Powerful Men, Beautiful Women, and Sex

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Actually, this line that I've underlined is proof that it DID in fact happen.

MisterMack at no point said that s/he had been the victim of a sexual assault. The claim in question (emphasis added) is "Is anyone saying that blaming oneself excuses the perpetrator?" Not whether an outside party blaming the victim excuses the perpetrator.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

MisterMack at no point said that s/he had been the victim of a sexual assault. The claim in question (emphasis added) is "Is anyone saying that blaming oneself excuses the perpetrator?" Not whether an outside party blaming the victim excuses the perpetrator.

Do you see the difference?

 

Yes.

My bad.

[iNow]

Seems to need repeating:

23 hours ago, iNow said:

My neighbor went to the grocery store and got robbed. People didn't tell him he should've shopped elsewhere.

My friend went to park and got bit by a dog. People didn't tell him he shouldn't have gone to the park, or make comments like "dogs will be dogs."

My aunt was walking to the subway and got hit by a baseball. People didn't tell her to start wearing a helmet or start taking a different route.

My uncle was at a red stoplight waiting for it to turn green when he got rear-ended by another vehicle that failed to stop. People didn't tell him watch his rearview mirror and pull out of the way when cars approach behind him too quickly.

Yet... the woman gets harassed or assaulted or raped and we start talking about the precautions she should have taken, where she should've been, who she should've texted, etc.

 

Sure, everyone should avoid risk and avoid taking dumb ones. That point is so obvious it doesn't warrant stating explicitly, but why is that point deemed to be such a critical part of the discussion in this context when it's absolutely not deemed that way in essentially every other context or for any other crime? 

Part of the reason this feels so contentious is because women (for some reason) are very much being treated differently than we treat other victims of other situations. It's a systemic issue itself part of what needs changing.

 

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Seems to need repeating:

 

Only if you think bashing your head against a wall will bring a result other than a headache.

Maybe, if enough of us bash in unison. 

[mistermack]

If you subscribe to this fallacy that apportioning blame for recklessness by a victim excuses the perpetrator, then you are obviously of the opinion that victims are regularly excusing their rapists. It's a ludicrous position to take.

John Cuthber is constantly asserting it, and even talks about blame being transferred from the rapist to the victim. As if blame exists in a fixed quantity, and must only ever rest with one individual. Where this idea comes from, I really don't know, but that's the fundamental point of the discussion.

I'm asserting that rapists are evil, and should be given much longer sentences. But I'm also agreeing with an awful lot of victims, who with the gift of hindsight regret behaving carelessly and tempting fate. And I do think it's patronising in the extreme to portray that as some kind of victim syndrome. Especially by people who have never been through such an experience. 

You can fully blame the rapist, AND blame yourself in hindsight, if you want to. The one has no effect on the other. In my opinion. And I'm equally sure that victims would not say that they are excusing rapists when they say that they blame themselves. Not would they agree that they have got it wrong, or are suffering from some sort of syndrome. 

[iNow]

Why the need to focus so much on the victim in this context, but no where else?

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you subscribe to this fallacy that apportioning blame for recklessness by a victim excuses the perpetrator, then you are obviously of the opinion that victims are regularly excusing their rapists. It's a ludicrous position to take.

I don't see how that is obvious at all.

People who have suffered trauma will sometimes blame themselves even when there is no rational reason to do so. It's an irrational response to the trauma. People who have not been traumatized (i.e. everyone here kibitzing) don't have this excuse. I have posted on this a few times now. What part of that conversation is causing difficulty?

[mistermack]

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't see how that is obvious at all.

People who have suffered trauma will sometimes blame themselves even when there is no rational reason to do so. It's an irrational response to the trauma. People who have not been traumatized (i.e. everyone here kibitzing) don't have this excuse. I have posted on this a few times now. What part of that conversation is causing difficulty?

 You telling victims they are being irrational. I'd love to see you try that, to a bunch of them. I find it extremely patronising. And it's not as if it  is a rare occurrence. This is an extremely common response to attacks of all kinds. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I'm asserting that rapists are evil, and should be given much longer sentences.

Which takes a blind hop over the middle part, where much of the opposing assertions are focused, on the prosecution. The length of the sentences isn't as much the issue, it's the investigation through verdict bit of the process that's unbalanced against the victim (male or female).

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

But I'm also agreeing with an awful lot of victims, who with the gift of hindsight regret behaving carelessly and tempting fate.

In this instance, hindsight is hardly handing you a gift if you blame your normal actions on a chance happening of any kind. When does it even remotely make sense to do so? Are you seriously suggesting that, if I blame myself for taking a faster route to work and getting hit by a drunk driver, that it's in any way rational to never take a shortcut again? Isn't that what people are supposed to do with correctly applied hindsight, change bad behavior to increase the probability of a good future? 

This seems like more of the keep-your-head-down-and-pray argument, and I still don't like it.

[Strange]

59 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You telling victims they are being irrational.

They are being human.

59 minutes ago, mistermack said:

And it's not as if it  is a rare occurrence. This is an extremely common response to attacks of all kinds. 

That is what we are trying to explain to you.

