Victim Blaming

This conversation has been happening on the wall, but its becoming rather interesting so I thought id move it and get peoples opinions.

Ren posted this picture (im guessing off the back of the rape culture thread)




This is the conversation so far:

Brenna I may be wrong but I don't see how this applies to victim blaming considering that most children hurt at crossings are victims of an accident where the motorist either did not see them, or was speeding and could not stop in time.

Which is why (and Im assuming) most road safety campaigns aimed at reducing pedestrian casualties involve getting motorists to slow down near crossings or around schools as well as reminding kids to develop situational awareness.



ren were you never told off when crossing where there's no crosswalk, when the man is red, or without looking?



Brenna Well sure. Stepping out in front of a car that hasnt had time to see you is silly. But the driver doesnt aim to hit people. Thats why its called an accident. As I said before, drivers are also taught to slow down around schools. To be aware of their surroundings, and not to speed. Both sides are taught awareness to avoid accidents. So I still dont see how it applies.
yesterday •


ren people get punished for raping far more than drivers get punished for speeding, drink-driving, using a vehicle unsuitable for (safe)road use, etc...
Besides, I'm sure that (except for a few exceptions), rapists don't go around town looking for someone to rape either.

Point is, it's something I've said before, this is the real world, and it is not unreasonable to tell people to take certain precautions. Don't leave your expensive car with the door open engine running in a poor neighbourhood. It's not wrong for you to do it (just like it is not right for someone to just take it), it's just stupid. Just like it is stupid to cross the street without looking, just like it is stupid to enter a hungry lion's cage with only yourself, just like it is stupid to fall asleep in the middle of the street completely mashed with your ass up in the air.
yesterday


Brenna Yes, they do. I dont make the laws.

But that isnt relevant to your picture.

very few people decide to speed up and hit a child crossing the street. Yes, it happens, but its not a majority. Thats why its called an accident.

Rapists make a decision, whether they plan it in advance or not, to rape someone. Ive never yet heard of someone accidentally falling over and raping someone on the way down to the floor.

And yes, it is not unreasonable to tell people to take precautions. Dont cross the street without looking. Dont walk late at night alone in dangerous areas. Its common sense. Neither of those things are victim shaming. Minimizing risk makes sense because there are always going to be people who will make that decision to harm another.

Telling a child that its their fault that they were crossing the road when a driver chose to speed up and hit them... that would be victim blaming.

Telling someone that it is their fault that someone else made the decision to rape them for whatever reason. Victim blaming.

A victim cannot be responsible for the decisions and actions taken by a perpetrator.

With the exception of the lion. Its an animal. its going to eat you. Dont get in a cage with it. duh.




ren Well, the zoo-keeper has got to get in that cage at some point

I maintain that people do not choose to put themselves in a situation where they become rapists or killers. Sure, sometimes some people do plan those things. But I'm sure for most it's a "passion of the moment" thing. I mean, if it's the case for manslaughter, why can't it be the case for rape?

Some people do charge into crowds with their cars, for the purpose of killing. But then again, for the majority of those, it's a passion of the moment thing. Few use cars for the purpose of murder (or intentional severe injury). It's people driving drunk, lack of care, mental breakdown, etc.

The guy who said "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized" was essentially publicly shamed for saying it, accused of "victim-blaming".
It's no different from "people should avoid crossing the street outside designated areas in order not to be victimized", which is something police officers do say, and in fact, depending on where you live, it's also the law, meaning the government actually punishes you for not protecting yourself against motorists.
Now put the "slut" comment in this situation... Law tells you don't dress like a slut or you'll pay a fine, if you do dress like a slut and get raped, law says you broke the law and therefore you got raped because you "chose" to (just like a jaywalker "chose" to cross the street). Now that would be victim blaming.

Even Joanna Lumley, possibly one of the most annoying women alive, says it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2267589/Joanna-Lumley-Dont-drunk--dont-sick-gutter-dont-stagger-wrong-clothes-midnight--guide-girls-AbFabs-Patsy.html

perhaps i should clarify my position regarding accidents. You say it is not possible to accidentally rape someone, and indeed, it seems very unlikely. But then again, with the definitions being what they are now regarding consent and such, I think it is very possible for someone not to realize they are raping someone else.
Point is, in the case of rape you use "accident" in the sense of someone tripping over and landing phallus in vagina uninvited which is very unlikely to happen. (and yet i could argue there is such a thing as accidental anal).

