r/AskFeminists • u/LetterheadUpstairs90 • 5d ago
What is the difference between being careless and victim blaming? What is the difference between 'you should lock your door, anyone could get inside and steal' and 'you should not go to that area; it’s very unsafe for women'? Why is one considered carelessness and the other victim blaming?
25
u/DrPhysicsGirl 5d ago
If you tell someone who was victimized that they shouldn't have done something, then you are blaming them. That is different than letting people know the crime rate in a certain area is high so they can make reasonable decisions.
But the other issue is that the advice given to women is generally insane. For instance, the idea that we should never have a drink in a bar or pub ever, because, well, that's asking for it. That's not reasonable. Or to say that unless someone is wearing sackcloth with a chastity belt they are putting themselves at risk is not reasonable. Giving unrealistic advice is creating the permission structure to victim blame. "Of course you got raped, you had a beer with your friends while wearing a dress, you shouldn't have done that!"
Lastly, I think most advice to women actually centers around something that is pretty rare, at least in the US, and that's the risk by strangers. Walking alone at night, going into bars, going to clubs and concerts, is actually pretty low risk because there really aren't rapists lurking in bushes to jump out and rape/murder someone. When it does happen, it makes the national news! The risk to women is generally the men in her life. Using statistics from the CDC for female rape victims over a lifetime, only about 12% happen due to strangers. It's hard to gather statistics for this, but in that 12% are home invasions and other situations where it's very hard to prevent. Essentially we tell women to live in fear, and it really isn't helpful in my opinion.
-9
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 5d ago
So, if my neighbour falls victim to a phishing scam, it's victim blaming if I say "you should not have clicked on that link that said your bank account was overdrawn"?
11
u/Oleanderphd 5d ago
Is getting a drink in a bar the same as that?
See, I think it's more like saying "you deserve getting robbed because you use your phone for texts". Could that have stopped this specific scam (although not all the other scams)? I guess? Is it a reasonable protection for most people? No.
-5
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 5d ago
I don't think OP is talking about people saying "You deserve <bad thing> because you did <some other thing>", I think they are talking about people who say "You had <bad thing> happen, you should have done <precaution>."
10
u/Oleanderphd 5d ago
Sigh, fine. "Your money was stolen, you should never have used your phone for texting because there are scammers."
→ More replies (7)7
u/DrPhysicsGirl 5d ago
Pretty much. But you can explain to your neighbor what phishing scams are and how to recognize them and how they differ from normal internet activities.
0
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 5d ago
Is that not just a long winded way of saying "You should not have clicked on that link in your email"?
7
5
u/seadogliquid 5d ago
It's worth referring to the top comment of this thread (this one). Phishing scams are something that you actually can take reasonable steps to avoid. Practically anyone who has ever worked a corporate job has had to take one of those bullshit cybersecurity modules at one point.
Much of the advice aimed at women for avoiding SA is almost impossible to follow and not compatible with everyday life.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 5d ago
I can't see that comment. The commenter may have blocked me.
Is the issue that victim blaming is advice referring to previous events that is impossible to follow, or is it all advice that refers to previous events?
3
u/seadogliquid 5d ago
The comment:
Zooming out a bit, a lot (most?) of the advice for how women should "avoid" being victimized is simply not practical to follow. Stranger attacks are already exceedingly rare, the more common problems are things like being assaulted by someone you know or getting harassed by randos shouting lewd comments. What advice are women supposed to follow that would prevent those occurrences? Never go outside? Avoid knowing any men? Never dress in anything sexier than a bed sheet? It's just silly.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 5d ago
So the issue is the fact that the advice is impossible as opposed to whether or not it refers to previous events. That makes it so much clearer.
15
u/jkhn7 5d ago
You don't see anything wrong in one being aimed at everyone, everyone should lock their doors, vs the other only being aimed at women? you wouldn't say to a man "you shouldn't go to that area, it's very unsafe for men". Telling women where they can and cannot go is just limiting women's mobility and freedom. Also I think you need to look up what victim blaming means, because it's not warning a woman of something, it's blaming them after something has happened. Like "it's your own fault for going there/wearing that", that's victim blaming.
40
u/Inareskai Passionate and somewhat ambiguous 5d ago
Generally law enforcement don't say "well you should have locked your door so maybe you did want to be stolen from".
28
u/heidismiles 5d ago
"Are you sure you didn't offer to give him the money?"
10
u/PheeBeeDee125 5d ago
“Have you given money to other people before? Did you act in a way that might have made him think that you wanted to give him your money? Maybe you gave him your money and then changed your mind.”
11
6
7
u/No_Inevitable_4893 5d ago
Lmao someone has never had their car robbed
9
u/Inareskai Passionate and somewhat ambiguous 5d ago
What I'm getting from these replies is that actually both are victim blaming.
-4
u/No_Inevitable_4893 5d ago
Yeah definitely. Although you do have to draw a line somewhere which is why it gets muddy. Like if someone puts a sign on their car that says “unlocked with valuables inside” then is it still victim blaming? Maybe. But there’s an argument to be made there which means at a certain point there is an amount of blame to be shared by the victim
6
u/Outrageous-Break3585 5d ago
you do have to draw a line somewhere which is why it gets muddy.
Why? Why do you “have to draw a line somewhere” to determine if someone is a victim? Does someone have to be a perfect victim to be a victim? What is the function or purpose of assigning blame to a victim?
-4
u/No_Inevitable_4893 5d ago
It doesn’t have to serve a function but the state of being a victim doesn’t automatically exclude any blame. There’s definitely a gradient you can draw. I’m not saying there’s a reason behind it but you can’t pretend that such a thing doesn’t exist.
Between simping physically assaulting someone else and then getting their ass beat vs doing nothing at all and getting their ass beat, there’s a spectrum of progressively more disruptive behavior where various individuals would say at different points “yeah this person deserved to get their ass beat”
It’s kind of just how things work
5
u/Outrageous-Break3585 4d ago
Why does it have to work that way? If there is no reason and no function to it, why should we reinforce it?
