I've read it again (this time at Stan's blog)... another person who doesn't understand that it's not acceptable to blame the victim and to not set all responsibility for a person's bad behavior on the one that's behaving badly.
Stan appeared genuinely puzzled about the school that got into trouble for posting a sign up to greet the students that read...
"The more you act like a lady, the more he'll act like a gentleman."
Stan's questions are the typical ones...
"I guess her message is that no one (male or female) has any impact on how people treat them and shouldn't concern themselves with that? I hear her complaining that girls should not act like a lady? I am assuming she did not read the implied, "And you guys -- the more you act like gentlemen, the more she'll act like a lady"? I'm missing it ... entirely."
The ONE thing he's getting right is that he's missing it. Entirely.
Imagine a sign on the school walls as the kids walk in the first day of school...
"The less you act like a fundamentalist Christian, the less likely that you'll be beat up."
or,
"The more you act like a straight guy, the better the homophobes will treat you."
or, what if the sign had read,
"The more you wear clothes that show your ankles or (Allah forbid!), your calves, the more you'll be treated like a slut."
The problems with the sign are...
1. It promotes rape and rape culture. You may not understand that it does (apparently Stan doesn't, given his befuddlement) but it does. Stop promoting rape culture. Stop defending rapists. This is what people like Stan are doing, by their admitted lack of understanding. Again, I GET that maybe he truly doesn't understand that it does that, but I'm helping him and his tribe out by letting you all know that it does.
2. It blames the victim instead of holding assailants responsible for their own bad actions. (You'll note that there were no signs up in school that said, "Guys, you can't grab a girl's breast just because you find the clothes she's wearing too sexy..." The blame/responsibility was solely on women.)
3. It's an arbitrary standard created by the guys who rape and harass
4. If you turn that around to any other group, or at least, a group that you're part of - "Don't act too much like an evangelical or you might get beaten up...!" - it probably becomes more obvious that it's blaming the victim for the bad behavior of aggressive Others for acting in a way that The Others find disagreeable or that invites the Others too abuse, molest or otherwise harm the victim.
Try that out. Maybe you can see how it's so wrong-headed.
The message we should be sending out to any potential abusers is not, "If those people act a certain way... it's kinda understandable when you molest, abuse, harass them..."
Rather the message should be...
"It doesn't matter if a young lady wears a BIKINI to school,
It doesn't matter if she shows up only wearing a thin layer of wet toilet paper clinging to her breasts and covering her pelvis...
that does not give you the right to leer, harass or molest her.
It is not a sign that she's any less a lady
or inviting abuse of any sort!
OF COURSE IT ISN'T!
Don't be a moron, dudes, get your crap together!
You are responsible for YOU."
So, there's the problem, Stan, and folk like Stan. YOU are responsible for YOU. If I get up today and feel like wearing pink flip flops and a tiara, that does NOT give homophobes the right to harass me because they think I'm gay or transgender. If YOU get up today and decide to put a big cross pin on your leisure suit and carry a large King James Bible around with you, that does NOT give atheists the right to belittle you. If a woman or teen-aged girl is wearing clothes that she finds fits her mood and comfort level, it is NOT A SIGN THAT SHE IS LESS A LADY because some abusers might find it "too sexy."
We must not give the rapists and their abusive brethren the power to make that call.
We must not blame the victims and lend support to the rapists.
Because, truly, that is what this sort of message does, and surely Stan and his brethren don't want to do that.
51 comments:
This is crystal clear, Dan, thanks. At repeatable moments in our history - and we are in one - the face of the father of lies is close to the surface. And it’s shocking, sad, maddening, and then obvious that the components of white male supremacy have all been opened up for examination in the public square when women and all people of color have together gained access to lead and teach us the four hundred year history of the destructive side of exclusive white male power. And it should be no surprise that open, public-square histrionic rage is the backlash. Misogyny is elected, willfully; racism is elected, willfully; bigotry is cheered as a campaign strategy. Brutality is fostered and acted on.
60 million plus Americans have voted for Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions. Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, etc., in coded language. Thinking, dignified conservatives like Kasich, etc, are swept aside. After the dignity and gravitas of Mr Obama, the majority of white peoples gave in to their rage and turned on the glaring lights of the fires from burning their claimed values.
Earlier this week I heard that the largest category of rape in the US is black male perpetrator, white female victim. Do you think that could be true? (I am asking this mainly of Feodor, because of his comment above.)
1. I don’t answer what anonymous people ask.
2. You have a conputer.
3. There’s this thing called Google. Use it.
4. Believe reputable researchers that have numbers on several categories and link to methodologies.
5. If you think 14% of the population commits the most rapes I’m not surprised you go by anonymous.
Craig’s down to using empty comments to dodge the post.
