Help me work this out please? (Relates to sexual assault victim blaming)

[PlumpFiction]

So I came across a Facebook post about an assault on a woman. (I'm not linking to it, sorry, I don't want to be outed). In among the comments were things like "What was she doing walking there at that time?" "I wouldn't walk there at that time of night!" etc. Crappy thing to say when someone has suffered a traumatic experience. Many people called them out on this, saying the only person to blame was the attacker, anyone should be free to walk anywhere, anytime, without being attacked. I quite agree.

Someone else made the point that you need to use common sense and take precautions - e.g. we lock up our houses and cars; we don't leave valuables on show in a parked car; etc. and saying it's the same with not walking in certain places at certain times. And this is where I feel conflict...

I agree that we should all take precautions to prevent us becoming victims of crime... If I was burgled because I'd left my house unlocked, it would be the burglar at fault but I would be kicking myself for forgetting to lock up... But something pisses me off about being told that women should not be in certain places at certain times in order to prevent them falling victim to a sex attack. Maybe this isn't a sexism/feminism issue, I don't know... because there were a few men who said things like "well I'm a 20st bearded man and I wouldn't walk there at that time"...

Help me work this out please? What are the issues here, why is there a difference? (Is there a difference?) Thank you :-)

I think the point is that it's fundamentally unfair that one group of people should have their actions restricted and not enjoy the same freedoms as another group.

Especially if the other group that got to walk free contained amongst them the ones who were causing that problem in the first place.

Oh! In some countries the use of industrial estates for sex work has been a really good move, safer for everyone. It depends how it is policed and legally supported more than where it is allowed/forced to take place.

And only someone who has not lived in a red light area could so tritely dismiss the issues residents have. It can be extremely intrusive.

I don't agree with moving red light zones to industrial zones is a good idea as I am fundamentally opposed to anything which normalises prostitution as just another job.

I do agree the sanctimonious dismissal of the issues faced by residents who are not prostitutes, pimps or punters but whose life is impacted by their activities, is trite and shows a considerable lack of imagination or empathy.

There will always be that dichotomy, I think, Lass. Legalise it and try to make it safer or refuse to normalise it and have to deal with the issues that brings.

I tend to vacillate between the two. Sex work always has and always will be a fact of life and cannot, for the life of me, decide what legal avenue would have the best outcome.

I agree about the dichotomy. For me it's a bit like abortion. I'm pro-choice but have to deal with the fact I'm not actually comfortable with late abortion or (hopefully extreme ) situations such as Julie Burchill who at one point in her life seemed to be treating abortion as if it were contraception. I ignore these niggles and plump for pro-choice.

On prostitution I plump for nothing that normalises it. I want punters to be treated with the same scorn and contempt most of society holds for say drunk drivers or illegal dog fights. Basically buying a prostitute is an act no decent man does.

I agree with all that you say. Especially the disdain for Burchill.

But then my brain adds... what about the women? It's all well and good demonising and criminalising the men, but, given the reality, that it will always exist, what can we do to make the women safer? Now... not at some point in the future, but right now. Sod the men, I'll get to them later. But the women need something 'other', now. How do we make a positive difference for them, immediately?

As I said, I have swung between both mindsets over the years.

I'm not sure what the situation is elsewhere but here in scotland they have these so called "tolerance zones" They used to have one where i lived literally yards from the police station. It seems to me that it would be very easy to put a stop to street prostitution and "massage parlours", but the police either don't have the will or the time to do so. The argument goes it would be driven under ground, but if punters can find these outlets, surely so can the police. I just think it's a but defeatist to throw up our hands and say "ah well, it always goes on".

Taking reasonable precautions seems to me to be a sensible idea.

I think there just needs to be clarity that even if you don't or can't or even just don't want to take precautions you are not responsible for the actions of someone else.

So, yes locking your house up, not leaving expensive items on your cat seat etc. are all excellent precautions but even if you don't do those things it's still not your fault if a crime against you is committed.

If you choose to walk in high risk areas at night or have a partner or male friend then yes the risk of being raped might be increased but if you are raped it's not your fault for doing those things, it's the fault of the rapist.

Before the fact and after the fact just need to stay totally separate.

I think two people on this thread have said to take a male with you for safety.

This is the main issue with 'advice' about rape avoidance. The man with you that you know is the MOST dangerous person to you. More women are raped sober than drunk (excepting women getting spiked). I'm willing to bet that more women are raped wearing jammies than short skirts. More are raped in their own homes. So, shouldn't the advice really be, "go out, wear a short skirt, get drink and only hang out with strangers"? Because none of these precautions do anyone any good.

The actual advice that would work would be really depressingly would be; don't know any men, don't have relationships with them, friendships or work with them. Really, really avoid learning with them, particularly post-secondary. Try not to be related to any of them.

But no one is giving that advice because it sounds like blaming men, when blaming women is so much easier.

I think almondpudding nailed the burglery analogy when she said that it's like being instructed never to leave the house to avoid it being robbed.
I used to walk home after dark at uni and on nights out all the time. My argument was that if there was a law against it, saying that all women had to lock themselves in after dark unless accompanied, there would be uproar. That law doesn't exist on paper so why let it exist in our own heads, if we don't want it to?

Thanks for enlightening us with that random post, Chloe

Yes, I just wanted to contribute somehow

There's some sort of rule about posters whose nicknames are NameNumber right?

Hmm, interesting food for thought (mostly!)

I haven't left the thread by the way, I keep coming back to it, reading the posts and mulling it over and getting lost in my thoughts then getting distracted...

I see the difference between locking the house and staying in the house. I suppose there's not really a neat analogy that works well, but without a doubt it's 'wrong' (fundamentally unfair) to say that a particular group of people cannot access a public space at a given time (this could be applied to sex, race, religion etc - I sometimes find it easier to see just how 'wrong' something is when I frame it in another way if I'm ever in doubt).

The points about personal restriction, motive and opportunity are all interesting.

I definitely think teaching about consent needs to be improved - I'm sure it's much improved since I was at school, but there's clearly a long way to go. I liked the tea analogy that was doing the rounds a few months back, it's an easily understood and accessible way of presenting it (not to say it should be the only way of presenting it).

^There's some sort of rule about posters whose nicknames are NameNumber right?*

I believe so. Especially ones that pop up out of nowhere to tell us how stupid we all are.

Interesting analogy Chloe . It fails miserably but there's no point in explaining why to you , nor need to for anyone else on this thread.

Beautifully succinctly put, Lass.

Beautifully succinctly put, Lass.

The thing that makes the problem extra complicated is that the men are the danger. Thanks, Matilda. I'd never have realised!

Pah!