What about road traffic accidents? Most are caused by drivers breaking rules, not PAYING ATTENTION, escaping their legal obligations when it comes to vehicle maintenance, etc... You can be held criminally liable for negligence, recklessness, etc... None of which are accidental, yet it's still called an "accident".
And I could say that the difference between someone having sex and someone raping, is that one is PAYING ATTENTION to the other person's consent, while the other doesn't. The rapist neglects the victims' feelings and acts recklessly.

Well, I think Ren's point, is that everybody needs to be aware of their situation, and take responsibility for their portions....

And, I think your position is that victims are victims, and shouldn't be....

Well, yes to both, lol...

Not all (I'd venture to say "most do not", but have no numbers, just a guess) rapists plan out their actions, I would think, its seldom like the movies...

I think most of the time, its a spur of the moment action, (drunk date, passed out at the wrong place, etc) and that doesn't say premeditation.....

I do think slipping roofies in drinks, and take advantage of drunk people happens too...

But, there are precautions too...

Get your own drink from the waitress/bartender...

Don't drink to excess, keep a clear head, especially around those you dont know that well....

At a house party open your own beer....

And, to me, these say "look both ways before ___________"...

But, trusting a person who takes advantage of you, well that is wrong of the violator...

+++++++++
Accidents....

"Accidental anal" Ren says... Yes, slippage happens... But would happen less if rather than being caught up in the moment, attention to the thrust, by both parties...

But not accidental rape...

Let me tell you my experience with "accidents"...

My ex accidently killed a person, and seriously hurt another...

It was an accident...

The families tried suing her, and me (we were mid-divorce)....

Was it my exes fault? Was she paying attention?

The girls for not looking? Were they

The guy in the middle lane waving them across? Was he paying attention?

Something went wrong....

Accidents, as best i can tell, happen to folks when they are not paying attention and miss something....

+++++++++
On this topic...

There are victims, sure...

But, there are ways of minimizing that happening too....

We all have women in our lives, shoot, most of us even have mothers...

And, you ask any rapist, before he or she, committed a rape, if it was wrong, and I'm sure they would say "of course" and actually mean it...

They just give over to the animal side...

Just my thoughts right now...

I would agree with most of that.

If I might clarify, (because firstly I don't think that the concept of driver and crossing children is the same as the other ways in which victim blaming is used) my view is that taking reasonable precaution in not victim blaming. That is common sense. But for example, if someone decided to take a short cut home through a bad neighborhood and got mugged would you say "it is your fault you got mugged". Fault and blame implies responsibility.

If I am mugged, am I responsible for the mugger making the choice to violate my safety and steal my stuff? Sure, it wouldn't be smart to go walking around in a bad area, but I don't see how that equates with being responsibly for someone else s choice and actions. Why does my poor judgement or lack of common sense entitle someone to take harmful action against me without the responsibility for their own actions belonging to THEM.

In the same way, common sense to teach children to look both ways, or to encourage people not to get into potentially harmful situations with drugs or alcohol. But neither the children, nor inebriated party goers and responsible for the choices and actions taken by a motorist who was speeding or not paying attention, or another person who decided to rape someone.

Essentially - Its not the victims fault that someone else has decided that they are entitled to treat another person in any way they chose simply because that person is vulnerable.

What definition is being used to describe rape? I get the impression that Ren has a very different conception of rape from the one you're using, Brenna.

Now, I'd like to say this, telling a child to look both ways before crossing at a cross-walk is equivalent to telling a woman she shouldn't go out at night without a friend or gun or some kind of back-up plan: it's placing the responsibility to not be the target on the target. You tell the child to look both ways before crossing at the cross-walk because you know that some [expletive] might drive through without paying attention to the fact that there is a cross-walk and that there is a child in that cross-walk. All this in spite of the fact that a cross-walk is the legal place for children to cross the street and a pedestrian always the right-of-way at a cross-walk. We go out of our way to try to protect our children from the recklessness of drivers. This part has no equivalent to rape because rape doesn't happen recklessly. Rape is the use of sexual advance where none was consented to including: groping and penetration of the mouth, anus, or genitals.

