Why don't we admit the fault of victims?

[Nymphs]

Whether intentional or not, placing responsibility--even partial responsibility--on victims of crimes seems to me to be a form of victim-blaming. I don't think I could call placing responsibility (partial or not) for a negative outcome on a victimized person anything other than that.

Yep. :yes:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

While it may look like an oversimplified question to a lot of people (and understandably so, in my opinion), it does reflect very real and concrete circumstances for many people in certain cultures. The only difference I see between those circumstances and the fact that many women are told they are partially responsible for getting raped if they don't do this or that is that a lot of relatively free cultures are still desensitized to the latter, whereas most people in those same cultures wouldn't even question whether a woman is not responsible for getting in trouble if she drives a car or goes out of her house without covering her entire body.

Whether intentional or not, placing responsibility--even partial responsibility--on victims of crimes seems to me to be a form of victim-blaming. I don't think I could call placing responsibility (partial or not) for a negative outcome on a victimized person anything other than that.

I see it as primarily a matter of semantics. "Responsibility" has multiple connotations. Some people are interpreting the use of "responsibility" in this case to mean "at fault," whereas others are interpreting the use of responsibility as "having control over or an effect on an outcome." Hence, why I repeatedly state that my view isn't that victims of anything are at fault or to blame, yet if anyone does anything knowing that their actions will have a certain effect, then they are the only ones who can take responsbility for the specific action they choose.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you'd think I'd might be a bit emotional about my assault.

Since you're responding to Mystic, who was responding to me, I'll weigh in.
I do give thought how best to address uncomfortable subjects, particularly
as the conversation develops & I discover more about who has experienced
what trauma. Sometimes I succeed & sometimes I don't.

 

[Curious George]

Is this an elaborate way of saying "yes"?

If I understand Kilgore, he is not suggesting that a person bears fault or blame as the victim of a crime but that a person is responsible for his or her self, and part of that responsibility is managing a level of risk with which they are comfortable. while it is impractical for some to go out drinking to oblivion while scantily clad, it is also impractical to others to live life as a monk or nun with a chastity belt. I understand his perspective to acknowledge free will and the responsibility of free will, while reserving fault and blame in criminal situations for those whom act with criminal intent. My understanding is that this nuanced approach allows for blame to fall on a criminal in criminal situations and the most negligent in non criminal situations. I think that his approach is ultimatelytrying to square the idea of natural consequences and culpability in situations where a crime is involved.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If I understand Kilgore, he is not suggesting that a person bears fault or blame as the victim of a crime but that a person is responsible for his or her self, and part of that responsibility is managing a level of risk with which they are comfortable. while it is impractical for some to go out drinking to oblivion while scantily clad, it is also impractical to others to live life as a monk or nun with a chastity belt. I understand his perspective to acknowledge free will and the responsibility of free will, while reserving fault and blame in criminal situations for those whom act with criminal intent. My understanding is that this nuanced approach allows for blame to fall on a criminal in criminal situations and the most negligent in non criminal situations. I think that his approach is ultimatelytrying to square the idea of natural consequences and culpability in situations where a crime is involved.

A worthy summary of my position, and probably more useful for many people.

 

[Revoltingest]

While it may look like an oversimplified question to a lot of people (and understandably so, in my opinion), it does reflect very real and concrete circumstances for many people in certain cultures. The only difference I see between those circumstances and the fact that many women are told they are partially responsible for getting raped if they don't do this or that is that a lot of relatively free cultures are still desensitized to the latter, whereas most people in those same cultures wouldn't even question whether a woman is not responsible for getting in trouble if she drives a car or goes out of her house without covering her entire body.

The passive voice used to vaguely attribute blame to unnamed & overgeneralized offenders is a textbook case of "weasel wording". The "women are told" claims about this horrid & invalid victim blaming is to utterly ignore, or at worst incriminate, those of us who make the useful distinction between blaming the victim & advising potential victims on how to reduce their own risk of harm.
Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word

Whether intentional or not, placing responsibility--even partial responsibility--on victims of crimes seems to me to be a form of victim-blaming. I don't think I could call placing responsibility (partial or not) for a negative outcome on a victimized person anything other than that.

