I should have added the phrase “than by strangers” to the end of my first sentence, to clarify what I meant. Maybe that’s where the confusion lies?
You referenced “victim reduction” as being a good thing. Not “no more victims at all”, just reduction. So the fact that some women and children without family might also become victims of violence doesn’t diminish the fact that the larger danger for women and children is their ‘loved ones’ rather than strangers. In other words, if women and children didn’t have close family members/partners, they’d be victimized less. Not the same, just by other people…less.
“No more victims at all” is a subset of “fewer victims,” both of which are preferable to “more victims.”
Wearing clothes that strangers might find objectionable for gang-related reasons usually doesn’t increase one’s odds of violence by “loved ones” but it does increase the odds of violence by strangers. Therefore the overall odds are reduced by avoiding said outfits in gang areas. It’s not perfect but it’s somewhat better.
None of this is to excuse perpetrators, btw. The ethical and legal responsibility lies squarely with them. But everyone has a personal responsibility to themselves to take some account for their own safety. You can blame a gangster for beating you up but you can’t blame a shark for biting off your leg. Do yourself a favor and don’t piss off either.
Before I visited Glasgow, I was told about wearing colors that look too much like Rangers or Celtics kit.
Now, according to the majority view here, I guess I should have replied, “You are silly and obnoxious, that’s victim blaming and probably bigoted too. I’ll wear whatever I like, and nothing will happen to me.”
In the event, nothing did. But I wore brown and khaki most of the time. Was I letting down the enlightened patrons of this website??
The question which I think is at issue here is:
Do we live in a world where any person can wear any desired clothing, in any venue, without fear of harassment or assault?
If the answer is yes, then it’s perfectly appropriate, nay, a positive good, to refrain from warning anyone about the consequences of what he or she desires to wear.
If the answer is no, then it’s more complicated. Because we are not talking about advice given in the abstract within a combox, but rather advice given in person to a real world friend or loved one.
How would have felt if you went to Glasgow and got your ass kicked because of clothes, and then someone called you stupid?
I get what you are saying, there is a dichotomy we live in. But it is objectionable to try to defend the perpetrators in any manner and then half back out of it, and that is how most of this discussion began.
You’re never going to win with folks here. If you point out that stupid choices have consequences, you’re victim blaming and an apologist for violent people, no matter if you condemn violence and assaults. The only acceptable choice on progressive reddit this bbs is to agree with everyone else and not rock the boat. Otherwise, you’re risking a 30 day suspension for “victim blaming” (or what happened to @shaddack who got banned for a year for being both sexist and autistic).
As it is, mods are silently deleting posts here for the last few days without explanation.