Rape does not always happen in alley ways, but sometimes happens in bedrooms with people who were thought to be safe. Rape can occur when one partner says, "No, I want to stop now" and the other partner doesn't listen. That is rape. Rape can happen when a sober friend takes advantage of their drunk friend after party and uses their intoxicated state to their own benefit. Rape is not merely a one scenario; predictable and preventable, but rather a absence of consent and enthusiastic reciprocity from all sexual parties involved.

The cross-walk example is a cheap, ignorant, and dishonest attempt to criticize the critical analyses of rape culture. Implied by use of this graphic is a fundamental lack of understanding about what rape is, what rape culture is, what critics are saying about the effects of rape culture, what victim blaming is, who the victim is, and so on. It just screams to me a fundamental lack of understanding.

Essentially - Its not the victims fault that someone else has decided that they are entitled to treat another person in any way they chose simply because that person is vulnerable.

Agreed...

Sure, the one who violated the victim is definitely to blame.... Just like the driver of the car... Plain and simple...

And, "looking both ways", "being aware of our surroundings" are the responsibility of the possibly victim to limit their susceptibility....

And kids crossing the street versus rape is poor comparison, of course...

And, extreme comparisons get comments, lol... Its that "Hitler reference" syndrome...

Victim blaming is bad, but you cannot ignore the fact that most victims are people who don't take the proper precautionary measures. Yes, we should teach our sons not to rape (and our daughters, for anyone that suggests they're incapable is foolish), but we should also teach our daughters not to walk alone through sketchy parts of town without a weapon or a cell phone.

If your stereo gets jacked on a nice street, in a nice neighborhood, and you had your car locked, you did all you could to prevent that and somebody just really, really felt like breaking the law. But I don't think it's inappropriate for me to have less sympathy for you if you left your car unlocked in the worst neighborhood in town and left it parked there overnight. Victim blaming is bad, but being a potential victim does not absolve you from responsibility for your own safety.

steamboat28 wrote: Victim blaming is bad [...] but we should also teach our daughters not to walk alone through sketchy parts of town without a weapon or a cell phone.

But rape doesn't just happen in bad parts of town while walking from point A to point B, I thought we had already established that. Rape happens once the kids have been put to bed and the babysitter is waiting for the father to take her home. Rape happens when the wife says she's too tired but the husband is insisting. Rape happens when the bodily autonomy of a person is disregarded by another person.

==Scene==

A CEO was walking down the street when suddenly he was robbed at gunpoint.

He reported it and the cop taking his statement scratched his head, "Last year you gave almost $1 million to charity, is that correct?"

"Yes, but--"

"And were you aware that that street was a hotspot for robberies this month?"

"Yes, I just needed to--"

"So what you mean to tell me is that you're a wealthy CEO known for giving away money and you intentionally went down that street of all streets... Sounds to me like you were there to just give away your money".

The CEO's face burned red and he snapped, "That's absurd! I was robbed! Maybe I could have gone down another street, sure, but that would have added another half an hour to my commute and my wife was expecting me to be home already."

The cop set down his clip board and files and looked at the CEO, "but that's the reality for every woman, every person who is raped and that's just the incidents that are reported even though research suggests that over half of all sexual assault is not reported. Most people who report are questioned and dismissed as if they were the ones who are guilty simply for existing."

==/Scene==

steamboat28 wrote: Victim blaming is bad, but you cannot ignore the fact that most victims are people who don't take the proper precautionary measures. Yes, we should teach our sons not to rape (and our daughters, for anyone that suggests they're incapable is foolish), but we should also teach our daughters not to walk alone through sketchy parts of town without a weapon or a cell phone.

I'm glad you brought this up. This brings up two important issues in the whole conversation.

