It’s wrong and “ugly” to make the real world observation that women put themselves at risk by drinking too much because some drunk (or just predatory) men will try to take advantage of them in that condition? If that’s the attitude I think that perspective is getting little too precious about sensibilities if we are trying to keep people from being assaulted. Risks aren’t always going to be weighted equally especially in the case of men and women drinking too much in private environments.
No, I don’t think it’s necessarily ugly to say that women who are drunk are more vulnerable. What’s ugly is saying things like,
and then going on to talk about how young women (only a girl!) should avoid drinking to keep from being victims. So a girl goes to a party and is raped. Who raped her? Were they drunk? Should her assailant also have abstained? Possibly. The article doesn’t address it.
When women are raped, the focus is always on what the woman was doing wrong. Steubenville - what was that underage girl doing drinking at that party? How could she have passed out in front of those underage drinking guys and tempted them so? Doesn’t she know she’s ruined their “promising futures” (CNN) by making herself available to being assaulted and filmed?
Women know they are vulnerable. We do. We really, really, do. Some of us have had to learn it the hard way. Saying that “women shouldn’t drink” is sexist victim blaming because it implies that “women shouldn’t drink, but men still can.” Men who drink are more likely to assault someone, but you know, they can still drink. Of course they can. But someone has to be the responsible one, right?
This is always a complicated issue, but for rape I like to look at the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network’s recommendations for preventing rape on college campuses from 2014.
For reference (PDF): https://rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Task-Force-RAINN-Recommendations.pdf
You really should read the whole thing, but one thing it does mention is that “risk-reduction messaging” has a proven effect on decreasing rapes, and should be an integral (but not the only!) part of rape and sexual assault reduction messaging.* Here’s the relevant section:
Admittedly, they don’t link any statistics or research on this, which I would like to see. However, way down in the appendix they do link to a few examples of “risk reduction” they find good and helpful. Here’s one from Oregon State University: http://fa.oregonstate.edu/publicsafety
Specifically, here’s the sexual assault one: http://fa.oregonstate.edu/publicsafety/campus-safety-information/sexual-assault-resource-guide
A lot of it is probably familiar to most people (esp. women), but I think it’s all relatively good advice. And not all people come into college with the same level of risk education, and are varying degrees of sheltered.
I really think conveying risk mitigation tactics is important; however, the caveat is that this information has to come from a trusted, educated source. The real problem where “commen sense advice” can become victim blaming is how often it comes from the peanut gallery. Internet message boards, (sometimes well-meaning) politicians dodging a question, and so on. Also recall that hindsight is always 20-20.
Further, most people are simply good people. That’s the biggest problem of all. A lot of us have said stupid things in the past because we know (or at least would love to believe) that if we were the police we’d take this 12 year old girl’s rape super seriously. Or that we would never […]. So you get stupid advice like “go to the police” in a hostile conservative town because you simply believe all people are good, and nobody in this small town would shun this girl for having the gall to get raped. Or that of course they’ll go to the ends of the earth to assure someone doesn’t get off the hook just because they’re a star football player. That’s just one example, and loosely based on a dumb tirade I got myself involved in on this very board some years ago (and got rightly taken to task for).
So yes, I think risk aversion messaging is important, and not directly equivalent to victim blaming. Even in the context of rape. However, I think the peanut gallery really needs to refrain from explaining what people “should” have done in the aftermath. That’s very toxic, and quickly can devolve into victim blaming, or at least look a hell of a lot like it, because of the implicit idea that things wouldn’t have gotten worse or even happened if they did or didn’t do a certain thing. If you want to give advice, it needs to come from a place of trust. That’s true of almost all advice, but doubly important in a topic as sensitive as rape.
Footnote:
- One thing RAINN has found is that rapists and sexual assault perpetrators mostly consist of a small number of repeat offenders, so at this time their recommendation is that it’s more or less ineffective to focus their tools on teaching men “not to rape” as the standard rhetoric goes. They’ve found it much more effective to rather convince good men to not stand by silently, and make them aware of the tools for recognizing and getting friends or strangers out of bad situations before they happen, and the channels available to deal with the aftermath quickly should the worst occur.
Somehow a cog slipped here and “women shouldn’t drink too much” suddenly became “women shouldn’t drink” which are two entirely different things. Pointing out that women are asymmetrically more at risk of sexual assault than men if they both drink too much and get drunk is a real world observation. Calling that observation “sexist victim blaming” is kind of meaningless. It’s a factual observation.
The title of the article is “College Women: Stop Getting Drunk.” I feel my point stands. But in case you don’t think so, I’ll elaborate: Why not “College Students: Stop Getting Drunk”? The article focuses heavily on young women abstaining. A drunken man can still rape a sober woman. A drunken man can rape a drunken woman. People frequently assert that a drunken young man is more likely to make an erroneous judgement call on how interested/sober/consenting his partner is. If it’s just good sense for women to keep sober, why shouldn’t men too? Is rape prevention not also a male’s responsibility?