Please keep comments on topic.
Some people never learn and constantly fail at easy moral lessons.
Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Blaming the victim is bad, calling people to higher levels of virtue is good. It shouldn’t be that hard.
Discrimination. 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
"discrimination between right and wrong"
I guess leaving out part of the definition to make a political point is just all in good fun.
It’s right to treat everyone equally. It’s wrong to isolate one group for moral behavior. That’s discrimination. The consequences of discrimination are oppressed and damaged people on one side and on the other - the unlisted group from whom there is not equal accountability - a thrill to brutality.
We see such a thrill clearly in blindness to misogyny demonstrated right here.
Craig, I wonder, given your interest but reluctance to act, if you might google for the group who commits the most rapes in the US and report back with the findings of reputable research or the citation thereof.
Encouraging people to live lives of virtue, seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Answering questions you’re actively trying to dodge doesn’t.
It’s not a question. It’s a racist prejudice. The answer is easily found: in the open, easy public access. You can do it, too. I think you’re capable. Maybe not. Maybe you don’t care to encourage the racists on your side to get real andcreasonable.
Maybe you thrill to ananymous’ crazy racist ideas but can’t admit it. Even to yourself.
He’ll be marking his territory soon.
Who would have thought, that we would come to a point where encouraging virtue is a bad thing.
You're not encouraging virtue. You're using the old dodge of blaming some other group than white christian men for what you don't like but allow each other to do: Jews for credit interest; black men for violence; black women for lasciviousness; white women and girls for not controlling your hormones; immigrants for crime.
In each case it's straight white christian men who are the main perpetrators. You're moral blindness has corrupted you.
You two are so incredibly shallow.
"• ABSTINENCE-ONLY CURRICULA TREAT STEREOTYPES ABOUT GIRLS AND BOYS AS SCIENTIFIC FACT. ONE CURRICULUM TEACHES THAT WOMEN NEED “FINANCIAL SUPPORT,” WHILE MEN NEED “ADMIRATION.” ANOTHER INSTRUCTS: “WOMEN GAUGE THEIR HAPPINESS AND JUDGE THEIR SUCCESS ON THEIR RELATIONSHIPS.
MEN’S HAPPINESS AND SUCCESS HINGE ON THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS.”
Re: "calling people to higher levels of virtue..."
Here's the thing... We reject your Notions of virtue. We reject that you have the ability to decide for others what is and isn't virtuous.
No one died and made you God.
We also reject the Muslim Fundamentalist notion of virtue. Or that they have grasp on what is and isn't virtuous for other people.
And here's the thing also... You probably also reject a Muslim fundamentalist who says women should keep their necks covered and their ankles covered. YOU do not accept that as an appropriate level of virtue or modesty.
You recognize, provably, that, "who the hell are they to say what women should and shouldn't wear?!"
And yet you do the same thing here as a Muslim Fundamentalist. You no doubt recognize the hubris and immorality when a Muslim fundamentalist draws the line but you do not recognize it when you draw the line.
Now this is not a post to debate whether or not the school was wrong. The school was wrong. Whether or not you realize it, that sort of sign encourages the blaming of victims and gives support to the notion that men are just animals who can't control themselves. That if a man sees a belly button or a shoulder that's bare, that they'll just freak out and have to rape someone.
No! We do not accept the blaming of victims Nor do we accept the giving a pass or support to rapists and their ilk.
One question for Craig and Marshall... You must answer this question if you wish to comment further.
Are Muslim Fundamentalist or Christian fundamentalist who insist that calves and legs and chest need to be covered for women to be moral.... Are they wrong to make that sort of pronouncement?
While I reject your conflating of Muslim codified Sharia law with the Christian concept of modesty, I’ll answer your question.
1. To the extent that any religious or civil ruling body promulgates rules that mandate the covering of specific body parts as a prerequisite for someone to “be moral”, I would say that is a wrong position to hold.
2. Given your (and most sociologists) definition of morality as being absolutely not objective and completely determined by the social mores of a given society or group, it’s rational that a particular society could make those sort of decisions as a society about what degree of body coverage is moral. Given a fluid, subjective, flexible standard of morality, I see no reason why that would be a problem as long as they didn’t try to force it on those outside that society.
3. I would argue that dress codes for particular places (schools, public buildings, or for particular roles) would be appropriate in certain circumstances.
4. I’ve never said that I had the ability to impose “my” definition of virtue on anyone. Suggesting or attempting to persuade people that engaging in behaviors that have historically been considered virtuous, is a far cry from playing “God”. Even from a purely pragmatic perspective saying “If you do A, then this positive result might happen.”, is a rational position and not at all coercive.