Have you ever lost anyone close to you (as in, bereaved)? Because one of the first things one feels in that situation is ... guilt. You know, "I should have spotted the symptoms earlier". Or, "I should have phoned more often". Or, "why didn't I ..."

This is a perfectly normal (not irrational) human reaction. And as someone dying is not (usually) something we can be blamed for, the guilt and self-blame is a subjective feeling that has nothing to do with the objective facts of the situation.

So, again, trying to use this normal human reaction to try and assign some level of blame or responsibility to the victim (even if that doesn't remove any blame from the perpetrator) is just wrong.

[mistermack]

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Are you seriously suggesting that, if I blame myself for taking a faster route to work and getting hit by a drunk driver, that it's in any way rational to never take a shortcut again

A nice sidestep, avoiding the real question. No, I'm talking about when the victim has behaved in a way that MOST people would agree was risky. Why would I or anyone blame myself for what you described?

What about a girl who is in the habit of going out and getting blind drunk, and walking home or begging strangers for a lift? Do you imagine this doesn't happen? It's obvious risky behaviour that I'm talking about. There's loads of it out there.

And Strange, the same goes for you. I'm talking about risky behaviour that is obvious to anyone, not marginal stuff.

Edited January 10, 2018 by mistermack

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

A nice sidestep, avoiding the real question. No, I'm talking about when the victim has behaved in a way that MOST people would agree was risky. Why would I or anyone blame myself for what you described?

What about a girl who is in the habit of going out and getting blind drunk, and walking home or begging strangers for a lift? Do you imagine this doesn't happen? It's obvious risky behaviour that I'm talking about. There's loads of it out there.

And Strange, the same goes for you. I'm not talking about risky behaviour that is obvious to anyone, not marginal stuff.

This is getting a bit silly. You are adding more and more "epicycles" to your argument to try and narrow it down to an extreme (and extremely unusual) example where we are forced to acknowledge that the woman could have behaved better.

However, in the vast majority of cases, the only "dangerous behaviour" the victim engaged in was continuing to be female. I struggle to see why they should either try to avoid that or accept any blame for it.

[mistermack]

No, right from the very beginning, I've made it clear I was talking about behaviour that is clearly risky. It's you lot who have come back with non-risky examples.

Where have I ever criticised women for being female, or even gone an inch in that direction?  There's enough genuinely risky behaviour going on out there to fill a library of threads.

In my early post, I quoted two women on a tv program from a few days ago. They were both raped by a serial rapist. Both were self critical and the police had to really work on them to convince them to go through with the prosecution. One accepted a lift from a stranger, and got attacked, the other did the same, and actually got home ok, but then let him in for a drink of water, and got attacked in her own home. To be honest, I've seen far more risky behaviour than what they did. Mercifully, it doesn't always lead to a disaster.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

 You telling victims they are being irrational. I'd love to see you try that, to a bunch of them. I find it extremely patronising. And it's not as if it  is a rare occurrence. This is an extremely common response to attacks of all kinds. 

Not, it's not rare. Never meant to imply that it was.

Why is saying that it's an irrational response patronizing? (I never advocated for telling victims that they are being irrational) Is it rational to blame yourself when you have good evidence that you were not at fault? The rational thought process is not really involved here.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Where have I ever criticised women for being female, or even gone an inch in that direction? 

I'm not saying you have, but back in the real world (rather than your increasingly bizarre fantasy scenarios) that IS the main risk factor.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

No, right from the very beginning, I've made it clear I was talking about behaviour that is clearly risky. It's you lot who have come back with non-risky examples.

We started with discussion of non-risky behavior, and people have been trying to get the discussion back on track. Why do you keep trying to hijack the discussion?

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

I'm not saying you have, but back in the real world (rather than your increasingly bizarre fantasy scenarios) that IS the main risk factor.

You seem to have led a very sheltered life.

Have you never spent a night with a girl you've just met, who lets you sleep with her, but just wants to "cuddle" ? I have on more than one occasion, and have never got forceful. But it doesn't take much imagination to see that going wrong. That sort of stuff is going on all the time, in bedrooms near you.

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

We started with discussion of non-risky behavior, and people have been trying to get the discussion back on track. Why do you keep trying to hijack the discussion?

You responded to my posts, so what's wrong with me responding to you?

But your post comes across as a bit of a threat, so I'm not going to post again.

[Phi for All]

57 minutes ago, mistermack said:

A nice sidestep, avoiding the real question. No, I'm talking about when the victim has behaved in a way that MOST people would agree was risky.

A nice sidestep, avoiding the real question the rest of us have been discussing. In case you missed it, everyone agrees that intentionally risky behavior is bad. Now it's up to you to find a different assertion to pose with regard to predatory behavior against someone who wasn't being "risky". Please stop using this one, it fits no longer.

[MigL]

This thread was originally about how power over others is used inappropriately, specifically with regards to inappropriate sexual advances.
And since the members of this forum LOVE analogies, I' m going to suggest one more, but not involving sex...

