Sexual Abuse and Prominent People

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes she is putting herself in danger, but the fix is not to blame her but to do something about the people who would endanger her for wearing a head scarf in a certain public place.

I don’t follow. What’s blame got to do with it? Are you saying your solution would be to advise her to continue dressing that way and going to those public places and keep reporting the crime every time she gets beaten up or harassed? And while she keeps being taken to hospital you would divert resources from other areas to launch an education campaign against committing crimes and allocate extra police resources to try and protect her? Because advising her to change her behaviour for her own safety would be blaming her for getting attacked?

[wigginhall]

I would agree it's not being presented as mitigation, that said I'm not seeing any point in Floo's post raising it.

I thought the point is to blame the victim.   Why else mention clothing?

[Rhiannon]

I thought the point is to blame the victim.   Why else mention clothing?

Indeed. If it’s dangerous to dress a certain way, and not dangerous not to, then those that do are guilty of putting themselves in danger.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought the point is to blame the victim.   Why else mention clothing?

Possibly, though I think that it might be possible to blame the victim in some way without necessarily it being seen as a request that the crime was mitigated. I can't seee why you would that but it might be a reading of post.

[floo]

It's not a crime to be an idiot.

It is if you endanger others in the process.

[wigginhall]

It's staggering how many discussions of sexual abuse of women end up blaming them.   There is often a token criticism of men, , then there is an irresistible tendency to shift blame to women, for their clothes, being drunk, being in the wrong place, not being assertive enough, and so on.   I think in the old days you couldn't make a charge of rape unless you had fought back, so I suppose there is some progress.

[Nearly Sane]

Meanwhile in the world of darts



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-42851554

[Nearly Sane]

It's staggering how many discussions of sexual abuse of women end up blaming them.   There is often a token criticism of men, , then there is an irresistible tendency to shift blame to women, for their clothes, being drunk, being in the wrong place, not being assertive enough, and so on.   I think in the old days you couldn't make a charge of rape unless you had fought back, so I suppose there is some progress.

I think it's possible to think that actions taken were foolish and still fully condemn anyone carrying out sexual harassment or assault. I do struggle with why it's even mentioned in the context though and I think that it's easy to be seen as backing up with statements such as 'she was asking for it'.

[Nearly Sane]

It is if you endanger others in the process.

In the context of women being sexually assaulted, what point are you trying to make?

[wigginhall]

Well, I am now extremely wary of people commenting on a woman being drunk, or wearing revealing clothes, or being in the wrong place, as there is often a hint of fault-finding, and backtracking on the man's fault.   

[Rhiannon]

I think it's possible yo think that actions taken were foolish and still fully condemn anyone carrying out sexual harassment or assault. I do struggle with why it's even mentioned in the context though and I think that it's easy to be seen as backing up with statements such as 'she was asking for it'.

No, if you apportion blame to someone for being stupid who then gets assaulted you are saying that it is somehow different to an assault on someone you judge not to be doing something stupid.

It’s been discussed on here before how women are supposed to modify their behaviour all the time. So if a man gets assaulted walking home from the pub it’s seen as unfair and wrong; if the same thing happens to a woman it’s unfair and wrong but why didn’t she get a cab for god’s sake?

[Nearly Sane]

Well, I am now extremely wary of people commenting on a woman being drunk, or wearing revealing clothes, or being in the wrong place, as there is often a hint of fault-finding, and backtracking on the man's fault.

Yes, I would agree, but I think that it's often phrased and said without it being meant to link to that. Floo emphasised that she didn't see this as a mitigation for a he crime, which is why I am interested in what point she was aiming for.

[wigginhall]

No, if you apportion blame to someone for being stupid who then gets assaulted you are saying that it is somehow different to an assault on someone you judge not to be doing something stupid.

It’s been discussed on here before how women are supposed to modify their behaviour all the time. So if a man gets assaulted walking home from the pub it’s seen as unfair and wrong; if the same thing happens to a woman it’s unfair and wrong but why didn’t she get a cab for god’s sake?

That's a good point, and I haven't thought of it that way, I mean, the idea that women have to modify their behaviour all the time.  I think this is so soaked into our culture, that it's hard to spot.   It's not so much that women are extra-vulnerable, as that they are wrong just in being attacked.

I mentioned this to my wife, and she said that women have to take responsibility for being attacked, which is a paraphrase really.