5. “The school was wrong”. A) please provide objective proof of your claim. B) “No one died and made you God.”.
6. Please provide a quote and context that demonstrates that anyone in this conversation is specifically advocating “blaming victims”.
7. Please provide a quote and context that demonstrates that anyone in this conversation is “giving a pass or support to rapists”.
Christian concept of modesty? Give us your quote from Christ on what that should be today.
btw the Quran covers much the same material as Leviticus and Deuteronomy. You know, women can’t wear pants; Halal = Kosher, etc
You’re not talking about actually practicing abstinence. That’s what the studies tell you, idiot: in actual practice, people mess up! Leave them without any recourse other than abstinence, what do you know!, more unwanted pregnancies than giving the full information, access to contraceptions, and let them make their choices like adults.
What you’re talking about is totally unrelated to humanity. Just as you are.
Craig thinks we have no place for individual responsibility, Dan. Denying and dodging the fact that you, in particular, are asking that boy’s responsibility for their behavior is THEIR REDPINSIBILITY FOR THEIR BEHAVIOR!
Craig, seeing nothing wrong with pinning the onus on girls, continually chooses to not take responsibility for his shallow thinking.
You, on your blog today:
“The the underlying question, both here and at Dan’s is something like, ‘Do people bear any individual responsibility for their actions?’ We see it in Feo’s repeated attempts to blame a curriculum, for the results of sexual activity. We see it in blaming Indiana for the actions of thugs in Chicago. We see it in the fact that the Jacksonville shooting has been blamed on all sorts of people or groups.”
In this comment you infer that neither Dan nor I are accounting for individaul responsibility. Which is obviously wrong since the post is about asking boys to take responsibility for their actions rather than pushing it off into girls as has been done historically in our society.
But JUST earlier today you were making the opposite argument on your blog: “They further don’t understand the concept of contributory negligence.”
This argument DOES of course make Indiana’s lack of gun laws an accountable factor in Chicago violence. As it also implicates Illinois Republican role back of Chicago’s strict gun laws a decade ago.
You just argued two opposing sides while getting the arguments wrong while being ignorant that you were doing so.
In an hour and a half.
Interesting, you’ve taken two questions twisted them into “arguments”, then used that to argue against a position I haven’t taken. That’s impressive.
For the record, my position is that people do bear the responsibility for their choices.
In your bizarre construct, Indiana and Republicans from decades ago bear more responsibility for the carnage in Chicago than the people who illegally buy the guns, pull the triggers, and the Democrats who chose not to reinstate the gun laws. Makes perfect sense.
On topic, please.
The point of this post stands:
1. There is a real history of women being blamed for being/dressing "too sexy" and thereby having some culpability in their own sexual assault, rape, molestations.
2. This is a grossly perverse position to take. It blames the victim.
2a. "If they didn't dress so sexy, this may not have happened..." IS blaming the victim, literally. As Marshall has done explicitly on your blog, Craig. Reject that sort of blaming the victim for their own assault or embrace being a pervert yourself.
3. At the same time as it blames the victim, it gives aid and comfort to the rapists, sexual assailants.
3a. "If they didn't dress so sexy, this may not have happened..." says the victim blamer/pervert.
3b. "Yes! That's right!" says the sexual assailant/rapist. "Those fundamentalists are right! If she wasn't showing us her belly button and bare chest (shirt unbuttoned down eight inches from her chin!!), then I wouldn't have raped her!"
This is the sort of vile, debauched grossly immoral "reasoning" that has plagued women and decent people for millennia. Reject it, people.
If a man sexually harasses or assaults a woman, it is his fault and his fault alone.
MEN: If you want to help be a good man and opposed to sexually harassing women, some tips:
A. If you see a woman alone, don't rape her.
B. If you see a woman wearing clothes that are, IN YOUR MIND, "too revealing," don't rape her.
C.If you see a woman dancing through the streets naked and you find it arousing, or it angers you (which rape is a crime of violence, not arousal), don't rape her.
D. If you hear about a man raping a woman, don't EVER suggest, "Well, maybe if she..." HELL FUCKING NO. No more "well, but..." That is disturbed, sick, perverted and evil as hell. Don't give aid and comfort to the rapists of the world. Don't be a dick.
It's really not that difficult.
On topic, please. We're not here to discuss whether or not women or children are sometimes to blame for their own assaults, they're not. I will not coddle perverts who try to make that case. I will identify them as the perverts they are for blaming the victim, so just don't go down that road.
Blaming the victims is bad.
Is blaming others, with no direct involvement, somehow appropriate?
