Victim-blaming

Count Duckula

Why is this so rife in the Western world? Is it because we don't want to address the real problem of the crime taken place, or is Schadenfruede from people who think that the victim "deserved it".

There's a common mentality that rape victims sometimes "encourage" it by their dress or demeanour. Why is this?

Similarly, someone that walks through a scummy area flashing their iphone about the place or parking up their Mercedes is treated with anything but sympathy when they get robbed. Shouldn't have been so flashy.

I was reading a debate on another forum earlier today following Celtic manager Neil Lennon being attacked on the sidelines by an opposing fan, less than a fortnight after he was sent a nail bomb in the post. The recurring theme was that he "brought it upon himself" with his conduct and attitude. How on earth does anyone bring a murder attempt and assault upon themselves?

What can be done to stop this rapidly-growing culture of victim blaming from spreading even further? The worry is that it starts to infiltrate the justice system, which to some extent it already does - so many rape accusations get thrown out of court because the defence manage to make the woman look like a "party girl" who was "asking for it".

Can anything be done to reverse this trend, or is a part of Western society's apathy that, rather than address the problem, we'll just condemn those unlucky enough to be caught?

WesternNight

I know I've heard a fair bit of the type of commentary you're referring to. But I would have thought that that would have been in the minority of responses to crimes. I'd expect the (vast) majority of people would completely condemn what's been happening to Neil Lennon and other (less high profile) victims of crime.

I haven't looked at the research on this particular topic but presumably there's a fair bit of it done. Is it really 'rife' and 'rapidly-growing'? If it is then it definitely needs to be addressed.

In the instances that it does happen, there'll be several reasons for it. Some of it might be due to the in-group out-group dynamic, where if the victim isn't part of the person's (victim-blamer's) in-group, they might be viewed less favourably than if they were. That's just one possible reason though.

Crucifix

There's a phenomenon called the "Just world theory", which is that people often tend to assume/believe/convince themselves, albeit consciously or subconsciously, that the world is an intrinsically fair place.
It's a handy coping mechanism, but unfortunately it's one of the things that can lead to 'victim blaming'. In a just world, those who suffer must deserve it. Poor people must be lazy, rape victims must have brought it on themselves somehow, etc.

Kooli

Crucifix wrote: »

There's a phenomenon called the "Just world theory", which is that people often tend to assume/believe/convince themselves, albeit consciously or subconsciously, that the world is an intrinsically fair place.
It's a handy coping mechanism, but unfortunately it's one of the things that can lead to 'victim blaming'. In a just world, those who suffer must deserve it. Poor people must be lazy, rape victims must have brought it on themselves somehow, etc.

Yes exactly. It gives us a sense of security that there are things we can do to prevent becoming the victims of such awful crimes. It's much more scary to think of these things as completely random and impossible to prevent.

southsiderosie

I agree with the just world theory to a certain extent, but I also think that there seems to be a growing lack of empathy among the general public. I don't know the extent to which this is just keyboard warrior posturing, but the shrill tenor of public debate and discussion even around what one might consider relatively non-contentious issues is a symptom of a general lack of civility towards and empathy with fellow citizens. Frankly I find this kind of disturbing, especially since so much of it seems quite mindless.

Zombrex

As others have said, human psychology really.

We tend to blame the victim as a defense mechanism, because we subconsciously say that if we avoid the mistake the this person did then we will not be at risk of what happened to them. The criminal is not something we can control, but we can control our own actions so we identify what the victim "did wrong" and then say what they did was wrong and we wouldn't/won't do it.

So we say that if you don't want to get rape don't dress slutty. If you don't want to be mugged don't go to that area of town. If you don't want to be shot by a drug dealer don't have a known associate at a house party you are having etc etc.

The crimes that tend to make the biggest splash in the public consciousness are the ones that we struggle to do this, where we cannot find much fault with what the person did and thus we cannot build up any layers of mental protection saying it won't happen to us, such as random shootings in public places, or random attacks or rapes.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I don't think people are victim blaming in those scenarios. They're just outlining the consequences of risky behaviour, or at least what they perceive as risky behaviour, as its within human nature to warn people against risky behaviour. Its a clear strawman to state that warning against risky behaviour therefore means the person holds the victim responsible for the perpetrators actions

It is perhaps just a limitation in the English language. I don't speak any others but I've seen it with other words

For example when someone says a woman shouldn't get too drunk as it could attract a rapist, they're not *blaming* the woman, the rapist is still 100% *responsible*, they're just saying the woman put herself in a dangerous situation and is in that sense "at fault"

If I walk through north strand at 3am on my own drunk and I get mugged, my friends and family will tell me I'm a moron for not getting a taxi, they'd still expect the mugger if caught to face the same charges. I was "at fault" for my behavior but no one would *blame* me for the mugging.

Likewise, I don't think people who say a woman shouldn't get excessively drunk actually thinks the rapists responsibility is diminished, they just think she should have been more careful for her own safety.

If these people were actually blaming victims for perpetrators crimes they'd surely be calling for the victims to be charged with these crimes, which doesn't happen.

Zombrex

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't think people are victim blaming in those scenarios. They're just outlining the consequences of risky behaviour, or at least what they perceive as risky behaviour, as its within human nature to warn people against risky behaviour. Its a clear strawman to state that warning against risky behaviour therefore means the person holds the victim responsible for the perpetrators actions

It is perhaps just a limitation in the English language. I don't speak any others but I've seen it with other words

For example when someone says a woman shouldn't get too drunk as it could attract a rapist, they're not *blaming* the woman, the rapist is still 100% *responsible*, they're just saying the woman put herself in a dangerous situation and is in that sense "at fault"

If I walk through north strand at 3am on my own drunk and I get mugged, my friends and family will tell me I'm a moron for not getting a taxi, they'd still expect the mugger if caught to face the same charges. I was "at fault" for my behavior but no one would *blame* me for the mugging.

