Victim blaming

Links234 · 24-09-2010 03:55PM #1

I don't think anything makes my blood boil more than victim blaming. you know like when a woman is sexually assaulted or even raped, and some people might say what was she expecting with the way she was dressed? people who'll say that the victim is partially or even fully responsible for being attacked. that kind of thing makes me foam at the mouth :mad:

krudler · 24-09-2010 04:09PM

Yeah same here, apparently short skirt= raging slut who deserves whats coming to her, its nonsense.

The_Minister · 24-09-2010 04:15PM

I've heard people condemn vicim-blaming more than I've ever seen genuine cases of it.

Nevyn · 24-09-2010 04:17PM

The_Minister wrote: »

I've heard people condemn vicim-blaming more than I've ever seen genuine cases of it.

Lucky you.

Wibbs · 24-09-2010 04:21PM

I agree, but as Ive asked on the subject before(and got some flak for it

:)), is this always the case? In the more truly damaging and emotive crimes my subjective response is exactly the same as yours and most people, but if I try to look at it objectively at times there may be grey areas. In my humble anyway.

OK extreme example and non emotive(ish) crime. A friend meets you one morning and is upset because his expensive car got stolen the previous evening. You naturally feel sympathy and empathy. Then he informs you that he has no alarm and always leaves it unlocked with the keys in the ignition and his laptop on the back seat. How do you feel then? Yes the scum who stole his car are still scum, but his lack of precaution taking means he holds some responsibility, knowing there are scum in the world. Why do you have an alarm on your car and house, or lock your bike when you leave it? After all you should be able to go about living your life unmolested by crime. Sadly because of scum in the world that's not possible.

Though personally I think like you the "way she was dressed" is a crock and zero excuse on the part of the scum. Plus women wearing sweats and runners get assaulted and raped. Old women, women of all shapes and sizes, dolled up to the nines, not a scrap of makeup etc all figure in the stats. As do sober and drunk women etc.

I would still say that keeping your wits about you is a sensible precaution. EG Getting blind drunk and going home with a complete stranger is risky. Hey 9 times outa 10 you'll be fine, but still. Yes he would be entirely to blame for not respecting the woman's dignity and personal space and the sentence for his crime should reflect that, the woman should also be aware of the danger she put herself in IMHO.

OK and this may not make me Mr Popularity, but I think sexual assault/rape should be graded, not unlike murder in the US. Again IMHO there does exist a difference between the extreme of being dragged into a field by a complete stranger and being raped and being wasted drunk and realising in the morning he went further than you would want to compos mentis. They are extremes of course and most rapes from what Ive read are known to the victim and are quite clearly rape.

krudler · 24-09-2010 04:33PM

Thats a fair point, and all it takes is a girl to wake up after a drunken night with a stranger to cry rape and that guy screwed for life. sexual assault cant be condoned in any cases regadless of how provocatively the victim dresses but at the same time they have the responsibility to look after themselves and not go home with anyone then cry rape because they feel they were taken advantage of. its a very grey area no doubt.

Nevyn · 24-09-2010 04:42PM

There already is sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and 3 types of rape on the books.

As for where this thread is heading..../shakes head.

Links234 · 24-09-2010 04:51PM

Wibbs wrote: »

OK extreme example and non emotive(ish) crime. A friend meets you one morning and is upset because his expensive car got stolen the previous evening. You naturally feel sympathy and empathy. Then he informs you that he has no alarm and always leaves it unlocked with the keys in the ignition and his laptop on the back seat. How do you feel then? Yes the scum who stole his car are still scum, but his lack of precaution taking means he holds some responsibility, knowing there are scum in the world. Why do you have an alarm on your car and house, or lock your bike when you leave it? After all you should be able to go about living your life unmolested by crime. Sadly because of scum in the world that's not possible.

