Feminism & Rape Culture 2014: My Post is Up Here Guys

[Navin]

That's like saying "If you didn't want to get hit by that car running that red light you shouldn't have been driving your car safely like a normal person". That's just victim blaming.

That's not even a good comparative analogy to the analogy?

'Victim blaming' is a strong expression that obviously indicates some type of blame on the part of the victim. Kids are not wrong for going into dangerous neighborhoods - they have every right to do so. Nor are they at fault for getting mugged. But couldn't the robbery been avoided though?

Mind you, I'm only just asking this question.

And you can bet that if caught, your robber will be charged with a crime regardless of where you were or what you were wearing. The same cannot be said about rapists. This whole analogy is **** anyway because once again it just likens women's bodies to property and material goods, lol.

I was only offering another analogy to the original analogy of not being blamed for getting robbed if you live in a nice house. Obviously I don't think women's bodies as material goods.

You are extremely fortunate to have the luxury of believing this.

What I mean is that I can't imagine anyone here is going to actually start arguing for victim-blaming. I think most people, at least where I'm from in A2, share that belief.

That's not even a good question either. Who cares if it plays a contributing factor? Don't rape people. It's not difficult.

Then why bother to study/research the causes of any type of human behavior then? Obviously, you shouldn't rape anyone. You shouldn't steal from someone. You shouldn't kill everyone.

Wait, wait, wait.

If we shouldn't, then why are you saying we should? Since really, that's kinda what it seems like you're doing.

What are you talking about? Perhaps my sentence was confusing, but obviously I meant that women aren't asking for it based on how they dress and they shouldn't receive blame if they get raped.

 

[Steampunk]

'Victim blaming' is a strong expression that obviously indicates some type of blame on the part of the victim. Kids are not wrong for going into dangerous neighborhoods - they have every right to do so. Nor are they at fault for getting mugged. But couldn't the robbery been avoided though?

Mind you, I'm only just asking this question.

To me, this issue seems to be a difference between, should and do. Let me explain. By all accounts, we SHOULD live in a world where if you go down a dark alley, you come out perfectly fine. But do we live in a world where that is actually the case?

And about victim blaming. I see that as saying to the victim, "It is YOUR fault that you got robbed/raped etc.".
So lets take an example: We all know that you should periodically change your passwords on accounts, to protect them from hackers. You get hacked. Regardless if you changed your password or not, the fault lies with the hacker. But does that mean that both courses of action are equally safe? Not really.

 

[Maedar]

Every time the "blame the victim for how she's dressed" thing is brought up I feel like punching the wall. Spock, let me give you an example.

There was a guy in late 2007 who drove under the influence of booze, Xanax, and cocaine and killed three people (a couple and the wife's mom) on Christmas Day (a fourth, the wife's stepfather, died a few years later, and injuries from that accident did play some part) decided that wasn't bad enough. What did he do? He countersued the victims!

Of course, by that I mean the victims' families, since the victims were, well, dead... For "pain and suffering," "mental anguish," and the "loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life" (y'know, 'cause you can't enjoy life while in prison for driving while hammered and stoned and killing three, now four, innocent people.)

Seriously, see it here:

http://autos.aol.com/article/why-a-...-suing-his-victims/?ncid=txtlnkusauto00000020

What are you thinking when you read that? I'll bet something like, "There's a special hell for such people", right?

Well, as you can see here, the judge didn't buy it:

http://hernandotoday.com/news/herna...o1-settlement-doesnt-dull-the-pain-ar-416706/

Why is the reaction for victim-blaming in regards to rape so different than it is in cases like that, when the crime is murder? Many psychologists will tell you that a rapist is a WORSE criminal than a murderer committing a far worse crime, because the victim has to live with it for her entire life.

The only person responsible in a violent crime is the criminal. Period. No woman ever asks to be raped, and any who doubt it are woman-hating chauvinists. Ask ANY therapist who has counseled rape victims will tell you that.

