Slut Shaming

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Kimstu

Except that in actual practice, all these discussions seem to have a “rather than” instead of “in addition to” bias. People pay lip service to the idea that it’s also important to stress the responsibility of rapists not to rape, but what they actually seem to care about and want to talk about is the importance of stressing the responsibility of women to take anti-rape precautions.

Sorry, but you can’t just throw that out without being challenged on it.

I’ve seen no-one try to blame the victim here. The fact that no-one stresses the responsibility of the rapist is BECAUSE IT IS SOOOOOOO FUCKING OBVIOUS. They should be locked up and society should do its best to prevent such behaviours in the first place.

Happy? feel free to insert that now after every single reference to possible protective strategies by the victims.

I think we all know that rapist are going to rape, that is the shitty world we live in and so if the situation is as bad as painted by some on this thread then protective strategies are massively important until such time as the magic unicorns make the bad men go away.

[Shodan]

@Kimstu

Strawman, as usual. Nobody is actually saying that “we can never tell women how to reduce their risk” of being victims of sexual assault “because that’s slut shaming”.

What we’re saying is that constantly framing the discussion of sexual assault to emphasize the responsibility of women to take constant hypervigilant precautions to reduce their risk is a form of slut shaming.

It’s always kind of entertaining to see someone say “no one is actually saying that” and follow up by saying it.

You are the one trying to frame the discussion such that any mention of anything other than “men shouldn’t rape” is slut shaming.
Like you did here.

What we’re saying is that it’s hella sexist to react to the problem of high risk of rape by focusing on such precautions as the responsibility of the potential victims, rather than by focusing on the responsibility of the potential rapists to refrain from raping people.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kimstu]

@Novelty_Bobble

I’ve seen no-one try to blame the victim here.

I agree that nobody here is actually saying “When women get raped, it’s their fault for not having taken sufficient precautions” or anything like it.

My point is that what people unthinkingly accept as “natural” or “reasonable” or “sensible” “precautions” is significantly skewed by a societal legacy of slut-shaming.

[QUOTE=Novelty Bobble]
The fact that no-one stresses the responsibility of the rapist is BECAUSE IT IS SOOOOOOO FUCKING OBVIOUS. […]

I think we all know that rapist are going to rape, that is the shitty world we live in […]
[/QUOTE]

And yet when it comes to other forms of crime, as in my “driver shaming” examples above, nobody seems to consider it appropriate to focus the discussion on “possible protective strategies by the victim”, even though it is also “SOOOOOOO FUCKING OBVIOUS” that the criminal is the one who’s really responsible.

Ask yourself why it’s generally presented as “reasonable” and “sensible and necessary” and “common sense precaution” to advise women always to avoid walking alone at night, wearing skimpy clothing to a bar, getting drunk at a party, etc… While at the same time, nobody would dream of similarly advising drivers always to slow down at green lights in case a drunk driver is running a red light from a cross street, always to stay off the freeway at rush hour to avoid road-ragey drivers, etc.

There are lots of ways to severely restrict, modify and surveil your ordinary activities to reduce your risks of becoming a victim of all sorts of crimes. You can choose to never take your hand off your wallet when you’re outside your own home as a “protective strategy” against pickpockets, or never drive near a bar at night as a “protective strategy” against drunk drivers, or never get a credit card as a “protective strategy” against identity theft, etc.

But society in general isn’t constantly telling you that those kinds of drastic behavior modifications are just “common sense precautions” to protect against crimes. When it comes to sexual assault against women, though, suddenly it’s regarded as perfectly reasonable to declare that vast swathes of women’s everyday lives should be restricted or monitored as a “protective strategy”. What they wear, when they go outside, whom they speak to, what they say, what they eat or drink, and so on. Not just in response to a specific identified crisis situation, but all the time.

@Shodan

You are the one trying to frame the discussion such that any mention of anything other than “men shouldn’t rape” is slut shaming.
Like you did here.

@Kimstu

What we’re saying is that it’s hella sexist to react to the problem of high risk of rape by focusing on such precautions as the responsibility of the potential victims, rather than by focusing on the responsibility of the potential rapists to refrain from raping people.

Strawman, again. “Any mention of” != “focusing on”.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Jimmy_Chitwood

Not close to what I said.