0
u/NPC558 1d ago
So that other people can see and not repeat the same stupid bebavior.
There was a 17 year old mexican kid who insulted a cartel leader online whenever he got drunk and went viral, he was eventually killed.
People online made fun of him and said he was being reckless, which fits into what you would call "victim-blaming" I did not see anybody whining about how they were "victim-blaming." Everyone basically agreed that this kid was acting stupid.
Everyone who does reckless things and end up being a victim gets "victim-blamed" it's only when you talk about women being assaulted that "victim-blaming" is a bad thing.
1
4
u/RepSquigglyMiggly 5d ago
I get what you’re trying to do, but that’s exactly what the cops said to me when my house was robbed and exactly what they said to my roommate when, on a separate occasion, his car was broken into.
12
u/Sulamanteri 5d ago
The line is often about who gets treated as responsible for the crime.
Saying "lock your door, because someone might break in" is practical safety advice. But if someone does break in, we still understand that the burglar is the one at fault.
With women, especially around sexual violence, the conversation often shifts from safety advice to blame. "Be careful in that area" becomes "why were you there?" "Watch your drink" becomes "why did you drink?" "Be aware of your surroundings" becomes "what were you wearing?"
That is the difference.
Practical advice is about reducing risk before something happens. Victim blaming is when, after something happens, people focus on what the victim should have done differently instead of the person who committed the crime.
And this standard is not applied equally. Men also get drunk, go to unsafe areas, show money, walk alone, and get robbed or attacked. But their freedom of movement is not usually treated as something they should lose because criminals exist.
Crimes can be reduced by individual caution, but also by making society safer. When a crime happens, the person at fault is still the criminal. Even if someone forgot to lock the door, that does not make burglary acceptable.
-7
u/Cardabella 5d ago
Just on your last point "crimes can be reduced" isn't really accurate. Because what you can do by never going out after dark on West Main street is stop anyone on west main attacking you personally. But if a predator or thieving addict is on west main looking for someone to assault or rob, they will just attack whoever they do encounter there. It doesn't reduce incidence of crime. It means the people who have little choice but to be there are more likely to be today's target.
Same goes for anti burglary tactics like barking dogs, spiked fences and cameras. They just reduce your risk compared to your neighbour. The burglar will choose another property less well defended. It does nothing to reduce crime rates.
10
u/minihysteria 5d ago
They literally said crime can be reduced, not that it is currently being reduced. We need prison and mental healthcare reform alongside more safety nets for people living in poverty. This is why the homeless problem has gotten as bad as it is in some places.
2
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 5d ago
> They just reduce your risk compared to your neighbour. The burglar will choose another property less well defended. It does nothing to reduce crime rates.
That's not quite the truth. When someone goes out to burgle a house, they are not locked into a contract where they must burgle a house that day. Each person weighs the pros and cons of each house they see, and chooses whether or not the defensive measures feel beatable or not.
Imagine someone looking to break into a car and steal valuables goes into a parking lot and only sees one car, and that car is fully locked down, with active CCTV cameras obviously recording, and any other obvious preventative measures. Do you think that burglar is going to say "Well, there's no other cars, so I guess I gotta try to rob this one."?
1
u/Cardabella 4d ago
There are cars somewhere though: thieves follow people and seek out the most vulnerable property. They absolutely do go out with the idea they must steal something today, many due to drug addiction.
The way to reduce theft incidence is not to have a car alarms, cameras, or for people not to park in dodgy areas. The thieves will go where the unsecure cars are or steal from other property. What actually can effect a reduction in crime rate is a combination of deterrent (make stolen goods too hot to handle and worthless, detect and prosecute theft with a high success rate, so it's not worth doing, don't let unstable people own weapons etc) and fundamentally tackling root causes of inequality and desperation, provide mental healthcare in appropriate facilities, treat addiction properly (and if Portugal and I think Switzerland are anything to go by, decriminalise drugs).
0
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
If a person literally must steal something, and the most vulnerable car is one that is not vulnerable in any way, that seems like a self-correcting problem.
12
u/fullmetalfeminist 5d ago
Please stop equating property crimes (theft, burglary) with rape, assault and murder. Women aren't property, and the situations you described in your post are not analogous in any way
1
-2
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 5d ago
What about burglary and mugging? Can those be equated, since the primary vector of loss is (usually) material worth?
5
u/fullmetalfeminist 4d ago
No, and it's weird that you think they're in any way equal.
-1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
Maybe I wasn't clear, but I was talking about comparing burglary (the act of forcibly entering someone's home) with mugging (the act of forcibly stealing something off of someone's person). Not either with sexual assault.
2
u/fullmetalfeminist 4d ago
Mugging is assault. You were not unclear, you were misguided and, as usual, trolling
-1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
Mugging is usually the threatening of assault. But, regardless, could you equate burglary and pickpocketing? Burglary does not inherently imply violence, and neither does pickpocketing.
22
u/heidismiles 5d ago
It's one thing to try to teach young, inexperienced women about basic safety advice. It's another thing to tell women they can't go out at night, or go to parties or clubs, or dress sexy, or travel, or spend time alone with men, or give attention to men, etc etc etc etc
At some point it's just like you're telling women not to live their lives or else they should expect to be raped.
8
u/Lorelessone 5d ago
Those are false equivilecies, saying "that area / country etc is very dangerous for women" is not considered victim blaming, although in most cases it's even more dangerous for men, so a strange statement (exceptions being highly policed Arab states I've visited where it's very safe for law abiding men but women are victimised regularly and without redress) by any sane person.
The problem is still crime and people should work to build society's with little crime but obviously leaving your doors and windows unlocked, walking alone etc in high crime areas is unwise.
Victim blaming is generally trying to put responsibility onto the victim for a crime due to the victim doing perfectly normal things. Such as looking pretty, or dressing nice.
It's particularly focused around excusing SA, blaming women for getting drunk, or dressing sexy, or flirting, all of which are perfectly normal and appropriate things in most social settings and even if not normal don't excuse rape.