 

[Steampunk]

I agree. The person who Rapes, Murders, etc. should be help solely responsible for their actions. But by that same token, if it were to be shown, that being somewhere, doing something wearing something specific, in certain areas raises your risk, why wouldn't you take those measures? Like I said, by all accounts we SHOULD live in a world where we don't have to worry about those things, but sometimes we do. We may not LIKE having to go the long way instead of cutting through the dark creepy alley, but are your chances of getting home unharmed higher? And also remember, going through that alley isn't automatically a death sentence, but there is that chance(it may be a SLIGHT chance, but its a chance) it could harm you. Everything can harm you, you could slip on a patch of ice, or just trip on your doormat. It all comes down to "Is what I am doing going to have higher odds of harm than another course of action?"

 

[Maedar]

A world like that would be great, Spock, but as any sane and logical person would tell you... It's not a perfect world.

 

[Littlechic]

I agree. The person who Rapes, Murders, etc. should be help solely responsible for their actions. But by that same token, if it were to be shown, that being somewhere, doing something wearing something specific, in certain areas raises your risk, why wouldn't you take those measures? Like I said, by all accounts we SHOULD live in a world where we don't have to worry about those things, but sometimes we do. We may not LIKE having to go the long way instead of cutting through the dark creepy alley, but are your chances of getting home unharmed higher? And also remember, going through that alley isn't automatically a death sentence, but there is that chance(it may be a SLIGHT chance, but its a chance) it could harm you. Everything can harm you, you could slip on a patch of ice, or just trip on your doormat. It all comes down to "Is what I am doing going to have higher odds of harm than another course of action?"

I couldn't say it better Spock.
Of course you shouldn't blame the victims for the crime but there is always the personal responsibility of watching after yourself.

 

[The Admiral]

What are you talking about? Perhaps my sentence was confusing, but obviously I meant that women aren't asking for it based on how they dress and they shouldn't receive blame if they get raped.

Then why do we need to discuss clothing at all? You say that we should move on from the subject because it doesn't matter; women don't "ask for it" when they dress in certain manners and victim-blaming is not right, but immediately afterward, you say

Wait, let me go get it for you...

A better questioned to be asked is, "does the way a woman dresses play any contributing factor? Even a little?"

This is exactly the same question, just reworded, and is still victim-blaming. Do you seriously not see this?

 

[Maedar]

Admiral, rape has been a problem since long before women started becoming more risqué with clothing and "showing skin", so to speak. For centuries, in fact. This sort of thing is mentioned in mythology.

Changes in fashion have not truly caused an increase in the number of cases at all. The only difference is, governments are being far less tolerant about it as social attitudes have changed.

In other words, far less men can do it nowadays and get away with it, because far, far, FAR fewer people find it acceptable. And governments who DO find it acceptable are condemned by the Human Rights Watch.

 

[The Admiral]

Admiral, rape has been a problem since long before women started becoming more risqué with clothing and "showing skin", so to speak. For centuries, in fact. Changes in fashion have not truly caused an increase in the number of cases at all. The only difference is, governments are being far less tolerant about it as social attitudes have changed.

In other words, far less men can do it nowadays and get away with it, because far, far, FAR fewer people find it acceptable. And governments who DO find it acceptable are condemned by the Human Rights Watch.

Or at least we have actual statistics now. But yes. Clothing is not the issue. Really, the whole point of my post was to expose the poor logic at play. I think we all (in this thread) know that discussions of fashion in this case are a complete canard.

Then again...

 

[Maedar]

"Complete canard"?

Try absolute nonsense.

No woman EVER wants to be raped. Period.

Rapists are detested, even by other criminals who don't do it. You know what happens to them in prison? Let's just say, they aren't well-liked by other inmates. (And God help the ones who included children among their victims. They don't last long.)

 

[Navin]

This is exactly the same question, just reworded, and is still victim-blaming. Do you seriously not see this?