oh come on, that's a completely different kinda thing there!
theft of property isn't the same as physical assault, and someone being careless with their property is not the same sort of responsibility as someone who might be sexually assaulted and thought to have "provoked" the attack by how they dress. there's no similarities there

like, lets say a guy gets beaten up for wearing a football shirt, is that his responsibility for having worn something that could have provoked the attack? is he partially, or fully to blame?

krudler · 24-09-2010 04:56PM

Links234 wrote: »

oh come on, that's a completely different kinda thing there!
theft of property isn't the same as physical assault, and someone being careless with their property is not the same sort of responsibility as someone who might be sexually assaulted and thought to have "provoked" the attack by how they dress. there's no similarities there

like, lets say a guy gets beaten up for wearing a football shirt, is that his responsibility for having worn something that could have provoked the attack? is he partially, or fully to blame?

depends where he wears it, you wouldnt walk into a Man U pub in Manchester wearing a Liverpool jersey and not expect a reaction? thats not a like for like comparison of sexual assault either though.

Links234 · 24-09-2010 05:04PM

krudler wrote: »

depends where he wears it, you wouldnt walk into a Man U pub in Manchester wearing a Liverpool jersey and not expect a reaction? thats not a like for like comparison of sexual assault either though.

well I meant if they were just on the street

or another example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sophie_Lancaster

Wibbs · 24-09-2010 05:11PM

Links234 wrote: »

oh come on, that's a completely different kinda thing there!

That's why I said it was an example of a non emotive scenario, to make my point.

theft of property isn't the same as physical assault, and someone being careless with their property is not the same sort of responsibility as someone who might be sexually assaulted and thought to have "provoked" the attack by how they dress. there's no similarities there

Like I said in my post, I don't agree with the "way they dressed" as any sort of defence in rape cases.

like, lets say a guy gets beaten up for wearing a football shirt, is that his responsibility for having worn something that could have provoked the attack? is he partially, or fully to blame?

Yes. IMHO he is. He is not responsible for the attack itself, but he is responsible for being unwise. If a guy walks into a bar on the falls road wasted drunk, wearing a tee shirt with King Billy on the front, with "Ulster says NO" underneath and singing the British national anthem, then the chances of him being assaulted are very high and he is an idiot. Yes those who would assault him are idiots too, but he's in the mix.

Closer to more everyday reality. Guys getting plastered and spouting crap at random strangers, who are then are on the receiving end of a few thumps. Are they not at least partially responsible for this? Highly unlikely they would get into the same situation drunk, so getting their getting wasted is one of the big factors.

Of course one can't always allow for scum, but being aware of this and keeping your wits about you counts for something.

Ectoplasm · 24-09-2010 05:14PM

Wibbs wrote: »

. OK extreme example and non emotive(ish) crime. A friend meets you one morning and is upset because his expensive car got stolen the previous evening. You naturally feel sympathy and empathy. Then he informs you that he has no alarm and always leaves it unlocked with the keys in the ignition and his laptop on the back seat. How do you feel then? Yes the scum who stole his car are still scum, but his lack of precaution taking means he holds some responsibility, knowing there are scum in the world. Why do you have an alarm on your car and house, or lock your bike when you leave it? After all you should be able to go about living your life unmolested by crime. Sadly because of scum in the world that's not possible.

I get what you are saying here but I don't think it's really comparable. In the aftermath of the crime you're describing, the chances are your friend is out his car, which will, most likely be covered by insurance. He or she is not in hospital or concerned about possibly life threatening diseases or being pregnant with a child. It is a thing that has been stolen, not his or her ability to feel safe, to trust other people. Psychologically, the chances are there will be little damage.

If I compare it slightly differently I might make more sense though. Take a man walking home after a night out who is a little bit drunk or otherwise impaired. He's minding his own business but catches the eye of some scumbag(s) who jump him and beat the living daylights out of him. I've heard of cases like this. I've never once considered blaming the victim in this case and I have never heard anyone else do it either. Everyone has the right to walk down the street unmolested.

