Men aren’t told to moderate their drinking so they won’t get into a bar fight, or assaulted in a back alley, or wreck their cars and kill a bus full of schoolchildren on the way home.
It’s the double standard I object to.
To go back to this for a minute.
When my husband or I inform our son about the realities of being a minority, we are doing our job as parents. When a minority man does it - while our son is young - its a gesture of concern. When my white friend who thinks he understands the issues minorities face in our society because he is a sensitive liberal guy - its patronizing to him and an insult to our ability to parent our own child. I’M not comfortable telling my son these realities because THEY AREN’T MINE, however, I must because that is part of what I took on when we adopted a minority child.
When I talk to my daughter about taking care of herself - rape avoidance - likewise, I am doing my job as a parent. When another mature women does it, when she is young, it is a gesture of concern. When a man does it, its patronizing. And when a woman does it to me at my age, its REALLY patronizing. I’m well past the age where I need to be told not to get drunk around strange men - and if I haven’t learned now, frankly I’m not going to.
On the internet - EVERYONE is your audience, and so a mature woman saying “don’t get drunk” is being patronizing to me and helpful to my daughter (well, maybe not yet, but in a few years) at the same time, and I can forgive that. But men, well, its hard not to come off as slut shaming, mansplaining and/or patronizing - no matter how well intentioned you are. Not impossible, I’ve seen it done well once or twice, but most of the time, men come off as asses.
I wonder how much of this is just perception, fueled by the gross asymmetry in how we perceive men and women (to wit: If a man gets raped by a woman, he’s a weakling and shunned; if a woman gets raped, she’s a victim) and how various crimes are defined. For example, rape is commonly defined as penetration (by the CDC, for example) and women don’t really ‘penetrate’ in that way.
Quick quiz for everyone:
What is the number one cause of rape?
- Short skirts
- Alcohol
- Machismo culture
- Rapists
Specific advice about neighborhoods may be helpful, but the real answer is basic street smarts that apply wherever you are and whoever you are. Understand what kind of neighborhood you are in and use your knowledge of demographics, trends, local economic conditions, the conditions of buildings, what people in the neighborhood seem to be doing (e.g. are there large numbers of people just hanging out on the street at 2pm on Wednesday with nothing to do?), etc. to estimate the risk level and figure out how to reduce the chance you will be victimized. Does it relieve offenders of responsibility? No, they still are the ones who are legally responsible because they made the final choice to commit a crime.
I have traveled alone as a Gringo in Latin America, including driving late at night through both cities and rural areas, and basic street smarts seemed to work well enough - I was not victimized by AK-47 wielding drug smugglers, Sandinistas or bored teens looking for a thrill, and came back with a great experience and positive outlook on the area.
What if an individual male were a pretty 18 year old man and went to a gay club with the ass cut out of a pair of jeans, a black g-string and a t-shirt saying “I LOVE COCK” and spent the evening getting drunk off his face talking about how he loves blow jobs.
Then started making out with a gay man (for a joke), went back to his place and got so drunk he wasn’t able to make an informed decision then would anyone have any sympathy if the gay man got the wrong idea and had sex with his luscious 18 year old body instead of making tea and respecting him as was first thought ?
Because apparently they were just going back to the gay mans house to talk.
Do you think that in the above scenario the individual may have contributed to their own “rape” ?
I’m torn on the issue. On the one hand it makes perfect sense. On the other, reading the ridiculous arguments from the feminist man hating mafia would be too tiring.
I’ll go ahead and just say common sense and basic safety precautions are always important.
I’d say that not drinking heavily is important for both sexes in situations where you might end up doing sex with someone but more so important to women because they are very small and much more vulnerable.
Secondary question, as a woman, which of these are under my control?
Should we advise our daughters to be careful about becoming intoxicated or not?
I really think she should be careful, but I don’t want to warn her if I would be promoting rape by doing so.
If we made rape a crime…THAT would really send a message to young men.
Rape is a crime. What is not a crime, yet, is being male.
Rape is a serious voilent crime and fuckwit feminists should not be politicizing it for their own gain.
Ime, I have heard it said of folks, businesses, and govts who did not heed basic “common sense” advice and became the victim of theft,
“What did they think would happen if they did x?” or
“They did y and surprise, surprise z happened,” or
“If you x, y, and z under conditions a, b, or c you have to expect that someone will l, m, or n,” or
Imho those are similar in nature to some of what is being described as blaming the victim.
Those statement all assign some responsibility to the victim for the victim’s loss,(presumably because of the victim’s failure to modify their/it’s actions t account for well known risks.)
Based on that, I would say that even outside of the confines of the discussion of rape, there is the same point of view. It just isn’t as often described as blaming the victim when applied to theft as when applied to rape.
They’re saying the blameless victim could take precautions to reduce the chance of becoming a blameless victim in the future.
If you can’t understand that, then just give up. You have no place in adult discussion.
.
Well, she actually included both these subjects. The second got the most emphasis, but the first was not omitted.
Her justification for this emphasis is very much along the lines of “here is one thing an individual woman can do to significantly reduce her chance of a problem.”
Not to ignore you, thanks for the response. I agree in that there are more factors involved, but I think the author focuses on it because it’s easy, as well as relevant.