Is suggesting that people accept responsibility for their choices and actions somehow depraved?
Yes. Blaming the victims is bad. Do you agree and recognize then, that saying, "Still, IF SHE hadn't... (fill in the blank...wore that miniskirt, danced in a sexy manner, had a drink with him...), then she might not have been raped, so there's some part of this that is due to her actions..." IS blaming the victim?
Please answer.
Is blaming others appropriate? I'm not sure what this is in relation to. Blaming innocent bystanders who had no ability or opportunity to stop or cause a bad thing from happening is not right.
Saying, "Those who give aid and comfort to rapists ARE helping the rapists and harming the victims" is not blaming innocent others, it's holding them accountable for giving aid and comfort to offenders. So, it depends on if we're talking true innocent bystanders vs people who could have taken some action to help and didn't or otherwise may have been complicit in a bad thing happening.
I'd need more details.
No one is saying that people ought not "accept responsibility" for their choices. No, it is not depraved to encourage responsibility in one's choices. You can tell by the way no one has made that suggestion.
The person who drinks alcohol and gets impaired and drives a car IS responsible for their choices, even if they thought they were okay.
The person who gambles their paycheck away IS responsible for their choice to do so, even if they thought they might win.
A person who makes bad choices is responsible for bad consequences that come their way.
What I AM saying is that IF a woman wants to wear a miniskirt, THAT is not her fault if a rapist uses that as an excuse to do harm to that woman. I'm saying that those who try to blame her assault on her wearing a miniskirt are sick perverts who give aid and comfort to rapists and blame the victims.
In other words, it is NOT a bad choice to choose to wear a miniskirt or to show her ankles or whatever line you're wanting to draw. It's her clothing choice and there is nothing inherently "wrong" in whatever clothing choice she makes. Now, if she's violating a community code (laws against nudity, for instance), then he or she bears the responsibility for going nude in public.
But nonetheless, if a man or woman went nude in public and was raped, IT IS NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY for being raped. It is the assailants fault alone.
Do you agree?
Please answer.
Are you saying that a woman who goes out (in a nudist colony, for instance) without wearing clothes who is then assaulted, that they bear some responsibility for that assault? If so, then you are a sick pervert and don't need to answer further here, at least on these sorts of topics. I'm not interested in the opinions of sick perverts.
Are you saying that a woman who shows her ankles is responsible for sexual harassment/assaults?
How about a miniskirt that goes above her knees?
How about short shorts?
Are you suggesting that there is a line where if TOO much is "shown" then the woman bears some responsibility but more moderate dressing, then the woman does not have some responsibility for her choice?
If so, please define for us that line.
Or admit the reality that no, no matter if she's only showing her ankles or only barely covering her butt or if she's full on nude, that the woman does not have any responsibility for being sexually harassed, that the blame goes to the perverts doing the sexual harassment.
Please answer all these questions. I answered yours.
"IS blaming the victim?"
I'm not sure this is actually a question, but I'll try to answer what I think the question would be.
I'm not sure that suggesting the possibility that engaging in different behavior might have produced a different outcome is "blaming" the victim, so much as speculating. Having said that, I'm not saying that ANY action taken by ANYONE makes assault of any kind acceptable, tolerable, or excusable. The attacker is 100% wrong and 100% responsible for their actions.
"Is blaming others appropriate?"
Clearly the answer is no. If one drug dealer shoots another drug dealer, (or even an innocent bystander), the blame and responsibility fall 100% on them. Even more so, if they violated the existing laws in obtaining the gun used. For example, blaming Florida's gun laws for a crazy Trump hating loser buying a gun legally in Maryland is clearly ridiculous.
"No one is saying that people ought not "accept responsibility" for their choices. No, it is not depraved to encourage responsibility in one's choices. You can tell by the way no one has made that suggestion."
Yet, no one has actually made the suggestion that rapists should be encourages, condoned, supported, or excused, but you act as if that is the case. At best you and your groupie are ambiguous in assigning responsibility for people's actions.
Can you state 9without equivocation or qualification) that all people bear all of the responsibility for their own choices and actions?
"What I AM saying is that IF a woman wants to wear a miniskirt, THAT is not her fault if a rapist uses that as an excuse to do harm to that woman."
Yet, no one is suggesting that wearing a miniskirt is "an excuse to rape".
"Do you agree?"
Yes, the actions of the hypothetical rapist are 100% his or her responsibility.
"Are you saying that a woman who goes out (in a nudist colony, for instance) without wearing clothes who is then assaulted, that they bear some responsibility for that assault?"
I'm saying that the assaulter bears 100% of the responsibility for the assault.
