|
Victim blaming is a term people use to describe both literally victim blaming and also reasonably pointing out sensible precautions etc.
Saying "she was asking for it" because of the way she was dressed is victim blaming, and absurd.
Saying "locking your doors and windows will make it less likely for you to get robbed" isn't victim blaming, it's a simple acknowledgement of facts and good advice to people who don't want to get robbed.
This ^ type of good advice to people is very often referred to as victim blaming by a bunch of morons.
The question in the OP asks
On June 16 2013 01:46 Man with a Plan wrote:
What do you think TL? Are any of the two cases, namely rape and incest, justification for abortion (whether pre-20th week or after)?
which is disastrous because it gives the thread two separate topics which I don't think helps discussion at all.
It's like making a thread asking if a new method of farming chickens which involves breaking preestablished animal cruelty laws should be acceptable for some reason but also just asking people whether they think it's okay to eat meat in general?
*cue shitstorm*
|
I think that because incest should be consensual, it shouldn't have the same exceptions as rape.
|
Saying "locking your doors and windows will make it less likely for you to get robbed" isn't victim blaming, it's a simple acknowledgement of facts and good advice to people who don't want to get robbed.
This ^ type of good advice to people is very often referred to as victim blaming by a bunch of morons.
No, this is cheeky BS advice to give someone. This is the kind of thing you'd say to make yourself feel all superior to that "idiot that got robbed". And you apparently think the guy is dumb enough to not think of locking his doors.
It's like telling people not to get fooled by scams when intelligent people get fooled by scams all the time. The whole point of a scam is to fool people. It's not real advice. It's just you being a jackass.
|
On June 20 2013 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +Saying "locking your doors and windows will make it less likely for you to get robbed" isn't victim blaming, it's a simple acknowledgement of facts and good advice to people who don't want to get robbed.
This ^ type of good advice to people is very often referred to as victim blaming by a bunch of morons. No, this is cheeky BS advice to give someone. This is the kind of thing you'd say to make yourself feel all superior to that "idiot that got robbed". And you apparently think the guy is dumb enough to not think of locking his doors. It's like telling people not to get fooled by scams when intelligent people get fooled by scams all the time. The whole point of a scam is to fool people. It's not real advice. It's just you being a jackass.
The police advise people to lock their doors and windows all the time, are you saying it's cheeky bullshit advice and they're just jackasses doing it to make themselves feel all superior and that they think people are stupid?
You're not thinking this through properly at all. You could say the same for quitting smoking and that it will make it less likely for you to get cancer.
No, this is cheeky BS advice to give someone. This is the kind of thing you'd say to make yourself feel all superior to that "idiot that got cancer". And you apparently think the person is dumb enough not to know smoking gives you cancer.
That's literally the line you've taken here, it's indefensible and this happens all the time, every day, it's totally warranted and nothing to do with victim blaming and it most certainly is real advice.
The difference between these examples is that the person is choosing to smoke but generally people don't to be robbed, however the similarity is that they're both being given advice to help them avoid bad things happen to them. It's nothing to do with being a jackass, being superior or thinking that people are stupid.
It's simply about advising safe practice and it's why we have health and safety regulations, for one thing.
You know that sign on every single building site telling you to wear a hard hat? Yeah. It's not some jackass trying to be condescending or superior, it's just looking out for you.
|
On June 20 2013 22:14 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:Saying "locking your doors and windows will make it less likely for you to get robbed" isn't victim blaming, it's a simple acknowledgement of facts and good advice to people who don't want to get robbed.
