s/o Victim Blaming

[StephanieZ]

Help me understand a bit. 

 

I've run into the "You're victim blaming" thing at least twice on these boards, once when I was suggesting various things to teach our kids/friends/women to avoid abusive relationships and then today when various folks were talking about what things we teach our kids to do to minimize their risks in dealign with police officers. And I've certainly seen it plenty of other places, too. 

 

I totally agree with the importance of not blaming victims for their attacker's actions. 

 

However, where do we distinguish between advocating prudent actions to minimize your risks of being harmed by "bad people" vs. blaming victims?

 

For instance . . .

 

Say I never lock my car doors, and I leave my purse on the seat while I run into various places for errands. Eventually, someone steals my purse while I'm at the playground with my kid. I report this crime. Someone (friend, cop, whoever) is likely to tell me, "Uh, lady, you really shouldn't leave your purse in an unlocked car. That's asking for trouble."

 

Is that victim blaming? To me, no, it's not. It's simply reminding a person that they exposed themselves to unnecessary risk. Likewise, me teaching my kids not to leave valuables in plain view in any vehicle (let alone an unlocked vehicle) isn't victim blaming. It's educating them about "bad people" and how to minimize your risks from said bad people. 

 

Another instance . . .

 

Say you plan a visit to a middle eastern country where women are legally and morally required and expected to be covered. Say this place has a known history of sexual violence against women, and that women who don't properly cover themselves are frequently targeted. Is it victim blaming to advise your family members/friends/etc who are traveling there of this elevated risk and the imperative nature of staying covered and/or staying guarded? To me, no, that's simple common sense.

 

It in *no way* excuses the criminals, but it is just prudent to avoid exposing yourself to risk. 

 

. . .

 

 

To me, it crosses from proactive self/others-protection to victim blaming only when you use the "advice" to shift blame away from the attacker, or certainly if used to "beat someone when they are down" if you are directly addressing someone who is already a victim. To tell a rape victim, "You shouldn't have been drinking alone at that party!" is cruel even if it is true. So, the cruelty is wrong. Or, to say, "The rapist isn't really at fault here because she was asking for it the way she dressed." is obviously victim blaming to me. Or to say, "Well, we won't charge the thief with stealing your purse since you left it in plain view." is victim blaming and wrong. To tell the woman whose purse was stolen, "Whoa, you do that all the time? That's really stupid. If you don't want your purse stolen, perhaps you should lock your doors, because otherwise, this is just gonna' keep happening until you relocate to Fantasy Land." -- that, to me, is not victim blaming or cruel, because having your purse stolen isn't (generally) a traumatic event and so as long as the victim isn't traumatized, then telling her like it is just maybe helps her get a clue and take fewer risks next time.

 

To me, the world is full of scary risks. Bears, dogs, rapists, lightning, floods, etc . . . I think learning about and discussing prudent self-protection prevention measures for all these risks is a reasonable thing to discuss and to teach our kids. 

 

Anyway, I have zero sympathy for the criminals in any of these examples or in the cases in the news, etc. I think they should all go to jail and be punished. I'm just wondering how we can even talk about these issues without this PC "victim blaming" card preventing us from even discussing prudent self-protection measures. 

[Mimm]

Of course people should have discussions about how to stay safe from all kinds of dangers including sexual predators.

 

BUT, in a post about a particular specific case, bringing up all the things that the victim should have done differently, even if those things would have prevented her from being victimized, crosses the line into blaming the victim. So it's a matter of time and place. 

[Scarlett]

Help me understand a bit. 

 

I've run into the "You're victim blaming" thing at least twice on these boards, once when I was suggesting various things to teach our kids/friends/women to avoid abusive relationships and then today when various folks were talking about what things we teach our kids to do to minimize their risks in dealign with police officers. And I've certainly seen it plenty of other places, too. 

 

I totally agree with the importance of not blaming victims for their attacker's actions. 

 

However, where do we distinguish between advocating prudent actions to minimize your risks of being harmed by "bad people" vs. blaming victims?

 

For instance . . .

 

Say I never lock my car doors, and I leave my purse on the seat while I run into various places for errands. Eventually, someone steals my purse while I'm at the playground with my kid. I report this crime. Someone (friend, cop, whoever) is likely to tell me, "Uh, lady, you really shouldn't leave your purse in an unlocked car. That's asking for trouble."

 

Is that victim blaming? To me, no, it's not. It's simply reminding a person that they exposed themselves to unnecessary risk. Likewise, me teaching my kids not to leave valuables in plain view in any vehicle (let alone an unlocked vehicle) isn't victim blaming. It's educating them about "bad people" and how to minimize your risks from said bad people. 

 

Another instance . . .

 

Say you plan a visit to a middle eastern country where women are legally and morally required and expected to be covered. Say this place has a known history of sexual violence against women, and that women who don't properly cover themselves are frequently targeted. Is it victim blaming to advise your family members/friends/etc who are traveling there of this elevated risk and the imperative nature of staying covered and/or staying guarded? To me, no, that's simple common sense.

 

It in *no way* excuses the criminals, but it is just prudent to avoid exposing yourself to risk. 

 

. . .

 

 

To me, it crosses from proactive self/others-protection to victim blaming only when you use the "advice" to shift blame away from the attacker, or certainly if used to "beat someone when they are down" if you are directly addressing someone who is already a victim. To tell a rape victim, "You shouldn't have been drinking alone at that party!" is cruel even if it is true. So, the cruelty is wrong. Or, to say, "The rapist isn't really at fault here because she was asking for it the way she dressed." is obviously victim blaming to me. Or to say, "Well, we won't charge the thief with stealing your purse since you left it in plain view." is victim blaming and wrong. To tell the woman whose purse was stolen, "Whoa, you do that all the time? That's really stupid. If you don't want your purse stolen, perhaps you should lock your doors, because otherwise, this is just gonna' keep happening until you relocate to Fantasy Land." -- that, to me, is not victim blaming or cruel, because having your purse stolen isn't (generally) a traumatic event and so as long as the victim isn't traumatized, then telling her like it is just maybe helps her get a clue and take fewer risks next time.

 

To me, the world is full of scary risks. Bears, dogs, rapists, lightning, floods, etc . . . I think learning about and discussing prudent self-protection prevention measures for all these risks is a reasonable thing to discuss and to teach our kids. 