However, since you asked so nicely for my response on the matter: wouldn’t place any bets against you.

Regards.

That one’s earning you a warning, Jimmy. Do not imply - even in a sideways comment - that another poster is a rapist.

[Malthus]

@Kimstu

And yet when it comes to other forms of crime, as in my “driver shaming” examples above, nobody seems to consider it appropriate to focus the discussion on “possible protective strategies by the victim”, even though it is also “SOOOOOOO FUCKING OBVIOUS” that the criminal is the one who’s really responsible.

This isn’t a good example for you.

Have you heard of “Defensive Driving Techniques”? They are taught to people for exactly that reason: to focus on the potential victim changing their driving behaviors, so they can avoid becoming an actual victim (of bad drivers doing illegal stuff).

Example of defensive driving:

Avoid Bad Drivers on the Road

Even if you’re a safe driver, others on the road may not be. Other drivers may be impaired, have road rage, or just aren’t skilled at driving safely for one reason or another. You’ll need to be on the alert to avoid a collision with them.

•Give reckless drivers a wide berth: If you’ve noticed someone speeding, making lots of lane changes, or otherwise acting erratically, just stay out of their way. Move over, slow down, or change lanes – whatever you need to do to stay away from them. Even if they don’t hit you directly, you might end up in an accident if you’re nearby.

•Move over for tailgaters: Tailgaters can really be a nuisance, and they might make you feel like you need to fight back. Don’t. “The safest way to get rid of a tailgater is to pull over to the side and let them pass,” recommends Staver. “There’s no use inciting someone who is on your bumper by accelerating or slowing down quickly – that’s likely to cause an accident. Be calm, signal that you are changing lanes or pulling over, and let the person pass.”

Guide to Defensive Driving

[Kimstu]

@Malthus

This isn’t a good example for you.

Indeed it is. You appear to have missed the point about asymmetric comparisons between specific defensive measures in response to a specific crisis situation and drastic behavior modifications that are supposed to apply to major portions of your everyday life.

To wit:

@Malthus

Example of defensive driving:

Give reckless drivers a wide berth: If you’ve noticed someone speeding, making lots of lane changes, or otherwise acting erratically, just stay out of their way. […]

Move over for tailgaters […]

In other words, in a specific transitory crisis situation where you’ve noticed another driver’s suspicious behavior, apply these specific immediate defensive techniques to reduce the risk and end the situation.

That is emphatically not analogous to the sort of drastic and burdensome restrictions that I was talking about, such as “Never drive near a bar at night” or “Always drive with someone else in your car to help alert you to suspicious behavior by other drivers” or “Stay off crowded commuter routes to avoid road-rage incidents” or “Always slow down before going through a green light to make sure nobody’s running a red light from the side”.

That level of draconian restrictive curtailment of normal activities is what’s being recommended to women. “Never walk alone at night”, “Never wear suggestive clothing”, “Never get drunk at a party”, “Never take your eyes off your drink”, etc., are not specific immediate responses to specific crisis situations. They’re expectations for women to take the responsibility for severely constraining their own legal normal activities on a permanent basis to reduce the risk of harm from other people’s criminal acts.

[Malthus]

@Kimstu

Indeed it is. You appear to have missed the point about asymmetric comparisons between specific defensive measures in response to a specific crisis situation and drastic behavior modifications that are supposed to apply to major portions of your everyday life.

To wit:

In other words, in a specific transitory crisis situation where you’ve noticed another driver’s suspicious behavior, apply these specific immediate defensive techniques to reduce the risk and end the situation.

That is emphatically not analogous to the sort of drastic and burdensome restrictions that I was talking about, such as “Never drive near a bar at night” or “Always drive with someone else in your car to help alert you to suspicious behavior by other drivers” or “Stay off crowded commuter routes to avoid road-rage incidents” or “Always slow down before going through a green light to make sure nobody’s running a red light from the side”.

That level of draconian restrictive curtailment of normal activities is what’s being recommended to women. “Never walk alone at night”, “Never wear suggestive clothing”, “Never get drunk at a party”, “Never take your eyes off your drink”, etc., are not specific immediate responses to specific crisis situations. They’re expectations for women to take the responsibility for severely constraining their own legal normal activities on a permanent basis to reduce the risk of harm from other people’s criminal acts.

