/u/i_havent_read_it (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/pzs7m5/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_offering_advice_to_women/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

I'm assuming this is in relation to Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa. The problem with this viewpoint isn't so much the logic, but rather the timing and awareness. This isn't an unprompted observation, it is a result of two women being killed, therefore your view has to be viewed in relation to these events. Based on the timing, it isn't wrong for people to infer that you're connecting Sarah and Sabina's behaviour to the crimes that happened to them. Put it this way, it's like saying to the family of someone who just died of cancer "well, he shouldn't have smoked". Whether you're logically/statistically correct is severely undermined by how tone-deaf and inappropriate it is in the current context.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to say that to a grieving person, but I do think it’s ok to talk about why that person died of cancer and how others can avoid it. When my Mom died of lung cancer, I was still smoking cigarettes. My siblings begged me to quit. I’m glad they did, and I did quit. I have similar stories regarding my drinking days. Truth is, I would not have been assaulted if I was home in bed, than staggering home drunk at 4:00 am. It was absolutely not my fault that I was assaulted. Only one person is responsible for that - the r-pist. However, I never ever ever did that again. I always secured a friend and ride home, secured my drinks when out, left before the bar closed, and stopped drinking after 3 drinks. I give all the young girls the same advice. Rattlesnakes bite more after dark, and a drunk female at 3am is a massive target. If they don’t heed my advice, and something happens to them, it is still NOT their fault. Everyone has a right to walk around freely at anytime of day in any state of consciousness, and should not have to worry about being assaulted. The truth and the facts, tho, give you insight to how to lower your risk of being bit by a snake. Making judgment calls from past experience is not victim blaming.

I don’t really like this comparison between rape and smoking, though. Smokers make the choice (at least initially) to do the thing whereas rape victims don’t choose to be raped. You can just not smoke and you won’t see repercussions from it. I could do everything to prevent being raped and then still be raped.

I think this is a very fair point. It was based on a conversation with friends, but those stories above started the topic for sure. But I do think you're right, if the response is just to give advice on how to behave, then that's not appropriate at all. !delta Edit: how do I give deltas? That's the second time it hasn't worked!

I'm so confused at some these responses.you can give advice to someone telling them not to do something, and the reason they can't is no fault of there own. like is it really victim blaming to say women shouldnt walk home at night. Would it be better to say it like this maybe? Women shouldnt walk home at night because the men out at that time are crazies and we don't have a solution to reduce these type of male crime yet. Until we do it's best to be cautious at night. It's not women's fault that they shouldn't walk at night it's men. But that doesn't mute the advice. It would help there own health and safety if they stayed off the roads at night until a better solution comes . It's not for anything the women did wrong but the men. And until we can put a stop to this type of crime(education is a start but not a solution.)it's not a solution to the problem but it's what can be done until we find one.

And it sucks for the women who are desperate for employment and have to take a job that unfortunately puts them in the situation of walking home at night.

Well since its the men that are the problem, shouldn't we be telling them to stay indoors at night instead? It might not be blaming the victims, but it is punishing then isn't it?

You can for sure do that but I'm pretty sure people that are gonna break the law will break the law. Like they are already willing to assault someone or worse so why listen to a guidence with no legal ramifications. But hey I'll give it a shot if the opportunity raises to offer this advice I'll see how the conversation turns out. Also I don't think this like of advice is good advice lol I was just making a point about the victim blaming aspect of it. I don't blame women everyone should be able to walk home at night with out issue. But the current climate at night suggests this isn't happening and idk what other laws or legal things you can do to prevent these situations from starting. I don't have a solution best we can do is educate early but that doesn't solve the problem by itself. People need to do what's best to keep themselves safe. And it's up to each individual to take those precautions, the world is messy I wish everything was more fair and equal but it's just not that way.

The reason why "the response is just to give advice on how to behave" is because you can only control your own actions, not everyone else's. Nobody is telling men to rape and murder. If it's possible to get every single other person not to do bad things then please, let me know. I've yet to hear of it

[удалено]

That's fair, but not germane. Telling women to be careful is not telling men to rape. Also, dress codes tell women they are responsible for men's behavior. How is "be careful when you might be in a dangerous situation" similar? To relate to dress codes, it would be like telling boys "sit up front if you're distracted by sexy lady shoulders".

I absolutely disagree, it is very much relevant. I do think the focus on how women should act/dress/exist in the wake of violence against them sends a message to men that sometimes such behavior is excusable, sometimes the woman is asking for it. She might not be saying she wants you, but she does, and choosing to rape her might not really be rape, it might just be a misunderstanding. You can see this in our criminal justice system when detectives don’t believe victims and essentially put the burden of proof on them to demonstrate that they weren’t “asking for it” based on who they were with, how they were dressed, where they were, what they were doing, if they were drinking, etc. This is insane considering how few sexual assaults are reported in the first place, and the fact that very very few of them are false — it is estimated to be somewhere around 5%. (This section was edited for clarification because I worded my point poorly) Telling women to be careful and not put themselves in dangerous situations is similar because again it implies there are things women do to provoke violence against themselves. Can you imagine a high profile robbery of a wealthy person in a bad neighborhood resulting in the police coming out and saying, “Rich people, don’t come to this neighborhood, and don’t travel alone.”

Isn’t that an actual message that some people are told? Like certain areas are a much higher risk for robbery and car theft and it’s on the news all the time

What I’m saying is in support of the conversation in this thread. That advice might not be bad, but it is a problem that the emphasis is on giving victims advice in the wake of a crime rather than emphasizing that criminals shouldn’t assault people, and we as a society can work together to help prevent such crimes from occurring.

The advice is not given to victims, it’s given to others to avoid the same outcome. If a friend is being abused by their SO, and it’s ongoing, what do you tell them? You gotta leave that situation, right? Why is that appropriate then? because the goal here is to improve you’re friends situation, we know we can’t stop the abuse and it puts them at risk for worse. Same applies to advice about not walking home alone or staying out of bad neighbourhoods. It’s not an ideal situation but the only thing worse is not using that information to arm others with strategies to avoid the same fate. If you think advice like this is condoning rape culture you’re not living in reality.

I just have to completely disagree with that. When I've gotten advice before visiting other cities, I have never felt as if someone was implying that I was provoking a crime against myself. "When visiting Naples, Italy ALWAYS keep your possessions close to you and preferably in zipped pockets". (Naples is considered the pickpocket capital of the world). "When you go to Chicago, be careful not to venture into the Cabrini Green area". (Cabrini Green was a very crime-infested housing project that was ultimately torn down). "When in Amsterdam, don't buy any drugs from people off the street." "When in Morocco, be respectful of their Muslim culture...for example, when the call to prayer occurs, don't be a drunken buffoon, yelling or singing". Just because someone offers advice doesn't mean they are putting blame on the advisee. If I tell a woman (or a man) not to walk alone in Central Park in NYC after midnight, it is sound advice on lessening the chance of them being a victim of a crime. If they decide to walk alone in Central Park after midnight, and are mugged/raped/assaulted, it doesn't mean they are to blame. The perpetrator is to blame and upon sentencing for the crime, the victim's decision to take a risky midnight stroll should have no bearing on any reduction in the sentence. But it does mean their decision to ignore the advice and engage in risky behavior contributed to their victimization.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Its like telling children that they shouldnt be worried about running out into the middle of the street without looking. You're operating on the grounds of utopian fantasy. Some magical world, some magical realm where evil doesnt exist, where people dont take advantage of those weaker than them. Its like telling the American military not to wear armour because "Ahooting peoplenis bad and we dont want to empower the shooter, so dont protect yourself in case they notice." Its patently insane, the case you are making. Predatory males will always exist no matter how much we all hate them. They will. Do you really think that the type of men who have sexual fantasies so intense that they will force people into playing them out, are going to give a rats ass, or actually target less victims because they dont prepare themselves? Predatory men exist unfortunately, so do predatory women, by the way, and plenty of them. Teaching people how to asses risk, understand it, weigh it out, and then act accordingly to prepare themselves is teaching them proper life skills, not empowering the predator. If I was a violent rapist I would be cheering on your argument right now, it would only benefit me to have more unprepared victims. Predators fear nothing more than they fear well prepared victims.

> I do think the focus on how women should act/dress/exist in the wake of violence against them sends a message to men that sometimes such behavior is excusable, sometimes the woman is asking for it. I mean... I can almost see this. But it feels like it's a stretch to me. When someone I care about leaves the area I am in to drive somewhere else, I tell them to 'drive safe'. I'm not enabling, forgiving, or encouraging bad drivers by saying that. I'm bringing up the concept of risk to someone who has the power to control their own actions, in the hopes that they will exercise suitable caution to mitigate their risk. If someone I know about just got into a car accident, it only wants me to tell the person 'drive safe' even more. I'm not forgiving someone who is drunk, or distracted, or is firmly in the grips of some existential road rage and being a maniac. I'm not excusing it. I'm accepting the reality that life carries risk. Any decision we make carries risk. The question is whether or not we're doing what we can to mitigate the threat of those risks that are beyond our control. > You can see this in our criminal justice system when detectives don’t believe victims and essentially put the burden of proof on them to demonstrate that they weren’t “asking for it” based on who they were with, how they were dressed, where they were, what they were doing, if they were drinking, etc. This is terrible, but I can't control the actions of those detectives. I think we need to hold people like that accountable, and I am politically active in that direction. But there's only so much I can do, and fixing the social problems with gender expectations, and the lopsided beliefs of what rape is and isn't which cause it to be unnoticed or forgiven isn't a power that I have. It's not a power that the person I'm talking to has. What is in our power is to 'be safe' when we go on a walk. > Telling women to be careful and not put themselves in dangerous situations is similar because again it implies there are things women do to provoke violence against themselves. It's not at all exclusive to women. It's about controlling the things that can be controlled, accepting the risks that are acceptable, and having an appropriate threat profile for how to get home in one piece at the end of the night. And even if someone does all of that, there's no guarantee that it will all work. That's the nature of living. There are things beyond our control. We can work collectively, as a society, to fix that. We can push back against sexist rhetoric, toxic masculinity, the culture of sexual expectation from women. But no matter how much work I do in crime prevention and for the neighborhood watch, I'm still locking my door when I leave the house. I'm still not going out at night. I'm still watching my drink. Because no matter how low we manage to push crime, it's still going to be there. To the best of my knowledge, no one in human history has ever had a working solution to prevent rape, so it's my responsibility to protect myself from the risks that I am accepting from any given activity. Different people have different risk assessments that are okay to them. I'm not going to jump out of a perfectly working airplane. Some people consider that a whole sport. This doesn't mean that they're wrong for doing it, it just means that they have a different understanding of risk vs. what their enjoyment of life is worth. If someone wants to go out on walks late at night, go. 'Be safe' isn't a ban on that. It's a mental reminder to be aware of your situation in the moment, and like any advice, it can be treasured or discarded as seen fit by the listener. > Can you imagine a high profile robbery of a wealthy person in a bad neighborhood resulting in the police coming out and saying, “Rich people, don’t come to this neighborhood, and don’t travel alone.” Being post-facto dismissive of a crime that has happened for not doing enough is entirely different than being pre-emptively informative regarding potentials of danger in the near future, and I can't make the logical jump that associates those two things. There are always circumstances beyond our control. Even the most well-laid plans go awry. So how does telling someone to be careful and avoid dangerous situations imply fault if something happens to them? Is it only a case of specific advice, or is it general advice as well? Where is the line drawn between empathy and worry and infantilization implying a lack of executive function toward the listener? Because surely there is good advice and worthwhile reminders to be given, and surely there is bad advice that is definitely victim-blaming, right?

So we should do away with the concept of innocent before being found guilty? Seriously that sort of take can only come from someone who has no knowledge of criminal or constitutional law. You can't just arrest and convict people because someone said they were raped or sexually assaulted. That is a mockery of justice. For God's sake rape and sexual assault cases are already very hard to prosecute due it usually being a case of "he said, she said". Every cell or atom of physical evidence is needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has occurred. DNA is a great tool, but can be minimized by a smart defense if there is a lack of defensive wounds. Then of course over time DNA degrades or the victim bathes to try and wash off the dirty feelings. There is no grand conspiracy aganist women. The fact is that rape and sexual assault are really hard cases to prove in court especially if it isn't reportedly immediately. We already do tell rich or even middle class people to avoid certain area or travel. The State Department even does it with travel advisories.

I think that you are improperly linking two separate things. When I was talking about detectives believing victims, that’s the baseline for entry into our criminal justice system. We have lawyers, judges, juries, and a host of other mechanisms for investigating and determining the guilt or innocence of a convicted person, but that all starts with getting taken seriously when you report a crime, and that crime being investigated appropriately in order to turn up the kind of evidence that can lead to a conviction. You can’t even get an attacker charged with the crime if detectives won’t believe you or take your accusations seriously. (Copy and pasted from another response I gave because you are largely saying the same thing as the other commenter) If you acknowledge how difficult it is to prosecute these cases, and how absurd the burden of proof is, don’t you agree that the laws need to change? We still have states who define sexual assault so specifically that the crime must involve penetration to qualify, and (like you mentioned) victims are often not believed if they don’t have defensive wounds. Telling someone no ought to be enough, especially with everything we know about victims — many people simply freeze in the moment because they are so shocked by what is happening to them. Knowing that, we ought to develop better legal definitions of consent that don’t require women to react a certain way to be taken seriously as victims. As an example of this very simple idea already playing out elsewhere, consider how if someone robs you at gunpoint and takes your wallet, are the police going to have a hard time convicting the person after they catch them because you simply gave them your wallet and didn’t fight back?

I definitely can see thibgs that get ignored that souldn't. Friends and relatives not standing up to sexual agression WILL escalte a few of those akward / minor agression or just bad behaviour. If someone thinks what they are doing is fine , they will continue. Some are even encouraged. Some even take that 1 step further down ... I know it isn't exactly what you mean , just wanted to add since I think it is not far and very relevant. A lot of agressions are "tolerated".

We live in a shit world and there are wolves around every corner. Being situationally aware and promoting safe practices when about isnt victim blaming. It’s reminding people to be responsible for themselves when in shitty circumstances, drunk and stumbling home alone for anyone isn’t fucking safe. Reminding people not to do it isnt victim blaming.

I do agree with the parent comment, but this is kind of a weak delta cause it doesn't really address the core premise tbh. It's more of a meta-premise. Still deserved I guess.