 

Anyway, I have zero sympathy for the criminals in any of these examples or in the cases in the news, etc. I think they should all go to jail and be punished. I'm just wondering how we can even talk about these issues without this PC "victim blaming" card preventing us from even discussing prudent self-protection measures. 

 

 

I just give up.  The voices that scream victim blaming are so loud I find it impossible to have a conversation about these topics.  

[Scarlett]

Help me understand a bit. 

 

I've run into the "You're victim blaming" thing at least twice on these boards, once when I was suggesting various things to teach our kids/friends/women to avoid abusive relationships and then today when various folks were talking about what things we teach our kids to do to minimize their risks in dealign with police officers. And I've certainly seen it plenty of other places, too. 

 

I totally agree with the importance of not blaming victims for their attacker's actions. 

 

However, where do we distinguish between advocating prudent actions to minimize your risks of being harmed by "bad people" vs. blaming victims?

 

For instance . . .

 

Say I never lock my car doors, and I leave my purse on the seat while I run into various places for errands. Eventually, someone steals my purse while I'm at the playground with my kid. I report this crime. Someone (friend, cop, whoever) is likely to tell me, "Uh, lady, you really shouldn't leave your purse in an unlocked car. That's asking for trouble."

 

Is that victim blaming? To me, no, it's not. It's simply reminding a person that they exposed themselves to unnecessary risk. Likewise, me teaching my kids not to leave valuables in plain view in any vehicle (let alone an unlocked vehicle) isn't victim blaming. It's educating them about "bad people" and how to minimize your risks from said bad people. 

 

Another instance . . .

 

Say you plan a visit to a middle eastern country where women are legally and morally required and expected to be covered. Say this place has a known history of sexual violence against women, and that women who don't properly cover themselves are frequently targeted. Is it victim blaming to advise your family members/friends/etc who are traveling there of this elevated risk and the imperative nature of staying covered and/or staying guarded? To me, no, that's simple common sense.

 

It in *no way* excuses the criminals, but it is just prudent to avoid exposing yourself to risk. 

 

. . .

 

 

To me, it crosses from proactive self/others-protection to victim blaming only when you use the "advice" to shift blame away from the attacker, or certainly if used to "beat someone when they are down" if you are directly addressing someone who is already a victim. To tell a rape victim, "You shouldn't have been drinking alone at that party!" is cruel even if it is true. So, the cruelty is wrong. Or, to say, "The rapist isn't really at fault here because she was asking for it the way she dressed." is obviously victim blaming to me. Or to say, "Well, we won't charge the thief with stealing your purse since you left it in plain view." is victim blaming and wrong. To tell the woman whose purse was stolen, "Whoa, you do that all the time? That's really stupid. If you don't want your purse stolen, perhaps you should lock your doors, because otherwise, this is just gonna' keep happening until you relocate to Fantasy Land." -- that, to me, is not victim blaming or cruel, because having your purse stolen isn't (generally) a traumatic event and so as long as the victim isn't traumatized, then telling her like it is just maybe helps her get a clue and take fewer risks next time.

 

To me, the world is full of scary risks. Bears, dogs, rapists, lightning, floods, etc . . . I think learning about and discussing prudent self-protection prevention measures for all these risks is a reasonable thing to discuss and to teach our kids. 

 

Anyway, I have zero sympathy for the criminals in any of these examples or in the cases in the news, etc. I think they should all go to jail and be punished. I'm just wondering how we can even talk about these issues without this PC "victim blaming" card preventing us from even discussing prudent self-protection measures. 

 

dp

 

Edited June 11, 2016 by Scarlett

[Farrar]

Next time there's a highway accident, I dare you to call the victim's family and say, "Don't you know that interstate crashes are more likely to be deadly? It's really too bad he didn't take the back roads, huh?"

[Arcadia]

To me, the world is full of scary risks. Bears, dogs, rapists, lightning, floods, etc . . . I think learning about and discussing prudent self-protection prevention measures for all these risks is a reasonable thing to discuss and to teach our kids.

Not referring to this board but to comments in the media, when people take precautions by avoiding seedy areas for example, others would comment that they are living in fear. It shuts discussion and communications down.

[Guest]

Please forgive the following glut of rhetorical questions. I believe your OP question is in earnest....

 

 

 

If you leave your purse in your unlocked car and it gets stolen, what does someone coming along saying "Hey you shouldn't have done that" do for you?

 

Would you not have deduced that on your own?

 

Now let's imagine you've been traumatized and violated and someone comes along to point out what all you did wrong.

 

Imagine how you'd feel.

 

While you're at it, imagine how you'd feel if you had been raped and you HAD NOT done anything wrong, even by the extremely nebulous standards of "wrong" and people start talking about all the things people do that "get them raped."

 

-----------

 

NOW...

 

Can you not separate how those things above are different than getting out of the car with your kids and being like "Oh don't forget to lock the doors hon, it'd be too easy to jank our stuff"?

 

That would be the difference between having a common sense conversation and blaming the victim. 

-------------

 

Blaming the victim always has an element of how the speaker is too smart to let something like that happen to them. Out one side of their mouth, they are usually forced to acknowledge the random nature of suffering on earth, thanks to an abundance of conversations like these. But some people are willfully oblivious enough not to deign to do even that.

[nd293]

I usually stay far out of these conversations because I agree with you 100%. It really irritates me how suggesting that people take responsibility for their own actions is almost always labelled 'victim blaming'. I can't get my head around tha sort of thinking, it really is incomprehensible to me. I've recently seen two examples of personal responsibility being expressed in news stories but those are the only two I can think of - it's very, very rare. In one case a teenager had an online account hacked and private photos publicised. She came down firmly against the hackers but added that she should never have placed those photos online. Another was a father whose daughter had gone missing after a night out where she had been very inebriated and he was quoted as saying they'd need to have a serious discussion about it when she got home (sadly she never did). I find both of these people incredibly admirable.

 

In the much publicised story, as she said, of course if it wasn't her it would have been someone else. His behaviour in that sense is the focus. But if we label any discussion of her behaviour or her choices 'victim blaming' then we have no opportunity to focus on ways she could ensured she wasn't that 'someone'. For myself, I'm having those discussions with my kids. I'm empowering them to keep themselves safe wherever possible. And if that means analysing the behavior of victims to learn how to lower the chance of being a victim then that's what I'll do. And I truly hope that if, in the terrible scenario one of my children was the victim, I'd still want other people to learn and protect themselves.