Likewise, I don't think people who say a woman shouldn't get excessively drunk actually thinks the rapists responsibility is diminished, they just think she should have been more careful for her own safety.

If these people were actually blaming victims for perpetrators crimes they'd surely be calling for the victims to be charged with these crimes, which doesn't happen.

That isn't really what "blame the victim" means. It is not saying that the victim caused the crime and should be charged with something.

Blame the victim means focusing on what the victim of the crime did wrong, particularly to the extend where they start creating things that might have had nothing to do with the crime. For example saying a girl was too slutty and that is why she got raped.

I would agree with the notion that blaming the victim is some what misused and abused and that it shouldn't be used as an excuse to not give advice to people about how to protect themselves. This is a particular issue with rape where it seems to can't say anything about women protecting themselves and not being foolish without the charge from some groups that you are blaming the victim.

But equally blaming the victim is a real thing, it has real human psychological reasons for its existence.

Count Duckula

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't think people are victim blaming in those scenarios. They're just outlining the consequences of risky behaviour, or at least what they perceive as risky behaviour, as its within human nature to warn people against risky behaviour. Its a clear strawman to state that warning against risky behaviour therefore means the person holds the victim responsible for the perpetrators actions

It is perhaps just a limitation in the English language. I don't speak any others but I've seen it with other words

For example when someone says a woman shouldn't get too drunk as it could attract a rapist, they're not *blaming* the woman, the rapist is still 100% *responsible*, they're just saying the woman put herself in a dangerous situation and is in that sense "at fault"

If I walk through north strand at 3am on my own drunk and I get mugged, my friends and family will tell me I'm a moron for not getting a taxi, they'd still expect the mugger if caught to face the same charges. I was "at fault" for my behavior but no one would *blame* me for the mugging.

Likewise, I don't think people who say a woman shouldn't get excessively drunk actually thinks the rapists responsibility is diminished, they just think she should have been more careful for her own safety.

If these people were actually blaming victims for perpetrators crimes they'd surely be calling for the victims to be charged with these crimes, which doesn't happen.

I don't think they'd start charging victims for the crime, but they do diminish the perpetrator's responsibility by claiming that the victim was at fault, too. As in the case of the rapist who gets let off because the woman who survived his attack was wearing a miniskirt and had flirted with him earlier in the night. Or the mugger who gets his sentence reduced because the person he attacked was wearing a pair of Bose headphones and really ought to have known better.

By putting any fault at all on the victim, we are taking some away from the perpetrator. The person who committed the crime cannot be "100% responsible", but the victim still be slightly at fault. The perpetrator is either 100% at fault and thus no one else is, or the victim is at fault for being there and thus the person who committed the crime is absolved from some of the blame.

And if your parents call you a moron for being mugged at 3am then they are victim blaming. That is the very essence of victim blaming; they're saying that some of the responsibility lies with you because you shouldn't have been there. I personally don't think that's fair - if someone attacks, murders, robs, rapes or otherwise commits a crime against someone then the only person remotely to blame is that man. Not his victim.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Count Duckula wrote: »

I don't think they'd start charging victims for the crime, but they do diminish the perpetrator's responsibility by claiming that the victim was at fault, too. As in the case of the rapist who gets let off because the woman who survived his attack was wearing a miniskirt and had flirted with him earlier in the night. Or the mugger who gets his sentence reduced because the person he attacked was wearing a pair of Bose headphones and really ought to have known better.

The strange thing is it seems to happen more in the courts than in society. Would be better if it were the other way around.

By putting any fault at all on the victim, we are taking some away from the perpetrator. The person who committed the crime cannot be "100% responsible", but the victim still be slightly at fault. The perpetrator is either 100% at fault and thus no one else is, or the victim is at fault for being there and thus the person who committed the crime is absolved from some of the blame.

I don't agree frankly. To give an analogy I used on another thread - The Catholic Church in Ireland covered up abuse and rape of children for decades. Abuse was far less common in the UK catholic institutions.

Therefore I would condemn the Irish state for entrusting the church so much, though that does not diminish the crimes of the Catholic church in my mind one iota.

My point is the victim is at fault for putting themselves in a dangerous position, but that is where their fault ends. The blame for the mugging/rape begins and ends when the perpetrator commits that crime.

And if your parents call you a moron for being mugged at 3am then they are victim blaming. That is the very essence of victim blaming; they're saying that some of the responsibility lies with you because you shouldn't have been there. I personally don't think that's fair - if someone attacks, murders, robs, rapes or otherwise commits a crime against someone then the only person remotely to blame is that man. Not his victim.

Its covered above. I was at fault for being in known dangerous area alone at night. Thats where my fault ends. The muggers crime begins when they mug me. That is not my fault.

Essentially I see no difference between walking through a dangerous area at certain times and climbing into the tiger compound in the zoo. Maybe I have a pessemistic view of humanity but hey I'd simply rather not get mugged

If you knew someone was going to be walking through a staunchly loyalist area of Belfast wearing a celtic jersey would you advise them to keep it covered up or would that be victim blaming?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really what "blame the victim" means. It is not saying that the victim caused the crime and should be charged with something.

Blame the victim means focusing on what the victim of the crime did wrong, particularly to the extend where they start creating things that might have had nothing to do with the crime. For example saying a girl was too slutty and that is why she got raped.

Well that's an interesting point. As I simply do not believe there is anything wrong with focusing on what the victim did wrong as long as it is not done in a spiteful way.