Again, that is simply not the case. Read the link.

The headings are as follows, in total:

• Be Aware of Your Surroundings

• Never Drive Impaired

• Avoid Bad Drivers on the Road

• Be a Safe, Courteous Driver

Several of those, in fact the majority, are not “specific defensive measures in response to a specific crisis situation[s]”, but basic behavior modifications one is expected to undertake at all times.

You could transition those over to ‘safety advice for women to avoid sexual assault’, with only minor modifications.

Would that then be “slut shaming”? If so, why? If not, why not?

[even_sven]

@Malthus

This isn’t a good example for you.

Have you heard of “Defensive Driving Techniques”? They are taught to people for exactly that reason: to focus on the potential victim changing their driving behaviors, so they can avoid becoming an actual victim (of bad drivers doing illegal stuff).

Example of defensive driving:

Guide to Defensive Driving — Defensive Driving Tips to Keep You Safe

But the “defensive driving/existing while female” advice being given is along the lines of:

1. Lots of drunks are out on Friday and Saturday nights. You should reschedule your social events to only fall on the week days.
2. Small cars are more likely to be damaged in a crash. Only buy SUVs.
3. Most crashes happen on the interstate. Only take surface streets.
4. Drive in a convoy whenever you can.
5. Before moving to a neighborhood, look up car accident statistics.
6. Is it really worth the risk to drive? You can have lots of fun in your neighborhood.

It’s not practical. It’s not helpful. I’ve been in a half-dozen situations today where I could have been raped. It’s not practical to avoid being alone with men.

[clairobscur]

@Kimstu

Like I said, the type and extent of precautions that you think are “realistic” and “reasonable” to take against a certain risk reflect the type of society you live in.

We are in agreement.

If I told you that when you leave your home you should not only lock your door but have an armed guard with attack dogs on round-the-clock duty to protect it, you would probably be appalled at the idea of such extreme measures being “reasonable precautions”.

Indeed, I woulkd be appalled at the state of society. But I wouldn’t be appalled that you warned me about the situation, and I wouldn’t blame you for warning me, at the contrary.

If you lived in a society where people of your racial identity needed armed guards with attack dogs to have a reasonable expectation of protecting their property, while people of other races only had to lock their doors, you would probably be pretty pissed off at the blatant injustice of that discrepancy.

Yes, but I still wouldn’t shoot the messenger for telling me about the situation and adising me about what level of precaution is reasonable in this context.

If somebody who was advising you to get the armed guards and attack dogs, because of your racial vulnerability to housebreaking, just blithely accepted it as normal and unremarkable that a different-race person wouldn’t need to take such precautions, you might even be a bit annoyed at this person’s apparent indifference to injustice.

Who tells you that this person is indifferent? Why are you making such an assumption? We had a previous poster who mentioned her nieces. You think she’s indifferent wrt niece-rape?

Also, why are racial issues introduced in this debate?

Another asymmetric comparison between specific precautions to take in identified specific circumstances, and the constant restrictions placed on women’s ordinary everyday behavior.

Yes, when you encounter a drunk or road-ragey driver on the road, you should absolutely use defensive measures to protect your safety for the few seconds or minutes that you’re near them. Just as when a woman actually encounters someone trying to sexually assault her, she should take all the recommended defensive measures to protect herself.

But suppose you were constantly being expected to take “routine precautions” like these?

If it was necessary because drivers in this place are absolutely terrible, once again I wouldn’t blame the person who warns me that drivers are absolutely terrible in this area.

Would you say “Yup, better to be safe than sorry, it’s a pity that this is the way things are but this is just a matter of taking sensible precautions!”?

Or would you be more inclined to react with “Why the fuck should I have to be constantly and drastically modifying my behavior to avoid the possible consequences of other people’s criminal acts? If drunk and road-ragey drivers are such a huge danger, why aren’t the police cracking down on them? Why should I have to avoid so much of ordinary driving in my everyday life just so criminals won’t harm me?”?

I could say that, but it still wouldn’t change the reality of the situation, and it still wouldn’t make the person who informed me of this situation guilty of anything.