I seriously think you are seeing the question wrongly. Theoretically, even if it was somehow 'proven' that in today's society risque clothing choices slightly increases the chance of getting raped (again just a hypothetical), that still doesn't mean the victim was "asking for it" and it doesn't mean she deserves "blame." The question was a simply question - does it play a role?

 

[Blazekickblaziken]

Remember the time I posted a link to a study that said that harrasment was not about sex, but rather about power. And that manner of dress had basically no relation? And what little relation there was implied that modestly dressed women were actually at MORE risk because their maner of dress implied that the woman was less empowered? Do you guys remember it? I do.

http://www.serebiiforums.com/showth...lture-2013&p=16576423&highlight=#post16576423

Are we also going to Ignore the fact that by constantly insisting that women should dress ina what I will refer to as a "defensive" manner, we are basically just giving an excuse to rapists?

 

[The Admiral]

I seriously think you are seeing the question wrongly. Theoretically, even if it was somehow 'proven' that in today's society risque clothing choices slightly increases the chance of getting raped (again just a hypothetical), that still doesn't mean the victim was "asking for it" and it doesn't mean she deserves "blame." The question was a simply question - does it play a role?

You seem really caught up in exact words.

Also, read the post above.

 

[Pesky Persian]

I seriously think you are seeing the question wrongly. Theoretically, even if it was somehow 'proven' that in today's society risque clothing choices slightly increases the chance of getting raped (again just a hypothetical), that still doesn't mean the victim was "asking for it" and it doesn't mean she deserves "blame." The question was a simply question - does it play a role?

And the answer is a really simple answer: No, it does not.

 

[Iceberg]

Hmm...parents also teach kids that they shouldn't walk into a dark alleyway alone, or enter unsafe neighborhoods at night. You would say that their chances of getting robbed increases if they do choose to hang out at the wrong places. Are they asking for it? Well, they are obviously not be blamed if they get mugged, but they could have avoided the chances of it happening by not going there in the first place.

Obviously it isn't a good idea to walk down a shady street at night (or in the day if it's a really shady street). There is definitely and increased risk. Same goes with clothing. If I were to walk around town next to naked one could say I am increasing my odds of rape (as previously stated, psychologists will disagree). However, one could also say that going outside at all increases my odds of rape. Living with a man would increase my odds of rape (the vast majority of rapes are committed by people you know, not random street strangers). If I really wanted to avoid rape (or being robbed, stabbed, etc.) my best bet would be to just stay at home....say, in the kitchen maybe.

Keeping our women in the kitchen dressed head to toe so that they avoid the dangers of the real world sounds an awful lot like the time when women were nothing more than property.

As has already been pointed out, even if wearing a miniskirt increased my odds of being raped, so does owning a nice car increase my odds of it being stolen. The difference is that in the former police officers and authority figures will completely pass off the crime as being your fault. In the latter they will most definitely press charges if they find the culprit. This is the rape culture people are talking about, "Can't we admit that a woman's dress invites rape, even a little?" No, we can't. Because then we are giving rapists a society-sanctioned excuse.

 

[LDSman]

I used to not describe myself as a feminist until I saw a post on Reddit one day that said "You know you are living in a patriarchal society when being a feminist is a negative thing" . My mind was blown. That post had wisdom. If the very act of fighting for women's rights is put down, then we can't in our right minds say that women are completely equal now can we?

Depends on the type of feminist. You have old school feminists that support equal opportunities. Some of them really dislike the new types. Then you have the equal outcomes variety of feminist. The ones that believe that for every male whatever, there must be a female whatever regardless of whether or not there is a capable one available for that position. Then there are the more extreme feminists. The ones that advocate for Womyn's Rights, that slam all men as evil or as only good for sperm donations, that attack any woman who stays home as brainwashed.

"Complete canard"?

Try absolute nonsense.

Complete canard pretty much means that.

No woman EVER wants to be raped. Period.

I thought you didn't believe in making absolute statements. Minor quibble.

Spoiler: Might bug some people.

