Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Victim blaming is just completely illogical watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Ok resident TSR leftists and Guardianistas, I know you like to pigeonhole me as right-wing (I'm not) but here's one of my many opinions that is generally associated with your camp (unless of course migrants are involved): victim blaming is completely reprehensible and never logical.
    Sexual assualt sucks because, well, someone is being sexually assaulted. Not because it's dirty, or immoral in the eyes of some imaginary god, but because it hurts someone, be it emotionally or physically, against their will. Very simple. The only person who should be held to account for it is the person who actually commits the crime. It doesn't matter what the assaulted person was wearing, or how they were behaving, if they didn't want it, didn't make any gesture that suggested they would like contact with the particular person who assaulted them, then that person who assaulted them is entirely the only person in the wrong for committing the act of assault.

    The analogy that often comes up goes along the lines that if you were walking around a rough area, waving a wad of cash, you could expect to be mugged. Maybe true, but that doesn't change the fact that the only person actually doing the mugging is the mugger. He is the one committing a crime, the man waving the money is not, so only the former should be held as accountable, because he is the only one who did something wrong. It doesn't matter if the man waving the cash was unwise, in fact it's simply immaterial. Moreover, one should be able to walk around waving a wad of cash wherever they please and not be bothered, and by continuing to blame the victim we will never be able to progress towards creating a world where one can do so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's a bit of a dilemma for Guardianistas, leftists, Feminists and the rest of their ilk.

    Either they protect the female victims of sexual assaults or they defend the actions of the illegal economic Islamic migrants and by extension Islam.


    As a response to your original post, though, of course the person who performs the criminal act is the criminal and the victim will always be the victim, but there are always certain little things you can do to avoid muggings/rapes.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Agreed.

    The perpetrator is always the one to blame.

    But that's not to say that you can't help reduce the chances of being caught up in an incident by being a little more conscious about personal security.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexion)
    Agreed.

    The perpetrator is always the one to blame.

    But that's not to say that you can't help reduce the chances of being caught up in an incident by being a little more conscious about personal security.
    Absolutely. But that's where the analogy to walking around a dodgy area waving money breaks down. Because to reduce the risk of being mugged in that scenario, you need only stop waving your money in the air. Whereas to reduce the risk of being sexually assaulted, it's being suggest that women should have to change what clothes they wear (or even their hair colour in one case!), or how they behave or other facets of their lifestyle.

    Whilst the former is a perfectly reasonable suggestion, the latter is reprehensible. To defend the notion that women who have lived here their whole lives, should have to change their lifestyles just to be kept safe from hordes of migrant men who are supposedly here seeking asylum, is simply not on (not saying that you are for the record ).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The king is right
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The perpetrator is always to blame but it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that the actions of the victim in the run up to an event cannot increase the probability of the event occurring itself. There is a reason car insurance companies are not going to pay out if you leave your car unlocked with the doors wide open and it gets stolen. Yes, the person who stole it is directly responsible for doing so but you can also minimise the risk.

    I do not get totally wasted or walk home down dark unlit alleys for the same reason. I do not want to be mugged or assaulted. I stay mostly sober, walk in places that are lit and ideally with a high volume of people to minimise any risk. In an ideal world we'd not have to take these precautions but we do not live in a utopian fantasy. We live in a cold harsh world where opportunist predators are waiting to take advantage of vulnerable people, and that will always be the case. There is a degree of maturity in coming to terms with that reality.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    The analogy that often comes up goes along the lines that if you were walking around a rough area, waving a wad of cash, you could expect to be mugged. Maybe true, but that doesn't change the fact that the only person actually doing the mugging is the mugger. He is the one committing a crime, the man waving the money is not, so only the former should be held as accountable, because he is the only one who did something wrong. It doesn't matter if the man waving the cash was unwise, in fact it's simply immaterial.
    This is all true, but it's also something no reasonable person would disagree with (except in some backward cultures).