 

Discussing the choices of a victim that led to them arriving at the point where they became the victim does not implicate the victim in the crime, nor does it preclude compassion for the victim.

[swimmermom3]

A couple of years ago, a young woman that was a colleague of my dd, who was 21 at the time, was shot in the head in front of her 3 and 5 year old daughters by her estranged husband.  The comment section of our local newspaper included comments like:

 

"Why do pretty girls always pick the bad boys?"

"She was a fool, the dude had tats on his face."

 

I would say that 60-70% of the comments had to do with the wrong choices this brave victim of domestic abuse had made. The remainder focused on the bastard that killed her.  Yeah, we all know she shouldn't have married him.  Do you get a special little thrill of satisfaction in pointing out the obvious?  Are you really sure your motive is to help others by sharing everything the victim did wrong.

 

No matter how you slice or dice it, making what the victim did wrong and how the rest of us can avoid her lurid fate the primary focus does diminish the perception of the severity and responsibility that belong squarely on the criminal. 

[swimmermom3]

Next time there's a highway accident, I dare you to call the victim's family and say, "Don't you know that interstate crashes are more likely to be deadly? It's really too bad he didn't take the back roads, huh?"

 

But it feels good to say things like that. It makes you feel powerful and smarter than the average bear. You have the common sense that the rest of the world so sorely lacks and you must share it with the poor ignorant masses.

 

[momacacia]

I think some (certainly not all) of the victim blaming stems from a knee-jerk defense of really, really not wanting this bad thing to happen to us, someone we love or to anyone. I see it pop up the same way when someone spouse commits adultery...well, what did the other spouse do or not do to displeased them so that the offending spouse looked elsewhere?

 

We so want to think that "we can prevent this happening to us!" that we search and search for reasons surely the victim brought this on themselves. Ergo, if I avoid doing or make sure I do the things, that will sufficiently change the other person's behavior so they won't act badly against me.

 

It stems from the delusional idea that we can somehow change who other people fundamentally are, even seemingly without their consent. ;)

Edited June 11, 2016 by momacacia

[Farrar]

But it feels good to say things like that. It makes you feel powerful and smarter than the average bear. You have the common sense that the rest of the world so sorely lacks and you must share it with the poor ignorant masses.

 

 

I was thinking about the purse in the car example... it's partly that - it makes the person saying it feel smart and invincible like they'll never be a victim. And it's also about shaming. Shame on you for not avoiding your fate.

[Arcadia]

I would say that 60-70% of the comments had to do with the wrong choices this brave victim of domestic abuse had made. The remainder focused on the bastard that killed her. Yeah, we all know she shouldn't have married him. Do you get a special little thrill of satisfaction in pointing out the obvious? Are you really sure your motive is to help others by sharing everything the victim did wrong.

That is victim blaming.

 

My elementary school classmate's dad hit her mom until her mom was hospitalized. Parents of my cohort had a hard discussion of what to do if our spouse or someone's spouse resorts to domestic violence, or if we know someone who is physically abused by their parent. No one was blaming the victim by discussing what to do if their child or someone they know becomes a victim of domestic violence.

 

My late uncle was a wife beater. His wife and kids know that the rest of the extended family would shelter them and the guys would restrain my that uncle. It is a useful discussion to have and does not "victim blame" his wife. Everyone knew he was a spoilt brat but no one knew he would be a wife and child beater when drunk. He was selfish but not violent when sober.

[Guest]

 And if that means analysing the behavior of victims to learn how to lower the chance of being a victim then that's what I'll do. And I truly hope that if, in the terrible scenario one of my children was the victim, I'd still want other people to learn and protect themselves.

 

 

 

I could nod my head with you and shrug and agree to disagree, except that the peanut gallery, while "analyzing the evidence," is extremely inaccurate irt rape mitigation.

 

Violence avoidance, in general, really.

 

Experts- criminologists, psychologists and anthropologists and others- have extrapolated some things from their studies to do to actually prevent rape on the societal level....and do you know what the peanut gallery says about that? WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO TELL MEN NOT TO RAPE OR NOT TO DRINK THAT'S LUDICROUS.

 

Which you can see for yourself in the most recent giant thread about the open letter.

[Arcadia]

I was thinking about the purse in the car example... it's partly that - it makes the person saying it feel smart and invincible like they'll never be a victim. And it's also about shaming. Shame on you for not avoiding your fate.

Our local police said that after a spate of car break-ins. They were annoyed that despite reminders of car break-ins being on the rise in my area, people still leave laptops in plain sight in their car while going for lunch. Caught robbers from other areas said they targeted that stretch of parking because people leave valuables in plain sight so it was easy pickings to them. The police weren't being smug by warning and reminding. They just hope to have less robbery cases if possible.

 

A police car in SF was broken into, gun, credentials and badge stolen. The police knows daylight robbbery can happen to them too.

 

ETA:

There were nightclubs that had reputations as pickup places for one night stands when I was in college. I don't think my friends were feeling smug when letting other discotheque/pub loving friends know which nightclubs to avoid. They were just worried we didn't know and get accosted.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Arcadia

[zoobie]

Sometimes crimes are crimes of opportunity and locking your doors can prevent them. Sometimes locking the doors means you get broken windows to go with your stolen belongings. Either way, the person has been violated. There isn't any way for you (generic you, not YOU) to know what might have happened.

 

If you're examining someone else's misfortune for places where they went wrong, don't. Someone's actual life should not be used as a postmortem.

 

Taking steps to keep yourself safe or telling your kids how they can protect themselves is different than armchair quarterbacking a victim's actions. If someone really wants your purse, they're going to steal it whether the door's locked or they have to shoot you for it. Sometimes it makes me feel better to think I have a small bit of control anyway.

[EmseB]

A couple of years ago, a young woman that was a colleague of my dd, who was 21 at the time, was shot in the head in front of her 3 and 5 year old daughters by her estranged husband. The comment section of our local newspaper included comments like:

 

"Why do pretty girls always pick the bad boys?"

"She was a fool, the dude had tats on his face."

 

I would say that 60-70% of the comments had to do with the wrong choices this brave victim of domestic abuse had made. The remainder focused on the bastard that killed her. Yeah, we all know she shouldn't have married him. Do you get a special little thrill of satisfaction in pointing out the obvious? Are you really sure your motive is to help others by sharing everything the victim did wrong.

