Why is it taboo to discuss the responsibility of victims?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
You're cherry-picking your examples. That is a disingenuous argument.
There are some instances in which the victim's decisions and attitude clearly affect the likelihood of becoming a victim, there are others in which nothing the victim does has any effect, and there's an entire spectrum in between.
No one is trying to "blame the victim," or at least I'm not. On the other hand, insurance companies routinely point to actions and decisions which could have been thought out a little more carefully to reduce the possibility of becoming a victim.
First you need to learn the vocabulary and formulas of risk analysis, which are used to define these concepts. But you seem hell-bent on ignoring the very existence of the discipline, so you're nearly impossible to communicate with. It's like asking me to explain how to calculate the speed of an object when it hits the floor after being dropped from a certain height, while at the same time refusing to learn how gravity, velocity, force and acceleration are defined.
I was the data security program manager for a large municipal government. I had to write up several risk management plans, and I oversaw a large risk analysis contract. I've had formal training and hands-on experience in the field.
There are things you can do to increase the probability of something bad happening to you, and there are other things you can do to decrease that probability. Your ability to affect that probability varies greatly from one risk to another, and in extreme cases it can be effectively zero.
Most people accept this as common sense and apply it in varying degrees to their lives. Seat belts, roof inspections, vitamins, rabies vaccinations, annual physical exams. Locking your door when no one's home is just one of those things.
I'm not sure why you insist on pretending that this is all an elitist plot to curtail your freedom to leave your door unlocked. You can do whatever the hell you want. Just don't come whining to me when they cancel your homeowner's insurance and your bank goes out and finds an assigned-risk policy that costs five times what you were paying, and adds the premium to your mortgage payment. When your checking account is already overdrawn because you had to replace all the stuff that the burglars took.
Many? What percentage exactly? And have you got any evidence apart from the one anecdote you quoted?
Does this mean, wynn, that you agree that a woman should never stand up for herself against a man, or dare to express a contrary opinion? Especially if the man seems like he might be the violent type. He won't be able to control himself. And if he does lose control and rape, that's the victim's fault then, is it?
I find your whole "blame the victim" stance disgusting.
But let's flip things around a bit. Suppose you're having an argument about Shakespeare in a bar with a big guy called Bubba, and you're a man. Do you think it might be wise to focus on not getting raped by Bubba in this situation, rather than trying to win the argument? Maybe all men should avoid discussing Shakespeare with Bubba, just in case he goes off and commits a horrid crime. What do you think?
Maybe nobody should ever stand up to a bully on a power trip. Is that your position?
Like the rest of this "article" or quote, I don't believe a word of this nonsense. It's about as likely as you slapping Bubba after a particularly offensive comment about A Midsummer Night's Dream.
Notice that no other people are involved in these examples. See the difference?
You'd have to be pretty thick not to realise you were involved in a criminal conspiracy in this case, wouldn't you?
Blame the victim again. Who knows what will make a rapist worse than he already is.
When Bubba hits you with a pool cue because he disagrees with your analysis of Prospero's motivations, that's the point at which you'd be thinking that you shouldn't have mentiond The Tempest in the first place, I guess, and that it's really ALL YOUR FAULT. Right?
I never said that someone would want to be a victim of a violent crime.
Chimpkin, I strongly recommend that you study the definitions of negligence and recklessness and the Latin term mens rea, and while your at it, terms such as premeditation and malice aforethought. Then you and I can talk intelligently about responsibility.
OMG! My thoughts exactly. I wasn't born with any guarantees. Hey, did anyone here get a guarantee when they were born — or anytime afterwards?
Last edited:
I doubt that is what they think. I think they and certainly I am reacting to your sense of complicity by pointing out that it leads to all rape victims - except those locked in basements holding carbined aimed at the one entrance - complicit in their rapes, since everyone could have done something that might have reduced their risk of being raped, except infants.
I have nothing against someone making suggestions about what might reduces the chances of rape. The toughest man-hating radical lesbian feminists I have known, and I've known quite a few, made suggestions about things that might reduce the chances of someone being raped.
But that did not lead to the idea that women are complicit in their rapes if they do not do everything to reduce rape risk.
Going out in a short skirt does not make one complicit in rape unless you ran around screaming at men in parking lots 'rape me'.
Just as buying expensive cars does not make one complicit in a carjacking or the theft of one's car, even though you could have taken public transport or hired a bodyguard.
And the repeated implication that a woman trying to look sexy is complicit because she intends to provoke something that rape is merely a lot of is both false and offensive.
A black woman doctor is likely going to meet racism where some white people will challenge her authority because she is black and or a women.
