Rape Mostly the Fault of Rape Victims
| July 30th, 2008Even by the usual standards of victim-blaming, this is pretty egregious:
Darn those young women and their drinking binges! It’s like they deserve to be raped, what with their drinking and their binges and their being young women.
Does the story get better? No, it does not:
San Diego police are investigating a rising number of rapes involving young women who go on drinking binges, becoming too intoxicated to fight back or say “no,” it was reported Tuesday.
The number of rapes in the city of San Diego rose by 38 percent during the first six months of this year compared to the same time period last year, from 129 to 178, according to recent crime statistics. San Diego police Lt. Carolyn Kendrick, who heads the sex-crimes unit, said victims know their attackers in 90 percent of the cases the unit investigates, The San Diego Union-Tribune reported.
“The majority are young women who start out in bars or at a house party and end up drinking too much,” Kendrick told the newspaper. “They can’t consciously make a good decision, like say no and leave. Or maybe they’ve had too much to drink and can’t leave.”
And then it’s only natural that they’d be raped. I mean, we can’t expect men to not rape women who are blackout drunk; that’s unpossible!
Look, you want to know who’s to blame for rape? Rapists are. There’s no excuse for rape. None. And when we spend our time bemoaning how those girls today drink too much and put themselves in jeopardy, we ignore the fact that those women wouldn’t be in jeopardy if those boys today would take the extraordinarily easy step of not being rapists.
July 30th, 2008 at 8:15 am
I assume that penultimate paragraph is improperly included within the blockquote?
[That's what it looks like to me, too. I've fixed it -- hope you don't mind, Jeff! --Amp]
This comment was written by Caterpillar.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 8:36 am
The idea is to discipline women by deciding who is an “actual” rape victim it forces women to change their behavior to avoid stigmatization. We are constantly being given the message that certain bodies do not have the right to bodily integrity because they have in some away broken away from the good girl mode. This gives rapists a free pass and uphold patriarchy.,
This comment was written by Renee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 9:14 am
“They can’t consciously make a good decision, like saying no…or maybe they’ve had too much to drink and can’t leave.”
Nice. In other words, if they’re not drunk, they can’t make a good decision and if they are drunk they can’t make a good decision.***
My son is 4 and if I ever hear him even hint at accepting this kind of logic I will ground him until he’s 100….
***(I don’t think that’s what Lt. Kenrick meant, but couldn’t someone at least coach the cops in better logic and/or interview skills?)
This comment was written by Aerin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 10:01 am
I honestly don’t see where the excerpted text blames drunk women for being raped. It just says there’s a link. Linkage, or correlation, is not causality. Of course, rapists are entirely to blame for rape. Rapists exist; unfortunately, they very likely always will. It might be helpful to know that a drunk person is, statistically, more likely to be raped than their designated driver friend.
This comment was written by Annie.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 10:03 am
“Look, you want to know who’s to blame for rape? Rapists are. There’s no excuse for rape. None. And when we spend our time bemoaning how those girls today drink too much and put themselves in jeopardy, we ignore the fact that those women wouldn’t be in jeopardy if those boys today would take the extraordinarily easy step of not being rapists.”
This argument also still ignores “the fact that those women wouldn’t be in jeopardy if” they still had control of their senses. It is as weak today as it was when it was first introduced years ago. Its appeal is limited, and the number of its adherents has plateaued. “It sounds good in theory, but completely breaks down in reality.”
By all means, keep hashing it out in the meantime, but really, it’s time for anti-rape activists to write a new script.
This comment was written by jed.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
“This argument also still ignores the fact that those women wouldn’t be in jeopardy if they still had control of their senses. ”
This would be a great argument, jed, if it didn’t ignore the incontrovertible fact that it is not being true. Women ARE in jeapordy of being raped, drunk or not. Is an unconscious woman an easier target than a conscious one? Yes. But is a rapist only a rapist if he stumbles across a drunk woman? NO. A man who will rape a woman will rape a woman whether he finds a drunk one or not. And EVEN IF only drunk women got raped, it would not change the fact that IT IS THE FAULT OF THE RAPIST, not the drunk woman, and ONLY THE RAPIST IS TO BLAME.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I come away from this article only more confused. Are the police investigating the victims or the rapists? Both? Why are the police looking into this? What is their objective? What prompted the investigation? Where does this fit in criminology? What range of options would they have based on the evidence they find?
This is a case of the city editor receiving a press release from the police department, re-wording it and publishing it without any follow up. I mention this not to excuse the sexism of the piece, but to explain how it arises from sloppy reporting. Because the writer is not prompted to investigate this story and thus create a list of questions that would explore various angles of the piece, no critical thinking is required; and - voila! - the writer has reproduced the dominant ideology within a useless piece of news copy.
In a way, the unthinking character of this piece makes it more insidious than had the editor made a deliberate attempt to blame the victim and reinforce the patriarchy. Instead the editor’s brain - and the brains of everyone else at the new organization - have been steeped in these memes that they so carelessly parrot. Journalism shouldn’t be this brain-dead.
This comment was written by Kevin Moore.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 10:28 am
‘ “This argument also still ignores the fact that those women wouldn’t be in jeopardy if they still had control of their senses. ”
This would be a great argument, jed, if it didn’t ignore the incontrovertible fact that it is not being true. Women ARE in jeapordy of being raped, drunk or not. Is an unconscious woman an easier target than a conscious one? Yes. ‘
ADS, are you saying that a person’s drunkeness/level of consciousness has absolutely no effect on the likelihood that they may be victimized? I don’t think you mean that. I wonder if you and Jed mean to imply that there’s a degree of jeopardy which is attributable to one’s drunken state.
