s/o Victim Blaming

[Bluegoat]

It is not the clothing that is sexualizing girls and women. It's the culture. The clothing is neutral. In other cultures people walk around literally naked and nobody's saying the naked lady is looking for attention. It's entirely a subjective, cultural problem. And since it's a cultural issue, if we are aware of it and collectively decide that it's a problem, we can change our culture. 

 

I think there are 2 perspectives here. One way of looking at it is to say this is the way things are and we need to be realistic and work within that. The other way of looking at it is to say we need to change the way things are. In practice, I tell my kids to be practical and work within the way things are to be safe, but I think the problem is not that too many people aren't being realistic. The real problem is with the way things are so I focus my efforts on changing that. 

 

Yes, other cultures walk around with nothing on, but that happens in a completely different context, which changes the meaning.  No one can take meaning out of cultural expression, and all cultures have ways of transmitting meaning.

 

In our culture, women's, and even girl toddler's clothes are deliberatly sexualized.  That is the deliberate cultural message.  If tommorow instead of wearing hot pants, the thing becomes wearing lime green to show sexual availability, the form isn't that important, it can be totally arbitrary (though it may not be totally arbitrary) - it is the message.

 

You can't just decide - we will no longer use clothing choices to send messages, so the message disapears, unless all or most people buy into it, and that will probably mean making a movement to more neutral choices.  Every culture communicates through non-verbal means - things like physical appearence and fashion, gestures, rituals, whatever, and opting out of them, even if everyone wants to, is typically a generational endevour.  Writing a bunch of words on a paper and telling people they have no meaning is not going to work if they can read the words and see that, in fact, they do.

 

If the culture wants to sexualize women, it can, and it can do so through creating symbols that are intended to do that.  The symbols could be anything, and if you cut off one set, another will appear, unless you change the underlying attitude.  But the symbols themselves tend to reinforce the underlying attitude.

 

More practically, you can tell a bunch of high school kids that hot pants are not meant to sexualize women, and they should just ignore that, but it is very unlikely to be effective, because they know darn well they do, they can see that women's clothes are working in a different way than the boys clothes, placing value differently.  Girls can see that what they are being offered is meant to highlight certain aspects of their person, and that boys are not being offered a similar set of choices.  Even if they don't think about it, it enters their consciousness.  And high school girls are absolutely affected by pressure to measure up (to whom is a good question but probably not really answerable) by sexualizing themselves, and telling them that isn't happening does nothing to relieve that pressure.

 

Dress codes are typically a response to a problem - it could be people wearing clothes that are considered inappropriate for class reasons, or ones that are just not right for the setting.  Usually, if there is no problem, no one bothers creating a dress code.  When they are about sexualized clothing, they are a response to a sexualized environment, most typically targeting girls.  You aren't going to change the class problems that clothing can bring out just by telling kids that brand names don't matter, because they do affect the perception of other kids, no matter what you tell them.  Nor can you tell them that there is no such thing as class - they will know that is wishful thinking.  Trying to tell them there is no atmosphere of sexual objectification isn't any different.

 

ETA - a shorter way to put this might be - if we imagine a world where we aren't making a sexual object of anyone, what might the clothing look like.  It would probably differ from place to place, and also in different settings.  I don't think it would necessarily be gender neutral, though it might.  Things like climate would also be influential on what was regarded as normative.  So it might mean no clothes for anyone, or nearly full coverage, and both would be fine (but probably not in the same place, at the same time.)

 

But I don't think what we would see would look much like the more controversial differences between girls and boys fashions that we see in the west today.  Probably, if we want to ditch the attitude, we should ditch the most obvious expressions of it.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Paige]

Yes, other cultures walk around with nothing on, but that happens in a completely different context, which changes the meaning.  No one can take meaning out of cultural expression, and all cultures have ways of transmitting meaning.