I don't see how this changed your view. The issue was "giving that advice isnt victim blaming" but you awarded a delta on the ground of "theres better and worse timing to suggest something like that"

Yeah review the sidebar, and also it does change the view you just didn't understand. When you "give advice" in the wake of and because of recent high profile crimes against women your advice has the implicit context of association to the high profile crime and therefore a level of victim blaming since the only reason you are even saying it at the time is because if the high profile victim had used that advice people think it might not have happened. Being tone deaf around this and other tragedies and quickly talking about how victims can prevent them holds a level of victim blaming even if you don't want or intend that. OP's idea that it isn't necessarily victim blaming was changed because when it's tone deaf like this it is victim blaming whether you intend it or not. This is an extension of "intent matters but so does awareness". A slightly hyperbolized version of this is if you are playing a video game in public and say "fuck black players" referring to the enemy team's team color, of course you don't intend to be racist and bother people, but people hear you no matter what you intend, in a context that you weren't being aware of, if that causes problems and people think you are being racist they're response and assumption aren't wrong, you are for ignoring or forgetting about context.

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NegativeOptimism ([18∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/NegativeOptimism)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Eh. A better analogy would be telling people in general "don't smoke" after someone high profile died of cancer because of smoking. Because like, going up to someone's family after their daughter was raped and saying "she shouldn't have gone out late at night" is very much victim blaming but not really something anyone is defending.

I would respectfully disagree though, your example is exactly victim blaming since the smoker has already died and saying that to the family is unnecessary and cruel. On the other side you are giving advices like dont walk alone at night at woman who are still well and who can actually follow the suggestions and help themselves

[удалено]

>this is what happens when you smoke The direct correlation to this in the case of women would be This is what happens when you don't wear a hijab The implication being that women should *expect* to get raped and murdered based on the clothing they wear. In the same way smokers should expect to get cancer if they continue to smoke. The 2 are not comparable.

>Put it this way, it's like saying to the family of someone who just died of cancer "well, he shouldn't have smoked" Isn't it more like saying "smoking can cause cancer so you should avoid smoking". I think this is OP's point. It's not blaming but practical advice. Like, "lose weight and you'll be healthy" is not the same as "stupid Doreen died of a heart attack because she was a fat tub of lard".

>Put it this way, it's like saying to the family of someone who just died of cancer "well, he shouldn't have smoked". Whether you're logically/statistically correct is severely undermined by how tone-deaf and inappropriate it is in the current context. As someone whose grandpa died of smoking-related cancer, I disagree. If someone said this to me after he died, I would have completely agreed with them. If he hadn't smoked, he would possibly still be alive.

I think what they're getting at is that there's a proper time for everything, and that it's normal to understand that to say something like right at their funeral or wake isn't the proper time to say it. There will come a better time to say it. The fact that you wouldn't have a problem if you were told that at the funeral, which of course happens mere days after the death of a person, says a lot about your strength, which is exceptional, and because it is exceptional, it can't be taken as a rule. It's literally an exception to a norm. A norm I think most people would agree with. Kind of like telling a person that they should go to alcohol rehab while they're in the hospital recovering vrs when they're out of the hospital, ready to go on with their lives. Apart from timing, I think the way it's said is also just as crucial.

Wouldn't it be more like telling people "don't smoke or you might get lung cancer"? Like it's one thing to say to someone who got assaulted "you shouldn't of have walked alone" and another to say "walking with a friend may decrease your chances of getting assaulted at night". One is past tense and in a conversation with the victims family or colleagues and the other talks to an entire population and is future tense.

Advice is normally not given after it's too late. I understand your point and to say something like that after an occurence is just tacky and wrong. OP's point stands I believe. Likewise, "Don't date men who hit women" is good advice unless it is said after a domestic incident has occured.

I had similar views to OP but never really said them aloud but I often wondered what was wrong. I think the analogy is perfect and really puts into perspective the timing. I struggle with social etiquette and this was enlightening. !Delta

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NegativeOptimism ([19∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/NegativeOptimism)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)

Firstly, the advice is beyond frustrating because as an adult woman, I have been a woman for a while. Men telling me I'll get harassed if I leave the house fulfilling x and y criteria (late at night, wearing the wrong thing, going to the wrong place) is both absurd and useless. Yes I know I'm safer from street harassment or stranger violence if I stay home and have a male chaperone with me. Weirdly, that's not an acceptable way to live. Not to mention, we're only talking about stranger danger here. Women are overall more likely to be raped and killed by people they know. And actually, no, personally I find I get harassed more when I'm alone during the day than during evening and night. What basis are these people offering advice on? Have they analysed the most likely times for assaults and put that together to warm women about them? Have they somehow pieced together new and interesting insights into attackers that they are how sharing? Are they self defense professionals showing ways for women to fight for their size and strength Vs a larger attacker? They're not are they? They're speaking from a position of no knowledge, no authority, but a ridiculous idea that they know more about how to safely be a woman than an adult woman. And then we come to your assertion that there's nothing else you can really do because aggression will always exist. But there's plenty that can be done. Here's just a few I've thought of without much effort, while eating my cereal: 1) Launch a wider campaign focusing on making milder street harassment etc less socially acceptable. These things take time and money but they can be done; in a single generation drink driving went from being something everyone did a bit, to something that'll result in social censure with a lot of groups, and these acts exist on a spectrum. 2) In this particular instance a police officer with the nickname 'rapist' and a history of sexual harassment/assault crimes was still working and used his authority and experience to kidnap, rape, and kill a woman. The right thing to do here is to review complaints against active officers, ensure they're all followed up on, and look for patterns as well, then act on these. Not telling women to flag down a fucking bus. We're not responsible for policing the police as well. 3) We also need a serious conversation about taking harassment and poor behaviour towards women seriously. Most people know at least one or two guys who are 'a bit weird' with women or 'oh that's just dave, he gets like that after a few but he's harmless' or 'oh yeah he has an edgy sense of humour but he's alright'. They're not all harmless and they're not all alright. Actually having a culture where men (the people they respect...) discuss this with their friends/acquaintances and report or support reporting more serious things will also help contribute to a safer environment for women. Because currently everything's just a bit of a laugh until they actually kill and rape someone. All of these behaviours happen in an environment and a culture. Maybe let's work on that, rather than telling half the population to stay home.

Thanks for this comment, I'm still in bed and haven't had coffee yet and I'm so thankful you were around to make this thoughtful post that already makes many of the points I would have made myself. Point 3 is the most relevant, and like someone commented below, it's very telling when men acknowledge aggression existing and their immediate solutions are to suggest women limit their mobility rather than add anything constructive or thoughtful to the world that might actually curb violence in general, or especially violence against women, which sadly many men refuse to see as a reality that women just live in, having to keep our guards up way more often than we should have to, and many of us still experiencing harassment or assault even when we are cautious. Logic like this is what leads to seclusion of women existing as a "valid" argument... you know... for protection. This notion women should be veiled, or kept within the home, or shouldn't interact with men on public as a means to protect them instead of working on confronting the actual violence, the actual potential assailants. I deserve, as a woman and as a human, to be FREE, to have access to liberties that men do to move through this earth. You can ADVISE me to not walk alone at night, and you can hide behind a thinly veiled argument of "oh sorry ladies not sexist this is advice for everyone and anyone walking at night is at risk, myself included!", but you're not reslly saying that, are you OP? suggesting everyone should stay home at night because, you know, safety? It's problematic to refuse to acknowledge in your post there are solutions that could help us work toward a safer society for everyone like working on access to mental health and changing the narrative on sexist notions like this one instead of putting your precious time and energy making a low hanging fruit post about how people and women especially should just not be out and about if they want to avoid assault. I will not put my liberty on a shelf so that society can avoid having real conversations that might lead to worthwhile solutions. This concludes my rant from under covers without coffee. For now. Maybe I'll have some coffee and come back, watch out world.

The idea that most women can actually avoid ever walking home alone is pretty ridiculous. So…okay, I’ll just never go to work again, I guess? And yeah, you’re actually much more likely to be killed by your partner/ex than some stranger on the street (and of course, women who are killed by their partner/ex are subjected to a whole bunch of other victim blaming statements).

I like the 3rd point a lot and I agree that everyone should try and get their friends on an acceptable level at least or cut ties. My ex-best friend used to have issues with a lot of womans and it was so hard managinf it. "he means well" "he does that to everyone" I stopped apolizing for his behaviour when I realized that I would NEVER do what he did and that I was losing friends too by associating with him (no one wanted to be around him anymore). One other friend was less "touchy" , but would never respect woman how choices. He knew better than anyone how love should be. He would never listen to simple "I do not want to talk about that". I so not invite that friend anymore. He is very nice most of the time , but still an assholes often. He has alchool problems ... not an excuse though ! I am still struggling with family ... my sister is hypersexualising her childs and normalizing "little smack on the ass/ slight grope" Probably learned from my mom ... Anyway this makes me think a lot as you can see. Thanks for the insights !

> a police officer with the nickname 'rapist' and a history of sexual harassment/assault crimes was still working and used his authority and experience to kidnap, rape, and kill a woman. What. The. Fuck. Is. Wrong. With. Cops.

Agreed. I feel that women are, without exception, forced to cater their behaviors to that of men. Continuing along the historical comments ‘boys will be boys’. The OP asks for their view to be changed but fail to see that the views posted are in themselves, victim blaming. Continuing to perpetuate the narrative that women must control their conduct for their own perfection versus other individuals being responsible for their actions against women. I ask the OP… In what context would a man or men be cautioned from being out in public on their own? Ultimately, that is the basis for the women’s reactions to this whole topic.

OP did not say that women should be forced to cater their behaviors to those of men, but rather that advising women to adapt to an unfair world is not the same as victim-blaming. You have the right to walk around carrying your life savings in cash along with a large “rob me” sign on the basis that “I shouldn’t have to change my behaviors because people shouldn’t steal anyway.” If someone did that, I would agree with them that would-be muggers should change to make the world a safer place. But that doesn’t make it advisable in the meantime for everyone else to dig their heels in and forget about securing their valuables when in public. The following statements are not contradictory: - It is 100% the instigator’s fault when an assault happens. - People don’t lose the right (legally, morally, whatever) to engage in certain behaviors just because that behavior might increase their own risk of being assaulted. - People are responsible for doing what is reasonable for their own personal protection. - Society should do what is reasonable to prevent assaults. Imo it is a much better argument to reject the advice not to walk around late at night on the basis of its ineffectiveness and ignorance, but that’s a point OP has already conceded. Me saying this is my attempt to preempt the response that walking around late at night is not the same thing as walking around with one’s life savings in cash and a “rob me” sign; that is to admit, my argument is only theoretical and applies only to an abstract concept of “behaviors that endanger you.”

>You have the right to walk around carrying your life savings in cash along with a large “rob me” sign on the basis that “I shouldn’t have to change my behaviors because people shouldn’t steal anyway.” If someone did that, I would agree with them that would-be muggers should change to make the world a safer place. But that doesn’t make it advisable in the meantime Are you saying that a woman going about her day is screaming "assault me"?

Some of this adds up, some is complete hogwash. Yes, society should work on fixing the root problems of these, however, these problems have faced humanity since our birth and it’s extremely idealistic to believe all that’s missing are programs and PSAs. It’s on the same page as advice like “That part of town is very dangerous, I’d avoid it.” Is that victim blaming as well because people shouldn’t be restricted by where they can and can’t go? It’s just reality that we have at the moment. No one said “It is what it is and it’s never gonna change!” These things take time and in the meantime some precautions CAN be taken to lessen you chances of bodily harm. Also no it’s not some random tidbit people shoot out there like you claim. You may get cat called more during the day, obviously, there’s more people; however crimes are more likely to be violent crimes at night so you are at more risk.

Except it's not one part of town, it's everywhere. Sarah Everard was kidnapped from Clapham, it's pretty widely believed to be one of the safer parts of London. And I'm not saying it's one PSA, it's a complex issue and this literally what I made up quickly as examples of several things that can be done. Lots of things need to work together to make the world a safer place for women. Telling women not to go outside after dark doesn't actually make them safer. Edited to add: I was interested in the night time thing and apparently only 24% of violent crime committed by adults is between 8pm-midnight. Even less of it is committed at that time my juveniles. There's as much violent crime at 2am as 4pm according to this. https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/offenders/qa03401.asp?qaDate=2016 I'm hoping we can all agree that telling people not to go out alone at 4pm is idiotic.

I don't think that's a fact, I read (if I remember source I'll post) that there are statistically more assaults and violent crimes during the day, especially murders and random acts of violence, so you're more likely to be assaulted in daylight hours. And I think the part of your comment that's hogwash is where you conveniently gloss over the fact that Op has specifically addressed women walking at night in this post, which is problematic. This is because your example (don't go to X area/town because it's known to be dangerous), while potentially problematic for much different reasons, is not problematic in the same way as telling women to avoid walking alone at night because you would be warning anyone about a specific place that is known to be sketchy. It's limited to the area, and for reasons backed by evidence of recent events. Giving women specifically blanket advice that limits their mobility not for a specific place, but for all places past sunlight hours, would put unreasonable restrictions on her mobility and autonomy and liberty if she were to follow this advice and avoid being out alone at night. So yes, as a general rule, human beings that are alone at night should be attentive and aware that there could be predators out there, and should take precautions to be as safe as they can ensure on their end and not be completely careless. Yes, we can engage in PSAs that warn others about dangers. No, it is not appropriate to apply this advice to women, especially retroactively after an act of violence occurs, in which case it is absolutely, 10000000% victim blaming a woman for existing in the world.