This ^ type of good advice to people is very often referred to as victim blaming by a bunch of morons. No, this is cheeky BS advice to give someone. This is the kind of thing you'd say to make yourself feel all superior to that "idiot that got robbed". And you apparently think the guy is dumb enough to not think of locking his doors. It's like telling people not to get fooled by scams when intelligent people get fooled by scams all the time. The whole point of a scam is to fool people. It's not real advice. It's just you being a jackass. The police advise people to lock their doors and windows all the time, are you saying it's cheeky bullshit advice and they're just jackasses doing it to make themselves feel all superior and that they think people are stupid? You're not thinking this through properly at all. You could say the same for quitting smoking and that it will make it less likely for you to get cancer. No, this is cheeky BS advice to give someone. This is the kind of thing you'd say to make yourself feel all superior to that "idiot that got cancer". And you apparently think the person is dumb enough not to know smoking gives you cancer. That's literally the line you've taken here, it's indefensible and this happens all the time, every day, it's totally warranted and nothing to do with victim blaming. The difference between these examples is that the person is choosing to smoke but generally people don't to be robbed, however the similarity is that they're both being given advice to help them avoid bad things happen to them. It's nothing to do with being a jackass, being superior or thinking that people are stupid. It's simply about advising safe practice.
You would really say to a guy with lung cancer "You probably shouldn't have smoked all those cigarettes"? You're an asshole.
I'm differentiating between preventative actions one can take before something happens and blaming the victim for actions after something already happens. Police advising people to lock their doors and telling people that they got robbed because they didn't lock their doors are two different things. Because the reason they got robbed is because a robber robbed them, not because they didn't lock their doors.
Notice in one instance that there's a victim and he's getting blamed.
|
On June 20 2013 22:25 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 22:14 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 22:06 DoubleReed wrote:Saying "locking your doors and windows will make it less likely for you to get robbed" isn't victim blaming, it's a simple acknowledgement of facts and good advice to people who don't want to get robbed.
This ^ type of good advice to people is very often referred to as victim blaming by a bunch of morons. No, this is cheeky BS advice to give someone. This is the kind of thing you'd say to make yourself feel all superior to that "idiot that got robbed". And you apparently think the guy is dumb enough to not think of locking his doors. It's like telling people not to get fooled by scams when intelligent people get fooled by scams all the time. The whole point of a scam is to fool people. It's not real advice. It's just you being a jackass. The police advise people to lock their doors and windows all the time, are you saying it's cheeky bullshit advice and they're just jackasses doing it to make themselves feel all superior and that they think people are stupid? You're not thinking this through properly at all. You could say the same for quitting smoking and that it will make it less likely for you to get cancer. No, this is cheeky BS advice to give someone. This is the kind of thing you'd say to make yourself feel all superior to that "idiot that got cancer". And you apparently think the person is dumb enough not to know smoking gives you cancer. That's literally the line you've taken here, it's indefensible and this happens all the time, every day, it's totally warranted and nothing to do with victim blaming. The difference between these examples is that the person is choosing to smoke but generally people don't to be robbed, however the similarity is that they're both being given advice to help them avoid bad things happen to them. It's nothing to do with being a jackass, being superior or thinking that people are stupid. It's simply about advising safe practice. You would really say to a guy with lung cancer "You probably shouldn't have smoked all those cigarettes"? You're an asshole. I'm differentiating between preventative actions one can take before something happens and blaming the victim for actions after something already happens. Police advising people to lock their doors and telling people that they got robbed because they didn't lock their doors are two different things. Because the reason they got robbed is because a robber robbed them, not because they didn't lock their doors. Notice in one instance that there's a victim and he's getting blamed.
On June 20 2013 19:13 Reason wrote:
Saying "she was asking for it" because of the way she was dressed is victim blaming, and absurd.
Saying "locking your doors and windows will make it less likely for you to get robbed" isn't victim blaming, it's a simple acknowledgement of facts and good advice to people who don't want to get robbed.
I've already clearly and deliberately made this exact differentiation, what don't you understand?
|
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused.
|
On June 20 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused.
But you're so QUICK to be confused! You're so fucking EAGER to jump down people's throats and tell them that they're victim blaming that you can't even read a sentence properly, that was my original point and you've just proven it beautifully.
For your information,
telling someone who hasn't been robbed to lock all their windows and doors to make it less likely they will get robbed
versus
telling someone who has just been robbed that locking all their windows and doors would have made them less likely to get robbed
does not change the truth value of the statement, nor does it mean that they are to blame.
It might make you an insensitive douchebag, but that's not what's being discussed here.