Wrt: ‘But is a rapist only a rapist if he stumbles across a drunk woman? NO. A man who will rape a woman will rape a woman whether he finds a drunk one or not.’
I don’t see how this is true. A rapist could, unfortunately, make a career out of raping only women who were compromised in some way. I.e., he could make it a point to target only drunk women, comatose women, his dental patients under anesthesia, etc. in order to reduce his chances of getting caught.
This comment was written by Annie.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I just had an ‘aha!’ moment. Right now society tells girls they should “just say no” to outside pressure whereas society should really be telling guys (or any girls with rapist tendencies) to “just say no” to their own inner urges.
This comment was written by Emilie.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Hear, hear.
ADS
Hm. I can’t agree with that. A predator picks those victims that are least likely or able to fight back. It’s entirely possible that someone who would rape a compromised person (e.g., someone drunk) would not rape someone who isn’t compromised (sober, or bigger/stronger than they are, etc.).
Now, all, answer this. My daughter was once a teenager. If I counseled her “Don’t get paralytic drunk around a bunch of strangers, or someone might take advantage of you”, was I blaming the victim or giving her sound advice?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Bad advice, since most rapists are NOT strangers.
maybe you should of said, “don’t be female, or someone might take advantage of you”
This comment was written by casey.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Drinking may increase the likelihood that you are raped, but not as highly as being female increases it.
Also, i should note i don’t drink, but i was still drugged by someone who then attempted to take advantage of me. i was very lucky. not drinking did not help me though…
This comment was written by casey.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Wrt: “Drinking may increase the likelihood that you are raped, but not as highly as being female increases it.
Also, i should note i don’t drink, but i was still drugged by someone who then attempted to take advantage of me. i was very lucky. not drinking did not help me though…”
That’s why I included ‘level of consciousness’ in with ‘drunkeness’ bc there are so many ways to have a compromised consciousness/awareness.
Wrt: ‘maybe you should of said, “don’t be female, or someone might take advantage of you” ‘
People get taken advantage of all the time; it’s not just women. I wouldn’t then say, ‘Don’t be a person, or someone might take advantage of you’.
Wrt: “Now, all, answer this. My daughter was once a teenager. If I counseled her “Don’t get paralytic drunk around a bunch of strangers, or someone might take advantage of you”, was I blaming the victim or giving her sound advice?”
As Casey notes, rapists are often know their victims, so the stranger bit isn’t enough. And you’d also want to include ‘watch your drinks’ and ‘don’t get paralytic high’ (and ‘don’t _____’ for whatever else one does for fun these days) along with ‘don’t get paralytic drunk’. I wouldn’t say you were blaming her/the victim. I’d say that, given the fact that people do rape/take advantage of/assault/do all sorts of horrible things to people, there is a chance that someone will try to do that to her. Being in control of herself is one way to reduce those chances bc she won’t be so easy a target. But I think you know that and that’s what you were trying to get at.
This comment was written by Annie.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
My only disagreement is that this doesn’t go far enough.
Most crime is opportunistic. I’m sure there are people who aren’t predators - who don’t go around aspiring to rape someone - who find themselves in a circumstance where raping is easy and do it because it is and the option presented itself. Just as there are people who don’t go around determined to steal, but who come across a wallet lying about and decide to pocket it because it was easy, no-one was watching and they were tempted. Or who don’t go around determined to get into a fight, but end up punching someone because they were drunk and were being crowded, etc…
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Emile:
Bingo! Yup, we put the onus on avoiding rape on women, who are the victims of rape. We don’t do anything really to put the responsibility of preventing rape on men, where it belongs.
Did you tell your son not to get paralytic drunk around strangers? Probably not.
Look, there’s nothing wrong with telling people to be careful and aware of their surroundings, but the fact is that for a woman to avoid rape, she basically has to avoid all other people. Most rapes are acquaintance rapes, many are committed by intimate partners. So women can’t be friends with or date any men, and certainly can’t be drunk around them.
Women can’t go out to the bar. They can’t live alone. They can’t walk into a parking ramp at night. They can’t walk down the street. They can’t do anything, because doing anything increases the risk of rape.
And so we don’t give women the tools to avoid sexual assault — because to a large extent, there’s no way to protect yourself completely. Instead, we make them feel afraid to live, and if they are raped, feel responsible for their own assault, feel that if they had only not drank/not dated/not befriended/not walked/not lived, they’d have been fine.
I’ll tell my daughter this about rape: the best you can do is trust your instincts, trust your friends, and know some basic self-defense, but the truth is that just as I could be mugged at any time, she could be raped at any time. Her choice will be to either fold up shop, or to simply live life as unafraid as she can. I’m going to push her toward the latter.
If I had a son, I’d tell him a number of things, most revolving around the fact that if your partner isn’t actively and obviously consenting, you should treat them as if they are actively and obviously objecting, and when in doubt, ask. One would think that would be obvious, but most men aren’t given that lesson. I wasn’t; I figured it out for myself, but not everyone will.
This comment was written by Jeff Fecke.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
But I chose to be fully conscious, to be completely sober! i was drugged against my consent.
That was snark. you’d have to tell ppl to NOT EXIST in order to be sure they weren’t taken advantage of. pointless advice. my point was there is NOTHING you can say to a girl that is going to prevent her from being raped. it’s mostly chance, nothing to do with the girl’s actions.
instead of “Don’t get paralytic drunk around a bunch of strangers” i think better advice is, “take a self defense class”, and “Don’t get paralytic drunk” without the around strangers addendum. also, “be careful who you date - don’t trust someone too soon.”
