Bobby boy was not as discerning or ‘honorable’ when he chose to engage in his paid encounters with the fairer sex during his time in that terrible place he’s never quite got over…

  25. W Hogg says:

    It’s probably not the smartest way to express himself. But in principle I avoid high risk situations. My parents told me not to get into a stranger’s car. So I didn’t. Probably saved my life. If I had “progressive” friends saying “no, teach your sons not to abduct children” and avoided potential “victim blaming” I would be dead. So I intend to teach my kids the same thing: Don’t commit crimes; don’t put yourself into positions of extreme vulnerability to crimes against you.

  26. Penguinite says:

    I don’t have much regard for CDF Campbell because of his involvement in The SAS War Crimes/Medal disaster but there is nothing in words that mentions gender. Only Waters deranged and biased mind could conjure something out of nothing. Just another Green fool like her Aboriginal colleague. Both adept at the old FIM technique.

  27. Bazinga says:

    Criminals don’t need excuses, just opportunity

  28. Buccaneer says:

    According to our authorities, if everyone obeys the road rules and in particular does not exceed the speed limit there will be no motor vehicle accidents and no deaths on the road, using the the same logic why aren’t they suggesting no one should have to wear seatbelts?

  29. Mick Gold Coast QLD says:

    Spurgeon Monkfish III says at 8:42 am:

    “The most absurd aspect of that spineless idiot Campbell’s advice was that he felt it necessary to offer it in the first place. …”

    Quite so squire.

    That sort of stupid behaviour is plain asking for it! 😁😁

  30. BrettW says:

    Rapist or serial killer in a bar. Two good looking alone women catch his eye. One is falling down drunk and the other sober. Which one will he pick ?

    My apologies to feminists if this offends you. However don’t blame the non rapists or serial killers of the world for the actions of a very few.

  31. BrettW says:

    Ropist or serial killer in a bar. Two good looking alone women catch his eye. One is falling down drunk and the other sober. Which one will he pick ?

    My apologies to feminists and Numbers if this offends you. However don’t blame the non ropists or serial killers of the world for the actions of a very few.

  32. Old School Conservative says:

    Kim says:
    March 4, 2021 at 8:41 am
    A woman’s choice of clothes is not at all an excuse for any form of assault. It’s not hard to understand.

    Thanks Captain Obvious.
    Now, where and when have you personally offered this gratuitous advice to perverts, psychopaths, rapists, and sociopaths?*
    Were they as amused at your lack of common sense as I am?

    * For a full list go here.

  33. Old School Conservative says:

    Kim says:
    March 4, 2021 at 8:41 am
    A woman’s choice of clothes is not at all an excuse for any form of assault. It’s not hard to understand.

    Thanks Captain Obvious.
    Now, where and when have you personally offered this gratuitous advice to perverts, psychopaths, ropists, and sociopaths?*
    Were they as amused at your lack of common sense as I am?

    * For a full list go here.

  34. Turtle says:

    Lefties blame the victim in a shark attack.

  35. H B Bear says:

    It’s their ocean. Speciesist.

  36. rich says:

    By this reasoning we don’t need a defence force: we just blame the invaders. Problem solved! That’ll show them!

  37. Roger says:

    I’m sure Larissa Waters feels very virtuous for having said that.

    And that’s what matters above all else in her world.

  38. Baa Humbug says:

    Kim says:
    March 4, 2021 at 8:41 am

    Unless we are to instruct young women to go about in hijab, they are likely to continue to dress as they believe best suits them. A woman’s choice of clothes is not at all an excuse for any form of assault. It’s not hard to understand.

    Giving advice to minimise risk is not and has never been, excusing the perp. Pricks like Kim and numbers know this yet they conflate the two just to steal some oxygen. Fark off dick heads.

    In fact, it is you lot who hate women by encouraging them to take all the risk they like because should they experience a life changing tragedy, “it’s OK love, it was the perps fault” (the bleeding obvious) “keep abandoning common sense and risk minimising strategies because it’s always the perps fault.”

    According to these farkwits, female reporters should keep going to Tahrir square during crowded Arab Spring revolutions (with their long blonde hair hanging out), because if (when) they get gang raped by dozens of animals, it’s not their fault.

    Yet these same dishonest pricks would never leave valuables on the front seat of their car with the doors unlocked. They also would never explain the inconsistency of their position. Cowardly bastards.

  39. H B Bear says:

    This is a bit like a pedestrian lying on the road after being hit by a car, “But I had right of way.” If you are relying on the law to protect you from life’s bumps better be prepared for the odd hit.