Your example there of a slutty girl - I would be of the belief that the people who speak maliciously in a "what did she expect" kind of way are actually just intimidated by the girl expressing her sexuality and in a perverse way want to feel that intimidation was justified. In extreme cases this could even move to "She deserved it dressing like that"

That is obviously highly sinister; and is most certainly "victim blaming" but take someone who genuinely cared about the victim, and simply expressed a "what was she thinking" type statement(and not neccesarily to the victim), perhaps in the hope that others would be more careful. Why are they labelled "victim blamers"?

I would agree with the notion that blaming the victim is some what misused and abused and that it shouldn't be used as an excuse to not give advice to people about how to protect themselves. This is a particular issue with rape where it seems to can't say anything about women protecting themselves and not being foolish without the charge from some groups that you are blaming the victim.

But equally blaming the victim is a real thing, it has real human psychological reasons for its existence.

See I would very much agree with this and your previous post about defence mechanism- I just think "victim blaming" is a poor description for it. As in my previous post I think it very easy to distinguish a clear line between where it is valid to criticise how the victim is putting their safety at risk and where the perpetrators crime begins - and I don't see any crossover or transfer of responsibility.

The scary thing about this common attitude to so called victim blaming is it may very well give people a false sense of security or carelessness. EG a girl thinking "why shouldn't I get as drunk as I want, no one has the right to rape me" Of course they don't but that doesn't mean they won't

seenitall

Human psychology is such (as already touched upon by other posters) that, sadly, warning someone about the clothes they wear will lead to victim-blaming if/when they get raped in those clothes even quicker than if they had never been warned about it. "We told you so - why didn't you listen - there, it's your own fault" (therefore, of course, implying less than full fault on the rapist's part).

Unfortunately, there's a direct link between safety warnings and victim blaming; safety warnings sometimes serve as a sort of a justification for the latter.

Wibbs

Count Duckula wrote: »

By putting any fault at all on the victim, we are taking some away from the perpetrator. The person who committed the crime cannot be "100% responsible", but the victim still be slightly at fault. The perpetrator is either 100% at fault and thus no one else is, or the victim is at fault for being there and thus the person who committed the crime is absolved from some of the blame.

A tad black and white in the oul thinking IMHO. It's not a simple balance sheet. There is another way to look at it. Separate the two. The victim and the perp. Extreme example. Guy A leaves a flash car unlocked and with the key in the glove box in a deprived area. At night. Car gets stolen by Guy B. Guy B is 100% responsible for stealing the car. He still had a choice and it takes nothing away from his crime that it was made easier for him. But Guy A is a grade a moron close to 100% responsible for it being his car that got stolen.

prinz

Count Duckula wrote: »

Why is this so rife in the Western world? Is it because we don't want to address the real problem of the crime taken place, or is Schadenfruede from people who think that the victim "deserved it".There's a common mentality that rape victims sometimes "encourage" it by their dress or demeanour. Why is this?Similarly, someone that walks through a scummy area flashing their iphone about the place or parking up their Mercedes is treated with anything but sympathy when they get robbed. Shouldn't have been so flashy.I was reading a debate on another forum earlier today following Celtic manager Neil Lennon being attacked on the sidelines by an opposing fan, less than a fortnight after he was sent a nail bomb in the post. The recurring theme was that he "brought it upon himself" with his conduct and attitude. How on earth does anyone bring a murder attempt and assault upon themselves?

Through his conduct and attitude and comments Lennon has put himself in the firing line and has added fuel to the fire of the whole situation. Similarly walking through a non dangerous area flashing the cash/the phone or whatever is inviting trouble. The criminal is responsible for the assault/robbery/rape but the victim is responsible for not using any cop on or common sense to protect themselves or their property. The first person responsible for your safety is you. It's like wandering around with your wallet and passport hanging out of a backpocket while travelling. Sure you should be able to do that and not be robbed, but let's face it the world doesn't work that way. There must be an element of expecting the worst/protecting yourself from foreseeable dangers.

irishh_bob

prinz wrote: »

Through his conduct and attitude and comments Lennon has put himself in the firing line and has added fuel to the fire of the whole situation. Similarly walking through a non dangerous area flashing the cash/the phone or whatever is inviting trouble. The criminal is responsible for the assault/robbery/rape but the victim is responsible for not using any cop on or common sense to protect themselves or their property. The first person responsible for your safety is you. It's like wandering around with your wallet and passport hanging out of a backpocket while travelling. Sure you should be able to do that and not be robbed, but let's face it the world doesn't work that way. There must be an element of expecting the worst/protecting yourself from foreseeable dangers.

yeah thats right , neil lennon should have taken his dose of 90 mins of sectarian abuse from ibrox crowd with good humour , taigs afterall need to know thier place in bonny scotland

awaits for the standard reply of celtic are just as bad :rolleyes:

prinz

irishh_bob wrote: »

yeah thats right , neil lennon should have taken his dose of 90 mins of sectarian abuse from ibrox crowd with good humour , taigs afterall need to know thier place in bonny scotland

Lennon knows exactly the kid of response he's going to get. That's not excusing the scumbags targetting him, but you have to accept he has played his part in the rising tensions in Scottish football.

irishh_bob wrote: »

awaits for the standard reply of celtic are just as bad :rolleyes:

The clubs are irrelevant. The dirtbag hooligan element of both clubs are just as bad and it has no place in football or sport in general. The result of knuckle-dragging halfwits.

Bottle_of_Smoke

seenitall wrote: »

Human psychology is such (as already touched upon by other posters) that, sadly, warning someone about the clothes they wear will lead to victim-blaming if/when they get raped in those clothes even quicker than if they had never been warned about it. "We told you so - why didn't you listen - there, it's your own fault" (therefore, of course, implying less than full fault on the rapist's part).

Unfortunately, there's a direct link between safety warnings and victim blaming; safety warnings sometimes serve as a sort of a justification for the latter.

You must realise the logical conclusion of your post is that you cannot give safety advice because that is victim blaming.