Is there, maybe, something in our culture that asserts that it’s unreasonable to ask a 20 year old college male to stay sober, but that a 20 year old college woman is better equiped to be responsible? If so, do you think this is sexist?
Conversely, men are asymmetrically more at risk of committing sexual assault than women if they both get drunk.
There’s a thought: What if we flip the advice given to women around, to help men avoid becoming rapists? For instance, some of the items on the list quoted by **Jimmy Chitwood **upthread.
If I follow this advice, I’m less likely to rape someone (well, unless my particular group of friends are into gang rape). But, as a man, I find these to be ridiculous impositions on my freedom of movement, and I have no intention of following any of them. I’ll take care of myself, thanks. The problem isn’t me. I’ve never raped anyone. The problem is actual rapists. Fix *that *problem.
So, I don’t particularly have a problem seeing how a woman would react the same way to this advice. Heck, I wouldn’t give, say, my girlfriend or hypothetical daughter this advice, because these are completely unreasonable things to ask of an independent human being in a modern, open society.
Suggesting that it’s reasonable to ask women to go about their lives in this manner, but not men, is just good, old misogyny. No more, no less. I was sort of hoping that we were beyond that.
If two parties are at risk when drunk and one is typically larger, stronger, less prone to be affected by alcohol and potentially views the smaller, weaker, more alcohol sensitive party with strong sexual desire I don’t think it’s sexist to have the warning directed to the more potentially vulnerable party have precedence, and be more emphatic. Sure, objectively there is a social obligation for both women and men to behave appropriately, but drunk people don’t behave appropriately, and fair or not women are at greater risk of sexual assault while drunk than men are.
Women are at much greater risk than men in these drunken scenarios. Recognizing this as a fact and warning women with greater urgency to avoid being drunk is not sexist, it’s simply common sense.
Seeing how men can have their lives ruined if they get accused of rape, I think men need to be warned of the dangers of drinking just as much, if not more, than women do.
So, because we cannot impose or assume the same level of assault threat on men as women in the case of both parties being drunk we have no logical or operational basis to be more emphatic toward women in warning them not to get drunk even if the risk for them in those situations is considerably higher?
Again, try flipping it:
Drunk people don’t behave appropriately, and, fair or not, men are at greater risk than women of committing sexual assault while drunk than women are.
Men are at much greater risk of raping than women in drunken scenarios. Recognizing this as a fact and warning men with greater urgency to avoid being drunk is not sexist, it’s simply common sense.
And, to be honest, now I’m not even sure if I’m being flippant or not. Because, having observed drunk men quite a bit, that actually does make sense to me.
So why aren’t men the targets of special lecturing about how to avoid the danger that constantly threatens their existence? Why is it that women are treated as naive, fragile creatures who need to be schooled on the harsh realities of the world, while men are left to learn about the world all on their own?
I dunno.
I do think that asking women to go about their lives as if they are already victims, and telling them to stay in a bubble, surrounded by friends holding their hands, can’t possibly be a sensible solution.
Having observed bit of drunk social theatre myself over time the real world issue (at least as I saw it play out) is more women getting drunk and being vulnerable, and eager, drinking, but non-drunk men watching and waiting for an opportunity to make their move and take advantage of their inebriated state. I’m not entirely convinced that sloppy male drunks are the main threat for women being taken advantage of vs your basic opportunistic non-drunk horny male.
Drunk or not sexually predatory men will move on drunk women. It’s not fair, it’s not equal, it’s not right, but it’s a fact. It’s a lot more important for women keep their wits about them and not to get drunk with respect to mitigating risk than it is for men. The risk situations are not remotely equivalent. Assuming the position that if we cannot somehow impose entirely equal level of risks for drunk behavior we have no business issuing stronger warnings to women than men is logically absurd.
I’m not sure why you are assuming that men in the real world are not routinely corralled and lectured by their male peers if their drunk behavior gets out of control. People are fired, socially ostracized, and friendships are broken on these rocks all the time. Adult men generally don’t want to be surrounded by drunks starting fights, getting banned from bars, getting DUIs, getting arrested, being accused of assault, and causing accidents and damages.
Real men in the real world don’t live in an “Animal House” universe. Drunks are huge PITA for everyone. People may get a little rope, but if you’re not in a biker gang there are hard limits for how much people will tolerate.
This is probably fair enough.