"Are you saying that a woman who shows her ankles is responsible for sexual harassment/assaults? How about a miniskirt that goes above her knees? How about short shorts?"
No. You could have told that by the fact that I've never said anything remotely like any of those statements.
"Are you suggesting that there is a line where if TOO much is "shown" then the woman bears some responsibility but more moderate dressing, then the woman does not have some responsibility for her choice?"
I am saying that people's choices should be guided by responsibility and prudence. As in the hypothetical situations you've been ignoring, peoples choices potentially have consequences and to fail to point out the risks of engaging in certain choices would be foolish. I'm also suggesting that context is important. While walking nude through a nudist colony (private, with some degree of control over who is inside) might involve a low level of risk, walking nude down a street with drug dealers on every corner might involve a different level of inherent risk.
I've posted multiple hypotheticals that you've not responded to, that might help clarify your position.
"Are you suggesting that there is a line where if TOO much is "shown" then the woman bears some responsibility but more moderate dressing, then the woman does not have some responsibility for her choice?"
I'm suggesting that all behavioral choices carry some degree of inherent risk. That risk is determined by many factors, context being a significant one. I'm suggesting that everyone's choices have potential consequences and that people should evaluate the risks and consequences and make prudent choices. I'm suggesting that to say "If you do X, then Y could possibly happen." or "If you do X, that it will increase the chances that Y will happen." I simply pointing out the reality that our behavior affects others and usually carries consequences. I'm saying that we (all of us, the entirety of humanity) are responsible for the choices we make. The obvious exception being people with severe mental health issues.
There, I've answered ALL of your questions.
I think part of your problem is that you want to say that a woman walking around naked would have some responsibility for being harassed but she would not be to blame. Is that what you're saying?
If so, then perhaps your problem is with the English words being used. Blame is a synonym for responsible, as is culpable.
To say a person is RESPONSIBLE for things that happened to them if they don't take certain precautions (ie, dress away that you think is not going to cause harassment), is to say that they are at least partially to blame. It sounds like you like saying that they hold some responsibility but they aren't to blame. But that's inherently contradictory. Since blame and responsible are synonyms. Perhaps you mean responsible and some other sense..?
Craig...
That risk is determined by many factors, context being a significant one. I'm suggesting that everyone's choices have potential consequences and that people should evaluate the risks and consequences and make prudent choices.
and...
I am saying that people's choices should be guided by responsibility and prudence.
and...
I'm saying that the assaulter bears 100% of the responsibility for the assault.
and...
I simply pointing out the reality that our behavior affects others and usually carries consequences. I'm saying that we (all of us, the entirety of humanity) are responsible for the choices we make.
So, the RAPIST is "100%" responsible for his atrocious actions.
AND, the woman who wears "inappropriate" (according to you) clothing is "responsible for the choice she made" to dress the way she did.
WHAT do you mean that she is "responsible" for the "consequences" of her actions (i.e., dressing however the hell she wants)?
Do you even see how it seems like you're trying to have it both ways. "NO DOUBT," you say, "the rapist is 100% responsible for his crimes..."
AND YET, the woman is "responsible" for the "consequences" of her "choices..." What does "responsible" mean to you?
Here's an example in another realm other than the sexual assault/harassment that you continue to defend...
A black man and a white woman decide to get married. They live in rural Georgia, in a community festooned with confederate flags and that is 99% white and openly hostile to "interracial marriages..." (i.e., marriages). Now, as soon as they get married, they are greeted with hostilities, threats and direct assaults.
Now, according to you, the perverse racists are "100% to blame" for their actions against this innocent couple, right?
AND YET, according to you, the couple should also have considered the consequences and, if something bad happens because they chose to get married in a place openly hostile to their marriage, they bear some responsibility, too.
Is that what you're saying?
Do you get what the problem is with your suggested reasoning? That the assailants/bad actors are 100% responsible for their actions, then rationally considered, the victims are ZERO % responsible for the consequences. But you seem to be suggesting or outright saying that they, too, are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
It just makes no sense.
Now, one might say, "if a person engages in behavior around criminal types who might object to that behavior, they might recognize that the criminal types might engage in bad behavior..." but that isn't to say that people should avoid their innocent behavior, just recognize the threat that exists by bad people, like the perverts that Craig and Marshall continue to defend (by suggesting that the victims share some responsibility.)
The thing is, you almost certainly associate dressing in a "wrong way" (which you won't define, or haven't thus far) is a moral failing on the person's part, or BAD BEHAVIOR, you seem to be suggesting, might result in bad consequences.
But wearing a miniskirt or a dress that "exposes" one's ankles is NOT bad behavior. It's dressing however the hell one feels like.