And again, remember that these precautions are being presented as specific to your own group identity in a supposedly equal and free society. Members of other identity groups aren’t being targeted by drunk and road-ragey drivers anywhere near as much as you are, and you’re being told it’s your responsibility to compensate for that with draconian restrictions on your own everyday behavior.

Doesn’t change anything. I might be extremely unhappy about it, but it’s still not the fault of the person who warns me, and he still didn’t do anything wrong, at the contrary.

You very clearly keep shooting the messenger.

[Kimstu]

@Malthus

Again, that is simply not the case. Read the link.

I did, and it is the case. See below.

@Malthus

The headings are as follows, in total:

• Be Aware of Your Surroundings

• Never Drive Impaired

• Avoid Bad Drivers on the Road

• Be a Safe, Courteous Driver

Several of those, in fact the majority, are not “specific defensive measures in response to a specific crisis situation[s]”, but basic behavior modifications one is expected to undertake at all times.

No, those are not behavior modifications that severely restrict and curtail one’s normal legal activities.

“Be Aware of Your Surroundings”: The existing fundamental norm for driver activity. Kind of like telling women “Have your eyes open most of the time when you’re awake”. Not a significant far-reaching restrictive curtailment of normal legal activities.

“Never Drive Impaired”: I.e., don’t break the fucking law. Not a significant far-reaching restrictive curtailment of normal legal activities, as if that needed pointing out. :rolleyes:

“Avoid Bad Drivers on the Road”: Those are the specific short-term defensive-driving safety measures we addressed in the earlier posts. Not a significant far-reaching restrictive curtailment of normal legal activities.

“Be a Safe, Courteous Driver”: Again, that’s the existing fundamental norm for driver activity. Kind of like telling women “Do your best to be a good person”. Not a significant far-reaching restrictive curtailment of normal legal activities.

[QUOTE=Malthus]

You could transition those over to ‘safety advice for women to avoid sexual assault’, with only minor modifications.

[/quote]

No, as my response and the previous examples from even sven and myself make abundantly clear, you could not.

Seriously, try taking a closer look at those hypothetical “precautions” such as “Never drive near a bar at night” and “Never drive alone” and “Avoid road-rage incidents by staying off the freeway” and “Always drive a large SUV-type vehicle”, etc., and then explain how you imagine that those severe restrictions are the same thing as general fundamental norms such as “Be aware” and “Be courteous”.

When women are told “Never go out alone at night” and “Never take your eyes off your drink” and “Never get drunk at a party” and “Never be alone with a man”, etc., those aren’t just general maxims of success at life. Those are recommendations to severely restrict and abridge and curtail your ordinary, normal, legal activities of life. Because that apparently is considered a reasonable “precaution” that women are responsible for taking to cut down the chances that somebody will rape them.

[Kimstu]

@clairobscur

I might be extremely unhappy about it, but it’s still not the fault of the person who warns me, and he still didn’t do anything wrong, at the contrary.

You very clearly keep shooting the messenger.

Sheesh. It is kind of mindboggling how serenely so many people accept that that kind of draconian restriction on a woman’s life is just a “common sense precaution”.

Do you always slow down before going through a green light in case somebody might be running a red light from the side?

Do you always stay off the freeway whenever traffic is heavy?

Do you always make sure to reach your destination before dark?

Do you always make sure to drive with a passenger to alert you to traffic hazards?
If not, why are you being so cavalierly irresponsible about your own safety? It’s just common sense to follow these precautions to reduce your risk of being a victim!

If you object to the view that these precautions are necessary and reasonable, you are very clearly just shooting the messenger!

[clairobscur]

@Kimstu

Sheesh. It is kind of mindboggling how serenely so many people accept that that kind of draconian restriction on a woman’s life is just a “common sense precaution”.

First I never said it was common sense precaution, I was atalking about people who do.

Second, you don’t have to take the situation serenely. But if the situation is bad, it’s still not the fault of the people who warn you about it.

Do you always slow down before going through a green light in case somebody might be running a red light from the side?

Do you always stay off the freeway whenever traffic is heavy?

Do you always make sure to reach your destination before dark?

Do you always make sure to drive with a passenger to alert you to traffic hazards?