Telling someone "you got robbed because you didn't lock your windows and doors" is obviously retarded victim blaming but being an insensitive douchebag does not constitute victim blaming and I wasn't condoning either.
|
Dude, I apologized. Calm down yo.
And I completely disagree. It obviously implies that they are to blame. It might not literally mean that, but that is the implication. Anyone who has ever been in this position could attest to that.
|
On June 20 2013 22:57 DoubleReed wrote:
Dude, I apologized. Calm down yo.
And I completely disagree. It obviously implies that they are to blame. It might not literally mean that, but that is the implication. Anyone who has ever been in this position could attest to that.
You didn't really apologise, you said I made a mistake which resulted in your confusion, then "apologised" for your confusion even though you literally just said it was my fault.
"It obviously implies" they are to blame is your own personal opinion which is based on your emotional response to someone being an insensitive douchebag, it's not actually based on an understanding of the English language and the ability to differentiate between an insensitive douchebag and a victim blamer.
Smoking example.
You shouldn't smoke cigarettes, they increase your chances of getting cancer.
Prior to getting cancer, this is good sensible advice.
You shouldn't smoke cigarettes, they increase your chances of getting cancer.
After getting cancer, this is good sensible advice delivered by an insensitive douchebag to someone who doesn't want to hear it.
You got cancer because you smoked cigarettes.
This is victim blaming and more importantly not a statement that could ever be made with certainty, so it's wrong and it's insensitive.
We both agree victim blaming is bad, let's just leave it there I don't mean to harass you specifically I just hate misuse of the term with a passion -_-
On June 20 2013 22:57 DoubleReed wrote:
It might not literally mean that, but that is the implication. Anyone who has ever been in this position could attest to that.
They might be able to attest that their emotional reaction to an insensitive douchebag giving them good sensible advice at an inappropriate time made them feel like they were being blamed, but that doesn't make them right.
|
"Women are helpless victims who had society and culture forced upon them."
Again and again you come back to this. I call bullshit. You have zero evidence for the claim that men controlled society and culture. Society and culture is composed of both men and women, and they both perpetuate and reinforce it in their own ways.
You are literally making shit up to sound intelligent. At no point did I say that they were "helpless victims" or that they were intrinsically inferior.
It's an implicit requirement to everything you're saying, because you're portraying women as nothing more than helpless victims who are so weak that they were easily controlled by men throughout all of human history. I don't buy this misogynistic assumption of yours.
No, it's not, and saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. That makes you look like a child.
Virtually no one in modern society excuses rape or rapists. Rape is considered one of the most horrible crimes that can possibly be committed.
The only reason you think that "victim blaming" is incredibly common is because people cry "victim blaming" in cases where it is not true (e.g. see Thieving Magpie in this thread). Giving safety tips is not "victim blaming", nor is disagreeing that someone was raped on the basis of evidence, yet feminists lump these all together as examples of "victim blaming".
Rape is considered a horrific crime. The problem is that people refuse to acknowledge when something is actually rape.
You're doing what many Republicans do; they stick their head in the sand and say that racism, sexism, or other oppressive features of society are "fixed" and that they "don't happen anymore". It's willful ignorance to push forth a pathetic and self-centered agenda. Just because you refuse to acknowledge the countless examples of victim-blaming that are out there doesn't mean that they don't exist.
You're shifting the goalposts. These are not examples of women being treated worse than the underclasses, which is what we're talking about.
These are examples of women that were treated incredibly poorly to the point of not being significantly different from the lower class (if there even was much of a class system in some tribal civilizations). Again, "Mine is worse!" is irrelevant and makes you look like an ass.
Arbitrarily dismissing key data? Why am I not surprised?
"Dismissing data"? I'm questioning why the data is relevant at all. I have repeatedly explained why life expectancy alone isn't valuable for this discussion, so the onus is on you to tell me why it is actually relevant.
False. There are many societies in which women did participate in public life, yet in those they were still less likely to be victims of violent crime.
Source and source. In what society did women participate in any sphere of society aside from the home more than men? And yes, you DO need to provide the source when you are the one making the claim. You don't get to make a claim and then ask your opponent to find your evidence for you. That is lazy and childish.