Maybe what gets my goat about the whole thing has more to do with underlying attitude, rather than statistics or practicalities. Not your attitude in particular, mind. I don’t even read threads carefully enough to take note of which posters are saying what at any one time. I mean in a general sense. I’m much more inclined to prefer empowerment and self-defense classes for women, and a clear a message of “keep your paws to yourself, or we will put in jail” for men. As opposed to telling women that they’re intrinsically vulnerable, so they should walk around inside a ball of cotton, while men are given a pass, since boys will be boys.
I mean, what kind of world are we trying to create here? I guess that’s what it comes down to, in my case.
But see, women aren’t told they should “walk with purpose”. They are told they shouldn’t be there at all–even when the risk is really, really small. So when a woman is raped in a parking garage, and it’s the first assault that’s ever happened there in 60 years, the first thing out of everyone’s mouth is still “why was she there alone?” And even if they answer is something perfectly respectable, like “working late”, there is still the implication that she should have known better, that she took a foolhardy risk. I don’t think that’s a strawman. That’s the kind of thing that the standard “rape prevention handbook” advises women. That’s the advise I was actively given my entire life.
If you tell her she shouldn’t ever go anywhere after dark alone, that she should only go to parties in groups, and stay with them, that she should never ride alone in a car with a man she doesn’t know well, that she should never have a third drink at a party, how is she not going to feel blame when she does one of those (perfectly ordinary) things and it goes wrong? Whatever your intention, how is she not going to be scared to tell you, knowing that you, being human, will have a “but I TOLD YOU NOT TO” reaction, even if you never say it?
No, your “hypothetically” right there suggests that you don’t get it. You think that “hypothetically” women should be able to make those choices, but that only foolish women actually do, because that’s not the world we live in blah blah blah. But not doing those things–really not doing those things–are accepting an incredibly limited existence.
My salary is tied to this incredible weird pay for performance metric that, among other things, pretty much demands that I present at conferences and other venues. To do this, I have had to drive on the interstate three hours entirely after dark by myself and check into a hotel (walking through a deserted parking lot in a city I didn’t know) by myself. I’ve also had to travel across the state with a male colleague, and I even met him in a hotel room to go over a presentation because, frankly, rehearsing a proposal in a lobby is weird and uncomfortable and obnoxious.
These are perfectly normal things that make a huge difference in my earning potential that you think I should “hypothetically” be able to do. And, honestly, I think they were perfectly safe things to do. But the “common sense rape prevention” guidelines women have driven into their heads would see all of that as positively reckless, and as a result, a lot of women I know would have refused to do what I did, to their significant professional detriment. And if lightening had struck and something terrible had happened, whether or not I even should have been there would have been discussed, as if it’s a reasonable and prudent thing for all women to avoid any sort of risk at all.
Men and women are not born yesterday for not thinking the risk possibilities when they get drunk. Maybe others or you are still in normal way thinking even they or you are drunk. However, what about the others in the party.
Unfortunately we do live in a world of limits due to risk. Men have these limits, women have these limits and generally because the risk of sexual assault is considerably higher for women than men women will generally have more constraints imposed on their absolute mobility than men do. You can quite justifiably resent those perceived risks and how they impact your mobility. In fact I agree with you 100% that the clothing choice, night time walking, hotel room talking etc. risks are quite probably hugely overblown in terms of threat assessment.
The contributions these actions make toward getting sexually assaulted are likely quite tiny. The gigantic risk elephant that swamps everything else in terms of sexual assault threat potential is drinking to excess, and emphatic warnings there for women are quite appropriate and necessary.
They are also hugely overblown in terms of blaming the victim in the post-game, which is the point of this thread. As long as women are advised not to do these things by people that appear to be authorities on the subject, then women who are victims while doing these things will be perceived as partially at fault, as having done the equivalent of “walking through a high crime area with hundred dollar bills hanging out of their back pocket”.
I don’t resent rapists for limiting my ( and other women’s) mobility, because they aren’t. My (and other women) find my mobility limited by the “common sense” advice that says I can’t function as a normal adult, and if, in the course of normal adult activities, something terrible happens, it’s on me. Those are the people I resent. I resent the “(hypothetically)” that sends the message that walking into a hotel by myself is foolish risk taking.
Except that “drinking to excess” is defined as “having been drinking when something terrible happened”. Do I think it’s ever a good idea to get passed out drunk? No, of course not. But there’s a huge range there, and I don’t think a woman who has, say, three glasses of wine in rapid succession and then rides out a really nice buzz for a few hours is acting in a terribly risky way–but that’s the range of normal human activity that will, after the fact, be pointed out as a “risk factor” that should have been avoided.
There is a popular conception that many women victims of domestic violence who repeatedly get into fights with their man, get black eyes, stay with the abuser, then eventually leave…will choose another abusive man right away. That the ultimate problem is that these women find men who are violent much more attractive. Perhaps they don’t enjoy being harmed, but they find attractive subtle signals and traits found on violent men.
This is thought to be true.