 

In our culture, women's, and even girl toddler's clothes are deliberatly sexualized.  That is the deliberate cultural message.  If tommorow instead of wearing hot pants, the thing becomes wearing lime green to show sexual availability, the form isn't that important, it can be totally arbitrary (though it may not be totally arbitrary) - it is the message.

 

You can't just decide - we will no longer use clothing choices to send messages, so the message disapears, unless all or most people buy into it, and that will probably mean making a movement to more neutral choices.  Every culture communicates through non-verbal means - things like physical appearence and fashion, gestures, rituals, whatever, and opting out of them, even if everyone wants to, is typically a generational endevour.  Writing a bunch of words on a paper and telling people they have no meaning is not going to work if they can read the words and see that, in fact, they do.

 

If the culture wants to sexualize women, it can, and it can do so through creating symbols that are intended to do that.  The symbols could be anything, and if you cut off one set, another will appear, unless you change the underlying attitude.  But the symbols themselves tend to reinforce the underlying attitude.

 

More practically, you can tell a bunch of high school kids that hot pants are not meant to sexualize women, and they should just ignore that, but it is very unlikely to be effective, because they know darn well they do, they can see that women's clothes are working in a different way than the boys clothes, placing value differently.  Girls can see that what they are being offered is meant to highlight certain aspects of their person, and that boys are not being offered a similar set of choices.  Even if they don't think about it, it enters their consciousness.  And high school girls are absolutely affected by pressure to measure up (to whom is a good question but probably not really answerable) by sexualizing themselves, and telling them that isn't happening does nothing to relieve that pressure.

 

Dress codes are typically a response to a problem - it could be people wearing clothes that are considered inappropriate for class reasons, or ones that are just not right for the setting.  Usually, if there is no problem, no one bothers creating a dress code.  When they are about sexualized clothing, they are a response to a sexualized environment, most typically targeting girls.  You aren't going to change the class problems that clothing can bring out just by telling kids that brand names don't matter, because they do affect the perception of other kids, no matter what you tell them.  Nor can you tell them that there is no such thing as class - they will know that is wishful thinking.  Trying to tell them there is no atmosphere of sexual objectification isn't any different.

 

ETA - a shorter way to put this might be - if we imagine a world where we aren't making a sexual object of anyone, what might the clothing look like.  It would probably differ from place to place, and also in different settings.  I don't think it would necessarily be gender neutral, though it might.  Things like climate would also be influential on what was regarded as normative.  So it might mean no clothes for anyone, or nearly full coverage, and both would be fine (but probably not in the same place, at the same time.)

 

But I don't think what we would see would look much like the more controversial differences between girls and boys fashions that we see in the west today.  Probably, if we want to ditch the attitude, we should ditch the most obvious expressions of it.

 

We are agreeing on the facts of what is. My point is that we don't have to accept it. We can be self-aware and work to change it. I agree that everyone would have to buy into it, but there's precedence for social/cultural change of widespread beliefs and attitudes. We can't change without refusing to go along with what is in some ways.

 

We had a culture of racism and persecution of LGBT communities that was entrenched, supported, and ubiquitous. Now, because people refused to quietly go along, those attitudes are on the fringe and hopefully dying out. There's precedence for how social change happens and it's not by following the rules. 

 

I disagree that we'd have to move to more neutral clothing choices. That's a possibility, but the problem is not the clothes- it's beliefs and attitudes and perspective. We can be active architects of our culture. 

[swimmermom3]

Bluegoat,

 

I am rapidly swigging my coffee and trying to wrap my head around the distinctions in your posts, #167 and 168.

 

In the first post, your feeling is that the way young women dress, say in high school, contributes to their sexualization or their objectification - the way they dress contributes to the culture.  There is not nearly as much that guys can do with their dress.  Is my understanding correct?

 

But is your point of the second post that the way we talk around rape, giving safety tips and using actual victims as examples, doesn't contribute to the problem as to how our society views rape victims?