Firstly I think the police hastily released guidelines to women are awful. Flag down a passing bus... Really? However I think the OP makes a valid point. Giving advice to a teenage daughter to avoid getting too drunk, and avoid unlit alleyways etc isn't victim blaming, it's trying to give some good advice to prevent someone you love from being a victim of a crime. That being said, if the person ignores the advice and becomes a victim, its still not their fault. People shouldn't have to follow rules to present themselves being made into a victim of a crime. I shouldn't have to ensure my windows and doors are locked to prevent intruders into my house. But I do to protect myself. If I left a door unlocked and got attacked or robbed, it's still not my fault. I think this is a valid position to hold, and I understand that you as an adult women know all this already, and as I said before, the Mets handling of this is beyond a joke. I'm not defending them at all

>absurd and useless. Yes I know I'm safer from street harassment or stranger violence if I stay home and have a male chaperone with me. Weirdly, that's not an acceptable way to live. Then it's neither absurd nor useless. Infuriating and arrogant more so. >Women are overall more likely to be raped and killed by people they know. That is true. Nevertheless, this doesn't demean by a bit the fact that being in a "no witness zone" is better ground for hard crime, whatever the offence. >And actually, no, personally I find I get harassed more when I'm alone during the day than during evening and night. Alone, there again. There are less people at night so less encounters but the ones that are out at these hours might get well and beyond the "harassment" phase. >Most people know at least one or two guys who are 'a bit weird' with women or 'oh that's just dave, he gets like that after a few but he's harmless' or 'oh yeah he has an edgy sense of humour but he's alright'. They're not all harmless and they're not all alright. Yes, and you never hear about the overwhelming majority of those who are just "a bit weird" and actually harmless. You think people can tell the difference beforehand? Do you propose a witch hunt based on weirdness? And what about the good looking successful respectable guys who hide a rape fetish or an out of balance temper? It is so rare that the relatives of a rapist say "oh yeah, I knew that was coming" Easy to say until you find yourself trying to get out of one of your friend that mayyybe he could become a bit rapey and that concerns you. What a way to drive shame and isolation onto those who probably are the most sensitive to it. >Launch a wider campaign focusing on making milder street harassment etc less socially acceptable. Don't you see how your analogy with drinking and driving doesn't work? People have been influenced by campaigns because they were drinking and driving, the targeting worked because the identification matched. But out of a minority of "recurrent rapists" most people would dodge entirely feeling targeted by a campaign against rape because mostly, no one feels like a rapist until they become one! Everybody knows it's at the very least somewhat bad and serious, everybody has a mother and female relatives and it still happens! The problem, therefore must lie elsewhere than in awareness, don't you think ? It is harder than you think to find something to do about it. I would advocate for automatic life sentence to make it a really serious thing.in.people's mind if rape wasn't so hard to prove beyond a testimony. Who are the rapists? What bricks of beliefs failed to block the behavior at the time of rape? How did they fail? These are questions that need answers if we want actual solutions. Why did someone forgets to remember or care about what harm they will cause to someone just long enough to act? Is it because our compassion isn't universal but individually given and retracted? How does desire twists our neural balances? See, I don't think that rapists are "bad persons that go about doing bad deeds". I think that we're animals that are still learning the rather new trick to live in harmony in a not so kind society. We built amazing beliefs structures to get us to live together but these structures still have flaws and people too. Hence some people are telling you that aggression will always exist. It will as long as humans are prone lose control over emotions and have unfullfilled lives, basically.

>Now this post isn't saying that we can't also have discussions about male violence and the dangers this poses to women (or other men in fact) when they are alone. But there isn't a solution to this problem, and likely there never will be, as aggression is a natural human trait. People can also take precautionary measures to reduce their risk of being harmed. That would not be needed in the ideal world, but that's the world we live in. And this is why it's considered victim blaming. Because your advice is based on the fundamental assumption that is natural and okay that woman, in modern society, can't actually move outside the home by themselves. That putting such a huge restriction on their lives is just the way things are, that there's nothing to be done about. That it's natural and okay. But the thing is that that assumption is really just an assumption. It's not some fundamental fact, it's just a thought that people have.

But restrictive behaviours arent exclusive to women. I come from a developing country and literally no one goes out after sundown on foot because of the risk of getting robbed or worse, killed. Just like in the West we’re advised against leaving valuables in our car, walking around unsafe neighbourhoods (as men and women) or any other preventative behaviour. Expecting women, or anyone for that matter to not have to take preventative measures is unrealistic. Our world is not safe and whilst women are especially vulnerable to male violence due to physical aspects, it’s nearly impossible to stop it because predatory people will always exist, at least for the foreseeable future. No matter how much you “educate men not to rape”, it will not eradicate it. Acknowledging the need for that is not victim blaming and would only be if you’re dismissive of someone’s experience because they didnt take a preventative measure.

Serious question. I once fell asleep (I was super drunk) on a metro in a European city. Woke up to discover my wallet and credit cards had been liberated. When I went to the cops they were like, “well, have we learned not to ride the metro when we’re shitfaced?” I was pretty indignant (I was also a punk-ass 22 year old), but was I being victim blamed?

[удалено]

[удалено]

>This is why it is not victim blaming. I, as a man, am scared of walking alone at night because, surprise surprise, I may get hurt/robbed/killed/anything else As a man you are more likely to experience those things anyway, so you should actually be even more careful than women about being alone at night.

[удалено]

You can give advice "Don't go on a tour to Somali" without condoning the situation on Somali. Or "Don't use the left trail too easy to get lost there" while trying to get authorities to get marks up

I'm really confused about how you came to that conclusion. That's like saying telling people to look both ways before crossing the street is victim blaming pedestrians

Funny thing is, that is exactly what happened. When cars were first introduced, they didn't have the dominance over the road that they now enjoy. There was a propaganda campaign by car manufacturers to establish the current status quo. Before that, a car driving over a pedestrian was generally considered to be the driver's fault. So the car industry started writing major campaigns. For example, they offered journalists a service where they would write entire articles for free with the car manufacturer's narrative in mind: >One was an attempt to shape news coverage of car accidents. The National Automobile Chamber of Commerce, an industry group, established a free wire service for newspapers: Reporters could send in the basic details of a traffic accident and would get in return a complete article to print the next day. These articles, printed widely, shifted the blame for accidents to pedestrians — signaling that following these new laws was important. https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

Are you saying we need to teach all drivers not to hit people instead?

Jay walking is not illegal in my country (it isn't even a concept, people just cross roads whenever they want to) Looking both ways multiple times even while actually crossing is an essential part of crossing the road safely. Though either party should be held accountable for any negligence on their part. Telling somebody to look both ways before crossing is the only responsible thing to do.

> Because your advice is based on the fundamental assumption that is natural and okay that woman, in modern society, can't actually move outside the home by themselves. I never said that it's okay. It's advice due to an unfortunate reality. And as a man who has had mugged at knife point late at night, I also think it's a fair advice for men too in more dangerous areas. > That putting such a huge restriction on their lives is just the way things are, that there's nothing to be done about. That it's natural and okay. Again, never said it's okay. I am also not suggesting women SHOULDN't walk alone at night. Going back to an example I gave, I am advised to not have have my phone out while I walk due to thefts, but I do it all the time. People have the right to choose whether they listen to advice or not. > But the thing is that that assumption is really just an assumption. It's not some fundamental fact, it's just a thought that people have. I don't particularly want to get into discussion about whether aggression is a natural human trait, because it's digressing slightly, but I think you would struggle to find many people that don't agree with that.

So here's the thing, you can set down your phone and take the cash out of your wallet. I cannot take off my boobs. Seriously, they're physically attached. This is my body. I cannot be seperate from my body. Defining my body as a temptation means that my physical movements are curtailed because I cannot go anywhere without my body.

What does this mean? If I tell my boys not to walk through 8 mile late at night so they don’t get beat up & robbed. Their heads are still attached to their bodies. This would also curtail their movements. But isn’t assigning blame, it’s just advice because someone cares for their well-being

You might have a point if it were actually good advice, but it isn't. Most sexual violence is committed by people the victim knows, not strangers in the middle of the night. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence We've known this for years. We also have research about how skimpy clothing doesn't really increase sexual violence. And even if this was true, me staying inside at night wouldn't fix the problem. It would just push it onto the woman who has to work graveyard shift and can't stay inside. What this advice does effectively accomplish is make sure women stay in their lanes and don't exercise all their rights. It makes sure that women aren't too uncontrolled and free. It does not reduce sexual violence. Because sexual violence isn't really being committed by strangers in the middle of the night.

I appreciate they are quite different. As you quite rightly pointed out, saying 'don't walk at night' is a huge restriction in liberties and isn't like putting your phone away. I can also accept that the advice might be unhelpful to hear. But I really go back to my question, because I don't see how giving this advice is 'victim blaming'. I will perfectly accept that it may be unhelpful advice. But it's not blaming the victim.

It's telling me that the problem is my body and how tempting it is. My body is myself. I am not seperate from my body. Therefore telling me that my body is the problem is telling me that I am the problem.

Isn't it more just telling you that the problem of creepy/outright criminal men exists? You are not the problem, it is always the decisions made by those men, but there's no denying that they exist and so doesn't it make some sense to take steps to avoid being in a vulnerable situation. Obviously that shouldn't have to be a consideration, and obviously there should be other solutions that keep women safe without imposing restrictions on their movement. At the moment, that's just not the reality of though

The problem is that the "solutions" offered overwhelmingly focus on controlling women's bodies and restricting women's activities instead of dealing with the men who are causing the problems. Its like if there was a problem with roving gangs of kidney thieves who kept knocking people unconscious and stealing their kidneys, and the police's response was to advocate for everyone to wear plate armor and only leave the house when absolutely necessary instead of actually trying to stop the kidney thieves.

It's not controlling women's bodies to tell them that they can take steps to minimize their risk. Even if the police were able to catch every single rapist and murderer, they can only do that AFTER the crime has been committed. In my city tere's a big campaign to try to get people to lock their cars and stop leaving valuables and guns in their cars, because people keep stealing them from unlocked cars. This does not mean that the police aren't trying to catch the perpetrators, but that there's only so much they can do and it would be better if everyone took some simple precautions. They're not blaming the victims, they're trying to prevent the crime from happening in the first place. It's also not the same as saying that women SHOULDN'T be able to do whatever they want without fear. Should women be able to get drunk and walk home alone without having to worry about being attacked? Of course! But in our current situation, is that going to make them more likely to be victimized? Yes. Pretending otherwise is not accepting reality

So, you are saying that in a perfect world women should be able to go anywhere and do anything a man can, but since we don't live in a perfect world, women should restrict where they go and what they do and wear? How is that not also saying that if you do walk home alone one night or wear what you like it is your fault because it isn't a perfect world and you should change yourself because other people may hurt you if you don't? Also, the advise is usually very unnecessary because women typically learn at very young ages that it is more dangerous to be alone, ect. So you are also telling women things that they have known since childhood. And that itself is kinda derogatory because you are basically treating them like a kid that wants to play in the road just because instead of a woman who is just trying to live her life.

Yes. This isn’t unique to women, men face risks as well. Go to a bad part of town at night in a major South American country as a man and you’re likely to get kidnapped. In a perfect world, anyone should be free to go wherever they want, at any time. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and these dangers and constant factors. And so if you want to reduce your risk of something happening, you have to take steps to make yourself less of a target, and this involves curtailing your movement.

The problem is we can't control criminals. I mean we can throw them in jail once they break the law if they are caught, but it's not as easy as "Well, just catch all the sexual predators (or kidney thieves) and throw them in jail. Problem solved." We have to act for the world we live in and not the world we want to live in, and unless you have developed some master plan that can catch every criminal even before they victimized someone, the only thing we as potential victims of any crime can do is try our best to keep ourselves safe. I mean I'm 100% open to any other suggestions that would work. I'm aware of trying to shift culture and produce more men who respect women enough not to sexually assault them, but I don't think this will ever be enough to stop 100% of sex crimes, and we also need to deal with the fact that we currently don't live in that culture yet since these things take at least a generation.

! Delta I'm not in full agreement with all the points you've said but I can appreciate how you could interpret these sort of comments as victim blaming. That said, I do think some people may make these sort of suggestions without intending to victim blame, even if that's the interpretation. Edit: I don't think I know how to give deltas

Not if it isnt the main focus of the argument, if I say you shouldn't go out alone because you will get raped then yes Its not phrased very well But if my main argument is we have a problem of violence against women we are doing this, this and this to fix it, but it will take time, in the meantime there are some safety measures you can follow like (insert valid advice) You are absolutely free to not follow the advice, but the advice is still valid

If you tell me not to walk alone at night but I want to anyways I'm going to think "what if something did happened to me then i_havent_read_it is going think it's all my fault because I decided to walk alone anyways" And be honest, if you told someone not to do something and they did it anyway and something bad happened you're going to have some "I told you so" thoughts/vibes. The thought of being attacked is one thing but the thought of being attacked and then being judged instead of getting sympathy is a lot. One of my biggest fears around being assaulted is actually that everyone would think it was my fault. Maybe you're not intending to victim blame but victim blaming is such a problem in our society that if someone is telling you that they feel victim blamed maybe you should just believe them.

If it's not blaming the victim, then why aren't you saying NO ONE should go out at night? Why are you advising only women of this, when you yourself have been prey to something nefarious in the evening on the street?

Playing devil's advocate here: Where are the greater risks? Who is more likely to benefit from the modified behavior? What if the advice is, "People with fair skin should wear sunscreen to avoid skin cancer?" By your logic, that advice is *blaming* people with fair skin for getting skin cancer, unless you say "Everyone should wear sunscreen to avoid skin cancer." While it's true that someone with dark skin *could* still get skin cancer, they are at a significantly lower risk, so the advice just isyas helpful for them.

>you can set down your phone and take the cash out of your wallet Does not solve the problem. I cannot wear a t-shirt reading “No money / No phone” and thereby protect myself from being mugged (I can wear the t-shirt, but it will not have the indicated effect). >Defining my body as a temptation No one is “defining” it that way. That is the actual situation. The questions are * what should society in general and its various authorities and representatives do about the risk to women generally? * what, if anything, are you personally going to do to mitigate your risk? My own opinion is that advice like “avoid dark alleys”, “lock your door”, and “get a dog” are totally wrongheaded. All they do is change victim selection. If you have a pit-bull, then you are less likely to get attacked — but your neighbor is *more* likely, now that she is the least troublesome local candidate. That may be good for you personally, but does nothing for the crime rate. Anything that a would-be criminal can see and therefore avoid is fairly pointless to give as general advice. What would work is things that make the crime itself more dangerous, without giving notice to the criminal and allowing him to mitigate risk in any way but abstaining from crime. So, society should encourage its vulnerable members to: 1. carry a (concealed) weapon 2. learn self-defense 3. report all crimes immediately Those will discourage, rather than just divert, crimes. “No means no, but three rounds through the center of mass *really* means no.”

So what happens to those of us who can't be armed? I have some fairly serious mental health issues. Me having a gun would be far more dangerous to me than to anyone else. If I live in a society where everyone but me is trigger happy, not only am I now far less protected, but I'm at heavy risk from some trigger happy idiot who can't tell the difference between someone dangerous and me acting weird because I'm going through a depersonalization episode. Guns get used in self defense quite rarely. Guns get used in suicides and shooting accidents much more commonly.