Listen, you’re saying the same thing over and over again. With analogies, you’re trying to demonstrate that the situation is really, really, really bad, and that women have to take really, really, really extreme precautions.

But that’s not the issue! Regardless how bad the situation is,** it’s still not the fucking fault of the person who warns you!**

If not, why are you being so cavalierly irresponsible about your own safety? It’s just common sense to follow these precautions to reduce your risk of being a victim!

If these precautions were useless, I would be cavalier. If I judged they were warranted, I would follow them because I’d rather not die in a car accident. I could be pissed that road safety is that bad, but it still wouldn’t be the fault of the person who warns me about the situation and give me advices about how to minimize the risk!

If you object to the view that these precautions are necessary and reasonable, you are very clearly just shooting the messenger

No. Either I would judge that the “messenger” is paranoid and I wouldn’t follow his advice, or I would judge that his fears are reasonable, and I would follow his advice, or partially follow it, or whatever.

But I wouldn’t attack the messenger for telling me that I should take these precautions, because it’s not his damn fault if I have to.

I get your point, you know. Everybody in this thread does. Your point is “we shouldn’t be in a society where such precautions are necessary and reasonable, and people should be appalled that in fact we are”. That’s great, but it’s irrelevant to the argument, that is about whether the person who says that we are in such a society and that women should act accordingly is guilty of something or not.

[Kimstu]

@clairobscur

But if the situation is bad, it’s still not the fault of the people who warn you about it.

Nobody here, except the “What slut shaming?” crowd constructing strawmen, is saying that merely warning somebody about a danger is bad or blameworthy in itself.

[QUOTE=clairobscur]
[…] whether the person who says that we are in such a society and that women should act accordingly is guilty of something or not.
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: So what is the exact level of “accordingly” on which women “should act”? Is it appropriate to advise women that they just shouldn’t ever leave the house? Should never talk to a man? Should always wear concealing garments so that men can’t see their face or figure?

If such “precautions” can actually reduce women’s risk of being raped, then why should anybody object to women being given that advice?

The problem isn’t that people recognize the danger of sexual assault and warn women that it exists. The problem is that many people construct their view of what constitutes “reasonable”, “sensible”, “routine” “precautions” against sexual assault on the basis of sexist assumptions about the acceptability of controlling women’s behavior, rather than on a realistic assessment of risk levels and tradeoffs between risk avoidance and autonomy.
To repeat: I’m not claiming that anybody here is deliberately trying to slut-shame women by advising them about precautions to take against rape. I’m saying that many people, including some of the posters here, are unthinkingly taking their expectations of what constitutes “reasonable” “normal” “obvious” precautions against rape, and women’s responsibility for them, right out of society’s traditional slut-shaming playbook.

[Ambivalid]

Kimstu, what do you believe, specifically, should take the place of this sexist advice-giving?

[Kimstu]

@Ambivalid

Kimstu, what do you believe, specifically, should take the place of this sexist advice-giving?

:dubious: I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “this sexist advice-giving”: I’ve already stated repeatedly that I don’t think anyone here is deliberately being sexist or slut-shaming by advocating what they consider “sensible and necessary precautions” to women to reduce their risk of sexual assault.

If somebody wants to advocate such precautions without unintentionally perpetuating gratuitously sexist assumptions, I guess I’d recommend considering the following questions:

Are your proposed precautions actually appropriate and advisable for the given situation? Giving people inappropriate advice, because you haven’t bothered to find out what the realistic risks and tradeoffs actually are, just comes across as controlling and patronizing. Imagine what you’d think, for example, of someone who counseled a non-Muslim woman in a typical Western city to reduce her chances of sexual harassment by always wearing a burqa in public.

Does the person you’re seeking to advise already have a reasonable awareness of the risks? Lecturing people about issues they’re already familiar with seldom goes over well. How would you feel if, say, you’d had your driver’s license for five years or more, and your parents when you visited them were still reminding you to fasten your seatbelt and use your mirrors? Would you think “Oh, it’s good that they’re reminding me about taking these sensible and reasonable precautions”, or would you be more likely to fume over their still treating you like a clueless teenager?