How about we drop this clothing issue, because its completely unfounded. Here's a release from the police to help prevent rape, it does give warnings about drunkeness and trusting people but I don't see anything about clothing.

http://www.psni.police.uk/index/updates/updates_campaigns/updates_be_smart.htm

Always leave your drink with someone you trust, don't share drinks and never accept a drink from someone that you don't know or have just met.

Don't get so drunk that you don't know what you're doing.

Plan how you're going to get home. Don't walk home alone or go back with someone you have just met - stay with friends or use a taxi.

Would you go alone into a stranger’s house at 11am in the morning? No? So why do it at 2am drunk? Arrange to meet new acquaintances when sober.

Always make sure that someone knows whereyou are and when you're expected back.

Keep your bag zipped and held close to you.

Don't' wear headphones late at night - they may stop you being able to hear people around you.

These are all good advice and if I ever have daughters I'll suggest them. Rapists are a fact of life and putting girls at risk because you percieve warnings to contribute to lack of reporting rape is ridiculous.

If you go to the link you'll see they also have a section for guys underlining how non-consensual sex is always a crime, and no behaviour excuses it. So the idea that giving safety advice is tantamount to blaming the victim is nonsense

Don't forget, if you didn't get consent before sex - that makes you a rapist. Tough word isn't it. Try explaining that one to your family and friends. But that's what rape means - 'sex without consent'.

Consent has to be explicit. It's not enough to think ' they haven't said no so I'll carry on anyway'. If the person you're with is incapable of making that decision because they are drunk or drugged, then it still makes you a rapist. Never thought it like that before. Be SMART - start thinking like that now and pass the message on.

Sex without consent is rape
Make sure you ask and get a clear response
Alcohol or drugs will affect your judgement
Rape convictions last forever
Take NO for an answer

Count Duckula

Wibbs wrote: »

A tad black and white in the oul thinking IMHO. It's not a simple balance sheet. There is another way to look at it. Separate the two. The victim and the perp. Extreme example. Guy A leaves a flash car unlocked and with the key in the glove box in a deprived area. At night. Car gets stolen by Guy B. Guy B is 100% responsible for stealing the car. He still had a choice and it takes nothing away from his crime that it was made easier for him. But Guy A is a grade a moron close to 100% responsible for it being his car that got stolen.

But can you not see how that might affect the reporting of crimes, or how the victim deals with it? By attributing any blame to the victim you may not only be encouraging them to keep the crime to themselves for fear of the vilification they will receive, but also causing permanent damage and fear as they constantly blame themselves for what happened.

A woman catches a taxi home late at night on her own. She is raped.
What was she thinking getting into that taxi? Everyone knows it's dangerous.

A Catholic walks through a Protestant area in the North. They are brutally assaulted.
They really ought to have known better than to stroll through somewhere dangerous like that.

A women wearing an attractive dress is catcalled and verbally abused by a group of men.
Well if she didn't want her outfit commented on she shouldn't have worn it.

Do you not see how dangerous those attitudes are? They reinforce the behaviour of the perpetrator by indicating that any blame at all lies with the victim. No one blames the lion for attacking its prey; we just warn people to avoid walking through its territory.

Are we really trying to absolve rapists, bigots, abusers and murderers as dangers that are just inevitable?

prinz

Count Duckula wrote: »

Are we really trying to absolve rapists, bigots, abusers and murderers as dangers that are just inevitable?

These dangers are inevitable. That doesn't absolve anyone.

Count Duckula

prinz wrote: »

These dangers are inevitable. That doesn't absolve anyone.

Sure it does.

Rapists gonna rape.

Best just avoid them.

prinz

Count Duckula wrote: »

Sure it does..

No, it doesn't. Murder is going to happen. Mugging is going to happen. Who commits it is another story.

Count Duckula wrote: »

Rapists gonna rape...

Rape is going to happen yes. Does that mean individual rapists are somehow not fully responsible for their actions? No, of course it doesn't.

Count Duckula wrote: »

Best just avoid them.

Best to take reasonable measures to protect yourself. You can't decide how other people act, but you can decide how you act. What you are describing is some sort of idealist utopia where people behave as if crime doesn't exist.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Count Duckula wrote: »

But can you not see how that might affect the reporting of crimes, or how the victim deals with it? By attributing any blame to the victim you may not only be encouraging them to keep the crime to themselves for fear of the vilification they will receive, but also causing permanent damage and fear as they constantly blame themselves for what happened.

A woman catches a taxi home late at night on her own. She is raped.
What was she thinking getting into that taxi? Everyone knows it's dangerous.

A Catholic walks through a Protestant area in the North. They are brutally assaulted.
They really ought to have known better than to stroll through somewhere dangerous like that.

A women wearing an attractive dress is catcalled and verbally abused by a group of men.
Well if she didn't want her outfit commented on she shouldn't have worn it.

Do you not see how dangerous those attitudes are? They reinforce the behaviour of the perpetrator by indicating that any blame at all lies with the victim. No one blames the lion for attacking its prey; we just warn people to avoid walking through its territory.

Are we really trying to absolve rapists, bigots, abusers and murderers as dangers that are just inevitable?

Just to be clear here, are you categorically against people warning others about areas that could be dangerous for sectarian reasons, and advising girls to share taxis?

To make it easy, here's an example. Imagine you lived in Belfast, and had a friend over who was wearing a Celtic jersey. On his way home he'd be passing through a staunchly loyalist area.

Would you

A. Warn him to cover up the jersey out of fear it may cause trouble

B. Not warn him out of fear victims of sectarian abuse might feel in the wrong

See I'd go with A, and I'd have faith humans are intelligent enough to realise that doesn't constitute victim blaming

Bottle_of_Smoke

prinz wrote: »

What you are describing is some sort of idealist utopia where people behave as if crime doesn't exist.

