andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 31,335
|
Post by andi9899 on Jun 20, 2016 20:29:56 GMT -5
I read the article and was like "Awe hell naw!" I would have been waiting for his ass when they landed. We would have been Kung fu fighting when he stepped off that plane. I wouldn't have cared if the police were there.
And for those of you who have the song in your head now, you're welcome.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,888
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jun 20, 2016 20:47:56 GMT -5
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 20, 2016 21:27:38 GMT -5
I saw a chaperone leave a kid alone in the airport to take the other to the bathroom. She was female taking a girl but what about the boy? I watched him for her but she just left him. Anyone could have gotten to him. I'm so glad my kids flew safely.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Jun 21, 2016 7:59:40 GMT -5
Oh, I don't know, maybe she was scared?
She's 13, cut her some slack.
TWO POSTS. TWO POSTS BEFORE IT'S HER FAULT GUYS. I understand the reluctance for someone to say that they are victim blaming. Blaming is a very harsh word.
Maybe we should refrain the question as, "why is the immediate focus on what the victim did or did not do?" Yes, there are steps we can take, and teach our kids to take not to be a victim, that's just common sense, but that should not be the immediate focus when hearing about an assault. Our first focus should be on the perpetrator and/or the host circumstances that allow the attack to take place.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 15:44:33 GMT -5
Oh, I don't know, maybe she was scared?
She's 13, cut her some slack.
TWO POSTS. TWO POSTS BEFORE IT'S HER FAULT GUYS. I don't think you understand the concept of "fault". Nobody said it was her fault, they asked why her reaction wasn't something different. In fact, post-action responses are never an indication of fault, because by rule the action has already occurred (unless you incorporate some sort of time travel scheme here).
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Jun 21, 2016 15:58:23 GMT -5
TWO POSTS. TWO POSTS BEFORE IT'S HER FAULT GUYS. I don't think you understand the concept of "fault". Nobody said it was her fault, they asked why her reaction wasn't something different. In fact, post-action responses are never an indication of fault, because by rule the action has already occurred (unless you incorporate some sort of time travel scheme here).
And you apparently don't understand the subtlety and insidious nature of victim-blaming. Questioning her reaction "why didn't she scream" is another way of asking "why did she allow the behavior to continue." By asking why she allowed it to continue, they are implying that she was in some way complicit in her own abuse, and that therefore she was in some way at fault.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 16:10:13 GMT -5
I don't think you understand the concept of "fault". Nobody said it was her fault, they asked why her reaction wasn't something different. In fact, post-action responses are never an indication of fault, because by rule the action has already occurred (unless you incorporate some sort of time travel scheme here).
And you apparently don't understand the subtlety and insidious nature of victim-blaming. Questioning her reaction "why didn't she scream" is another way of asking "why did she allow the behavior to continue." By asking why she allowed it to continue, they are implying that she was in some way complicit in her own abuse, and that therefore she was in some way at fault. So you using words incorrectly means I don't understand something? That's some logic you've got going there.
You're clearly looking to be offended...hence why you can't actually use the question someone asked...it has to be "well they said this...which is kind of like saying this...which could potentially be taken as meaning this...which I could interpret thinly to mean this...and if they meant THAT...well that would be bad". That's the sureshot sign of someone trying to twist a situation to fit into their own conceived agenda.
"Good morning" "Why did you say good morning? Why didn't you say Good DAY instead? Is that because you think my nights are bad? Because you think I'm some kind of drunken whore? I can't believe you just called me a drunk whore!"
FACT: "Good morning" secretly means "I think you're a drunk whore"...take a stand ladies!
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 21, 2016 16:27:32 GMT -5
But why ask why she didn't do X? What purpose does it serve?
The whole "to find out what she was thinking to help teach others" is pretty much a load of bull because every human has a different reaction to different situations.
Her reaction, regardless of what it was, wouldn't and couldn't keep her safe so what the hell does trying to figure out why she did what she did do?
