Blaming the victim

Discussion in 'Self Defence' started by aaradia, Mar 15, 2016.

  1. Rebel Wado

    Rebel Wado Valued Member

    Basically you are saying that ultimately it is each person's responsibility for their own safety. However, I don't believe responsibility is the correct term for the context in this thread.

    I believe you are not taking into account reasonable "expectations". For example, in a law abiding society, it is reasonable to expect to be safe while walking down a public street.

    However, our expectations change based on risks. For example, if the same street has rioting and fighting breaking out, the expectations change on how safe the environment is.

    When you say that it is people's own responsibility regarding their own safety, you are actually not taking into account what are reasonable expectations. For example, would you expect a two-year old child to be able to protect themselves the same with or without adult supervision? No, we would expect the adult to provide some level of protection.

    Wait, does that make the adult or the child responsible for the safety of the child? Does it matter if the adult is a teacher, the parent, or some stranger that happened to find the child wandering around? It does because the expectations would be different.

    So going back to a situation mentioned of a woman walking down a street alone whilst drunk. What are reasonable expectations for her safety?

    What about if we found out that she wasn't drunk but actually drugged by would be date-rapist who slipped something in her drink at the bar? Does it make it her fault for leaving her drink unattended for a moment?

    Rather than put fault for a lapse in judgment, let's really look at if she knew what she was getting into and if she accepted the risks. If she knew she could be drugged, then we would expect her to take precautions. However, if she was naïve and had no clue it could happen to her, what is the reasonable expectation?
     
  2. Matt F

    Matt F Valued Member

    Maybe what they meant is that even if you do everything to avoid a situation ,if someone wants to randomly attack you, like in the case of the "knockout game", then all you have is responding at that very moment of attack. So saying they should or could of done this to avoid it in the first place wouldn't fit.
    That could be said to be real SD....a random attack from nowhere. It depends where people want to put the goalposts for what SD is.

    Also it's 'self' defence ...not ,'someone who won't be there or wasn't there telling you what to do' defence. Or ' this is in fashion so this is what you do and say to sound authoritative on the subject 'defence. So personally I don't worry what others views are....I listen to it all then make an informed decision for mine and those close to me SD
    100 ...200..300..400...years ago were more violent times. People did fine without in fashion sayings or special named tactics. New things will come along that everyone one will be saying in a few years time. Some things never change though....they are the things worth it.
     
  3. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Almost the same thing happened to my daughter at her school. We put a end to all of this when we got the "family attorney" involved


    "Cut and Dry"...the definition of the word "victim" is very clear (without scrutiny)
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2016
  4. greg1075

    greg1075 Valued Member

    Glad you're bringing up expectations. I'd qualify it a bit further and say reasonable expectations. Something people don’t talk about is direct and indirect responsibility. Each case is different and without a doubt anyone can come up with million examples where someone would expect to do XYZ without having to worry about their own safety. However, the two main situations discussed here were

    1) Someone turning down assistance in an area of San Diego late at night when a known series of random attacks were well known and documented, and
    2) A girl walking home alone down a poorly lit street while drunk.

    Would anyone reasonably expect someone involved in either scenario to be safe and not have to worry about their own safety? I'll let others answer that. Here is a forum full of people otherwise spending their time talking about awareness and avoidance who are now downplaying bad decisions that jeopardize a person’s safety. Those decisions do matter and everyone knows it. That’s precisely because that's such an evidence that every single parent freaks out when their underage daughters are caught throwing caution to the wind to meet up with a total stranger in this social experiment.

    [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMhMVEjEQg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMhMVEjEQg[/ame]

    And that’s also why the people downplaying personal accountability would react the same way if those were their daughters. No, that doesn’t mean that what any crime perpetrated next is their fault, but it sure doesn’t mean that the bad decisions made upstream are anybody’s responsibility but theirs either.

    When the tone shifts from “the attacker is fully responsible for the crime” to “the attacker is fully responsible for the crime and the victim has complete freedom to behave as recklessly as they want without any trace of accountability”, this is where I draw the line. The pushback against “victim blaming” has swung all the way past prudence and common sense, making anyone who suggests action can be taken to reduce the chances of someone becoming a victim an insensitive jerk, a victim blamer or rape enabler – as evidenced by the original post of this very thread.

    While victim blaming IS dangerous, it’s equally dangerous to suggest that nothing a victim did or can do makes a difference. It’s not because it’s not someone’s fault they got assaulted that it’s ok they turned up their noses at common sense either. A MA friend of mine got randomly mugged a couple of months ago while walking home alone and drunk in the middle of the night. He woke up to the paramedics picking him up. Of course it wasn’t his fault he got mugged but hell if he didn’t say walking 12 blocks drunk and alone in the middle of the night wasn’t stupid either. “I’ll get a cab next time”. I’m sure he will, and he’ll be safer for it.
     
  5. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    To me the important words here are "behave as recklessly as they want".
    In order to do that you have to define what "reckless" is.
    And context would be very important in the definition.
    What's reckless in one situation isn't reckless in another.

    Is it "reckless" for a woman to dress attractively, flirt with men, drink alcohol, go clubbing and walk a certain distance on her own?
    It shouldn't be should it? And yet MANY people would say those actions "contribute" to a sexual assault should one happen.

    So to bring it back to the OP...I don't think that's victim blaming to bring up the idea of walking in groups. Because there was a known pattern of attacks.
     
  6. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    Interestingly, I read a study somewhere that said rapists choose victims who do not dress provocatively. I'll have to do some digging.
     
  7. greg1075

    greg1075 Valued Member

    "Reckless" is simply the nth degree on a scale of bad decisions or behaviors that start with "not smart", goes on with "bad", "careless", "stupid", "moronic" and whatever qualifiers people want to use to mark a negative escalation. A decision or behavior doesn't necessarily need to cross the "reckless" threshold to put one's safety in jeopardy.
     
  8. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    Was thinking about this further and thought that this changes the way rape functions within our society, and I have some discomfort with that. Broadly speaking, there's an alignment between society's explanations of rape and some very misogynistic, puritanical notions of morality. We talk about the necessity of not looking a certain way, not acting a certain way, not drinking too much, etc. to protect against some kind of shadow rapist, waiting in an alley way when all too often that's not actually the threat people face. Blaming the victim then, becomes a sort moral fairy tale, meant to constrain women's behavior - anthropologically interesting, personally horrifying. I would contrast this to self defense classes that seek to empower and inform.
     
  9. neems

    neems Valued Member

    You aren't blaming the victim of inviting the attack.

    Just of lacking common sense,just like you wouldn't blame a passenger who was injured in a car accident while not wearing their seat belt for their injury.

    Regardless of the opinion that in an ideal world there wouldn't be muggings or car crashes,it's important people are consciously aware that in this reality they do exist and any of us could be a victim,so reasonable precautions should be taken.
     
  10. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    People who are not victims find it easier to blame a victim than to look for factual data or follow feelings towards. It seems to me, that people who "blame victims" are those who believe they will never be a victim of something and also out themselves upon a higher pedestal; as if to state "I am too smart___(insert) this will never happen to me" Therefore, making a victim seem like a unintelligent being
     
  11. Remi Lessore

    Remi Lessore Valued Member

    You can learn not to be bullied, not to be a victim.
    Does that mean that people who do not learn not to be a victim are blameworthy? Those who harm are to blame... but it's not that simple. Bullies and people who harm, often are (or were) victims of harm.
    Apportioning blame is not useful. Taking responsibility for one's own behaviour is. That might include challenging those who harm, or it might mean staying out of their way.
     

Share This Page