 

No matter how you slice or dice it, making what the victim did wrong and how the rest of us can avoid her lurid fate the primary focus does diminish the perception of the severity and responsibility that belong squarely on the criminal.

In general, I find the discussion here much more elevated. To equate those comments with the discussions pursued here seems like a straw man.

 

I think people come here to discuss these thorny issues because it's a safe space where they can be abstract and academic and analyze something without it being personal. It's an internet discussion board. And I think if people want a JAWM thread where everyone offers hugs and I'm sorrys, that has it's place. But to say if someone posts a news event with a title provoking discussion that someone is a horrible person shaming a victim by discussing it other aspects and tangents and larger issues? I mean, since I've been on forums, that's what they've been for. Discussion. Discussion that's better than a comments section if you can find a good one.

[swimmermom3]

I was thinking about the purse in the car example... it's partly that - it makes the person saying it feel smart and invincible like they'll never be a victim. And it's also about shaming. Shame on you for not avoiding your fate.

 

I was thinking about a young sexual assault victim we know. Two of her three reasons for not reporting the crime were 1) how difficult and brutal the legal system is to navigate as the victim and 2) the cruelty and judgement of other women.

 

While the posters on this board may truly and sincerely feel that they are being helpful by pointing out the things the victims did wrong and how we can all learn from their foolishness, many, many people out in the world say it with righteous glee and not an ounce of compassion. It's hard to know who is who, if there is actual sincerity, and if we should keep talking.

[Ausmumof3]

It's like the difference between saying "prepare for a bushfire because it's a likely risk in your area" and "well you deserved to lose your house because you didn't prepare". Context is key.

[MercyA]

But it feels good to say things like that. It makes you feel powerful and smarter than the average bear. You have the common sense that the rest of the world so sorely lacks and you must share it with the poor ignorant masses.

 

I was thinking about the purse in the car example... it's partly that - it makes the person saying it feel smart and invincible like they'll never be a victim. And it's also about shaming. Shame on you for not avoiding your fate.

 

I think it's fine and even valuable to critique people's words and offer alternative perspectives, especially on a chat board. I know I've learned a lot here. However, I don't think it's okay to make assumptions about people's internal motivations, as though you are privy to their thoughts. You are making some very sweeping generalizations here. 

 

ETA: swimmermom, I see that before I posted this, you had already said, "While the posters on this board may truly and sincerely feel that they are being helpful by pointing out the things the victims did wrong and how we can all learn from their foolishness, many, many people out in the world say it with righteous glee and not an ounce of compassion. It's hard to know who is who, if there is actual sincerity, and if we should keep talking." Thank you.

Edited June 11, 2016 by MercyA

[swimmermom3]

That is victim blaming.

 

My elementary school classmate's dad hit her mom until her mom was hospitalized. Parents of my cohort had a hard discussion of what to do if our spouse or someone's spouse resorts to domestic violence, or if we know someone who is physically abused by their parent. No one was blaming the victim by discussing what to do if their child or someone they know becomes a victim of domestic violence.

 

My late uncle was a wife beater. His wife and kids know that the rest of the extended family would shelter them and the guys would restrain my that uncle. It is a useful discussion to have and does not "victim blame" his wife. Everyone knew he was a spoilt brat but no one knew he would be a wife and child beater when drunk. He was selfish but not violent when sober.

 

I get what you are saying. I wish I could figure out exactly why I personally am okay with what you wrote above and why some of the responses on the other thread make my gut hurt.

 

Part of what I see above is positive action.  In the first case, your parents may not have known how to help the victim, but they were taking positive action, trying to be part of a larger solution. It wasn't just reading the laundry list of no-nos.

 

Again, for the second situation, you may be talking about safety, but you are doing something that positively supports the wife and kids. You are not an armchair quarterback or whatever the heck that term is.

[eternalsummer]

Of course people should have discussions about how to stay safe from all kinds of dangers including sexual predators.

 

BUT, in a post about a particular specific case, bringing up all the things that the victim should have done differently, even if those things would have prevented her from being victimized, crosses the line into blaming the victim. So it's a matter of time and place. 

 

I disagree; I think it's the perfect time to discuss wise and unwise behavior, with a direct correlation to the possible results of that behavior.  

 

Especially since we're not talking about a discussion actually involving the victim!

 

I mean, when my kid runs outside with his shoelaces untied, and trips and falls and skins his knee, I say, ack, sorry about that, that must hurt, do you want a bandaid, etc.  

 

Then a few seconds later (after the initial pain/indignity of falling has passed) I say, man, should have tied your shoes, huh?

 

And that is talking with the actual victim!  (of chance, but there it is).

 

 

What works almost as well is to relate to the kids a story of a time *I* was unwise, and what happened, and say look, I made a terrible decision there, right?

 

Feelings just aren't as important to me as doing the right or wise thing and staying safe; if you're not even talking to the victim him/herself I feel like the scale is *really* tilted toward frankness and honestly and open dialog without trying not to hurt people's feelings.

 

 

However, I should add a disclaimer that I am very pro=free speech.  I don't think it should be illegal to deny the Holocaust (even if I think it's idiotic), or say any manner of controversial or hurtful things, and I prefer a forum like 4chan to one that is censored for this reason.

 

Many people prefer more censored (self=censored, or community=censored like Reddit, or management-censored like here) forums, and that is fine too :)

[MercyA]

Next time there's a highway accident, I dare you to call the victim's family and say, "Don't you know that interstate crashes are more likely to be deadly? It's really too bad he didn't take the back roads, huh?"

 

Point taken, but the victim is not involved in this discussion, so far as we know. Does that make a difference?

[eternalsummer]

It's like the difference between saying "prepare for a bushfire because it's a likely risk in your area" and "well you deserved to lose your house because you didn't prepare". Context is key.

 

 

But there is a middle ground, right?

 

No one here is saying (as far as I have seen) the equivalent of "you deserved to lose your house because you didn't prepare," they're saying "that family should have prepared, and other people should look at this situation and learn from it that preparation is important."

 

The latter two are both true statements!  The idea that you deserve to lose your house is not a true statement. (imo)

[zoobie]

Point taken, but the victim is not involved in this discussion, so far as we know. Does that make a difference?