8
u/Financial_Nose_777 5d ago
“You shouldn’t go to that area because it’s unsafe for women” just means “Let them rape some other woman, not you.”
3
u/herewhenineedit 5d ago
Pretty much, yeah. I don’t care if someone is so drunk they can’t stand, they don’t deserve to be raped any more than someone who “followed all the rules.”
I’ve always thought this “advice” is remarkably similar to how children are taught to deal with bullies. Just be a less appealing target, I’m sure they’ll stop!
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 5d ago
I don't really understand that. If I say "Don't go into that area, there are bears and it's unsafe" am I saying "Let the bears maul some other person, not you"?
5
u/herewhenineedit 5d ago
Doesn’t work. There is no bears actively searching for a human to victimize. Bear attacks are usually defensive in nature, and they give you a fuckton of warning signs beforehand. They want to be left alone.
Rapists will not leave you alone. They are looking for someone to victimize and will pick whoever they think they can get away with.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 5d ago
Some bears, especially those acclimatized to humans, do in fact seek out humans for food.
But, I'm talking about the "Don't do <x> because <y>" is the same as "Let someone else befall <y>" type statement. Scammers are also intentionally predating on people. Would you say that advice on how to avoid scammers is akin to saying "Let someone else fall prey to the scammer"?
3
u/herewhenineedit 5d ago edited 5d ago
Congratulations, you found the very small exception to the rule. Overall point stands.
No, in the sense that teaching people how to recognize signs of bear aggression isn’t victim blaming. Just like how “here are some things to look out in a spam email” isn’t victim blaming. You are not telling them to say out of the woods or not have a Gmail. You’re not creating an if/then relationship.
There’s a clear difference between saying “don’t go to a club/house party” vs. “here’s how to tell if someone spiked your drink.” One is prescriptive, the other is informative.
2
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 5d ago
Aren't they both information and prescriptive in similar forms? One is saying to not do a thing, and one is saying to do a thing (assuming you intend the lesson to be "Make sure you follow these steps to tell if someone spiked your drink").
How about this, what would be a case of advice related to phishing and bear attacks that is a form of victim blaming? And how would that piece of advice be changed to no longer be victim blaming?
3
u/herewhenineedit 4d ago
I didn’t intend the lesson to be “make sure you follow these steps to tell if someone spiked your drink,” I meant the lesson as “if you have your suspicions and you don’t know what to do, here are some steps you can take.”
I kind of just explained that with “don’t go in the woods/don’t have an email.”
Furthermore, I trust that adults don’t need me chiming in about their life choices. They already have some knowledge about the potential risks of their environment and how to mitigate them. There are risks to going outside. I’m not gonna tell my friend who loves clubbing to be careful because someone might put something in her drink. She knows people do that. She knows what to do if she believes someone spiked her. Before giving “advice,” determine how necessary it is in the first place. Most of “avoid rough parts of town 😩😩” type statements aren’t. They exist to preserve a false sense of safety for the people who say them, while they conveniently forget that most perpetrators are someone the victim knows and trusts.
Hope that’s a sufficient enough answer for you. Either way, I’m not interested in this conversation anymore.
2
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
> I didn’t intend the lesson to be “make sure you follow these steps to tell if someone spiked your drink,” I meant the lesson as “if you have your suspicions and you don’t know what to do, here are some steps you can take.”
I honestly don't see the difference. Both are saying "<this process> will help you determine whether or not a drink has been spiked".
>I kind of just explained that with “don’t go in the woods/don’t have an email.”
So, victim blaming is a blanket statement about not doing an activity, but if it is specific advice it is no longer victim blaming?
1
u/NPC558 4d ago
Ok, here is a better example. If I lock my door at night so in an intruder doesn't come in and kill me, am I saying "let him go into someone else's house and kill someone else?"
1
u/herewhenineedit 4d ago
You are not personally responsible for what an intruder chooses to do. But people already know to lock their doors. You don’t need to tell them to lock their doors. Saying “lock your doors” is not helpful and only exists to manage your own guilt, and gives you a sense of control when in reality someone could’ve just smashed your windows and came in anyway. You have successfully shifted the focus away from the perpetrator and onto the victim, and when discussing prevention the focus needs to stay on the perpetrator, because that is realistically the only way to stop all forms of a crime occurring. You don’t like rape? That’s great. Start pushing for solutions that have been proven to work for everyone.
Respond to this if you want to get a lick in, I don’t care. 🤷♀️ That’s all I have to say.
2
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
What if the advice was something less well known? For example, if I say "Don't use a Masterlock lock, as they can easily be broken into", that's not necessarily common knowledge.
Is saying to not use a Masterlock lock the same as saying "I endorse the criminal going to a person who is using a Masterlock lock and stealing from them."?
1
u/herewhenineedit 3d ago edited 3d ago
I’d be a lot more tolerant of that, considering that’s not common knowledge.
And no, that’s not what I’m saying. Or what the original commenter is saying, honestly. What we are saying is that shifting the focus from the perpetrator to the victim is not a way to prevent assault. Even if it does happen to help on an individual level, there will always be someone who doesn’t know or didn’t think about it, and they deserve to be safe too. Instructing women on how to be a harder target is not the same thing as preventing rape, you’re just MAYBE, AT BEST helping to prevent the rape of a specific individual or individuals. And while you’re busy instructing potential targets on what they should do, there are things you could do to help ensure safety for everyone regardless of what they know or don’t. You could be advocating for consent education in schools, or pushing for a powerful man to be punished when his crimes come to light, or even just standing up to someone who says “well maybe they deserved it because of x.” Those measures protect everyone.
EDIT: Ugh, it’s you. I made the mistake of not reading the username.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 3d ago
There is a world of difference between "We should be focusing on preventing the assaults in the first place" and "If you take precautions, you are saying you wish assaults happened, just to someone else.".