    But the problem is, people use the phrase "victim blaming" when blame isn't really the concept at hand. Our wad waver is being stupid or irresponsible or reckless or whatever even though he isn't to blame for the mugging. Likewise, someone can be reckless in their actions leading up to a sexual assault. Pointing this out isn't blaming them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    being suggest that women should have to change what clothes they wear (or even their hair colour in one case!), or how they behave or other facets of their lifestyle.
    Clothing and hair colour I would agree with. But surely behaviour can be reasonable?

    I for one will be advising my daughter to try and avoid walking long distances alone through rough areas, having a working phone, to be wary of unlicensed minicabs, giving personal info out to strangers online and so on.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Ok resident TSR leftists and Guardianistas, I know you like to pigeonhole me as right-wing (I'm not) but here's one of my many opinions that is generally associated with your camp (unless of course migrants are involved): victim blaming is completely reprehensible and never logical.
    Sexual assualt sucks because, well, someone is being sexually assaulted. Not because it's dirty, or immoral in the eyes of some imaginary god, but because it hurts someone, be it emotionally or physically, against their will. Very simple. The only person who should be held to account for it is the person who actually commits the crime. It doesn't matter what the assaulted person was wearing, or how they were behaving, if they didn't want it, didn't make any gesture that suggested they would like contact with the particular person who assaulted them, then that person who assaulted them is entirely the only person in the wrong for committing the act of assault.

    The analogy that often comes up goes along the lines that if you were walking around a rough area, waving a wad of cash, you could expect to be mugged. Maybe true, but that doesn't change the fact that the only person actually doing the mugging is the mugger. He is the one committing a crime, the man waving the money is not, so only the former should be held as accountable, because he is the only one who did something wrong. It doesn't matter if the man waving the cash was unwise, in fact it's simply immaterial. Moreover, one should be able to walk around waving a wad of cash wherever they please and not be bothered, and by continuing to blame the victim we will never be able to progress towards creating a world where one can do so.
    What should be and what is are two different things. It's fair to chastise someone for being stupid and waving cash about when they KNOW what may happen.

    Your point is correct in that we should be able to do what we want. But we can't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    Clothing and hair colour I would agree with. But surely behaviour can be reasonable?

    I for one will be advising my daughter to try and avoid walking long distances alone through rough areas, having a working phone, to be wary of unlicensed minicabs, giving personal info out to strangers online and so on.
    Sure, given the current state of things you'd be wise to advise your daughter to do that. The point I'm making is that it shouldn't be necessary, and the response of the police and politicians should not be to ask women to change their behaviour; the response should be a threat to deport anyone who commits such an act and an end to this pervasive attitude that we can't blame the migrants for anything, or we're all racists.

    It isn't reasonable for us to change the way we behave, to satisfy people who have come here from other countries, supposedly to seek our protection.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Ok resident TSR leftists and Guardianistas, I know you like to pigeonhole me as right-wing (I'm not) but here's one of my many opinions that is generally associated with your camp (unless of course migrants are involved): victim blaming is completely reprehensible and never logical.
    Sexual assualt sucks because, well, someone is being sexually assaulted. Not because it's dirty, or immoral in the eyes of some imaginary god, but because it hurts someone, be it emotionally or physically, against their will. Very simple. The only person who should be held to account for it is the person who actually commits the crime. It doesn't matter what the assaulted person was wearing, or how they were behaving, if they didn't want it, didn't make any gesture that suggested they would like contact with the particular person who assaulted them, then that person who assaulted them is entirely the only person in the wrong for committing the act of assault.

    The analogy that often comes up goes along the lines that if you were walking around a rough area, waving a wad of cash, you could expect to be mugged. Maybe true, but that doesn't change the fact that the only person actually doing the mugging is the mugger. He is the one committing a crime, the man waving the money is not, so only the former should be held as accountable, because he is the only one who did something wrong. It doesn't matter if the man waving the cash was unwise, in fact it's simply immaterial. Moreover, one should be able to walk around waving a wad of cash wherever they please and not be bothered, and by continuing to blame the victim we will never be able to progress towards creating a world where one can do so.
    While I generally agree, what's this got to do with lefists/guardianistas?

    If anything I thought it were typically people on the right who blame the victim, not the left.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.