With rape and the likelihood of there being victims of sexual violence reading the thread, I don't think so. I doubt anyone relives the experience and wonders what she did wrong or could've done differently more than the victim. Rape isn't like a stolen purse or skinned knee. I don't think we should dissect someone's rape. Full stop. It makes every victim feel like her (or his) life is under the microscope and being analyzed. That only hurts victims, both ones who have come forward and others who don't because they don't want the same treatment.

Edited June 11, 2016 by zoobie

[StephanieZ]

Please forgive the following glut of rhetorical questions. I believe your OP question is in earnest....

 

 

 

If you leave your purse in your unlocked car and it gets stolen, what does someone coming along saying "Hey you shouldn't have done that" do for you?

 

Would you not have deduced that on your own?

 

Now let's imagine you've been traumatized and violated and someone comes along to point out what all you did wrong.

 

Imagine how you'd feel.

 

While you're at it, imagine how you'd feel if you had been raped and you HAD NOT done anything wrong, even by the extremely nebulous standards of "wrong" and people start talking about all the things people do that "get them raped."

 

-----------

 

NOW...

 

Can you not separate how those things above are different than getting out of the car with your kids and being like "Oh don't forget to lock the doors hon, it'd be too easy to jank our stuff"?

 

That would be the difference between having a common sense conversation and blaming the victim. 

-------------

 

Blaming the victim always has an element of how the speaker is too smart to let something like that happen to them. Out one side of their mouth, they are usually forced to acknowledge the random nature of suffering on earth, thanks to an abundance of conversations like these. But some people are willfully oblivious enough not to deign to do even that.

 

 

FWIW, the "victim blaming" comments I've read have typically been generated in response to really general talk about what to do differently with your own kids, etc. For instance, the thread here about the police brutality. I'm pretty confident he and his family won't read this board, lol, and those comments were really just "among friends" talking about how we raise our kids. 

 

And, FWIW, I was once a victim of an assault, and I definitely have no problem advising my own kids on what to do differently based on my experience. It's not that my inability to scream/fight against a known assailant made the assault my fault. But, having the wherewithal to physically fight or even scream loudly might have made a difference to me, and so I've coached my kids on that particular topic, hoping that being forewarned is akin to being forearmed. I also have them take self defense classes to reinforce that concept. In those classes, girls practice screaming and fighting back -- being loud and clear and assertive. That's not something that came to me -- I froze instead of fighting. In my particular situation, I think that if I'd fought instead of freezing, screamed instead of cried, I might not have been raped. That's not telling myself I did something wrong. It's just telling me that maybe I could have done something differently that might have resulted in a better outcome. Sure, it sucks that bad things happen, and it sucks that I didn't have every tool I could have and didn't think of everything I could have. And, of course, it is also possible that if I'd acted differently, I might have ended up beaten or dead in addition to being raped.

 

Personally, I tend to see my own bad things this way. I look back and try to figure out what went wrong and if there was anything I (or someone else) could have done differently. That *empowers me* because I can feel that I have some *new* *improved* control over my destiny. That's just my way of sorting out dangers. 

 

 

And this "they've learned already" thing *might* work for that person, but does not apply to the conversations I'm talking about, where we're trying to discuss principles and general actions one can take/teach/learn to prevent bad things from happening to us.

[Guest]

Sharing your own experience is very very different from trying to tease out other people's faults/mistakes from the sidelines.

 

The former *is* empowering.

 

ETA-- ((((()))))

Edited June 11, 2016 by OKBud

[swimmermom3]

Point taken, but the victim is not involved in this discussion, so far as we know. Does that make a difference?

 

That's a good question and you know we'll have different answers for you. ;)

 

From my perspective, and that's all it is, I think how we talk about victims in public places like forums and other forms of media, does help shape how we perceive victims of various crimes.

 

Again, if the primary focus of the majority of discussions is all about what the woman did wrong when she was raped and how we can avoid being stupid like her, that focus touches all of us.  Some women may make changes and avoid catastrophe, but I think many victims will decide that it was their fault (several posters have said they need to take personal responsibility) and there is no point in reporting. Many rape victims are beyond excellent at taking personal responsibility for their actions, so much so that the real criminal walks free.

 

If it is a simple as following safety protocol, then why bother to try and make changes to how we process rape victims? Why try to find funding for the back log at labs.

 

I'm not sure I am much help.

[happymom4]

Its a scary world to live in to know there are terrible people out there waiting to do terrible things and that bad stuff can happen without warning.  We we see a news report about something horrible our first feeling is usually fear.  In an effort to comfort ourselves we try to look for reasons "why" this happened to the victim and then assure ourselves that we know to avoids those things so we are safe, right?  When we do that, it comes across as saying that the victim is at fault ( I can't stand the label "victim-blaming" or most other labels for that matter). It doesn't make anyone a bad person for having those thoughts, I bet most of us have those thoughts, I know I do.  It makes you human, a human who gets scared sometimes. I think the problem is when we focus so much on the victim's actions that we almost give a pass to the perpetrator.  

[Guest]

I'd like to suggest a distinction that some people are going to find nit-picky.

 

 

Getting drunk makes it harder to protect yourself from a rapist.

 

vs.

 

Getting drunk increases your chances of being raped.

 

 

The first keeps the blame where it belongs. The second is open to the interpretation that if women just wouldn't let themselves be so darn rapeable athletes wouldn't keep having their lives ruined by rape trials.

 

That is an apt example of how to conscientiously avoid victim blaming while simultaneously communicating your thoughts or values to whomever you are speaking.

[Janeway]

20+ years ago, if you got drunk and slept with someone you would not have slept with sober, you know you were dumb, you are mad at yourself, and grossed out and upset. And you would regret that you got that drunk. Today, it is on the weight of the other person to determine if you are sober enough to consent and if you will regret it later. I mean, I could have sex with my husband while drunk. Then, later, press rape charges against him and even though I said yes at the time, it is still rape because I was drunk. (if someone drugged someone to get render them incapable of saying no, that is a different story of course). Today, if a sober woman has sex with a drunk man, he got lucky. If a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman, even though they both did the action (not referencing when one is incapacitated) then HE is guilty of rape, even if she consented. If a man has sex with a woman and the woman says yes, but didn't really want to do it, then that is rape. If a man has sex with a woman, and says no, but she keeps coming on to him until they end up having sex anyway, that is considered fine. 

 

I do not like the double standard and I do not like the loose definition of rape. Recently, on FB, there were posts about two female teachers being charged with rape and everyone was saying how lucky the teen boy was and how they would be happy to take his place. I was the only one to step in and say it is rape. The boy was under their control because he was their student and underaged. It is not ok. 