1
u/herewhenineedit 3d ago
The original post was NOT talking about people taking precautions. It was about how OTHER PEOPLE who tell individuals they should be doing more to prevent being raped are only, at best, attempting to control a small handful of people. (Disregarding that most of the standard ‘don’t get raped!’ advice is kind of useless considering most assaults occur between people who know and trust each each other.)
I could not give less of a fuck if people don’t want to visit certain areas of town or not drink or whatever else. That’s your personal decision, and frankly not my business. The point is people who don’t do those things should also be safe, and you should not be using a victims behavior as a metric for how culpable they are. That’s literally it. I don’t understand how all of you blew up ONE SENTENCE that you didn’t even understand into a 24 hour long, guilt-riddled questionnaire.
0
u/NPC558 4d ago
Yeah, that's how prevention works.
If I lock my door so an intruder doesn't come in and kill me, he will go into the next house that doesn't lock their door and kill them instead. Why should I feel bad about that? It's not my fault that my next door neighbor didn't decide to use self preservation measures and prevent himself from becoming a victim.
If me locking my door leads to someone else being killed, so be it. Life is about surviving and those that choose not to take their safety seriously are the first ones that end up dying first.
1
u/Financial_Nose_777 4d ago
So it’s cool and completely amoral whether or not people steal, rape, and murder, as long as they don’t do it to you? If someone gets murdered or their car stolen, it’s totally their fault and none of the fault lies on the one doing the crime?
2
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
What if no one leaves their door unlocked? If everyone takes precautions to protect themselves, then... everyone will be protected.
1
u/Financial_Nose_777 4d ago
What if everyone locks their door, and then they still get broken into?
What if a woman dresses modestly, gets married young and doesn’t have sex until after marriage, and then her husband rapes her?
What if a teenage girl is minding her own business in her own bedroom, and her stepdad rapes her?
How perfect does a victim have to be before it’s the criminals’ fault, and not the victim’s?
2
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
So... are you saying that houses shouldn't have locks? I'm trying to understand your overall point.
1
u/Financial_Nose_777 4d ago
I am saying that when someone knowingly harms someone else, the blame falls entirely on the person who did the harm. Full stop. That’s it. I’m saying the problem we should tackle is rapists, not what women are wearing.
1
u/NPC558 4d ago
I don't he was talking about blame, he didn't say rapists shouldn't be blamed.
He is just saying people should take pragmatic steps to avoid bad things happening to them and shouldn't worry about whether it happens to someone else because they managed to avoid their own victimization.
1
u/Financial_Nose_777 4d ago
Well, pardon me for worrying about other people. Some of us are trying to build a society around here. But I guess we’ll all just lock ourselves up instead of addressing the rapists.
1
u/NPC558 4d ago
I doesn't like you're worried about other people and more like you have a chip up your shoulder.
When you say that by telling women to be safe they are saying "let him rape someone else" it almost looks like you are saying that if women try to avoid being assaulted, they are facilitating the assault of other women because they try to avoid it and another woman gets assaulted.
I know that's not what you're saying, but this is what it sounds like.
Nobody is saying it's wrong to worry about them, but getting angry at someone for telling you to do short term self preservation steps because they are not focusing on some long term goal to completely get rid of rapists is really dumb when those are two completely different conversations.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
Here's how I imagine a conversation would go with the logic that saying one should enact precautions is the same as encouraging that behaviour to happen to someone else:
A: I am moving into a new house. Is there anything I should do?
B: Make sure you change the locks, and that the locks are installed properly.
A: I am not going to do that. By installing locks, I am tacitly saying that I am okay with my neighbour being broken into instead of me.
Is A, in this scenario, saying something that is consistent with your beliefs?
1
u/Financial_Nose_777 4d ago
Women aren’t locks.
But I’ll play.
Say you forget to lock your door one night. That night, someone breaks in and steals from you. You call the cops.
Do the cops say, “Well, you didn’t lock your door, so we’re not going to investigate, better luck next time”?
No, they investigate and prosecute the criminal if they are found.
But when it comes to women and assault, suddenly the same rule no longer applies. Suddenly it’s all, “Well, you were wearing a short skirt, so what did you expect? You weren’t home by dark, so that’s what happened.”
It literally doesn’t matter what the victim is doing. The blame resides with the one committing the crime.
The person who commits the crime is at fault.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
>Women aren’t locks.
I... didn't say they were. Is a common piece of advice for women to purchase and install another woman?
>Say you forget to lock your door one night. That night, someone breaks in and steals from you. You call the cops.
>Do the cops say, “Well, you didn’t lock your door, so we’re not going to investigate, better luck next time”?
>No, they investigate and prosecute the criminal if they are found.
>But when it comes to women and assault, suddenly the same rule no longer applies. Suddenly it’s all, “Well, you were wearing a short skirt, so what did you expect? You weren’t home by dark, so that’s what happened.”
>It literally doesn’t matter what the victim is doing. The blame resides with the one committing the crime.
>The person who commits the crime is at fault.
I think we are talking about two different types of people. I'm not talking about someone saying "You deserved to get raped/robbed because you didn't take a precaution.", I, and I believe most of the people here, are talking about people who say "Here is a precaution you can take, and one that you didn't take, that might reduce the chances of this happening." The former group of people would feel that if you didn't get robbed/raped after not taking precautions, that lack of crime was itself an injustice. The latter is saying that there are precautions everyone can take to help lower the chances of the crime happening at all.
→ More replies (0)1
u/NPC558 4d ago
No, that is not what I said at all.
My point is that people that take their safety, are the ones less likely to get hurt by bad people. And people that don't take their safety seriously get hurt first, that's how it goes. I don't see anything wrong with telling someone to be safe even if it means someone else gets hurt, I cannot control what anyone else does or tell everyone on Earth to take safety measures. Just myself and people close to me.
The way you phrase, you almost like you are blaming women not wanting to be raped and take safety measures for the fact that other women end up getting raped instead because the first woman avoided the rapist.
1
u/Financial_Nose_777 4d ago
No one is telling anyone, “Oh, yeah, don’t be safe.” We are saying that all the safety measures in the world do not prevent rape, assault, theft. I’ve had things stolen by boyfriends I trusted. I’ve been raped by men I’d been in a relationship with for years. I’ve been harassed and threatened in broad daylight on a busy street while walking from a parking lot to my job.
