M
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
HouseArrest
Guest
I see virtually no difference between the second group (who says women need to look out for themselves) and her point. I can’t imagine anyone is teaching their daughters that they are perfectly safe if they take precautions. There still are jump from behind the bushes attacks, after all.
M
manualman
Guest
I’ve long used the analogy of burglary (in principle, not degree of course).
Everybody knows somebody who has been robbed. Nobody’s initial response to a burglary is to “blame the victim.” What’s wrong with you? Why they heck did you forget to lock that window? You practically invited that crook to steal you MacBook!
Perhaps as a result, no crime victims ever organize protest marches and demand that society change to the point where we can all leave our doors unlocks, our keys in the car and our valuables laying on the front lawn without suffering from theft. Nobody is that dumb.
Everybody appreciates good advice about how to protect yourself against burglary using reasonable precautions without anybody interpreting that advice to be excusing the crime committed by burglars.
Perhaps its time we learn to treat other violent crimes, including rape, the same way. Criminals are ALWAYS the ones to blame for their crimes. But it sure doesn’t hurt to take reasonable and prudent precautions given the fact that we live in a world full of sinners. Don’t let it rule you with fear, but for crying out loud be aware of risks and mitigate the ones that you reasonably can.
Everybody knows somebody who has been robbed. Nobody’s initial response to a burglary is to “blame the victim.” What’s wrong with you? Why they heck did you forget to lock that window? You practically invited that crook to steal you MacBook!
Perhaps as a result, no crime victims ever organize protest marches and demand that society change to the point where we can all leave our doors unlocks, our keys in the car and our valuables laying on the front lawn without suffering from theft. Nobody is that dumb.
Everybody appreciates good advice about how to protect yourself against burglary using reasonable precautions without anybody interpreting that advice to be excusing the crime committed by burglars.
Perhaps its time we learn to treat other violent crimes, including rape, the same way. Criminals are ALWAYS the ones to blame for their crimes. But it sure doesn’t hurt to take reasonable and prudent precautions given the fact that we live in a world full of sinners. Don’t let it rule you with fear, but for crying out loud be aware of risks and mitigate the ones that you reasonably can.
K
kaos713
Guest
Agreed.I’ve long used the analogy of burglary (in principle, not degree of course).
Everybody knows somebody who has been robbed. Nobody’s initial response to a burglary is to “blame the victim.” What’s wrong with you? Why they heck did you forget to lock that window? You practically invited that crook to steal you MacBook!
Perhaps as a result, no crime victims ever organize protest marches and demand that society change to the point where we can all leave our doors unlocks, our keys in the car and our valuables laying on the front lawn without suffering from theft. Nobody is that dumb.
Everybody appreciates good advice about how to protect yourself against burglary using reasonable precautions without anybody interpreting that advice to be excusing the crime committed by burglars.
Perhaps its time we learn to treat other violent crimes, including rape, the same way. Criminals are ALWAYS the ones to blame for their crimes. But it sure doesn’t hurt to take reasonable and prudent precautions given the fact that we live in a world full of sinners. Don’t let it rule you with fear, but for crying out loud be aware of risks and mitigate the ones that you reasonably can.
K
Kamaduck
Guest
The difference is that the second group believes that women often or usually bring rape upon themselves, and share a measure of responsibility in most cases.I see virtually no difference between the second group (who says women need to look out for themselves) and her point. I can’t imagine anyone is teaching their daughters that they are perfectly safe if they take precautions. There still are jump from behind the bushes attacks, after all.
When I was in health class, the one useful thing I learned was that consent is not a given, and you don’t have to scream “no” and try to beat someone’s face in for something to “actually” be rape if it happens anyway. But most of us didn’t know that. The man giving the presentation gave my class a scenario in which a young man had obviously violated a young woman without her consent, and asked us who was to blame- the girl, the guy, or both of them. We thought about it for a while, and there ended up being an even split between those who answered “the guy” and “both”. I didn’t vote.
The reason the first group (which says that women should never ever be faulted for being raped) exists is to react to the prevailing belief that women generally do share a measure of the blame for being attacked. In my experience, these people aren’t usually against taking precautions, and often take many precautions themselves to avoid something happening. They’re simply against telling women to avoid being raped instead of telling men to respect them no matter what.
One analogy I’ve seen (brought up by the “take responsibility” side) is kids and streets. It’s not a perfect analogy, since streets are for driving and there isn’t really a similar place that’s for sex (not to mention that you can accidentally hit someone, but can’t accidentally have sex), but it’s still interesting. Someone sarcastically said “don’t tell children to avoid cars- tell cars to avoid children”, implying that it would be stupid not to teach kids to take precautions. The people on the other side immediately pointed out that we already do tell cars to avoid children, to the point of putting signs near schools and saying that pedestrians always have the right of way. In that context, it’s also sensible to tell children to “look both ways” and take other precautions.