By the grace of Google search:
“Conservative estimates of sexual assault prevalence suggest that 25 percent of American women have experienced sexual assault, including rape. Approximately one-half of those cases involve alcohol consumption by the perpetrator, victim, or both. Alcohol contributes to sexual assault through multiple pathways, often exacerbating existing risk factors. Beliefs about alcohol’s effects on sexual and aggressive behavior, stereotypes about drinking women, and alcohol’s effects on cognitive and motor skills contribute to alcohol-involved sexual assault. Despite advances in researchers’ understanding of the relationships between alcohol consumption and sexual assault, many questions still need to be addressed in future studies.”
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh25-1/43-51.htm
Getting back to what you had originally expressed, for the above reason, I don’t think it shifts blame or the cause away from the people who perpetrate crimes. But as we currently can’t 100% control or account for them, the unfortunate responsibility of deterrence then rests on the potential victims. That means remaining vigilant of situations and decisions, which isn’t unlike the advice we’d routinely share with other vulnerable members of our society.
This isn’t to dismiss the idea that we need more education and better laws surrounding sexual assault, as well as programs and outreach to help victims speak up and voice their experiences and concerns. Both ideas are valid and worthwhile in discussion, but I don’t think the author’s contribution needs to be knocked down, in order to establish the other.
I’m in agreement, I don’t think it’s the best idea; but it is a good, and one among many which can be employed, relative to the college situation she outlined. Sexual assault from someone you know and trust is probably among the most difficult type of situations to address. It certainly does have bearing, and is one of the more sensitive and incredibly situational issues to confront.
In keeping with the idea of providing a solution, I think one of the more workable approaches is to educate both sexes on what is and isn’t acceptable behavior or consent, even in a relationship, and how and why we define sexual assault in those cases. But as to direct prevention, that’s grey area when you’re talking about someone who has already gained your trust. I’d defer to an expert.
Yep, but it’s interesting that you say the “biggest problem is that she did not know”. I could feign ignorance and point out how this can be misconstrued as her fault, as opposed to saying “the biggest problem is that he is a rapist”. However, in the interest of advancing the discussion, it serves to highlight the point that identifying/labeling a sexual predator can be difficult, and is too often revealed after the fact, so it’s tricky to take preemptive action, especially when it’s someone you trust. Therefore, the solution has to have multiple tiers, which in all reality, must include some effort from potential victims.
So yes, the piece certainly doesn’t go into extensive detail on this, as it presents another dimension to consider as you broaden the discussion. However, I don’t think acknowledging this, diminishes the message from the author-- if anything, where alcohol is present and largely consumed, the idea is reinforced.
Why the outrage? Because many people are morons, and can’t distinguish good advice to a potential victim from blaming the victim.
Why the outrage? Because people naturally overreact when they’re oversensitized to an issue. If you have a sunburnt back, you react if someone pats your back. The response is incommensurate, but understandable.
Of course, there also have been reasonable criticisms, many posted above, that her piece could have been improved in a number of ways. That’s not outrage; that’s reasonable criticism. The unreasonable part is outrage.
If we advise tourists not to behave in certain ways to avoid being targeted for common crimes, would that provoke outrage, that we’re blaming the victim and ignoring the perpetrator? I see advice like that quite a lot, and don’t remember any outrage. What’s the difference here? IMHO, there really shouldn’t be any, but clearly there is. But as I said above, sometimes overreaction is understandable.
I don’t think it’s an implication, it’s an explicit point and a pretty well established fact: if you get so drunk as to lose control of your own actions or pass out, you’re putting yourself at risk.
Are you sure? I think it’s not mass but blood volume. Fat people don’t have that much more blood than thin people, but large people may have more than small people. Note that this doesn’t detract much from your point.
On the other hand, I have known small thin people who could drink enormously higher quantities than much larger people with less ostensible effect. (I had a high school roommate who, at 15, was an alcoholic, and could be quite drunk and nobody would even notice, sad to say.) I don’t think these people are “less drunk”, they’re just better at handling being that drunk without it being obvious. Just a guess on my part. Not that it’s really germane here.
Important distinction.
That’s good advice. Like Yoffe’s advice, it’s a shame that it has to be given, but that’s how it is.
And yes, you’d think that it wouldn’t be necessary to advise people not to get so drunk that they’re incapacitated. You’d think so, but clearly, it is necessary. It’s necessary to do it louder, better, and more often, too. We shouldn’t be harping on Yoffe, we should be lauding it and encouraging more people to do the same.
Are you sure? I think it’s not mass but blood volume. Fat people don’t have that much more blood than thin people, but large people may have more than small people. Note that this doesn’t detract much from your point.
[/QUOTE]
It’s kind of both. Men are both bigger, and have more blood in their bodies proportionately thanks to those larger male muscles.
Also as I recall there’s an enzyme in the stomach that destroys some of the alcohol that humans drink, and men have more of it than women. So men are getting a lower dose in the first place.
I qualified that statement by saying “Even if you want to blame her behavior…”.
However, I don’t it’s wrong to think about what women can do to prevent sexual assault. What I don’t agree with is when the advice is misleading and harmful.
You think the article presents a decent idea to consider. I think the article misleads people from considering what’s effective when you want to prevent sexual assault, and that makes the article harmful.
The article makes it sound like drinking less is the most effective way to prevent sexual assault. In part because it does not put drinking in context with other preventive measures and also because the tag line on Salon is “The Best Rape Prevention: Tell College Women to Stop Getting So Wasted”.
That’s the thing
They ARE told exactly that - or at least, I my friends and my family were…
Men are pretty regularly informed of the dangers inherent in drinking
Here’s some advice:
Alcohol is poison, don’t drink it.
Rape is bad.
Rape is rare, and has been getting rare for decades. Don’t change your behaviour based on fear of it, and don’t keep banging on about it.