Blaming the victim

[Bartholomew]

Did she set up a situation to where she COULD get raped, even when she had tons of chances and ways to NOT get herself into that situation? Definitely.

Who thinks like this? I just can't even. You know, going outside is creating a situation where you might get pooped on by a bird, so you should stay indoors or it's your fault for getting pooped on? The difference here is he took advantage of her to PUT her in that situation and she did nothing unreasonable that any other person wouldn't have done. People shouldn't have to make every decision based on the fact that they might get raped at every moment. How is it the victim's fault for acting like a normal person who doesn't think they're going to get raped at a nursing home? I can't deal with people making comments like this anymore! I'm done with this thread.

 

[Sagakkan]

Recently while reading news about tragedies I have noticed something. People seem to love blaming the victim. When it comes to rape, people say that it's the victims fault because they wore something provocative. Or recently I read somewhere that it was the victims fault for being gun downed by an officer because he wouldn't but his TOY gun down. How is it their fault? They don't go and ask this to happen. They don't make the offenders assault/kill them.


What are your thoughts on this? Do you think that the victim asked for what happens to them during a crime? Or do you believe that people shouldn't be blaming them?

With rape, people blame the victim (even when they were incontrovertibly raped), because the underlying idea is that men are crazed sex-addicts and that if you wear something revealing you are just asking for it. If you are a man who is not a crazed sex-addict then you know how ridiculous and offensive that idea is. No one who gets raped is ever 'asking for it'.

With many other things, police often look out for their own - if they accidentally shoot someone they sometimes find a way to avert blame. There was just one in times square in New York, where they shot at a guy who ran into oncoming traffic (suicide attempt).....the police shot at the guy when he reached into his pocket (they assumed he was reaching for a gun, though he wasn't), they shot and injured several women passerbys. Now the guy who ran into traffic is being blamed for the police shooting........needless to say the lawyers for the women blame the police.

Basically people only blame the victim when it is inconvenient for society to acknowledge a problem or when the perpetrators are in a position of power.

 

[Kanzler]

Who thinks like this? I just can't even. He took advantage of her to PUT her in that situation and she did nothing unreasonable that any other person wouldn't have done. People shouldn't have to make every decision based on the fact that they might get raped at every moment. How is it the victim's fault for acting like a normal person who doesn't think they're going to get raped at a nursing home? I can't deal with people making comments like this anymore! I'm done with this thread.

This tells me three things:

1) People shouldn't, but things can happen. Should I dress fancy while I'm in Mexico? That would be changing how I express my personality yes, but I'm not offended by the thought of changing myself for other people at all. Things do happen. We shouldn't only look at the world as what it should be, but also what it is.

2) All people care about is rape. Maybe my point on personal responsibility makes sense when travelling in Mexico but rape. That doesn't preclude my first example however - and this is something I am extremely critical of, unnecessarily reducing problems to a single hot-button issue. While something could amount to victim blaming in one example doesn't make it constant for others.

3) "I can't deal with people making comments like this anymore! I'm done with this thread." Visceral reactions get us nowhere. You can't have a discussion with yourself, or with only with people who agree with you. If we're going to be productive, we're going to have to be okay with disagreement. This also includes avoiding reducing an opposing view to straw-man arguments.

 

[Melody]

While the victim is no doubt capable of being responsible for HER ACTIONS (Walking with the guy to a secluded place) leading up to the incident, let no blame ever be placed upon the victim for the crimes or deeds of their attacker.

Too often I see this card played to justify a heinous criminal act, and it's senseless. The attacker wasn't forced to do anything. If the attacker was trying to be a reasonable and functioning member of society, they wouldn't have committed rape. There's other details I won't get into for sake of the rules too. It should be clear to most, if not all, of us that a woman wearing something flattering on her body does not constitute an open invitation. It doesn't even HINT at an invitation. Society expects and even encourages women to dress in more flattering clothing when they are trying to be formal, or serious. Society also expects women to be approachable. Perhaps she is responsible for overdoing that; but it's no grounds to blame anyone. It would be the responsibility of the other person to interpret the context and tone of the message appropriately, and if they couldn't make heads nor tails of it, by asking what she meant.

 

[twocows]

I think people are confounding two separate issues. Saying that people could do things to help protect themselves from certain crimes isn't an opinion, it's a fact. This does not mean that people who fail to do these things deserve whatever happens to them, and I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise.

I don't think the people confounding these issues are doing it on purpose. Still, it upsets me to see others implying that people are immoral for suggesting that one way to cut down on crime is to emphasize personal protection and preventative measures.

I do think there are people out there who genuinely do engage in "victim-blaming" and that people who don't take protection and prevention into their own hands "deserve what they get." I disagree with this. Being unconcerned with your personal welfare or unaware of ways to help preserve it does not mean you deserve to have bad things happen to you. Neither apathy nor ignorance is sufficient reason to wrong someone.

