High profiles murders in the U.S: what is going on?

[jambo]

The day I see that public service announcement on TV, the one about how male drunks are more likely to be domestic abusers, rapists, and killers, will be a happy day for rape prevention.

This is the accepted and implied orthodox position in the 'liberal media' and has been for quite some time. I guess it goes unspoken more of the time though. The alcohol industry lobby is huge don't forget, not to mention the absolutely entrenched drinking culture it thrives on and cultivates. Governments get stacks of cash from tax on alcohol. Gestures are made from time to time but how much do they care.

Yeah, but the good intentions of those in the media who are involved in constantly focusing on a VICTIM's actions, rather than a RAPIST's actions, has nothing to do with the real affect that their publicly focusing on a victim's own implied complicity in their own victimization has on society.

I think Mr. Tea was referring to something else re: intentions actually, but this seems a bit odd. I really wouldn't say that the focus is that much on the victim's actions in rape cases. Depends what sort of coverage we are talking about but do you really think that rapists are not thoroughly condemned in the media as a rule? In terms of media or 'public' attitudes there was a whole debate about this in the UK maybe starting in the mid-late 70s and since then it really has been seen as quite improper to imply that a woman's behaviour can implicate her.

 

[nomadthethird]

I understand this much...

But then there seems to be a bit missing?

Or is something other than 'the reason why' signified by that first 'it'?

What?

the reason why has unconscious implications

the reason why men can't conceive of a non-drunk rape victim [that is, because they can only conceive of "taking advantage of" a passed out woman] has implications that are not consciously acknowledged and buried deep in the unconscious

 

[jambo]

Oh OK.

Implications that are cowardly more like.

 

[nomadthethird]

This is the accepted and implied orthodox position in the 'liberal media' and has been for quite some time. I guess it goes unspoken more of the time though. The alcohol industry lobby is huge don't forget, not to mention the absolutely entrenched drinking culture it thrives on and cultivates. Governments get stacks of cash from tax on alcohol. Gestures are made from time to time but how much do they care.

I think Mr. Tea was referring to something else re: intentions actually, but this seems a bit odd. I really wouldn't say that the focus is that much on the victim's actions in rape cases. Depends what sort of coverage we are talking about but do you really think that rapists are not thoroughly condemned in the media as a rule? In terms of media or 'public' attitudes there was a whole debate about this in the UK maybe starting in the mid-late 70s and since then it really has been seen as quite improper to imply that a woman's behaviour can implicate her.

Yeah, here we go again:

It is NOT the "implied orthodox position" in the 'liberal media' (what is this?). The media are actually very conservative on this matter. As is evidenced by victim-focused "rape prevention" PSAs, commercials, and educational programs.

If the government gets stacks of cash from the "alcohol lobby", why would they then publicly focus on women's drinking as an implied leading factor in rape?

It doesn't matter that Mr. Tea was referring to a different set of intentions. I was using the same concept of intentions being irrelevant to outcomes that Mr. Tea used, i.e. whether the media intends to do so is irrelevant to the fact that the media contributes to victim-blaming by focusing on victim behaviors.

Again with the "I don't think that's a factor in court." You might not think it is, but any lawyer or judge or any serious study of the matter contradicts what you think. What a woman was wearing before her rape is statistically a factor in whether her rapist is acquitted. Whether a woman is considered attractive by the jurors is also statistically more likely to get her rapist acquitted. Her perceived "looseness" or promiscuity is also a factor, as is whether an individual juror sees the victim as similar to themselves morally. Look up the numbers and the real factors that are PROVEN scientifically to affect legal outcomes in rape trials. They're in the Krista Absalon paper I posted, toward the end.

 

[jambo]

It is NOT the "implied orthodox position" in the 'liberal media' (what is this?).

What is it? It's a thing in scare quotes cos that's how people talk. In this case I mean The Guardian, Radio 4, BBC1, that kind of thing, what people would call mainstream 'liberal' media. I don't want to presume to know what the US equivalent outlets would be.

In any given discussion in these places you can be assured that most commentators will agree that people who have been drinking are more likely to be 'domestic abusers, rapists, and killers' as you say. That's what I quoted and that's what I was referring to.

edit - it makes sense now

 

[nomadthethird]

What is it? It's a thing in scare quotes cos that's how people talk. In this case I mean The Guardian, Radio 4, BBC1, that kind of thing, what people would call mainstream 'liberal' media. I don't want to presume to know what the US equivalent outlets would be.

In any given discussion in these places you can be assured that most commentators will agree that people who have been drinking are more likely to be 'domestic abusers, rapists, and killers' as you say. That's what I quoted and that's what I was referring to.

edit - it makes sense now

They'll "agree" and then go on to spend most of the time talking about how women should behave if they don't want to get raped, and of course, this advice is not based on real statistics, but hysterical myths about strangers in bars being the most likely "rapists" a woman will encounter.

 

[jambo]

If the government gets stacks of cash from the "alcohol lobby", why would they then publicly focus on women's drinking as an implied leading factor in rape?