Are you also directing some advice toward actually fixing the problem, instead of merely emphasizing the responsibility of potential victims to watch out for it? Have you talked to the young people in your circle (by no means only the young men, although men are admittedly much more likely to commit such acts) about the unacceptability of harassing or assaulting people and the importance of consent for all sexual activity? Have you made it clear to them that nobody owes them any form of sexual gratification, and that they’re not entitled to shame or denigrate other people for not complying with their sexual wishes? If you have friends or relatives or co-workers who exhibit sexist or potentially predatory behavior, have you called them out on it?
With all that said, if you still feel concerned that certain women you know seem genuinely unaware of realistic risks of sexual assault and unfamiliar with the widely recommended “defensive precautions”, why not try the approach that I recommended a couple of pages ago when I first started posting in this thread?

@Kimstu

That is, start the discussion by acknowledging that the real responsibility is on potential rapists to not rape people, rather than on potential rape victims to not get raped. Recognize that it’s unfair to be pressuring these young women about their behavior when they’re totally innocent of wrongdoing, rather than pressuring rapists to stop committing and attempting criminal acts.

Once you get that fundamental acknowledgement out there in the open, you may have a better shot at reconciling them, for their own protection, to the unjust burden of pre-emptively defending themselves against other people’s criminal behavior.

[Malthus]

@even_sven

But the “defensive driving/existing while female” advice being given is along the lines of:

1. Lots of drunks are out on Friday and Saturday nights. You should reschedule your social events to only fall on the week days.
2. Small cars are more likely to be damaged in a crash. Only buy SUVs.
3. Most crashes happen on the interstate. Only take surface streets.
4. Drive in a convoy whenever you can.
5. Before moving to a neighborhood, look up car accident statistics.
6. Is it really worth the risk to drive? You can have lots of fun in your neighborhood.

It’s not practical. It’s not helpful. I’ve been in a half-dozen situations today where I could have been raped. It’s not practical to avoid being alone with men.

Yes, over-protective “advice” of that sort is unpractical and unhelpful.

But that doesn’t mean all defensive driving advice is “unpractical and unhelpful”, as a category, if it suggests that the potential victim modify their behavior so as to avoid becoming an actual victim. Which appears to be the argument.

[Malthus]

@Kimstu

I did, and it is the case. See below.
No, those are not behavior modifications that severely restrict and curtail one’s normal legal activities.

I dunno about “severely restrict and curtail” (with emphasis). Seems to me that exercising “situational awareness” (one of the subheadings, as you will recall, of “defensive driving”) could easily cause one to restrict one’s perfectly legal activities because, in that particular situation, it isn’t “safe” to carry out those perfectly legal activities.

Let’s take just one of the bits of advice you take issue with:

“Never get drunk at a party”

I would say as a generality this is bad advice. Some parties it is perfectly safe to get drunk at, and it is dumb paranoia to claim a sweeping rule of “never get drunk at a party”.

However, that said, it strikes me as perfectly sensible advice for anyone (man or woman alike) to exercise “situational awareness” and only “get drunk at a party” if you know and trust the crowd there are basically decent folks.

Getting drunk makes you vulnerable to bad people, who may take the opportunity to do you harm in various ways - sexual assault and robbery being the two most common. So, while it is obviously completely legal to get drunk under dubious circumstances, and being told not to do it is indeed “curtailing one’s legal activities”, it strikes me as good advice (not only for women, but for men as well).

In short, while some advice given is stupid or unhelpful, not all such advice is; some is pretty sensible. Such as exercising “situational awareness” and avoiding intoxication under dubious circumstances.

[ZPG_Zealot]

@even_sven

It’s not practical. It’s not helpful. I’ve been in a half-dozen situations today where I could have been raped. It’s not practical to avoid being alone with men.

Yes and no, on it not being practical to avoid being alone with men. Never being alone with men I don’t trust has always been the most highly desirable circumstances in life for me and on the practical level of traveling, working, socializing, etc., I have always found it relatively easy to arrange for this state of affairs provided male entitlement is kept in check. The only impractical aspect to avoiding being alone with men IS THE ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY OF TOO MANY MEN. Too many of them literally cannot stand the thought that a woman should not want and should not have to expose herself to the possibilities of victimization. This mentality has to change so that women can take reasonable necessary safety precautions. Until then men shouldn’t be surprised that they are assumed to be predators and rapists until proven otherwise.