As you yourself pointed out, there have been many different societies. Women have worked in some of them, and they have substantially lower workplace deaths in those.
In what societies did they work? Industrial-era west? Where they had an extremely limited amount of jobs available to them? Even if I grant you that they were allowed to work in some societies, the work that they were allowed to do was extremely limited in both variety and nature of work, so this statistic is still irrelevant.
I explained that you can use Google. There are way too many arguments here for me to provide you with a half dozen (in case you arbitrarily dismiss some of them) sources for each issue.
No. You don't get to be lazy and make up stats just to sound intelligent. This is how ALL debate works. If you want us to believe something, you have to provide a source if it isn't believable at face value.
Completely backwards reasoning. If more things are illegal for you to do, it would actually make sense for you to be imprisoned more often, not less. Would you argue that the criminalization of drugs decreases the likelihood of imprisonment?
Your understanding is too simplified. The drugs part is irrelevant because that is a specific action. Women were, at a very general and wide-reaching level, not allowed to do nearly as many things as men, both legally and socially. This limits what situations women are exposed to, and thus limits the situations that women were in to commit crimes and thus be imprisoned.
I like how you manage to rationalize every single advantage into a disadvantage.
Tell me how being less likely to be homeless is a serious advantage given the reason for being less likely to be homeless.
Hell, just for argument's sake, I'll chalk this up to a win for your column.
If I do that, that gives you life expectancy, homelessness rates, and...? Not a great argument for saying that "women benefited in certain ways compared to men due to their gender roles!" In fact, it sounds stupid.
Actually, for historical situations we're talking mostly about feeding the poor. Women were and are simply more likely to be taken care of by governmental and philanthropic institutions because they elicit more sympathy than men.
Source. Also, show me a source that shows that, even though there were significantly more poor males, more poor females received government assistance. Unless you can do this, then your point doesn't help your cause at all.
It's also a responsibility that most men and women didn't want. Most men would rather give up their vote than be conscripted, and that's not even going into the past when the lower classes had few rights and yet would still be expected to fight.
Cool. I don't want the responsibility of jury duty, but I have to have it. The fact is, when you enjoy freedoms, you need to take some responsibility. Of course, this isn't directly correlative, as feudal societies didn't say, "we're going to let men have a wide variety of jobs, so to pay for it, they're going to be eligible for conscription!" The way feudal societies worked was incredibly unjust. That said, it's still the result of having more freedoms, and thus it is, in essence, a responsibility taken for freedoms had.
That's not the argument and you know it. The argument is that oppressed groups all have certain things in common, and women as a group have never shared those things, so they don't qualify.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/oppression?q=oppression
The definition of oppression:
prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control:
a region shattered by oppression and killing
the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control.
mental pressure or distress:
Stop trying to change the definition of oppression so you can reach your sexist, pre-conceived conclusions. The role of women fit this definition perfectly. Just because it wasn't the same type of oppression as black slaves endured doesn't mean that it wasn't oppression.
Furthermore, as previous people have pointed out, you resist oppression in different ways. The idea of women leading an armed revolt against their situation is ridiculous, for a number of reasons. The fact that you are being so obstinate that you refuse to recognize this and thus label women's oppression as "not oppression at all" is just ignorant.
Again, you still refuse to acknowledge that women were not one concerted subclass and that they were not oppressed by one uniform subclass. Women were divided by socioeconomic status, nation, culture, religion, etc. This level of division is unique to them when compared to other oppressed groups. Let's also remember that globalization and the ability to be contact and be connected with other nations and cultures regularly (something not available for most of human history) had a direct effect on the women's rights movement.
Finally, you talk about "every other oppressed group in history". How about ancient slaves? Jews? Homosexuals? The lowest socioeconomic class in any society ever? Perpetually poor/weak/divided countries that were conquered by others? Indigenous populations (Native Americans, Aborigines)? Again, you sweep all of this under the rug and refuse to face your counterexamples.
A few women trying to assert their independence is not an attempt. The second that a majority of women wanted anything, they've gotten it. And unlike actual oppressed groups, women have never been shot down with brutal, oppressive violence.
