You see, to some people, suggesting that women shouldn't drink themselves blotto and then go home with dodgy strangers, or walk through dimly lit streets at night with their assets on display, etc, is just that; victim blaming. Women should be able to do just that, if they want to, and don't anyone ever dare insinuate that that's unwise!
What's curious, however, is the different attitude to displays of wealth, particularly the display of high-end personal possessions.
Now, anyone following any of the many official police accounts on Twitter will be besieged with 'safety information' - like not displaying your possessions and so not making yourself a target for muggers. That rather grates on me, as you can see:
Anyone disagree?
20 comments:
Not sure quite where I stand on this one ..
Obviously, one can't blame the victim in every circumstance .. but it behoves everyone to minimise the risks to which they may be exposed ..
Having travelled round a fair part of the world (courtesy of the "Grey Funnel" line) .. including some very dodgy ports-of-call .. I learned quickly not to take large wodges of cash ashore with me .. and to secrete what cash I did carry in a place easily accessible to me, but not obvious to a mugger ..
Similarly, not to wear a decent watch when going ashore, this mitigated either loss or damage ..
No-one in their right mind would consider leaving a high value car, parked & unattended with the keys left in it .. and if they did, they deserve all they get ..
As for females dressing as they please .. well, yes, that is a fundamental right .. but with rights go responsibilities, to oneself, if not to others ..
Bottom line really is .. don't make a target of yourself ..
A pet hate this one. Adults are relatively free to make their own choices and when faced with any kind of danger they have ALWAYS had at least TWO:
1) do as they like, get done over and expect everyone else to protect them
2) Do something/anything to protect themselves and at least try to avoid unneccessary risks.
Where option 2) is insufficient is maybe when "everyone else" could step to help and advise but not before and only if strictly necessary.
You cannot help those who refuse to help themselves...as in option 1).
If you're a halfway decent parent you will teach your children about option 2).
As my dear old mam always says "You have to learn and I will teach you since I can't do it for you. I don't want you to learn the hard way." Not unreasonable, is it.
I'm all for other people being allowed to choose just how much of a victim they really want to be. Continuation of the species, survival of the fittest and all that.
Morlocks and Eloi we are not....not just yet.
Cap'n
I don't think it is so much the dressing that is the issue. The gym I go to has a number of attractive women in rather clinging clothing - more so than anything out in town.
The problems arise with the use of legal and illegal substances that result in impaired judgement or an inability to think and act rationally. A male of dubious moral character (and maybe simililarly fortified) seeing an insensible women may just fancy his chances - whatever she is wearing.
(The tricky moral questions arise when she claims that she was unable to make a rational decision because of the booze, drugs whatever. Of course, the male could have been in the same situation; who took advantage of whom and how do you prove it.)
The easy mitigation is to ensure you don't over-indulge in anything that impairs your mental ability in locations/situations that can be unsafe. If you want to do that, do it at home or at a mate's place and ensure you have a 'buddy' to watch over you while you watch over them. If your buddy is losing it, you get them home, simples.
I find it interesting that the advice they give to minimise the liklihood of violent assault is sexist when applied to sexual assault.
On another note, when (if) I have daughters, I intend to make them watch Taken (with Liam Neeson) before letting them start going out. Should do the trick.
It would be nice if everyone was nice, but it ain't so.
In the Wild, Wild West of old, where the gun and lawless ruled, the ex-plods have a point.
I blame old habits for importing such thinking into the new Wild, Wild West.
Will - "On another note, when (if) I have daughters, I intend to make them watch Taken (with Liam Neeson) before letting them start going out. Should do the trick.
Since...it doesn't matter what she does or what happens to her...YOU will always turn up at the end to shoot the bad guy in the head ?
No offence like, but you might want to reconsider that idea. ;)
I entirely agree Will ..
Which is why we always went ashore in a group .. (you always had your "Run Ashore" mates) .. mine have got me safely back onboard on more than one occasion ..
Once in Hong Kong, with a broken nose & no upper front teeth, courtesy of an over-zealous US Navy Shore Patrol .. and, believe it or not .. I wasn't drunk and it wasn't of my causing either .. but that's a story for another time .. ;)
There are always parts of any city, home or away, where one is better off not going and as a parent, I made sure that my two (one of each) were amply forewarned ..
I made sure that my kids understood that not everyone who smiles at you is necessarily your friend .. whilst equally, not everyone who growls at you is automatically your enemy .. They may just be warning you off for your own good ..
and to secrete what cash I did carry in a place easily accessible to me, but not obvious to a mugger
/boggle
On the one hand, we have 'hide your assets'.
So why didn't the police advise women not to participate in the Slut March?
Well, I suppose it is technically challenging to steal a boob or a fanny, but not impossible if one puts one's mind to it.
Having a wife and 2 daughters, I do think that putting ones self in a risky situation does lead to an element of fault being laid at your door when things go pearshaped.
If I go into some 2 bit sleazy dive known to be frequented by lowlifes, wearing a Rolex watch, fingers full of sovereign rings and my 1oz Kruggerand medallion on full display, whilst stood at the bar with a fistful twenties ordering a white wine and soda. Am I blameless for the subsequent duffing up I receive by young "Stabby" and 3 of his mates as they relieve me of my property?
