I think we are saying the same thing. I'm not saying the guilty parties always should have 100% responsibility. It can be less than 100% This is where it gets tricky. It depends on the mental state of the victim on how they accept/process the information. I had a friend that when he was a teenager had to walk through one of the worst neighborhoods to get from where he was to home. He walked by a bar and saw to two biggest, meanest guys out front and told them he would buy them both lunch at this place at the other end of the neighborhood (closer to where he was going). They agreed and they walked together like they were old buddies just chatting away through the worst part of town. He bought them lunch and they parted ways. He was sort of a chameleon in adapting to things around him. The thing is, if something bad had happened, he might NOT have been as traumatized by it because he did what he thought he could. What was in his control. On the other hand, sometimes or even often you get a crime and the victim is really traumatized by it. They might have felt it could never happen to them and they really feel powerless. They might be scarred for life, taking decades or more to get over it. Maybe never truly moving on. I'm not a therapist or doctor, but there has to be a better way. I've heard and believe that the right knowledge and attitude combined with some preparation can really help in reducing the long term trauma on a victim of a crime. Sometimes this seems like blaming the victim, but when done right, it empowers the victim to heal. Getting it done right is not simple.
You may or may not think this is related but this kind of context starts early. There's a kid at my daughter's school that is a little cretin. Aggressive, annoying, naughty and frankly dangerous. We've been in multiple times about his behaviour and will have to do so again after he hit my daughter in the face with a stick (not badly but caused a scratch). When we raised this incident with the staff one said to my daughter "Well you should have come and sat quietly with the ladies rather than being near him". In other words they couldn't/wouldn't do anything to curb the boys bad behaviour so my daughter was being advised to restrict her movement and behaviour instead. Now from a self protection point of view that would seem to be prudent advice. But from a fairness and realistic point of view I think it's wrong. This boy is in her class. He's around all the time. She can't avoid him all the time and shouldn't have to. They should be tackling this boys behaviour not restricting my child. IMHO she is already being conditioned that she has to behave a certain way, that restricts normal behaviour, in order to avoid bad people that we should be doing more to diminish. I think "self defence" advise can be similar. Criminals are everywhere. Crime can happen in all sorts of places, times and situations. It's seems problematic to me to try and second guess that beyond the most basic common sense examples. I'm not sure where the line is crossed between "common sense advice" and "unreasonable/unrealistic demand to second guess the behaviour of others".
For example...the closest I've come recently to fisticuffs was a bloke squaring up to me in Sainsburys. Because he'd pushed in front of me in a queue and didn't like then manner in which I pointed that out and told him not to. Now he didn't go through with his threats but that wasn't because of anything on my part. So what advice could I give myself to prevent such a thing? Don't use supermarkets? Don't challenge people that push in? Let people that push in get away with it if they get angry? Back down all the time? Nah...I can't go with that advice.
Some things are worth standing your ground for, I'm sure we can all make a list of what is most dear to us. To my mind a line at the checkout isn't one of them but that's just me, I'm not criticising you for what you did. I suppose that's what all of us has to decide on, what exactly is important to you and to what lengths are you willing to go to protect it.
Part of me thinks that is good, but you do also have to weigh-up the consequences. A friend of mine laid someone out after an altercation at a supermarket, it was in self-defence, but he did say that in hindsight it was a bit silly and could have been avoided. I'd probably be most concerned about having to ring my girlfriend from the police station to tell her that I didn't get the shopping
It is unfortunate that in many cases behaviour management in schools, and at home, is about the path of least resistance and perception, rather than really tackling the causes of bad behaviour. Not a good lesson to teach kids
Quite honestly I reacted to the queue jump without even really thinking about it (I was immediately righteously indignant) and the guy massively over-reacted to the point of surrealism that I only really realised it could be serious after the fact. But honestly I don't think there's anything I'd advise differently. Most other people would say "Ooops...sorry didn't realise there was a queue" rather than "I'm gunna knock you aht!!".
Yeah, that's the thing. It's not always about the situation, sometimes it's about the idiot in a normally safe environment.
Yeah, that's exactly what I said. What amount of caveating would have prevented you from putting words in my mouth, I wonder.
Well while it was fairly predictable that he'd take you absolutely literally given the chance, you did say "fully responsible". That doesn't really leave much responsibility for the rapist if it's a zero-sum discussion. And if there is a partisan ideology built up around the issue, it's going to be a zero sum discussion. I think she can be fully responsible for making herself a target and the rapist can be fully responsible for exploiting that vulnerability. This doesn't mean the two failings are in any way equivalent.
Me: "Do you believe that a girl who walks home alone down a poorly lit street whilst drunk is partly responsible for her rape?" You: "I believe she's fully responsible walking home alone down a poorly lit street whilst drunk." They're your words. If you misspoke, correct it, but don't complain about people taking your words at face value.
you replied to a question about rape. and you used highly ambiguous language in your response, seemingly to shift blame completely to a victim. don't lash out against other people questioning your post, when you can't even be specific in your language. so either you meant it, or, you don't know how to write in english. your pick.
The thing that stops me assigning responsibility for a rape onto the victim in any way is the fact that the circumstances are so variable. Old ladies get raped in their own homes. Which negates any sort responsibility for "looking" a certain way or being in a certain place. Meanwhile other, seemingly more "likely", targets for rape walk home in the dark while drunk all the time with nothing happening. I can't point at anything that would stop a rape or "invite" one. Not in the same way that "Don't go in the sea" would stop a shark attack.
My pick is to stick to my original argument which was about people’s own agency and responsibility regarding their own safety, regardless of any attempt to make me say something I’m not. I didn’t misspeak. People misread.
I think this is one of the critical parts of the debate; it's like talking about responsibility for a ninja attack when you started off by just inviting a few friends over for a drink. Additionally, I think there's a distinction to be made between the advice people give to individuals and our solution to the problem, i.e. if I have a daughter and send her to college, sending her to a self defense course might be a very good idea, but if I want to eliminate campus rape proposing a self defense course for women is… well, problematic.
nonsense. you were purposefully ambiguous. that might work on teenagers. what is she fully responsible for greg? tell me. what's the object of your sentence, especially in regards to the question?