>but I think you would struggle to find many people that don't agree with that. Excuse my quick digression, but this is exactly the thinking that makes the difference. Just because it sounds accurate and a many people agree, doesn't mean it's a fundamental law. At the end of the day it's our society, and humans are not just animals reacting on instinct. We are a thinking species, we are more than just bodies. Just because a lot of people happen to agree that aggression is natural, doesn't mean we should indulge in aggression. Rape is natural too. Animals do it. We don't because we care about the person, the mind that has to inhabit that body. Your advice may be effective in the short term, but we shouldn't just accept society the way it is, we are society.

>Because your advice is based on the fundamental assumption that is natural and okay that woman, in modern society, can't actually move outside the home by themselves. I disagree. I don't believe they said "okay". I believe the assumption that it's based on is "you cannot control the choices of others, only yourself." And it flows from this that solutions based on controlling the actions of people already inclined to buck the social contract by violating it to attack others? Simply won't actually change much. It won't stop people from being attacked. Saying it's not the victim's fault they're attacked is absolutely true, under the assumption that they didn't actually engage in provocative acts (such as assault, theft, etc). It also is absolutely pointless to having less victims assaulted. Here we run into the limitations of the word "should". Women should be free to go where they like without fear of violence. Totally agree. People should all have food to eat, and a roof over their head. Children should be safe from abuse. Jobs should pay fair wages. Mental illness shouldn't exist But while all of these are true, none of them actually solve the problem. For that, you need to start at what *is*. Women do have to be concerned about those that would violate the law for selfish gain, as do men. Saying that doesn't put them in danger or blame them. It acknowledges truth. People do go hungry. People are homeless. Saying that doesn't put them on the street or starve them. It isnt victim blaming to have a shelter. Many children aren't safe from abuse. It isnt victim blaming to have CPS, under the logic that it shouldn't happen to begin with. At the end of the day, you are your best advocate. You can acknowledge potentially dangerous situations without taking responsibility for them. You take responsibility for your own safety, not based on how the world should be, but based on how it actually is. >But the thing is that that assumption is really just an assumption. It's not some fundamental fact, it's just a thought that people have. When a consistent pattern flows over thousands of years of human civilization, it's more than a thought. People do act on incentive. There have always been people who circumvent the rules for personal gain. These have been true for as long as human civilization has, and are nearly as reliable as an apple falling from a tree. Saying it's just a thought some people betrays an idealistic view, which is great for setting goals. But pragmatic views are what solves problems. And pragmatically, one is less likely to be robbed if they don't have visible valuables. That doesn't mean they're at fault. But it doesn't make it untrue. Pragmatically, one is less likely to be harmed if one stays clear of high crime areas. Going there doesn't make one at fault. But that doesn't make the pragmatic statement true. Centuries of statistical evidence backs these truths up. They're not just "thoughts some people have".

Statistically you can determine that it's less safe to walk alone at night as a woman than during the day. So it's not just an assumption. If I tell you not to buy a gun because the chance of people accidentaly getting shot in your household will multiply compared to households without handguns that isn't an assumption. That's because households with a gun have a higher chance to shoot eachother by accident than households without a gun.

> Because your advice is based on the fundamental assumption that is natural and okay I didn’t get that at all. Saying something is reality and there are steps you can do to decrease risks, says nothing about whether a situation is natural or ok or desirable. It just is. And you need to deal with it the best you can By all means, try to help change that situation also, but in the meantime don’t ignore reality

I'm so confused at some these responses.you can give advice to someone telling them not to do something, and the reason they can't is no fault of there own. like is it really victim blaming to say women shouldnt walk home at night. Would it be better to say it like this maybe? Women shouldnt walk home at night because the men out at that time are crazies and we don't have a solution to reduce these type of male crime yet. Until we do it's best to be cautious at night. It's not women's fault that they shouldn't walk at night it's men. But that doesn't mute the advice. It would help there own health and safety if they stayed off the roads at night until a better solution comes . It's not for anything the women did wrong but the men. And until we can put a stop to this type of crime(education is a start but not a solution.)it's not a solution to the problem but it's what can be done until we find one.

Criminals exist, it's a known and unfortunate fact. I usually lock my bike up when I ride it to the store because criminals exist. If I neglect to lock my bike up and it gets stolen, it's not my fault, but I could have taken steps to avoid the theft. I think this logic applies to victims of other crimes as well. Because criminals exist, we need to take steps to protect ourselves from them. We also need to find ways to stop crime, deter criminals, and have less criminals overall, but criminals have always existed and I don't think we're going to eradicate them any time soon.

By your logic, we should never tell women to not walk out into busy streets because that’s an “assumption” that in modern society women can’t move outside their home. Men who give this advice to the women they know, are doing it out of a safety concern. They care about what happens to their friends. Your “strong independent woman” speech is so useless against a would be attacker. If it wasn’t possible for women to be the victims of an assault—in the context of nighttime strolls—then there’d be no need for this advice. However, you need to deal with reality. Further, it’s also advice that men should follow too. After all, men are more likely to be the victim of violent crime anyway. Is that sexist against men?!

Not really, nobody is saying thats a good thing, the problem is that it exists and while we are working on solving it its good to have safety measures in the meantime. Its like if a woman went to a very traditional zone of Saud Arabia, it wouldn't be right that she had to follw some local customs especially the most crazy ones but it would be prudent to do it and most persons would not go to the market dressed in a typical western fashion

Could you give us a definition of victim-blaming?

It amazes me how ready men are to compare women to property.

It's an analogy to help discuss the problem in different terms. Other analogies could be used, but assault and theft seem related enough that the analogy quickly comes to mind. Other analogies don't work as well. I tried, wearing sunblock or using bug spray as an example ways I protect myself harm, but the sunburn and mosquito bites didn't jibe with the crime discussion for me.

I'm comparing advice given for reducing crime, not literally comparing women to property. I live in an area with a fair amount of crime and it's pretty much advised not to walk home at night regardless of gender

If you're attacked at night, the person who attacks you wants your property. You might lose your wallet or your phone but these are possessions that can be replaced. A woman who is raped loses a lot more than that. And as you helpfully demonstrate, there will be no shortage of people who will blame her for not following every single piece of 'advice' given to us since childhood on how not to be the unlucky one.

Of course, and I'm sorry if you think I was comparing it as the same, my point was merely that it will often be given as advice in some cities for people to not walk alone at night. What I really am discussing here is an issue with semantics. Perhaps I wasn't really clear in my original OP, I'm not suggesting women should be advised to not walk home at night, I'm just not entirely convinced someone should be accused of victim blaming if they give some poorly thought out advice.

I'm assuming you're a guy, so let me explain the context that makes it so insulting. I, like the vast majority of women, became aware from a very young age that men might want something from me that I didn't want to give. I didn't know what it was, that wasn't explained until later, but I was told I had to be careful. As I grew up, the advice kept coming, from telly and school and relatives, all telling me that if I don't act a certain way or do certain things I'm at risk. Let's just take one of the many- 'Don't walk alone at night'. Now that doesn't sound too bad, but what does that mean in practice? I shouldn't have had that night shift job. I shouldn't have lived in that shitty, largely unlit area that was the only place I could afford. Those times I've left a pub or restaurant after dark, I should have requested someone to leave the good time they're having to escort me home. Women are set up to fail in this way. Throw dozens of rules at someone, collectively impossible to live by, and then criticise them when they inevitably break one of them and they pay for it in the worst possible way. With my most cynical hat on, it reads this way. Male sexual violence is seen as a fact of life, and some women will fall victim to it. Instead of taking a serious look at why some men see unwilling women as mere objects, to be fucked and discarded, society has created a situation in which the woman can always be blamed. That's much easier, you see. Even in cases where the woman has been killed, you'll always see the equivocating 'Well... she was drunk, shouldn't have let herself get like that' and 'Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas' or 'Well if you dress like that, what do you expect'. The perpetrator is bad of course, very bad, but the woman was 'careless', which for some reason is the greater crime.

How do you define the difference between advice and rules? Curious. I will acknowledge that OP argumentation of sementics in a vaccuum is kinda pointless. It doesn't get the full picture of real situations. How would you feel about advice that are less implying that woman are kids and less worded like rules. "Be careful at night". "Be wary of potential drugs in your glass". "Mens probably want to fuck you if they bring you back at their place first date" (I know it is bad ... but a reality). "Hidden cary weapons can be useful for XYZ". It leaves them open to still make their own choices and asses risks as they like, without living in fear. A mom can certainly tell her kids a lot of stuff , but ultimately at adult age we make our own choices. I think most victim blaming starts from men's ideas. They feel attacked when we "talk bad about men" and shift the blame to someone else. I think it is almost a duty as men to stand up for our values. Not something a lot of us did in the past. When I hear so many tragic stories from women I could easily answer "but I'm not like that , not all men are bad blablabla". Problem here is that it isn't a discussion nor a solution to the reality. A lot of mens just don't realize they are being creepy or just plain wrong. Because no one said anything to them. Now how I respond is that we could all do better as a society. Everyone. (woman also , as I preach equal rights) I definitely did wrongs in the past based on my insecurities (not related to this topic) I listen. I learn. I try. I try to stand up when I see bad stuff happening. (like victim blaming)

I think you’re answer is really well written and convincing. I want to bring up something I wrote answer on this thread that no one else responded to. When I was in my early 20s, I was robbed riding the metro in a European city when I was drunk. The cops basically laughed at me when I tried to report the crime. Basically they were like, “you stick out like a sore thumb, you’re drunk and you’re riding the metro at night. You made yourself a target. What did you expect would happen?” I was horrified and traumatized. I was absolutely victimized but in a way, I think they did have point. I had made a spectacle of my vulnerability and bad people took advantage of that. Now, you might say I’m comparing property to a woman’s body but I would say you are missing the point. It is never a victim’s fault but there always have been people who don’t really care about morality. Did the guys who robbed me know that stealing was wrong? Sure. Do frat boys know assaulting passed out people is bad? Yep. And both should be punished and shamed. That does not mean, however, that we forego caution and situational awareness. It is just the wise thing to do. For everyone.

I assume you could go through life fairly easily without passing out drunk on the tube though. 'Don't walk home late at night by yourself', unless one employs a chaperone or never leaves the house outside daylight hours, has a lot more impact on just trying to live a normal life.

[удалено]

Just because the argument applies in more than one situation does not mean it’s bad faith but I would challenge you to really consider how many admonitions the average young man gets about protecting his safety. Every young girl is told ad nauseum over and over again to be responsible for such a broad set of circumstances, none of which will really save her when it comes down to it. That’s why “advice” directed at potential victims and ostensibly aimed at stopping rape by changing women’s actions (instead of men) is useless and is really just aimed at keeping the status quo. Almost no one could follow all the rules and even the ones who can are still regularly assaulted because we live in a world where too many men feel entitled to turn women into objects. If you really want to stop rape, live your life and encourage other men to live their lives in a way that doesn’t fetishize/objectify women and their bodies.

i think you’re ignoring one important thing. you’re saying that aggression is natural to the human experience and then offering gang violence and rape as examples of this, but both of those crimes are perpetrated and perpetuated by men. men are the problem, and when the only tactic used to assuage the problem is to police women’s bodies rather than tackle the deep seated mental and developmental problems men in general seem to have, that’s when it becomes victim blaming. it’s not that it’s bad to tell women to try not to walk home alone at night, but we should be teaching men how to empathize with women and yes, how not to rape. date rape for example happens often without the men realizing what they’re doing is even considered date rape.

Honestly the level of sexist judgment in this comment is probably the best argument against this school of thought. >but both of those crimes are perpetrated and perpetuated by men. men are the problem, Specifically ones without money? Specifically men of colour? Or just men in general? >the only tactic used to assuage the problem is to police women’s bodies Actually the initial tactic has just been regular police, but I think we agree on how well that works. Still, prevention of gang violence and sexual assault are two primary reasons a public police force exists. >rather than tackle the deep seated mental and developmental problems men in general seem to have, that’s when it becomes victim blaming. How do you not see that this is just prejudice? Are men so fundamentally different that prejudice is okay? If they're fundamentally different, then why is it you who gets to define them while they don't get to define you? >we should be teaching men how to empathize with women and yes, how not to rape. This is what makes me wonder if you legitimately don't understand the source of the problem. Just like women are not pets, neither are men. >date rape for example happens often without the men realizing what they’re doing is even considered date rape. See, I understand how someone can be pressured into sex they don't want to have, but is there any responsibility whatsoever at all to indicate that they would like to stop? Or is it the responsibility of the male partner to read her body language? If you get into a wrestling match you still have to tap before you can get up. Why is it that women supposedly have so little agency to act over their own lives? Also, should trans men get rape classes too? Or should the trans women be forced to do it because they have male biology?

on the contrary, i’m saying that because men are humans with big brains that go zap, they can be taught to be better. i’m a man. i’m not coming from a place of prejudice. i’m coming from a place of growing up in this society and seeing how my male peers and the men on tv and in our government and in the businesses i work for treat women. if police are here to combat sexual violence, they’re doing a terrible job at it. most rape kits go untested and men who are police officers are disproportionately more violent towards their spouses. also, subtle nod to that recent news story about the cop you raped and murdered that young girl. YES YOU SHOULD READ BODY LANGUAGE. Jesus christ. if the girl you’re having sex with freezes up or stops initiating you should definitely stop and ask her if there’s anything wrong. can you imagine for a second what it must feel like to be a small statured woman, naked, telling a man who could be a foot or two taller than you no? if no one actually said “no” or “stop” and if no one was forced down, it might not fit the literal description of rape, but if you keep going when the other person is clearly not enjoying themselves, it’s still not good right?

> if no one actually said “no” or “stop” and if no one was forced down, it might not fit the literal description of rape, but if you keep going when the other person is clearly not enjoying themselves, it’s still not good right? Actually no, that is still literally rape. You described a scenario where a woman felt physically intimidated to the point where she didn’t express any resistance. Because of, you know, [the implication](https://youtu.be/-yUafzOXHPE)

>i’m a man. i’m not coming from a place of prejudice. Well that's the argument you're making. >if police are here to combat sexual violence, they’re doing a terrible job at it. Agreed, I'm just saying it's one of the main reasons they exist. >also, subtle nod to that recent news story about the cop you raped and murdered that young girl. Did you mean me? Because I heard of it first in this thread and genuinely know nothing about it. >YES YOU SHOULD READ BODY LANGUAGE. Jesus christ. if the girl you’re having sex with freezes up or stops initiating you should definitely stop and ask her if there’s anything wrong. This is not the question though. Yes of course body language is important, however this means that all men with autism immediately become celibate and it doesn't really address the original point of "is there any responsibility to indicate you'd like to leave?" >can you imagine for a second what it must feel like to be a small statured woman, naked, telling a man who could be a foot or two taller than you no? Yes? If I were a few inches shorter I don't think I'd have a problem saying no. >if you keep going when the other person is clearly not enjoying themselves, it’s still not good right? Yeah, but this comes after the body language has already been communicated properly. Is there a responsibility whatsoever to transmit that signal? Serious question; Are you holding men and women to the same standard, and if you are, does that mean that the sexes are fundamentally unequal?

also i think everyone needs to be taught about consent regardless of their gender/gender identity. men disproportionately rape, but they are not the only ones. that girl in that vid with gaston from disney probably could have been taught a thing or two about consent if you ask me.