  40. 1735099 says:

    Giving advice to minimise risk is not and has never been, excusing the perp. Pricks like Kim and numbers know this yet they conflate the two just to steal some oxygen.

    I have not “conflated” anything.
    I simply pointed out the similarity between the attitudes of religious extremists and some Catallaxy posters.
    It’s an observation – not a conflation.
    Angus was simply breaking the advice down to its simplest form.
    He understands his audience well and that most AJs (both genders) need simplicity.

  41. PeterW says:

    It’s about liberty, numb nuts.

    There is no such things as a Rights, without Responsibilities.
    The responsibility of recognising that stupid hurts.
    Children get constantly protected and blame others if things go bad. Adults get to make their own choices and pay the price.

    The kind of “liberty” you espouse is passing all the responsibility and costs onto somebody else.

  42. Chris M says:

    A woman’s choice of clothes is not at all an excuse for any form of assault.

    Well I think the minimum would be just enough clothes to conceal their weapons.

  43. PeterW says:

    It’s the hypocrisy in Feminism.
    The argument the Women can do anything … except stay sober.
    Except make sensible decisions.
    Except deal with human predators.
    Except be faced with the same legal standards as men.

    The hypocrisy in that every time a “problem” is identified, Feminists demand that men fix it.

  44. duncanm says:

    There’s no reason a combatant in a war-zone needs to be tuned into threats.

    They should be able to walk around with impunity.

  45. PeterW says:

    It’s an observation – not a conflation.

    No….. it’s either a monumental lack of perspective on your part, or a deliberate piece of dishonesty. Show us a single quote from this thread, indicating that rape – regardless of how the victim is dressed – is not a crime.

  46. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus says:

    Old School Conservative apparently gives advice to perverts. I do not. My advice to non perverts is to support women in the right to go about life freely without fear of assault. No matter what they wear not what they drink. It’s about liberty, numb nuts.

    Most people at the Cat agree that women should have the right to go about life freely without fear of assault. That’s not the point of this article. It’s that you have to assess risks and what the world SHOULD be like is not what it IS like. Get off your high horse

  47. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Goodness. People think it’s ok to assault someone who has drunk too much. But only women it seems? Or can men be freely raped if drunk?

    Again – I think you’re trying to be too clever. Unfortunately drunk women are often assaulted. Drunk men are beaten up. Quite sensibly – precautionary advice can be given. Don’t attract too much attention to yourself, don’t go places alone, have a friend in the group who remains sober (and can drive everyone home), don’t drink too much, etc. This is good advice for both men AND women. It is also perfectly consistent with the notion that people should be able to go about their lives without being attacked, assaulted, robbed, raped, murdered, etc.

  48. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus says:

    Kim, no one here has said anything to justify assault against women. They are realists and know that bad people are around and you should assess risks. Of course it is not ok to assault someone who has drunk too much. And most people wouldn’t do that. But there are some in the community who will do precisely that. Now if you want to go around and pretend that no one will assault you when you are rolling drunk after midnight and alone so be it. I certainly never go around rolling drunk because I lose all judgement.

  49. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus says:

    Well said Sinc

  50. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus says:

    Kim – if you are in a fundamentalist country in certain areas yes that would be good advice. But no one is saying you have to do that in Australia. I take it that you leave your home and car unlocked and valuables on display because you have the right to do that and people shouldn’t steal?

  51. Angus Black says:

    If he’d suggested that people should deliberately put themselves in harms way…and compound that by drinking enough to ensure they were helpless in the face of any danger…

    …that would be ok?

  52. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Sadly the “advice” offered is often the “evidence” that allows sex crimes to be treated as a woman’s choice.

    Really? You must hang around with some very stupid people.

    … often inflicted by someone known to the victim.

    If only we had people who could be called to deal with problems like this. … Oh wait, we do …

    This advice simply excuses violent behaviour …

    Indeed – all this ‘law reform’ has resulted in a society that is far too tolerant of violence and far too soft on criminals.

  53. stackja says:

    Sinc – NSW “law reform” by premier Wran created chaos. And Lionel Murphy “reformed” families.

  54. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus says:

    So parents should let their children roam free because there shouldn’t be any paedophiles? And advising parents not to let their children roam free is blaming the victim and excusing the paedophile?

    It’s all about situational awareness Kim. There are places where we are all more likely to be victims.

  55. 1735099 says:

    Show us a single quote from this thread, indicating that rape – regardless of how the victim is dressed – is not a crime.

    Why?
    That’s not contested.
    What is contested is that what a woman wears can be offered as a rationalization for sexual assault.
    Kim is correct.
    That is complete and amoral nonsense.