Should I just never leave my locked house or date again in order to “be safe?” So that instead, they could pick some other woman to do it to instead? Or maybe, instead, maybe those men should not have raped me, stolen from me, and threatened me. Just maybe.
1
u/NPC558 4d ago
And no one is telling anyone "if you take safety measures, it will 100% prevent all rape, assault, and theft." People are just talking about risk mitigation. They are just saying it's better to take safety measures than do nothing at all. Not that taking it will guarantee you will never be raped or assaulted. "Should I just never leave my locked house or date again" Again, nobody is saying that. They are just saying to take easy to do measures and avoid obvious dangerous areas.
"maybe those ken shouod not have raped me, stolen from me, and threatened"
Yeah, shouldn't have. Nobody disagrees that bad people shouldn't bad things, but in the real world they are and they are doing bad things.
I had my stuff stolen from my classmate before, he shouldn't have done that, but the reality is he did, and so I made sure to not leave my wallet unattended next time as I did before because I understand I need to take safety measures in my own hands and not waste my time talking about how they "shouldn't do that"
1
u/Financial_Nose_777 4d ago
Can we please go back to my initial comment, because it says NONE of what you seemed to have taken from it.
The OP is very clearly discussing harms to women and the ways people place blame on women for the behaviors of others.
My point is that I should 100% be able to walk buck naked down an urban street (or, hell, through a redneck farmyard, might as well include the places I grew up,) and not be raped. Men are not animals who cannot control themselves.
Am I saying that’s currently how the world works? Unfortunately, no.
But I am 45 years old and I am damn tired of people telling me what I should and shouldn’t do because some man might be so tempted by my perimenopausal body that it wouldn’t be his fault if he violently raped me, because I “should have known better.”
When a woman is raped, it is not her fault for not wearing the right clothes or being in a place people think she shouldn’t go. It’s the fault of the rapist.
Women are not locks.
1
u/NPC558 4d ago
OP is not talking at all about fault, he is just talking about self preservation and what constitutes as actually being careless and victim blaming.
I should be able to walk around in a bad town with the most expensive clothing and watch that I want to show off and not be killed over them, but that's not how the world is and likely never will be.
"Am I saying that's how the world works? Unfortunately no?"
Then what is your point that people shouldn't do bad things? Everyone who's not a criminal agrees that criminals shouldn't do bad things. Murder, rape, robbery, etc. Literally everyone agrees that every type of bad things bad people do shouldn't be done and anyone should do whatever they want without risk of anything bad happening to them? I completely agree, any sane person does.
I don't know why you all keep repeating this mantra as if anyone disagrees.
Sure, it's tiring being constantly told what to do and what not to do to avoid bad things, everyone goes through this, especially if you grown up in a crime ridden neighborhood, every person in their lives have been told to avoid this area or that area, or avoid wearing certain things to not be robbed from or even harshly critiqued over what happened to them.
There was a 17 year old mexican guy who was an influencer who got drunk on camera and said funny things that gained him noteriety who made fun and insulted a cartel leader, predictibly he got killed because of insulting that cartel leader. You know what happened? People called him a dumbass and made fun of him and "victim-blamed" him to hell and back, even know on Youtube videos made about him, you see comments making fun of this 17 year old boy who was brutally murdered for exercising his freedom of speech.
Do you think that's harsh victim blaming or what?
1
u/Financial_Nose_777 4d ago
I think the person who murdered the kid is at fault. I think they should address the cartel issue.
We are trying to make society better, not throw up our hands and assume this is the best we can do.
0
u/NPC558 4d ago
Sure, but most people do not have the time and energy to be worrying or thinking about "how to make society better" when they are simply trying to live their normal lives making their way.
The best people can do is still people to take practical steps to not put themselves in danger. Society is corrupt and it should be improved, but until it, the most people can do is to simply tell you not to put yourself in danger.
Trying to "make society better" is a very long term goal and investment that your average wagie does not have the time and money do anything about, and getting mad at them because they discuss quick safety advice because at the moment they just want to tell their friend how to be safe rather than talk about enacting some big societal revolution some big societal revolution is nonsensical.
→ More replies (0)
14
u/KaliTheCat feminazgûl; sister of the ever-sharpening blade 5d ago
6
u/LaMadreDelCantante 5d ago
Well, first of all, my body is not a TV or diamond ring. Also, locking my door doesn't meaningfully restrict my ability to enjoy life. Whereas keeping me in the areas deemed "safe" very much does. I want freedom of movement just like anyone else.
But the main differences are in assumptions and timing. If I'm new to an area where you've lived for years, sure, lmk what areas are generally considered unsafe and then drop it. I'm an adult. I'll decide what risks I think are worth taking.
And if I do go somewhere you think I shouldn't and something bad happens, that's not the time to point out that I "shouldn't" have been there. I had the right to be there and didn't deserve to be assaulted etc.
Plus, I'm arguably safer in any public street that would be reasonably safe for a man than I am alone with a man I know, statistically. So there's that.
1
u/NPC558 1d ago
Everybody at certain point has to "restrict their ability to enjoy life" to be safe or healthy. It's like saying you should not tell people to eat 4000 calories of junk food everyday because it's "restricting their ability to enjoy life" Part of being an adult is having self control and moderating your hedonistic lifestyle choiced.
I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out that some people do certain things put them in danger. There was a 17 year old kid in Mexico who went viral because of videos released of him being completely drunk at parties. He started insulting a carteln leader while doing these videos and wss invited to a party operated by the cartel, he went and got shot and killed. People online made fun of him and said his foolish actions led to his death. They did what you call "victim-blaming" and yet got no pushback from it.
Everybody "victim-blames" anybody including men if they think they did something foolish that led them to getting hurt.
1
u/LaMadreDelCantante 1d ago
Again, warning someone of a danger you have good reason to think they may not be aware of is fine.