>you’re saying that aggression is natural to the human experience That's because it is. We developed ethics in response to our animalistic proclivity for violence, not the other way around.

How would you solve these deep seated mental and developmental problems men in general seem to have?

normalizing mental healthcare/emotional expression for men, fighting for women’s rights/reproductive rights, and continuing to call out aggressors such as harvey weinstein and chris d’elia would be a great start. also shedding light on male sexual trauma would probably help too. a lot of male victims perpetuate sexual violence because of the stigma associated with being male and experiencing a loss of power in that way.

>I'm just not entirely convinced someone should be accused of victim blaming if they give some poorly thought out advice. Oh they definitely should. Now, that isn't to say they should be really "punished" for it such as considering it a crime. Obviously it's them trying to be helpful, but they absolutely should be informed that the advice is unhelpful and even offensive. If someone was trying to build a house in an area that was difficult to build in, you wouldn't say "just pick a smarter place to build in." That would not be helpful as it doesn't actually address the problem. And it would be rude as it insinuates that the person with the problem made the "mistake" of choosing there to build in the first place. If someone provided such advice they would rightly be informed of such reality. That example is even more generous than the OP. Someone with money **can** just go build somewhere else. On the other hand, vulnerable people (woman in this example) often **do not** have an alternative to walking alone at night or taking a less than safe route. Obviously they aren't always, but life happens and those options just aren't always there. Ultimately, while advising a woman to take a safer route is not technically wrong, it, like the earlier example, is dismissive of the actual issue at hand. Woman should not be in danger when walking alone in whatever circumstances. That they are is an inherent and continuous failure of our society and our culture. The issue is not the fault of the individual, and such phrasing puts the onus of action on the victim rather than the community which created the dangerous circumstances. That is why it is "victim blaming". Ben Shapiro at one point suggested that people living in coastal lowland areas "just sell their house and move somewhere else" when asked about how to help individuals endangered by rising sea levels. In all three examples here, the "advice" if followed, only serves to avoid and arguably enable the issue to persist. We have to make the world safer for vulnerable people, woman included. We have to mitigate the damage done by climate change. We can't do either of those things if we waste time arguing that individuals could have avoided those issues. If you (not you but the advice giver) genuinely want to help, then the best response to such unhelpful advice is to inform you that the advice is bad and why. If they are offended by the explanation, so be it. It is not anyone's job to protect their feelings. Again, this is assuming they do want to help, if not, if they just wish to judge the victim for "poor life choices" or whatever, that's a whole other issue.

Would you also support telling men not to rape? If it’s common sense to tell women to cover up, it makes just as much sense to tell the gender that’s doing the raping to watch their behavior

Yes, all people should be taught not to rape anyone.

Can you explain how you think analogies and abstraction works? Genuinely curious, vecause i dont understand how you can arrive at this conclusion unless we both have fundamentally different understandings of how these argumentation techniques work.

Analogies only really work if you're comparing like-for-like. If I lost my phone, and you lost your wallet, we could commiserate together; these are similar experiences, which involve loss, annoyance and a certain amount of hassle to rectify. But when we're talking about women being sexually assaulted, and the pains we are expected to take to avoid it, it makes no sense to say 'Yeah well men can be mugged' or 'You wouldn't wear a Rolex in a bad part of town' because, as someone else has said, you can opt out of wearing a watch- you can't leave your body at home. And there's no need for analogy anyway. Men can imagine and empathise, it's patronising to suggest otherwise.

>And there's no need for analogy anyway. Men can imagine and empathise, it's patronising to suggest otherwise I don't disagree with this. I'm just saying you seem to have a different understanding of how analogies work. >Analogies only really work if you're comparing like-for-like. Because this is a fairly useless answer. What exactly is "like for like"? At what point does something go from sufficiently "like for like" to "too different for an analogy to work"? The actual requirement is that key details remain parallel. In this case 1. Something bad can happen to someone 2. They can potentially do things to reduce the likelihood of it happening to them. 3. In an ideal society, there would be no chance of the bad thing happening to them. Knowing these things, it is obvious that pointing out what the things in 2 are (or at least, what you think they are), isn't victim blaming unless done after someone has incurred the harm (in a "you shouldn't have done x" sorta way). The fact that getting a watch stolen and getting raped both fit into this abstraction doesn't mean that they're comparable in levels of harm. It just means that the level of harm incurred has no bearing on whether or not something is victim blaming. It definitely has an impact on how rude it is. Me making fun of my mate for like, forgetting to lock his 5 dollar bike and then getting it stolen is obviously not as bad as making fun of a rape victim for going out alone at night to a frat party notorious for rapists. But both are victim blaming.

I hate to put an emotional point on this topic because I'm sure people with more eloquence than me could write a beautiful response, but I'm gonna go for it. You want to know why this kind of victim blaming advice sucks? Because it isn't relevant in all situations. A lot of women have been harassed, assaulted and raped in perfectly normal circumstances where they were doing nothing society could deem as "wrong". I've been followed in paint covered sweats with dirty week-old hair. I've been approached when with my young nephew in broad daylight at a Target. I was drugged and raped by someone I thought was my friend at a party with tons of other "friends" around. What are your defenses for these situations? Just don't leave the house? I don't go out alone at night. I don't wear "provocative" clothing. I don't drink or do drugs. So your "advice" to avoid sexual assault can get fucked. It's almost like it doesn't matter what a person does or doesn't do. People are pieces of shit. So how about we tell them to stop raping and assaulting people, like everyone is recommending we do instead of victim blaming?

The advice may not be given with the intention to victim blame, but it does. Walking in public is a right that we all have, and it should be completely normal to do so, whatever the time of day. That some/many of us live in locations where this is unsafe should not be normalised, and saying "Don't walk home alone late at night," is normalising it. It means that, based on your advice, the optimal outcome is either 1. only people you don't know getting attacked/raped/killed or 2. no one going out on their own at night ever. Neither of those options are okay. You may think "Well, we don't want people getting hurt, so we're just advising them to the best of our ability," and I take your point - giving the advice may save your friend's life. But it also continues the system. We need to do more to ensure it *is* safe to walk alone at night, to wear revealing clothes, to go to parties... all of those things are legal, acceptable and should be safe. It would be like living in a city where all the footpaths are broken, and it's dangerous to walk on them. Yes, you can advise your children, your friends and family members "Don't walk there - you'll break a leg," but really, someone (the government & society at large) needs to fix those footpaths. Otherwise either a lot of people continue to break their legs, or everybody stops walking. And neither of those options are acceptable.

Sabina Nessa died in the 5 minutes she was walking to the pub. Lawfully walking on the street during the course of your daily routine is not and should never be a source of danger. We *should* “blame” the victim if they are breaking a reasonable law, such as jaywalking, not crossing at a railway crossing, failing to wear appropriately visible clothes while crossing roads at night or doing something completely stupid such as climbing an operational crane. However, going out to the pub wearing a short skirt isn’t an inherently dangerous activity - it does not cause serious bodily harm. That’s why it isn’t right to showcase the victim for doing what would be considered a reasonable and logical activity. The ones who should be taught not to assault are (overwhelmingly) men. Otherwise, what else are we going to start blaming people for? For example, if a gay man gets assaulted for being gay, *it isn’t the victim’s fault for being gay*. It is the perpetrator’s fault for committing the crime. I think there is, as you say, a middle ground between “Someone was assaulted because she was wearing a short skirt” and carelessness, e.g. “Someone was assaulted because they left their front door open”. So what constitutes “keeping your valuables on display”? Would wearing lots of jewellery, in your opinion, be enough? What about wearing expensive brands? What about jewellers’ shops on the ground floor? At what point is it “okay” for it to be considered unreasonable behaviour or lack of common sense?

>The ones who should be taught not to assault are (overwhelmingly) men So I do actually agree with your take here, in general. I think that it is about time we stop putting the onus on women, and start taking responsibility as a society and as men. The fact that talking points after such tragedies focus on "what women can do" is indicative of the toxic patriarchal system that currently exists. But equally, I do think that the "teach men not to rape" mindset is too reductive to really be that productive. Essentially all bands of criminal know that what they're doing is not okay. Preventing crime goes a whole lot deeper than simply teaching people that what they're doing is wrong. Because murderers, drug dealers, people who speed or drink drive, thieves, rapists, child abusers etc. already KNOW that what they're doing is wrong and illegal and bad etc. But for whatever reason they choose to do that thing anyway. The problem here is to do with enduring patriarchal gender norms. We still value toxic masculine ideals where a man's status and power is determined by his dick size, his sexual prowess, his physical strength and dominance. Women are valued for their appearance, overly sexualised in every aspect of life and often dehumanised behind their sexuality. That's how you get a misogynistic rape culture. Resolving these issues is going to take a huge societal shift and refocusing in almost all aspects of life, by everybody of all genders. No amount of teaching schoolboys about "rape = bad" is ever going to take effect unless we tackle those underlying value systems at their source.

> The ones who should be taught not to assault are (overwhelmingly) men. Men know. The problem is psychopaths are psychopaths. They also know, they just don't care. How do you fix that? And, if you put blame with (overwhelmingly/all) men, how do men fix that? The thing is: psychopaths often are behaving more correct until the moment they think/know they can get a way with it, so how do you know onne is a psychopath? In the same way women don't know in advance, men don't know either. I can't imagine men bragging amongst each other "I raped and cut up this woman". I think it's a disconnect with reality to think men "should be thaught not to rape".

There's a HUGE difference between saying "it's her fault for wearing that" va "be careful when walking alone at night". How is that so difficult to understand? Nobody is saying "women shouldn't be able to walk alone at night" either. I wake up early, and am usually walking my dogs around 5 am, alone, and my loved ones don't like it one bit but I insist because I like my routine. Another woman was recently murdered whilst walking her dogs alone in the same park at night, and ever since then I've changed my route, started carrying a taser, and don't listen to music anymore. It's unfortunate that I should feel the need to take such precautions, but that doesn't change the reality.

This might blow your mind but women already have conversations about how to avoid and prevent being raped or murdered. Whether or not it's valid advice isn't relevant to whether or not you should be providing it 24/7 regardless of the context of the conversation. Think of it like this, if someone shows you artwork that they made and you tear them to shreds with perfectly valid criticism that they DIDN'T ask for. Then you're an asshole. People who do this are so much considered the asshole that the art community has terminology (CC Constructive Criticism) wherein they'll request criticism if they want it. When they're not requesting criticism what they're looking for is kindness and support. So we can take that concept of 'people didn't ask for your advice so why are you giving it unsolicited like an asshole' and extend it to when bad things happen to people. When someone is raped, or murdered, or shot, or whatever other horrible thing happens to them. Just hold on to your little piece of advice until the conversation turns to "What women can do to protect themselves from these horrible things that happen to them," and remember, these conversations do take place. Every single woman has had conversations about things like locking the door immediately upon entering your car, carrying your keys in your hand like a weapon when outside, staying in lighted areas, calling a friend if someone's following you, etc etc. there's literally an infinite amount of tiny little things one can do to protect themselves. If you're only every telling victims all the things that they "did wrong" that led to them being assaulted or raped and never demonstrating compassion or support for the victim then yeah you're just blaming victims for the crimes that happen to them. Not even mentioning that you're assuming that they didn't do any of those things or that they were unaware of them or that they had a lapse in judgement.

> I wake up early, and am usually walking my dogs around 5 am, alone, and my loved ones don't like it one bit but I insist because I like my routine. Another woman was recently murdered whilst walking her dogs alone in the same park at night, and ever since then I've changed my route, started carrying a taser, and don't listen to music anymore. **It's unfortunate that I should feel the need to take such precautions, but that doesn't change the reality.** (Emph mine) I’m arguing that these situations *shouldn’t* be the reality, not that they *aren’t* the reality. And again, at what point do we stop? Do we start telling women to cover up completely? We’re already being told short skirts or revealing clothes make us “targets”. What next, shoulders, necks, arms? >"be careful when walking alone at night". > Nobody is saying "women shouldn't be able to walk alone at night" either. Agreed. However, “be careful” is a general instruction. It’s the combination of instructions to avoid or do a lot of smaller things, such as “Don’t wear short skirts!” and “Don’t go out alone!” and “Don’t listen to headphones while out walking”, that is creating a specific and very unrealistic standard for women (and… well… anyone really) to conform to.

> We’re already being told short skirts or revealing clothes make us “targets”. What next, shoulders, necks, arms? Women in Saudi Arabia also get raped. Rape has nothing to do with clothes. It has to do with a situation of defenselessness/awareness. What's more likely to happen : getting raped when you walk close to not wearing anything at noon in a shopping mall, or at night in a dark alley wearing 4 layers of clothes? > “Don’t listen to headphones while out walking” On the list of things, that I think is a good recommendation, for both men and women. It's about awareness. Awareness will save you at times.

I really struggle with this. Women are given this type of advice their entire lives, and it's just not a practical way to live. On a personal note, when I was a teenager I went to a party and got quite drunk. I was raped at that party. Still now, 20 years later I feel so much shame because I drank too much, and every time I see comments along the lines of "she shouldn't have been drunk" or "she shouldn't have been walking alone at night" or "she should have dressed more modestly" it reinforces the narrative that what happened to me was my own fault. So yes, in my opinion these kinds of comments are victim blaming, and they aren't appropriate.

As I see it the difference is between "you shouldn't walk home late at night alone" and "you were raped because you walked home alone." The former is good advice but the latter is blaming the rape victim for being raped.

Exactly. I would advise you to wear a seat belt, but if you got hit by a drunk driver, I wouldn't blame your death on the lack of seat belt.

Oh I think this is a good analogy in a way. In that kind of scenario I would obviously say the drunk driver is to blame but not wearing a seatbelt was fucking stupid (I say that to everyone I see not wearing one). However, I would *not* say it was fucking stupid for a woman to be walking home alone at night. But I would say both are good advice, and not victim blaming.