Google rape fantasies. Some people have really weird kinks.

I'm a firm believer in the "Teach everyone how to defend themself with the most effective weapon available" part of society. Make the risk too high for the reward. Won't stop all attacks, but it'll cut down on them.

 

[Iceberg]

Depends on the type of feminist. You have old school feminists that support equal opportunities. Some of them really dislike the new types. Then you have the equal outcomes variety of feminist. The ones that believe that for every male whatever, there must be a female whatever regardless of whether or not there is a capable one available for that position. Then there are the more extreme feminists. The ones that advocate for Womyn's Rights, that slam all men as evil or as only good for sperm donations, that attack any woman who stays home as brainwashed.

Very true. It seems that no matter the subject matter somebody has to take it too far, like the extreme supporters of affirmative action. But that's a whole different debate.

I'm a firm believer in the "Teach everyone how to defend themself with the most effective weapon available" part of society. Make the risk too high for the reward. Won't stop all attacks, but it'll cut down on them.

Couldn't agree more. I see that argument all of the time that "capital punishment/life imprisonment/etc. won't undo what has been done." Those people completely miss the point. The way I see it, the penal system has two main purposes. Firstly, to prevent the offender from re-offending (either by rehabilitation if possible or locking them up/executing them if not). Secondly, to deter potential offenders from committing the crime in the first place.

If I was walking down the street one day and saw a real good looking person and thought about raping them, what do you think would deter me more; the thought that I could realistically pull it off unscathed because they were scantily clad or drunk, or the thought that I will not only be completely shunned by society, but that I will also be thrown in prison for a very, very long time. I'd put my money on the latter.

This matter can be seen with kids or even dogs. If you severely punish one child for doing something (drawing on the walls for example) the other kid will really think twice before doing it. Or if you punish your dog once for peeing on the carpet, they will be a lot less likely to do it again (speaking from experience here).

On the topic of children, I believe that is where the battle against rape and rape culture needs to begin. People already tell their daughters to death how to avoid getting raped. "Don't wear that skirt", "Never go out alone", "Don't get too drunk", etc. It's a safe bet that the vast majority of daughters in the West have heard that speech from someone at one point in their life. But how many parents or sex ed teachers have sat their son/student down and seriously told them "don't rape women" or "no means no"? Not nearly as many as have given the "don't get raped speech". It's easy to see why. No mother or father wants to acknowledge that their son is a rapist. However the reality is that somebody's son is a rapist. I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a society where we focus on telling men not to rape, not telling women to avoid getting raped.

 

[LDSman]

But how many parents or sex ed teachers have sat their son/student down and seriously told them "don't rape women" or "no means no"? Not nearly as many as have given the "don't get raped speech". It's easy to see why. No mother or father wants to acknowledge that their son is a rapist. However the reality is that somebody's son is a rapist. I don't know about you, but I'd rather live in a society where we focus on telling men not to rape, not telling women to avoid getting raped.

Bull. First by saying that "No mother or father wants to acknowledge that their son is a rapist" you are saying that all men are rapists. I think a lot more sons get the talk about keeping it in their pants, drunk girls can't consent, no means no, etc than you think. People often do things that they have been taught not to do. They either succumb to peer pressure, are intoxicated themselves or decide that the "reward" is greater than the risk.


There was mention earlier of car theft charges vs rape charges. It's far easier to prove a car was stolen than it is to prove rape. It sometimes comes down to his/her word vs his/her word. Would you willing go to jail if someone accused you of something you don't believe you did.

 

[Iceberg]

Bull. First by saying that "No mother or father wants to acknowledge that their son is a rapist" you are saying that all men are rapists. I think a lot more sons get the talk about keeping it in their pants, drunk girls can't consent, no means no, etc than you think. People often do things that they have been taught not to do. They either succumb to peer pressure, are intoxicated themselves or decide that the "reward" is greater than the risk.