 

I think I am misreading, because I am not sure how you can have A, but not B?

 

On a side note, as a former Catholic school girl, I think school uniforms are brilliant on so many levels. 

[swimmermom3]

Joules,

 

Your post offered some excellent insights and I am so sorry for your experience. :grouphug:

[SKL]

Girls/young women are sexualized in media and then the clothing designs used to do this are sold to the general public.  So no, you cannot ignore the fact that the clothes are inextricably connected with the sexualization.  If you really want to see people stop looking at females as sex objects, address it with the media.

 

Meanwhile, what is the problem if we just provide our young kids with clothes that fit well within the dress codes and cover what we think should be covered at their age, so they can go about their business and focus on more important things?

 

When I was a kid, I never though about what my clothes might mean.  They were purely utilitarian.  I aim for that when I shop for my kids.  It shouldn't be difficult to find clothes that let kids just be kids.

[SKL]

Here's what comes up when I shop for girls' shorts size 10.  Why?  https://smile.amazon.com/Limited-Too-Girls-Super-Denim/dp/B016E4EBB4/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&qid=1465836277&sr=8-18-spons&keywords=girls+shorts+size+10&psc=1

[hornblower]

 

 

On a side note, as a former Catholic school girl, I think school uniforms are brilliant on so many levels. 

 

 

I drive by 2 Catholic schools regularly and the plaid pleated mini is so hypersexualized it needs to go.  In the local papers, there are ads for escorts with this uniform on. It's beyond creepy. 

[Caroline]

Here's what comes up when I shop for girls' shorts size 10. Why? https://smile.amazon.com/Limited-Too-Girls-Super-Denim/dp/B016E4EBB4/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&qid=1465836277&sr=8-18-spons&keywords=girls+shorts+size+10&psc=1

This is what I get...

 

http://www.gap.com/products/new-girls-clothes.jsp

[hornblower]

Girls/young women are sexualized in media and then the clothing designs used to do this are sold to the general public.  So no, you cannot ignore the fact that the clothes are inextricably connected with the sexualization.  If you really want to see people stop looking at females as sex objects, address it with the media.

 

Meanwhile, what is the problem if we just provide our young kids with clothes that fit well within the dress codes and cover what we think should be covered at their age, so they can go about their business and focus on more important things?

 

When I was a kid, I never though about what my clothes might mean.  They were purely utilitarian.  I aim for that when I shop for my kids.  It shouldn't be difficult to find clothes that let kids just be kids.

In the mid 70s my friends & all lived in shorts like this. I call them utilitarian. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/99/86/21/998621113fd7375caed7c585934ee95c.jpg

 

 

I don't like the shorts you posted because they look stiff and uncomfortable.  Otherwise nothing wrong with them. 

 

 

I think what you think needs to be covered varies a lot. When I was a kid where I grew up girls didn't cover their top half until they started growing breasts. So until you're about 10, everyone just wore bottoms to the beach. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by hornblower

[swimmermom3]

 

I drive by 2 Catholic schools regularly and the plaid pleated mini is so hypersexualized it needs to go.  In the local papers, there are ads for escorts with this uniform on. It's beyond creepy. 

 

Lax enforcement of dress codes?  Trust me, there was nothing hypersexualized about the length of my skirts, but then, that was when dinosaurs still roamed the earth.  I know what you mean though. One of our local "naughty" stores sells complete "school girl" costumes.

 

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat,

 

I am rapidly swigging my coffee and trying to wrap my head around the distinctions in your posts, #167 and 168.

 

In the first post, your feeling is that the way young women dress, say in high school, contributes to their sexualization or their objectification - the way they dress contributes to the culture.  There is not nearly as much that guys can do with their dress.  Is my understanding correct?

 

But is your point of the second post that the way we talk around rape, giving safety tips and using actual victims as examples, doesn't contribute to the problem as to how our society views rape victims?