Obviously because women drink less

But really, do they exclusively focus on women's drinking? Isn't this in addition to the main issue due to the perception that progress is not being made? They don't know what they are doing, it's different departments, and it's the usual incompetence, ill conceived campaigns. Some progress is made, pet causes taken up, useless initiatives initiated, some concessions given after years of pressure. Same story, but ultimately big change is difficult when big business is involved.

It doesn't matter that Mr. Tea was referring to a different set of intentions. I was using the same concept of intentions being irrelevant to outcomes that Mr. Tea used, i.e. whether the media intends to do so is irrelevant to the fact that the media contributes to victim-blaming by focusing on victim behaviors.

Hmm, well Mr. Tea was referring to a reference to a question about the possible intentions of people going out to get completely drunk. It is quite different.

Again with the "I don't think that's a factor in court."

Didn't say 'court'. I say cases to mean you know, cases, instances. We were talking about media response.

 

[nomadthethird]

Obviously because women drink less

But really, do they exclusively focus on women's drinking? Isn't this in addition to the main issue due to the perception that progress is not being made? They don't know what they are doing, it's different departments, and it's the usual incompetence, ill conceived campaigns. Some progress is made, pet causes taken up, useless initiatives initiated, some concessions given after years of pressure. Same story, but ultimately big change is difficult when big business is involved.

Hmm, well Mr. Tea was referring to a reference to a question about the possible intentions of people going out to get completely drunk. It is quite different.


Didn't say 'court'. I say cases to mean you know, cases, instances. We were talking about media response.

Yes, in the past few years, especially in the UK media, the focus of supposed "rape prevention" research and PSAs has been on the drinking of women and its centrality in rape risk. This is misleading. It's condescending. And worst of all, it reinforces the victim-blaming of rapists and many non-rapists alike, who believe that it is a woman's responsibility to ensure that she is not raped. This is absurd, but it affects the outcomes of rape trials all the time, since jurors are culled from the general population, which often parrots what it sees on TV or the "status quo" explanation for how rape happens.

If this were only about incompetence, it would be much easier to weed it out. But it isn't. It's about attitudes and deeply held beliefs that are inscribed (as Waffles pointed out) on the unconscious and via the unconscious all of society.

I never said that what Mr. Tea and I were saying was "the same." I was responding to his point with a separate point. Both of us mentioned the irrelevance of intentions to outcomes. This is not difficult to comprehend.

I didn't think you meant "court." I meant court, because court is where victim-blaming plays itself out in the most obvious and damaging-to-all-of-society ways. But even if you're looking at generic cases, victim blaming is the reason why most rapes aren't even reported! The victim has internalized the idea that it was HER fault she was raped because she had to walk home alone, because she wore a short skirt, because she shouldn't have been too drunk to fight him off. My own mother never told anyone until she was in her 40s and she told me, because her rapist told her it was her fault, and that she really wanted it because she'd kissed him once. Being 13 and not understanding sexuality very well in the first place, she was afraid she had led him on by dating him and she wouldn't have been raped if she'd avoided him.

Victim-blaming has very far-reaching ramifications for all of us, but especially for victims themselves.

 

[jambo]

Such a focus (on female culpability) reflects a predominantly male POV and deflects from a serious consideration or analysis of sexual violence, placing or emphasizing the responsibility of those on the receiving end of such violence, effectively 'naturalizing' rape as some uncontrollable 'act of nature' rather than behaviour that is actually socially learned, nurtured, reinforced and unconsciously inscribed into dominant social structures. If a child playing in a park is molested do we hold the parent/minder as being 'complicit'? And in a moral panic, parents then banning their kids from ever playing in parks, rendering public spaces off limits to them (but not to potential molesters), as the tabloid press needs to sell newspapers via fear mongering? If a pedestrian crossing the road at a traffic light is run over, is s/he 'complicit? Etc. If you're mugged or attacked (whether sober or sozzled) on the street, are you 'complicit'? Are blind people (statistically more susceptible to attack/accident etc) who are attacked 'complicit' in such violence by viirtue of their blindness? If you're ripped off by some supplier (builder, handyman, financial institution, etc), are you complicit? If you're made redundant or 'constructively dismissed' or harassed or threatened at work, are you complicit?

I was asking what you meant by bringing in the notion of the

formal omnipresence, in consumer society, of fetishistic disavowal: the inconsistency between knowledge and behaviour ... knowing something is wrong but doing it anyway

with reference to people binge-drinking with the (disavowed) knowledge that it is a perilous activity?

I also asked what those perils might be understood to be but you avoided that question and instead said -

maybe you should ask ...

"OK, most people who rape excessively think it's not such a good idea but do it anyway.

What then would the perils of unrestrained raping be understood to be?"

Do I really need to spell out where the logic of that seemed to be going?

I'll come back to this.

 

[nomadthethird]

Also, I'd be shocked if women actually "drink less" than men. Can you point me to your source for that information?