This is the theme I see running through all the "stop blaming victims" arguments. Its as if they think focusing entirely on what criminals shouldn't do will make all of them stop committing crimes.

seenitall

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

This is the theme I see running through all the "stop blaming victims" arguments. Its as if they think focusing entirely on what criminals shouldn't do will make all of them stop committing crimes.

No, not at all, and will you kindly desist from assuming any (illogical and unreasonable, natch :rolleyes:) "theme" that quite clearly isn't there, when your attention is drawn to the fact that victim blaming is a powerful tool of excusing the perpetrator, and that safety warnings are in fact psychologically linked with the victim blaming? (Notice I NEVER said "tantamount", please have decency enough to actually read the posts you are replying to!)

Where did I ever say anything you are inputting to me to have said, (in relation to your "logical" conclusion to my post as well, not mine)? Nowhere. This thread isn't about "making all criminals stop commiting crimes", it is about bringing awareness to the fact that so often people's perceptions and ideas of the crimes that happen are heavily influenced by their prejudice, their fears, their defence mechanisms - and THAT's all about irrationality, and not only that, but it will also have a negative and unjust impact on the victim and sometimes even the sentencing of the perpetrator!

I am not here to suggest that no-one should ever be advised that some area of a new city is (shall we say) troublesome, and even less am I here to offer an answer on how to stop any crime from ever happening again. What are you on about? Nonsense indeed!

I simply want to contribute to the awareness of the human nature, so that anyone reading this thread may think twice about their thought processes when they next come across a crime with a societal whiff of "slutty thing, she asked for it" (for example) about it. This awareness taking hold in people's minds will ultimately mean that safety warnings can be more freely given without second-guessing whether they might mean more strife for eventual victims rather than help, and needless to say, it will improve the fairness within the judicial system. Or am I being way too optimistic altogether?

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

No, not at all, and will you kindly desist from assuming any (illogical and unreasonable, natch :rolleyes:) "theme" that quite clearly isn't there, when your attention is drawn to the fact that victim blaming is a powerful tool of excusing the perpetrator, and that safety warnings are in fact psychologically linked with the victim blaming?

Sorry but Bottle_of_Smoke isn't the only one seeing that theme. Some victims have been stupid, immature and irresponsible. It's only right to highlight that when it occurs to serve as a warning for others.

seenitall wrote: »

This awareness taking hold in people's minds will ultimately mean that safety warnings can be more freely given without second-guessing whether they might mean more strife for eventual victims rather than help, and needless to say, it will improve the fairness within the judicial system. Or am I being way too optimistic altogether?

Who says safety warnings aren't freely given now? Whether someone else chooses to second-guess a safety warning is not fault of the person issuing the warning. It's also important to remember that how we act can affect other people, particularly with opportunist crime like pickpocketing, mugging, theft etc.

Also now that you metion unfairness within the judicial system is there any examples you have?

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

Sorry but Bottle_of_Smoke isn't the only one seeing that theme. Some victims have been stupid, immature and irresponsible. It's only right to highlight that when it occurs to serve as a warning for others.



Who says safety warnings aren't freely given now? Whether someone else chooses to second-guess a safety warning is not fault of the person issuing the warning. It's also important to remember that how we act can affect other people, particularly with opportunist crime like pickpocketing, mugging, theft etc.

Also now that you metion unfairness within the judicial system is there any examples you have?

sorry but whoever sees that particular theme in my posts, sees nothing more than they want to see. I am acutely aware of joining a discussion like this in pragmatic rather than "airy fairy, wishful thinking" terms. I see raising awareness about these issues as very important, and I would never dream of stooping to lowering the discussion with any "nonsense" such as implied.

"Whether someone else chooses to second-guess a safety warning is not fault of the person issuing the warning." - Wires crossed here! As it stands, I see second-guessing safety warnings (i.e. the manner in which they are given, the thought put into them) as a good thing, until such time that it may no longer be needed to second-guess them, as they would be taken at face value and not have the potential to act as excuse for victim blaming. However, I may well be wrong about this, and human nature being what it is, that day may never come.

Examples of unfairness relating to victim blaming in judicial system? I don't have the link, but I believe Bottle of smoke has an interesting one which he provided in the LL forum I think...

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

sorry but whoever sees that particular theme in my posts, sees nothing more than they want to see. I am acutely aware of joining a discussion like this in pragmatic rather than "airy fairy, wishful thinking" terms. I see raising awareness about these issues as very important, and I would never dream of stooping to lowering the discussion with any "nonsense" such as implied....

Important issues such as implying people who advocate a bit of common sense and personal responsibility must also be excusing criminals? Two different issues. Maybe when you separate the two it might make more sense.

Saying that some people must shoulder some of the responsibility for themselves doesn't mean they should also shoulder the responsibility for what someone else has done.

seenitall wrote: »

"Whether someone else chooses to second-guess a safety warning is not fault of the person issuing the warning." - Wires crossed here! As it stands, I see second-guessing safety warnings (i.e. the manner in which they are given, the thought put into them) as a good thing, until such time that it may no longer be needed to second-guess them, as they would be taken at face value and not have the potential to act as excuse for victim blaming. However, I may well be wrong about this, and human nature being what it is, that day may never come.....

As it has already been pointed out things are not black and white. There is no 100% of blame that must be either loaded on the criminal or on the victim or shared. Each are responsible for their own actions and in some circumstances the actions of each coincide and a crime results.

Maybe a small minority of people take the blame from the perpetrator and load it onto the victim. That's wrong. I think most people are just able to disassociate the two and judge the actions of each on their merits. Some people do bring crime 'unto' themselves. It's a fact, and ignoring that to avoid being accused of 'victim blaming' is not going to do anyone any favours.