  56. duncanm says:

    What is contested is that what a woman wears can be offered as a rationalization for sexual assault.
    Kim is correct.
    That is complete and amoral nonsense.

    indeed.

    Maybe you can point out in this thread anywhere where there’s support for such a supposition.

  57. Boambee John says:

    1735099 says:
    March 4, 2021 at 9:19 am
    The bulk of the responses to this thread indicate that many Cats have exactly the same attitude to women and how they dress as fundamentalist M^slims.
    The irony – it burns…

    As well as being terminally obtuse, the ostrich has a real problem with reading comprehension.

    I wonder what advice he gave his daughter(s) when they were in their late-teens? “Sure, dear, you go out dressed like a Vietnamese prostitot, it’s your right to dress as you wish. And no need to get home before dawn. Do you have enough booze money?”

  58. Boambee John says:

    I have not “conflated” anything.
    I simply pointed out the similarity between the attitudes of religious extremists and some Catallaxy posters.
    It’s an observation – not a conflation.

    See my comment on the OT about the ostrich’s habit of weasel wording away from responsibility for anything he posts. This is another example

  59. Boambee John says:

    Kim says:
    March 4, 2021 at 12:06 pm
    Goodness. People think it’s ok to assault someone who has drunk too much. But only women it seems? Or can men be freely raped if drunk?

    You have posted many stupid comments, but this is the stupidest ever. Your limited reading comprehension might be an explanation, but it is not an excuse.

    But you keep on being effluent Kiiimmmmeeee.

  60. 1735099 says:

    I wonder what advice he gave his daughter(s) when they were in their late-teens?

    The same advice as I gave to my sons.
    Respect other people and don’t hurt them.
    That’s worked out pretty well.

    Tell me – what did you say to your sons?
    Did you give them tips on how to find an easy screw?

  61. Boambee John says:

    Respect other people and don’t hurt them.

    So speaks the blanket counter. Did you take the same attitude while you were still in a platoon? Did you respect the VC, and not hurt them?

    Deliberately obtuse or just plain stupid!

  62. Boambee John says:

    Did you give them tips on how to find an easy screw?

    I bow to your greater expertise on the subject.

  63. Dot says:

    “Situational awareness is misogyny…”

    …and situational awareness as a concept discriminates via institutional bias against literal retards. So what?

  64. Sinclair Davidson says:

    What is contested is that what a woman wears can be offered as a rationalization for sexual assault.

    It isn’t clear to me that this is the argument. Making excuses for criminal behaviour is something lawyers and lefties do. Rather the argument is ‘don’t go looking for trouble’.

  65. Megan says:

    All this squealing from the idiots like Kim is the old stupidity of believing all will be well if everyone would do the right thing.

    Reality tells us loud and clear that this is utter nonsense. If everyone did the right thing we would have no need for police, the legislative branch, the judiciary, prisons and a military. To say nothing of stupid HR departments, anti-bullying programs, OH&S, professional standards and every single Karen on the planet, to name but a few.

    Some people are completely incapable of doing the right thing. And understanding that, as a human being of whatever gender you care to identify yourself as, is the platform on which you can begin to assess your personal risk and create rules that assist you in staying as safe from these creeps as is possible in an uncertain world.

    TL/DR – don’t let your hurt feelings get in the way of your cognitive abilities.

  66. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus says:

    Kim – you have the right to do as you please. But you also have the responsibility to act prudently and with situational awareness. While it is ALWAYS the fault of the perpetrator, that doesn’t excuse stupidity. You’re responsibility to avoid being a victim – the risk of which will never be zero, but can be affected by one’s behaviour – is important since this has profound affects on one’s friends and families. Sadly we cannot ban stupidity, but your bizarre attitude – that providing advice to minimise risk is somehow victim blaming – will lead some people to take more risks and might lead to an increase in assaults. Stop telling us how life should be – we all know that – and act rationally and with situational awareness. There is no utopia where individuals can do as they please without regard to their surroundings.

  67. Rex Anger says:

    Too much anklebiting on this thread.

    Both Kim (aka EllenG) and Confabulator Bob both know better, but are deliberately wasting your time and effort.

    Insult the pair of stooges, shut them down and keep moving. They are not here to argue anything conducive or enlightening.

  68. Jo says:

    Fair Shake says:
    March 4, 2021 at 5:43 am
    I recall being in Year 10 and we had a older lady come in and give some clear guidance to the girls in our class. One part of the advice was how to carry yourself, how to walk. Be confident, walk with purpose. This would make you less of a target for predators.
    Would be interesting if they still teach this.

    Nope, now they teach them that girls are boys, strap down those boobies and change your name… not sure, but it might be keeping them safer?

