(no subject)

[bubosquared]

In light of recent blogsphere discussions (and if you don't know what I'm on about, you're probably better off not knowing, and frankly, I don't know that I even want to talk about this myself), I think I need a "Foul-mouthed, angry, man-hating, feminist dyke" (or some variation thereof, suggestions welcome) icon. Also a queer one, I think.

Comments

[bubosquared.livejournal.com]

I think the problem is that a whole lot of people think this way about this subject, to some extent at least. There idea that women should be the ones responsible for "keeping themselves safe" is a depressingly prevalent one, sadly. :/

I do like the puppies and kittens suggestion, though. *files away for future use* :D

[wibbble]

Well, to a certain extent, everyone is responsible for keeping themselves safe. We all play games with risk-assessment ('is it safe to walk home at this time of night, or should I get a taxi?', and so on), and rape is one of the risks that women (mostly, but not exclusively) face. If you get into a car with a stranger, you're taking a risk - of rape, mugging, murder, or all sorts of nasty stuff.

I think that saying that women have no responsibility to keep themselves safe is just as absurd as saying that they're responsible for their own rapes. Both points are extremism, and I've found that extremism is rarely useful. (Which goes back to why I don't have much time for radical feminism: saying 'all men are evil' is no different from saying 'all women are evil'.)

I think there /is/ a huge problem today with people having very poor risk assessment skills. I've seen this described as a lack of numeracy, although I'm not sure I'd agree with that terminology. The idea is that there's a wide-spread lack of understanding of probability, which leads people to be unable to determine how risky something is. Without adequate risk assessment, they tend to make risky choices, which will obviously tend to result in Bad Things Happening.

This applies just as much to men as to women, of course, and to far more things than just rape. Poor risk assessment leaves people in situations where they're vulnerable - one of the things that they're vulnerable to is being raped, but it could just as easily be being mugged, or randomly beaten to a pulp, or any number of Bad Things that can happen to you.

I want to make it clear that I'm not in any way suggesting that being raped is a woman's fault, and poor risk assessment in no way covers all incidence of rape, but I do think that /everyone/ has a responsibility to keep themselves safe and that a tendency towards risky behaviour will ultimately have bad results.

[ashenmote.livejournal.com]

Hi :)
*raises hand and fidgets like a Hermione in class*
Can I take part and be all talkative (and somewhat repetitive, I'm afraid)? Pretty please?

The problem is that, by existing, you have no choice but to take risks. Of course, you can perform worse or better, but normally the people who judge the performance of a rape-victim don't come with a twenty-page questionnaire to figure out if the victim regularly and frivolously invites unnecessary risks in her daily routine. Instead it's like, just by the fact that you took a risk once and it went bad for you, you are already proven guilty for being a careless person and thus responsible for whatever happened to you.
In hindsight it is always possible to think up a way to avoid this special situation-gone-wrong, but that logic conveniently ignores that this was just one of innumerable risky situations you face all the time. And no one asks if you successfully avoided all the others before. It boils down to 'it went bad for you, so you were irresponsible, you weren't supposed to take a risk' and that's simply not fair.

Mind, I too think that many people have a incredible bad risk assessment, but the question if that is indeed the case or not doesn't really enter the equation in the usual rounds of the 'blame the victim' game. It just looks that way.

[wibbble]

Well, yes. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's easy to criticise decisions that you didn't have to make.

However, regardless of those pricks, people are still responsible for their own risk management. Notice that I've talked about 'risk management' - because, as you pointed out, there's a degree of risk in all things. If I talk about not wanting to take out the rubbish because there might be a man-eating tiger lurking in the bins, then my wife is going to hit me on the head and send me out there. Sure, it's a risk, but it's not a very high risk - it's not worth moderating your behaviour for. The risks involved in going to a nightclub are somewhat higher (spiked drinks, or just getting too drunk, or just making bad choices), and do justify modifying your behaviour (have a friend watch out for you, make sure you don't go home alone, or with strangers).

I was quite careful in the comment you replied to to keep what I was talking about fairly generic. I wasn't just talking about rape, and the old line of 'she was asking for it by doing X' - I was talking about /any/ bad thing that happens as a result of people taking risks. I don't think it's fair to criticise my point by saying that some people twist it: you could use that to dismiss pretty much any argument anyone could make about anything. :o) I was responding to something specific that bubosquared said, which I thought was just as dangerous as its extreme alternative.

I've been trying to talk about this outside of the usual 'war of the sexes' bullshit, because I think that once it's coated in politics you can never have an actual useful discussion about it. My point of view gets dismissed by some people because I'm an Evil Oppressing Man, your point of view gets dismissed by some people because you're a Weak Emotional Woman, and the whole thing's a waste of time. I don't think that either extreme positions are useful. I think that people who take risks leave themselves vulnerable to attack (of all kinds), but that that in no way makes it 'their fault' or excuses their attackers. I think that you do have a responsibility to protect yourself, but at the same time that doesn't mean that it's fine for others to exploit you when you've left yourself vulnerable.

I think that reality lies in the grey area in the middle, and so people on both sides get to disagree with me because I won't fit in with on or the other. :o)

[ashenmote.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to criticize or refute your point, after all it looks perfectly reasonable to me. The fact that it is misapplied in arguments about rape victims affects those arguments badly, not your point about the importance of risk management and I didn't mean to imply it.

Not with you about the extreme dangerousness of bubosquared's views though. I think the difference between "You shouldn't be responsible to keep yourself safe." and "You aren't responsible to keep yourself safe." is sufficiently easy to spot. Or should I say 'should be sufficiently easy to spot?' :D

P.S.: Thanks. Now I am scared of the tiger in the bins too.

[wibbble]

> P.S.: Thanks. Now I am scared of the tiger in the bins too.

If you hear growling noises, run.

Or you could always copy this guy.