I do not see how what I said implies that all men are rapists. It simply implies that parents must acknowledge that there is a chance (hopefully a small one) that their son will grow up to be a rapist. I also disagree with your premise. In my city there are ads all over the place put on by the police that tell young girls to only go out with friends, never get too drunk, have arranged rides (so you don't have to crash at some guy's place), etc. These ads are especially prevalent on university campuses. However I have yet to see an ad that tells men not to rape. The city I live in, FYI, is the same city that Rahteah Parsons is from; the girl who was raped and eventually killed herself because she was labelled as a s/lut and the police wouldn't even open a case since she was drunk. Am I starting to see a problem here?

Even if there is a parent somewhere telling their son to 'keep it in their pants', I feel like it is in a much more jovial manner than that at which a parent would talk to their daughter. We seriously sit our daughters down and explain to them all of the tactics of avoiding rape. You yourself proved my point by using the phrase "keep it in your pants". When we talk to our sons it is in a joking manner because we doing want to seriously acknowledge that our boys could be rapists.

We could argue this point all day and it would be to no avail. The last comment I'll make on the matter is that I'm a young girl. Every single time I leave the house I get at least one comment from a parent that relates to avoiding getting raped. "Your skirt is a little short", "Make sure you're never alone", "Text me often so I know you're safe" etc. However every single time my brother leaves the house (who is a few years older than me) all he gets is a "be home by [insert hour here]". Never a "Don't touch a girl if she doesn't want it" or a "No means no" reminder. Do I think my brother is a rapist? Definitely not. But, as I've said before. Somebody's brother is. If society is so willing to acknowledge that every woman is a potential victim (because realistically they are) than we also must acknowledge that every man is a potential rapist.

If we chose to only acknowledge the former than we are focusing on the victim, which is a truly flawed strategy. Focusing on only the victim would be like focusing on only the symptoms of the disease. We won't be actually solving anything. No real, quantitative, or concrete progress will have been made. We'll just be sweeping it under the rug until the next instance occurs.

 

[Navin]

You seem really caught up in exact words.

Because I have found from my personal experience that people often respond to a different question than what you originally meant and even subtle changes in wording can create arguments.

Obviously it isn't a good idea to walk down a shady street at night (or in the day if it's a really shady street). There is definitely and increased risk. Same goes with clothing. If I were to walk around town next to naked one could say I am increasing my odds of rape (as previously stated, psychologists will disagree). However, one could also say that going outside at all increases my odds of rape. Living with a man would increase my odds of rape (the vast majority of rapes are committed by people you know, not random street strangers). If I really wanted to avoid rape (or being robbed, stabbed, etc.) my best bet would be to just stay at home....say, in the kitchen maybe. Keeping our women in the kitchen dressed head to toe so that they avoid the dangers of the real world sounds an awful lot like the time when women were nothing more than property.

You can then generalize to saying that doing anything will cause x or y. Me going outside could result me in getting shot. Fact is we do go outside - we do enter various environments filled with all sorts of people. There is a reason why our parents teach us to avoid certain risks by not doing x or y.

As has already been pointed out, even if wearing a miniskirt increased my odds of being raped, so does owning a nice car increase my odds of it being stolen. The difference is that in the former police officers and authority figures will completely pass off the crime as being your fault. In the latter they will most definitely press charges if they find the culprit. This is the rape culture people are talking about, "Can't we admit that a woman's dress invites rape, even a little?" No, we can't. Because then we are giving rapists a society-sanctioned excuse.

I don't agree with that last part. Nothing excuses rape. Just like nothing excuses an adult mugging a kid in a dark alleyway. Acknowledging that there is a hypothetical relationship between dress and likelihood of rape doesn't give any excuses - it's exactly what it is: a relation. Just like there might be a relationship between walking through dark alleyways alone (versus in broad daylight among people) and robberies.


I will admit I do not actually know the exact laws behind this, but can someone explain to me this: if two people are both under the influence of alcohol and both are comparatively impaired and they have consensual sex, can one of them say they got raped the next day? Would it count?