 

I think I am misreading, because I am not sure how you can have A, but not B?

 

On a side note, as a former Catholic school girl, I think school uniforms are brilliant on so many levels. 

 

I would say in the first case, women dressing in particular ways is a result of a culture of sexualization and also to some extent reinforces it.  Boys clothing choices don't seem to especially reflect that kind of dynamic.  That's on the higher level.  The more practical level as I see it is that however we might want to modify about the attitude, kids in high-school are in the middle of it now, when they are fairly young, and often aren't all that aware of the extent to which it is true - they can easily take those messages for granted and internalize them.  So - the dress code directed to those issues is largely a matter of reducing the atmosphere of over-sexing girls - that's the risk, I guess you could say.  I would also want to include talking about such things conceptually as part of a dress code for that purpose, and that might well include talking about specific examples, maybe taken from media (not pointing at the kids in the class.)

 

In the second case, I would say that there are more risks, and they are perhaps only partly cultural.  There is a risk of having people (men and women) believe some bizarre things about victims, and that has happened in the past.  There is the risk of actually becoming a victim (and not just of rape, really.)  Those are different kinds of risks, one very concrete, and one less so, and the concrete risk, of suffering some kind of violence, is not a totally cultural phenomena (like whatever clothes happen to be considered culturally suggestive.)  People who sexual assault or molest other people are not driven just by cultural messages that it is the thing to do, or even less direct ones, they are also responding to psychological and physical drives, and in a lot of cases also lack of other kinds of controls on those drives. Poor self-control, say, or lack of empathy.  Those things exist somewhat independently of cultural or social contexts, they are likely impossible to totally stamp out in the population.

 

So - I would say in the second case the most immediate risk to be addressed in the concrete situation - that some people are dangerous and you should make a conscious decision about how to respond to it, and that in your particular cultural context, there may be other things that make the concrete risks more intense (like, being vulnerable around strangers because of a poor drinking culture.)  I don't know that it is possible to tell people this only in the abstract - if it is only abstract that it is a risk, but there are no real example, that is meaningless.  It's risky because it actually happens.  I don't see any value in dividing them as if they were two things, when one is just the statistical form of the other, IMO it's better to deal with the possible contradictions someone might see very directly.  So real examples, from media, examples from literature or pop culture, seem to me like fair game.

 

In that instance I don't know that there is an equivalent of the dress code, unless it was something like a ban on particular types of events, or fraternal organizations, which I believe has happened at some universities.  I tend to think those are extreme measures, though in some cases maybe justified, but in a high school setting I would be less inclined to think that.  Similarly, a dress code in the law would seem pretty weird to me.

[poppy]

Short shorts are often worn over leggings these days, or to camp.   I see zero problem  with them for pre-pubescent kids.  Beyond that, I can't really say. My oldest is 8. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B016E4EBB4?ref%5F=sr%5F1%5F18&qid=1465836277&sr=8-18-spons&keywords=girls%20shorts%20size%2010&psc=1&pldnSite=1

 

Girls/young women are sexualized in media and then the clothing designs used to do this are sold to the general public.  So no, you cannot ignore the fact that the clothes are inextricably connected with the sexualization.  If you really want to see people stop looking at females as sex objects, address it with the media.

 

Meanwhile, what is the problem if we just provide our young kids with clothes that fit well within the dress codes and cover what we think should be covered at their age, so they can go about their business and focus on more important things?

 

When I was a kid, I never though about what my clothes might mean.  They were purely utilitarian.  I aim for that when I shop for my kids.  It shouldn't be difficult to find clothes that let kids just be kids.

 

The media isn't an outside force. It provides  what the culture asks for.  So "Address it with the media" is exactly what we're trying to do here. 