The answer is a whole lot of nothing, but finding out and questioning the asshole who actually did the crime might do a whole lot of something.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Jun 21, 2016 16:27:59 GMT -5
And you apparently don't understand the subtlety and insidious nature of victim-blaming. Questioning her reaction "why didn't she scream" is another way of asking "why did she allow the behavior to continue." By asking why she allowed it to continue, they are implying that she was in some way complicit in her own abuse, and that therefore she was in some way at fault. So you using words incorrectly means I don't understand something? That's some logic you've got going there.
You're clearly looking to be offended...hence why you can't actually use the question someone asked...it has to be "well they said this...which is kind of like saying this...which could potentially be taken as meaning this...which I could interpret thinly to mean this...and if they meant THAT...well that would be bad". That's the sureshot sign of someone trying to twist a situation to fit into their own conceived agenda.
"Good morning" "Why did you say good morning? Why didn't you say Good DAY instead? Is that because you think my nights are bad? Because you think I'm some kind of drunken whore? I can't believe you just called me a drunk whore!"
FACT: "Good morning" secretly means "I think you're a drunk whore"...take a stand ladies!
You think restricting your interpretation to the most literal one possible while ignoring all possible context and background makes you correct? Doing that certainly limits your understanding of the world around you, yes.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 16:33:34 GMT -5
But why ask why she didn't do X? What purpose does it serve? The whole "to find out what she was thinking to help teach others" is pretty much a load of bull because every human has a different reaction to different situations. Her reaction, regardless of what it was, wouldn't and couldn't keep her safe so what the hell does trying to figure out why she did what she did do? The answer is a whole lot of nothing, but finding out and questioning the asshole who actually did the crime might do a whole lot of something. Because ultimately there are 2 paths to take. 1 is to look into the broader societal implications. 2 is to put yourself in that situation and think about it (you, or those you know). We put ourselves in the shoes of the victim rather than the attacker for the most part (because we typically attribute to the victim some sort of normalcy as a logical human being, we relate to them).
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 16:35:30 GMT -5
So you using words incorrectly means I don't understand something? That's some logic you've got going there.
You're clearly looking to be offended...hence why you can't actually use the question someone asked...it has to be "well they said this...which is kind of like saying this...which could potentially be taken as meaning this...which I could interpret thinly to mean this...and if they meant THAT...well that would be bad". That's the sureshot sign of someone trying to twist a situation to fit into their own conceived agenda.
"Good morning" "Why did you say good morning? Why didn't you say Good DAY instead? Is that because you think my nights are bad? Because you think I'm some kind of drunken whore? I can't believe you just called me a drunk whore!"
FACT: "Good morning" secretly means "I think you're a drunk whore"...take a stand ladies!
You think restricting your interpretation to the most literal one possible while ignoring all possible context and background makes you correct? Doing that certainly limits your understanding of the world around you, yes. Ahhhh, thank you. So me restricting my interpretation is wrong, but you assigning the most liberal one which fits your agenda is correct...correct enough that you scream and pitch a fit about it.
I appreciate it. I baited you right into proving my point and you did so immediately and without hesitation.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 21, 2016 16:42:46 GMT -5
But why ask why she didn't do X? What purpose does it serve? The whole "to find out what she was thinking to help teach others" is pretty much a load of bull because every human has a different reaction to different situations. Her reaction, regardless of what it was, wouldn't and couldn't keep her safe so what the hell does trying to figure out why she did what she did do? The answer is a whole lot of nothing, but finding out and questioning the asshole who actually did the crime might do a whole lot of something. Because ultimately there are 2 paths to take. 1 is to look into the broader societal implications. 2 is to put yourself in that situation and think about it (you, or those you know). We put ourselves in the shoes of the victim rather than the attacker for the most part (because we typically attribute to the victim some sort of normalcy as a logical human being, we relate to them). Except the very nature of human reaction to an attack is not logical (fight flight or freeze). The more logical one will often be the perpetrator, even if it is a perverse logic. Which, again, has nothing to do with the fact that trying to find out what the "victim" did wrong in no way helps the incident from occurring again.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,888
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jun 21, 2016 16:51:52 GMT -5
I don't think you understand the concept of "fault". Nobody said it was her fault, they asked why her reaction wasn't something different. In fact, post-action responses are never an indication of fault, because by rule the action has already occurred (unless you incorporate some sort of time travel scheme here).