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

Some people do bring crime 'unto' themselves. It's a fact, and ignoring that to avoid being accused of 'victim blaming' is not going to do anyone any favours.

I was going to answer your post, but changed my mind after getting to its conclusion (as above); suffice it to say that I couldn't disagree with your perception (sorry, "fact") more strongly, and to such an extent in fact, that I really don't know what else to say to you - no common ground whatsoever to be found here, and I am not much good at sustaining interest in a discussion where I perceive it to be so vastly polarised as that.

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

I was going to answer your post, but changed my mind after getting to its conclusion (as above); suffice it to say that I couldn't disagree with your perception (sorry, "fact") more strongly, and to such an extent in fact, that I really don't know what else to say to you - no common ground whatsoever to be found here, and I am not much good at sustaining interest in a discussion where I perceive it to be so vastly polarised as that.

If you don't or can't acknowledge that some people put themselves in positions where the chances of being the victim of crime are greatly increased, through lack of common sense, or through ignorance or through stupidity, then I can only admire at your rose tinted world view.

As a matter of interest, have you ever heard the phrase 'playing with fire' and if so, do you think it's also part of this culture of 'victim blaming' or do you think there is actually something to it?

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

If you don't or can't acknowledge that some people put themselves in positions where the chances of being the victim of crime are greatly increased, through lack of common sense, or through ignorance or through stupidity, then I can only admire at your rose tinted world view.

As a matter of interest, have you ever heard the phrase 'playing with fire' and if so, do you think it's also part of this culture of 'victim blaming' or do you think there is actually something to it?

Er... that's not exactly the same as saying someone brought a crime unto themselves, is it? Or is it?

As for your "playing with fire" question, that's a very general thing to say out of any context whatsover? I'm sure it could be used as a part of the victim blaming phenomenon as often as not, though.

Descending into discussing semantics now... a bad sign...

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

Er... that's not exactly the same as saying someone brought a crime unto themselves, is it? Or is it? ...

To a certain extent yes it is. Again the blame for that doesn't have be deducted from the blame on the perpetrator though. Let's look at an example. We take a young man, maybe has a few too many to drink and goes around slagging of strangers on the street. Being loud, insulting etc. Nine strangers ignore him and walk on by. The tenth takes issue with something our lad says and punches him. Do you think that lad had a role in bringing the crime of being punched on himself?

seenitall wrote: »

As for your "playing with fire" question, that's a very general thing to say out of any context whatsover? I'm sure it could be used as a part of the victim blaming phenomenon as often as not, though....

It's not though. You play with fire and you will get burnt. Hang around with people involved in illegal activities and you may become a victim or a perpetrator. Walk alone down a pitch black alley known for being dodgy for a shortcut, when there's a brightly lit public street available, and you may be fine. You may also be mugged, raped whatever, but you took a very dangerous needless chance, i.e. played with fire.

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

To a certain extent yes it is. Again the blame for that doesn't have be deducted from the blame on the perpetrator though. Let's look at an example. We take a young man, maybe has a few too many to drink and goes around slagging of strangers on the street. Being loud, insulting etc. Nine strangers ignore him and walk on by. The tenth takes issue with something our lad says and punches him. Do you think that lad had a role in bringing the crime of being punched on himself?



It's not though. You play with fire and you will get burnt. Hang around with people involved in illegal activities and you may become a victim or a perpetrator. Walk alone down a pitch black alley known for being dodgy for a shortcut, when there's a brightly lit public street available, and you may be fine. You may also be mugged, raped whatever, but you took a very dangerous needless chance, i.e. played with fire.

The lad had a role in it, for sure, as he is not purely a victim here, he is the perpetrator of verbal abuse upon strangers, which is both an inadvisable and an aggressive course of action. He could probably be sued for "verbal baiting" or something... I see what you are saying with this. There are instances in which people by instigating criminal or peace disturbing behaviour, become partly responsible for being victimised. Those people would be perpetrators as well as victims, though; so I wouldn't see it as victim blaming to point out their behaviour.

Yes, IMO your second paragraph re. "playing with fire and getting burnt" is problematic. I already explained my view in previous posts, I see no need to repeat myself.

dearg lady

I do think it's a very thin line between giving advice and victim blaming, but in fairness people shouldn't be afraid to give advice, for fear of being labelled a 'victim blamer'...just as much as people shoudln't be afraid to report crimes for fear of being blamed...if that makes sense, feel like I'm going in circles...

One thing I think is fair to say is, advice given before the fact, eg don't walk through that area alone tonight is concerned advice. Advice given after the fact can be much more easily construed as victim blaming, eg, you shouldn't have walked throught that area alone last night.

I do think we all need to take responsibility for our own actions, and I say this as soemone who's done some really stupid things in my time. Thankfully, nothing bad has happened, but it's foolish of me to put myself in these situations in the first place.

Chuck Stone

I think the Neil Lennon situation and the reaction to him is a poor example of 'blaming the victim' and comparing it to rape takes imagination.

As a Catholic from the North and manager of Celtic .F.C. he would have accepted the job knowing that there would be some negative consequences, of course the crimes against him are to be condemned, but I suspect it comes as no shock to him.

I doubt that victims of rape and assault have factored in negative consequences when they go about their business.

