There is no black and white dichotomy of “well, I’m not outright blaming the victim, so everything I say is fine.” Everything said in this thread is not fine.
First of all, we have no clue exactly how the girl first encountered her attackers (who were not all “boys”, the word you used). Yet the assumption has been that she “chose” to go with them, and “chose” to have sex. There are any number of ways an adult man could manipulate or force an 11 year old girl to do what he wanted; indeed, due to his overwhelming advantage in power, there is probably nothing she could do to stop him. All the while, he can tell her (falsely) that it was consensual, that he likes her, that nobody will believe her, that she will be blamed. She may even believe it.
To focus on the behavior of the victim reinforces the rapist’s manipulations. To create a culture in which blame or guilt are shifted onto the victim, is to create a culture where it is easier for rapists to manipulate their victims.
Now, we also see that there were many witnesses in the area to the actions of the rapists. Yet they did nothing. Afterward, they talk about the victim’s clothes instead of explaining why they did nothing; they are shifting guilt from themselves onto the victim. It is highly probable that one reason they did nothing is that words like “choice” and “relationship” were floating in their brains when they watched an 11 year old girl get raped by adult men. That isn’t good; it suggests that we need to make an effort to avoid using such words or thinking such thoughts about rape victims.
If you were 1% as persuasive as the author of that (excellent) blog, no one would give you any grief on this board. And that’s all I’ve got to say outside the pit.
I’m getting heartily sick to fucking death of saying this, but NOBODY is focussing on the behaviour of the victim herself. No eleven year old child is in any way responsible or to be be blamed for the terrible acts that were perpetrated upon her.
What I (and some others are saying) is that the hell she experienced is a) due to a mob of blokes who we hope are going to jail for the term of their natural lives, and b) a family and community who didn’t really care all that much for the little girl to worry about who her social aquaintances were and what she was doing with them.
It’s always a two-way street. Sure, we need to lock rapists up to prevent them hurting others, (particularly) women. But we also need to teach our children that not every person in the world is trustworthy and looking out for their best interests. In fact, some people really want to harm them. THIS is the message we need to get across, and that it’s safe to tell a family grown-up what has happened so that we, as the responsible adults in their lives, can make sure that nothing bad happens to them.
The poor little tyke in this thread had no such options. She was eleven years old, a sexual plaything for an older boy/man who later decided to share her out with his mates like a plate of pie, and nobody in her family or community noticed what the fuck was going on?
It is inarguable that many have focused on and scrutinized the behavior of the victim.
I’m not saying anyone blamed the victim, but the focus is clear:
We don’t know how the girl first encountered her attackers. Yet the assumption is that she engaged with them voluntarily, that she was trying to use her “female wiles” to get popular, that she was the neighborhood gang ho, and that her actions were like walking around a bad area displaying a bunch of money.
In reality, an adult man has many ways to manipulate or force an 11 year old girl into doing what he wants. Any 11 year old girl, from any family. Psychological manipulation, threats (implied or overt), violence. Meanwhile, he can tell his victim that they are in a “relationship”, that she caused it, that everyone would blame her.
The focus on the girl’s behavior seems to confirm the rapist’s manipulation. The victim does feel she is being blamed, does have assumptions made about her, does have her behavior scrutinized, is in fact assumed to have been willing. This empowers rapists everywhere.
And yet, most of that scrutiny has been of the form of “where were her parents and community”, not of her actions as self-motivated. Analysis/scrutiny is not blame, and I get an undercurrent of what bengangmo was saying more than anything–I can’t teach 150 million men, so what (if anything) can I teach my daughter?
That is… exactly backwards. If a person chooses not to become a rapist, there is nothing to prevent. Rape is not a fucking insentient, natural disaster whose ill effects can be warded off by the right combination of warning sirens and earthworks. Rapes occur because people choose to rape. One prevents rape by causing them not to make that choice.
The very first result in Google Scholar for “Rwanda genocide gender” is this article (Warning! PDF!). It’s a little flakey in analysis and undersourced(ish), but good enough for the Dope. It notes:
IOW, your comment is untrue and, in context, extraordinarily offensive. Unless I’m getting whooshed. But I don’t think I am.