And you apparently don't understand the subtlety and insidious nature of victim-blaming. Questioning her reaction "why didn't she scream" is another way of asking "why did she allow the behavior to continue." By asking why she allowed it to continue, they are implying that she was in some way complicit in her own abuse, and that therefore she was in some way at fault.
That may be a true statement for some people, but I believe that others are looking for ways to arm their own children against assault. General "if...then" statements are all good and fine but they don't take everything into account (like the events POM described). Now the more I know of a child's reaction, the better I am able to help my child. My very shy (and 100% hypothetical) daughter might need to be told by me 100X that not only is it ok to cause a ruckus when anybody touches her where they shouldn't. Or maybe my not so shy (black belt karate and also hypothetical) kid needs to be told that making origami out of someone who grabs their crotch is not the best idea and it is better to call the flight attendant right away.
As a parent I would know my kids better than most anyone, However. as NomoreDramaQ1015 mentioned earlier kids do not always do what parents taught them, but the more I know the better I can prepare them and hopefully they will have a chance. JMO
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Jun 21, 2016 17:38:33 GMT -5
You think restricting your interpretation to the most literal one possible while ignoring all possible context and background makes you correct? Doing that certainly limits your understanding of the world around you, yes. Ahhhh, thank you. So me restricting my interpretation is wrong, but you assigning the most liberal one which fits your agenda is correct...correct enough that you scream and pitch a fit about it.
I appreciate it. I baited you right into proving my point and you did so immediately and without hesitation.
Yes, I believe you are wrong. If you see that as proving your point, then ok. I post one post about this and I'm pitching a fit? Now who's being liberal in their interpretations, eh?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 18:34:54 GMT -5
There is literally ONE person in this entire thread who has written that it's the victim's fault...unsurprisingly...that's YOU. Then what you want to do is take someone else's post who did NOT write that, apply your own agenda, and try to make it sound like what they MEANT is actually what you WROTE. Then you want to take what you wrote, and apply your same agenda, to try to make it mean the opposite of what you actually wrote. You're grasping at straws.
And as far as pitching a fit...you're throwing a tantrum pretending that someone said something they didn't.
I would expect that someone who communicates so poorly would be the LAST person to try to add intent to someone else's post (unless you actually did mean that it is the victim's fault when you wrote it, which I don't think you did). Given that you actually DID write something reprehensible, you shouldn't be someone who decides that everyone else should apply their own fabricated intent to a post.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 3:27:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 18:43:01 GMT -5
Hoops are you having a rough day? Because you do not seem yourself on several threads...
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 18:50:05 GMT -5
Hoops are you having a rough day? Because you do not seem yourself on several threads... I'm having a great day, I don't get to post a lot anymore. I'm not sure what "seem yourself" means...if you know me at all you know I'm a contrarian who only posts on topics that I think are controversial where I hold minority opinions (and personally I think the gender topics hold the most opportunity for that).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 14, 2024 3:27:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2016 18:54:17 GMT -5
Ok then. Carry on.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 18:55:03 GMT -5
Because ultimately there are 2 paths to take. 1 is to look into the broader societal implications. 2 is to put yourself in that situation and think about it (you, or those you know). We put ourselves in the shoes of the victim rather than the attacker for the most part (because we typically attribute to the victim some sort of normalcy as a logical human being, we relate to them). Except the very nature of human reaction to an attack is not logical (fight flight or freeze). The more logical one will often be the perpetrator, even if it is a perverse logic. Which, again, has nothing to do with the fact that trying to find out what the "victim" did wrong in no way helps the incident from occurring again. Totally agree it's not logical, which I think is what drives people to consider "if that were me, how would I react? Why did this person in that situation react that way? What were they thinking? Did they just freeze up? Were they actively thinking something? etc". Nobody really wants to say "hmmm, if I were the guy groping a young girl, why would I be doing that?". I'm not saying we attribute the victim to be logical in the moment, but absent any information to the contrary, we tend to assume they're a normal functioning human being, much like ourselves. We typically do NOT assume the perpetrator is a normal functioning human being like ourselves. I'm not sure why people want to attribute "what did the victim do? What do I think I would do?" to "here's what the victim did wrong". If someone random punched you in a bar one night, I want to know how you reacted...none of your possible reactions make me think you deserved to get punched.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 21, 2016 19:26:23 GMT -5
You're baking for one of the first times as a kid. You move to take the pan out of the oven and burn your hand. Your mom is there and exclaims "why didn't you use a put holder?!"
