AIBU Victim blaming

[rpitchfo]

Why is this concept only starting to catch on for rape and sexual assault.

We have two big big police campaigns running in my City at the moment that i'm taking issue with.

Don't leave valuables in your car.

Leave your lights on if your going out close to Xmas.

Why should i have to take these steps to protect my belongings? is it reasonable advice? or is this another form of victim blaming?

"There are rapists about, why do young girls get drunk?"

Your own use of language is interesting and probably from social conditioning. If a young girl gets raped, it is child rape. All women get raped, I don't know why the "young" was put in by you.

I think the difference is that no one ever got acquitted of theft because they are poor and the house was sat there tempting the thief with its finery, unlike the person who just happened to be in possession of a vagina.

We can all take reasonable steps to not be an easy target for a criminal, that doesn't compromise our Independance or make us into second class citizens. As women (rapists of males are handled very differently by the courts) we cannot take those steps and still be safe or be behaving on a par with the males around us.

There isn't a fight to change the publics/courts/police etc view of theft etc. We treat any theft as wrong.

Whereas sexism has allowed a grey area to exist when it comes to male on female attacks (I include DV in that).

When that grey area is gone and men are seen as being in control of their sex drives, in the way that we are all expected to be in control of our impulsive wants, then comparisons can be made.

It is really ludicrous that we are expected to queue up at food banks, when we live in a society were food is everywhere, yet men are not expected to be happy with having a wank, so excuses are made.

The scary thing is, we could justify most other crimes and the Courts know that, coupled with the fact that the rich/male (and one time white) etc can be subject to those crimes, they have been clamped down on. Whereas Women just were not important enough to protect, unlike property.

The courts don't mirror the safety advice given to any other crime other than Rape and use it get get a lesser sentence, or drop the case entirely. Our legal system acknowledges that there has been a victim, perhaps a careless one but still very much a victim and not an enabler.

Of course I wouldn't call her a fool, I'd give her a big hug.

But I do believe that the anti victim blaming movement is stopping us having a serious conversation with our daughters and sons about the dangers of alcohol.

Young men are far more likely to end up in fights or hurt in RTAs than they are likely to rape.

Getting drunk is stupid, it's not clever and (beyond a certain point) it's not fun.

That the feminists get on their high horses if the police try to get this message across makes me angry.

But there's a clear distinction isn't there?

As tombakerscarf says "It IS foolish to get so drunk you cant make good decisions. That is different from being raped, the responsibility for which is always and solely the rapists."

Feminists have no problem with people being advised not to get incapacitated, as it's not a good idea in general.

(Incidentally, I really don't like it when these feminist cliches get trotted out.)

I don't mean that what I said was a cliche (oh dear I'm ing myself now!)

Challenging the idea of victim blaming in rape cases is and has been a very important part of the change in how we view rape in this country.

As an extension of this idea though there is an incorrect notion that you are equally likely to be raped whatever your age and whatever your state of intoxication. This is untrue. We are doing a disservice to women by denying this information exists. We can talk about this information and disseminate it AND not victim blame surely?

I think AeroAddict summed it up succinctly.

I think one of the reasons the concept of victim blaming is applied mainly to rape/sexual assault is because victims of rape/sexual assault do tend to come under the spotlight in a way you just don't really see with other crimes.

News, newspapers, or tabloids reporting on someone's burgled house are unlikely to focus on all the things the victim did or didn't do, or should/shouldn't have done, and nobody tends to debate over whether or not a crime took place, or how 'bad' that crime really was.

With rape/sexual assault however, any facebook/twitter/forum conversation makes it obvious that there is a huge body of people who are keen to point out why the victim was 'asking for it', or is probably lying because they were dressed a certain way, acting a certain way, etc. Or worse, that it wasn't 'real' rape/sexual assault because.... (more victim blaming).

Rape/sexual assault is unique in that many people do try to blame the victim, sometimes even over and above blaming the perpetrator. Use of the phrase 'victim blaming' is a way to name this phenomena and attempt to counteract it.

I was thinking this very thread earlier today

I totally agree that thieves are thieves and rapists are rapists - both though tend to be opportunistic, so we can all do things to reduce the opportunities. Like not leave valuables in your car, lock your windows etc.

This is not the same as saying "If you look nice you are asking to be raped, so you are partly to blame" which is obviously crap, but I do agree with the poster above who said things like - don't get pissed, watch your drink so it cant get spiked, let someone know where you are going, don't accept lifts off a stranger etc. These are surely just sensible precautions - not victim blaming. You can think someone made foolish decisions without actually thinking it is their fault they were raped. The 2 are not the same.

