Objectifying women

[Edwardo Piet]

Every statement I've read by the people hear explain it as a reduced risk option, yes? Then it's advice. Which means you are saying women should not walk home alone.

Not necessarily the case, no. I'd say that if a precaution reduces a risk it's still entirely the choice of the woman whether to take the risk or not. So I still wouldn't say "She should do X" because it's up to her. If she wants to take a risk she is free to do so. (And that's only if there's a risk of course).

And assuming there really is no evidence whatsoever that clothing makes any difference... that still doesn't mean it equates to victim blaming if I didn't know that.... because I never said "The woman should take a precaution".

A woman somewhere is going to be raped because they crossed paths with a rapist. You can say that all those times I walked home alone at 2am in a place previously stalked by a serial rapist as being risky, or I shouldn't have done it.

I don't see any sense in saying what risk or precaution you should or shouldn't take. It's your choice. If there's an increased risk more one way than another/if there are precautions to take then I would merely question if or state that I think that's the case. I wouldn't say "You shouldn't take that risk" or "You should take the precaution". It would be impossible to never take a risk, there are always risks, and it's also your choice what risks to take.

And here's the crux of the problem. None of you who argue "common sense" can see past your own privilege. Your common sense suggests woman should never wear sexy clothing, that every time she walks home alone she could be raped.

That's one example.

Whether clothing actually has anything to do with or not. There are other examples that do apply... such as ones Adrian has suggested like not walking home alone but taking a taxi or going home with a group of friends instead. This doesn't mean a woman 'should' do this it is her choice... it is merely acknowledging the fact that there are ways to decrease or increase risk.

Saying that a woman can play her part in decreasing or increasing the risk or her rape and therefore share a part in the risk doesn't mean that she shares a part in the responsibility of her choice to do so. It does not mean that because she can take a risk that she 'shouldn't' or that she 'should take a precaution instead.'

The point is that to acknowledge the possibility of taking risks or the fact that it makes sense to not take them if you want to play your part in decreasing the risk does not mean blaming the victim. Blaming the victim would be to say that you 'shouldn't take the risk' rather than stating the fact that if you want to help decrease the risk then it would make sense to take a precaution. Because whether it makes sense or not to take a precaution if you want to help decrease the risk.... it is still entirely your choice to take the risk if you wish. There is nothing to say what you should or shouldn't do with the personal decisions you have.

To acknowledge the fact that taking precautions can decrease risk (which is tautologically true, precautions must be able to do that otherwise they're not really precautions) and it makes sense to take them within the scope of a wish to reduce risk is not the same as saying that precautions should be taken as if it's the woman's fault she got raped in any way. Because the former only applies if risk reduction is her priority and there is nothing to say that she 'should' do it if she doesn't wish to, whereas the latter just says she shouldn't take the risk.

We like to think we can reduce our risk, but in these instances, it's just not true.

Well to suggest that whatever actions we take it makes absolutely ZERO difference to our risks in anything we do (whether rape or otherwise) no matter how tiny of a near infinitely tiny fraction of a percentage of a difference is merely to deny reality - to blame a woman and say she 'should' take a precaution is completely different to acknowledging the obvious fact that our actions make a difference to our risk - whoever we are.

Would you tell me, "You shouldn't have changed your song and flashed your iphone?" Or better yet, "You shouldn't have had an iphone. If you had a crappy nextel you would never had had your phone stolen?"

No I wouldn't say you shouldn't. It's your choice. But I wouldn't deny the reality that one choice may be more or less risky than another. To do the former would be to blame whilst the do the latter would not.

The truth is that the people who decide to steal are the ones who commit the crime and have full blame. The same goes for rape.

Duh.

When you try to think of what "risks" they could have reduce, you are placing the onus on the victim that they should have done something,

non-sequitur. Speculating on what risks the victim could have reduced, is not the same as saying they 'shouldn't take the risk'. It's their choice either way whether a choice they make is risky or not. I mean, isn't that blatantly obvious?

The common sense thing is that people have lives, they have the right to live it. They have a right to riches, and flashing pricey thing does make it partly their fault it got stolen.

Exactly. It's their choice whether their choices are risky or unrisky.

Women have bodies, and they have right to not have the bodies violated.

Obviously.

Wearing flashy clothing or walking home at night does not make it partly their fault that someone took it upon themselves to violate her.

Of course it doesn't make it their fault. A personal choice to do something that increased a rape risk in no way means a woman is any more to blame than if she had instead chose personally something less risky and still got raped.

I do not assume I can avoid every possible rape situation with "common sense".

Nor do I. There are obviously unavoidable cases. But I don't see how every case is unavoidable? I don't assume that you can avoid every possible rape situation either, obviously not. But to not be able to avoid any ever as if no actions make any difference whatsoever no matter the situation is to deny reality. That is completely different than saying that a risk should be avoided or that a precaution should be taken.

EvF