Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Is this victim blaming...?

215 replies

MissGoggins · 29/03/2017 09:35

I noticed this article and it made me think about the now infamous judge's closing remarks on her last trial (regarding drunken women and increased vulnerability).

Is this different? Or by using the same logic, is issuing this warning 'victim blaming' those who have already been victims of this crime?

If the former, then how is it different?
If the latter, then what is the alternative?

www.familiesonline.co.uk/local/solihull/in-the-know/students-warned-not-to-use-local-solihull-park

OP posts:
WannaBe · 29/03/2017 19:02

Well, it's a question which gets asked on here if someone is in the news having been attacked in any way either male or female. "where were their friends?"

Trifleorbust · 29/03/2017 19:03

grannytomine:

I would too. But the fact remains that their responsibility to her as friends does not come close to the moral or legal responsibility of a parent. It also does not make them responsible for her rape, should such a thing happen.

Original poster
MissGoggins · 29/03/2017 19:59

The big question. The one we aren't allowed to ask...

What if sometimes the victim is partially responsible because of their actions? Why aren't we allowed to say that? Even some victims will say it, but there is a group of professionally offended who will then tell the victim off for taking some responsibility!

OP posts:
grannytomine · 29/03/2017 20:04

Trifle it doesn't absolve the rapist of responsibility but I would still be very disappointed at friends doing that. As for parents, well if we are talking about students going out getting drunk I don't think the parents are responsible for what adult children are doing.

Trifleorbust · 29/03/2017 20:14

grannytomine: Of course not. Once they are adults they are only responsible for each other by agreement.

Trifleorbust · 29/03/2017 20:16

What if sometimes the victim is partially responsible because of their actions

No. The victim is never responsible for a crime committed against them. Never. Ever.

That isn't the 'big question' - nothing could be more obvious.

Original poster
MissGoggins · 29/03/2017 21:13

No. The victim is never responsible for a crime committed against them. Never. Ever.

So the woman who gets covered in red paint because she wears real furs...?

The men who were rumbled for using the Ashley Madison website?

The gangster who lives by the mob rules and is eventually murdered because of his lifestyle choice? (Perhaps after sending a few to their maker in a similar way beforehand?)

Do you believe that these victims are in no way responsible for the crimes they have fallen victim to?

OP posts:
hellejuice91 · 29/03/2017 21:17

No it is not victim blaming it is giving common sense advice to people.

The 'victim blaming' approach to everything is putting people in some dangerous situations

Trifleorbust · 29/03/2017 21:20

MissGoggins:

You just listed a number of people doing things that are either illegal (for example, being a 'mobster' - I assume you mean someone who kills people!!) or that people widely consider immoral (wearing real fur - I still don't think she is responsible for the assault on her).

What exactly do you think a woman is doing WRONG when she gets drunk or wears a short skirt?

That is what this comes down to: she is doing nothing wrong by living her life.

Original poster
MissGoggins · 29/03/2017 21:23

I think plenty of people would say it is immoral to get excessively drunk (some people would say just to be drunk is immoral).

Plenty of people would say to dress what is traditionally considered to be provocatively is also immoral.

OP posts:
Trifleorbust · 29/03/2017 21:27

MissGoggins:

Misogynists and victim blamers would, I agree. I have already made the point that there are plenty of you out there.

DryIce · 29/03/2017 21:33

I see them as very different. A temporary warning, noting higher than normal levels of criminal activity that may endanger the public more than usual. All public warned to stay away.

The rape case, an ongoing embargo on women drinking or whatever because 'thats just the way life is'. Men are in more danger of being assaulted after drinking and yet i very rarely hear 'just stop drinking' as a solution to male on male violence. It also seems limitless. Women are probably more in danger of being violently raped by a stranger if they leave their houses at all, should we counsel them to stay in at all times?

And above all, it is just not true. It implies if you play by the rules, you can avoid being raped. The vast majority of rapes are performed by a partner or someone close to the victim. Women would probably be statistically more safe from rape if they spent their whole time out and drink and not in that statistically most dangerous of places, their own home.

Original poster
MissGoggins · 29/03/2017 21:35

Are you making the claim that to see drunkenness in a man or a woman as immoral is a quality only found in a misogynist?

That's quite a leap.

OP posts:
Trifleorbust · 29/03/2017 21:42

MissGoggins:

No. I am making the claim that to attempt to weigh the blame when a woman is raped by a criminal who decides to rape her based on your own issues with the consumption of alcohol (which is a perfectly legal activity), then to start a disingenuous post about students and muggings, then to ramble on for 5 pages about 'big questions' you 'aren't allowed to talk about' (I don't see anyone stopping your torrent of shite - keep it up, by all means) when what you really want to say seems to be neatly summarised as 'drunken sluts deserve to be raped' - THAT is the course of action found only in a misogynist.

Original poster
MissGoggins · 29/03/2017 21:46

Wow. Just wow. Where did that come from?

OP posts:
Trifleorbust · 29/03/2017 21:47

MissGoggins:

What do you mean?

Original poster
MissGoggins · 29/03/2017 21:52

I wouldn't even copy and paste the words you just wrote.

That is atrocious. How can you even write such things.

OP posts:
DioneTheDiabolist · 29/03/2017 21:52

Trifle's right. That is what you have been trying to get to with this thread OP. I and I'm sure many others, knew it from page 1.

Original poster
MissGoggins · 29/03/2017 21:54

Of course they aren't right. It may suit their perception to frame it that way but they are incorrect.

OP posts:
Original poster
MissGoggins · 29/03/2017 21:55

When trifle let off for a while there were actually some very insightful exchanges going on.

OP posts:
Trifleorbust · 29/03/2017 22:00

At least you are in no doubt as to my real opinion.

Original poster
MissGoggins · 29/03/2017 22:05

Honestly I don't think you have a personal opinion. You are parroting what is seen as the 'right' point of view.

I wish you weren't part of this conversation you made a judgement on me from the first page and have bullied your opinion throughout the discussion.

I can see that as an idealist thread, and the reality is that you are here.

The reality is that no matter how much I want answers to the hard questions there will always be parrots using bully tactics that will prevent a meaningful discussion being had about these issues.

You think you are clever but I see through you.

OP posts:
Trifleorbust · 29/03/2017 22:07

MissGoggins:

It is 100% my opinion.

Original poster
MissGoggins · 29/03/2017 22:09

Squawk.

I'm done. You decided what I wanted to say before I had even thought it. You are what gives true liberals a bad reputation.

Squawk.

OP posts:
Trifleorbust · 29/03/2017 22:14

All's well that ends well.

Swipe left for the next trending thread