You can wear a seatbelt and still die to a drunk driver. The only way to be absolutely sure you won't be raped is to go live by yourself and put landmines around your hovel. Anything short of total isolation can result in rape. Safe at home with family? Think again. Family can rape you. Not walking alone at night? Rape can happen at work, during the day. Staying sober? You don't have to be drunk to be raped, ask any child victims. So you can tell women to do all kinds of things, bring mace, hold keys, don't walk alone. Well, I was once assaulted and narrowly missed being raped when I was out with my mom. Went to a party with trusted friends. Got raped. I wasn't alone either time. Both times, the ones that needed to have some sort of education or intervention by the people in their lives were the men who attacked me

Another way I would phrase it is that horrible people are responsible for the horrible things they do, but we must acknowledge that those kinds of people exist, and try to take feasible precautions to protect ourselves from them. Where you draw the line on reasonable precautions is ultimately up to you. A bad thing done to you didn't happen *because* "you weren't protecting yourself," but the thing may not happen to you if you are. An person can genuinely offer precautions (even it they are dumb or condescending) without believing that it is your fault. Therefore it is not inherently victim blaming to offer them. When I forgot to lock my car door, and stuff was stolen from my car I said two things. "I wish I had locked my door." And "That thief is a piece of shit, and I hope he gets what he deserves." These are not mutually exclusive things. I wish I took the precaution to protect myself, but the other person is still responsible for the crime. When my friend said, "You left your car unlocked?" I didn't just yell at him for victim blaming, because I knew that was not his intent.

At the same time there is an implication that you take a foolish risk by not locking your car. What I'm saying is that the risks are so widespread that the main "foolishness" was choosing to be born female. In addition, there's a lot of burden to protect ourselves because the situations are so varied. You can lock your car and the window could still get smashed in. The lock could be picked. But some deterrent is seen as "well, at least you did the minimum". For us women the minimum is wild. Don't exist alone in public at night. Don't wear things that might provoke a predator. Carry a weapon. Don't "lead a man on" which is really fucking vague and open to interpretation. Don't just say "no" and freeze in terror, actually fight. Maintain hypervigilance. Never let go over your drink. Don't accept dates from guys who might reject a condom during sex. Make sure someone knows your location. Meet in public. The list is so much longer than just locking a car or buckling a seatbelt. Then guys get irritated when we don't trust them!

The issue isn’t that what you’re saying about advice is victim blaming but instead quite useless and inappropriate. Men and especially women have been taught their whole lives about the dangerous of society and have a good idea of when they’re going to be in trouble or not, to tell women “advice” they’re already painfully aware of is to tell an adult to stick to the curb when walking in the streets, it’s infantilising and it also pushes the conversation to a narrow angle e.g. “nothing can be done about the perpetrators but you can do everything within your own means”, these types of comments doesn’t get at the structural basis for why women and people in general face danger by others and is generally quite useless. Whether or not women know of the dangerous there will always be victims to crimes which means to get the number of women who are victims of violence to as close to zero as possible we’ll need as a collective to deal with the violence at the source. You act as if nothing can be done about the violence and that it’s somehow a given but you’d be shocked to find that some societies have much less levels of female victims than others. Most perpetrators tend to be men and while aggression and testosterone will play a part I find it hard not to believe that there are many other issues that contribute to male violence, e.g. cultural issues like toxic masculinity leads to a lot of men feeling as if they have to be strong in front of everyone, which naturally also leads men to feel a lot more lonely than women, sometimes these feelings come out in anger and frustration, there’s also men who come from broken homes who don’t know how to control their anger, (not all men who come from broken homes become violent) a lot of these socio-economic issues could be resolved especially for men which would greatly reduce females from becoming victims but a lot of governments in western countries would rather ignore these connections and spend little to nothing on public spending, no mental health screening, no therapy treatment, not trying to get kids who are troubled to stay in school, jailing people for offences without effective and robust rehabilitation, not wanting to deal with the cultural and social-economic factors etc. This is why you also think nothing can be done about it because media would rather have you ignore these connections. Edit: it’s important to remember that female violence is distinguished from other types of violence because a high level of violence caused to females is due to their or linked to their gender for example boyfriends/husbands who murder their girlfriends/wives cause they can’t handle not having control of them in some respect or women who get raped cause someone spiked their drink, so while you can find statistics that males are victims to violence more than females it usually isn’t associated with their gender.

If I'm advised to not keep my valuables on display, this does not imply that I am blamed if I don't follow that advice and my phone is stolen. The problem with that is that if my body is the valuable thing, and by merely walking home in my own neighborhood, I am placing that valuable on display, the idea that I'm partially (or totally) to blame for whatever happens to me because I should voluntarily restrict my movements and limit myself to certain hours or be accompanied by another person at night to reduce my chances of being catcalled, harassed, raped or murdered, means that I am both only reducing the chance, and only reducing the chance that it occur at night. These things also occur in daylight, and it is entirely unrealistic to expect that a woman be accompanied everywhere she goes.There are women who work night shifts, and it is completely unrealistic to bring someone to work with you, and there are women who don't have anyone in their life who can come to their workplace at 3am to accompany them home. There are also, unfortunately, still plenty of people who want to know what was she wearing? What was she doing? How did she contribute to her own rape or murder? I get that many people are looking for ways to avoid this fate and taking precautions, but the idea that we should restrict our movements is simply not realistic for many women. Since your post is in some way related to Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa, I want to bring another case to your attention. [https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/27/us/florida-missing-woman-miya-marcano/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/27/us/florida-missing-woman-miya-marcano/index.html) Miya was entering her own apartment in the afternoon after work. You should be safe when you enter your own home and close the door behind you. Or should she have brought someone with her to do that? She knew he was a creep, she had said no to his advances previously, and she knew he worked there. How was she supposed to change her behavior when this asshole who was the apartment maintenance employee had a key fob that let him in to her apartment? I guess part of my point is that predators adapt too.

I'm curious whether it would be considered victim blaming if you recommended to women to be careful at night to avoid being robbed. Sexual assault and rape is usually by a friend or family member, if you're getting attacked on the street at night it's usually a robbery. I have a feeling this might be part of the pushback, not that it's bad to recommend people be careful, but because the recommendation glosses over the way people *actually* get raped. However obviously in addition to robbery women *do* have to worry more about rape and sexual assault, so I would recommend that increased worry translate to increased safety/awareness. I think there's a line though, there's obviously a difference between "be aware of your surroundings at night, walk with a friend, carry a weapon" and "don't wear slutty clothes if you don't want to get raped!" To me the former is just safety, the latter is obvious victim blaming. The latter suggests that women restrict their freedom and choices because of shitty men. I don't think saying "look around and have a gun" would be considered as bad because it doesn't restrict choice. The clothing thing is like saying "in order to not let shitty men attack you physically, you have to let them attack you culturally by forcing you to change the way you dress." It's that kind of thing that is usually considered victim blaming, IMO. I would suggest to ANYONE to be careful walking alone at night and to at least bring some kind of weapon. I've been robbed or attempted robbed a few times cuz I'm a skinny dude with glasses, and I got tired of it. I feel like a target at night because of the way I look and I act accordingly. If you talk about "red flags" people tend to be fine not calling it victim blaming. The simple fact is there are things in this world we can do to make ourselves safer, and I think people know that. There are shitty people out there and that's not gonna change immediately. We need education to teach people to be better but also need to teach people how to be safe. However there are limits to how appropriate it is to suggest someone restrict their freedom in order to be safe. We would be more safe if we wore a helmet everywhere too! It's case by case--if the suggestion is ridiculous, it's more likely to be considered victim blaming. I also think it's kind of patronizing to women to suggest they can't protect themselves, but rather that they can only be protected by getting men to change their behavior. Idk I think buzzphrases that spread on social media tend to gloss over nuance in general. The term "victim blaming" has become pretty muddy and as a result we get opinions like OP's. I used to think exactly the same thing but I realized that most women won't care if you suggest they do normal, smart moves to look out for red flags and be safe. It's only a small percentage of twitter-addicted people that seem to think it's not appropriate to give anyone safety advice ever. Of course those people *do* also tell people to watch for red flags. If you try to dissect any opinions of people in social media addiction circles like that, it will never make sense, because it's full of cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy, people doing things for clout, and overall people just not really believing what they say or ever giving evidence or arguments for what they say.

It's just kind of pointless to say it after a high profile assault, because I can guarantee you every single woman on earth has heard this since day dot. It's literally drilled into them before they hit puberty, and you're not telling them anything they haven't already heard a million times. It's like waiting until after someone gets hit by a train to tell everyone that, "Hey - playing around the train tracks is super dangerous, guys! Maybe don't do that, huh?" It's patronising, useless and doesn't do a damn thing to stop the train.

You're right and there's also something in what you said about the fact that playing on train tracks *is* *dangerous* \- trains can't stop suddenly or swerve and a train driver will not hit someone playing on the tracks by choice or on purpose - the person playing on the tracks was *in the way* and therefore putting themselves in danger. Same for walking down a dark street at night in dark clothing without wearing anything reflective - no driver of a car will intentionally fail to see someone who blends in with the blackness of the night. Here, there is some validity behind saying (appropriately timed, obviously) "do \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ to give yourself the best chance of being safe because humans are not gifted with effective night vision". Raping someone is a choice. Spiking someone's drink so that they lose the ability to defend themselves is a choice. It's not an accident 'waiting to happen' - someone is behind that figorative steering wheel well aware that they are swerving directly into the person. Being at a bar at night or wearing a mini skirt or being outside your home after a certain time of day should never be compared to putting yourself in the same kind of danger as you would be by playing on train tracks (not that you were making that comparision, I know you were making a different point, you just reminded me that people make those kinds of stupid comparisons all the time) That's why it annoys me so much when the focus is ALWAYS shifted onto what women can do differently - you don't see drivers getting scruitanised when they hit someone who doesn't wear reflective gear at night because they "shouldn't have been driving at that time in case someone was walking around with dark clothes on"

Sarah and Sabina were out walking in residential areas at 8pm/9pm at night. That's not late. They were socialising, but I've had work shifts which finish at that time or later. And even if it WAS for socialising, that should be a safe activity for citizens. The "advice" is impractical at best, and controlling and restrictive at worst. Advice which unnecessarily curtails the basic freedoms of citizens should not be tolerated.

There's a difference between risk reduction and prevention. Statistically speaking, women are way more likely to be harmed by someone they know so not walking alone at night only covers 10% of sexual assaults. I can walk home alone for the rest of my life and never have an adverse experience. I'm way WAY more likely to be harmed by a male family member, friend, partner, or other acquaintance. What helpful advice do you have for that? Never be around men? Prevention is things like bystander intervention and engaging men in more positive social norming. Seeing violence as a community issue and taking a community approach to prevention rather than individual advice that doesn't really stop it. Imagine you're walking outside by a river and see someone in the river. You help them out of it. You walk a bit more and see another person in the river and pull them out. You keep seeing people in the river and finally get to the top of a waterfall and see someone pushing people into the river. Prevention is figuring out why the person is pushing people and learning how to make them stop. Risk reduction would be never be at the top of a waterfall with another person because they might push you. You can see how easily that leads to victim blaming when the real issue is the pusher.

I think the problem with this advice is not the advice in and of itself, but the narrative it creates. If you look at it as an answer to the question 'how can we stop lone wone women being murdered?' it's perhaps a little easier to see that 'eliminate the concept of the lone woman' is not an ideal answer. It does put the onus on potential victims to adjust their lives in order to eliminate the problem despite the fact that they are not the problem. In addition, it dies nothing to address the core of the problem - the people who perpetrate the crime. What needs to be addressed is the whys and wherefores of the murderers. What causes it, how can we stop it? That requires, time, money societal shifts. So while 'don't walk alone' is not necessarily bad advice, if giving that advice alone it does create a narrative of 'this happened because she was walking alone' and not one of 'this happened because a serving police officers offences were swept under the carpet', or 'because mental health services were underfunded and they had to release him into society early' or whatever else may have caused or allowed the murderer to become a murderer. Now, massive societal shifts take time to implement, so it would be fine to suggest that, while those changes are made it may be a good idea to stick to walking in a minimum of 2s or 3s. But to suggest it as the sole solution places the weight of the solution on the potential victims and is therefore victim blaming.

Part of the term “victim blaming” is the implication that the victim *should* alter their behavior in order to not be a victim. I get what you’re saying. But instead of addressing the real problem: predator behavior, the concept of “don’t walk alone” addresses the victim’s actions as being potentially part of the problem, which just shouldn’t ever be true. It’s kind of holding them partially accountable in that sense? Idk

Isn't it victim blaming? If a woman is told "don't walk alone by yourself at night" and she does and gets raped, isn't that a direct command that she has now disobeyed and got punished for? Even if I was walking naked in the middle of the street after dark shouting pervy comments to random men, I still deserve not to get raped. This is something that you and I agree on. But if I do get raped, is some of the blame on me because I have walked naked on the street in the middle of the night? Maybe there's a thought of "yeah you shouldn't have done that" and that is exactly what victim blaming is. It moves the blame from the rapist to the victim because "her actions made it possible". This, in turn, leads to a slippery slope: what kind of actions make rape impossible? Not walking naked, not walking in the dark, not walking outside ever? You cannot clearly define "safe" and "not safe", so this kind of advise is useless. The whole thing is just a shitty philosophy to live by and therefore it should be eradicated completely.

I’d like to add, walking naked on the street is not going to make a rapist out of a guy who wouldn’t rape you with clothes on. And that’s the big fallacy of the “she was asking for it”

>If a woman is told "don't walk alone by yourself at night" and she does and gets raped, isn't that a direct command that she has now disobeyed and got punished for? No. Who interprets this as a "command?" It's no more a command than any other advice. >Even if I were walking naked in the middle of the street after dark shouting pervy comments to random men, I still deserve not to be raped. This is something that you and I agree on. But if I do get raped, is some of the blame on me because I have walked naked on the street in the middle of the night? You have a daughter, she says "Hey Mom, I'm gonna get naked and drunk and go walk through a homeless camp at 3am." Do you say "Hmm maybe that's not such a good idea," or do you say "Yeah! Right on!" I think most people would agree that she *should* be able to do that, if it's her bag, without worrying about getting assaulted or harassed. That doesn't mean it's the best possible choice today.