This comment was written by casey.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
For a man to force himself sexually upon a woman who is not his wife is haraam, forbidden by Allah (May His Name be Praised). I condemn it.
That said, I try to maintain a distinction between positive statements (based on sensory data) and normative statements (based on cultural norms). Statements such as “evidence shows a correlation between binge drinking and being raped” seems pretty evidenced-based to me; the statement seems susceptible to some degree of testing. Statements such as “binge drinking causes rape” are trickier; different people have different concepts of causation, and nearly every phenomenon can be said to have multiple causes.
In contrast, statements using the words “blame,” “deserve,” “fault,” etc., are generally normative statements. I may agree or disagree, but I do so base on my world view, not based on evidence. I may accept the world view offered by Allah (May He Rule Forever) through the words of His Holy Qur’an, or not, but I recognize it as one world view among many, and I don’t confuse a discussion of world view with a discussion of data.
Here we have an article saying that reports of rape have increased 38%. According to a police lieutenant, most of these cases involve women who “start out in bars or at a house party and end up drinking too much…. They can’t consciously make a good decision, like say no and leave. Or maybe they’ve had too much to drink and can’t leave.”
Have reports of rape increased by 38%? I don’t know, but this strikes me as a testable proposition. Are more than 50% of the victims in these cases women who had – within the prior 12 hours, say – been to a bar or house party and consumed alcohol? I don’t know, but this strikes me as a testable proposition. Would more than 50% of the victims say that alcohol impaired their ability to make good decisions, to say no, and/or to leave? I don’t know, but this strikes me as a testable proposition. In short, these strike me as positive statements, based on sensory data.
I did not see the words “blame,” “deserve” or “fault” anywhere in the article. I swear to Allah (Praises be to Him), the only place I find any hint of normative statement is the first sentence, which refers to the “rapes in which the rapists assault women who go on drinking binges….” That is, the article specifically identifies rapists as the assailants.
So why are people so offended by this article?
I sense that, for some people, any mention of certain words requires the immediate introjection of a statement about a world view with respect to the word in question. To these people, any speaker who omits the introjection is, by implication, asserting a contrary world view. Thus, because the article mentions rape but neglects in introject the author’s world view with respect to rape, some readers draw the implication that the author must hold a world view contrary to the reader’s.
I simply don’t draw that inference. Moreover, do people really want reporters to be constantly introjecting their world views into discussions of more or less factual phenomena? Allah (All Praise Be His) only knows, but I could do without it.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I love this line:
“They can’t consciously make a good decision, like say no and leave. Or maybe they’ve had too much to drink and can’t leave.”
The problem with date-rape isn’t the woman making a bad decision, it’s making no decision at all.
See the line where you revealed yourself to be a judgemental asshole? He basically is saying that the MRA-trope of “oops-regret-rape” is most of the cases in this drunken-rape thing. That is, that most of the women claiming rape ARE making the decision (and thus it’s not really rape, just regret), just making the WRONG one.
This comment was written by Silenced is Foo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
my point was there is NOTHING you can say to a girl that is going to prevent her from being raped. it’s mostly chance, nothing to do with the girl’s actions.
There is no fault or blame to be associated with the girl’s actions; all responsibility lies with the actor, the rapist.
And it is true that there is no way to prevent rape, i.e., to establish a 100% certainty against a rapist deciding to target you. The supply of desert islands is limited.
At the same time, it is a mistake to teach women that they have no agency whatsoever in their life. If I decide to go out walking late at night in Junkietown, it’s not my fault if I get mugged, but I can certainly rationally recognize that “walking late at night in Junkietown” was not an outcome-optimizing choice on my part.
Women often get bad advice, from a well-intentioned place. The fact is that walking alone at night isn’t the big rape risk factor for women; the majority of rapes happen elsewhere. That doesn’t mean that avoiding situations of isolation and vulnerability isn’t intelligent probability-managing for a woman, it just means that those aren’t the probabilities that are most likely to result in a bad outcome.
RonF shouldn’t be teaching his daughter not to drink with strangers, he should be teaching his daughter how to recognize the kind of men who can’t be trusted - and ensuring that she understands that there is no 100% guarantee on that. Predatory men are tricky.
But, at the end of the day, it isn’t womens’ collective job to figure out the magic formula for not being raped. It’s mens’ collective job to stop raping.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
For a man to force himself on any woman regardless of marital status is wrong!
This comment was written by Renee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Woah! Rape is ALWAYS wrong, no matter the victim’s marital status…
This comment was written by casey.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I agree with you Robert.
This comment was written by casey.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Nowhere did I say that a person’s level of consciousness has no effect on their likelihood of being victimized. In fact, I said the opposite:
“Is an unconscious woman an easier target than a conscious one? Yes. ”
What I was objecting to was jed’s statement that these women “WOULD NOT BE IN JEAPORDY if they still had control of their senses.” Of all of my friends who have been raped, not a single one was drunk or otherwise impaired at the time. Women are in jeapordy from rapists based solely on being female. And I think it is dangerous to suggest, as jed seemed to be doing, that if women simply didn’t get drunk, they wouldn’t get raped. Even if you follow such a statement up with “But, of course, it’s only the fault of the rapist” you have drawn a clear line from the woman’s actions to her fate, and effectively blamed her for being raped. It’s a short line from there to “And if women would just not be alone in rooms with men who they do not intend to sleep with,” and from there to “If she’s alone in a room with a man, she’s asking for it.”