LeeHoffmann

some people could say that a Muslim woman from a strict Muslim family shouldn't marry a man of another religion because it puts her at greater risk of being murdered by her family. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/05/double-honor-killing-in-india-muslim-mothers-murder-daughters-for-marrying-hindus.html
To what extent do we let realism curtail liberties? dearg lady brings up a relevant point about advice before/after a crime. Personally, I would advise someone I know to hide any behaviour that might make them an easy target, however I wouldn't say 'you should xyz'. Bringing in those kind of normative statements can easily lead to laying blame at a victim's door.

in the above case, I believe that expecting somebody to end their relationship because somebody else might kill them is just asking too much. I can't say those women who were murdered were to blame for engaging in risky behaviour. It's not like they married non-Muslims just to protest and rebel! Similarly, people don't use their flash phones in dangerous areas to show off and mock poorer people; women don't drink and wear 'attractive dresses' on nights out to tempt or taunt sexually aggressive men. These people are just exercising their freedom in a reasonable way. If we take some of these examples further, it just becomes silly. eg - women shouldn't associate with men, leave the house alone, drink alcohol or wear attractive dresses; people shouldn't use expensive phones anywhere but in their homes; Muslim should only marry whoever their parents tell them to. If one of your work mates stole the expensive phone you were boasting about in work, would you think it was your fault - or would you think that you have a reasonable expectation that something like that wouldn't happen in your place of work?

Chuck Stone

prinz wrote: »

We take a young man, maybe has a few too many to drink and goes around slagging of strangers on the street. Being loud, insulting etc. Nine strangers ignore him and walk on by. The tenth takes issue with something our lad says and punches him. Do you think that lad had a role in bringing the crime of being punched on himself?

Not really. Why not walk away like the other 9 people? Slagging and insulting are pretty subjective terms. A punch on the other hand is not subjective - it's a violent act.

What if #10 is a guy who walks around looking for argumentative drunk guys and gets a kick out of assaulting them? Who's fault is it then?

seenitall

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not really. Why not walk away like the other 9 people? Slagging and insulting are pretty subjective terms. A punch on the other hand is not subjective - it's a violent act.

What if #10 is a guy who walks around looking for argumentative drunk guys and gets a kick out of assaulting them? Who's fault is it then?

To be fair, I think there needs to be a distinction made (and usually is) between people going out of their way to insult/bait people into violence, and people with flashy watches/cars in troublesome areas (for example).

(Insults and slagging are affirmed in law to constitute offence, I think? Therefore, not that subjective.)

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

Yes, IMO your second paragraph re. "playing with fire and getting burnt" is problematic. I already explained my view in previous posts, I see no need to repeat myself.

So a girl walks alone down a dark cramped alley where other girls have been raped at night, gets raped, and you don't her actions have had a role to play in getting raped whatsoever?

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

So a girl walks alone down a dark cramped alley where other girls have been raped at night, gets raped, and you don't her actions have had a role to play in getting raped whatsoever?

Oh they had a role in it, as in - she went to a place where she was attacked. They just do not have the kind of role that should invite the "play with fire and get burnt" or "she brought it on herself by going there" comment, because to say that would be victim-blaming IMV; she needn't have been raped if the rapist hadn't raped her - so the rape is his fault 100%, and not any fault of hers (for going there, for example.)

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

Oh they had a role in it, as in - she went to a place where she was attacked. They just do not have the kind of role that should invite the "play with fire and get burnt" or "she brought it on herself by going there" comment, because to say that would be victim-blaming IMV.

OK so you can say they had a role in what happened, you're just not allowed say it or that's victim blaming? I really think you are deliberately misinterpreting what people are saying here tbh. It appears you cannot grasp the basics of separating two people and two sets of actions, and the concept of dealing with each as an individual. All I can still see is any move towards pointing out the errors in judgement of the victim must autmomatically deduct from the responsibility of the perp. It doesn't.

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

she needn't have been raped if the rapist hadn't raped her - so the rape is his fault 100%, and not any fault of hers.

..but being in that lane she knew to be dark and dangerous is her fault. She needn't have been raped if she had gone a safer route. The actual rape isn't her fault, but the events leading up to it possibly are not her 'fault' but her responsibility to protect herself as much as possible... and saying 'you shouldn't have gone into that laneway' is not an attempt to apportion the blame for the actual act of rape between victim and rapist.

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

..but being in that lane she knew to be dark and dangerous is her fault. She needn't have been raped if she had gone a safer route.

^^^^ The above encapsulates the gist of psychological justification for people to indulge in victim-blaming, IMO.

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

and saying 'you shouldn't have gone into that laneway' is not an attempt to apportion the blame for the actual act of rape between victim and rapist.

You may not want to apportion any blame on the victim by saying that, but plenty of people will (and no, not just a "small minority" either - like I said earlier, these views are rife in society, that's why the thread was started in the first place after all).

(Excuse the double post.)

Bottle_of_Smoke

seenitall wrote: »

No, not at all, and will you kindly desist from assuming any (illogical and unreasonable, natch :rolleyes:) "theme" that quite clearly isn't there, when your attention is drawn to the fact that victim blaming is a powerful tool of excusing the perpetrator, and that safety warnings are in fact psychologically linked with the victim blaming? (Notice I NEVER said "tantamount", please have decency enough to actually read the posts you are replying to!)

Where did I ever say anything you are inputting to me to have said, (in relation to your "logical" conclusion to my post as well, not mine)? Nowhere. This thread isn't about "making all criminals stop commiting crimes", it is about bringing awareness to the fact that so often people's perceptions and ideas of the crimes that happen are heavily influenced by their prejudice, their fears, their defence mechanisms - and THAT's all about irrationality, and not only that, but it will also have a negative and unjust impact on the victim and sometimes even the sentencing of the perpetrator!

I am not here to suggest that no-one should ever be advised that some area of a new city is (shall we say) troublesome, and even less am I here to offer an answer on how to stop any crime from ever happening again. What are you on about? Nonsense indeed!

I simply want to contribute to the awareness of the human nature, so that anyone reading this thread may think twice about their thought processes when they next come across a crime with a societal whiff of "slutty thing, she asked for it" (for example) about it. This awareness taking hold in people's minds will ultimately mean that safety warnings can be more freely given without second-guessing whether they might mean more strife for eventual victims rather than help, and needless to say, it will improve the fairness within the judicial system. Or am I being way too optimistic altogether?

