What exactly are the lessons the victim should learn from this and how exactly could she avoid this?
Don’t go to bars to listen to bands?
Don’t wear a skirt?
How about pants? Are they ok? Is there some means to measure whether they are too tight or not?
Don’t be a woman?
Only go to bars without drunk off duty cops? How do I verify that?
Being a woman, I really want to know the answers to these questions before I go to a bar to listen to music so I can be safe from assault.
Horseshit. You’re spreading responsibility for one mans actions to the person he acted on.
I know in my life no automotive accident will ever be all my fault, if only other cars, dogs, and street signs weren’t in front of my car disaster would never have happened.
Gropers, apparently.
More seriously, I don’t think that judge belongs in a courtroom.
This right here. The victim was not walking down a dark alley in an area where lots of prostitutes display their wares, flashing her hoo-ha for everyone to see. She was at a bar, listening to a band.
If some asshole stuck his fingers in your vulva, would you be happy to hear the judge say that maybe you shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and the then-cop who did it wouldn’t get any jail time? Because gosh, maybe you shouldn’t have been standing there and possessing female genitals.
Er, except if you take the logic to an extreme then that shouldn’t matter either. She could dress up like a prostitute in front of you and make various movementes (but not gestures) to that effect and still it wouldn’t be right to think of her as such.
Actually I don’t see how it would be acceptable to touch her there either if she wasn’t make it clear to you what she was there for. The main reason I am pointing it out to you is so you understand just how HUMAN the way of thinking is that while you are criticising it you are unintentionally displaying it by saying women can’t act like prostitues in a distinguishable way - which actually they should also be able to do as well.
So for fuck’s sake stop complaining about people who are acting in good faith to try to help women. Of course when one THINKS about it women should be allowed to dress up however they like and do more or less whatever they like but I promise you that most people giving advice otherwise are just not thinking too far, they are NOT victim blaming and they have the best of motives usually. Go pick on some rapists please.
#1: I provided the example as a wildly near-impossible situation in which giving advice on how maybe she shouldn’t have gone there might possibly be useful, in the situation that perhaps the victim in question was airheaded enough to not get it at that point. Translation: Not damned likely.
#2: The judge wasn’t fucking helping that woman at all, as her assailant got off with probation and 4 days served. So fuck that patronizing bullshit “advice” about gosh, maybe she shouldn’t have dared go see a band play if she didn’t want a chance of someone sticking their fingers in her genitals. The judge isn’t being human, she’s being stupid as hell if she thinks that makes a damned difference here, and should do the population of Arizona a favor and retire.
:eek:
PLEASE tell me that went into the court reporter’s record.
Stipulated.
When is an appropriate time to bring up “things [one] can do to reduce [one’s] chances of victimization”?
Thursday night Self-Defense classes at the YWCA, and no other time? Is that too restrictive? Is it also condescending and unnecessary? C’mon, give a starting point; I’m sure we can work out a bright line, or at least a pale gray zone dividing “appropriate” and “inappropriate.”*
*I’ll further stipulate that “a thread Pitting a victim-blaming judge” is firmly in the “inappropriate” field, on the other side of that zone.
Speaking as a woman, I personally think we hear it often enough already.
Anytime.
It is certainly reasonable to tell people the world is a dangerous place and they would be wise to take reasonable measures to help ensure their safety.
That is just common sense.
But suggesting someone who doesn’t take those measures or, as mentioned earlier, in a very human fashion makes a mistake in no way absolves their attacker.
Working to minimize your chances of being victimized is good policy for you. It is a worthwhile endeavor. That said no matter how dumb you act in no way makes an assault “more ok”.
A woman should be able to walk down the street buck-naked at 3a in the worst part of town and not be assaulted. The reality is she is seriously tempting fate and being dumb but that does not make an attack on her somehow “less bad”.
I have tried and I cannot parse this.
I haven’t seen anyone here argue that the vic was acting imprudently.
That said, I (and others) argue that prudence is a good thing. And criminals should be processed under the legal system regardless. No conflict there.