And while there may be men who would never rape a woman if she were not drunk or otherwise impaired, a man who will rape a drunk woman is a man who will rape a conscious woman, if he can figure out a way to do it. A man who will do that to a woman isn’t only a rapist around drunk women. He’s a rapist all the time, and if there were no more drunk women he wouldn’t stop being a rapist. Most of them would still rape women - they’d just rape the next easiest level of women; homeless women, mentally impaired women, women in foster homes, women in jail, young women, women who work for him, illegal immigrant women, etc. etc.
Not being drunk keeps you out of the “easy to rape women” category, but it does not stop the rapist, and therefore is only useful in shifting the pattern of rapes, not in preventing them.
This comment was written by ADS.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“Not being drunk keeps you out of the “easy to rape women” category, but it does not stop the rapist, and therefore is only useful in shifting the pattern of rapes, not in preventing them”
This is a WONDERFUL point!
This comment was written by casey.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Ridiculous. Most women are raped by people they know … I suppose we should tell women not to know people?
The headline should not be “More Rapes Linked to Young Women on Drinking Binges.” It makes it sound like the women are doing the raping. The headline should be, “More Rapes Linked to Men Sick Enough To Take Advantage of Unconscious or Impaired Women.”
This comment was written by Madeline.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Let me try to explain this using an analogy that doesn’t trigger the anti-patriarchy reflex. When leaving your car unattended, you can significantly reduce your chances of having it stolen by taking the keys with you rather than leaving them in the ignition.
It shouldn’t be this way. In a better world, you could leave your car unattended with the engine running, the windows rolled down, a big pile of hundred-dollar bills in the front seat, and a baby in the back seat, and nobody would lay a finger on it.
Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world. There are bad people who will steal your car if you give them half a chance. It would be really great if we could get them to stop doing it. But until we get that one figured out, the next best thing is to lock your car and take your keys with you. The baby and money, too.
This doesn’t guarantee anything. Someone can still break in and hotwire your car. But it’s much more likely to be stolen if you fail to take these basic safety precautions.
Pointing this out isn’t blaming the victim—it’s giving potential victims information they can use to protect themselves from the bad people who live in our less-than-perfect world. Everyone understands this in every other context. So why do so many of you have a problem with it in this context?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 3:02 am
” For a man to force himself sexually upon a woman who is not his wife is haraam, forbidden by Allah (May His Name be Praised). I condemn it.”
For a man to force himself on any woman regardless of marital status is wrong!
You may want to take another look at the last two paragraphs of nobody really’s post.
This comment was written by Phlebas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 3:33 am
This was not intended to come off as snark. It was intended to show how the reasoning behind “don’t be female, or someone might take advantage of you” doesn’t work.
I don’t see how this part could be true: Nothing can be said to a girl that is going to prevent her from being raped. I don’t think you mean to imply that a particular woman is fated to being raped. See Brandon Berg’s comments. His comment expresses much better what I’m trying to say. Also, besides giving negative advice, we should also give the positive advice that you and others (Jeff, I think) mentioned (take a sefl-defense class, etc.).
Yes. I am not suggesting you brought a drugged state upon yourself. I was simply trying to say that being drunk is not the only way to have compromised awareness/consciousness. I don’t think we disagree; I think I’m just having difficulty being clear.
This comment was written by Annie.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 6:10 am
Wrong.
And therefore the conclusions you draw from your false premise are wrong.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 6:18 am
The headline should be, “More Rapes Linked to Men Sick Enough To Take Advantage of Unconscious or Impaired Women.”
Good point!
In a better world, you could leave your car unattended with the engine running, the windows rolled down, a big pile of hundred-dollar bills in the front seat, and a baby in the back seat, and nobody would lay a finger on it. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world.
And yet, there are cultural differences in different areas of the world. When I was in Japan with the Scouts we were on a bus tour of Toyko. At one point we all got off the bus at a certain point, walked around, met some people, etc., etc., got back on the bus and took off. Two blocks down the road one of the Scouts realized she’d left her expensive camera sitting in a public building’s lobby. It took around 15 minutes to turn around and go back. She was quite concerned. But the guide said “That camera will either be right where you left it, or in the hands of the nearest policeman.” The cop had it. What do you think would have happened to that camera in [your_favorite_American_big_city]?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 7:17 am
Dang thieving cops. Good thing you caught up to him before he fenced it.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Jeff Fecke:
First question: Why does this responsibility belong with men?
Specifically why should John be held responsible for preventing rape in a any way that Mary isn’t? I agree that John has a moral responsibility not to rape anyone. So has Mary. Why should a responsibility beyond that attatch to John and not Mary, merely because of the way the genetic dice roled.
It seems to me as though you’re advocating a caste system here, based on birth. Got an X chormosome? Your’re responsible for prevetning rape.
Second question: Why should Mary not be encouraged to take responsibility for her own safety from rape, not because of any a priori moral responsiblity, but because she is in a better position to influence the situation?
Specifically, there are a number of risk factors associated with Mary. Some are not under her control, such as being female. Others are, such as whether or not she drinks to incapacity. Mary is in a better position to control those risk factors than John is. In fact, 99.99999 percent of the Johns in this world have no contact with Mary, therefore, to a first approximation, no ability to influence her risk factors. What good does it do to hold them responsible when there is nothing they can do to about it?
(quoting RonF):
Even if you were right, your remark is still an ad hom.