But she is not complicit in the racism, EVEN IF on some level she is proud to be a counterexample to some people's prejudices.
If I order a product online it does not mean I provoked a boatload of spam because the company I ordered from sold my address to an online marketing promoter.
I was provoking a company to sell me a product. Then they did something else.
Rape is something else, it is sex AND hatred and violence.
Last edited:
All I wanted was a lousy little definition (so we would know we are talking about the same thing) and all I got is a shitty T-shirt.
Bottomline is, if you can't explain it in 1-2 sentence what we are talking about, chances are it doesn't exist.
As an answer to your quote, nobody can tell where the exact line between stupidity and common sense carefullness is....
... a woman trying to look sexy ... for who? She may intend for her appearance to attract only the rich and handsome eligible bachelors, but the reality is that it will attract the general public, including the perverts, scumbags and sleazeballs.
Bells
Staff member
So that means it's her fault if she does? Women are not meant to look attractive?
Lets say you dress nicely and some guy rapes you when you go to the toilet. I guess it's your fault you decided to wear those jeans and that shirt?
What about the woman who dresses and is not trying to look sexy? What about the woman in the hijab? Old granny in her nightie in bed at night? What about the girl walking home in her school uniform? The wife sleeping naked next to her husband?
Okay, how can I put this.. When is it not her fault and when is she not complicit in her rape?
Apparently, according to this thread, never....
Well I see how classist you are since see the non-rich general public as being where the problem lies.
Aside from that, yes, she may very well be trying to be attractive. And her clothes may, yes, elicit feelings of attraction in men (and women). But that is what she is complicit in - though even here it is an odd verb.
What she is not complicit with (in?) is the violence, hatred of women and control urges that are involved in rape - that is entirely the man's responsibility. The verb complicit does not apply to the vast majority of rape victims.
Yup. Only a woman seeking to be raped is complicit in her rape. I assume there a couple of instances where this is actually what the woman's intentions are.
Have some women engaged in behavior where loved one's will encourage her not to repeat them, sure. But that does not mean she was complicit.
No more than driving your BMW - you fucking slut, you should have bought a used Ford - makes you complicit in your carjacking murder. Wynn seems to think if you did by your BMW as part of asserting status - which is always in relation to others - then you are complicit there also.
I disagree.
And I notice how threads about expensive car owners being complicit in their carjackings never come up.
Bells
Staff member
There is a level of misogyny in this thread that is disturbing, and yes, it isn't just from some of the men who hold these views.
There is the belief that women should fill a certain role, should look, dress or act a certain way so that she is not perceived as someone who is trying to be attractive for anyone or nobody. That a woman who dresses for herself is ultimately selfish and if she is raped, then it is ultimately her fault for attracting the attention of her attacker.
Look at Cifo's post. This is after he/she reassured that he does not believe a woman is at fault for her own rape, but look at his comments:
"... a woman trying to look sexy ... for who? She may intend for her appearance to attract only the rich and handsome eligible bachelors, but the reality is that it will attract the general public, including the perverts, scumbags and sleazeballs."
So what is the solution? Don't ever try to look sexy and if you do without trying, well then, just wear a hessian sack?
The attitude in Cifo's post is that if she tries to look sexy, then she is somewhat a slut as she can and may attract attention from the general public which includes the "perverts, scumbags and sleazeballs".. Because apparently, rich people can't be any of those things. In other words, women are opportunistic and only after a guy who is rich and if she gets raped, then it's her own damn fault for stepping outside of people like Cifo's and Wynn's comfort zones an what and how they view women.
I mean look at Wynn in this thread. She is not backing down, she is deliberately looking for conflict. If we were to apply her standards that she kindly linked for us:
"Right or Raped?
We have a basic question that we ask: What would you rather be, right or raped?
When after the woman replies that she doesn't want to get raped, we reply: Then you better quite trying to "win" and focus more on doing something that will keep you from getting raped."
We have a basic question that we ask: What would you rather be, right or raped?
When after the woman replies that she doesn't want to get raped, we reply: Then you better quite trying to "win" and focus more on doing something that will keep you from getting raped."
If some psycho tracks her down from this thread and rapes her, is she complicit and responsible because she is arguing and ultimately trying to win?
And I find it disgusting the way you refuse to read what is actually being said.
I find it disgusting the way you jump to conclusions, the way you assume the worst, the way you interpret uncharitably, the way you twist around what is being said.
It is truly hurtful.
Bells
Staff member
You mean like when you told Chimpkin she did share responsibility for being raped as a 4 year old?