Is your mom wanting to know about why you reacted the way you did? Or is she saying you should have used a pot holder so you wouldn't be in this situation?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 19:41:57 GMT -5
You're baking for one of the first times as a kid. You move to take the pan out of the oven and burn your hand. Your mom is there and exclaims "why didn't you use a put holder?!" Is your mom wanting to know about why you reacted the way you did? Or is she saying you should have used a pot holder so you wouldn't be in this situation? Is the child a victim in this situation? To answer your question though...that's a rhetorical question. I assume you understand understand the difference between a rhetorical question and an actual question (or more specifically, that nearly everything can be both depending upon how it is asked). The difference would be intent...the question is whether people who determine you're "blaming the victim" are actually able to decipher intent...particularly from a written question devoid of context. So to the question of someone getting punched in a bar. I can say "why didn't you punch them back" as an actual question, or as a rhetorical. The way I ask the question matters. The problem comes in when some people just decide that to further their own agenda and in order to act outraged, they are simply going to decide that they know the intent and will act on it accordingly. To this particular example though, the more analogous question would be "why didn't you pull your hand off when you felt that it was hot?". (Because we're not talking about something which could be implied as causing it...like "why did you wear such a slutty outfit", we're talking about something during the occurrence, but after there was an action (burn/grope)). So even in the worst interpretation it's never "why didn't you prevent it" in this instance, the worst intent could only ever be "why didn't you do something to stop it while it was happening".
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 21, 2016 20:05:24 GMT -5
You're baking for one of the first times as a kid. You move to take the pan out of the oven and burn your hand. Your mom is there and exclaims "why didn't you use a put holder?!" Is your mom wanting to know about why you reacted the way you did? Or is she saying you should have used a pot holder so you wouldn't be in this situation? Is the child a victim in this situation? To answer your question though...that's a rhetorical question. I assume you understand understand the difference between a rhetorical question and an actual question (or more specifically, that nearly everything can be both depending upon how it is asked). The difference would be intent...the question is whether people who determine you're "blaming the victim" are actually able to decipher intent...particularly from a written question devoid of context. So to the question of someone getting punched in a bar. I can say "why didn't you punch them back" as an actual question, or as a rhetorical. The way I ask the question matters. The problem comes in when some people just decide that to further their own agenda and in order to act outraged, they are simply going to decide that they know the intent and will act on it accordingly. To this particular example though, the more analogous question would be "why didn't you pull your hand off when you felt that it was hot?". (Because we're not talking about something which could be implied as causing it...like "why did you wear such a slutty outfit", we're talking about something during the occurrence, but after there was an action (burn/grope)). So even in the worst interpretation it's never "why didn't you prevent it" in this instance, the worst intent could only ever be "why didn't you do something to stop it while it was happening". Actually, it's not a rhetorical question. So it doesn't seem you are not always clear on what one is, nor cab you clearly decipher someone's intent. I know what my answer was, I honestly want to know what people think the question implies or means outside of the charged atmosphere of sexual assault. And no one answers it. When something happens to someone and they did X and you ask them why didn't you do Y, it's implied that you think if they did Y or didn't do X the outcome would have been different. You and others don't think that implication is there. Furthermore, you and maybe them, think that intent is a) purely unencumbered by anything our society has created and b) is more important than how the person on the receiving end of the question perceives it. I disagree. I think how someone that was hurt and violated perceives the questions matters more than someone's curiosity. I think good intent is better than malicious intent, but it doesn't absolve you from any outcomes of what you said. I don't bloody care what you intend with your line of questioning, I care about the impact of what that line of questioning does to victims, to their willingness to report, to the conviction rate of rapists. I think there's plenty of documented instances out there of victims saying and internalizing those exact questions people ask as blame. That fear of those questions, regardless of the person's intent, keeps people from speaking it and reporting it. And that people ask those questions when trying to determine if someone was really raped. (Which by the way those questions are used to further the agenda of rapists trying to get off)
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Jun 21, 2016 20:29:06 GMT -5
I was answering YOUR question about whether someone who says that really wants to know. I'm saying that for MY mom, that would have been a rhetorical question (because your scenario said it was me and my mother).