If the goal is to eliminate any chance at all of being raped, then you are correct, it isn’t possible to do that without avoiding people altogether, which is just another way of saying that it isn’t possible period.
But if the goal is to reduce the risk significantly, then it’s not true to say that it isn’t possible. According to the owner of this site “if you are not associating with a certain kind of people or engaging in high risk behaviors, the odds of you being raped plummet close to zero.”
I don’t know whether he’s right about the “close to zero” bit. But since the entire site is basically a whole load of obvious-when-you-think-about-it advice, It’s pretty obvious that following it is going to reduce your risk significantly. Moreover, unless you actually enjoy living dangerously, it’s not going to significantly impoverish your life to do so.
Utter rubbish. These are not the risk factors for rape. Quoting from the same link as above: “The good news is that the “jump out the bushes rapist is
A) the rarest type and
B) the easiest to avoid and prevent.
The same measures that keep you from being robbed will protect you from being sexually assaulted in this manner. So the odds of this happening to you are pretty rare to start with and a little bit of knowledge and a few simple, commonsense measures will greatly reduce those odds even further.
Here we are in entire agreement. You feminists are not giving women the tools to avoid sexual assault. Instead of pointing them to sensible advice such as the links I give above, you terrify them with claims about tides and epidemics of violence and inflated rape statistics.
Now, that’s one area I think feminists do a generally good job. My main objection to feminism is that they do this in ways which marginalise and blaming men and male victims in various ways. Feminists could, if they chose, do the same good job with female victims without marginalising and blaiming men and male victims.
I agree with going with the latter, but honestly I don’t agree that this is the best you could do.
Here’s a practical suggestion: Teach her to drink.
I mean, as late as you can, but before she starts drinking with her friends, go and get a bit drunk with her. Not paralytic. Not plastered. Just merry. Teach her to pace herself. Teach her to recognise when she’s had enough, and stop. (This of course assumes that you have those skills.) Also, plant the idea that getting paralytic really isn’t at all fun, and just because other people are doing it doesn’t mean that she should. I was about twenty five years old when that last idea spontaneously occurred to me, and I’ve never been paralytic since. I just wish someone had planted the seed earlier.
Well let’s turn the question you asked RonF around. Do you intend to tell your daughter these things? I don’t mean in the sense that these are her rights, but in the sense that you would tell your son, that these are her responsibilities.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
July 31st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I don’t know, but I once retraced my steps a quarter mile or so on busy London streets, and found my wallet where I’d dropped it on the pavement. (That’s “sidewalk” to you folks across the water who don’t speak English.)
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 11:15 am
I have been on a few drinking binges in my life (mainly when I was in college), and I enjoyed them tremendously.
I agree with the notion that it is safer to refrain from a drinking binge than not. Similarly, I agree with the notion that I might be safer if I stay indoors late at night, or decline to ever be alone with a man. But it does not follow from that notion that young women SHOULD refrain from drinking binges or going outside at night or being along with aman. See, telling women what they SHOULD NOT do is an effort to restrict women’s freedom. As others in this thread have pointed out, there is always a risk. The WOMAN should be the one to decide the degree she is willing to increase her risk versus the degree to which she is willing to restrict her own activities — not the cops, not the press, not the various “well-wishes” in her life.
Women aren’t dumb. On those occasions when I drank to excess or hung out alone in a young man’s dorm room, I took a CALCULATED risk that the pleasure from these activities was worthwhile and that, under the particular circumstances, the risks were minimal. But if it had turned out I was wrong and I had gotten raped, everyone would have said that I courted disaster by my behavior. But the alternative would have been living a restricted life deprived of certain freedoms and pleasures. That’s why victim-blaming is so pernicious — it affects the lives of all women, not just women who have been raped, because victim-blaming pressures us into dependent, and restricted lifestyles.
I would also note that men are equally likely — if not more likely — to reduce their risks of being violently victimized by not walking about late at night, or getting falling-down drunk. Men are often the victims of bar-fights and street muggings. Yet, we don’t seem to have a culture of constantly lecturing men or wringing our hands about many men’s penchant for walking around alone at night or hanging out in rough night spots.
This comment was written by Maggie Fox.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 11:35 am
Why are people who indulge in rape denial (e.g. Daran) being allowed to post on a thread about rape?
Or, more to the point, why is he being allowed to post as if he were contributing to the discourse rather than engaging in anti-feminist, anti-women trolling?
I’ve had it: fuck off Daran. Anyone who spouts off about “inflated rape statistics” is a hateful pig.
Yeah, Alas moderators, I know the drill: spewing unsubstantiated misogynist bullshit is okay as long as you’re doing the hating and minimising politely, while showing some honest feminist rage and disgust is so fucking unseemly. Never mind that the troll you’re blasting has been here for fucking ages, so wore out the, “well, he’s new to all this so show some understanding” pass a LONG time ago. The mean one, the bad one, in this will be the woman.
What the fuck ever.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I had a similar experience: some years ago I was riding the subway home from a meeting in the city when I noticed two young men (in their late teens or early twenties) traveling together, one of whom was quizzing the other passengers as to the nearest subway stop to the hotel where they were heading, if they could grab a cab there, and how much the cab would likely cost. Since my car was parked near my stop and driving to the hotel would take me maybe ten minutes out of my way, I offered them a ride and they accepted. Even while I was offering a voice in the back of my head was saying, “Great, you’re letting two young guys you don’t even know into your car, at night, and no one else knows you’re doing this or where you’re going. What are you, nuts? This could end very badly.”