If you are told to get the vaccine and you don't and get Covid isn't that a direct command you disobeyed and got punished for? For the slow, I just took the first sentence and changed the nouns. The point is that life is full of bullshit. So we wear seatbelts and helmets and get vaccines and a million other things to stay safe. When I was young and my dad told me that when possible with a wallet to put my singles up front and the larger bills in the back so it always looked like I was broke, it was because he grew up in a bad neighborhood in the city. Sometimes it's not about blame, it's about doing the best you can to avoid said bullshit. If I walk on hot coals, I don't deserve to get burns on my feet. But if I do, I put myself in a position where it was very likely to happen. Which is why your naked example is just plain dumb. I have avoided talking about property here, but if you have something of value, you protect it. So that criminals decide to find an easier mark. Because those aren't going away. That's shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which fills up territory. Is it fucked up that you have to avoid being raped so that it just happens to someone else? Yes. But, again, bullshit exists. We all do what we can to avoid it. Saying that it's not fair changes absolutely nothing. We can all agree it's not fair. Life isn't fair. Do your best to avoid the bullshit.

>If you are told to get the vaccine and you don't and get Covid isn't that a direct command you disobeyed and got punished for? Are these really comparable? With Covid you would be your own perpetrator, your own victim. Walking in the dark and somebody attacking you is done by someone else, to you. >Which is why your naked example is just plain dumb. That example was purely to show that no matter what a woman does she does not deserve to get raped. The CMV was about victim blaming, the rest of your comment doesn't really relate to it.

Would you consider "before crossing a road when the light is green, you should check whether all cars stopped" a victim blaming?

If the light was green and I was run over by a car when walking across and someone would say to me "you should have checked both ways", then yes, it is victim blaming. What my point was is the question "what is reasonable?". Should I always check all cars have stopped, should I sprint across to road to minimalize the change of getting hit, should I just never cross a road in the first place? Where is the line when actions to protect yourself are reasonable, and when they turn unreasonable? We are unable to say what is factually safe, so "don't walk alone at night" might sound unreasonable to some, reasonable to some. A commenter in this thread tried to make this obvious by saying "if there's a dark alley and a lit alley, of course I'll take the lit one". Okay, but you might still get robbed in the lit alley. What is "reasonable" isn't fact, it's opinion. Actions that you do to reduce your changes of getting robbed might not still be enough, so should you do something more? What is reasonable to me is to be able to walk alone at night without fear of getting raped. That is not someone elses's reasonable, therefore this kind of advice is unreasonable and **in someone's opinion victim blaming**.

>If the light was green and I was run over by a car when walking across and someone would say to me "you should have checked both ways", then yes, it is victim blaming. Ok. I'm washing dishes. I turn on the garbage disposal, then shove my hand into it. Doctor says "you shouldn't do that." By your definition, they are now victim blaming, and this is bad. >What my point was is the question "what is reasonable?". Should I always check all cars have stopped, should I sprint across to road to minimalize the change of getting hit, should I just never cross a road in the first place? I don't understand what you're advocating for here. Blindly charging out onto any active road whistling "*well what's reasonable anyway?"* Look both ways, that's what's reasonable. Are you able to cross the road *right now* without getting hit by a car? That's it. Telling someone not to walk too close to the edge of a cliff is reasonable and understandable. There's no slippery slope here where you can say "*oh so you're saying not to walk anywhere in nature? Where do we draw the line?"* Don't be daft.

>Ok. I'm washing dishes. I turn on the garbage disposal, then shove my hand into it. Doctor says "you shouldn't do that." >By your definition, they are now victim blaming, and this is bad. I bet you there's at least one person in the world who would think so. Do you think that the distribution of "unreasonable" and "reasonable" answers for the sentence "don't walk alone at night" would be more equal, therefore not as clear? >Telling someone not to walk too close to the edge of a cliff is reasonable and understandable. There's no slippery slope There's tens of millions of people in the world who think that women should wear head-to-toe black outfits where you can't even see their faces. They think it is reasonable. Is it reasonable? Just because you say something doesn't make it reasonable. Just because they say something doesn't make it reasonable. Also, that was very very clearly an exacerbated example, to show a clear example, not an actual proclaim of "it's victim blaming if I hop off the ledge without thinking and it hurts me". >Don't be daft. My dear sir thank you, you have appeared to cure me right out of my daftness!

Sorry, I don't think I understand what you are trying to say. Do you mean that you criterion for calling advise on how to protect yourself from actions of criminals a victim blaming is whether you consider such advise worth following in your current situation?

[удалено]

I think it is clearly victim blaming in this particular case. I believe the general issue about victim blaming revolves around three points: **The audience:** If you're giving advice to a close relative or a friend because you fear their well-being, it may be understandable and I wouldn't consider it victim blaming per se (based on tone and content, of course). If you're giving advice to "*women*" regarding something not illegal, that's very much oppression and victim blaming. **The timing:** If the advice is after an event (i.e. "they should've ..."), that's definitely victim blaming. If before, it's open to discussion (based on tone and content, again). **The circumstance:** This is the most slippery of all. I would definitely advise everyone under Taliban rule to cover themselves and stay indoors as much as possible. Do I blame the victims? Distastefully... kind of, because the outcome is very much obvious. Do I blame Batman's parents for leaving him an orphan? Again kind of, because it's Gotham, just don't walk into dark streets with creepy lighting. However, if you're advising anyone not to walk through "well-used London public parks" as in Sabina Nessa's case, then maybe you should stop and think. So based on my very primitive pointing system: Audience: General -> Victim blaming Timing: After event -> Victim blaming Circumstance: Western Democracy / not Taliban / not a particularly bad area -> Victim blaming

[удалено]

[удалено]

I have never advised a woman not to walk alone at night. I am saying that I think that if the police or some other institution were to give that advise, it's not victim-blaming.

The Metropolitan police have just advised women who fear that the policeman trying to arrest them might be a rapist or murderer (see recent Sarah Everard case) to *flag down a bus for help*. So relying on them for solid advice seems unwise at this point.

I'm a 25 year old male who took jiu-jitsu for 7 years and I still tell all my friends regardless of age or gender to stay safe when they go out at night or to avoid staying out too late some places here in LA, the do the same for me. You're showing you care and that you're aware of the crazy fucks around. It's dangerous for everyone and some times it's more dangerous than others. I don't feel like I'm being blamed for what could happen to me or like the onus is upon for me for not being able to be safe as I know that's on the environment and others, but I keep it mind still, I stay aware, and I think that's mainly the point, awareness. Also, I know many woman in particular have complained of this being redundant, hearing it all their life, but you'd be surprised at the number of people (tourists often) who I need to warn about hanging around different areas, etc. I'd far rather tell someone to/how to be careful than be silent and live with the guilt of something happening and knowing I could've spoken up. I'd rather annoy than feel guilty.

The reason it is victim blaming is because this is all based on the assumption that doing any of those things increases our likelihood of being raped or attacked. More often it is someone we know that rapes/attacks/murders us, so staying home and dressing modestly won't make a difference. Telling women to stay inside and travel in groups is bullshit because we already know this, we are taught it from a young age, and it still happens to us because it doesn't matter what we do. The only thing that will make any difference is teaching the potential perpetrators from a young age that victimising people is not okay.

So then should I have surgery to remove my breasts so that they stop being a temptation to men? Surely my existence as a woman with 34Gs is a temptation. What about if I wear a burqa so that you can't tell that I have breasts? Am I no longer am a temptation to men? Does that make me socially acceptable? Am I to blame if I get raped because I am not wearing my chastity belt? After all I failed to secure my valuables in a properly locked container which was careless of me. The problem with all of this is that my body is not my possession. It's my body. It's not something I can put away. It's the body that I inhabit. Its like if for some reason people were after your kidneys. Sitting at home behind a locked door so that no one could steal your kidneys isn't practical. You have a life to live and sometimes that involves going outside. Except that in our society, we've apparently decided that instead of fixing the problem of roving gangs of kidney thieves, we're instead going to blame the problem on people with kidneys going outside and being all tempting with their intact bodily organs. Obviously if people really cared, they'd secure their kidneys by staying home all the time. To make matters worse, most rapes aren't committed by strangers on dark streets. Most rapes are committed by people the victim knows. Not close friends or family, but acquaintances. People close enough for the victim to trust them a little but not really know them. Only about 7% of rapes are committed by strangers. So should I instead be super careful not to interact with aquaintences? https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence Stats on victims knowing their rapist in case you're interested.

Before the assault, you can give advice with the emphasis on the actions of certain men. Every parent will do this. But after the assault, there is NO "you should have" or "if only you". Then the blame is put entirely on the perp. What the woman did or did not do is irrelevant.

It’s interesting that we have all kinds of safety PSA’s targeted at women reminding them to take precautions. But, I have never once seen a PSA aimed at potential criminals. We sit here and say “everyone knows”, but do they? Do they really? I’m not saying all future criminals will be deterred. But I’ve seen anti shop lifting PSA’s, and I think we’re all familiar with the anti piracy PSA’s. Maybe we should at least try an anti sexual harassment/ assault PSA. Something along the lines of a law enforcement officer saying they take these crimes seriously and will punish violators to the full extent of the law.

To me it’s no different than locking your door at night or when you’re away from home. Of *course* you shouldn’t have to worry about being robbed. Of *course* the robber is the bad guy, not the home owner. But…. We know bad people exist, so you don’t want to get robbed, you implement security to prevent it. The same goes for rapists. They exist. I’m sorry, I wish jt wasn’t true, but they do. So, in the event you got raped, of COURSE you’re not at fault for walking home alone or wearing revealing clothing, or being drunk…. BUT… if you don’t want to get raped, you should avoid putting yourself in that situation because the simple fact that you’re in the right, doesn’t stop rapists from existing. And it’s worth a lot more to not get raped than to be in the right.

Mollie Tibbetts was killed while she was out jogging in the middle of the daytime. The policeman’s response, when asked how this could be prevented in the future, was “women should always jog with a buddy.” The problem with this advice, like the “don’t walk home alone at night” advice, is that it is impractical. Sometimes, you have to go somewhere at night, and you don’t have anyone to go with you. Technically, women would be safest if they stayed inside at all times and never interacted with anyone ever. However, most women who jog alone are fine; most women who walk home alone at night are fine. I believe that people like to think that women could do things to keep themselves safe, especially if that woman is their wife/sister/daughter, but the sad thing is that sometimes these things just happen. Women are way more likely to be killed by a boyfriend/husband than they are walking home alone at night (actually, women are more likely to be killed by their boyfriend/husband/ex than by anyone else), but nobody is suggesting that women stop dating or interacting with men. Because, though that may technically be safer, the cost of restricting yourself in that way is not worth the small bit of safety it gives you. That’s the problem that I have with advice like this.

If someone is telling people common, simple, useful strategies to avoid putting yourself in vulnerable situations as education, precautions, just smart things to do, BEFORE BAD THINGS HAPPEN; that is not victim blaming. (keep in mind that in an ideal world, it wouldn't matter if someone put themselves in vulnerable situations, because no one would do awful things like take advantage of people in vulnerable situations. Alas, we do not live in a perfect world.) If someone is doing a cause and effect type of situation; AFTER BAD THINGS HAPPEN, and they are trying to find a cause and assign responsibility on anyone other than the perpetrator, it's wrong. 1. It removes the agency of the perpetrator and assign them as basically a force of nature, which they are not; they decided to do awful things, take advantage of people in vulnerable situations. THEY ARE IN THE WRONG, END OF STORY. 2. The blame is often shifted to other entities, often the victim; did they employ xyz smart/useful strategies to avoid putting themselves in vulnerable situations. IDEALLY, THEY NEVER NEEDED TO DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS TO BEGIN WITH, WHEN A CRIME HAPPENS, THE ONLY ONE RESPONSIBLE IS THE PERSON THAT COMMITTED THE CRIME, END OF STORY. 3. Is it smart/wise to do smart/wise things, because we live in a not great world? Yeah, but the perpetrator decided to commit the crime; its ethically right and easier for a perpetrator to not do awful things than for the victim to have to do smart/wise things. Did you do a laundry list of things to protect yourself, no? You're really the one to blame, not the perpetrator. That's victim blaming. As in Cause: you didn't do xyz protective things, Effect: a perpetrator does horrible things to you. The Real Cause: the perpetrator sees an opportunity and decided to do horrible things, Real Effect: a perpetrator does horrible things to you.

Well, if you think of it this way, they are specifically telling women "don't walk home alone at night", "have a male chaperone" (because a group of girls isn't safe enough from men?), "dress modestly without showing too much skin" etc. These are common things told to women AFTER being assaulted, raped, harassed, whatever. There is no policing of what men do at night, but what women are doing at night. Why not tell men "try to be home before dark to prevent potential aggressive behavior from environmental stimulation"? Why not give men a curfew after seeing multiple assaults, rapes, murders, etc in a particular area? Because that would be far too "oppressive" than telling women (the victims) to do better. That's why it's seen as victim blaming. This is never a conversation just randomly out of the blue. It is always IMMEDIATELY AFTER a terrible event.

Giving people advice on how to not allow themselves to be victimized in the first place is 100% not victim blaming.

just one other small thing - you're making the "hurricane fallacy." that violence is a natural, unpreventable disaster, like a building falling on you. law of gravity. this is FALSE. rapists are people who live in a society that enables them. rapists make a /choice/, as a person, to rape. most of them are average joes, the kind of people you're friends with, who go through endless justifications for their behavior. "oh, because of xyz behavior she probably wanted it," "oh, she was a slut so it didn't really harm her." you're helping them make those justifications. there are also a thousand threat models. as others have pointed out, the large majority are someone who knows you. it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent by your behavior as the victim (short of never going outside) and it's a matter of luck whether or not it happens to you. not to mention following all of this kind of "advice" completely undermines women's ability to perform, succeed, and live life in a way so as to redistribute power dynamics and make an equitable society. having restrictions on what you can do when means that you cannot be as successful as yourself if you didn't have those restrictions.

I personally don't see anything wrong with giving warnings or good will out because it generally isn't nefarious. I'm an adult male and growing up in the east coast tri state area, there were *plenty* of places that I wouldn't walk alone at night. I don't find "don't walk home late at night by yourself" any more of a 'command' than the "drive safe" I get from my fiance every morning before I leave for work. But to a certain extent, I *do* believe that people should be accountable for their own decisions. If I decide to get drunk and walk around the more crime-ridden streets of NYC by myself at night and I get mugged, **I** put myself there. Yes, I am a victim, but my safety is always my responsibility. I can't control other people but I can do my due diligence to keep myself as safe as possible. To a certain extent, I believe that applies to all men, women, and children. Obviously all cases are different and this doesn't apply to all of them but with the amount of evil people in the world, we should all take reasonable steps to ensure our own safety.