Wibbs wrote: »

.Though personally I think like you the "way she was dressed" is a crock and zero excuse on the part of the scum. Plus women wearing sweats and runners get assaulted and raped. Old women, women of all shapes and sizes, dolled up to the nines, not a scrap of makeup etc all figure in the stats. As do sober and drunk women etc.

It is a crock (and delighted to hear you think so too

) and also may be a dangerous stereotype because you're right about the fact that keeping your wits about being a sensible precaution.

Wibbs wrote: »

.I would still say that keeping your wits about you is a sensible precaution. EG Getting blind drunk and going home with a complete stranger is risky. Hey 9 times outa 10 you'll be fine, but still. Yes he would be entirely to blame for not respecting the woman's dignity and personal space and the sentence for his crime should reflect that, the woman should also be aware of the danger she put herself in IMHO.

As I said, I actually agree with this. In some ways I wish I didn't, but I am of the better safe than sorry school of thought. I avoid walking down dodgy dark alleys, I let people know where I am going when meeting up with someone for the first time. It's not paranoia and tbh most of the time I don't think about the fact that the world can be dangerous. It's more cautious optimism. I assume I'll be fine but I take steps that will help that be the case.

Wibbs wrote: »

.OK and this may not make me Mr Popularity, but I think sexual assault/rape should be graded, not unlike murder in the US. Again IMHO there does exist a difference between the extreme of being dragged into a field by a complete stranger and being raped and being wasted drunk and realising in the morning he went further than you would want to compos mentis. They are extremes of course and most rapes from what Ive read are known to the victim and are quite clearly rape.

Afaik there already are degrees of assault & rape. What you're alluding to later is more of a grey area for me and is something I know my male friends are very aware of these days. Most of them will not take home a girl who is very obviously drunk for fear of things going wrong the next morning. Tbh though that is a whole other debate.

Victim blaming is really just wrong but it is a reality and it's a reality even in our justice system - and this makes be both furiously angry and incredibly sad.

Links234 · 24-09-2010 05:20PM

Wibbs wrote: »

If a guy walks into a bar on the falls road wasted drunk, wearing a tee shirt with King Billy on the front, with "Ulster says NO" underneath and singing the British national anthem,

Guys getting plastered and spouting crap at random strangers,

You're talking about situations where there's actual provocation, I'm not.

Nervous Wreck · 24-09-2010 05:27PM

The 'had it coming' brigade are generally the ones who would consider doing something similar themselves, I reckon. I'd steer well clear of anyone with such an opinion.

Nervous Wreck · 24-09-2010 05:29PM

Links234 wrote: »

You're talking about situations where there's actual provocation, I'm not.

I think Wibbs is more talking about situations wherein someone doesn't do a good job of looking out for themselves. Obviously, it's never someone's own fault if they were to get assaulted (sexually or otherwise) but appropriate measures can be taken to significantly lessen the chances of it happening (never splitting from your friends when you've had a few drinks, not purposely antagonising fans of an opposing football team etc etc). Think he's just making the point that people should generally take more care of themselves than we sometimes do.

Wibbs · 24-09-2010 05:29PM

EMF2010 wrote: »

If I compare it slightly differently I might make more sense though. Take a man walking home after a night out who is a little bit drunk or otherwise impaired. He's minding his own business but catches the eye of some scumbag(s) who jump him and beat the living daylights out of him. I've heard of cases like this. I've never once considered blaming the victim in this case and I have never heard anyone else do it either. Everyone has the right to walk down the street unmolested.

Yes that's a better example. And yes I do agree we all should have the right to walk down the street unmolested. Sadly laws are required, both to protect the daft and punish the scumbag and like the poor both will always be with us.

As I said, I actually agree with this. In some ways I wish I didn't, but I am of the better safe than sorry school of thought.

Ditto.

I avoid walking down dodgy dark alleys, I let people know where I am going when meeting up with someone for the first time. It's not paranoia and tbh most of the time I don't think about the fact that the world can be dangerous. It's more cautious optimism. I assume I'll be fine but I take steps that will help that be the case.