It did not end badly: I drove them to their hotel, they got out after thanking me profusely, and that was the last I ever saw of them. My snap judgment that they were exactly what they seemed, two young guys without a lot of cash in an unfamiliar city, was proven correct. (One of them was a good deal better-looking than the other, and the plainer one did nearly all the talking. Had it been the other way around, had there been any suggestion of a pickup line, or had either of them in fact asked for a ride instead of directions, I probably wouldn’t have offered.)
I’ve also stopped, selectively, for stranded motorists on the highway. Elderly guy driving a grandpa car on a Sunday morning, yes; three brawny, shirtless guys draped over their Vette, I don’t think so.
I’ve done some poking around on the self-defense site that Daran linked to, and at the risk of getting flamed I’m going to say that this page makes a lot of sense to me. In a nutshell, look out for men who are highly narcissistic and don’t respect other people; these are hallmarks of the personality type that’s most likely to commit rape and other crimes. I think this is a good thing to know.
And I also have to admit I like the advice about getting your daughter (and your son) a bit looped. I had the good fortune to get as drunk as I’ve ever been under very safe circumstances, at age 16. The experience was extremely unpleasant, and I’ve never wanted to repeat it. (I can’t exactly get paralytic, as I seem to be equipped with natural Antabuse that kicks in after the second or third drink. I can tell when the next drink will make me violently ill, and no one orders me a drink I haven’t asked for more than once. But I digress.)
There’s a fine line between saying “here are some strategies than can lower your risk of rape” and saying “you’d better take responsibility for not getting raped, because otherwise, well, I’d hate to see you get hurt.” So don’t dress provocatively, don’t flaunt yourself in public, because you never know what might set a man off. In fact, to be safe, you’d best not leave the house at all unless you’re covered head to foot and escorted by a male relative. This is the world’s oldest protection racket.
Women like Maggie and me aren’t stupid, we are adults, yes, we take the occasional calculated risk, and we don’t care to be patronized or infantilized.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I am neither trolling, nor have I said anything which is anti-women. I admit to criticising feminism and feminists. If Jeff or Amp don’t want me to comment here, they can tell me to leave, or use the comment rules plugin to limit the discussion to feminists only, which plugin, by the way, I created.
I defend sound scientific investigations into rape prevalence. What I criticise is the distortion of their findings, and the citing of twenty year old statistics as though they were still current. I do this, because I think both women and feminism would be better served if the information given to and by them was sound. I do not agree that any old rubbish will do, so long as it suits the party line.
Incidently, I take the same view about bogus figures for male-rape and for exactly the same reason.
Actually I have a better record for substantiating my claims than just about anyone else. Where’s your substantiation for your lie about me indulging in rape denial?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Maggie, I agree with everything you wrote. At no time did I say that women should do everything in their power to reduce their risk, no matter what the cost. Rather I advocate that women take control of those risk factors which they can control. I think that’s a much more empowering message than “for a woman to avoid rape, she basically has to avoid all other people”. And it’s that latter message, which is a direct quote from Jeff’s comment above, which I hear from feminists all the time.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
August 1st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The reason so many people talk about the role of women in avoiding rape is probably because they think that men who rape are unlikely to respond to “don’t rape” direction.
As this thread seems in no danger of getting side tracked:
What about that? How can we reach the men who rape in a manner that will change their behavior? Are they reachable at all?
I believe that we can, largely because I think that this is not entirely true:
I believe that rapists run across a spectrum, from those who would rape no matter what, to those would rape only in certain circumstances.* The former are men who will end up raping someone. The latter are men who may/i> end up raping someone if they meet those circumstances.
So if you drew a graph of
Men who would rape women in ___ circumstances
All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Few
I believe that the men who are on the far right hand side of the chart (i.e. men who would not rape in are most cases) are amenable to having their behavior changed.
This is a good thing, because statistics would suggest that the group of men who would rape a woman in a “low threat rape” scenario (e.g. passed out) is going to be much larger than the group of men who would do so in a “medium threat” scenario, and that this would continue up the chain. The smallest group of all is the men who are violent stranger rapists; I suspect they are unreachable through normal means and the most we can hope for is to catch them and put them in a small room with bars on it.
But I bring this up because the issue of “what women can do” and “which men can we reach” is sort of connected. Because the solution is sort of the same.
For men, the idea is to provide education to limit the number of situations in which they would act immorally. It is a gradual scale: it is easier to train men “do not ignore it when a woman is screaming NO!!” than it is to train men “even if someone says yes, if they are drunk, you cannot listen to them.”
But it is impossible to talk about retraining men if we need to pretend something opposite applies to women. In other words, training men effectively requires identifying how rapists think. In my mind, that includes acknowledging that most men are less likely to rape a woman who is yelling “no” than they are to rape a woman who is drunk, passed out, and naked. But of course, this can be–incorrectly–interpreted as “the goal of blaming the victim” because if you agree with that assumption, you could then conclude that women who failed to yell are at fault. That conclusion is true as stated, but it’s driven by an attempt to find a solution, not to blame the victim.
* Using adultery as a random example of this phenomenon: Some people sleep around. Some don’t, no matter what. But most folks are probably in a weird ‘middle’ category: they wouldn’t approach someone with the goal of sleeping with them, but if they got propositioned, while drunk, by a person who looked like their sexual fantasy come alive, they might not say no. This is by no means a good analogy to rape, and I”m not trying to insult anyone with the comparison–I’m just trying to illustrate the “wide variance” thing I”m talking about.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:20 am
I know less about men than you do, Sailorman (by definition, since I’m not a man and you are one), but I’m having trouble believing this. Most men I know would (I think) be less likely to rape an unconscious woman than a conscious one, although I grant that they’d be highly unlikely to rape a woman yelling “no” either, or any woman for that matter. (And, just as a nitpick, I don’t get the impression that most women who are raped while unconscious were naked when they passed out, but that the rapist undressed them, but here too I don’t know for sure.)
