This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Whenever the subject of feminist narratives comes up on this forum, one of the recurring arguments is that feminist messaging is ineffective, self-defeating even, the usual reason being given that it doesn’t reach the men it’s supposed to reach, and only reaches men who don’t need feminist messages in the first place because they’re pretty much acculturated in a feminist milieu anyway. (I know all this doesn’t necessarily sound fair or unbiased, but let’s ignore that for a moment.)
The most fitting example of this that is usually mentioned is the message that “we need to teach men not to rape”, which is supposedly a favorite of feminist activists on college campuses, corporate HR boards and elsewhere. Apparently they promote essentially the same idea as a great tool to combat sexual assault and harassment.
I don’t think I need to explain in detail why this argument sounds so dumb to the average man. Even when I come up with the most benevolent interpretation of this tactic that I can think of, it still seems misguided and, well, dumb. But then it occurred to me: the message makes 100% sense if we start from the assumption that modern feminists, eager to right cultural wrongs of the past that they perceive, really want to make sure their messaging never ever entails even a hint of the notion that women need to exercise any level of agency in order to avoid rape, assault or harassment of any type i.e. avoid bad men, because in all cases that would be “victim blaming” and horrific etc.
From that perspective, it all makes sense, sort of. Am I correct, or is there something else going on as well?
Why is "victim blaming" in quotes? You're actually blaming the victim. This is the second post I've seen this morning asking women to have more agency over being raped or assaulted.
You shouldn't have to actively cover your drink at a bar or avoid walking through a busy park in broad daylight because you may be forced into a portapotty and raped by a vagrant, or not take the subway becauss you mignt get groped.
Don't rape messaging isn't going to reach the criminals perpetrating these acts. But if you're correct in that is about avoiding putting blame on the victims, it is clearly still needed.
There must be some distinction to be drawn between "victim blaming" and "victim warning" though right? If a woman is raped, it would be victim blaming to tell her "well that's too bad, maybe you shouldn't have walked through the park", but the idea that teaching women to avoid walking alone in a park in a bad part of town is victim blaming and must be avoided at all costs just seems like an overextension of the concept to me.
There are signs all over San Francisco warning people not to leave valuables inside their cars, but this is never presented as some awful example of victim blaming. The only time this over-extension of the concept seems to take place is when anyone is asking women to have any agency over their own safety.
Crime can typically be thought of as a supply and demand problem and the best way to prevent crime is to attack both sides of the problem.
Yeah, the difference between victim blaming and victim warning is whether you think public policy and social norms should be shaped to protect victims as much as possible.
You can want that and also warn victims, or you can 'warn' victims as an alternative to doing that.
OP seems to be pretty explicitly saying that those things should be shaped to protect victims less, and place the burden of self-defense on the victims instead. That's not 'warning.'
I'm not sure I understand your view here. Warning victims seems like it would fall pretty squarely under protecting victims as much as possible, even if it isn't the only thing that would fall under that heading.
Maybe this is an example of two movies on one screen, but I didn't get that impression from the OP at all. OP isn't saying that public policy and social norms shouldn't be shaped to protect victims, but rather that the current attempts to do that are not very effective and are needlessly narrow in scope.
IANAL, but I think in legal terms I would be referring to mens rea.
Basically, you cannot distinguish whether or not someone is victim blaming from the simple fact of 'they mentioned something women could do to be safer'; that is an act that both victim-blamers and victim-defenders might do. What determines it is how that warning falls into their larger worldview on the topic, and what they are intending to accomplish with the warning.
If your view is 'society as a whole needs to do everything it can to protect potential victims, and giving them important knowledge about how to avoid danger is one part of that effort', you're not a victim-blamer and your warnings are fine and good.
If your view is 'people need to take individual responsibility for their own safety, we should educate them about the dangers but if they don't protect themselves after that then it's on their own heads,' then you are a victim-blamer, and your warnings are kind of sinister and instrumentally harmful.