When something happens to someone and they did X and you ask them why they didn't do Y, of course it's implied that if they did Y and not X the outcome would have been different. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have still been victimized..but yes, of course if you do things, those things have results. If a butterfly flaps it's wings in Thailand there's a monsoon in Nova Scotia or something.
It doesn't matter what the victim internalizes when you're not talking to the victim and the victim has no knowledge of the conversation on a message board. There's no "internalization" of the victim...the victim isn't around. Nor frankly, does it matter what the victim internalizes. If I internalize that you saying "nice day out" means "she thinks it's nice because there aren't any black people around" that doesn't make you a racist. To that point though, I also wouldn't advocate asking a victim of a crime anything about that crime if it's not in a legal proceeding. There's a difference between "I asked you about the crime that was committed against you because I'm nosy and curious" and "I asked a question about that crime on a message board during a conversation about it".
Those questions should definitely be asked to determine if someone was really raped. Are you suggesting that when someone accuses someone else of rape we shouldn't ask them about the incident to determine if rape actually occurred? Nobody gets to say "they committed a crime, trust me, just convict them, but I shouldn't have to actually say what happened". You don't get around that by saying "I internalize those questions as blame, so don't ask me". And yes, of course those questions are used to try to beat the charges...no different than EVERY OTHER CRIME when they ask a witness something. The defense is going to ask questions which lead to acquittals, the prosecutor asks questions they think will lead to convictions. The entire role there is to try to discredit witnesses, it's not specific to rape, it's specific to the legal system. "Don't ask questions which might prove that your client isn't guilty" wouldn't be a very effective legal maneuver would it? Or do you just think that every accusation of rape must be true, and therefore there's no need to question the alleged victim?
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Jun 21, 2016 22:23:33 GMT -5
Well, you sure told me.
|
|
Sharon
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:48:11 GMT -5
Posts: 11,287
|
Post by Sharon on Jun 21, 2016 22:28:40 GMT -5
It happened againThe article doesn't say if this was an unaccompanied minor or not. I'm not sure how long the airlines will be able to go without answering that question.