    (◔_◔)

  69. Baa Humbug says:

    I know this will be a waste of time because Kim and Numbers are being obtuse deliberately but Ill try anyhow.

    * Taking part in an activity with a 90% chance that you will be a victim of crime….The fault lies 100% with the criminal.
    * Taking part in an activity with a 20% chance that you will be a victim of crime…..The fault lies 100% with the criminal.
    * Giving advice that may reduce that 90% down to 20% is a common sense thing to do…..change my mind.

  70. Old School Conservative says:

    Insult the pair of stooges, shut them down and keep moving. They are not here to argue anything conducive or enlightening.

    Spot on Rex.

  71. John A says:

    Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus says: March 4, 2021, at 2:03 pm

    Kim – you have the right to do as you please. But you also have the responsibility to act prudently and with situational awareness.

    You also have the responsibility to accept the consequences of your decisions. If you want to call that “blaming the victim” as a way to deflect such a responsibility, then more fool you.

  72. Jo says:

    So I’ve come in on the tail end of all this, but I’m glad that Kim and Numbers have stirred up so much response.

    I was actually a bit surprised by the “Four As”, but now it makes much more sense to me.

    I’ll be using this in future whenever the discussions arise ….

    * Taking part in an activity with a 90% chance that you will be a victim of crime….The fault lies 100% with the criminal.
    * Taking part in an activity with a 20% chance that you will be a victim of crime…..The fault lies 100% with the criminal.
    * Giving advice that may reduce that 90% down to 20% is a common sense thing to do

  73. chrism says:

    Kim says:
    March 4, 2021 at 8:41 am
    Unless we are to instruct young women to go about in hijab, they are likely to continue to dress as they believe best suits them. A woman’s choice of clothes is not at all an excuse for any form of assault. It’s not hard to understand.

    Kim is quite correct – ultimately in many societies women are mostly not allowed out and when they are they are in hijab or burqa or a variant : Sharia law separates sexes and has severe punishment for infractions : the baying of the green/left for blood of the coalition MPs is also a cryptic call for submission to an orthodoxy that turns a blind eye to the ‘cultural’ enslavement of women : Kim is correct that in a free society that even if you turn up to work on a building site in crotchless knickers and are naked from the waist up, apart from sunblock and hat and sunnies, as a woman – you don’t deserve assault or verbal unwarranted sexual advances – absolutely correct –
    the coalition should ‘+1’ the oppositions calls for inquiries : ie they should announce an inquiry into Shorten and deal with the lack of calls for his investigation – forthwith – investigate those who turned a blind eye previously

  74. stackja says:

    Men respected women. Few women were disrespected. Women were mostly safe. Then it was decided by some women OK to go where it could be dangerous. What could possibly go wrong?
    Old mores no longer exist. What could possibly go wrong?

  75. Rex Anger says:

    absolutely correct –
    the coalition should ‘+1’ the oppositions calls for inquiries : ie they should announce an inquiry into Shorten and deal with the lack of calls for his investigation – forthwith – investigate those who turned a blind eye previously

    But how would any of that work out, chrism?

    But for their appalling double standards, the Left would have none at all.

    Witness the two anklebiters and their stoogery above. They know all this, and when their arms are twisted up to and past the breakpoint, they will confess through gritted teeth that they agree wholeheartedly with their Class Enemies’ common sense. But damned if they won’t try to wilfully twist it all into a muh mizogenie and muh ‘ppreshun wank for whatever perverted self gratification they may derive from pissing others off…

  76. PeterW says:

    That’s not contested.
    What is contested is that what a woman wears can be offered as a rationalization

    Yet again the dishonesty.
    As soon as we state that rape is a crime, we state that the person who commits it is responsible….. yet you deny that this is the position of every person here, but not the position of certain Muzzies with whom you would compare us.

    The stupid is in pretending that criminals are not rational in relation to their own assessment of risk and reward. As long as the reward (sex) justifies the risk (very little when the victim is so drunk she can neither avoid nor identify her attacker), criminals will continue to rape.

    Exactly the same advice is given to owners of valuable property and those whose work requires them to spend time in dangerous areas. Look like a hard target. Don’t make yourself needlessly vulnerable. It’s basic security.

  77. Tim Neilson says:

    Old School Conservative apparently gives advice to perverts.

    Poor logic fail Kim. OSC didn’t say any such thing nor could his comments be interpreted that way by the mentally competent. He was referring to your pontification and asking whether you give perverts that advice – he said nothing about himself. The obvious follow up question is “why do you believe that perverts etc. will ever abide by your advice even if you do tell them?”