[Soror]

Whenever dresscode is brought up I think of pictures like these:

 

https://www.quora.com/Islam-How-effective-is-the-hijab-in-protecting-the-modesty-of-women

 

 

Countries with the most stringent dress requirements for women have the worst records of rape. The dress of a women has NOTHING to do with rape, NOTHING at all. It has nothing to do with our societal expectations around clothing but everything to do with our societal views on women. It is just a distraction from the real issue, we keep women from getting raped by teaching our sons not to rape, continuing to keep the discussion on what women wear, say and do just continues to keep the focus from the real issue. Men continue to rape because they can often get away with it and see nothing wrong with it. After all the narrative is too often blaming of the women for her dress and actions. A good chunk of the country see women as still yet less than men. Women that complain about equal pay, sexual harassment, rape and unfair treatment are just whining wimps. 

[swimmermom3]

I would say in the first case, women dressing in particular ways is a result of a culture of sexualization and also to some extent reinforces it.  Boys clothing choices don't seem to especially reflect that kind of dynamic.  That's on the higher level.  The more practical level as I see it is that however we might want to modify about the attitude, kids in high-school are in the middle of it now, when they are fairly young, and often aren't all that aware of the extent to which it is true - they can easily take those messages for granted and internalize them.  So - the dress code directed to those issues is largely a matter of reducing the atmosphere of over-sexing girls - that's the risk, I guess you could say.  I would also want to include talking about such things conceptually as part of a dress code for that purpose, and that might well include talking about specific examples, maybe taken from media (not pointing at the kids in the class.)

 

In the second case, I would say that there are more risks, and they are perhaps only partly cultural.  There is a risk of having people (men and women) believe some bizarre things about victims, and that has happened in the past.  There is the risk of actually becoming a victim (and not just of rape, really.)  Those are different kinds of risks, one very concrete, and one less so, and the concrete risk, of suffering some kind of violence, is not a totally cultural phenomena (like whatever clothes happen to be considered culturally suggestive.)  People who sexual assault or molest other people are not driven just by cultural messages that it is the thing to do, or even less direct ones, they are also responding to psychological and physical drives, and in a lot of cases also lack of other kinds of controls on those drives. Poor self-control, say, or lack of empathy.  Those things exist somewhat independently of cultural or social contexts, they are likely impossible to totally stamp out in the population.

 

So - I would say in the second case the most immediate risk to be addressed in the concrete situation - that some people are dangerous and you should make a conscious decision about how to respond to it, and that in your particular cultural context, there may be other things that make the concrete risks more intense (like, being vulnerable around strangers because of a poor drinking culture.)  I don't know that it is possible to tell people this only in the abstract - if it is only abstract that it is a risk, but there are no real example, that is meaningless.  It's risky because it actually happens.  I don't see any value in dividing them as if they were two things, when one is just the statistical form of the other, IMO it's better to deal with the possible contradictions someone might see very directly.  So real examples, from media, examples from literature or pop culture, seem to me like fair game.

 

In that instance I don't know that there is an equivalent of the dress code, unless it was something like a ban on particular types of events, or fraternal organizations, which I believe has happened at some universities.  I tend to think those are extreme measures, though in some cases maybe justified, but in a high school setting I would be less inclined to think that.  Similarly, a dress code in the law would seem pretty weird to me.

 

Thank you for your response. I will have to think it over some more as I have a few other questions, but am considering how to articulate them.

 

As a side note on fraternities, your comment reminded me of the various ways in which the Greek system  was presented on the campuses that my son visited.  One, if not two, did not allow their frats and sororities to have houses.  They had designated lounge areas where they could meet and socialize, but not houses where parties could be held and students could disappear into rooms.  Their Greek organizations were very service oriented and had accomplished some amazing things both on campus and in the community.  This school spun my idea of Greek life on it's head because they shifted the focus from parties to accomplishing things of value while developing positive relationships with each other.

