Quote:
Originally Posted by jbliss
Because it's the easiest-to-understand argument I can think of to counter the "there's nothing we can do" arguments, of which there have been many:
"There's no real tangible, identifiable amount of precautions we can take that is sure to stop it."
"The University in my small, safe, "leave your doors unlocked" mountain town, had a serial rapist living on campus. The student would hide in the bushes and attack women. He raped three women before fleeing the state. So I ask you. How do we mitigate risk here?"
"When even wearing a burka and never being alone with unknown men prevents a woman from being raped it seems questionable to tell her to prevent it."
etc
These people have been trotting out arguments of:
- risk-mitigation strategies are not 100% effective
- risk-mitigation strategies are de-facto blaming the victim
I argue that the first is a straw man and the second is just false.
|
Again - nobody is saying that we shouldn't mitigate risk, indeed most everybody is saying that it already happens it just isn't 100% effective.
And while I believe that immediately saying 'what did she do/what should she have done' is a shitty move - I understand that impulse because it's very normal to think that.
What you are doing here is double triple quadrupling down on that being the only important topic we should discuss here, implying that we are endangering women by not wanting to engage you on that and in my book that is fucking hardcore victim shaming disguised as a savior complex.
Sparrow opened up a whole separate thread asking for concrete 'what are techniques to protect' - I don't see you typing ideas or asking for examples there.