I'm sure it's unintentional, but for you to oppose giving risk reduction advice is dangerous because the young are especially impressionable & vulnerable. Heaven forbid that anyone suffer because they're denied a tool to enhance their own safety just because some are uncomfortable with the concept.

 

[columbus]

In certain places, women can be severely punished, sometimes beaten up, by their relatives or husbands for going outside their homes without being covered from head to toe. There is definitely a risk for many women who don't cover their entire body before leaving their homes.

Are those women responsible at all for getting punished and/or beaten up by their relatives or husbands if they go out without abiding by the aforementioned restriction? Why or why not?

Wiki an old play "Lysistrada".

TRIGGER WARNING: involves heterosexual power play

Tom

 

[Debater Slayer]

I see it as primarily a matter of semantics. "Responsibility" has multiple connotations. Some people are interpreting the use of "responsibility" in this case to mean "at fault," whereas others are interpreting the use of responsibility as "having control over or an effect on an outcome." Hence, why I repeatedly state that my view isn't that victims of anything are at fault or to blame, yet if anyone does anything knowing that their actions will have a certain effect, then they are the only ones who can take responsbility for the specific action they choose.

Thanks for clarifying.

Like I said, though, I think that associating negative outcomes with a victim's actions basically amounts to blaming him or her for being victimized, even if partially. It seems to be equivalent to saying "the crime wouldn't have happened if X hadn't acted the way he/she did."

I'm not necessarily saying you are doing that at all, but I've seen such positions argued for by some people I know (including at least several relatives, to be clear).

 

[Quintessence]

Dear gods, this thread moved fast in a few hours. I'm not even sure where to start responding now. XD

Maybe I'll just start here?

Do we have advice for people on how not to get murdered?

Murders are typically crimes of passion, coming from people you know. Keep your relationships in good order, and your odds of being murdered would be decreased.

 

[Revoltingest]

Like I said, though, I think that associating negative outcomes with a victim's actions basically amounts to blaming him or her for being victimized, even if partially. It seems to be equivalent to saying "the crime wouldn't have happened if X hadn't acted the way he/she did."

Do you oppose discussing preventive measures with potential victims for the purpose of lessening their risks & the number of people assaulted?

I'm not necessarily saying you are doing that at all, but I've seen such positions argued for by some people I know (including at least several relatives, to be clear).

Would you paint the rest of us with a brush broad enuf to eliminate distinctions?

 

[Debater Slayer]

The passive voice used to vaguely attribute blame to unnamed & overgeneralized offenders is a textbook case of "weasel wording". The "women are told" claims about this horrid & invalid victim blaming is to utterly ignore, or at worst incriminate, those of us who make the useful distinction between blaming the victim & advising potential victims on how to reduce their own risk of harm.
Ref: Weasel word - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I mentioned in my response to KT, I have personally seen a lot of people, including some relatives of mine, argue exactly that kind of position, i.e., that women are to blame if they get raped while dressing or acting "provocatively" or "seductively."

Does that help name the offenders, as you called them?

I'm sure it's unintentional, but for you to oppose giving risk reduction advice is dangerous because the young are especially impressionable & vulnerable. Heaven forbid that anyone suffer because they're denied a tool to enhance their own safety.

I don't oppose risk reduction; I oppose placing any degree of responsibility for crimes on people if they don't follow "risk reduction" techniques. To do the latter is to address a symptom rather than the illness, in my opinion.

 

[columbus]

I'm not impressed by this. Presumably he was freely exchanging drinks for her attention at the bar. After all, he found her attractive and he already got to have her company. If he was only doing it in hopes for sexual favors later he should have known that was never going to be a guarantee. Perhaps when they were alone she realized he turned her off after all. Whatever it was, when he 'did her anyway' that is just outright rape and he's a piece of **** for doing that. I have no idea why you'd present this as a fuzzy case or a case where we ought to have sympathy for this guy.

If this is the sort of thinking where having victims 'take responsibility' goes this is seriously problematic. This is not good for anyone.

Why is he the only piece of **** here?
Tom

 

[brokensymmetry]

Why is he the only piece of **** here?
Tom

Why would she be a piece of **** for changing her mind? Perhaps when they were alone he turned her off, for a variety of reasons, in a way he didn't before. How is that not legit? I don't see that she did *anything* wrong in your story. The fact that you don't see that is messed up.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Do you oppose discussing preventive measures with potential victims for the purpose of lessening their risks & the number of people assaulted?