 

 

[Ravin]

Why assume that feeling of shame is caused by external forces?  I too was molested as a child and I too felt irrational shame.  As you point out, rape victims have a natural tendency to feel shame.  I don't know why, but if you think about it, that is one of the reasons rapists rape - because it hurts so much emotionally, largely because of that natural tendency to feel shame.

 

So to your point, "these discussions ... don't protect us" - can you really protect a rape victim from those feelings, regardless of what has or has not been said about prevention?  I think not.  I think there is ample evidence that shame / self-blame is an extremely common response even among little kids who have never heard of rape or rape prevention.  I think the assumption that it's a learned reaction is faulty.  Can you make it worse by rubbing it in, sure, but that's not what anyone is advocating here.

 

Think about it - many of the people talking about rape risk avoidance have been victims of rape or molestation.  Many of them have drunk alcohol in less-than-perfectly-safe situations.  Some have experienced both at the same time.  They are thinking, "I don't want others to have this happen to them."  Some might even be thinking, "I would prefer others learn from my mistakes than make the same mistakes and get hurt."

 

Shame is not natural, it is taught.

[Joanne]

I call things victim blaming what that is what it is. *shrug*

 

I don't see an organized effort that means you can't have discussion or have to avoid contributing. I don't see a barrier against discourse.

 

I think identifying victim blaming (started in the 70's ish that I recall) has elevated and evolved thought. It has changed the way we respond to sexual assault of children, how culture and the legal system responds to rape, and how we respond to domestic violence (although that is not as evolved as it "should" be.) ETA: I think our culture's response to HIV/AIDS also fits in this topic.

 

I feel identifying, and developing a discourse and vocabulary around slut-shaming has been useful, too.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Joanne

[heartlikealion]

Telling someone "that's really stupid" can sound cruel. There are better ways to phrase it. "That's a bad idea." "That wouldn't be very wise." "I would not recommend that." "I strongly urge you not to do that."

 

I think victim blaming occurs after someone becomes a victim. So I don't think that the advice for what to wear while traveling is necessarily on par with the scolding a woman whose purse was stolen scenario. Not sure if I'm making sense here. I just don't see those two examples as fair side by side comparisons I guess. One sounds like advice and one sounds like, "I told you so."

[Sarah CB]

 

 

Countries with the most stringent dress requirements for women have the worst records of rape. 

 

That is a very interesting point. 

[Bluegoat]

That is a very interesting point. 

 

I tend to think that very stringent requirements are often very close to cultures with displays of hyper-sexualization.  (Not always, there are especially historical examples of dress codification totally unrelated to sexual issues.) 

 

In both cases, what happens is the person is reduced to being a sexual object, rather than a being for whom sexuality is part of their personhood.  So - you end up with pressures to either wear clothing that is very much about displaying the person with some attached sexual message, or alternately, about covering them up absolutely, because their whole body is pretty much wholly sexual and nothing else.  Sexuality divorced from personhood, however it is treated, tends to be very negative.  When the whole person is acknowledged, it can be seen as part of the whole and is much less dangerous, and also not something that should be exploited.

[abcmommy]

The OP clearly said it would be wrong to kick a victim while down.

 

 

The OP also verbally kicked me in the teeth when I mentioned my abusive marriage and financial devastation as a result of it, so you'll excuse my suspicion that some people really do NOT GET IT and never will.

[abcmommy]

Telling someone "that's really stupid" can sound cruel. There are better ways to phrase it. "That's a bad idea." "That wouldn't be very wise." "I would not recommend that." "I strongly urge you not to do that."

 

I think victim blaming occurs after someone becomes a victim. So I don't think that the advice for what to wear while traveling is necessarily on par with the scolding a woman whose purse was stolen scenario. Not sure if I'm making sense here. I just don't see those two examples as fair side by side comparisons I guess. One sounds like advice and one sounds like, "I told you so."

 

 

Well put.

 

I wouldn't walk alone in that park if I were you.

 

contrasts nicely with

 

 

Why would you have walked alone in that neighborhood at night?  