On another note, I have noticed that a lot of female-on-male rapes are treated with this sort of victim-blaming behavior. I think this is abhorrent and completely unacceptable. So it's not as though this isn't an issue that moves me in some way. I just can't accept that saying "protecting yourself can't hurt" is a bad thing. It's just the cold, hard truth, and what you think about it is irrelevant. When it comes down to it, the mugger is going to target the easy mark that looks loaded. That's just the way the world works.

 

[LoudSilence]

Don't have much to add; Esper shares my thoughts exactly. Just have a question for anyone who considers a victim's foresight as a factor in what befalls them:

We acknowledged that personal responsibility and victim blaming are two different things, so why is the former even being discussed in this thread? I don't think there is a thin line at all between the two concepts, because the one deals with the decision of Person 1, whereas the other deals with the decision of Person 2 imposed on Person 1.

These are two very different scenarios and personal responsibility does not factor into the second at all. I think things are getting muddled up because of this.

 

[Kanzler]

Forgive me. I felt the need to temper this discussion with some clarity on conservative goodness.

 

[LoudSilence]

Forgive me. I felt the need to temper this discussion with some clarity on conservative goodness.

No no it's not directed towards you (you didn't even start it), it's more about this idea that preventive measures play any role in what might happen to you because of the decision of another person.

You can only see your own hand, not anyone else's. You don't know how they're going to play them. That said, obviously you can still play your hand smartly or stupidly, but I'm just saying in the end it won't have any bearing on how they play theirs, hence why personal responsibility and blame (when dealing with another) are separate concepts IMO.

 

[twocows]

No no it's not directed towards you (you didn't even start it), it's more about this idea that preventive measures play any role in what might happen to you because of the decision of another person.

It's directed, at least in part, at me. I find passive-aggressiveness rude and would prefer that, if you're responding to something I've said, you direct your response at me. Being treated as an abstract is rather dehumanizing.

You can only see your own hand, not anyone else's. You don't know how they're going to play them. That said, obviously you can still play your hand smartly or stupidly, but I'm just saying in the end it won't have any bearing on how they play theirs, hence why personal responsibility and blame (when dealing with another) are separate concepts IMO.

It will have a bearing on how they "play theirs." If you take steps to minimize your presence, people are less likely to target you. If you take steps to protect yourself (self-defense lessons, possibly a sidearm), you're less likely to be hurt or killed if you are attacked. I don't even know how someone can contend this. If you had said it wasn't a panacea, I would have agreed with you; it's not going to succeed 100% of the time. But saying it's not even going to help at all is just plain wrong.

It's kind of like saying that camouflage and bulletproof armor won't help in a warzone. Granted, there's nothing ethically wrong with not making use of them and it doesn't vindicate whoever ends up attacking you should it happen, but you're going to significantly decrease your chances of being attacked and subsequently injured or killed if you use them. The world is a harsh place. I'm not saying you should constantly live in fear of attack and go full paranoid in pursuing safety, but taking preventative measures will help keep you safe (that's the whole point of them). This isn't even something you can reasonably debate, it's just common sense.

 

[LoudSilence]

It's directed, at least in part, at me. I find passive-aggressiveness rude and would prefer that, if you're responding to something I've said, you direct your response at me. Being treated as an abstract is rather dehumanizing.

Assumptions are also rude, my friend; I was not being passive-aggressive at all, I said "anyone who considers...". That means anyone. It also makes no sense considering this is a discussion anyway; differing opinions should never be taken personally. I suppose I should have said "directed at no one" because it was a general response to the thoughts of several.

It will have a bearing on how they "play theirs." If you take steps to minimize your presence, people are less likely to target you. If you take steps to protect yourself (self-defense lessons, possibly a sidearm), you're less likely to be hurt or killed if you are attacked. I don't even know how someone can contend this. If you had said it wasn't a panacea, I would have agreed with you; it's not going to succeed 100% of the time. But saying it's not even going to help at all is just plain wrong.

Look back at what I've written and you'll see we're not in disagreement: I didn't say anything about probability, but rather how your actions do not have any bearing on another's actions. Sure, preventive measures may affect the outcome, but I meant that it won't affect what another person chooses to do.

 

[Kanzler]

Gentlemen. I don't think any of us is being passive-aggressive or rude to anybody else. If anybody should take responsibility for constantly bringing it up, it should be me, having made the first reference to personal responsibility in post #7 and continuing to bring it up throughout. I think we are all on the same page. The only issue that I had, personally, was that I felt that over the course of such a liberal-leaning discussion that any mention and even the mere idea of personal responsibility would be sidelined and made irrelevant. Thanks to you two, I can see that is clearly NOT the case and so my ego is satisfied.