Exactly. Goes for both men and women, but sad to say way more women are at risk of sexual assault than men. Men would be at more risk of physical assault in general.

Afaik there already are degrees of assault & rape. What you're alluding to later is more of a grey area for me and is something I know my male friends are very aware of these days. Most of them will not take home a girl who is very obviously drunk for fear of things going wrong the next morning. Tbh though that is a whole other debate.

True. TBH I'd be similarly cautious. Plus if they(and you) are that bladdered then what's the point anyway?

Victim blaming is really just wrong but it is a reality and it's a reality even in our justice system - and this makes be both furiously angry and incredibly sad.

I agree. I think I do sometimes look at it sideways as so often I hear people constantly blame the world or others when things go badly. That they are always victims. Yes damn right there are victims of all sorts of crimes who where just minding their own business, but sometimes I do think "what the hell were they thinking?".

Wibbs · 24-09-2010 05:31PM

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I think Wibbs is more talking about situations wherein someone doesn't do a good job of looking out for themselves. Obviously, it's never someone's own fault if they were to get assaulted (sexually or otherwise) but appropriate measures can be taken to significantly lessen the chances of it happening (never splitting from your friends when you've had a few drinks, not purposely antagonising fans of an opposing football team etc etc). Think he's just making the point that people should generally take more care of themselves than we sometimes do.

This basically. That and we all have more control over a lot of situations we think "just happen". Not always daftness either, more often the feeling of "ah it'll never happen to me". Plus at no point have I said nor would condone the criminal not getting the book thrown at them.

krudler · 24-09-2010 05:54PM

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I think Wibbs is more talking about situations wherein someone doesn't do a good job of looking out for themselves. Obviously, it's never someone's own fault if they were to get assaulted (sexually or otherwise) but appropriate measures can be taken to significantly lessen the chances of it happening (never splitting from your friends when you've had a few drinks, not purposely antagonising fans of an opposing football team etc etc). Think he's just making the point that people should generally take more care of themselves than we sometimes do.

+1 on this, its the reason people know to steer clear of certain neighbourhoods or areas at night, should you be allowed to walk anywhere without fear of being attacked? of course, but common sense prevails when theres areas you know you should avoid.

Dudess · 24-09-2010 06:01PM

When I was on holiday in Turkey at 19 years of age, I got so much harassment and sexual obscenities flung my way (I'm noticeably pale - I think that was a lot to do with it :pac:) when I was wearing light summer clothes (and I'm not talking skirts/hot-pants barely covering my arse-cheeks or extremely plunging necklines or thong swimwear kinda territory at all - just run-of-the-mill summery stuff) that I changed my attire to long, floaty tops/trousers/skirts and the hassle died down, if not fully.

I know what Wibbs is saying - of course guys harassing women like that are arseholes, of course the woman has the right to wear whatever she likes, of course she's not responsible if she is harmed... but unfortunately there are people like that, and my covering up wasn't me making the pronouncement that I should be held responsible for their behaviour, moreso me making things more comfortable for myself.

I don't think the message is "Wear that and you'll get the wrong kind of attention", moreso "Don't wear that, then you'll get less of the wrong kind of attention".

metrovelvet · 24-09-2010 06:24PM

While a woman should be able to wear what she likes in this day and age, unfortunately there are some dumbos out there who take it as an invitation, if not a guarantee.

I had this conversation with someone recently about victim complicity. And lets say you are in central park with your wallet wide open. YEs it was wrong that your money was stolen but how dumb can you be? And my friend agreed with me and said something along the lines of women dressing provocatively and and how they have to bear some responsibility for that if they get assaulted.

I was so stunned I actually couldn't argue back.

I can't understand women with enormous breasts who show off a three inch cleavage and then complain about men staring at them. That I think is total ignorance.

But assault no way.