[Bluegoat]

Well put.

 

I wouldn't walk alone in that park if I were you.

 

contrasts nicely with

 

 

Why would you have walked alone in that neighborhood at night?  

 

Neither really applies though to talking about things like media stories.

[abcmommy]

Neither really applies though to talking about things like media stories.

 

 

I do not agree.  Chances are when you are discussing rape, someone in your audience has experienced it.  Same with domestic violence.

[Bluegoat]

I do not agree.  Chances are when you are discussing rape, someone in your audience has experienced it.  Same with domestic violence.

 

It still isn't discussing their particular situation, and it also insn't generally in a setting where taking a more pastroral or theraputic kind of approach is what is required.

 

In terms of having a public discussion of issues around domestic violence, be it in an online forum, or a university lecture, or whatever, if it is going to be at al rigorous, or useful, it will almost certainly consider case studies as well as statistics, and it will need to allow for people to discuss all kinds of viewpoints.

 

Some people are perhaps too fragile for even that, their own experience is to fresh or full of emotion, they cannot help but take it personally.  Not discussing domestic violence is not, however, the answer.  I think the only answer for those people is to try and avoid those kinds of discussions, they are the ones who have the best sense of whether they can manage them, and whether they want to. 

 

Not having frank or detailed public discussion seems to me, besides being not a good social policy, to be terribly paternalistic.  There are many people who have suffered from domestic abuse, sexual assault, molestation, whatever, who are capable of them, and want to participate.  They don't all have the same viewpoint on them, either.  Really this applies to any subject some people find difficult - war, child loss, fertility issues, and so on.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Bluegoat

[abcmommy]

The idea that we should not discuss these things at all is a straw man, as has already been pointed out.  Avoiding victim blaming is not akin to shutting down discussion.  This whole discussion reminds me that what people really want is to be able to say anything they want without experiencing the consequences of it.  There are simply too many victims of sexual assault out there to allow people to get away with smugly blaming a short skirt and a couple drinks.

[Bluegoat]

The idea that we should not discuss these things at all is a straw man, as has already been pointed out.  Avoiding victim blaming is not akin to shutting down discussion.  This whole discussion reminds me that what people really want is to be able to say anything they want without experiencing the consequences of it.  There are simply too many victims of sexual assault out there to allow people to get away with smugly blaming a short skirt and a couple drinks.

 

It's about as much of a straw man as saying anyone has suggested assault can be blamed on a short skirt or a few drinks.

 

Everyone who has commented has suggested that talking to people about their own experiences is quite different than a general discussion.  It was suggested that it is not different, because there are always likely to be people listening or participating who have experienced something similar.  The implication seems to be that every discussion must be conducted like a conversation about an individual's personal experience.  That would severely limit the scope of discussion.

[abcmommy]

It's about as much of a straw man as saying anyone has suggested assault can be blamed on a short skirt or a few drinks.

 

Everyone who has commented has suggested that talking to people about their own experiences is quite different than a general discussion.  It was suggested that it is not different, because there are always likely to be people listening or participating who have experienced something similar.  The implication seems to be that every discussion must be conducted like a conversation about an individual's personal experience.  That would severely limit the scope of discussion.

 

 

I continue to suggest we not victim blame and pretend its constructive. 

[poppy]

Well put.

 

I wouldn't walk alone in that park if I were you.

 

contrasts nicely with

 

 

Why would you have walked alone in that neighborhood at night?  

 

The victim blaming comes when you attach it to the story of an actual victim. "Hey did you see that woman who walked alone in the park at night that got raped? I wouldn't have walked alone in that area at night" is no different than "Hey did you see that woman who walked alone in the park at night that got raped? Why would she do that in that neighborhood?"  It's her fault either way, really.

[hornblower]

We used do have take back the streets walks here. Still do but they're not as big anymore...  We need this again. The streets are ours. We have a right to walk down them without being harassed, threatened, or assaulted. 