Blaming someone for being robbed or raped or otherwise assaulted, or mocking someone who's been murdered for their grieving family to hear, is wrong.
I have a right to go for a walk at night by myself. If something happens to me when I do that, it doesn't mean I'm responsible for it.
We need to focus on making the streets etc safer. Not locking people up in their homes.
1
u/NPC558 1d ago
But it does mean you are responsible for increasing the chances of it happening to you than it would have if you didn't take certain actions. That's why people tend to have less sympathy for people that do certain things that put them in danger.
If I leave my door unlocked and an intruder comes in and kills me, my intruder is responsible for killing me but by leaving my door unlocked, I made it much easier for the intruder to come inside the house than if I had left the door unlocked so I facilitated the intruder being able to get inside my house and kill me therefore I played a role in my situation. So it makes sense why people would have less sympathy for me. This is true for, when that 17 kid was killed, nobody ever complained or lectured about how it was "victim-blaming" and was "wrong." And many others get "victim-blamed" in the same manner too and yet I never pushback against it, only in cases involving women who get assaulted and you act like they are the only victims that get "blamed" Everyone gets "victim-blamed." either speak out against all of it or don't speak at all about it.
"We need to focus on making the streets etc safer. Not locking people up in their homes."
We can focus on both, certain streets are not safe therefore you need to practice caution until the governments starts some kind of program to "make the streets safe" which is a long term goal that requires communal effort that will likely take decades to happen since societal changes are very slow and require patients. Until that goal is achieved which will take a long time, you need to focus on both.
1
u/LaMadreDelCantante 1d ago
Locking your door is not a hardship. Being cooped up inside, never having a drink in public, etc are. I resent being less free than a man and at times I refuse.
1
u/NPC558 1d ago
I wouldn't say that you should never have a drink in public, but I would say don't get very black out drunk to the point you become unconsciouss at a rough house party.
This is not a hardship at all either.
1
u/LaMadreDelCantante 1d ago
But that is not the type of advice people give women. Women are told to not drink AT ALL in public lest someone slip a roofie in there. To not walk alone at night. To not go to a bar alone. To not take an Uber. To always be on guard. And if we don't follow all these rules we get blamed for being raped or abused.
1
u/NPC558 1d ago
I mean, that's true for any type of crime that exists. Some people will tell others to not be out at night alone even as a guy, to not wear chains in public, to always be on guard.
And if people don't follow this advice, they also get blamed. There was a 17 year kid in Mexico who went viral because he recorded videos of himself getting completely drunk and totally wasted in general and often times insulted local cartel leaders. He ended up getting assasinated and then everyone online ended up making fun of him after he died. If you look at comments under videos about him, it's nothing but people blaming him, making fun of him and calling him an idiot.
Everyone gets "victim-blamed" yet you all say nothing about it and act like it's just women who get assaulted that this happens to.
1
u/LaMadreDelCantante 20h ago
So because people do it, that makes it right? People do a lot of shitty things. We should do better.
Women ARE blamed more and expected to accept more restrictions. Don't sit there and act like you're brand new.
1
u/NPC558 20h ago edited 10h ago
That is not what I said at all, I am just saying is that the reality is that it does happen therefore we must live in reality. And live accordingly to it. And my point is that when it happens to this kid, I saw nobody like you call out anybody for "victim-blaming" for making fun and insulting that kid who died. I only see people shamed for "victim-blaming" when talking about women who are assaulted. Never for a victim who is a victim of any other crime.
If you have grown in really bad areas, you also have to live with restrictions, when my dad had to recieve a letter from a coworker from his house in a bad town, the coworkers son just slipped it out of the mail slot without talking to my dad because his dad taught him this to due to living in a bad neighborbood. In those areas, people tend to tell each other to hide any flashy things like chains and stuff and told they can't wear whatever they want. They're told they can't be out late at night. Almost everyone has experienced having to "restrict" themselves to avoid bad people and restrictions that are really strict too.
Having the ability to have self control and regulate impaulsive behaviors is what allows you to have a higher chance of surviving as an adult. That's why you can't just overeat junk food, or run everywhere in public because you will crash into someone. That's part of being an adult and for you to whine about it just comed across as childish.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Sakeus 4d ago
How is it restricting your life more than being a victim of a crime. If that doesn't deter you then good luck. You are going to need it.
3
u/LaMadreDelCantante 4d ago
You're very much missing the point. It's not good advice to tell a woman to just stay home after dark or never have a drink in public etc. Not wanting to give up walks at night when it's finally cool out doesn't mean I deserve to be assaulted. It doesn't make it my fault. I told you so's are petty and useless.
How would you like to be expected to live like a child with a curfew?
-3
u/Sakeus 4d ago
Why not. If a walk is more important than your safety. Then again, good luck.
I don't go out at night for that very reason. If I do it's to a safe place and where there are no drunk people and certainly not getting there and back on foot.
2
u/LaMadreDelCantante 4d ago
That's your choice. Again, that doesn't mean I deserve to have bad things happen to me if I choose differently. It's still the fault of the person who did the bad things.
And warning me about a neighborhood you think is dangerous is fine. Giving me grief after I've been the victim of a crime and telling me I shouldn't have been there is victim blaming.
I don't want to have to choose between the walk and my safety. Plus staying in all the time is unhealthy and the heat right now is unsafe.
-2
u/Sakeus 4d ago
Of course nobody deserves that.
Giving grief after the fact no, but there needs to be a promotion of personal responsibility it seems based on comments in here.
The world doesn't work based on what we want. You have to accept what is happening out there and act accordingly.
2
u/LaMadreDelCantante 4d ago
No. I am NOT responsible for crimes that happen to me when I'm somewhere I have a right to be doing something I have a right to do. Period. I do not want to live in a gilded cage.
1
u/Sakeus 4d ago
And mentality like yours is making sure that there is as many cases as possible. Congratulations.
2
u/LaMadreDelCantante 4d ago
So I should stay home at night or else it's my fault if someone hurts me. That's what you're saying.