Is it confusing that the same action can be good or bad depending on the intent behind it and the larger framework it is embedded in? Yeah, it sure confuses the shit out of me all the time! But that's unfortunately just true sometimes in the highly complicated realms of society and culture and politics, and us high-decouplers just have to acknowledge that reality and do the hard work of thinking about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because at some levels of obliviousness/recklessness it is on the victim. Especially when the fate has thrown her a warning or two. Like a girl going to a bar where you have warned her is junkies watering hole and then she follows one of the said junkies while he was high to his apartment when you pleaded her not to, and then she calls you panicked two hours lately while she is locked in the bathroom after attempted rape. Thankfully i got there in time and she got away from the whole ordeal with only a big scare.
Life is like a horror movie - after you ignore the side character, commons sense and pure luck's warning to turn back - whatever happens after you open the dark door and enter inside is on you.
This but for continuing to make racist/sexist comments at your job or on social media. If you get canceled for this stuff, it's not like you can say you had no warning.
Even here, very few people have a problem with this when it really is "continuing to". I think even some of the overt racists would see that as a case of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". It's when you get in shit for doing it once five years ago in a completely unrelated context that people start taking issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Either it's not victim blaming because we tell other people in similar situations (e.g. leaving a car unlocked in a bad neighborhood) to take preventative measures without that label. Or it is but it's a specific thing where we don't apply the same logic to other places, which raises questions.
Either way, I can get people putting it in quotes.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it's "blaming" to tell people they need to take responsibility to ensure negative things don't happen to them in their lives, to the extent that they can control those negative events. Some might say a better term than "victim blaming" would be "prevention". I shouldn't have to lock my house when I leave town for a week. But if I did that, would that really be wise? Why are we not teaching robbers not to rob, instead of teaching people to lock their doors?
More options
Context Copy link
I think there is good and bad victim blaming. Victim blaming means that there is some sort of self-protective behavior that you need to engage in, otherwise people will have less sympathy for your situation. It is bad if this self-protective behavior is unreasonable (walking through a park at daytime, taking the subway, never going out to party, taking self-defense classes, wearing a burka,...) or ineffective (drawing a blank here, is there any victim blaming that is entirely ineffective?).
It is good if the self-protective behavior can be expected and is effective. "Don't get blackout drunk.", "Don't lead a guy on, then deny him at the end.", "Don't go out to party alone.", "Don't go home with a guy you have just met, especially when you are drunk.", etc. These are all perfectly reasonable things that we can expect from anyone without restricting their freedom much. If they don't follow these rules, they are probably not mature enough to be drinking or having sex in the first place. Even under the best of circumstances, you should follow these rules because there are always bad people around.
Then there is another category of advice that isn't tied to victim blaming. It's just good advice like "Communicate openly what you consent to and what not", "If someone does something sexual you don't want, verbally and physically fight back, don't freeze up." Here, it would not necessarily reduce my sympathy for someone, who didn't follow this advice, but it's still good advice.
More options
Context Copy link
It's in quotes because it's not victim blaming. The idea that any argument other than the one that men need to be taught not to rape is essentially victim blaming i.e. accusing women of inviting rape upon themselves is dishonest and nonsensical. Yes, you should not have to be vigilant about getting roofied. There should be no social context where that is advisable. But there still is.
And why is feminist messaging clearly needed when it's not reaching the rapists? I'm all ears.
How about walking through the park or on the subway? Not much you can do about that unless escorted by bodyguards at all times. I guess i don't get your message here. Yes telling men not to rape is stupid, anyone willing to listen is already not going to rape. I get that part.
You go on to make claims about agency and the true message being not to victim blame, if that is the case then it isn't stupid and probably a message that still needs to get out there.
The notion that average women are routinely mansplained by mainstream society that walking in busy parks in broad daylight is to be avoided is preposterous. If, however, the argument is generally about the potential threat posed by mentally ill / drug-addicted aggressive homeless and vagrants, then I'd say that's a different kettle of fish, with all the political baggage that entails.
More options
Context Copy link
Unfortunately feminists instantly shout down even the mildest, most sympathetic form of this message as "victim blaming". I've seen it happen many times. The idea that one should take any steps to try to avoid being a rape victim is very much taboo in the public discourse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link