 

If I get drunk and drive and kill someone, it is supposed to be my fault. There is no "well, she was not capable of consenting to driving so it is not her fault." Ok, court records will show you that they are way way too easy on drunk drivers, but the law claims they are not. I can guarantee that if I get drunk and give away a bunch of money or go on a spending spree, I will not have a legal case to get my money back just because I was drunk.

 

To me, despite recent changes in the laws, rape is when one party did not consent. It is not when one party consented but later decided they were too drunk to consent or even just "felt coerced." I do not think it should be the responsibility of the other party to determine if the female specifically is too drunk and might regret it. Of course, the exception would be if she is passed out or if she had been drugged to render her unable to refuse, as in a rape drug. Our laws and the messages we send to the next generation need to get more consistent. People need to take personal responsibility. Anyone who is capable of consenting to get drunk should be capable of then being responsible for their resulting actions. (this is in no way a reference to the Stanford incident).

[Guest]

20+ years ago, if you got drunk and slept with someone you would not have slept with sober, you know you were dumb, you are mad at yourself, and grossed out and upset. And you would regret that you got that drunk. Today, it is on the weight of the other person to determine if you are sober enough to consent and if you will regret it later. I mean, I could have sex with my husband while drunk. Then, later, press rape charges against him and even though I said yes at the time, it is still rape because I was drunk. (if someone drugged someone to get render them incapable of saying no, that is a different story of course). Today, if a sober woman has sex with a drunk man, he got lucky. If a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman, even though they both did the action (not referencing when one is incapacitated) then HE is guilty of rape, even if she consented. If a man has sex with a woman and the woman says yes, but didn't really want to do it, then that is rape. If a man has sex with a woman, and says no, but she keeps coming on to him until they end up having sex anyway, that is considered fine. 

 

I do not like the double standard and I do not like the loose definition of rape. Recently, on FB, there were posts about two female teachers being charged with rape and everyone was saying how lucky the teen boy was and how they would be happy to take his place. I was the only one to step in and say it is rape. The boy was under their control because he was their student and underaged. It is not ok. 

 

If I get drunk and drive and kill someone, it is supposed to be my fault. There is no "well, she was not capable of consenting to driving so it is not her fault." Ok, court records will show you that they are way way too easy on drunk drivers, but the law claims they are not. I can guarantee that if I get drunk and give away a bunch of money or go on a spending spree, I will not have a legal case to get my money back just because I was drunk.

 

To me, despite recent changes in the laws, rape is when one party did not consent. It is not when one party consented but later decided they were too drunk to consent or even just "felt coerced." I do not think it should be the responsibility of the other party to determine if the female specifically is too drunk and might regret it. Of course, the exception would be if she is passed out or if she had been drugged to render her unable to refuse, as in a rape drug. Our laws and the messages we send to the next generation need to get more consistent. People need to take personal responsibility. Anyone who is capable of consenting to get drunk should be capable of then being responsible for their resulting actions. (this is in no way a reference to the Stanford incident).

 

 

The extremely low statistical incidence of that happening was well-covered in the other thread.

 

 

[Caroline]

No. Your post shoes a total misunderstanding. It is not about regret in the morning. It isn't.

 

 

20+ years ago, if you got drunk and slept with someone you would not have slept with sober, you know you were dumb, you are mad at yourself, and grossed out and upset. And you would regret that you got that drunk. Today, it is on the weight of the other person to determine if you are sober enough to consent and if you will regret it later. I mean, I could have sex with my husband while drunk. Then, later, press rape charges against him and even though I said yes at the time, it is still rape because I was drunk. (if someone drugged someone to get render them incapable of saying no, that is a different story of course). Today, if a sober woman has sex with a drunk man, he got lucky. If a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman, even though they both did the action (not referencing when one is incapacitated) then HE is guilty of rape, even if she consented. If a man has sex with a woman and the woman says yes, but didn't really want to do it, then that is rape. If a man has sex with a woman, and says no, but she keeps coming on to him until they end up having sex anyway, that is considered fine.

 

I do not like the double standard and I do not like the loose definition of rape. Recently, on FB, there were posts about two female teachers being charged with rape and everyone was saying how lucky the teen boy was and how they would be happy to take his place. I was the only one to step in and say it is rape. The boy was under their control because he was their student and underaged. It is not ok.

 

If I get drunk and drive and kill someone, it is supposed to be my fault. There is no "well, she was not capable of consenting to driving so it is not her fault." Ok, court records will show you that they are way way too easy on drunk drivers, but the law claims they are not. I can guarantee that if I get drunk and give away a bunch of money or go on a spending spree, I will not have a legal case to get my money back just because I was drunk.

 

To me, despite recent changes in the laws, rape is when one party did not consent. It is not when one party consented but later decided they were too drunk to consent or even just "felt coerced." I do not think it should be the responsibility of the other party to determine if the female specifically is too drunk and might regret it. Of course, the exception would be if she is passed out or if she had been drugged to render her unable to refuse, as in a rape drug. Our laws and the messages we send to the next generation need to get more consistent. People need to take personal responsibility. Anyone who is capable of consenting to get drunk should be capable of then being responsible for their resulting actions. (this is in no way a reference to the Stanford incident).

[Farrar]

Our local police said that after a spate of car break-ins. They were annoyed that despite reminders of car break-ins being on the rise in my area, people still leave laptops in plain sight in their car while going for lunch. Caught robbers from other areas said they targeted that stretch of parking because people leave valuables in plain sight so it was easy pickings to them. The police weren't being smug by warning and reminding. They just hope to have less robbery cases if possible.

 

A police car in SF was broken into, gun, credentials and badge stolen. The police knows daylight robbbery can happen to them too.

 

ETA:

There were nightclubs that had reputations as pickup places for one night stands when I was in college. I don't think my friends were feeling smug when letting other discotheque/pub loving friends know which nightclubs to avoid. They were just worried we didn't know and get accosted.

 

To me, those examples are about the police letting people know about threats that exist. As in, we've had a spate of robberies, people looking in cars, checking for cars that are unlocked. We've had a spate of attacks at this particular bar or neighborhood. That's not victim blaming. On the other hand, if the police release a statement saying, here's the crime, the victim should have locked their doors/not gone to that bar then that's massively different.

