Could you, then, fill in the blanks, please?
Visceral Instinct said:
There isn't one really...
And yet ...?
and I don't think he actually meant that it was the woman's fault.
Well, that presents a certain problem. Especially given that many people around here are regularly called upon to answer for things they did not say.
So while we might agree that there's no apparent practical difference between saying a rape is the victim's fault and saying the victim deserved it, we are also supposed to accept that Francois didn't actually mean the things he posted?
Okay, let's take a look at a few of the things posted:
Francois said:
I think any idiot, whether a feminist or not, would agree that a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it ....
.... Reverse the situation of the all skanked up woman. Instead this time, she's in a super safe place, like, say, her mother's womb. If she was raped there, it would be totally objectionable ....
.... It's hard to make the decision each time, and make the judgment each time "Oh, well, she shouldn't have been dressed like a skank. Stupid woman," or "That's horrible that it happened; she totally didn't deserve that." Each situation is different. (
#13)
• • •
I'm also saying that rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make. (
#21)
• • •
Simply put, moron, a woman who is dressed scantily in a dark alley is more likely to get raped than a woman who is not. This is similar to how a person who is pushing around a dangerous looking thug in an inner city at night is more likely to get murdered than a person who is not. (
#62)
So what did he mean, VI? Don't get me wrong: I'm perfectly willing to accept an explanation of poor communication, but the repetition really undermines the idea that Francois is conveying the wrong message by choosing his words wrongly.
Furthermore, as upset as he might get because people are apparently taking him so wrongly, the one thing he doesn't seem to want to do is actually address the points being put before him. I've now repeatedly proposed logical extensions of his "common sense", and while he might have the energy to be haughty, he hasn't, apparently, the knowledge or desire to make his allegedly intended point clearly.
To consider the examples listed above, the parts from #13 are fairly obvious:
• "a woman walking in a dangerous city at night by herself dressed really scantily is asking for it" — Any questions on this one?
• "If she was raped there, it would be totally objectionable" — As opposed to what? Only partially objectionable? Oh, hold on. We do, in fact, have something of an answer.
• "It's hard to make the decision each time, and make the judgment each time "Oh, well, she shouldn't have been dressed like a skank. Stupid woman," or "That's horrible that it happened; she totally didn't deserve that." Each situation is different." — Ah. So either a woman is stupid or else "totally didn't deserve" to be raped. Apparently, the women who don't hide enough of their sexuality—e.g., wear a burqua, although, it is entirely possible someone is turned on at the thought of such outward sexual repression, which would mean the woman was stupid and therefore asking to be raped—kind of, sort of, somewhat deserve whatever evil is visited upon them.
And then there is the (fairly explicit) proposition in #21 that "
rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make". In other words, a rape might happen, but it's not the rapist's fault? Well, we could leave Francois to plead that's not what he meant, and certainly he's welcome to do so, but compared to the ease of including some kind of mitigating modifier in the statement, it does not seem a stretch to consider the thematic repetition of a woman's guilt in a man's decision the more compelling key to resolving whatever gray zones we might invent about the proposition.
Lastly, we come to an example posted
after all of this bluster and complaint about how people are receiving Francois' argument already began. Notice the inherent comparison:
Wearing a skirt is comparable to physically assaulting someone.
Here, let's bring that one out to stand on its own for you to consider:
"Simply put, moron, a woman who is dressed scantily in a dark alley is more likely to get raped than a woman who is not. This is similar to how a person who is pushing around a dangerous looking thug in an inner city at night is more likely to get murdered than a person who is not."
While I don't disagree with the idea giving a member the benefit of the doubt, I'm hard-pressed to see the basis of that doubt. What you don't think he meant is pretty apparent in the words he posted, and having encountered such rejection of his point, he is only getting angry about it. Would you propose that our neighbor Francois is simply incapable of expressing himself the way he intends?
If so, perhaps you would be so kind as to do the talking for him, explain what he meant, and perhaps address people's concerns and extrapolations along the way.
After all,
purely from an objective point of view, the vast majority of women in the United States who are raped are attacked by men they know. So we ought to stop and consider the
fact that the whole argument that a woman is asking for it according to what she wears and where she walks at once addresses only a slender portion of the rapes taking place while simultaneously attempting to justify, excuse, or otherwise mitigate rape by transferring the responsibility of one person's decision onto another.
So what are the proper precautions a woman ought to take, Visceral Instinct? Never speak to men? Never go on a date with a man? Never allow oneself to be
seen by men?
Tell me what I need to tell my daughter so that she understands how to
totally not deserve to be raped. After all, I wouldn't want to give the men any kind of excuse, right? Because there are degrees of non-totality. Like, you know, "She
mostly didn't deserve to be raped, but I think her butt looked hot in those jeans, so she kind of did."
How do women avoid that kind of culpability?