I doubt anyone would deny me my right to drink where I wish, whilst ostentatiously flaunting my wealth. Only when the inevitable happens, and yes I'd be a victim of a crime, I can't expect to receive much in the way of sympathy.
If a woman goes out dressed as a slut, gets absolutely shitfaced, has been sat on some guys knee, with her tongue down his throat for the best part of the evening, then when the inevitable happens (which it will at some point) I believe it's stretching credulity to suggest she's blameless in all this. Yes she's been a victim of a crime, but as in the other example, sympathy would be a bit thin on the ground.
Now I'm not suggesting that women should go out dressed as Ms Maple in tweeds and sensible shoes, drinking still orange and quietly sit in a corner not interacting with the opposite sex.
I do however think women can be and are still attractive without being dressed like a whore, and it's possible to have a good night out without being so shitfaced you can't walk/talk or have a clue who you are/where you are or live and are puking/pissing in the street.
Tatty,
Hmmm... good point, I should probably make it quite clear that I would not be able to do any of the things Neeson does (however much I may want to).
This is still hypothetical at the moment. I'll have to think it through a bit more for when/if the day arrives. :)
Of course, I could always just raise them to appreciate risk and how to minimise it where possible/feasible in all aspects of their lives so they develop into adults capable of functioning in society and able to appreciate the consequences of their actions and decisions, whatever they may be.
I believe this a process called parenting? ;)
Cap'n
One of the first things I learnt on basic training (and subsequently taught when I returned as an instructor) is look out for your mates. If they are operating below par, sit them up in the corner, get some water into them and stay with them till they become functional. If not, get into a cab and take them home - regardless of how far you got with whatever women you're tuning (I've generally found the one's worth pursuing were the ones impressed that you knocked them back to care for your mate).
It goes without saying that they do the same for you.
Will - "I believe this a process called parenting? ;)
*nods* A handy alternative for when Nanny State doesn't cover any and every eventuality. More people should try it...who knows, they might even like it ;)
Having a wife and 2 daughters....
.....pearshaped
It's apparently the national figure!
There is indeed something of a fault line between the ultimate exercise of our liberty, and the personal responsibility to avoid risky situations.
I think they can and should be resolved at least in legal terms, by the following argument: No defendant should be allowed to cite the victims risk-taking as mitigation. No matter if someone was flashing lots of cash, where you could see it. That does not reduce the culpability of his attacker, and nor should it reduce the penalty imposed by the courts.
We have to be very careful about the "serve him right" reaction to victims. There are housing estates in this country where simply having a modest car parked outside is treated as a provocation by the local headbangers.
Monty
Monty, I hear what you're saying, but let me ask you this. Do you leave your house or car unlocked when you leave it unattended? If not why not, you've no legal reason to do so. After all theft or burglary are both crimes right, and you can't be held responsible for the illegal acts of others...
Monty
I agree with you on this one.
There are precautions it is advisable to take, such as locking your house or car. However, you shouldn't HAVE to do this (in an ideal world) & as you say, your failure to do so should in no way affect the legal process or be mitigation to any crooks who take advantage.
Where you will, quite reasonably, lose out though is with your insurance company.
Budvar, I lock my car. But if you steal my car, locked or not, your penalty should be the same.
When you leave your house to go to work, do you board up the windows? Do you live in a house, or a fortress?
We have gone too far along the path of allowing a certain level of crime, in certain postcodes, to be normal. When you do that, the local lowlives get to define what normal is.
Monty
Where you will, quite reasonably, lose out though is with your insurance company
Precisely right.
Insurers do not concern themselves with moral and juridical niceties but with the nature and extent of a risk and the part the insured plays in laying it off.
We all go through daily life constantly evaluating mainly trivial risks and regulating our behaviour accordingly so as not to come unstuck.
The same good judgement that one exercises before crossing a road, should govern how and where and in what state of dress and sobriety one goes out in public.
Human nature still has a way to go before it evolves into the shape that "progressives" would have it.
"..but it behoves everyone to minimise the risks to which they may be exposed..."
True, and I've occasionally refrained from getting out my iPhone in dodgy areas of town.
But it's the double standard that infuriates me.
"The tricky moral questions arise when she claims that she was unable to make a rational decision because of the booze, drugs whatever. Of course, the male could have been in the same situation..."
Indeed. And this is NEVER taken into account. It's wrong.
"So why didn't the police advise women not to participate in the Slut March?"
Spot on!
"...and it's possible to have a good night out without being so shitfaced you can't walk/talk or have a clue who you are/where you are or live and are puking/pissing in the street."
There seem to be very few people who are aware of this.
"We have to be very careful about the "serve him right" reaction to victims. There are housing estates in this country where simply having a modest car parked outside is treated as a provocation by the local headbangers."
Good point. It's all relative.
Interestingly no-one has mentioned the islamic viewpoint on whether scantily-dressed women deserve it or not. Even more interestingly, noisy feminists always go go dead quiet when it comes to the islamic viewpoint.
Post a Comment