A lot of greedy, powerful corporations exploit cheap labour in third world countries, just as a lot of rich, powerful individuals exploit disadvantaged people.
The companies conspire to keep these third world economies in shambles so that they can maximize their own profits instead of paying equitable wages for labour ( or benefits/pensions/environmental regulations etc. ). The powerful individuals use their power to buy influence, take advantage of the disenfranchised, get elected President of the US, and amass even more power and wealth ( you probably thought I was going to say D Trump, but he's just a clown; the better example is V Putin ). 

If we started a thread discussing how these third world countries or disadvantaged people could better help themselves, the actions they should take, the protection they should demand, the people they should vote for, etc., who here would say that we shouldn't be talking about this, as it implies that, if they have to take some action, then part of the fault is being assigned to them ?

[CharonY]

Context matters, MigL. If the discussion was how women could protect themselves, talking about measures could have been relevant. Although, as far as I can tell, there is no good info out there that could actually prove that women's behaviour (say wearing a revealing clothing vs burqa) has any measurable effects of rape or assault frequency (especially noting that most rapes are happening by acquaintances etc.)

While the topic changes a few times, the call for behavior modulation was associated with posts that indicated that the decision for prosecution itself was influenced by the perception of the woman and their moral status rather than the evidence of the actual assault. As some have conceded, even crimes that happened that may have been due to neglect (e.g. flashing money) should be fully prosecuted. Yet in case of sexual assault it seems not to be the case. I.e. we are not talking about these things in a vacuum, it is specifically that both, the societal as well as the legal system seems to put a part of the onus of the crime on the victim. I.e. a victim that does not conform to morality perceptions effectively enjoys less justice from law enforcement.

I.e. saying that maybe victims should conform to certain social and moral norms (which, again, are wildly arbitrary) does indeed have actual consequences and while it may be perceived as a common sense thing, it does have unintended consequence on how it is perceived by the prosecution. Or put it differently. In a society where these norms do not play a role one would expect that sexual assault would be investigated in a similar frequency as comparable crimes. However, if prosecution thinks that the jury will take these moral evaluations into account, the number will drop. And this is what some of the earlier referenced studies have shown.

[John Cuthber]

Just a  quick question:

If lots of attacks take place in dark alleys, and we say that it's the victim's fault for going down  that alley, how come nobody mentioned that it's the attacker's fault for being in that alley?

Only one person's actions made going down a dark alley into a "risky" choice.

On 1/10/2018 at 5:53 PM, mistermack said:

John Cuthber is constantly asserting it, and even talks about blame being transferred from the rapist to the victim.

What else do phrases like "she was asking for it dressing like that" do?

[Phi for All]

On 1/10/2018 at 6:32 PM, MigL said:

If we started a thread discussing how these third world countries or disadvantaged people could better help themselves, the actions they should take, the protection they should demand, the people they should vote for, etc., who here would say that we shouldn't be talking about this, as it implies that, if they have to take some action, then part of the fault is being assigned to them ?

Here's my take on your analogy. Let's take a third world country with the same basic situation as Puerto Rico (which is treated much like a third world country). The US is willing to deal with you, giving you much needed aid, but you have to play ball with them to get their help. You'll get money and expertise, but you have to buy coal, sugar, and heating oil from the US instead of using wind and solar (which your island has in abundance), your own sugar growers (who are about half the price), and other resources that aren't as harmful to your environment (burning petroleum to generate electricity is not sustainable, and produces about 50% more CO2 than natural gas).

Are any of these problems avoidable by the small country, if the US insists this is the way it has to be? By the argument you and others have used, this country is simply supposed to steer clear of any dealings with the Big Bad Wolf. You would have us focus on ways the small country could avoid being abused by the US, rather than putting more emphasis on the US and it's policies in dealing with small nations. Sure, we all agree the small country should be careful in its negotiations, and avoid any obvious pitfalls. But when the US insists this small country get on its knees and perform as instructed in order to get some favorable deals, with the implication that they'll be frozen out if they don't, why do you guys keep bringing up the fact that the small nation needs to be more careful? Why isn't there an overfocus on the predator?

[MigL]

Interesting take.

But what if we discussed ways smaller countries could stick together to stand up to the 'Big Bad Wolf' ?
Or we discussed ways for them to bring these unfair dealings to light for the rest of the world, such as in a World Court ?
Or we discussed ways for the people of Puerto Rico to be better educated so that they know they have other options ?

In other words why can it not be a two pronged approach; protection for the victim as well as taking down the perpetrator ?
( see, you call it blame, I call it protection )

[Phi for All]

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

In other words why can it not be a two pronged approach; protection for the victim as well as taking down the perpetrator ?
( see, you call it blame, I call it protection )

Because in our real scenario, whenever the male-focused "prong" is mentioned because that's where the majority of the goddamn focus should be, you guys keep mentioning how fucking important it ALSO is for the victims to be more aware about more things they can do to avoid being preyed upon. Many pages of this and we still can't help you understand.

Maybe it's you; can you tell me what percentage of this movement's efforts and resources should be aimed at arming the victims, leaving the rest to disarm the predators? From the frequency with which your argument gets used, it seems like you want the "protective prongs" to be about equal.

[MigL]

NO, obviously not equal.
But they should not be entirely dismissed either.