 

It's good to talk about risks in a general sense. What's the risk of drinking, of going certain places, of taking drugs, of driving, of walking home, of riding your bike, of mountain climbing, of having sex... whatever. It's not good to dissect someone's crime once they've been a victim. If you're a victim you either learn from it or you don't. If you're the victim of a really heinous or violent crime, you probably spend a lot of time second guessing yourself in ways that are not helpful and friends, family and internet mobs telling you how you could have changed it is so not helpful.

[DesertBlossom]

I agree that nothing should ever be said to a victim about what they could have or should have done. Totally inappropriate.

 

However, I am a bit confused at those who insist we acknowledge that we have a rape culture but refuse to allow discussion on how we can protect ourselves while living in that rape culture.  Yes, I know we need to teach boys and men not to rape women. But I have no control over what boys outside of my own home are taught, so I will take measures to protect myself, with the understanding that bad things sometimes happen (and men still find ways to rape), no matter what we do.

[Guest]

To me, it crosses from proactive self/others-protection to victim blaming only when you use the "advice" to shift blame away from the attacker, or certainly if used to "beat someone when they are down" if you are directly addressing someone who is already a victim. To tell a rape victim, "You shouldn't have been drinking alone at that party!" is cruel even if it is true. So, the cruelty is wrong. Or, to say, "The rapist isn't really at fault here because she was asking for it the way she dressed." is obviously victim blaming to me. Or to say, "Well, we won't charge the thief with stealing your purse since you left it in plain view." is victim blaming and wrong. To tell the woman whose purse was stolen, "Whoa, you do that all the time? That's really stupid. If you don't want your purse stolen, perhaps you should lock your doors, because otherwise, this is just gonna' keep happening until you relocate to Fantasy Land." -- that, to me, is not victim blaming or cruel, because having your purse stolen isn't (generally) a traumatic event and so as long as the victim isn't traumatized, then telling her like it is just maybe helps her get a clue and take fewer risks next time.

I agree with you.

 

There are places I drive that I do not drive my fancy car, because that car is a bigger target for car theives. I drive my ancient van with the ugly student driver magnet. If I am pulled over by an officer, I don't make a move until they come to the door, I use respectful language and don't argue, film or demand to know why they pulled me over. I drink alcohol infrequently and in certain settings, I won't have it at all. I was pulled over once when I had had one drink because my lights were off and the implications if I had actually been drunk were too awful to want to do that ever again.

 

It is not victim blaming to recommend to put a wide margin between oneself and probable harm wherever possible.

 

My only additional thought is with the purse in the car; I left my purse in a *locked* car and that was in many ways worse, because the window was smashed in (broad daylight, kid's soccer game!), which was seven hundred dollars to repair. Losing my purse, while not ideal, was not as bad as fixing that darned window. But I changed my habits after that and don't even carry a "real" purse anymore.

Edited June 11, 2016 by Quill

[Scarlett]

FWIW, the "victim blaming" comments I've read have typically been generated in response to really general talk about what to do differently with your own kids, etc. For instance, the thread here about the police brutality. I'm pretty confident he and his family won't read this board, lol, and those comments were really just "among friends" talking about how we raise our kids.

 

And, FWIW, I was once a victim of an assault, and I definitely have no problem advising my own kids on what to do differently based on my experience. It's not that my inability to scream/fight against a known assailant made the assault my fault. But, having the wherewithal to physically fight or even scream loudly might have made a difference to me, and so I've coached my kids on that particular topic, hoping that being forewarned is akin to being forearmed. I also have them take self defense classes to reinforce that concept. In those classes, girls practice screaming and fighting back -- being loud and clear and assertive. That's not something that came to me -- I froze instead of fighting. In my particular situation, I think that if I'd fought instead of freezing, screamed instead of cried, I might not have been raped. That's not telling myself I did something wrong. It's just telling me that maybe I could have done something differently that might have resulted in a better outcome. Sure, it sucks that bad things happen, and it sucks that I didn't have every tool I could have and didn't think of everything I could have. And, of course, it is also possible that if I'd acted differently, I might have ended up beaten or dead in addition to being raped.

 

Personally, I tend to see my own bad things this way. I look back and try to figure out what went wrong and if there was anything I (or someone else) could have done differently. That *empowers me* because I can feel that I have some *new* *improved* control over my destiny. That's just my way of sorting out dangers.

 

 

And this "they've learned already" thing *might* work for that person, but does not apply to the conversations I'm talking about, where we're trying to discuss principles and general actions one can take/teach/learn to prevent bad things from happening to us.

QFT

[Guest]

 

 

However, I am a bit confused at those who insist we acknowledge that we have a rape culture but refuse to allow discussion on how we can protect ourselves while living in that rape culture. 

 

Because there's no one refusing to allow discussion.

[Scarlett]

A friend of mine lost her 2 yo to a drowning accident in their pool. It was and is a horrible horrible thing. There was a local on line article about it.....and the comments section was brutal. Her husband....father of the child......took her phoneand wouldn't let her read any of it. Why anyone would post a comment in a local small town paper saying how dumb the mom was for letting her kid drown....just blows my mind.

 

But that is a very very different situation from what goes on here on this board.....even though I doubt the victims we ever talk about will read this board......even if they did the comments aren't mean. Saying, oh how horrible......please let's.protect ourselves from these bad people.....no where close to the same thing.

[Scarlett]

I just can't anymore....

Please link or quote posts where the poster says that we should refuse to allow discussion on how we can protect ourselves because I must have missed it. Picking apart what happened to a victim of rape as a lesson in what not to do is blaming the victim. We all know what world we live in. Women need to protect themselves and how they can go about minimizing risks is for another thread, not one discussing a specific rape. Starting a new thread about violent crime prevention is a better context. Or a JAWM thread so we all can stick to the topic of the risks of rape when drinking in a general way.

 

Victims beat themselves up enough already; they don't need constructive criticism or a play by play of where they went wrong after the fact.

Picking apart? I don't consider it 'picking apart' to say wow, we need to teach our kids to not end up unconscious with strangers if they can help it.

 

And why does it need to be a new thread. It is totally relevant. A news story about a a rape is a totally appropriate time to discuss ways to avoid being in that situation. Just like the news story about the road rage was a appropriate time to discuss with my teen how to avoid crazy people on the hwy. and just the like the news story about the teen beaten by the crazy officer was a good time to talk to my teen about minimizing his chances of such an outcome.

