Victim Blaming

[Virga]

It’s one thing to have a conversation like this on a Catholic message board, but I think it needs to be talked about in the wider society. Because any discussion on the topic is generally shot down as a Puritanical attack on women’s freedom, it doesn’t happen; **thus my suggestion that it comes up when people discuss the issue of rape *in a generic way, ***esp shortly after a huge national conversation about rape on college campuses, many of which are purported to involve young women dressing and behaving immodestly.

So I agree they are two separate issues. They are two separate issues one of which cannot be spoken of.

My previous post was mainly in response to the part in bold just to clear that up, not this particular thread.

 

[Joy2day]

There can also be a tendency of people to blame the victim via the often boasted phrase ‘s/he can handle anything that’s thrown his/her way’. This type of idea tends to blame the victims of any situation that is unfortunate ie, because the victim was somehow unable to manage it. Once again, it gives the onlookers who are not present victims a false sense of security because, believing they are capable of handling any situation, the same unfortunate event would not ever happen to them.

Because it is a simple fact, that it is not true that any one individual can handle ANY situation that comes their way.

Oh, the lies we tell ourselves.

 

[on_the_hill]

Because it is a simple fact, that it is not true that any one individual can handle ANY situation that comes their way.

Except for Chuck Norris.

 

[St_Francis]

My previous post was mainly in response to the part in bold just to clear that up, not this particular thread.

What I said was ambiguous. What I am trying to say is that if a rape victim was dressing and behaving immodestly, people bring that up and that kind of comment is called blaming the victim.

I suggest that since people can’t bring it up in other contexts, it ends up never being discussed. They bring it up in the context of rape because altho most people have an intuitive feeling that it is wrong for young women to behave this way, they are not allowed to say so. When someone is raped, it becomes a type of cautionary tale.

It is not done so much to blame the victim but to point out in a certain context that perhaps dressing and behaving provocatively is, in the pragmatic sense Amercians in general accept, not a good idea.

In a thread generically about blaming the victim, I felt that proposing a reason for people’s seeming to blame the victim would not be out of place.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

What I said was ambiguous. What I am trying to say is that if a rape victim was dressing and behaving immodestly, people bring that up and that kind of comment is called blaming the victim.

I suggest that since people can’t bring it up in other contexts, it ends up never being discussed. They bring it up in the context of rape because altho most people have an intuitive feeling that it is wrong for young women to behave this way, they are not allowed to say so. When someone is raped, it becomes a type of cautionary tale.

I think your experiences are the polar opposites of most others posting here, when you say that the only socially acceptable time to bring up immodest dress is in the context of rape. Who exactly are these all-powerful censors who have “not allowed” people to discuss the topic of immodest dress or behavior? They certainly aren’t around on THIS forum last I checked.

Indeed, most posters are stating the exact opposite as you, that the topic of modesty is appropriate in certain contexts, but NOT in the highly sensitive topic of rape.

It is not done so much to blame the victim but to point out in a certain context that perhaps dressing and behaving provocatively is, in the pragmatic sense Amercians in general accept, not a good idea.

You are also assuming that it is an established fact, that “dressing and behaving provocatively” puts one at increased risk for rape. Not catcalls, not obscene comments, not even groping, which I would agree with, but that actual forced sexual intercourse against the will of another, a felony.

You also seem to be assuming that there are a whole bunch of potential male rapists out there who a “provocative” woman would run across, or perhaps even that the majority of men will actually be tempted to not just lust after the woman and want to have sex with her, but actually be tempted to FORCE her to have sex. This seems really insulting to the average man.

Maybe you also believe that rapists are motivated chiefly by lust, which I know is the “traditional” view of rape. Now, I won’t go as far as some other posters and state that lust is not involved at all. But even if this is the case, do you actually think rapists choose their targets solely based on the perception that the victim is the most physically attractive option, as opposed to the perception that the victim is a good target for crime due to, say, being physically disabled, or not paying attention to her surroundings, or fast asleep in bed, or drunk, or elderly? We are not talking about average men, we are talking about criminal rapists.

Or, if you do not actually believe that, you seem to think that it is legitimate to use the scare tactics of “if you dress that way, you’ll get raped” to convince women to change their behavior. Well, many people would disagree with that, just as I think most people would disagree with someone claiming “if you masturbate, you will go blind” to try to convince people not to commit that sin.

Maybe you still don’t understand why so many posters were offended by your comments, but those are reasons I can easily think of.

 

[St_Francis]

Apparently I am completely incapable of putting clearly what I am trying to say here, so I am just going to bow out altogether.

I think your experiences are the polar opposites of most others posting here, when you say that the only socially acceptable time to bring up immodest dress is in the context of rape. Who exactly are these all-powerful censors who have “not allowed” people to discuss the topic of immodest dress or behavior? They certainly aren’t around on THIS forum last I checked.

Indeed, most posters are stating the exact opposite as you, that the topic of modesty is appropriate in certain contexts, but NOT in the highly sensitive topic of rape.