So why don't you clarify that: Do you think that dressing in a miniskirt is a moral failure, Craig? A skimpy bikini?
1. School isn’t a “wrong time wrong place” situation. It’s for every kid. One shouldn’t avoid school.
2. So, to use your parable, there are mugger-like boys mixed in among the gwneral population.
3. I’m sure you would apply the maxim, “The more you act like a lady, the more he’ll act like a gentleman” to all situations, not just school.
4. So, in the wrong time/wring plcae situation, you rigged your parable against the walker. It should be closer to reality. Like this:
Muggers are everywhere. You can’t predict where or who they’ll be; they look just like you and me. So this principle applies: the more you are out of the house, the more likely it is that you’ll be mugged. The resulting maxim: don’t go out of the house.
In which case, rather than do something about muggers walking around - AND changing the conditions that fosters the making of muggers or is silent about them - you’d prefer to take away the right to freedom of the potential victims in order to protect their rights not to be mugged.
Sick in the head: Taking away right to freedom rather than focus on malignant behavior.
We should stop raising muggers. Let’s spend education on that. One step to solving the problem that doesn’t blame victims, doesn’t take away individual rights. Isn’t silent - as the sign in the school is - about where the bad behavior comes from.
Both/and makes a shallow, morally corrupt equivalency.
Which is, clearly, Dan’s most powerful point to you both.
Exactly. There was NO sign whatsoever raising the possibility that these little offenders who might molest or harass young women are responsible. The ONLY sign up was saying girls need to dress a certain way (that we approve of) in order not to be raped or harassed. It is sick and ineffective because it's blaming or assigning responsibility to the wrong group, the victims.
And let me make it clear what should be clear to everyone but probably isn't to certain people... no one is saying that we don't or not counsel our young people, our young women to be careful out there.
Women and parents of children and young women are quite aware of the dangers that sexual predators (like the ones that conservatives continue to defend and support) are out there. Quite often they're in our conservative churches, even.
Women and people who are concerned about women are aware of this and we encourage one another to take appropriate precautions against the sexual predators like our president and like the ones that Craig and Marshall continue to lend support to.
But there is a difference between saying, "There are sexual predators out there we need to be careful people." And saying "if you dress a certain way you might be more likely to be assaulted and some of that responsibility will be on you for dressing that way."
The former is just common sense Prudence that does not blame victims. The ladder lends support and comfort to Predators like our president.
Part of the problem, no doubt, is people who defend sexual predators consider their words like, "The rapist is 100% responsible for his actions in raping someone..." as if that absolves them from saying, "AND, the woman who dresses 'the wrong way' (rarely if ever defined, or explained why THEY are the right ones to define it), is responsible for HER actions that led to the rape..."
The problem is, IF the rapist is 100% responsible (and he is), THEN the victim is 0% responsible. It's just how words and numbers work.
They don't recognize that if they are saying, as they've said, that the women has some responsibility for how she dresses, THEN the rapist is NOT 100% responsible, the woman is partially responsible because she dressed "the wrong way," (according to the rapist and his defenders). THAT is why we say they are defending rapists. THAT is the hole in this argument.
"Here's an example in another realm other than the sexual assault/harassment that you continue to defend...
A black man and a white woman decide to get married. They live in rural Georgia, in a community festooned with confederate flags and that is 99% white and openly hostile to "interracial marriages..." (i.e., marriages). Now, as soon as they get married, they are greeted with hostilities, threats and direct assaults.
Now, according to you, the perverse racists are "100% to blame" for their actions against this innocent couple, right?
AND YET, according to you, the couple should also have considered the consequences and, if something bad happens because they chose to get married in a place openly hostile to their marriage, they bear some responsibility, too.
Is that what you're saying?
Do you get what the problem is with your suggested reasoning?"
The only problem is hoping you're intelligent enough to accept the reality. I believe you must for two reasons:
The first is that you provide a hypothetical that perfectly illustrates the point Craig and I are defending. Yes. That interracial couple bears complete responsibility for putting themselves in the situation in which they found themselves. Were they too stupid to research the area in which they chose to live? They were at least negligent, to say the least, and that's definitely and unmistakably on them. In the same way, any who suffer misfortune are responsible for the situation in which they find themselves, either directly or indirectly. Why's this such a difficult concept for you to understand? Answer: it's not. You just like to defend chicks dressing like tramps (you pervert) and attacking anyone and anything from the right (rather than actually formulating a coherent argument for your poor positions).
