What’s the point of having a “general discussion” of “things [one] can do to reduce [one’s] chances of victimization” if one has no special knowledge of the topic and doesn’t intend for anything said to be taken as advice? Sure, people spout off about all kinds of things on the Internet, but since safety tips from reputable organizations are easy to find (here’s RAINN on Avoiding Dangerous Situations) I don’t see that there’s much for a layperson to discuss…unless one is looking to play blame the victim.
“Blaming the victim” is one of the most useless and stupid phrases in existence.
Situation one: a woman engages in vaguely risky behavior, and is sexually assaulted. During the trial, somehow the fact that the woman was engaging in said behavior is brought up (although it is clearly irrelevant to the attacker’s guilt), and for some bizarre reason, it influences his sentencing.
Situation two: a woman engages in vaguely risky behavior, and is sexually assaulted. During the trial, the attacker is sentenced to the maximum penalty allowable, as it’s clear to all reasonable people that his culpability is in no way diminished by the fact that the woman was engaging in vaguely risky behavior. Later on, people on a message board are discussing the topic, and one of them says “gosh, she probably shouldn’t have engaged in (vaguely risky behavior)”, intending that as useful advice to other women.
Both of these are “blaming the victim”, but situation one is TERRIBLE. Situation two is basically utterly harmless. And yet there’s a lot of conflation of the two going on here.
How about if we change it to “things [one] can do to reduce the amount of victimization that happens at all, to anyone”?
I again ask what were the supposed lessons to be learned by the victim?
The victim in question? Nothing so far as I know.* Most victims? Plenty, insofar as human beings are culpable. The preceding is consistent with the entirety of Master Blaster’s posts in this thread.
Separately, I’ve made plenty of boneheaded mistakes in my life. More are in my future. Also, I have a habit of acting nonoptimally. I’m always looking to improve my game though, and constructive suggestions are welcome. Speaking for myself. I do not believe that risk assessment is a straightforward exercise.
ETA:
- Well, not strictly true. But we haven’t really discussed situational awareness in depth, and frankly that’s a rather high bar to master. And I don’t know a lot about it anyway, at a deep level. Not part of my core skill set.
That there are risks involved in choosing to go places where rowdy strangers drink alcohol.
If you’re a woman these risks can mean sexual assault. If you’re a man they mean you get the shit beat out of you. I’ve seen some truly horrendous, life-altering wounds inflicted on men in bars, and the fact that the victims had every right to be there is scant consolation, I’m sure, as they go through the rest of their lives missing an eye, or an ear, or with an eight-inch scar across their face.
In other words, lots of bad shit can happen in bars no matter what your sex, and given that women in general are less capable of defending themselves than even the men who get the crap knocked out of themselves, I can see how someone like this judge might feel that a little extra admonishment in light of what she likely regarded as heedless behavior on the victim’s part might be a good idea. Just because a person has the right to do something it doesn’t necessarily mean they should, and my guess is that the judge’s comment was intended more as a word to the wise for the future than an attempt to blame the victim.
Ok so what are the “plenty of lessons” that I as a female human being should learn from this. Details please. And “strictly” speaking what should the victim have learned about situational awareness?
So going to a bar with a friend to listen to music is “heedless*” behavior in your humble opinion? Thanks for that, please go back to practicing with your toilet paper tube.
*Showing a reckless lack of care or attention.
Now that you mention it, I wonder if the Sandusky jury engaged in a similar thought experiment in arriving at the same conclusion I did, namely that the evidence did not support a charge of rape in the shower room incident. You might recall that was one of only three charges Sandusky was acquitted of.
And yes, I don’t care if a band is playing or not, if you go to a bar you assume a certain increased risk of harm no matter what your sex.
Yes, because admonishing the VICTIM at a sentencing hearing is within the purview of a judge, and an appropriate part of a sentencing hearing.
Listen, buster, I’ve got the right to go to a bar with a friend and listen to a local band. And I’ve got the right to have someone who sexually assaults me sentenced without having to listen to a tsk-tsk victim-shaming handslap from the person who’s supposed to be doing the sentencing.
Do you ever actually read the posts that you make? Are you seriously suggesting that because bad shit can happen in (some) bars, I should never go to any bar ever, and if I do, I deserve to be ADMONISHED for that behavior?
I don’t even know why I’m bothering to responding to you, Mr. Paper Towel Tube. You’re scum, you’ve always been scum, and you’re always going to be scum.
I can imagine a context in which the judge’s comments are appropriate. This isn’t it, and the sentence is pitiful as well.
Folks, it looks like we’ve descended into the quantum level of minutiae here. The meta level facts are:
- Groping anyone’s genitalia without their consent is wrong.
- The judge was wrong to place any onus of responsibility on the victim.
I’m fairly sure that everyone agree’s with these statements?