I think what side 1 wants to see is an environment more like the street example. It’s not that they actually think women can or should walk around naked at night or something, any more than they want kids to walk into oncoming traffic. They just want a culture that encourages everyone to look for “enthusiastic consent”, assuming that the answer is “no” unless it’s definitely “yes”. While it doesn’t exactly come at the problem from a Catholic point of view, I can certainly appreciate that sentiment. Most will agree that resources that tell women how to avoid dangerous situations are a good thing, so long as they do not frame “don’t get raped” as a responsibility that is given to the woman, as though rapists are a force of nature and cannot be held accountable for their actions.
With that knowledge of how this debate usually goes, I actually think her position is more similar to side #1 (although she doesn’t appear to think so). I thought the article was good. It doesn’t really say anything I haven’t heard before, but I like how it summed up her basic position.
C
CaptFun
Guest
The points about “prudence” are well taken … and in fact go beyond the topic of just rape.
Also that point that despite prudence a person could be raped (by the bad person - who is “responsible” for the badness).
As for the stirring climactic quote
Gets a strong challenge from another story dominating the news now that deals with RAPEBecause no woman is ever responsible for being raped. Ever.
from two perspectives
- the **point of view of the victim **(and the suffering one might have to go through when seeking justice AFTER the rape).
- and the legal right of rapists (or accused rapists) to have strong legal defense … ethically even to have defense attorneys lie or counterrattack the plaintiff (or rape victim seeking justice) to secure the defendants’ freedom as soon as possible.
This section of your link reminded me of that.
And women who blame themselves don’t report sexual assault,the 12 year old I mentioned DID report hers … meaning they won’t have access to the resources and support they need to heal. <But the girl GOT neither support NOR healing but harrassment from “the system”
It also means that a rapist will go unpunished or barely punished as in the case I mention and likely violate more of our sisters (or brothers). < I don’t know what the rapist in this case did after his release.
The rapist’s female defense attorney got him off with a minor charge of “fondling a minor” after the police lost critical blood and fluid evidence of the girls struggle on the rapists underwear.The “taking responsibility for yourself” mindset also leaves the rape victims who do come forward vulnerable to unfounded and painful judgment, which only compounds their suffering. Which is exactly what happened to this 12 year old sixth grader.
YET the attorney ALSO attacked the girl with unattributed chargesthat she "had heard" about the girls’ possibly suspect emotional stability and veracity, and implied the schoolgirl had sought out relationships with older men and had made false claims of attacks on her body in the past.
Which caused the court to send the girl to a (defense selected) Psychiatrist for questioning. Which left the girl feeling like she’d been put “through hell” and made her want to drop the whole thing and get on with her life.
The legal system does allow defenders great lattitude to that role. And the defense attorney in the case was not Catholic.
But could a Catholic blatantly bear false witness - or made speculative charges they were in no wise sure of - in order to win a case or, as a tool to free her client? And what if said attorney did so knowing their defendant was probably guilty of the rape?
I’m inclined to say NO to my own ethical question above.
That attorney in the 1975 rape case … is known as one of the world’s most famous feminists today. Her name was Hillary Rodham. Clinton now.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=891457 < That Rape case in another current CAF forum. Catholic perspective(s) and commentary welcome.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Yes. And the “blame the victim” when bad happens is taken to task in scripture in the Book of Job when God is angry at Job’s false friends.I’ve long used the analogy of burglary (in principle, not degree of course).
Everybody knows somebody who has been robbed. Nobody’s initial response to a burglary is to “blame the victim.” What’s wrong with you? Why they heck did you forget to lock that window? You practically invited that crook to steal you MacBook!
Perhaps as a result, no crime victims ever organize protest marches and demand that society change to the point where we can all leave our doors unlocks, our keys in the car and our valuables laying on the front lawn without suffering from theft. Nobody is that dumb.
Everybody appreciates good advice about how to protect yourself against burglary using reasonable precautions without anybody interpreting that advice to be excusing the crime committed by burglars.
Perhaps its time we learn to treat other violent crimes, including rape, the same way. Criminals are ALWAYS the ones to blame for their crimes. But it sure doesn’t hurt to take reasonable and prudent precautions given the fact that we live in a world full of sinners. Don’t let it rule you with fear, but for crying out loud be aware of risks and mitigate the ones that you reasonably can.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.