reply to post by Rosha
The meme originally came about in response to oppose "blame the victim" tactics used by many that effectively say " if you didn't wear
that, drink that, show that, say that or go there' - then you wouldn't have been raped'. This blaming of the victim dogma is prevalent in the
policing and court systems around the world and is also widely embedded in public consciousness around the world. The reply to this stance demanding
women acquiesce to rapists by changing their dress and behavior, being a case of " don't tell me what not to wear or do - tell men not to
Thanks for that, as it emphasizes the context of the 'training' and hence the thread.
I think this is an important point though, that you made (and talked about after that): this issue of blaming the victim. And of course it's what the
thread ends up in great debate about.
Part of the reason this comes about is because of the extreme response to 'rape' which has a very wide range of context but is fairly polarized in
our culture. If something is going to utterly ruin the man's life, and I mean way, way beyond repair, then of course every effort is going to be made
to defend him and that is perfectly fair, just as defense of anyone in court is fair.
It's obvious that a lot of that effort is going to be along the lines of, it wasn't rape because ____.
So the polarization of this subject is a great deal of what CAUSES the defense of rape and the blame of the victim.
That this only results in more polarization doesn't help, obviously. I feel that the more emotional hysteria levied at non-stranger rape, the more
polarized it gets, and the more both underreporting and victim-blame/rapist-defense kick in.
This happens on the witness stand and is one reason rape is so underreported (few women want to go through what amounts to another kind of rape as
part of the trial). I would like to see a more spectrum response to the topic which I believe could result in a much higher reporting ratio of rape,
this would help women and provide more corrective response culturally. It will not happen as long as the response to the claim, no matter what the
circumstance, is so extreme.
This happens in the family/friends/situation of everyone who knows the man. Were it a private issue of probably getting fined and counseled and doing
community service, people wouldn't be so frightened of the risk to a man they know or love and trying to protect him from utter devastation, and I
mean the kind of devastation to his life that in other contexts a person would be justified in killing to defend themselves from.
This also happens in culture in general, and this thread examples it pretty well. When a gradient situation is treated as something polarized, when
everyone has known good men [or at least just stupid-for-five-minutes in a nearly-engaged situation men] who've been ruined over a claim that in some
cases they don't even understand because they didn't perceive that way, they will be prone to think that is often the case.
Not to mention the whole spectrum of sexual issues that are injust toward men in our culture but are commonly ignored (such as BardingTheBard's
excellent message about this on page2 of this thread).
When that happens, reasonable people will defend men by default, not all men and not all situations but "in the benefit of the doubt about context"
situations, because the consequences for the man are so abominable, it would be sociopathic to do anything else.
Particularly when, in the case of most non-stranger/non-serial rape, the result of the follow up on a rape claim does not actually do anyone any good
unless 'making the victim feel better' counts against the utter destruction of his whole life (and again we're not talking about obvious rape here
but about contextual situations where men and women due to many differences and situational elements may simply disagree on what was legitimately
rape). I mean if there is ANY question whatsoever, I would not give a man over to the absurdly injust legal pretrial negotiations and court-case
incarceration-term minimums and all kinds of exclusionary evidence issues and more.
Anybody with a shred of empathy and who does not have reason to believe that a given man is a raping-cretin (as opposed to a generally decent man who
clearly had a disagreement on the dynamics of the situation, even if abetted by some degree of rudeness, stupidity or alcohol) is going to rightfully
fear the actual results of a rape claim against him.
And our legal system is such a disaster at this point that anyone thinking their being innocent or even had-reasonable-cause-to-consider-consensual is
going to surely result in that understanding in their trial, is suicidally pollyannic.
So making a claim of rape against a man is basically saying, "I hereby wish to utterly annihilate your life in every possible way." When a man is a
violent rapist or a serial rapist I think that is a fair weapon, in part because such people are so harmful to the culture at large.
If a man is not a violent or serial rapist, the social, public, professional, financial, legal, physical and more results of this are themselves a
heinous humane injustice, regardless of what our 'justice' system laws are. This is not to say there should not be any recognition or retribution
for behavior, but to say the current degree of 'rape' results are absurdly horrible, to the degree that unless I considered a certain man to be
genuinely "a criminal," and not just a man with a disagreement over a brief and often complex event, I would not even wish to see it come to
Some of that probably manifests in a degree of what's called blaming the victim, but if you look at this without biasing emotion, one can see that
"blaming the victim" is often simply part of "attempting to recognize the complex context of a situation which may have mitigating circumstances
which should make us reconsider whether a man truly deserves to be utterly destroyed over this." That doesn't mean one is saying "It's all her
fault" but it does mean one is saying "Look two people were involved here and he is not a lunatic attacker, the circumstance should be fairly
considered before judging him guilty of what's considered a heinous crime."
Less polarization, less blaming the victim.