[SKL]

The victim blaming comes when you attach it to the story of an actual victim. "Hey did you see that woman who walked alone in the park at night that got raped? I wouldn't have walked alone in that area at night" is no different than "Hey did you see that woman who walked alone in the park at night that got raped? Why would she do that in that neighborhood?"  It's her fault either way, really.

 

I disagree.

 

There's a park I often drive past and I was thinking it would be nice to go walking there sometime.  Well then a rape was reported at that park and the rapist was at large.  After that I said, "it looks like a nice place to walk, but after I heard there was a rape there, I won't be walking there, at least not alone."  I'm not victim blaming; that lady was only doing what I had contemplated doing myself.  This is just normal conversation, and everyday common sense advice for anyone who might not have heard about the rape (including people too young to figure all that out for themselves.  Whether I said it in my own car, or on facebook, or here on WTM (oops I just did), it's still not victim blaming.

 

I think victim blaming is specific to the person, after the fact, and includes some aspect of "you knew better and did this anyway."  Even then, victim blaming doesn't necessarily take guilt away from the perp.  Nobody would say the rapist was less guilty because the woman placed herself in the park - even if she had been warned 10 minutes earlier to stay out of the park as a rapist was on the loose in there.

 

The other day my kids and I were listening to an audiobook (true story) on which the 15yo character claimed to be 17 and accepted some alcoholic drinks from a young man.  I put in my 2c worth, talking to the CD player:  "don't do that, it's going to cause problems ... it's going to lead to bad choices ...."  In the story nothing bad resulted other than a lot of fear, but I didn't want my kids to think that the heroine's choices were fine and dandy.  Had she gotten herself in deeper trouble, I guess you'd say I'd been blaming/shaming, but I would call it raising my kids.

Edited June 14, 2016 by SKL

[abcmommy]

http://crcvc.ca/docs/victim_blaming.pdf

 

http://stoprelationshipabuse.org/educated/avoiding-victim-blaming/

 

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/05/28/rape-splaining-10-examples-of-victim-blaming/

[swimmermom3]

We used do have take back the streets walks here. Still do but they're not as big anymore...  We need this again. The streets are ours. We have a right to walk down them without being harassed, threatened, or assaulted. 

 

My 23yo dd was talking about a recent excursion to a local beach.  She mentioned that she and her friend went to the nude portion of the beach.  Okay, I must have looked a little shocked when she said that because she added that she and "C" had given up on the non-nude part.  They were really tired of being harassed by the drunk frat boy types.  I am still processing that it was preferable and felt safer for two attractive young women to hang out on a nude beach where the mostly older people left them in peace than it was to hang out on the non-nude beach with the younger guys.

 

But then I guess because they were originally there in bikinis, they were asking for the unwanted and aggressive attention. :tongue_smilie:

[swimmermom3]

http://crcvc.ca/docs/victim_blaming.pdf

 

http://stoprelationshipabuse.org/educated/avoiding-victim-blaming/

 

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/05/28/rape-splaining-10-examples-of-victim-blaming/

 

The Legal Bias Against Rape Victims was an interesting pdf. Thanks

[Joanne]

We used do have take back the streets walks here. Still do but they're not as big anymore...  We need this again. The streets are ours. We have a right to walk down them without being harassed, threatened, or assaulted. 

 

AND to wear whatever we want (that is lawful) when we walk.

 

EVEN if our choices ARE to be sexy.

 

[StephanieZ]

nm 

 

Edited June 16, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer
Much better suited to a PM

[StephanieZ]

nm

Edited June 16, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer
Let it go.

[abcmommy]

nm

Edited June 16, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer
Let it go.

[TranquilMind]

nm

Edited June 16, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer
Knock it off.

[StephanieZ]

nm 

 

Edited June 16, 2016 by Susan Wise Bauer
TAKE IT TO PM.