Yes, because women weren't victims to near-systematic rape and domestic violence. Oh, and let's just brush over the countless attempts by women to try to asset their independence in the household or intellectual women to make steps into their fields as nothing.
The resistance to women's suffrage was mostly from other women. As I've already noted earlier in this thread, the second that polls showed a majority of women agreed that they wanted the vote, male politicians practically tripped over each other to give it to them.
Compare this to the fire hoses, riot police, lynching, and attack dogs which met African-American civil rights movement, to get an idea of what true oppression is.
This basically boils down to the fact that the only very tangible example you have is that the women's rights movement was less violent than the Civil Rights movement. Yea, everyone knows that. However, it doesn't mean that women weren't oppressed just because they didn't have it as bad as one of the most ill-treated groups in the history of man.
|
On June 20 2013 22:45 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused. But you're so QUICK to be confused! You're so fucking EAGER to jump down people's throats and tell them that they're victim blaming that you can't even read a sentence properly, that was my original point and you've just proven it beautifully. For your information, telling someone who hasn't been robbed to lock all their windows and doors to make it less likely they will get robbed versus telling someone who has just been robbed that locking all their windows and doors would have made them less likely to get robbed does not change the truth value of the statement, nor does it mean that they are to blame.It might make you an insensitive douchebag, but that's not what's being discussed here. Telling someone "you got robbed because you didn't lock your windows and doors" is obviously retarded victim blaming but being an insensitive douchebag does not constitute victim blaming and I wasn't condoning either.
The problem is context. You can say the exact same words in a certain manner to imply that there should be a level of blame to be put on the victim. In the case of being robbed, this might not happen that often; however, in the case of rape, this actually does happen a disturbing amount of the time. This is why it's a problem. Hell, our Congressmen have (recently) made idiotic statements like this. Furthermore, like I've said, it is more insulting when there isn't a very strong correlation (if any) between what you wear and your chances of being raped.
And no, Sunprince, one incredibly controversial author from the 90's doesn't make up "scientific debate". Countless psychologists and studies show that rape is about power/humiliation/anger/other similar emotions, and not simply sexual urges.
|
Don't the existence of matriarchal and matrilineal societies prove that women have had the ability to take political control pre the current era?
|
On June 20 2013 23:25 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Don't the existence of matriarchal and matrilineal societies prove that women have had the ability to take political control pre the current era?
Of course it proves that women are capable, but it didn't happen with enough regularity to prove that women enjoyed a significant amount of freedom throughout human history.
|
I agree of course, but it does seem to bolster sunprince's point. If it wasn't that women weren't capable of social change, what was it that prevented them from doing so? Sunprince suggests choice. What do you suggest?
|
On June 20 2013 23:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 22:45 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused. But you're so QUICK to be confused! You're so fucking EAGER to jump down people's throats and tell them that they're victim blaming that you can't even read a sentence properly, that was my original point and you've just proven it beautifully. For your information, telling someone who hasn't been robbed to lock all their windows and doors to make it less likely they will get robbed versus telling someone who has just been robbed that locking all their windows and doors would have made them less likely to get robbed does not change the truth value of the statement, nor does it mean that they are to blame.It might make you an insensitive douchebag, but that's not what's being discussed here. Telling someone "you got robbed because you didn't lock your windows and doors" is obviously retarded victim blaming but being an insensitive douchebag does not constitute victim blaming and I wasn't condoning either. The problem is context. You can say the exact same words in a certain manner to imply that there should be a level of blame to be put on the victim. In the case of being robbed, this might not happen that often; however, in the case of rape, this actually does happen a disturbing amount of the time. This is why it's a problem. Hell, our Congressmen have (recently) made idiotic statements like this. Furthermore, like I've said, it is more insulting when there isn't a very strong correlation (if any) between what you wear and your chances of being raped. And no, Sunprince, one incredibly controversial author from the 90's doesn't make up "scientific debate". Countless psychologists and studies show that rape is about power/humiliation/anger/other similar emotions, and not simply sexual urges.
If you say to a rape victim that if they walk home alone late at night they increase their chances of getting raped this does not constitute victim blaming.