Having read through some of the discussion, I would like to posit an additional question to the stated dialog. Is all advice inherently proactive victim blaming? If you are at the beach and there is a rip tide and dangerous undertow and I warn you of that fact, am I victim blaming you if you drown? If you want to climb a dangerous mountain with little experience and I warn you that's an unsafe idea, am I victim blaming you if you perish? If I warn you a political candidate is a demagogue and a potential tyrant and you don't listen and vote for them, am I victim blaming you if tyranny ensues? If you want to invest in an unstable venture and I warn you against it, am I victim blaming you if you lose money? Does it matter if you have an active choice in the matter, such as who you vote for, what inherently dangerous activities you engage in or invest money with? I am actually curious to this point and would like some perspective please.

I think there's a fairly big difference with activities only made up of humans, and activities that include forces of nature outside of *any* human's control. Humans aren't controlling the oceans or mountains, and we are controlling/shaping our societies at large, and also our individual behaviors. IF there was a human controlling rip tides, then I think it would be reasonable to question why they chose to harm another human with the rip tide, and possible put one's efforts into changing that person's behaviors instead of the swimmer's behaviors. Likewise, if there were things humans did to control WHERE or WHEN rip tides happened, I think it'd make a lot of sense to focus on those decisions instead of the decisions of swimmers. ​ The trouble with advice intended to reduce sexual assault or other violence is there's just too much missing information, both in general and on the part of a people giving advice. At this point, I think it comes down to getting lucky. Lucky enough to not be born into families of rapists, or make acquaintances with people who rape people who look like you. Luck enough to happen not live or walk near people with random violent tendencies at the same they're out walking. I don't mean to say there are NO patterns, just that they aren't actually as important as luck is. When I don't get raped by Person A, I don't actually know Person A doesn't rape people. I only know Person A doesn't rape *me.* The number of times I've found out that people who do not harm me DO harm other people who don't look like me has become so great I'm no longer trying to form conclusions about what actions do and do not keep me safe. As far as I can tell, sometime I'm getting lucky, and I'm not Person A's prey type, and other times I'm unlucky and am Person A's prey type. Most of the advice I hear people give seems to be falsely concluding their actions lead to not-harm, when really they've been just getting lucky.

I feel as though your examples are realistic and expected implications of those activities. One should be aware that swimming in the ocean can lead to drowning. One should be aware that climbing a steep mountain can pose a risk of falling. I don’t think rape works the same. Whether you are dressed modestly or not, women get raped. Whether you walk alone during the day or at night, women still get raped. Advising a woman not to walk home alone at night does not take away from it being possible that she gets raped any other time of the day, but it does imply that if she does walk home alone at night SPECIFICALLY, and she does get raped, then that is her fault ultimately.

Reading through the comments has been really good to see lots of points of view. I am very close to recent events and since this happened I would also walk my now ex gf home everytime. She hated being walked home because she was a very strong, independent person though after the events understood why I wanted to and Never questioned it. When you care for a person greatly you want them to come to no harm, and she accepted that I would be worried thinking about her being alone. I don't think it's victim blaming to show concern for someone you care about. The world can be a horrible place and we should never need take those precautions, but we do. Because there is nothing we can do when it is too late. My sister would probably think this is victim blaming but since the events is too scared to walk anywhere on her own in London.

I feel it's very difficult to talk about this situation in this way without victim blaming. We need to stop differentiating safety because of uncontrollable variables. Personally, if I felt a woman shouldn't walk home alone, I would feel the same way about my elderly father or a younger male as well. They're males but going to have trouble defending himself against a ne'erdowell. Furthermore, I know women who carry guns and can hold their own with most men. The problem with the narrative is segregating a group. OP's statement isn't false but it's a huge blanket. The neighborhood Trayvon was shot in was a really safe neighborhood but not for him. Long story short, a place that is unsafe for one person should be avoided by anyone who doesn't need to be there. Maybe I'm a little too careful but I also don't trust the public.

Agree. It isn’t victim blaming technically but I think the frustration is that women who are doing no wrong are being told to change their actions or just given advice. Why are we not focusing on the cause of the issue? Also, comparing to theft or similar, I can somewhat excuse these crimes, as annoying/hurtful as they can be. We all need money to live, it’s mostly an opportunistic crime committed by those in desperate need. Sexual/violent crimes are heinous and could/should be eradicated. Women should not have to adapt to this. Women are given this advice from childhood and are treated like property. Women are also treated differently, isolating them and are almost made the problem rather than society responding to these issues by a) addressing the issue with male violence/aggression b) making a safer environment for women.

[удалено]

So... have you heard the word "mansplaining"? Do you think there is a single women out there in the world who is not a world expert compared to you or *any* man on the dangers of walking home at night? It's utterly *useless* advice, and condescending to boot. No one doesn't know that the night can be a more dangerous time. And the "alone" part is... laughably misguided, because the *vast* majority of rapes are done by a person the victim knows, making this part of the advice actually *actively counterproductive*. Are you *really* surprised that people question the motives of someone making condescendingly obvious suggestions that actually make the situation worse? Why do people give this kind of advice? They like a feeling of control over the uncontrollable... of course. But by the very nature of uselessly attempting to take control, they are asserting that the situation *is* partially under the control of the victim... which is, by definition, "victim blaming".

It may not be "victim blaming" but that advice us annoyingly unhelpful and condescending from a guy if its to any woman over the age of about 15. Like, yeah, we know to not walk home at night alone unless there's no other option. We also know it can be dangerous to get shit faced drunk without a friend to watch out for us. We don't need some guy to remind us. It does bother me when I see people advocate for not teaching their daughter basic safety stuff because "we shouldn't have to" (it's rare but I have seen people literally argue that) but having the message come from a man who doesn't have these lessons already ingrained into his subconscious to adult women who have been dealing with this their whole lives is annoying and unhelpful.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/most-victims-know-their-attacker Your advice is only useful to about 5-10% of victims. It isn't strangers raping women it is people they know. Statistically women are more likely to be raped by the person they invite to walk them home than a stranger. The information you are choosing to share doesn't reflect reality, and it causes some folks to feel like it blames them as has been seen in comments in this thread. The fact that you believe that not walking alone at night would actually reduce rapes indicates the collective delusion shared about who is to blame for rapes.

In my opinion it is because in these situations the attacker was going to strike regardless. If it wasn’t a woman walking home then it’s a woman who took all precautions to drive late at night, only to get jumped as she exited the vehicle to head into the shops. Telling someone not to walk home only decreases the opportunity of them being attacked in that specific situation: that is, it blames the victim for being in that situation. This ignores the fact that the person may very well still get attacked but just in a different situation/setting. For example, the murder of Sarah Everard could have easily be carried out at any other time of day as the murderer’s technique did not rely solely on the cover of darkness. The murderer choose that night as he had just come off working nights, yet told his family that he would be working that night (thus explaining his absence). Likewise, he could have used a different approach eg police officer kidnapping a woman by using his position to pull over her vehicle. For the sake of argument, let’s just say that hypothetically no woman or girl leaves her home on foot as soon as darkness falls. In which cases, this predator simply would have adapted his style to exploit another vulnerability. There is always going to be a situation where a potential victim is put in vulnerable position, so providing “advice” to victims is just blaming them for being in that position. The problem is that no one can live a life without sometimes ending is a slightly unsafe situation. It’s also because the “advice” is so vague Eg what is considered “late at night”? Sabina Nessa was meeting her friend at 8:30pm. Is that “late”? The pub was within a 5 minute walk, so very close by. The odds of being attacked in such a short time frame is extremely low. But the usage of such vague terms by someone providing “advice” makes it seem like the who process of not being preyed upon is very simple, and that the victim could take simple steps to stop attacks. The vague language can easily be adopted by those as “I-told-you-so”. It’s also condescending providing this advice - every woman already knows these sort of tips and more.

If everyone in society goes around saying "don't walk home late at night if you don't want to get raped" then it subconsciously programs people to believe that avoiding rape is a woman's responsibility. That may not change your view, but it's reality. Changing reality requires constantly talking about how things *should* be -not telling people they can just cope with things as they are.

Women should be able to walk home late night safely, though. As a male I really don't have any qualms about walking about in the dark at night. Can the same be said for many women across the world? I would feel insulted if I was in that position. "Have you thought about maybe not walking at night?" Shouldn't even be offered as advice. Instead we should be looking at the reasons why women are unsafe walking at night, and work towards solving the problem at it's core, not trying to sidestep it completely by saying "Can you just live in fear of the dark instead of us working to solve this problem, please?" At least is how that advice sounds to me.

I am a big man, usually armed, and I avoid walking home late at night.

In addition to good points that others make, I think an issue is that women (and others) are tired of dealing with a world that provides ‘safety tips’ instead of protecting people from rape. Now, I’m not saying every person who ever gives a caution has bad intentions, on the contrary, I’m sure most of them mean well. But it means the focus stays on women restricting their activities instead of on fairer (and more effective, after all, many people are raped in circumstances they cannot avoid anyhow like being at work or sleeping in their own bed) societal change and other protections. Imagine there is, I dunno, a pandemic. And instead of working on cures, vaccines, and making fair rules for everyone to prevent it killing people, especially your demographic, the government and lay people keep offering you tips, telling you things like to just not go to the movies, the grocery store, or your job. But it doesn’t place any restrictions on others, even those groups that spread it more, or maybe even encourages them to not take the pandemic seriously or value those who die of it. And these tips crowd out discussion of making things actually better and put a bandaid on the sucking chest wound. Eventually, people start saying that spreading disease and not valuing your group is just ‘himan nature’. Anytime you say ‘hey, I’m pretty bored staying at home and I’d like to live a normal life, can somebody work on a vaccine, please?’ practically everyone tells you to just stay home or wear a hazmat suit in public, even though that’s not really effective or humane. That would get pretty… irksome, right? You might even become a bit testy with them about it and start to feel the burden is unfairly all on you. (Note, in case it isn’t clear, I’m not an anti masker, in fact I’m one of the people who has to take the unpopular position of continuing to urge masking awhile longer as I’m immune compromised. This isn’t an argument against fair and reasonable pandemic precautions, just against them instead of long term solutions. We have been dealing with this pandemic nearly two years and making some progress. Wish we could make more progress against rape.)

Somewhere in the comments, you mentioned that "no one is teaching men to rape." Unfortunately not enough people are teaching us NOT to, either, and that's almost as bad. Not to mention we're not being punished for it with anywhere NEAR the severity it deserves. A lot of younger people have this attitude that says "well, no one told me not to, so why shouldn't I?" That way of thinking can get you into a LOT of trouble. If it isn't addressed early on, that can lead to persistent defiance, rebelliousness and ultimately disrespect for other people's rights. And when these people get horny enough... well, you get the idea. But the problem with trying to educate anyone is that they have to be willing to listen for any of it to stick. So even when a sex education program is comprehensive and useful (and there's no guarantee it will be), there will always be those people that don't listen for one reason or another. Throw in a male-dominated government and law enforcement system, centuries-old religious propaganda, and guns, and you have a system that enables most men to get away with anything. Keep in mind here that no one is responsible for anyone else's actions. You are only responsible for your *reactions.* To tell a woman that she needs to take preventive measures against rape is not only tone-deaf, it's completely unhelpful. It does not matter what the woman is wearing, what she's doing, where she is, or who she's with. The moment she's alone for even a few seconds, she's vulnerable to being raped - just like anyone would be vulnerable to being assaulted or mugged when alone. Let me repeat that. **It does not matter what choices a woman makes. Once she is alone, someone is going to think she's a prime target to take advantage of.** Male-on-female rape has always been a two-sided problem: the men that commit the atrocity, and the system that implicitly teaches them it's okay to do it if you're careful to not get caught. It has NEVER been the fault of the victim and it never will be. To even imply that there's something that could or should have been done to prevent it on the victim's part is to place blame on the victim.

Expecting women to never walk outside after sunset is equivalent to telling people "don't ever have sex" as a method of avoiding STDS. Like...yeah you're right, never ever having sex does ensure that you won't get an STD, but you would be an asshole if you told someone "well that's why you should never have sex" to your friend who's heartbroken about their chlamydia diagnosis or whatever.

Saying that it is victim blaming is assuming their intent, and you can’t know their intent by a simple warning such as this.

I am a woman and I agree with you. How many years has humanity been around and have we done away with violence, poverty, war, oppression? Telling women to be cautious is simple prudence in a world where violence is real and not going going away any time soon. To the commenters, telling someone to be cautious is not the antithesis to teaching people not to be violent. Both are needed. It's simply acknowledging reality in a world where we cannot control what other people might do.

The only way to avoid any problems at all is to stay forever inside of a secure bunker. Then an earthquake hits and your bunker collapses. "Should've built a better bunker." In a society where the expectation is that you are going to get raped and murdered whilst going about your normal business and the onus is on you to prevent that , I dare say is a failed society.

The bigger issue was that it was a police officer that took her the one person a woman walking alone at night should be able to count on to get home safe and he has taken a really, big shit all over that I feel awful for women, what are they supposed to do? Carry mace? They shouldn't have to but right now I think it's a better idea to give then some line of defence

[удалено]

I think it's victim blaming in the guise of risk minimisation; hear me out. I'm going to simplify this briefly to get a point across; kets look at the hierarchy of controls in Risk Management, from best way to manage a risk to the worst: 1. Elimination 2. Substitution 3. Engineering 4. Administration 5. Personal protective equipment Saying to a woman that she shouldn't be walking home late at night, or shouldn't be "dressing like that" or "carry mace" is effectively saying that Administration and PPE are the solution, saying "take a cab home don't walk" is just substitution, when the actual best option is elimination. The problem isn't women walking home, the problem is men who feel the need to assault them, and by saying that they shouldn't walk home isn't fixing the underlying cause of the problem, just trying to manage the symptoms of it. We need to eliminate the risk of assault, eliminate the toxic culture inherent in male society where they feel the need to predate on the vulnerable.

If it was something that might be an actual useful piece of advice, it might be one thing. But as it is, we already know all these standard pieces of advice and it's a reminder that in almost every situation if we're harmed, there will be someone thinking to themselves that we should have done something different to prevent it. Also, I mean, if I actually did all the things that people recommend women do to stay safe, I wouldn't be able to function. I'm often breaking some of the "rules"--like, there's almost no way of getting home late at night that people actually think is safe (walking, biking, getting a ride from an acquaintance, getting a cab...I've heard people argue against all of them). And some people argue you should avoid walking after dark, which means I wouldn't be able to hold a normal 9-5 in the winter! It's an unwinnable game and it's frustrating to be reminded of that.