    I do not. My advice to non perverts is to support women in the right to go about life freely without fear of assault.

    OK, so you’re in a bar at 2.00 am. One of your female friends is very drunk and she announces that she’s going to walk home. You know that her route home will take her through some dodgy or dark and deserted areas (e.g. along Princes Park Drive in inner Melbourne, if that rings a bell).
    Do you encourage her to do so, so as to “support” her right to go about life freely without fear of assault?

  78. Publius says:

    i’m sure that will be extremely helpful advice for troop operations in kandahar and other salubrious locales…great work general.

  79. rich says:

    This is good advice for both men AND women. It is also perfectly consistent with the notion that people should be able to go about their lives without being attacked, assaulted, robbed, raped, murdered, etc.

    This presumes that the victim has a sense of responsibility at all, when in our society it seems quite a few voters have rights and privileges but no responsibilities or obligations to go along with those.

    I personally don’t see rabid criminals as human, but animals or a demented force of nature that cannot be reasoned with. If that is the case then is taking precautions not to be eaten by a lion “victim blaming”? It’s as stupid as putting a sign that says “no crime” on a street corner and expecting criminals to read and abide by it.

  80. Wang.
    Referring to your personal, first hand knowledge if you pay to root a prostatot in Vietnam is it actually rape or not?

    You seem to be a positive tubgirl of moral certainty on this issue.

  81. Tim Neilson says:

    Kim says:
    March 4, 2021 at 6:51 pm

    OK, so you’re in a bar at 2.00 am. One of your female friends is very drunk and she announces that she’s going to walk home. You know that her route home will take her through some dodgy or dark and deserted areas (e.g. along Princes Park Drive in inner Melbourne, if that rings a bell).
    Do you encourage her to do so, so as to show that you accept that young women “should expect to be safe”?

  82. Rex Anger says:

    Until we accept that young women should expect to be safe and enforce that idea regardless of whether they conform to some model of behaviour we provide excuses for violent offenders.

    Not sure if the anklebiter can read and comprehend everything written in reply to it upthread, or it is still teething and desperate to try and fool someone into agreeing with its latest Twitter/TheirABC/Greens screeching point…

    Is the anklebiter a pseudonym for Sarah Hanson-Young?

  83. Rex Anger says:

    Is the anklebiter a pseudonym for Sarah Hanson-Young?

    Or Mona Eltawhuy now that the Lithium has kicked in?

  84. Squirrel says:

    Incredibly sexist assumption by Waters – surely this was Campbell warning all those hot ADFA boys to steer clear of Canberra’s gay bars.

  85. Whalehunt Fun says:

    A Green so a piece of filth. Burning witches in the middle ages was unjustified. Today, clearly not. It would raise the national IQ and rid us of tax sucking parasitism. It would need withdrawing from some UN conventions butthe benefits would far outweigh any negatives such as the carbon emissions.

  86. Rex Anger says:

    Nice work chaps. As you seem unconscious to the issue of liberty and what actually occurs in life I shall assume you are mere dull blokes. Boring for Australia.

    That crack and subsequent screeching you heard was the sound of the littlest anklebiter breaking a tooth.

    Unfortunately, its stupidity and instinctual desire to keep chewing will result in it gumming down on bloody nubs, apparently oblivious to the pain…

  87. Rex Anger says:

    You do it so well Rex. Poised. Subtle. Noble even. I’m sure the alien inhabitants of your skull will be having fun.

    Still chewing…

  88. Tim Neilson says:

    Nice work chaps. As you seem unconscious to the issue of liberty and what actually occurs in life I shall assume you are mere dull blokes. Boring for Australia.

    OK, so you’re in a bar at 2.00 am. One of your female friends is very drunk and she announces that she’s going to walk home. You know that her route home will take her through some dodgy or dark and deserted areas e.g. along Princes Park Drive in inner Melbourne, if that rings a bell.
    Do you encourage her to do so, because you know better “what actually happens in life” than the family and friends of Eurydice Dixon?

  89. Tim Neilson says:

    Rex Anger says:
    March 4, 2021 at 8:45 pm

    Hi Rex!

    Do you get the impression that Kim doesn’t want to answer my question? Can’t think why…

  90. Rex Anger says:

    Do you get the impression that Kim doesn’t want to answer my question? Can’t think why…

    Indeed, Tim.

    Somehow, we’ve managed to unearth a troll stupider than Iampeter.

    I’m unsure whether to be amused or aggrieved…

  91. Lee says:

    Do you get the impression that Kim doesn’t want to answer my question? Can’t think why…

    Because she can’t.
    Ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments are her game.

Comments are closed.