Of course not. I refrain from talking to other people about certain things myself, as I know that they could and most likely would react in an irrationally hostile manner to me if I openly discussed those things with them.

I certainly don't think that means I would be at fault or to blame for their hostility if I decided to open up, though.

Would you paint the rest of us with a brush broad enuf to eliminate distinctions?

I try to avoid unjustified generalizations, so I see no reason to paint with a broad brush in this case. If someone thinks anything I said applies to them, then I will attempt to clarify my position to avoid potential misunderstandings.

 

[Curious George]

Thanks for clarifying.

Like I said, though, I think that associating negative outcomes with a victim's actions basically amounts to blaming him or her for being victimized, even if partially. It seems to be equivalent to saying "the crime wouldn't have happened if X hadn't acted the way he/she did."

I'm not necessarily saying you are doing that at all, but I've seen such positions argued for by some people I know (including at least several relatives, to be clear).

I think that an analogy to driving might help you with discussions concerning your relatives.

If there is an accident we can look to both drivers to establish fault based on negligence. If however one person is trying to crash into another then the story is different. We can point to ways in which the victim of the latter situation could have diminished their risk in an effort to increase safety of future victims. perhaps exercises to increase awareness or drive defensively, but none of this is partial blame, for goodness sale someone was trying to crash. Fault certainly falls on the person trying to crash, and the fact that the victim just happened to be speeding at the time matters not.

 

[columbus]

Why would she be a piece of **** for changing her mind? Perhaps when they were alone he turned her off, for a variety of reasons, in a way he didn't before. How is that not legit? I don't see that she did *anything* wrong in your story. The fact that you don't see that is messed up.

Well that pretty much sums it up.

Men bad
Women good

I'm more convinced than ever...

Tom

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think that an analogy to driving might help you with discussions concerning your relatives.

If there is an accident we can look to both drivers to establish fault based on negligence. If however one person is trying to crash into another then the story is different. We can point to ways in which the victim of the latter situation could have diminished their risk in an effort to increase safety of future victims. perhaps exercises to increase awareness or drive defensively, but none of this is partial blame, for goodness sale someone was trying to crash. Fault certainly falls on the person trying to crash, and the fact that the victim just happened to be speeding at the time matters not.

I agree with that. I think a lot of people (again, including many ones I know) focus too much on how the victim could have avoided the crash. At the end of the day, the blame rests entirely on the person who deliberately tried to crash into them, regardless of whether or not there were any potential ways to reduce the probability of crashing.

 

[kashmir]

The victim is almost never at fault because there is no way to know and are almost always caught completely off guard, sometimes by people they know.

Perhaps the person who frequents bars and goes home with total strangers might actually be part to blame for putting themselves in such situations, but even then, the rapist is still 100% to blame for the rape.

Consider all the men that Jeff Dalmer killed, he is 100% to blame, the fact that men trusted a total stranger and went home with him, is stupidity on their part, but they would not be held accountable by law for simply trusting a total stranger.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Well that pretty much sums it up.

Men bad
Women good

I'm more convinced than ever...

Tom

Your story would have been much different in your eyes had they gotten back to her place, she did something to turn *him* off, and she ******* him out for leaving. I somehow don't think you'd think he'd done something wrong.

He is bad for raping her. People who rape=bad, yes. I'm a man who has never raped anybody, so I don't see how my analysis would fit me. I would hope most men do not fall under the category of 'rapists'. I would hope most men can be turned down without resorting to rape. Don't call her back because you felt she led you on? Sure. Rape her? wtf...

By the way, why is this a 'man vs woman' issue at all? I never saw it that way and didn't think of it that when you presented the story. This is one person declining a sexual invitation and the other determining that they deserved the sexual favor so decided to take it by force anyway. I can think of a lot of nonsexual analogies to this between whatever genders you want. The fact that this stuff is becoming framed so quickly in terms of some sort of war between genders shouldn't be happening.

 

[columbus]

Your story would have been much different in your eyes had ...

Not much point in having a conversation with mind readers.

Prude that I am I think people should treat sex as the powerful force in human life that I think it is. Blaming people because they're male isn't going to help with the problem.

Tom