 

I wouldn't tell an office mate that just got raped " well you shouldn't have been passed out". And I wouldn't tell my friends with a brain damaged teen well he should have obeyed the officer. And I wouldn't tell the teen ran off the road well you should have got out of the way.

 

Is it so hard to see the difference between those situations?

 

I can't even.

[Ausmumof3]

But there is a middle ground, right?

 

No one here is saying (as far as I have seen) the equivalent of "you deserved to lose your house because you didn't prepare," they're saying "that family should have prepared, and other people should look at this situation and learn from it that preparation is important."

 

The latter two are both true statements! The idea that you deserve to lose your house is not a true statement. (imo)

Yeah I guess the trouble is i want to see a society where women can jog alone, go out at night, walk home from work late without fear. Advising women of how to avoid risk inevitably compromises their freedom in some way. Kind of like the stranger danger thing with kids. And really so much of the risk in homes and inherent to society really how meaningful are these discussions.

[Scarlett]

Because there's no one refusing to allow discussion.

I feel like I am living in an alternate universe. Every post about ways to have avoided assault is met with 'stop victim blaming!"

[EmseB]

Nm, shouldn't have said any more, comment was unnecessary.

Edited June 11, 2016 by JodiSue

[happi duck]

We teach dogs to "leave it" and they won't touch the treat because they've been taught not to touch it without permission.

 

A person in any state of undress or intoxication etc should not be touched and no one touched without clear permission.

 

Any whiff of "well, they wouldn't have been targeted if they didn't xyz" is wrong.

 

When we say "oh that poor girl, that's why you shouldn't drink" it establishes that *there is blame to be had*. With that type of prevention guidance in mind victims think "I wasn't drinking so what was it that I did wrong?". "Must have been my skirt" and it goes on and on.

 

There are lots of reasons to not get ridiculously drunk. Don't get drunk, watch your drink, have a buddy because you don't want alcohol poisoning, or your wallet stolen or to get messed with in any way. These lessons can be taught without a news story or a victim to hold up as an example.

 

Rapist committed a crime.stop.

[kroe1]

Sorry, I did not read other posts.

 

We have become a society of whiners, in my opinion. Political correctness has reached a point of stupidity. By not analyzing risks of every incident, we are leaving our outcomes to pure chance. In the meantime, I am teaching my DD:

 

1. Do not get drunk or incapacitated in crowds, public places, or anywhere, for that matter.

2. Be on guard for any man that gets too close to soon, shows any possessive traits, or happens to be there when not invited. Be more aware if he attempts to separate one from family or friends.

3. Walk and talk assertively. Do not appear helpless.

4. Lock stuff.

5. Do not go out at night to roam or ramble.

6. Prepare. Know where one is going, have enough gas, and have a cell phone connected to the car.

7. Keep the Onstar bill paid.

8. Dress for success, not the red light district.

9. Know basic self protection methods. Know how to shoot.

 

If this is victim blaming so be it. I call it not being stupid. While this certainly cannot deter all assaults, it lowers the odds a bit. I am not going to wait on moms, the government, or some grandiose ad campaign to teach men how to act.

[Scarlett]

Ok then, wow we need to teach our kids not to end up unconscious with strangers if they can help it. Except when they can't. Please tell me how we all could have done better than the girl in Brazil that was raped by 30 men and then it was put on Twitter. She went to her boyfriends and was drugged. She ended up unconscious with 30 strangers. And STILL there were comments about how she should have stayed at home or gone to church. What could we learn from her story that we can tell kids not to do to avoid getting raped?

 

When every rape story turns into a lesson in what not to do, it places blame on the victim along with any future victims that heard the warnings and not 100% on the rapist. You can't have 2% victim's fault for passing out unconscious and still have it be 100% of the rapists fault. The math doesn't add up.

 

 

Which is why a new thread about prevention in general would have avoided the stop victim blaming reactions.

 

It took 25 posts on the other thread to start blaming the victim.

It is not victim blaming to say it is unsafe to be unconscious around strangers. Period.

 

But we weren't talking about the story you mentioned above. And the comments you quoted about going to,church or staying home....what does that have to do with this board.

[DawnM]

Next time there's a highway accident, I dare you to call the victim's family and say, "Don't you know that interstate crashes are more likely to be deadly? It's really too bad he didn't take the back roads, huh?"

 

 

But I get what the OP is saying.

 

If the person got into an accident because he/she was texting, or fell asleep at the wheel due to driving while extremely tired, or was distracted and not paying attention to the road......no, you never say something like that to the family, but you CAN explain to your children the dangers and use examples of people who didn't do what they were supposed to do and how dangerous it can be.

 

Yes, it was an accident.  No, we don't want it to happen again, so Yes, we discuss it to prevent it from happening again.

[Scarlett]

Every future rape victim that is raped while unconscious because she drank too much will now be questioned as if she didn't learn anything from the Stanford case. No matter what circumstances caused her to pass out. Even after all of this discussion, the victim will still have some people find fault with her decisions.

Questioned by who? Not me.

 

And yes there will always be some people finding fault with everything ( like discussing ways to protect ourselves from rape/police brutality/road rage) but it is still not victim blaming to caution against certain behaviors in a general discussion. No one here knows that Stanford victim and it would,be hard to imagine she is reading any of our posts.

[Scarlett]

But I get what the OP is saying.

 

If the person got into an accident because he/she was texting, or fell asleep at the wheel due to driving while extremely tired, or was distracted and not paying attention to the road......no, you never say something like that to the family, but you CAN explain to your children the dangers and use examples of people who didn't do what they were supposed to do and how dangerous it can be.

 

Yes, it was an accident. No, we don't want it to happen again, so Yes, we discuss it to prevent it from happening again.

Exactly.

[marbel]

But I get what the OP is saying.

 

If the person got into an accident because he/she was texting, or fell asleep at the wheel due to driving while extremely tired, or was distracted and not paying attention to the road......no, you never say something like that to the family, but you CAN explain to your children the dangers and use examples of people who didn't do what they were supposed to do and how dangerous it can be.

 

Yes, it was an accident.  No, we don't want it to happen again, so Yes, we discuss it to prevent it from happening again.

 

Yes, and we don't say that if we don't drive while texting or tired or distracted, we will always be safe. 

 

I don't think I have read/heard anyone saying that a woman will never be raped if she does x and never does y, just as no one says nothing will ever be stolen from your car if you just lock your doors.