But you cant get drunk and go to bed with someone and then call your regrets in the morning rape. Eh Eh.

However, to get back to the topic. Blaming the victim is a strategy of the abuser so as to escape conviction. It starts by discrediting his or her perceptions, either by claims of insanity or intoxication. I see it on PI all the time.

Wibbs · 24-09-2010 06:50PM

I suppose I'd boil it down to this and if you'll pardon my french, there will always be fcukwits, best to do what you can to avoid any interaction with one.

amacachi · 24-09-2010 07:03PM

Links234 wrote: »

like, lets say a guy gets beaten up for wearing a football shirt, is that his responsibility for having worn something that could have provoked the attack? is he partially, or fully to blame?

If someone walks down the Falls Road in a Rangers Jersey they need committing for their own good.

A mate of mine got 6 shades of ****e knocked out of him last week when he was ****faced. He was minding his own business and 3 guys just went for him. My mate only knows this from what he was told by others who saw what happened because he has no memory of it. Is it his fault? Partly, one thing for sure is that he won't go out alone and get in that state again.

Nevyn · 24-09-2010 07:14PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I suppose I'd boil it down to this and if you'll pardon my french, there will always be fcukwits, best to do what you can to avoid any interaction with one.

But you see you feel into the first trap, most rape and sexual assaults are perpetrated by people know to the victim.

Wibbs · 24-09-2010 09:33PM

Oh I get that and I referred to it in my first post. In the cases where they don't sometimes my take still stands IMHO. Even when they are known to the victim that can cover a lot of ground. How well do they know them? Some creepy neighbour or some sick creep they've met in the pub a couple of times is a different proposition so some sick bastard relative for example.

OK this may get me flamed, but I think enough times it's down to women being afraid to speak out, afraid to scream to the rafters and we need as a society to help women to do this. More we need to teach young women early, very early that they have this in their power to do so.

seenitall · 24-09-2010 09:48PM

Not so easy to scream to the rafters if your perception is that you are fighting for your life against someone who is stronger than you. It's either fight or scream, isn't it?

metrovelvet · 24-09-2010 09:50PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I get that and I referred to it in my first post. In the cases where they don't sometimes my take still stands IMHO. Even when they are known to the victim that can cover a lot of ground. How well do they know them? Some creepy neighbour or some sick creep they've met in the pub a couple of times is a different proposition so some sick bastard relative for example.

OK this may get me flamed, but I think enough times it's down to women being afraid to speak out, afraid to scream to the rafters and we need as a society to help women to do this. More we need to teach young women early, very early that they have this in their power to do so.

Most of the time the victim knows the assailant. The rapist needs opportunity and will probably be trusted enough to be able to get into your home or office or car. Your rapist can be your doctor too. The plumber you have used for years. Your husband. The postman.

Not so easy to scream if a weapon is being used.

RAPE MYTHS

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html

krudler · 24-09-2010 09:55PM

Wibbs wrote: »

OK this may get me flamed, but I think enough times it's down to women being afraid to speak out, afraid to scream to the rafters and we need as a society to help women to do this. More we need to teach young women early, very early that they have this in their power to do so.

"the first thing they teach in rape prevention classes is never cry for help, yell fire. People dont answer to help, they hear fire and they come running"

Logical Fallacy · 24-09-2010 10:09PM

Links234 wrote: »

oh come on, that's a completely different kinda thing there!
theft of property isn't the same as physical assault, and someone being careless with their property is not the same sort of responsibility as someone who might be sexually assaulted and thought to have "provoked" the attack by how they dress. there's no similarities there

like, lets say a guy gets beaten up for wearing a football shirt, is that his responsibility for having worn something that could have provoked the attack? is he partially, or fully to blame?

If he is standing in a known pub for soccer violence based around certain teams and he is wearing the wrong colour jersey then yes. Not an indicator of how i feel about the subject matter, just answering your question.

One of the main things that the majority of self defense courses teach is awareness. How the simple act of being aware can help to keep you safe.

