Why is telling girls to be careful rape apologistic

[Waldo]

It's better to advice them...

 

Do exactly as you please, be reckless, have no consideration for your persoanl safety, have fun; and if anything bad happens to you (and it more likely will) you can console yourself with the fact that it isn't your fault.

 

Well, you can console yourself if you're still alive that is...

 

From a pragmatic perspective, that just seems plain nuts to me, and goes against my innate feelings of not wanting harm to come to other people.

 

---------- Post added 24-04-2015 at 10:54 ----------

 

Once they've been given the "helpful" advice of "don't go to the pub and get drunk", you can then blame them if they are attacked as they did what you'd told them not too (on a poster or in person or however).

 

So the issue in your eyes, isn't so much the advice (stay safe) being given, as the blaming of the victim because they didn't head the advice?

 

They are two clearly very separate entities, at least in my mind they are, let's be clear about that. The blame lies 100% with the rapist. If someone is making a connection between not taking more practical steps to stay safe, and, that making them in any way responsible for what happens to them; they're wrong to make that connection.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Waldo

[RootsBooster]

I have explained several times.

 

It's a pre-step to blaming the victim. Before you can blame them for "being in that situation" you have to first tell them "don't get into that situation". Once they've been given the "helpful" advice of "don't go to the pub and get drunk", you can then blame them if they are attacked as they did what you'd told them not too (on a poster or in person or however).

 

Various police spokespeople have demonstrably blamed victims in the past.

 

This doesn't explain why such advice would be taken as victim-blaming. It seems to be explaining that some people think that if that advice isn't heeded, the victim is to blame.

 

That is an entirely different thing, it's these people that are the problem, not posters or campaigns that give positive advice.

If people choose to interpret the posters wrong or try to use them as a 'Told you so' then this is the problem. I doubt these people would say 'told you so' if a child was kidnapped, even though there were plenty of Stranger Danger posters in the child's school.

 

Agreeing with them that the poster blames the victim does nothing to help the rationality of general society (which is already thin in some cases).

[Chris_Sleeps]

Telling people to be careful is sensible.

 

Telling people that they should or should not do something thus gives them a responsibity in what happens to them, and that is apologetics.

[RootsBooster]

Telling people to be careful is sensible.

 

Telling people that they should or should not do something thus gives them a responsibity in what happens to them, and that is apologetics.

 

Again, are there any campaigns that tell people not to do stuff?

[Cyclone]

Yes.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2015/04/sussex-police-s-victim-blaming-anti-rape-campaign-why-it-victims-not-rapists-who

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11522485/Police-rape-prevention-poster-blames-sexual-assault-victims.html

 

A police campaign to crack down on sexual assault has been criticised for suggesting that rape is the victim’s fault.

Sussex Police has created a poster saying: “Which one of your mates is most vulnerable on a night out? The one you leave behind.

“Many sexual assaults could be prevented. Stick together and don’t let your friend leave with a stranger or go off on their own.”

 

“However, the particular text and imagery of this campaign unfortunately falls into the tradition of a lot of similar campaigns which are targeted very much at victims and potential victims of sexual violence, rather than those who really have the power to prevent it - perpetrators and potential perpetrators.”

She said the police would be better off using their resources to target young men with messages about consent, and added that the poster could be damaging for sexual abuse victims:

“There's always a concern for us with campaigns like this that survivors of sexual abuse will see it and either be triggered by it, or find that it reinforces their own feelings of shame and self-blame and will make them less likely to speak to the police or seek specialist services.”

 

This tells women how to behave, and if they don't (and are attacked) they have then been set up to be blamed by ignoring the 'advice'.

[Waldo]

Why are we pandering to people who erroneously make a connection between 1) practical advice that may keep a person safe; and 2) placing the blame on the victim because they may not have followed that advice?

 

Is it better not to give out such advice; because some people lack the mental agility to differentiate between 1) and 2) above?

[woodmally]

I have explained several times.

 

It's a pre-step to blaming the victim. Before you can blame them for "being in that situation" you have to first tell them "don't get into that situation". Once they've been given the "helpful" advice of "don't go to the pub and get drunk", you can then blame them if they are attacked as they did what you'd told them not too (on a poster or in person or however).

 

Various police spokespeople have demonstrably blamed victims in the past.

 

But the point is we dont just do this for rape we do this for burglery, car theft etc. The police often advise members of the public to lock the doors of their house or car etc. Its stating there are evil people out there and yes the police are doing all they can to deal with them but we still need, unfortunately, to take precautions. Yet you never have anyone criticising the Police for other crime related advice campaigns only with refernece to rape.

 

So why is it pre-victim blaming to advise to take precautions on a night out and not pre-victim blaming to ensure that one locks the house or car door?

[RootsBooster]

Yes.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2015/04/sussex-police-s-victim-blaming-anti-rape-campaign-why-it-victims-not-rapists-who

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11522485/Police-rape-prevention-poster-blames-sexual-assault-victims.html

 

 

 

This tells women how to behave, and if they don't (and are attacked) they have then been set up to be blamed by ignoring the 'advice'.

 

...only as much as advice telling kids not to take sweets from strangers sets them up to be blamed if they are kidnapped.

 

Do you think a campaign telling children not to take sweets from strangers is victim-blaming?

[sgtkate]

But the point is we dont just do this for rape we do this for burglery, car theft etc. The police often advise members of the public to lock the doors of their house or car etc. Its stating there are evil people out there and yes the police are doing all they can to deal with them but we still need, unfortunately, to take precautions. Yet you never have anyone criticising the Police for other crime related advice campaigns only with refernece to rape.

 

So why is it pre-victim blaming to advise to take precautions on a night out and not pre-victim blaming to ensure that one locks the house or car door?

 

In an ideal world, I'd say it was victim blaming if you were given advice to change how you wanted to live (within the confines of the law) to avoid being a victim of crime. For any crime be it rape, theft, assault etc. And you do hear people saying 'well if you'd have locked your doors you wouldn't have been burgled!' Well perhaps if the burglar had decided not to burgle I wouldn't have been burgled either!

[Waldo]

In an ideal world, I'd say it was victim blaming if you were given advice to change how you wanted to live (within the confines of the law) to avoid being a victim of crime. For any crime be it rape, theft, assault etc. And you do hear people saying 'well if you'd have locked your doors you wouldn't have been burgled!' Well perhaps if the burglar had decided not to burgle I wouldn't have been burgled either!

 

You may not have been burgled if you'd locked your door; that doesn't mean you are to blame, if you are burgled (when you had your door unlocked). All it means, is there is less chance of it happening, if you do lock your door. That's all. It doesn't mean anything else.

 

The problem is, some people are extrapolating, and concluding that you are to blame because you didn't take preventative measures. The fact that it may not have happened, if you had taken preventative measures, does not equate to a placing of blame on the victim. How can people not see that?