A man who would rape an unconscious woman would, I think, have to almost entirely lack a sense of chivalry, and would also have to enjoy “having sex with” a woman who didn’t respond to him at all. I’m not saying a sense of chivalry is a good thing (it’s another manifestation of patriarchy and all that); I’m saying that ime nearly all men have one, and it makes them want to protect rather than exploit anyone who is sick, weak, or vulnerable. To an extent this is biologically hard-wired: it’s what makes a man stay with and provide for his wife and children.
(If there were multiple men, the pack mentality could easily take over, and that would be a different story.)
Also ime men’s most common complaint about women they’ve had sex with is “she just lay there” or “I did (fill in sex act here) and she didn’t move at all, and/or she didn’t reciprocate.” I’ve met lots of men who wanted to manipulate women into having sex with them, but part of the challenge for such a man seems to be doing it while she’s awake. To “have sex with” a passed-out woman would be cheating, according to their rules.
All that said, I do think “don’t get drunk with people you don’t know, especially on their turf” is a good idea for everyone. The kind of person who would rape a passed-out woman would surely rob a passed-out man as well, or post embarrassing pix of him on the Internet. It would be “the victim’s fault” for drinking too much.
As for changing behavior, all the research I know of seems to point to male role models: if a boy’s father (or someone in that role) respects other people, the boy is likely to as well. Likewise a girl will be less likely to enter into an abusive/exploitive relationship if she sees her father respecting her mother.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 am
Huh. In the light of day my idea looks more stupid than it did when I typed it ;)
I guess I’m shooting into the wind. I really don’t have any idea why someone would do it, because I don’t know anyone who has. And of course the people who DO rape are not generally ones who admit it so it all seems like a guess.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“As for changing behavior, all the research I know of seems to point to male role models: if a boy’s father (or someone in that role) respects other people, the boy is likely to as well. Likewise a girl will be less likely to enter into an abusive/exploitive relationship if she sees her father respecting her mother.”
I’d say that’s true to an extent, but it’s more complicated than that. With a healthy environment and fulfilled physical and psychological needs, it is a lot more likely than if certain needs are not met.
For example, even if your parents are a model couple who will go on to reach 50 years of successful marriage, no DV, no marital or otherwise rape, no cheating, and even no argument - if the child has not their needs fulfilled, they are likely to look for help, and everyone does so in different ways. Some might go to the ‘bad crowd’ for help, for a sense of belonging for example, and be drawn into doing illegal things (like robbing people, cars, or attacking people in gangs). Some like me may withdraw socially to an unhealthy extent.
Keep in mind my parents were married and living together for almost 20 years (I was 19 when they separated). There was no DV, no rape, and no cheating, and as far as I know, no big arguments, nothing that rippled on me. My father treated my mother fairly well, and she treated him the same. Yet my psychological needs were not fulfilled. I’ve been depressed and repressed most of who I was for over 10 years - and yet few even noticed.
Basically, good parents also need to be good amateur psychologists and seek the problems of their children, and discuss them. Force the issue out, don’t let it linger like an infested wound. But don’t make it hard for them to get an issue out by being very obviously out against something and condemning it (being gay, trans, liking something or other as a hobby/career, a personal expression (earrings, tattoos, other body piercings, long hair, dreads and such), smoking cigarettes or weed or other such things that make an issue hard to get out.
If the parents are very open-minded, recognize something is up, and discuss it, make an environment where discussion doesn’t look like it’ll become a nightmare for the child, then chances are extremely likely that their psychological health needs can be met. Even if they get bullied or otherwise ostracized by others, they’d know they had a safe haven at home, and someone to talk to about it.
If those needs are met, the child is more likely to follow the advice their parents give, or at least try it/consider doing so. If the child resents the whole world, and feels like shit all the time, they’re not likely to trust anyone who isn’t in their situation.
This comment was written by Schala.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:16 am
[...] to meet in person. The assumption, by many feminists, that just because I am critical of feminism I must therefore be hostile toward female victims or women in general is a false [...]
This comment was written by Renee Throws a Curveball - Part 1 | Feminist Critics.Report this comment to the moderators
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
[...] While any of the above might be viable ways to respond to these “kind of question” (or similar points formulated as statements), which is how I introduced them in my previous post, they do not suffice to rebut Renee’s [...]
This comment was written by Renee Throws a Curveball - Part 2 | Feminist Critics.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
[i]Jeff Fecke: Look, you want to know who’s to blame for rape? Rapists are. There’s no excuse for rape. None. And when we spend our time bemoaning how those girls today drink too much and put themselves in jeopardy, we ignore the fact that those women wouldn’t be in jeopardy if those boys today would take the extraordinarily easy step of not being rapists.[/i]
Nobody has the right to steal property from you, to attack you, to enter your home as a burglar, to rape or to kill you…simply said, nobody has a ‘right’ to commit a crime against you.
This makes it clear, that the responsibility is with the criminal and not with the victim.
However this is the law in theory. In daily practical life such theoretical considerations are rather worthless.
We all know, criminals are entering jails and are released from jails daily and we know police cannot be everywhere to protect us in any situation of danger.