Also, preventative measures for most crimes apply equally to everyone.

There is a difference between saying:

"No one should go out drinking alone and/or to excess because its unwise."

and saying:

"Women shouldn't go out drinking alone and/or to excess because they might get raped".

Targeting 'preventative measures' at women only, allows women's freedom to slowly become curtailed in a way that greatly reduces their quality of life compared to men.

"Don't go out late at night unaccompanied," can soon turn into - "don't go out anywhere unaccompanied," or even "don't go out anywhere without a man", as we already see in other countries.

Likewise, "Don't wear a short skirt" could easily slide into a fully prescribed dress code, that women have to wear in order to not be blamed for their own rapes.

Preventative measures are reasonable for crimes such as theft, because they apply to everyone.

I think there is victim blaming and crime prevention - so advising to walk at night in well lit areas is crime prevention advice - to men and women who are all susceptible to attacks by criminals and all more vulnerable at night, by yourself and in a badly lit area.

But the seriousness and blame for the crime always rests wih the perpetrator eg walking in a badly lit area and alone does not make your fair game.

Preventative measures are reasonable for crimes such as theft, because they apply to everyone.

No they don't, those who have more stuff to steal are more vulnerable to theft so should take more preventative measures. The owner of a Maserati may need to be more careful where they leave their car because is it more likely to be vandalised that the next persons knackered old ford fiesta. If you're in a group that is more susceptible to certain sorts of crimes that's bad luck, but refusing to acknowledge you might need to take more precautions against those sorts of crimes is just foolishness.

If you dont leave your valubles in your car, they cannot get stolen.

Entirely up to you what you choose to do.

Trouble is, if they get stole, who are you going to call?
The police?
And that costs them money.
Not necessarily you, but it will definitely cost them.

No idea whether they would blame you or not.

'Those who have more stuff to steal' is not a fixed group of people, determined at birth and unchangeable, rather unlike being born biologically female.

So what, there are a million examples that do fit that criteria, there are neighbourhoods in the US where if a white person enters during certain times of the day they are highly likely to be violently assaulted. What you're suggesting is that white people should not avoid entering these neighbourhoods if they can avoid it because of some sort of indignity that it isn't right that other ethnic groups don't have the same issue. Maybe it's not right, but it's reality and sheer idiocy to put oneself at that sort of needless risk.

I would argue that that scenario (person of a certain colour not able to safely go somewhere) is entirely unacceptable, and measures should be taken to counteract it.

Not accept that because this bad example of society's management stands, that therefore its ok to manage other issues just as badly.

The problem is that as soon as you try to say that you should take certain precautions you get accused of victim blaming. I agree with others saying that taking precautions is just a sensible thing to do if it reduces risk. It does not excuse the perpetrator of a crime if you choose not to do those things. This includes rape. I do not see a problem with telling my daughters (if I have any) that they should avoid walking home alone at night, taking dodgy shortcuts, taking rides home from people they don't know, getting drunk etc. I would give my sons the same advice. Apparently I am victim blaming for doing that and making my children feel guilty if something does happen to them. Personally, I'd rather minimise the risk where at all possible.

It's not victim blaming to say if you leave your phone in your car, it is could get stolen. It's victim blaming to say, if you leave your phone in your car, it's your fault if it gets stolen. It's not victim blaming to say, if you leave a drink unattended it may be spiked. It's victim blaming to say, if you leave your drink unattended and it gets spiked, its all your fault. It's not victim blaming to say areas without much lighting can be more dangerous at night. It's victim blaming to say someone shouldn't have walked in that area if they didnt want to be mugged.

That's my understanding of it anyway.

I agree Buffy

and i've seen enough "you left your sat nav in your car what did you expect comments" to realise preventative advice very quickly morphs into a victim blaming narrative.

Well if they hadn't left their sat nav in the car then a thief wouldn't have had the opportunity to steal it...

I would argue that that scenario (person of a certain colour not able to safely go somewhere) is entirely unacceptable, and measures should be taken to counteract it.

I'm sure nobody would disagree, however no solution will appear overnight. Your assertion appeared to be that unless a crime affects everyone equally, potential victims shouldn't concern themselves with taking preventative measures, so how does that work in the meantime until crimes that discriminate between different groups are 'solved'?

bumbley

so it's their fault it was stolen...?

Why does saying that mean that it was their fault? How can you say 'take reasonable precautions' or 'reduce the risk' without being accused of victim blaming? There are thieves about - if you leave your things around they can get stole. If you want to remove the risk of them being stolen then don't leave them in your car.

stolen*