In general, the appropriate time to give someone advice of any kind is when they ask you for it. Unasked for advice, particularly unasked for advice about what a person should have done in the past, is rarely welcome or helpful.
On the specific topic of things women can reduce their chances of being sexually assaulted, I’ll add that unless one is actually some sort of expert on the subject then one’s advice is likely to be at best useless and at worst dangerous.
There was a chain email going around several years back with advice about how women could avoid being raped, and it included such gems as not wearing overalls. No, really. It claimed that a rapist could cut through the straps with a pair of scissors, leaving the victim largely exposed. But I’ve never heard of any rape where this happened, overalls are typically made of heavy denim that wouldn’t be easy to cut, slicing through the victim’s overalls seems like a lot more work than yanking down or pulling up a pair of pants or a skirt or even just unfastening the overalls the normal way, and a rapist armed with a pair of scissors could threaten or attack a victim with them to force her to undress regardless of what she was wearing. I very much doubt that this advice about overalls helped make anyone safer, and it probably caused unnecessary worry about wearing overalls and maybe even a false sense of security in women who didn’t wear overalls.
The definition of human, I think, includes being able to see the irony in that.
He’s saying this particular thread isn’t the best place to have the debate. I think it’ll suffice and that this conversation is useful.
It depends on how the matter is framed. In one sense, advice can be given to someone to reduce the likelihood of being a victim, which if everyone followed, would sharply reduce or eliminate certain crimes. In one sense, especially after the fact, the only effect it has is diminishing the responsibility of a person committing a crime. For instance, saying “there has been a pattern of rapes around this area. The perpetrator (or perpetrators) targets women in your age bracket between these hours” can be quite helpful. Saying “the silly bint went out after 3am, she was practically begging for it”, is supremely unhelpful. In both scenarios, people are trying to reclaim a sense of agency, in the latter, one is affirming a belief in a just world (by the way, it’s by no means only attractive young women getting raped).
Yeah, the authors were really gr-
Uhm, nevermind, carry on.
Death of Rats, you may have been thinking about this post.
I didn’t have in mind the context of “advice,” per se. Just general discussion, the way I thought Cat Whisperer was trying to do (and getting her head bitten off for her trouble).
Here’s the beginning of the list of when it’s inappropriate- at the offender’s sentencing hearing. Even in a case where the victim acted imprudently ( and so far as I can tell, this one didn’t). I cannot even imagine a judge sentencing someone convicted of robbery saying to the victim “If you hadn’t fallen asleep on the train with your iPhone visible, this never would have happened”
Almost correct; not so much a debate as a conversation on the topic. I base that judgement on my observation of how not-open-to-having-the-discussion so many of the responses have been since Cat Whisperer mentioned it.
She was still acting in good faith. Yes what she said is wrong but it’s not something that’s intuitively obvious and it’s unfair to slam her for it.
Also, judges often give unsolicited advice and comments and it can quite often be misreported by the media so I would want to see the context of what she said. Over here at the moment there’s a tabloid shit-storm about a judge who ostensibly said something like “You have to be pretty brave to be a burglar, I wouldn’t have the balls to do it myself” while giving a burglar a non-sentence. However if you look at the text surrounding it it was perfectly fine and made sense in context.
This is not intentioanl victim blaming.
How about NOT when we’re discussing an actual case of sexual assault, so that we avoid the appearance of attempting to shift, even slightly, the focus from the perpetrator’s actions to the victim’s actions?
It’s completely and utterly irrelevant in this context to throw in “hey, you know, women can reduce their chances of being victimized!” when the victim was at a bar with a friend, watching a band.
It’s, of course, irrelevant even if the woman had been actually doing something that possible did increase her vulnerability (as many people have already pointed out).
Any mention of decreasing a woman’s vulnerability when it takes place in the context of a discussion about an actual crime is nothing but an attempt to shift the attention and focus from the perpetrator’s guilt, whether that is a deliberate intention or not.
Yes. I stipulated that.