We DO teach girls that. Girls get the message from very young to be alert, watch for strangers, don't walk alone at night, how to hold your car keys ready to stab someone if necessary. Wear less revealing clothes. When you go out, stay in a pack. be aware of who handles your drink. Don't accept drinks from strangers etc etc. The "protect yourself from attack" lesson is constant. And while its a lesson which all kids should be taught, women are more likely to be attacked as they are seen as more vulnerable so the focus is on teaching them. (which is also not all that helpful because the majority of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim already knew and who is often is a position of authority)

We haven't, until very recently (and in limited ways) started teaching people not to rape or sexually assault. The burden of not becoming a victim and the blame if you become one has been solely on the victim. In a few places (in NZ at least) sexual education in schools is starting to include discussions on what consent is and how to be clear about how to give or not give consent.

But other than that, we do not teach people not to rape or sexually assault. We could argue that we teach people not to steal by prosecuting them, but that doesn't work the same way for rapists. If you do some research (because I've posted evidence before which no one seems to even bother reading, so do your own) you'll find that the majority of rapes and sexual assaults don't result in jail time, if they are prosecuted its usually community service, reparation or house arrest. and its estimated that only around 60% of rapes in America are reported. Here in NZ this is the statement from a report done on minimizing the effect and cost of sexual violence reads "Sexual violence is more likely to be committed by a person known to the victim in over two-thirds of sexual offenses", so there goes the stranger danger theory.

Here's the thing though Steam, nobody is trying to be a victim. Most people spend a huge amount of time trying to feel safe, whether thats from burglary or rape. People who are minded to harm others will find a way no matter what precautions you take. And is it really so unreasonable that I would personally like to go out and have some drinks and wear what I like, without having to worry that someone will take it as an invitation to attack me?

Is victim blaming complicant to the crime, considering the victims are human - meaning pyschological impact of the incident is integral to the act of the crime. Being that the passage of crime is a violation of the victim's dignity and legal rights - blaming the victim is also perpetuating that violation of the victims dignity and legal rights by trying to remove them and instead associating the victims lawful behaviour as failing some duty of care or negligence.

I think it is, and would love to see people blaming the rape victim charged with complicancy to rape... so they can be tested by the court!!

Ya never know they might be founded in truth and relevant, but it should not be able to be done without the risk of penatly - due to the impact on the victim and bad message it sends to potential rapists about weakness in enforcement and penalties.

The question of whether the victim did fail in duty of care or acted out of negligence would seem only relevant if the attacker was blaming the victim, which might require a capacity for the roles to reverse with the attacker becoming the victim. These might best be isolated across time as particular action's, and then understood in context with each other perhaps.

I think you all are really missing the point of the original image.... it laughs at the way some people (feminists) use the words "victim-blaming".

Why? Because advising people of anything on any matter is not blaming the victim of a crime. Advising people to avoid travelling through high-crime areas at night is not blaming victims. Telling women that doing this:
Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.
is a bad idea is not blaming the victim.

Rape can occur when one partner says, "No, I want to stop now" and the other partner doesn't listen. That is rape.

According to this definition my wife and I have raped one another on many occasions, yet neither of us feel that way.

We DO teach girls that. Girls get the message from very young to be alert, watch for strangers, don't walk alone at night, how to hold your car keys ready to stab someone if necessary. Wear less revealing clothes. When you go out, stay in a pack. be aware of who handles your drink. Don't accept drinks from strangers etc etc. The "protect yourself from attack" lesson is constant.

I was taught the same thing as a kid (around 5). Except for that bit about keying people.

We haven't, until very recently (and in limited ways) started teaching people not to rape or sexually assault.

Most people have been well aware that, for many years now, rape means prison time. And boys are being brainwashed from the youngest age into believing hurting girls is evil.

In a few places (in NZ at least) sexual education in schools is starting to include discussions on what consent is and how to be clear about how to give or not give consent.

And that's why I feel sorry for the guys who still feel attracted to western girls. the only way they can be safe is by either recording the whole thing, doing it in front of witnesses willing to testify in court, or soon enough, signing contracts. Damn even as kids we had enough taste not to utter out a "can we have sex now?".


One study i'd really like to see is a comparison in the report rates between male-male male-female female-female and female-male groups for things like groping. Based on what I've seen, I'm putting my money on male-female being the most reported, with at least a 30% lead on the next highest group.