I addressed this in my previous post quoting you which you did not respond to any of the points made. and the theme i mentioned referred to many posters not just you.

My main issue with all this is being called a victim blamer for simply giving safety advice such as that in the psni link(which got accused of victim blaming by feminist.ie). When I've said this before people respond by saying "if you hold the victim responsible people won't report rape" which you were suggesting in post number 12 - my point is i do not hold the victim responsible as the rapist is 100% responsible for the rape. That does not mean you cannot advise on avoiding dangerous situations.

as the old saying goes "trust in allah but tie up your camel"

seenitall

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I addressed this in my previous post quoting you which you did not respond to any of the points made. and the theme i mentioned referred to many posters not just you.

My main issue with all this is being called a victim blamer for simply giving safety advice such as that in the psni link(which got accused of victim blaming by feminist.ie). When I've said this before people respond by saying "if you hold the victim responsible people won't report rape" which you were suggesting in post number 12 - my point is i do not hold the victim responsible as the rapist is 100% responsible for the rape. That does not mean you cannot advise on avoiding dangerous situations.

What points made? You didn't make any valid points aside from going on about your future daughters and inventing that I wrote that "safety warnings are tantamount to victim-blaming" - which I most decidely didn't write. When you make any sensible points, I will respond to them.

And there you go again; the bolded bit in your post that supposedly quotes "a suggestion" in my post number 12, does in fact nothing of the sort! What is going on here? Can you not read, or do you just not bother and go about inventing my "suggestions" instead?

Bottle_of_Smoke

seenitall wrote: »

What points made? You didn't make any valid points aside from going on about your future daughters and inventing that I wrote that "safety warnings are tantamount to victim-blaming" - which I most decidely didn't write. When you make any sensible points, I will respond to them.

And there you go again; the bolded bit in your post that supposedly quotes "a suggestion" in my post number 12, does in fact nothing of the sort! What is going on here? Can you not read, or do you just not bother and go about inventing my "suggestions" instead?

what else could you have meant by

Unfortunately, there's a direct link between safety warnings and victim blaming; safety warnings sometimes serve as a sort of a justification for the latter.

So are safety warnings ok or are they victim blaming? do you think that psni campaign is victim blaming?

seenitall

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So are safety warnings ok or are they victim blaming? do you think that psni campaign is victim blaming?

If you can't see the difference between the meaning of "tantamount to" and "having a direct link between" or "being used as a justification for"... really?

OK, it seems I need to spell it out, yet again, that I don't have anything against safety warnings per se, but I see the fact that they are all too easily referenced after the fact to the victim's detriment something worthy of being discussed and talked about. With awareness comes the change.

Once again, just to bury any doubt once and for all: safety warnings are NOT victim-blaming IMO; they can nevertheless provide a convenient and easy justification for victim blaming, and that is why awareness around safety warnings needs to be raised (around the manner and context in which they are applied, for example, and around the manner in which they are retrospectively regarded after a crime has occured). (The above would go for the psni or any other campaign of that nature, it's how it's implemented and what consequences it would have in the society regarding views on victims of crime.)

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

^^^^ The above encapsulates the gist of psychological justification for people to indulge in victim-blaming, IMO.

Righto. I call it common sense and just stating the facts.

seenitall wrote: »

OK, it seems I need to spell it out, yet again, that I don't have anything against safety warnings per se, but I see the fact that they are all too easily referenced after the fact to the victim's detriment something worthy of being discussed and talked about. With awareness comes the change..

What change? Seriously? You are talking about a tiny minority of people, to tackle that you suggest what the vast majority of people no longer give advice or are no longer allowed to point out the basic facts of the case after the act? How do we make safety warnings less 'easy to reference'?

mcmoustache

This all seems simple enough for me. There are certain things that I could do and have the right to do that could land me in trouble.

For example, let's say I had to travel from Drumcondra to Conolly Station. One of the possible routes that I could take involves going through Summerhill. Another involves going down Gardiner St instead but it's a little longer. For the sake of argument let's assume that the NCR and Summerhill are more dangerous areas at night than Gardiner St and Busáras.

If I decided to head down through Summerhill, knowing what I know about its reputation, and ended up getting mugged, I would certainly be blaming myself for putting myself in a dangerous situation for the sake of a shorter walk. I would have to. I would have had a safer choice but decided to take the risk instead.

In so far as I can control my destiny, I was able to decide which route to take. I can't control other people but I am responsible for my own actions. Choosing the Summerhill route with it's added risk would have been my choice. In that sense I would have to take responsibility for my actions.

Regarding the actions of the hypothetical muggers, they would have been just as reprehensible no matter where they were committed. My accepting of responsibility doesn't take any from theirs. It's not a zero sum game here. A scumbag doing scumbag stuff carries the same amount of responsibility in a "nice" area as it does in a scumbag area.

The thing is, I can only decide on my actions and if I take stupid actions I also need to take some responsibility for their consequences. In a perfect world I wouldn't have to but I don't live in such a place.

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

Righto. I call it common sense and just stating the facts.



What change? Seriously? You are talking about a tiny minority of people, to tackle that you suggest what the vast majority of people no longer give advice or are no longer allowed to point out the basic facts of the case after the act? How do we make safety warnings less 'easy to reference'?

Like I said, I don't even know how to respond to your posts anymore. I find your attitude toward issues raised in this thread very blinkered and ill-advised. What is common sense and fact in your view is anything but in mine.

(Your last question doesn't even make sense in reference to what I actually wrote, but I'm done bothering with these "crossed wires" occurrences with you.)

Dudess

With these "Woman walks down a deserted lane and man rapes her" analogies, the hypothetical woman's actions of walking down that lane are always questioned, but I never see people asking what the man was doing down that laneway, what circumstances led to HIM being out and about that night, etc.