People shouldn't have to live in fear but they should be aware and have their safety as a priority. Simple things like avoiding dark streets, not having your headphones in and your favourite tracks playing while walking around at night, maybe even getting taxis in pairs when you can and things of that nature. Just mild precautionary measures to ensure your safety a little more.

Most rapists, while predators, also seem to be opportunists but the difficulty of dealing with this is compound by the matter of rapists knowing victims and so forth.

I don't think it's a case of looking at individual cases and saying "Oh, she could have been more aware", i think it's a case of people deciding to be a little bit more proactive in their own safety and seeing cases of muggings, assaults and rapes going down across the board.

The simple fact of the matter is that rape will never be stamped out completely, so i absolutely agree that the blame placing game is a dead end and won't help anything. Having the correct resources in place to help victims is a more important thing to me, stiffer punishments for convictions and harsh penalties for people who are found to have reported cases of rape where none existed. There is a lot of room for improvement in the system i think.

Wibbs · 24-09-2010 10:15PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Most of the time the victim knows the assailant. The rapist needs opportunity and will probably be trusted enough to be able to get into your home or office or car. Your rapist can be your doctor too. The plumber you have used for years. Your husband. The postman.

Like I said I get that. I wonder are there any stats that break it down more? How many are relatives, husbands, friends, new boyfriends/dates etc

Not so easy to scream if a weapon is being used.

Oh god yea during, but I meant in the sense of being aware and knowing some git is on the prowl and rather than thinking it's your paranoia actually speaking out. I meant after the fact reporting the sick f... and securing a conviction.

RAPE MYTHS

http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html

Good stats, but if you have kids I wouldnt send them to that university. They must have repeated the same things three times. They need editing and this is coming from me...

Chinafoot · 24-09-2010 10:24PM

Wibbs wrote: »

OK this may get me flamed, but I think enough times it's down to women being afraid to speak out, afraid to scream to the rafters and we need as a society to help women to do this. More we need to teach young women early, very early that they have this in their power to do so.

I'm not going to flame you but I do think that its a pretty ignorant statement, no offence. You can try and "teach" women all you want to scream but until they have someone bigger, stronger and possibly armed on top of them you have no way of knowing if they will actually be able to do it. It doesn't make them weak and I'm quite frankly a little offended at the insinuation. This may sound like a really strange comparison, but I am unbelievably scared of heights and all things rollercoastery...literally terrified. When I experienced a rollercoaster I didn't scream. Instead my fear was so intense that I stopped breathing. I held my breath and squeezed that safety barrier until that horrible experience was over. Thats how I reacted. It might not be the normal reaction, but it was mine. (and before anyone even dares, I am not comparing a rollercoaster ride with rape but rather individual reactions.)

There is absolutely no way of knowing how someone will react to a sexual assault. I remember sitting in an English tutorial and, I can't remember what exactly we were discussing, but it dealt with a rape, and the victim didn't scream. She froze. A woman in the group actually scoffed and said "That's utterly ridiculous. Its completely unbelievable that someone who is being attacked like that wouldn't scream." I was so angry I had to leave the room.

On the issue of victim blaming, well yes I do agree that people need to look after themselves, of course they do. But getting too drunk, being in a bad area, whatever, will not and never will make the victim of a sexual assault at fault for being attacked. Never.

Logical Fallacy · 24-09-2010 10:31PM

Chinafoot wrote: »

On the issue of victim blaming, well yes I do agree that people need to look after themselves, of course they do. But getting too drunk, being in a bad area, whatever, will not and never will make the victim of a sexual assault at fault for being attacked. Never.

Out of interest, if a women was mugged in an area that was known to be a bit unsafe because she was in it at 2am, a little boozed up and such...would we be loath to say she could have avoided the theft of her property by avoiding being in the area if she didn't have to be?

Basically i am wondering if we deal with certain crimes differently, consciously or subconsciously, because of their severity.

Victim blaming

Comments