The second is that you indulge in this type of logic all the time. How many times have you said words to the effect, "Don't you know how this sounds?", as if we're responsible for the actions of those who misconstrue our clear meaning. You claim Trump's words incite racists, thereby blaming him for the actions of others. It's the same concept, but you only apply it where it suits you. The difference between us is that our objections to trampy dress is a matter of concern for the tramp and the unwanted attention she will surely receive as a result of her sartorial choices. YOU'RE simply concerned with blaming some you hate with any invented evidence you can muster.
Then, on top of it all, you'll act the coward once again and delete arguments that expose your mentally challenged thinking.
"What I AM saying is that IF a woman wants to wear a miniskirt, THAT is not her fault if a rapist uses that as an excuse to do harm to that woman. I'm saying that those who try to blame her assault on her wearing a miniskirt are sick perverts who give aid and comfort to rapists and blame the victims."
This totally conflicts with your examples that preceded it. The woman who wears provocative clothing is gambling with reality every bit as much as the drunk driver or gambler because to think there is no one who would be inflamed by her choice of clothing is worse than naive unless she lives under a rock. But you apparently are trying to suggest that we hold her accountable as if she committed a civil offense, such as, say, raping someone.
Again, her actions are judged on their own merit. Her actions do not in any way provide an excuse for her attacker. They are two separate actions with two separate people responsible for those actions. Both Craig and I would see the rapist suffer the strongest sentence prescribed by law. That's a given. And yes, while a woman cavorting around butt naked is no grounds for NOT finding her rapist guilty and so punished, she is guilty of putting herself in such danger. Mature and responsible women don't do that because they are aware of the dangers inherent in doing so. So...
"But nonetheless, if a man or woman went nude in public and was raped, IT IS NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY for being raped. It is the assailants fault alone.
Do you agree?
Please answer."
The correct answer can only be...and read this carefully..."It is their responsibility to not act in a manner that is likely to put themselves in danger."
Now, you're likely going to delete this, because you know it's true and haven't the sense to accept it, nor the smarts to try and argue against it. So again, the actions of such people do not provide an out for the assailant. The assailant is always to be held responsible for attacking others, because attacking others is a crime. But the victims put themselves in harms way by their choices and actions, intentionally or not. They are responsible.
It is important to remember that neither Craig or myself is suggesting that victims be penalized by law for their bad choices that resulted in their being attacked. The consequences they suffered is punishment enough for those bad choices. The consequences is what made those choices bad in the first place. That's how we know they were bad choices. For the purposes of this conversation, no one forced them to make the choices they made so how can they NOT be responsible for the outcomes they experience?
Wow. Marshall seems awfully tolerant of a Lord of the Flies type situation for school boys. Tells us what kind of cohort he had. (None of whom actually read Lord of the Flies.)
If this is what schools are like around Marshall, I’d flee. And ask the FBI to clear house until it was a town of law and order again. Hate crimes have huge sentences, even for white kids.
Funny how Marshall denies we can know intent for legal purposes for he’s all cool with malevolence from men in his stories.
Damn, boy.
Wonder what goes through Marshall’s head as he walks down the center of town?
I'm torn between leaving Marshall's hideously perverse comments up so people can see how hideous and perverse at least some on the conservative side are... Or removing them because they ARE so hideous and perverse that is just vile and disgusting and perverted.
I read Marshall's words and feel like I have to take a shower. No more Marshall, you've exposed your depths of depravity sufficiently. Let that dying dog die.
I happen to like Lord of the Flies, Feodor. Of course I'm not taking it as a how to guide...
“We're not even talking about the attacker [no kidding?] but how the victim came to be attacked. [thats not the role of the attacker?] Maybe that's where you're confusing yourself. Ignore the attacker.”
Yes. Ignore the attacker. They admit guilt there.
But the one who was raped! At least give them probation for putting the... raping hands in the hands of the attacker, Dan!
A buffoon said this"
"Muggers are everywhere. You can’t predict where or who they’ll be; they look just like you and me. So this principle applies: the more you are out of the house, the more likely it is that you’ll be mugged. The resulting maxim: don’t go out of the house."
It's stupidly extreme (not surprising given the source of it), but it is accidentally "getting it". As going out of the house exposes one to more dangers, one is responsible for accepting the reality that those dangers exist when one leaves the house. Very good. This guy gets a gold star.
But then he has to have the star taken right back because he thinks he's making a logical conclusion with this:
"In which case, rather than do something about muggers walking around - AND changing the conditions that fosters the making of muggers or is silent about them - you’d prefer to take away the right to freedom of the potential victims in order to protect their rights not to be mugged."
