The Difference Is...

[woodwardiocom]

Three parallel situations:

• "You didn't have a bike lock? No wonder it got stolen, you doofus."
  
• "You walked through that part of town at midnight waving around an expensive cell phone? You idiot, no wonder you got mugged!"
  
• "You were dressed like that when you were sexually assaulted? You kinda asked for it."

My social circles regard the first two as appropriate replies, and the third as absolutely not. I agree with that, but on analysis, am having trouble articulating the relevant distinction.

Edit: Many thanks for the answers thus far. They've helped.

Comments

[minkrose]

A lot of important replies have already been covered.
Another difference with the third one that I don't think has been pointed out: victims of sexual assault usually *know* their attackers, which is rarely the case for the other two examples. While rape-by-stranger does happen, the fact that it often isn't an unknown attacker also ties into the fact that "what you were wearing" is totally irrelevant. Knowing that person, and possibly seeing them again regularly, are a huge difference, in my opinion.

I'll also agree that all three are judgmental and the first two are not something I've heard said by my friends to others, though I did know a 6'3" Indian man who got mugged when he was wearing a nice leather jacket and walking alone in Allston (I think?) ~10 years ago, and he did say that in retrospect, he knew it wasn't a good idea and he shouldn't have done it (yes, that is Rishi, if Kris is wondering). Relatedly, when my parents first moved to Boston, they lived in Brighton and had a freakin' Pontiac Firebird which someone stole and crashed into a bridge on Route 9. When they told their new co-workers this story, people said "Welcome to Boston." Though I think that's less victim-blamey and more "yeah, we can't solve that problem" (which is still a terrible response, because no one should have to accept that "that's just the way it is.") Anyway, when I've heard anything along those lines, it's been turned inward, but I think that's because the message is so prevalent, no one has to say it to you.

In the end, all three imply that crime is inevitable and there's nothing we can do about it because it is an unknown and mysterious force that cannot be controlled. I think that's a bullshit attitude. I think it's a bullshit attitude about gang violence, too. I don't have the answers for solving any of these, but I am trying to "act like I can do something about it" (from this blog post about race: http://livingformations.com/2013/09/16/for-whites-like-me-who-are-pissed-we-are-not-ignorant/ ). I find this to be all the more important living in the South End, where I now get (totally awesome) fliers from the NAACP while waiting for the bus. Belmont didn't want to/"have" to think about these problems and I don't miss that.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link; thought-provoking stuff.

[minkrose]

As you probably noticed, the For Whites, Like Me is a series on her blog -- I've been finding it wonderfully inspiring and it has helped me feel more able to contribute to change.

This one was probably the most personally useful, about the paradox of race relations, and how keeping those paradoxes in the forefront of our minds can help us:
http://livingformations.com/2013/08/12/for-whites-like-me-white-paradox/

[muffyjo]

Thank you for the link to that article. I am finding the reading to be fascinating and encouraging. Thank you for that.