|
|
whoami
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 12:43:49 GMT -5
Posts: 1,292
|
Post by whoami on Jun 21, 2016 22:42:54 GMT -5
Having served on a jury with charges including aggravated sexual assault of a child under 10, I can say this..... When our case started I have no doubt many if not all jurors were thinking the same as I was....what a scumbag. By the time the case was over, I thought the prosecutors should have gone to jail. The fact that they thought it was appropriate to present the case they did to us was appalling. These kinds of cases are highly emotionally charged and whether you believe it or not there is a great deal of public pressure to lock these people up and throw away the key even before any trial. Look at they way people are responding to this story. Not only did we not believe that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt....not one of us on the jury believed there had been any assault of any kind take place. I believe it was pure fiction and am completely comfortable stating that I believe he was not only "not guilty" but absolutely innocent. So yes, based on my own experience you damn sure need to ask people hard questions about their claims....because Ive seen what happens if you don't. Our case *never should have made it in front of a jury. Had the state done its job, the young man on trial wouldnt have spent his senior year in high school going to court charged with rape.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 22, 2016 5:22:12 GMT -5
WTF is wrong with men? Seriously, did they have no upbringing whatsoever? I was a single mom and still managed not to raise a pervert for a son.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 22, 2016 5:26:16 GMT -5
She's 16. Not an unaccompanied minor but should be able to sleep unmolested. I'm sure I've sat next to lesbians on planes but they left me alone. The only encounter I had lately was in a consignment shop next to MacDill and the military woman said I looked "hot" and followed me around the store a bit. But she got the message that I wasn't interested and let me alone after that.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 22, 2016 8:02:15 GMT -5
I don't think you understand the concept of "fault". Nobody said it was her fault, they asked why her reaction wasn't something different. In fact, post-action responses are never an indication of fault, because by rule the action has already occurred (unless you incorporate some sort of time travel scheme here).
And you apparently don't understand the subtlety and insidious nature of victim-blaming. Questioning her reaction "why didn't she scream" is another way of asking "why did she allow the behavior to continue." By asking why she allowed it to continue, they are implying that she was in some way complicit in her own abuse, and that therefore she was in some way at fault. If that's how you see it, that's how you see it. I'm sure you can look up how many rapes go unreported. Of course, you can't get an accurate statistics because they were, after all, unreported. In my opinion, it's vital that we ask "why didn't they" afterwards. If we don't, we can't work to make the reasons a non-issue. If we don't ask "why", we can't fix it. Why are these women not reporting? Because of the rape kit procedure? Because of law enforcement's treatment of a victim? Because they feel they were partially at fault? All those are reasons, along with many more. So now what? We've done some real work in these areas. It's not perfect and can still be improved upon, but not unless we know where the problems are. So yes. Asking "why" after the fact is not only ok, it's vital.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Jun 22, 2016 8:15:46 GMT -5
And you apparently don't understand the subtlety and insidious nature of victim-blaming. Questioning her reaction "why didn't she scream" is another way of asking "why did she allow the behavior to continue." By asking why she allowed it to continue, they are implying that she was in some way complicit in her own abuse, and that therefore she was in some way at fault. If that's how you see it, that's how you see it. I'm sure you can look up how many rapes go unreported. Of course, you can't get an accurate statistics because they were, after all, unreported. In my opinion, it's vital that we ask "why didn't they" afterwards. If we don't, we can't work to make the reasons a non-issue. If we don't ask "why", we can't fix it. Why are these women not reporting? Because of the rape kit procedure? Because of law enforcement's treatment of a victim? Because they feel they were partially at fault? All those are reasons, along with many more. So now what? We've done some real work in these areas. It's not perfect and can still be improved upon, but not unless we know where the problems are. So yes. Asking "why" after the fact is not only ok, it's vital. But asking "why didn't you tell?" is different than asking "why didn't you scream/push him away/go with him while you were drunk?"
Absolutely, we need to ask people who don't report why they don't tell, but immediately focusing the line of questioning on their reaction to the assault seems to be counterproductive to the reporting.
Investigators are trained to ask really open ended questions, such as what did he do? Then follow up with what did you do? There is a subtle difference in asking why you didn't push him away/scream/etc vs. just explain what you did.
Not too long ago, NY law required the victim to show "earnest resistence" to prove a forcible rape. It meant the victim had to actively fight back to prove force. So even if a guy had a knife at your throat, and told you that if you move, he will cut you, you had to fight. Those are the slight nuances that push some responsibility on the victim.
ETA: I understand the revulsion to the term victim blaming and why there is such resistance to wanting to label a line of questioning as victim blaming, and I'm not sure it rises to the level of blame. It's more the use of terminology that shifts the focus on the victim's actions instead of the perpetrator, where it should be. However, the more we talk about this, I'm hoping that people will start shifting the focus where it belongs, to why people do this instead of why do people not respond like I think I would in this situation.
|
|