Actually, I am going to take twocow's side on this one. I would rather say that one's actions do not have any bearing on "blame" of another's actions. That is to say - and I'm going to move away from the topic of rape for sensitivity purposes - any person who robs another person cannot be excused for their crime. However, that is not to say that a victim actions does not affect the perpetrator's actions. Maybe if I wasn't dressed so sharply I wouldn't have been mugged. I think that's reasonable. But to say that my mugger-to-be didn't judge me based on what I wore, I don't think that's very reasonable.

 

[twocows]

Assumptions are also rude, my friend; I was not being passive-aggressive at all, I said "anyone who considers...". That means anyone. It also makes no sense considering this is a discussion anyway; differing opinions should never be taken personally. I suppose I should have said "directed at no one" because it was a general response to the thoughts of several.

It seemed to be directed almost entirely at what I said. If that's not the case, then what I said is not applicable, but that's just how it came off to me.

Look back at what I've written and you'll see we're not in disagreement: I didn't say anything about probability, but rather how your actions do not have any bearing on another's actions. Sure, preventive measures may affect the outcome, but I meant that it won't affect what another person chooses to do.

Then I guess I'm not sure what point you're making. You said "it's more about this idea that preventive measures play any role in what might happen to you because of the decision of another person." Maybe you didn't phrase it right? That seems to me like you're saying preventative measures are meaningless. If that's not what you're saying, then I guess I don't understand what argument you're making.

 

[Rezilia]

Maybe if I wasn't dressed so sharply I wouldn't have been mugged.

That's all I was saying.

She thought she was, herself, partly to blame - she even admitted her own personal irresponsibility.

And yet everyone attacked me for mentioning that irresponsibility *sigh*


I'm glad not everyone thinks of this as a blame game and instead actually looks at every angle.

 

[LoudSilence]

I would rather say that one's actions do not have any bearing on "blame" of another's actions.

...

But to say that my mugger-to-be didn't judge me based on what I wore, I don't think that's very reasonable.

I think that's what I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around: that kind of exactly sounds like saying some blame does lie with the victim. I know you're avoiding rape in particular but just imagine this exact same clothing analogy in that scenario and you'll see why I can't agree with this, unfortunately.

Like I said: you can take precautions to attempt to prevent certain outcomes in your control, but to suggest those precautions (or lack thereof) have direct impact on someone else's decisions is exactly what "blaming the victim" means, and I don't think it's right to do that.

It seemed to be directed almost entirely at what I said. If that's not the case, then what I said is not applicable, but that's just how it came off to me.

Ok so to assure you (and BiS) that isn't the case, let me show you where the idea was first mentioned:

I'm not going to automatically say that the victim was to blame, but there often tends to be a reason why the "villain" chose that particular victim...

I believe that sometimes the victim can be at fault...

I don't think the people who emphasize personal responsibility are victim blaming.

And so on. My post was a generic response to everyone saying that personal responsibility (BiS only first used the term, not the idea) is not the same as "blaming the victim" and thus doesn't really warrant discussion in this thread IMO.

Then I guess I'm not sure what point you're making. You said "it's more about this idea that preventive measures play any role in what might happen to you because of the decision of another person." Maybe you didn't phrase it right? That seems to me like you're saying preventative measures are meaningless. If that's not what you're saying, then I guess I don't understand what argument you're making.

See above. My point was to differentiate between the two ideas and to exclude one because the conversation is becoming convoluted because of it.

 

[twocows]

I think that's what I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around: that kind of exactly sounds like saying some blame does lie with the victim. I know you're avoiding rape in particular but just imagine this exact same clothing analogy in that scenario and you'll see why I can't agree with this, unfortunately.

Like I said: you can take precautions to attempt to prevent certain outcomes in your control, but to suggest those precautions (or lack thereof) have direct impact on someone else's decisions is exactly what "blaming the victim" means, and I don't think it's right to do that.




Ok so to assure you (and BiS) that isn't the case, let me show you where the idea was first mentioned:



And so on. My post was a generic response to everyone saying that personal responsibility (BiS only first used the term, not the idea) is not the same as "blaming the victim" and thus doesn't really warrant discussion in this thread IMO.




See above. My point was to differentiate between the two ideas and to exclude one because the conversation is becoming convoluted because of it.

That's fair, but a lot of people see the two issues as connected. It's inevitable people are going to talk about both. I think we're both on the same page, though, since I agree that they should be treated separately despite the common conception that they are connected.

 

[Toutebelle]

Although rare, it is possible for a victim to have provoked the assault on them, be it a murder, a rape, or any other kind. There was a case like that on Long Island (where I live) several years ago. A white boy named Daniel Cicciaro Jr. had racially abused a black boy by posing as him on Myspace and making threats through the fake account. He also got his friends to gang up on the black boy and he called him the N word. The black boy got his father, who came with a gun, and Daniel was taunting the father, telling him to shoot him. Daniel ended up dead because of it. Although the father was guilty of killing Daniel, it's Daniel himself who came off as worse because he had started the whole incident.