The argument that victims often know the aggressor is true for many crimes, like for theft, violent attacks, burglary - it’s not only in case of rape.
It wouldn’t help much the victim to argue ‘he was not supposed to do that/it’s my right etc. while spending a night in a hospital or many hours in a police station filling in reports forms and answering questions to investigators.
Crime prevention is an important subject and should be taken seriously by everybody, as everybody might be a target for a certain crime.
To think about crime prevention does not mean to blame the victim if something is happening. It’s also not rape denial.
Nobody is 100 percent safe, everybody might become the victim of a crime. But why to make it easy for criminals?
This comment was written by yohan.Report this comment to the moderators
August 6th, 2008 at 10:37 am
It’s well known that some men don’t consider it rape if the woman is dead drunk.They think that if she didn’t say no, it’s not rape, plain and simple.They would never rape a sober woman, but would rape a drunk woman.
This comment was written by Stefan.In the light of what has been said on this thread, if I had a teenage daughter, I’d let her know of this undisputable fact above, and then add “do whatever you wish”.
Report this comment to the moderators
September 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Most state laws are that if a person is not mentally capable to consent to sex, whether the victim is incoherant because of alcohol or drugs, knowingly or unknowingly, then it is rape or sexual misconduct or sexual assault (depending on the State the crime took place) because the person was not mentally able to say “yes” or “no.”
This comment was written by Stinker.Therefore, no matter if the circumstances were present, no matter if the cards were dealt and the hand was delivered, what the criminal does with the incoherant person is the CRIME. Either way, the victim NEVER asks to be raped, nor does he/she deserve it.
Report this comment to the moderators
September 11th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Just noticed this post. I view the original article and post as just one more reinforcement of the notion that “good girls” don’t get raped, and “bad girls” do. I agree that there are things women can do to try to decrease their chances of getting raped, but like Maggie said earlier most things in life are a calculated risk. Sometimes that risk turns out badly. That is NOT the fault of the risk-taker. Rape is not a suitable punishment for drinking too much, and women who report a rape do not deserve to be investigated like criminals. I see on blogs and comments that some people have internalized these safety checklists so much that they feel they deserve what happened to them, or that they have no right to complain because they shouldn’t have gotten drunk/gotten in that car/worn that dress/went to that party.
For those who say that rape/sexual assault is overblown, when I was in college 15 years ago (and I will admit that times change), I will say that MORE than 2/3rds of my female friends attending my Ivy League university had been sexually assaulted (not all to the point of penetrative sex) and that 90% of them were assaulted by “good friends”, partners, family members, family friends, or people who had otherwise been known to them for a while. Not new partners, not strangers, not people barely known to them. Some were drunk, most were not. Not a single one (including the rapes) was reported. WE WERE 20 YEARS OLD! I bet it is way more than 2/3rds of my female friends who have been victimized by now… and I know from talking to other people that I am not a statistical anomaly here unless we all are.
This comment was written by JaneDoh.Report this comment to the moderators
September 25th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
So, you think that we cannot expect men to not rape drunk women just because they are drunk????
This is simply pathetic! A REAL MAN would take care of a drunk woman, protect her, and make sure she would be home safe! Because the REAL MAN likes to have sex with a woman who actually also wants to have sex with him! Because the REAL MAN has self-esteem and self-respect . . . because the REAL MAN does not need to take advantage of a vulnerable woman to find a sex partner.
How would you feel if you were to be raped anally, just because you were too drunk to fight, and you came across a deviant who wanted to take advantage of you?
THERE ARE NO ATTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR RAPE. THERE ARE NO EXCUSES! NOTHING IS AN INVITATION FOR RAPE! ZERO TOLERANCE!!!
This comment was written by mr.groove.Report this comment to the moderators
November 5th, 2008 at 5:44 am
This view has left me dumbstruck I have recently started first year at a university that is synonomous with alcoholic students. Even though this may be the view of many institutions and the public perseption about my campus I am happy to say that not all students live up to this demeaning title. I am surprised that anybody would dare try to pin the rape of a woman on that woman regardless what her driking habits are it is a barberic act to perform on another individual. No one deserves to be raped wether they are drinking barrels or sober heads. As women we have been created to be protected and loved by men if one can not perform this duty but rather abuse it they do not desrve to be called men.Yes some women do put themselfs in danger but one never hopes to be raped and I refuse to believe that one would willinging put themselfs in this kind of position it is up to individuals to seek help when such discusting thoughts enter their minds to bring apon such pain to another individual. With this said we live in a dangerous world were one can’t even trust they own relatives anymore so women even men need to take better care of themselves but it is very dissapointing that one can hold the victim at fault for being raped.
This comment was written by angelina.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
[...] Not just male rapists, but men as a class. All men. Even the most moderate version of it - that responsibility for preventing rape lies with men, here articulated by Jeff Fecke, no radfem he - carries that implication. Why else should John, who [...]
This comment was written by Potential Rapists? | Feminist Critics.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
[...] Not just male rapists, but men as a class. All men. Even the most moderate version of it - that responsibility for preventing rape lies with men, here articulated by Jeff Fecke, no radfem he - carries that implication. Why else should John, who [...]
This comment was written by Potential Rapists? (RP) | Feminist Critics.Report this comment to the moderators
January 5th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
[...] Not just male rapists, but men as a class. All men. Even the most moderate version of it - that responsibility for preventing rape lies with men, here articulated by Jeff Fecke, no radfem he - carries that implication. Why else should John, who [...]
This comment was written by Potential Rapists? (NoH vers.) | Feminist Critics.Report this comment to the moderators