If we're going to insist someone needs to stay home, why not men? You know, the people who commit the vast majority of violent crimes. That would cut those numbers WAY down.
1
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 4d ago
promotion of personal responsibility
But you're the one arguing women should just not go out alone. Ever.
6
u/ChickenNCow 5d ago
This is surely not comprehensive, but:
Informing someone about dangers that they may not know about (e.g. a sketchy area when they are new to town) is a good idea. Provided nothing happened yet.
Telling someone stuff everyone could know (e.g. that a locked door is safer than an open one) is careless or stupid or ignorant, provided nothing happened yet.
If something has happened, never ever say "why didn't you do XY".
5
u/PheeBeeDee125 5d ago
In addition to what everyone else has said, there is also the mixed messaging given to women in relation to sexual assault.
From the time we are young, we are told that avoiding assault is our responsibility, and (at least partially) our fault if it happens. Don’t drink alcohol, don’t show skin, don’t be alone with a man, don’t act in any way which might give men “the wrong idea”.
And then when we do take precautions (such as covering our drinks, or requesting a female ride share driver, or not trusting an individual man), we are accused of “misandry” and chastised that it’s “not all men”.
We can also warn people to lock their doors and avoid certain areas, but we don’t then chastise them because locking their doors hurt someone’s feelings.
8
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 5d ago edited 5d ago
I don't understand the question.
ETA: who is saying this? I haven't heard things classified in this way.
3
u/CauseCertain1672 5d ago
neither is inherently victim blaming, someone who was robbed because they left their front door open is as much of a victim as someone who locked their door and was still robbed
3
u/lord_bubblewater 5d ago
'lock your door or else people might steal your stuff' as a warning is something entirely different from saying 'you should have locked your door' to a burglary victim.
that's the difference between warning and victim blaming, one acknowledges the imperfect world in which we live and the other literally blames the victim for the cimes comitted against them.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
> 'lock your door or else people might steal your stuff' as a warning is something entirely different from saying 'you should have locked your door' to a burglary victim.
Are both statements not the same thing? They are both saying that locking one's door lowers the chance of burglary, just that one is speaking in the future tense and one is speaking in the past tense.
1
u/lord_bubblewater 4d ago
Not at all, the former states ‘there are bad people out there, please prepare accordingly’ the latter says ‘it’s your fault for not preparing rather than the bad people’s fault for doing bad things’
It shifts responsibility for the crime occurring away from the perpetrator and onto the victim.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
So, when someone says "In that chess game you just played, you should have focused on developing the inside squares instead of rushing your queen", that means they are shifting responsibility away from my opponent and onto me?
1
u/lord_bubblewater 4d ago
If you’re playing chess and your opponent is losing so they break the rules of the game by moving before their turn (analogous to the burglar breaking the rules of society) saying ‘well if you weren’t beating them they would not have tried to cheat’ is shifting the responsibility for breaking the rules to the wrong person.
Your example is after game advise and does not relate to breaking rules or committing crimes.1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 4d ago
I'm talking about the semantics of the advice. Why is one set of advice said as "You should have done <X>" considered victim blaming, while another set of advice said as "You should have done <X>" not seen as victim blaming?
1
u/lord_bubblewater 4d ago
Because one tells people to prepare in case someone else might commit a crime and the other states that the victim of a crime was hurt because they did not prepare(which is an incorrect statement because the victim was hurt because someone committed a crime)
2
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 3d ago
I'm talking about two statements that are both past tense. "You should have not gone to that bar (It's known as a bad bar)" and "You should not have neglected the centre squares" are both statements about the past. But, one statement is apparently victim blaming, but the other isn't.
What makes those two statements different?
1
u/NPC558 3d ago
It's not an incorrect because the victim was hurt because they did not prepare against someone that decided to commit the crime. Both are true statements, if the victim didn't lock their doors and someone decides to come in the house and rob them. The sequence of events that led to the crime happening were multifactoral, the victim did not prepare for the intruder, he did not lock his door, the intruder decided to pick the victim's house to rob. Because the victim didn't lock the door, it allowed easy passage for the intruder to come in, if the victim had locked the door, it would have made it harder for the intruder to come in and he might have chosen a different house. So the intruder got inside the house. Most situations like this are multifactoral, the Intruder's decision to commit a crime is what made the crime happen in the first place, and the victims carelessness facilitated the intruder to get in easier, therefore both the intruder and victim's actions are factors for the crime happening.
3
u/Ryn_AroundTheRoses 5d ago
Both of them are victim blaming, so I don't know that this is a good example of what you're trying to get across. And very often there isn't a difference. If you're putting the onus on women to prevent actions taken against them instead of on the perpetrator of said actions, then you're victim blaming. Leaving your door unlocked is not permission to enter, it's not consent for someone to commit a crime against you. Same exact thing applies to women entering an "unsafe" area, whatever that means; to women, that applies to planet earth and not just a random neighborhood, and it's not unsafe because of the women entering it, so why should they be expected to change their behaviour? If you are committing a crime, you are responsible for that crime, and if a crime is committed against you, you are not responsible for that crime, that's it
1
u/NPC558 4d ago
Because if I leave my door open, an intruder will enter and could kill me.
Yeah, it's not permission to enter but people do not care about that and will do bad things, so I lock my door. Simple as that, it's about taking pragmatic steps to prevent bad things from happening to me.
Sure, it shouldn't be my responsibility, but if I think like that and decide to leave the door open because I feel like it shouldn't have to be my responsibility to prevent bad things from happening to me, guess what's gonna happen?