It's a statement of fact. It might be insensitive to say it to their face after they've just been raped and I'm not sure what anyone thinks that would achieve, but it's not blaming them.
You wouldn't punish a rapist less severely because the woman was walking alone late at night rather than alone in the middle of the day, that would be victim blaming. That would be saying "you are partially responsible, so we punish him less".
The simple acknowledgement and the more important spreading of the truth that she put herself at greater risk by doing this isn't victim blaming, it's common sense like "smoking kills" and "wear a hard hat beyond this point" etc.
|
On June 20 2013 23:42 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 23:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 20 2013 22:45 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused. But you're so QUICK to be confused! You're so fucking EAGER to jump down people's throats and tell them that they're victim blaming that you can't even read a sentence properly, that was my original point and you've just proven it beautifully. For your information, telling someone who hasn't been robbed to lock all their windows and doors to make it less likely they will get robbed versus telling someone who has just been robbed that locking all their windows and doors would have made them less likely to get robbed does not change the truth value of the statement, nor does it mean that they are to blame.It might make you an insensitive douchebag, but that's not what's being discussed here. Telling someone "you got robbed because you didn't lock your windows and doors" is obviously retarded victim blaming but being an insensitive douchebag does not constitute victim blaming and I wasn't condoning either. The problem is context. You can say the exact same words in a certain manner to imply that there should be a level of blame to be put on the victim. In the case of being robbed, this might not happen that often; however, in the case of rape, this actually does happen a disturbing amount of the time. This is why it's a problem. Hell, our Congressmen have (recently) made idiotic statements like this. Furthermore, like I've said, it is more insulting when there isn't a very strong correlation (if any) between what you wear and your chances of being raped. And no, Sunprince, one incredibly controversial author from the 90's doesn't make up "scientific debate". Countless psychologists and studies show that rape is about power/humiliation/anger/other similar emotions, and not simply sexual urges. If you say to a rape victim that if they walk home alone late at night they increase their chances of getting raped this does not constitute victim blaming. It's a statement of fact. It might be insensitive to say it to their face after they've just been raped and I'm not sure what anyone thinks that would achieve, but it's not blaming them. You wouldn't punish a rapist less severely because the woman was walking alone late at night rather than alone in the middle of the day, that would be victim blaming. That would be saying "you are partially responsible, so we punish him less". The simple acknowledgement and the more important spreading of the truth that she put herself at greater risk by doing this isn't victim blaming, it's common sense like "smoking kills" and "wear a hard hat beyond this point" etc.
And to take this further, it's important that these facts be out there so that people can make appropriate judgements about the proper level of risk they are willing to accept. It's illogical to claim that because you put yourself at higher risk you deserve to be a victim of a crime. I read a story a few months ago about a policeman who had to apologize for making this kind of prudential warning. It's not victim blaming to say you expose yourself to a higher risk of crime by walking home alone late at night. Whether you walk home alone at night or in the day makes no difference in whether you deserve to become the victim of a crime. But there are people who aren't smart enough to understand this clear distinction who want to censor important safety tips, making others less safe.
It's abhorrent.