I’d be lying if I said that wasn’t my first concern–and my priorities (in terms of whose motivations I was going to focus on analyzing) would be different if I was trying to make sure a little boy didn’t grow up to be a rapist.
What’s the point in posting this?
Do I have any more capability of teaching 150 girls than I do to teach 150 million boys?
What do I, as a parent, have the most influence over? Isn’t to teach my girl to keep herself safe, or to teach my son to treat ladies with respect?
Both are within my capability, are my responsibility and what any decent parent will do.
What I can also do is look at those in my immediate environment and try to influence them - just like the how I got on my nephew’s case about racist attitudes, like how if you know an 11 year old is “associating” (I really don’t know what word to use here that won’t bring wrath down upon me) with 19 year olds you might want to take a closer look at the situation.
IF people are talking about your 11 year old in the same manner of how the town’s folk are talking about this 11 year old should you have a talk to her. (note here: I don’t know if what was said is an accurate representation or the town trying to demonise the kid excuse the rapist - if its the latter then fuck them with a rusty pitchfork).
In my world an 11 year old dressed in “come fuck me clothes” is not an invitation to rape, is not a justification for others to sexualise her, doesn’t excuse bad behaviour or comments and does not mean she asked for it.
What it is though, is a damn fucking great big neon sign that something is wrong. That somebody is teaching her that a woman’s worth is only connected to her sexuality, or that somebody is exposing her to sexually inappropriate motivations and content for her age. It’s a sign that somebody is NOT looking out for her.
It’s also sad that what started as comments that perhaps this girl had a less than appropriate upbringing has turned the entire focus of this thread onto the victim, where it should have been on the perpetrators and the community that “enabled” this to happen. It would have been much more productive to have spent this entire discussion on what and why the rapists were wrong instead of trying to get the point across that those around her have done this girl a disservice.
I do have a question though. Is there any indication that this group of monsters groomed and conditioned her because they were pedophiles or because they saw here as an easy way to get their jollies?
Is there a difference? If you have sex with a child this age are you, by definition, a pedophile?
I guess what I am trying to say - the acts by themselves alone are nasty and grotesque enough. The perpetrators deserve and will be punished severly (although not serverly enough). I am wondering if the inclusion of the “pedophile grooming” part is an accurate reflection, or if it is more accurate to say that these pustules took advantage of her because they could? Were they targeting her because she was an easy mark or because she was young?
To me there is a difference and it does matter - it doesn’t help anyone to bandy about accusations and claims that are inaccurate. It obfuscates the matter.
I think that at least some of the perps were pedophiles. The guy who was her “boyfriend” was definitely a pedo. Come on, men, can you honestly say that you’re sexually aroused by an 11 year old? I don’t care how much makeup she has on, or how she’s dressed, she’s still an infant. Some of the perps might have sex with adult women as well as children, and are willing to have sex with a piece of liver, if it’s available…but I’d think that most of the perps like having sex with kids.
If this victim has gone through puberty and any of the men involved aren’t typically attracted to pre-pubescent children, then no, they are not technically ‘pedophiles’ which by definition is sexual attraction/orientation fixated on pre-pubescent children. Men who are sexually fixated on children just at/past the age of puberty are hebophiles; men who are sexually fixated on teenagers (minors a few years past the age of puberty) are ephebophiles. Any offense against a child/minor, no matter their level of physical sexual maturity, falls under the umbrella of child sexual abuse and rape, but is not necessarily ‘pedophilia’.
There’s been plenty of research on the men who sexually abuse/assault children, and of course they are not monolithic. From wiki:
I assume with so many offenders in this case, there are some of every type.
I bet you really don’t want that. Every reporter on every story has the ability to come away with vastly more bits of information than can fit in the news item. There is always a selection of which facts to report and which to leave out. The inclusion of any particular fact in the story is always a statement by the journalist that it is relevant.
Selecting facts that are relevant, yes. Selecting facts to fit the desired perspective, no. And that’s what miss elizabeth was talking about (at least I think so); possibly leaving out what would be otherwise relevant information because it doesn’t present the right attitude or because somebody would object to it or take it wrong. That’s something that reporters should be very watchful about, and news agencies even more so.
No need to try and prevent smoking, drug use, excessive alcohol consumption, or STD’s by that line of reasoning, since people choose to do those things. There is nothing to prevent.