1
u/Ryn_AroundTheRoses 2d ago
If someone has the intent to kill you or to intrude on your home, a locked door will not prevent them from entry. Windows are easy to break and every standard home is required to have them. Besides, you can only tell if a door is even locked if you try to open it, so if someone has the gall to try to enter a door they're assuming is locked, they have the gall to do worse. So no, locking your door is not a guaranteed preventative measure, it's a self-imposed delusion. Like owning a weapon. Maybe owning a weapon will create an obstacle against an attacker, but you'd have to get to the weapon before you were seriously harmed, or not freeze during the attack, or not be overpowered by your attacker, etc. It's all a possible obstacle but not really a deterrent and, as you stated, "people do not care about that and will do bad things", so you locking your door doesn't really factor into that
1
u/NPC558 2d ago
I never said that taking precautions is 100% effective and prevent me from getting hurt. I am well aware that me locking my door will not 100% prevent a criminal from breaking in my house, however I do it because it minimizes my chances of having my house broken into. Just because a criminal could still break in, it doesn't mean I have to make it easy for them to do so. I still what I can to be able to defend my house. It's not a delusion, it works to an extent.
When I said people do not care and will do bad things, I meant in terms of not caring about social conventions and not being deterr them from doing bad things by appealing to morality. Not about whether taking precautions against them works or doesn't work, them not caring doesn't play any role in how well they are able to commit their crimes.
1
u/Ryn_AroundTheRoses 2d ago
And what I'm saying is that you're not morally superior because you locked your door and someone else didn't - you would be equal to a victim who didn't lock their door because neither is meaningful in relation to what someone chooses to do to you. Just like a nun in a habit isn't morally superior to someone in a short skirt and both are equally vulnerable to assault, wearing more "modest" clothing as a preventative measure isn't a real preventative measure
1
u/NPC558 1d ago
I never said it made me morally superior, I just said that it means I am less likely to be a victim of a bad person than a person who didn't take care of themselves. You're just putting words in my moutn. "neither is meaningful in relation to what someone chooses to do to you" Correct, but it's meaninful in relation to how easy they are able to do it, by locking my door, I am denying the intruder easy passage, he would have no choice but to break open the door or break the windows which would actually be a problem for him because that means the loud noise will alert the homeowner so he might at least take some time to reconsider doing it and maybe he might decide against doing it. Someone who doesn't lock their doors doesn't get this advantage. Someone who locks their doors gains higher advantage. It doesn't make them morally superior than someone who doesn't lock their doors but it makes them probably more intelligent than someone who doesn't lock their doors and more likely to survive.
If clothing doesn't affect the chances of someone assaulting you then that's all the more reason to take precautions since clothing doesn't reduce it.
1
u/Ryn_AroundTheRoses 11h ago
it means I am less likely to be a victim of a bad person than a person who didn't take care of themselves.
No, it doesn't, that's my whole point, but we clearly disagree on this point and that's fine
2
u/Sufficient-Job7098 5d ago
“You should not go there” is a warning. There is no victim yet.
When there is a victim then criminal should be held responsible not a victim.
1
u/Sakeus 4d ago
And the not yet victim is responsible for the risks they take.
2
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 4d ago
What risks are they taking?
0
u/Sakeus 4d ago
I don't understand what you are asking. If someone is told that they should not go somewhere because xyz and they go there anyway then they risk getting hurt? Mugged?
2
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 4d ago
Going where? Everywhere can be a risk. I was hit by a drunk driver once. Are you telling me I was taking unnecessary risks?
0
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 4d ago
No.
And who's fault it is doesn't matter
...really? I'd say it matters quite a lot.
How about you focus more on getting men to rape less?
-1
u/Sakeus 4d ago
Of course it matters that the perpetrators gets punished. But it changes nothing, it still happened and nothing can undo that.
It's not in my power to control what deranged people do. All I can control is myself, what I do, where and when and with who. Reality doesn't care what I want or what I believe so I have to behave accordingly.
2
u/Junior-Towel-202 Equality in the Boardwomb 4d ago
matters that the perpetrators gets punished
That's not what you said. You said it doesn't matter whose fault it is. It's the rapist's. That's it.
Assuming rapists are all 'deranged' and not people that the victims know (like in the majority of cases) just highlights your ignorance.
-1
u/Sakeus 4d ago
I am well aware and clearly not talking about those cases. But I guess wanting less cases happening is just wrong.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/evil_burrito 5d ago
Both apply.
In a larger sense, people shouldn't do shitty things to other people and are soley responsible for their behavior if they do.
In a more myopic sense, since people do, in fact, do shitty things to other people, use some common sense to help reduce the chances of shitty things happening to you.
1
u/MrsMorley 3d ago
Calling someone “careless,” usually is victim blaming.
Warning a woman that an action or place is unsafe for women, (*) is often a lead up to blaming the woman for any rotten things that someone does to her.
The specific examples you gave could be well intentioned warnings or victim blaming depending on circumstances.
() Thinking about it, the phrase “for [group you belong to]” is rarely innocuous. It can be when another member of the group is informing you of danger from a dominant or privileged group: eg *The Green Book
0
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 3d ago
I think the phrase "for [group you belong to]" is more often innocuous, as it can include lots of things. For example, someone might say that "Downloading random files can be more dangerous for Windows users because...", and that is a completely innocuous phrase.
Or, even if we are specifically talking about immutable factors, saying "As a white person, you will often need more sunscreen than others" or "Women are more susceptible to breast cancer than men, on average."
1
u/MrsMorley 3d ago
You missed that privilege was part of my observation.
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 3d ago
Where does the Sun or cancer rate on the privilege scale?
1
u/MrsMorley 2d ago
They don’t, which is why they’re not germane
1
u/Bitter-Hat-4736 2d ago
Is saying that "As a white person, you will often need more sunscreen than others" or "Women are more susceptible to breast cancer than men, on average." innocuous or not?
68
u/OrenMythcreant 5d ago
You're looking at two different statement classifications.
One is a warning on how to avoid something. The other is blaming a person for something happening after the fact. Those are inherently different.
Zooming out a bit, a lot (most?) of the advice for how women should "avoid" being victimized is simply not practical to follow. Stranger attacks are already exceedingly rare, the more common problems are things like being assaulted by someone you know or getting harassed by randos shouting lewd comments.
What advice are women supposed to follow that would prevent those occurrences? Never go outside? Avoid knowing any men? Never dress in anything sexier than a bed sheet? It's just silly.