[Nearly Sane]

No, if you apportion blame to someone for being stupid who then gets assaulted you are saying that it is somehow different to an assault on someone you judge not to be doing something stupid.

It’s been discussed on here before how women are supposed to modify their behaviour all the time. So if a man gets assaulted walking home from the pub it’s seen as unfair and wrong; if the same thing happens to a woman it’s unfair and wrong but why didn’t she get a cab for god’s sake?

It might well be seen as something 'different' but that doesn't mean the person seeing it that way sees it in any way as mitigation.

I had a friend staying a littlecwhike ago and they went out for a gun. We both stressed to him that there was a good run but at one point he should make sure to turn right rather than left. Had he taken the 'wrong' turning, anything that happened would still be the full responsibility of whoever committed the crime, but it would still have prompted me to ask why he was being foolish.

[Nearly Sane]

That's a good point, and I haven't thought of it that way, I mean, the idea that women have to modify their behaviour all the time.  I think this is so soaked into our culture, that it's hard to spot.   It's not so much that women are extra-vulnerable, as that they are wrong just in being attacked.

Hasn't some of this idea come from the other general presumption that we have covered here that males are all potential rapists?

[wigginhall]

Hasn't some of this idea come from the other general presumption that we have covered here that males are all potential rapists?

Well, yes, but Rhiannon's insight seems to me to be that women are responsible for being attacked, or if you like (my wife is bellowing this out in the kitchen), women have to be responsible for the behaviour of the other.   I also think this is deeply unconscious in our culture, and is being dragged to the surface with great difficulty. 

[Nearly Sane]

Well, yes, but Rhiannon's insight seems to me to be that women are responsible for being attacked, or if you like (my wife is bellowing this out in the kitchen), women have to be responsible for the behaviour of the other.   I also think this is deeply unconscious in our culture, and is being dragged to the surface with great difficulty.

I think we can have a discussion where 'women don't have to be responsible for the other', and to be fair to Floo she certainly seemed to try to avoid that. Now I think that the expression of it at all makes no point unless someone wants to read it in the 'asking for it' sense.

[Rhiannon]

I think we can have a discussion where 'women don't have to be responsible for the other', and to be fair to Floo she certainly seemed to try to avoid that. Now I think that the expression of it at all makes no point unless someone wants to read it in the 'asking for it' sense.

What about Floo’s use of the word ‘but’? ‘There’s no excuse but women shouldn’t be stupid.’

[jeremyp]

What about Floo’s use of the word ‘but’? ‘There’s no excuse but women shouldn’t be stupid.’

Yes, the but word is a problem.

"I'm totally for science but..."

"I'm not racist but..."

"I don't think women should be raped but..."

The but word almost invariably signals an attempt to back track on what you have just said.

I don't think Floo advocates victim blaming but she sure seems to use the but word a lot.

[Nearly Sane]

What about Floo’s use of the word ‘but’? ‘There’s no excuse but women shouldn’t be stupid.’

I think it's hard to hang an interpretation of someone saying there is no excuse   as being not doing that on the word 'but'. Again I think that Floo's comment appears to have no point other than working as a sort of fig leaf for those who really do think that it is somehow relevant. I think it's badly thought and phrased in terms of avoiding that.

[Rhiannon]

I think it's hard to hang an interpretation of someone saying there is no excuse   as being not doing that on the word 'but'. Again I think that Floo's comment appears to have no point other than working as a sort of fig leaf for those who really do think that it is somehow relevant. I think it's badly thought and phrased in terms of avoiding that.

I agree with Jeremy - ‘but’ tends to negate what comes before it. Otherwise why not just say ‘there’s no excuse for sexual assault’ and leave it there?

[floo]

There is no excuse for sexual assault as I have said on numerous occasions. 

[Nearly Sane]

I agree with Jeremy - ‘but’ tends to negate what comes before it. Otherwise why not just say ‘there’s no excuse for sexual assault’ and leave it there?

Which I have been saying for some time on here, I'm just not convinced that Floo meant it as any form of mitigation, and that once that is removed I can't see any point to the post.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no excuse for sexual assault as I have said on numerous occasions. 

The question though is what other point you were making in mentioning how assaulted women might be dressed.

[floo]

The question though is what other point you were making in mentioning how assaulted women might be dressed.

My point is if a woman is wearing very sexually explicit clothes, which don't leave anything to the imagination, she is likely to attract the attention of perverts, not that it is any excuse for them to attack her. I don't see that making that point is a bad thing.