You are also assuming that it is an established fact, that “dressing and behaving provocatively” puts one at increased risk for rape. Not catcalls, not obscene comments, not even groping, which I would agree with, but that actual forced sexual intercourse against the will of another, a felony.

You also seem to be assuming that there are a whole bunch of potential male rapists out there who a “provocative” woman would run across, or perhaps even that the majority of men will actually be tempted to not just lust after the woman and want to have sex with her, but actually be tempted to FORCE her to have sex. This seems really insulting to the average man.

Maybe you also believe that rapists are motivated chiefly by lust, which I know is the “traditional” view of rape. Now, I won’t go as far as some other posters and state that lust is not involved at all. But even if this is the case, do you actually think rapists choose their targets solely based on the perception that the victim is the most physically attractive option, as opposed to the perception that the victim is a good target for crime due to, say, being physically disabled, or not paying attention to her surroundings, or fast asleep in bed, or drunk, or elderly? We are not talking about average men, we are talking about criminal rapists.

Or, if you do not actually believe that, you seem to think that it is legitimate to use the scare tactics of “if you dress that way, you’ll get raped” to convince women to change their behavior. Well, many people would disagree with that, just as I think most people would disagree with someone claiming “if you masturbate, you will go blind” to try to convince people not to commit that sin.

Maybe you still don’t understand why so many posters were offended by your comments, but those are reasons I can easily think of.

 

[Joy2day]

Except for Chuck Norris.

Love Chuck.

 

[jinglebelle]

Did you miss the part where I said: “It is 100% wrong to rape.”?

My point was not that women are to blame for the rape but to suggest that because we do not think of tempting people as wrong, there may be a confusion in the way people think. I wanted to say that when women dress and behave provocatively, which people feel is wrong but don’t discuss, it is wrong to put any blame on her for the rape, but she did do something she shouldn’t have done irrespective of the result–it was not wrong of her to do it because she was raped, it was wrong aside from the crime committed against her.

when we are talking about how men view women,murdoch trash paper the sun(no decent family would buy one},published daily young women who forgot to put their clothes on.Over 30 years of publishing this filth the purveyors either went blind or found other sources,this publisher was then awarded by a “knighthood” by the Vatican,work that one out

 

[AnnArbor]

Part of the problem that arises whenever the topic of “immodest” dressing and its consequences is discussed is that modesty can only be judged internally. In other words, you cannot determine simply from a woman’s dress whether she is modest or not – it’s all about her intentions when choosing the clothes.

If we judge by externals, we get some of the ridiculous statements I’ve seen on these boards – for example, that women should not wear exercise pants at the gym or that sleeveless blouses are immodest, or shoulders shouldn’t be showing, or knees, etc. etc.

If someone dresses with the intention of inciting lust, then he/she has sinned. But we cannot see their hearts to know. It would probably be best if we simply focused on ourselves and our own modesty instead.

 

[jinglebelle]

Perhaps you should read the letter of Ione Williams,who abandoned anonymity to write of her attack,fully dressed on her way home,not far from home.Neighbours heard her screams.Her attacker was obviously waiting for any woman passing,so obviously any womans fault.He will have the onerous task of spending 12 months in “prison” followed by 12 months hold handing by some social worker.Next time someone else’s sister,mother,daughter

 

[Rau]

Hello folks, I want some views on this issue that I see come up more and more in the popular discussion.

These days there’s seems to be a lot of accusations of “victim blaming” when discussing some moral issues and I was just hoping for some views on what an appropriate definition of this is,

Here is the most common example:

A woman gets raped and someone claims she has moral culpability for wearing a short skirt.

I think this seems rather ridiculous because although we can talk about issues of morality concerning immodesty separately, the fact that she wore a short skirt does not morally excuse or give a right to the person committing the rape.

On the other hand, here’s another example:

Your teenage child is out at night and they walk home through what they know is a bad neighborhood and they get mugged, is the parent in the wrong if they put some blame on their child for this (for knowingly going through a bad part of town at night)? Simply walking through a neighborhood doesn’t excuse the mugger, but at the same time you might think a parent would expect their child to know better to ensure their own safety and be upset with them for possibly being irresponsible or reckless.

How are these two scenarios substantially different or alike?

I’ve simply taken victim blaming to mean: wrongly applying moral culpability to someone who does not deserve it for something that was done to them. Does this make sense?

The person who has become victim may have done something wrong or careless, and that act may have increased the probability of them attracting the attention of a wrongdoer. This is simple fact.

The wrongdoer is not excused by the wrong or careless act of the victim.

What is “blame” understood to mean? The transfer of responsibility from the wrongdoer to the victim? Of course not. Each is accountable for his own actions, not more. The girl who dresses very skimpily and walks alone through dark streets in a bad part of town ought to know that action is materially riskier than alternatives. But her carelessness does not lessen the responsibility of those whose unwanted attraction she may attract. But did she increase the chance of her own harassment or attack? It’s very likely she did.