|
On June 20 2013 23:42 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2013 23:23 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 20 2013 22:45 Reason wrote:On June 20 2013 22:39 DoubleReed wrote:
That distinction makes no sense from that statement because there's no victim. It sounded more like you would say that to person after they got robbed. Otherwise, there's no victim to blame. So sorry if I got confused. But you're so QUICK to be confused! You're so fucking EAGER to jump down people's throats and tell them that they're victim blaming that you can't even read a sentence properly, that was my original point and you've just proven it beautifully. For your information, telling someone who hasn't been robbed to lock all their windows and doors to make it less likely they will get robbed versus telling someone who has just been robbed that locking all their windows and doors would have made them less likely to get robbed does not change the truth value of the statement, nor does it mean that they are to blame.It might make you an insensitive douchebag, but that's not what's being discussed here. Telling someone "you got robbed because you didn't lock your windows and doors" is obviously retarded victim blaming but being an insensitive douchebag does not constitute victim blaming and I wasn't condoning either. The problem is context. You can say the exact same words in a certain manner to imply that there should be a level of blame to be put on the victim. In the case of being robbed, this might not happen that often; however, in the case of rape, this actually does happen a disturbing amount of the time. This is why it's a problem. Hell, our Congressmen have (recently) made idiotic statements like this. Furthermore, like I've said, it is more insulting when there isn't a very strong correlation (if any) between what you wear and your chances of being raped. And no, Sunprince, one incredibly controversial author from the 90's doesn't make up "scientific debate". Countless psychologists and studies show that rape is about power/humiliation/anger/other similar emotions, and not simply sexual urges. If you say to a rape victim that if they walk home alone late at night they increase their chances of getting raped this does not constitute victim blaming. It's a statement of fact. It might be insensitive to say it to their face after they've just been raped and I'm not sure what anyone thinks that would achieve, but it's not blaming them. The simple acknowledgement and the more important spreading of the truth that she put herself at greater risk by doing this isn't victim blaming, it's common sense like "smoking kills" and "wear a hard hat beyond this point" etc. edit: Saying those words in "that voice" or in "that manner", and I know what you're talking about here, sure that could imply that you are blaming them. Alternatively you could just interpret that the person is chastising them in a sort of you-didn't-take-the-precautions-you-could-have way, which although insensitive would be correct. That's why I think it's better to communicate clearly and not object to something because "if said in a certain voice it could be interpreted in multiple ways and one of them is that you're blaming the victim". If something is unambiguously victim blaming then fair enough, ridicule it for what it is, but leave everything else alone.
A.) Advice such as "lock your doors" and what not are advice given because its a common practice and, more specifically, it's a practice you yourself employ.
Telling a woman not to walk around without an escort is the same kind of Victorian BS they've been told since the 1800's. Telling women how to dress despite the majority of rape cases being done by close friends and lovers is also BS--it would be much more helpful to tell them not to have friends, not to have relationships, and not to trust people in any way since statistically that would prevent rape more than what they fucking wear.
How would you know how not to get raped? Are you raped often? Have gotten attacked often?
Women get cat called and harassed daily, constantly. They get leered at daily, constantly. Some get grabbed, have their ass slapped, etc... Daily, constantly. The you really think the looks they get when walking down a sidewalk at night is any different than the looks they get walking down a sidewalk in daytime? Do you think that they somehow don't know that bad things can happen at night? That somehow it is your fount of wisdom that finally revealed to them this knowledge?
Women already have this knowledge the same way you already have this knowledge. Unless you've already been raped before you have no special information that isn't already privy to everyone. And that's assuming "walking home at night" is what gets you raped when in all likelihood hanging out with a friend/lover is more likely to get you raped statistically.
|
On June 20 2013 23:33 NovaTheFeared wrote:
I agree of course, but it does seem to bolster sunprince's point. If it wasn't that women weren't capable of social change, what was it that prevented them from doing so? Sunprince suggests choice. What do you suggest?
Matrilineal societies were extremely rare, generally short-lived, and, as far as I can recall from history, pretty isolated. They are obviously exceptions rather than the rule, and it's worth noting that no major, long-lasting civilization was matrilineal.
|
On June 20 2013 23:25 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Don't the existence of matriarchal and matrilineal societies prove that women have had the ability to take political control pre the current era?
Women are not a unified entity. Some women achieved more than others.
Short history of america.
We used to force Africans to work for no pay in plantations.
We had a war to end slavery.
We forced Africans to work for less pay than whites.
We had a civil rights movement.
We now put Africans in the largest jail system in the world and force them to work for no pay.
The american civil war was very successful at ending southern plantations.
Why haven't African Americans been able to gain equality despite two separate revolutions, the bloodiest war in american history, and electing a black president? Oh right, because institutionalized racism still exists and percolates throughout the system affecting both whites and non-whites alike. Because being in a society that is tolerant enough to let a black man be president (so long as he proves to us how non-foreign he is and proves to us how protestant he is) does not mean racism has ended in America. Just because the current president is black does not mean that African Americans no longer have problems in America.
And just because a queen has popped up here and there does not mean that oppressed women were asking to be oppressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