I guess I’m not communicating too well. Roughly speaking, there’s nothing to be learned from this. Colloquially speaking, there’s nothing to be learned from this. Most mistakes can be learned from. This is not an example of a mistake where there’s a lot to be learned from. Other mistakes are like that, but not this one. In fact, in terms of risk assessment and decision theory I would not characterize the incident as a mistake. It was a crime. In some cases crimes and mistakes can overlap, but not in this example. Of course we could speak of minutia. But I’m not qualified to talk about that. As far as I am Master Blaster is concerned there is nothing to be learned from this incident. It’s a woman standing in a bar who is approached from behind.
Minutia. I’m not qualified to talk about that.
Yes, I would say any more minute and we would be breaking the laws of physics. And yeah, so far we have unanimous opinion on your points.
Yes, you do.
Not only is your characterization of the judges words merely an opinion, but I think you’d have difficulty proving that this particular right exists.
No.
I wouldn’t say you “deserve” to be admonished for it, but I also don’t think an admonishment would be out of line if it were to occur. Or, let me put it this way: if I were standing outside a bar with blood streaming down my face after having my head kicked in and an attending police officer were to point out that had I not been there in the first place my injuries would not have occurred, I would be much more inclined to chastisedly nod my head in agreement than to jump on my soapbox and screech about my right to be there.
It’s because you’re a hotheaded idiot who can’t help herself. Seriously.
Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that vrtually every position I took in the Paterno thread was either borne out during testimony or substantiated by jury verdict. However, toward the end of that thread I determined that sometimes you just have to let idiots be idiots and I pretty much resolved to stop arguing about it. And in fact, I resolved to pretty much stop arguing on this board altogether in favor of simply making my point and moving on.
But since so many of you insist on bringing up at every opportunity, perhaps a separate thread in the Pit where we can discuss all the ways that testimony during the trial, and the trial’s outcome itself, support most the things I was saying in that thread. Perhaps getting it all out in the open would put an end to the endless cavalcade of snide remarks from you and your ilk who still like to pretend they hold the moral high ground on the issue. So, whaddya think? You wanna duke it out? Or would you rather just knock it off and drop the silly insults?
Perhaps you are not reading too well either. I was not the person who stated that there were “plenty of lessons” to be learned from this. I was the person asking what specifically were those lessons. It was BM who posted:
I still await the answer to my question as to what lessons are to be learned and how the entire situation could have been avoided by the victim.
Further more a real actual woman in a bar was groped from behind her back. No laws of physics were broken. You may live in a different plane of existence than I do but in my plane a woman being assaulted is not MINUTIA.
She is pretty useless as a judge now.
‘Yes, Your honour, I stabbed that random stranger on the street on a whim. But as You know, she shouldn’t been there, her kids know their way home from that kindergarten…’
So what the judge is going to say to that?
You should have said ‘So are Your pants.’ and then give him a knee-treatment.
What will the band play? Marilyn Manson? Expect groping. Celine Dion? Expect a gentle touch on the cheek.
I’ve always wondered, what female judges wear under those robes…
( And btw what the heck was JFK doing in Dallas anyway? He had it coming. )
It’s a useful way of reminding people the world is an unjust place. For instance, I was watching a Jerry Springer episode with Gwar with two friends (don’t ask). A mother on the show pointed out her daughter was raped at one of the concerts. My friend said “well, it’s pretty much her fault if she went to the show”. He quickly became aware that such sentiments should not be expressed in polite society. Hopefully, if he goes on to have children, he will not inform them that raped women are sluts. Even slight attenuations of similar beliefs lead to systemic change over generations.
Kinda like getting into a shower with one’s coach, eh?
I’m a little unclear on the point you’re trying to make, but… in your example your friend was being an insensitive asshole. But the logical procession is not your friend saying something, it is established that your friend was “blaming the victim”, ergo your friend was being an insensitive asshole. Because your friend could instead (in response to a somewhat dissimilar situation) have said something like “wow, it’s really tragic that such a terrible thing happened, and I hope they punish the perpetrators to the full extent of the law… but it certainly seems true to me that the victim took several actions which greatly increased the risk she ran…”. And that would also be “blaming the victim”, but not necessarily at all being an insensitive asshole (depending on the context) (and bearing in mind that the victim is just someone seen on TV, not a person there in the room).
My point being, you can’t just look at something someone says, decide that it’s “blaming the victim”, and then just stride away confidently, knowing that you have fully and properly categorized and judged that person and what they said. It’s way too broad and meaningless a term.
While I’m sure the victim-blamers of the world appreciate your attempts to defend them, I don’t see what this has to do with the sexual assault case in the OP, gamerunknown’s anecdote, or anything else in this thread. If you’d like to discuss whether it is ever appropriate to blame the victim of a violent crime then maybe you should start a new thread.
I’m sure you’d love another platform to endlessly discuss various man/boy sex situations, but it grosses the rest of us out, you disgusting pervert.