Oxford, slang term, whatever- It’s just the fact that somebody somewhere thought “you know, this comes up enough that we really should have a dedicated word for it…”
The preponderance of data tells us that an old adage might do better as folkish instruction if we reverse the language contained. Where it was said that “we only hurt the ones we love”, should now read “we only pretend to love those we hurt”.
It’s often the case that sexually violent actors insinuate themselves into a position of trust with their victim as part of the grooming or targeting process. This process is all the more fraught with danger when a prior relationship (immediate or close relative, friend, mentor/teacher, coach, acquaintance of a related adult, …) shapes the trust structure. Remember, the article focuses on kids who, by definition, are in the midst of a developmental maturation process continues through ~age 25.
Um, from any statistical point of view, fantastically well, especially if estimates of violence in prehistorical hunter-gatherer societies is accurate.
Edit: Oops: should have read to the end of the thread before posting.
Exacly! There’s a sexist bias that gives women automatic credibility around children, and puts men on the defensive at every turn. We expect teachers and daycare workers to be female. Men in those fields are expected to prove they’re harmless first. Typically when people talk about gender priviledge, they’re pointing at things that everyone agrees should matter, like monetary compensation. But being able to interact with children is also of value, it’s part of staying sane- and really only women are expeted to need to do it.
I just left a 5 year relationship with the mom of an autistic teenager, and just that brief membership in the “parent’s club” tought me an awful lot about the way the world is structured. Likewise, when I was a kid, I wanted to only be around adults. It never occured to me that I was being kept ‘safe’ from StrangerDanger.
In a lot of ways, the arguments fo how to keep children safe remind me of the arguments for and against wearing bicycle helmets. Laws requiring their use do reduce accidents, but at the same rate as they also reduce bicycle ridership. Doing the harder things, like creating bicycle trails and lowering motor speed limits make life safer for all bicyclists, but it’s easier to stop the conversation with the helmet, and make that the shibboleth. So too with children- if we made it safer for free range kids in public, everyone would benefit, not just the kids. But it seems easier to lock them up out of sight.
Fear can motivate people for only so long. Eventually we crave the positive.
1 Like
In many neighbourhoods you should avoid walking alone at night, in some maybe even during the day. If you are going out with people you don’t know well, you should let your friends and family know where you’ll be. You generally shouldn’t get black-out drunk anywhere, but especially not in unfamiliar settings, and especially not when you don’t have someone you trust to look after you if it comes to that. This is all good advice for everyone because it helps protect you from being assaulted (sexually and otherwise), from having your wallet stolen, and from other bad things happening. The idea we shouldn’t give this advice is foolish and I don’t think anyone seriously advocates it.
To me, this quotation shows where the problem is. When people start talking about how women should avoid putting themselves in harm’s way, they talk about not dressing provocatively. But dressing sexy doesn’t have anything to do with being raped. Children are raped, elderly people are raped (probably more than we know). While I assume there are people out there who are looking for women with a particular look and targeting them, we can’t guess what look that is. The problem with the conversation is that people who talk about teaching women how to “defend themselves” they are actually mostly telling them not to be sluts when that has very little to do with being raped.
So the reason you see people so aggressively framing this in a “it’s not women, it’s men” way is because they are reacting to really, really stupid things. Anyone with any sense will tell you that you shouldn’t leave your laptop sitting in plain view in the back seat of your car in a parking lot, but the flip side of that is that if your laptop does get stolen people don’t ask you if you did anything to make your laptop look expensive so that it would attract thieves. If people did go around asking stupid questions like that then we could have a “stop blaming the laptop owners, start blaming the thieves” campaign because it would be necessary.
The strong “stop blaming women” reaction is because people actually, truly blame women for getting raped, and people condone sexually exploitative and coercive behaviour in their friends and acquaintances.
3 Likes
It really is sad. My niece wanted to see the Lego movie, and my brother had wanted to see it as well, but was very busy when it came out so my sister-in-law took my niece instead. She said, “Well, you can just go see it later if you want.” My brother had to correct her - as an adult man he can’t go and see a movie that would have children in the audience by himself.
It’s even more scary to think of people having to think twice when they see a child in danger to consider how they will be viewed.
I think there are two questions here: the answer to “how can I personally avoid being raped in my current environment?” could involve risk avoidance and management ideas such as self defense and not going out alone too late at night. Teaching men not to rape makes no sense as an answer to this question, as this is out of your control.
As a general strategy to reduce rape in society though, it is pointless and offensive to focus on the victim’s actions rather than the culture around them - people may have to avoid areas and actions as a practical measure for their own safety, but they shouldn’t have to see these limitations as legitimate.
As an analogy, I may have to avoid cycling or walking on the side of some roads because the traffic is too fast and there are inadequate sidewalks/cycle lanes/lighting. I can still claim that I have a legitimate right to use that road, and that the real problem is with the drivers or the road layout. I’ll avoid the road where possible, but I won’t accept blame for an accident if I’m cycling there safely and visibly. Of course, drivers are not the same as rapists, but you get the idea.
3 Likes
Yeah, really well said. It really is two separate questions and the flame wars always seem to start when they get conflated.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