As much as you might claim your words are being twisted around, unfortunately, none of it has been. It has been quoted in full and you still seem to try to claim it was twisted around.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Wynn, I understand your argument and, although I absolutely disagree with you, I want to offer you a slightly better analogy you can use.
Say you take your bicycle to the shopping mall. You park it outside a supermarket but do not lock it.
You may think: "What are the odds that someone will steal my bicycle while I'm in the store for only 15 minutes. Pretty damn small."
But when you come out of the store again you find that you are the victim of a crime. Your bicycle has been stolen!
Now who's at fault here? You, for not locking your bicycle, or the criminal that took advantage of it?
You argue that you are to blame, at least in part, since it is known that there is a greater chance that your bicycle will get stolen if you don't lock it. You should have known better and should have locked it in order to prevent being the victim of a crime. In other words, you knowingly put yourself in 'harms way'.
Say you take your bicycle to the shopping mall. You park it outside a supermarket but do not lock it.
You may think: "What are the odds that someone will steal my bicycle while I'm in the store for only 15 minutes. Pretty damn small."
But when you come out of the store again you find that you are the victim of a crime. Your bicycle has been stolen!
Now who's at fault here? You, for not locking your bicycle, or the criminal that took advantage of it?
You argue that you are to blame, at least in part, since it is known that there is a greater chance that your bicycle will get stolen if you don't lock it. You should have known better and should have locked it in order to prevent being the victim of a crime. In other words, you knowingly put yourself in 'harms way'.
Last edited:
Harm minimisation is one thing. It's (partly) what wynn seems to be talking about and mostly what Fraggle seems to be talking about. Harm minimisation starts from the premise that there are people with criminal intent out there, so you don't make it easy for them to pick you as a victim rather than somebody else. That's why you lock your house when you go out, why you chain your bicycle up at the supermarket etc. You hope that the criminal types will find an easier target than you.
Failing to minimise harm or to make things difficult for a criminal may mean that you're more likely to become a victim, but it in no way makes you complicit in the crime itself. In other words, you do not share the blame or responsibility for the criminal's choice to commit the crime in the first place. He had the free will to commit or not to commit the crime. You had nothing to do with that.
When it comes to violent crime, there are certain harm minimisation methods you can take. Don't walk down dark alleyways by yourself at night in bad neighbourhoods, because you'll increase your chance of being mugged. But if you are mugged, the fact that it was in a dark alley at night doesn't suddenly lead us to dole out responsibility for the crime any differently: "That guy was crazy walking down that alley. He's surely 40% responsible for his own beating and losing his cash, so the guy we caught for the crime should only get 60% of the usual prison sentence. The victim was complicit in the crime!"
Another important point is that it is unreasonable to expect potential victims (i.e. virtually everybody) to go to extremes to minimise harm or reduce risk. Should everybody be forced to train in martial arts and wear a chain mail shirt whenever they walk down a dark alley at night, just in case they are targetted? Or should all walking down dark alleys at night be forbidden? If you do walk down a dark alley, for whatever reason, then you ought to have known better and you probably had it coming? In fact, you were probably "asking for it" by your actions.
Rather than blaming the victim for their "complicity" in violent crimes committed against them, isn't it better to focus on the perpetrators? They made the choice to commit the crime. If they didn't pick on you, they would have found another victim sooner or later.
Failing to minimise harm or to make things difficult for a criminal may mean that you're more likely to become a victim, but it in no way makes you complicit in the crime itself. In other words, you do not share the blame or responsibility for the criminal's choice to commit the crime in the first place. He had the free will to commit or not to commit the crime. You had nothing to do with that.
When it comes to violent crime, there are certain harm minimisation methods you can take. Don't walk down dark alleyways by yourself at night in bad neighbourhoods, because you'll increase your chance of being mugged. But if you are mugged, the fact that it was in a dark alley at night doesn't suddenly lead us to dole out responsibility for the crime any differently: "That guy was crazy walking down that alley. He's surely 40% responsible for his own beating and losing his cash, so the guy we caught for the crime should only get 60% of the usual prison sentence. The victim was complicit in the crime!"
Another important point is that it is unreasonable to expect potential victims (i.e. virtually everybody) to go to extremes to minimise harm or reduce risk. Should everybody be forced to train in martial arts and wear a chain mail shirt whenever they walk down a dark alley at night, just in case they are targetted? Or should all walking down dark alleys at night be forbidden? If you do walk down a dark alley, for whatever reason, then you ought to have known better and you probably had it coming? In fact, you were probably "asking for it" by your actions.
Rather than blaming the victim for their "complicity" in violent crimes committed against them, isn't it better to focus on the perpetrators? They made the choice to commit the crime. If they didn't pick on you, they would have found another victim sooner or later.