TheAmazingRando wrote:I can't speak for Azrael, but I pretty much agree with the post you quoted. First of all, the topic of the thread is Rape Culture, not Rape Avoidance Strategies. How the victim should behave isn't really relevant to a discussion on those attitudes, ideas, and actions that motivate and perpetuate rape.
I've been here for over three years, and literally every single discussion about rape eventually gets derailed at one point or another by a discussion on how the victim bears some responsibility. It's almost never on topic and it's always brought up by people who obviously haven't bothered to read any of the other topics it has come up in.
It would be great if there were easy ways that women could drastically reduce their chance of being raped that were not also incredibly prohibitive, socially. But nobody ever presents any. It's always hypothetical, with maybe a few insultingly obvious (and, usually, mostly useless) tips off the top of their head, and that's when it isn't downright misogynistic. Surely you can understand how having every discussion derailed by what amounts to "hold on guys, lets brainstorm about what women are doing wrong here" wears on your patience?
Oh, I agree that those criticisms of the "victim blamers" plans are perfectly legitimate; I was referring to the criticisms both in the last couple of pages and way back in this thread that essentially said "yes, victim education will do some good, but not as much as perpetrator education, hence you're a bad person for supporting it over perpetrator education" (strawmanning more than a little). These are the statements that I feel conflict with the post I quoted, not any of the many statements of irrelevancy or repetitiveness or whatever.
Azrael wrote:Well, I probably should have stated a "do no harm" clause in there somehow. Addressing the rape culture, even if you think it's merely a wholly-owned subsidiary of a culture of violence does no harm. Attempting to blame any individual for not being vigilant enough when faced with the inestimably determination of another individual to perpetrate an immoral act can (and this thread has repeated the modes several times) certainly cause harm.
What do you mean by 'do no harm'? Are you implying that a victim-focused education programme (which, to the best of my knowledge is what the "victim blamers" are proposing) is actively harmful in and of itself, or only harmful to the extent that it removes resources from a perpetrator-focused education programme? The latter I can see and agree with (to an extent), while I don't see how the former is true at all (depending on implementation. I am assuming that the "victim blamers" are proposing something along the lines of "avoid dangerous situations. Travel in groups when at all possible. Don't get blind drunk". You know; solid, useful information for someone who doesn't know how the (small) subset of rapists who rape strangers operate).
If it is the latter, then I have another question: how is the paragraph that I quoted (with the 'no harm' clause inserted) internally consistent? Every effort to combat one problem detracts from the solutions to other problems, harming them. Is there some minimum level of 'no harm' that must be exceeded?