The first truth, as stupidly extreme as it was, doesn't in any way rationally lead to this second falsehood. No one is saying "do nothing" about rapists. We who are rational and logical are simply saying one must not live life as if evil does not exist. Thus, it's not a matter of a right to free movement. It's a matter of being smart enough to know where one can freely move safely. This isn't denying rights. The muggers that feo defends, enables and for whom he provides excuses are doing that. They will continue to do that as it suits them. Know where they are likely to be. Avoid those areas...or don't. Your choice, but the consequences of those choices are yours as well.
Then he doubles down on the stupid, as he always does:
"We should stop raising muggers. Let’s spend education on that. One step to solving the problem that doesn’t blame victims, doesn’t take away individual rights."
Why he's raising muggers and taking away individual rights, I have no idea. Craig and I favor neither. We don't even so much as hint that we do.
"Which is, clearly, Dan’s most powerful point to you both."
It's a foolish and indefensible point, demonstrated by the fact that he hasn't defended it thus far.
Never think that Marshall doesn’t spend time appreciating his own fake bait. Getting it? That muggers and rapists are so prevalent that we should never, ever give them any ammunition and stimulus to do their dirty?
If only you felt that way about the amunnition and stimulus of guns.
Marshall and the alt right love a bunker. So they have to reel out a narrative justifying bunker living.
"And let me make it clear what should be clear to everyone but probably isn't to certain people... no one is saying that we don't or not counsel our young people, our young women to be careful out there."
Yet you're absolutely attacking Craig and I for doing exactly that. You're attacking the school for doing exactly that by posting that sign. But "be careful out there" is a cheap way to absolve yourself of real concern. We choose to go farther by offering suggestions as to how one should "be careful out there". You call that "victim shaming". But that's because you're not very bright.
"Women and parents of children and young women are quite aware of the dangers that sexual predators (like the ones that conservatives continue to defend and support) are out there. Quite often they're in our conservative churches, even."
Now you're just being a dick. No one is defending and supporting predatory behavior. Acknowledging that Trump is doing more to benefit the country than any president of the last several terms is just speaking the truth. Apparently one can't do that without asshat progressives pretending it means we support his horndog behavior. That's called "lying". What's more, predators are present in non-conservative churches as well as the public school system, so taking cheap shots at conservative churches is deceitful as well.
"But there is a difference between saying, "There are sexual predators out there we need to be careful people." And saying "if you dress a certain way you might be more likely to be assaulted and some of that responsibility will be on you for dressing that way."
The former is just common sense Prudence that does not blame victims. The ladder lends support and comfort to Predators like our president."
Bullshit. You begin said shit by saying there's a difference that hasn't already been pointed out to YOU. We not only acknowledge that difference, we rationally acknowledge that those differences call for different approaches specific to each. The important part is that while they are different, they are both true.
However, while they are different, they are both part of the same lesson. Jerks exist and if you don't take that into account, you are responsible for the consequences of ignoring that truth. While it may be more than just a movie plot line that some courts have somewhere at some time dropped the charges against a rapist due to the provocative dress and behavior of the victim, such is so rare as to never again have to be so deceitful as to bring it up. NO ONE pardons the attacker regardless of the actions or dress of the victim.
Marshall: “The point of the sign wasn't to address that which is well known and needs no sign.”
Craig: “Whatever happened to asking people to take responsibility for their own behavior?”
The only way to make sense of them is to surmise - correctly - that they intend on blaming the victim for any assault. They don’t intellectually know that they are. They are are not in full grasp of their (white male supremacist) intentions that includes a baseline of misogyny.
As to my statement " NO ONE pardons the attacker regardless of the actions or dress of the victim", a recent article I saw on FB attempted to do just that. Two girls of around 14-15 years old were raped by four teenage boys. They all got together, got drunk and the alleged assault ensued. The article claims the judge let the boys off with minor sentencing, but the fact is, as the report states, the judge wasn't ruling on rape at all, and thus to convict them of rape is impossible. Because, it says, the girls didn't want to appear in court for individual trials for each of the four, as apparently had to done, the girls agreed to a plea bargain. Thus, the boys were not on trial for rape in the first place, even though they were alleged to have raped the girls. That's not a matter of letting them off for rape. That's a matter of the judge doing his duty as he is supposed to. And keep in mind, that's all assuming an actual rape occurred, rather than the girls being regretting. having engaged in a drunken orgy with four boys. And before you try to attack me again unjustly, as you are wont to do, I'm fully aware that legally, sex with an underage girl is still considered "statutory" rape, even if she consents.
Feodor, just above: "The only way to make sense of them is to surmise - correctly - that they intend on blaming the victim for any assault."
Marshall's response: "And keep in mind, that's all assuming an actual rape occurred, rather than the girls being regretting. having engaged in a drunken orgy with four boys."
Post a Comment