 

[nomadthethird]

I was asking what you meant by bringing in the notion of the with reference to people binge-drinking with the (disavowed) knowledge that it is a perilous activity?

I also asked what those perils might be understood to be but you avoided that question and instead said -

Do I really need to spell out where the logic of that seemed to be going?

I'll come back to this.

What he was saying is that rather than keeping women from binge drinking, ads about how binge drinking will increase your risk of getting raped (which is entirely false, according to rape statistics in both the U.S. and the U.K.) only serves to make the rebellious impulse in people stronger.

So those ads, even though they're based on misinformation and are therefore unhelpful in lowering a woman's rape risk, are likely to have the opposite effect than they are intended to have: they are more likely to make women want to drink (women do not like being condescended to about "dangerous behaviors" anymore than anybody else does) than they are to curb female drinking.

Much like participation in anti-drug programs such as D.A.R.E. was recently proven to actually INCREASE a person's chances of using drugs.

 

[jambo]

Also, I'd be shocked if women actually "drink less" than men. Can you point me to your source for that information?

I don't know if they do or don't. Was suggesting a possible reason for why the government might focus on women's drinking as a problem rather than men's as you suggest. It was a joke.

 

[nomadthethird]

one rape education site's stats:

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ad361896/anne/cease/rapestatisticspage.html

 

[nomadthethird]

An interesting piece on how exaggerating the amount young people drink and the influence that alcohol has on behavior actually worsens the problem among students.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YouthIssues/1046260919.html

One on sexual assault and alcohol by the same site:

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1109127234.html

 

[jambo]

Victim-blaming has very far-reaching ramifications for all of us, but especially for victims themselves.

Is there a difference between victim blaming and just being honest about the facts?

We can look at a couple of waffle's examples just now.

If a pedestrian crossing the road at a traffic light is run over, is s/he 'complicit?

If you cross the road at traffic lights without paying attention and being careful the fact is that just because you are in the right is no guarantee that some driver is not going to go through those lights.

If you're mugged or attacked (whether sober or sozzled) on the street, are you 'complicit'?

Likewise, it's not a question of complicity, but again there will be certain neighbourhoods you might be advised to take care in or avoid at times. It might be sensible to not display a 32GB iPhone or Rolex watch, and certainly not be too drunk to walk.

'Complicit' has snuck in there and it's clearly a loaded word. It doesn't necessarily mean that an outcome is desired but it does strongly imply that. But no-one has suggested complicity here, certainly not in that sense.

 

[jambo]

Of course what has been said on 'this thread' is not what the broader discussion is about, but I think that's some of what people have taken exception to in this argument. If you see what I mean.

 

[jambo]

An interesting piece on how exaggerating the amount young people drink and the influence that alcohol has on behavior actually worsens the problem among students.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/YouthIssues/1046260919.html

Yeah, dangerous sensationalism. Sometimes organisations like the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse want to make themselves feel important by coming up with dramatic statistics.

Dr. Donna Shalala needs a Phil Spector production though. Oh wait, on second thoughts maybe not Phil Spector.

 

[nomadthethird]

If you cross the road at traffic lights without paying attention and being careful the fact is that just because you are in the right is no guarantee that some driver is not going to go through those lights.

Likewise, it's not a question of complicity, but again there will be certain neighbourhoods you might be advised to take care in or avoid at times. It might be sensible to not display a 32GB iPhone or Rolex watch, and certainly not be too drunk to walk.

'Complicit' has snuck in there and it's clearly a loaded word. It doesn't necessarily mean that an outcome is desired but it does strongly imply that. But no-one has suggested complicity here, certainly not in that sense.

If you cross the street while the pedestrian light says "green", then you are well within your rights and have not broken any law. If a car hits you while you are lawfully crossing the street, the CAR has broken a law by not obeying traffic lights, you haven't. You have only crossed the street in good faith that others are obeying the law, because one must often act in good faith that if they obey the law, the world is a better place for everyone. You can never ensure that others are obeying the law, or that you won't get hit crossing the street. Does this mean you're wrong to cross the street in good faith? There's really no other way to cross the street--otherwise, you'd be paralysed with fear of being hit.

Should the person who hits you while you're lawfully crossing the road escape all prosecution because people don't "believe you" when you claim you were crossing the street when the pedestrian light was green? All those pesky pedestrians, always lying to get someone in trouble for revenge. Did you see what s/he was wearing? It's almost like s/he *wanted* someone to hit her/him. Would it be "your word against the driver's" in court, or would the pedestrian be given the benefit of the doubt? (Answer: yes.)

If someone robbed you of your rolex in my neighborhood, would people say "can I see some hard evidence, like bruises?" or "how do we know you're not just making this up?" Nope, the police would file the report and begin searching for your item (provided you weren't in NY, where they don't have time nor the resources to investigate petty non-violent crime). People wouldn't say "well, that idiot shouldn't have ever worn a watch."

Jambo, you refuse to see this, but what you're doing with this analogy between rape and wearing a rolex in a bad neighborhood is assuming that simply being a drunk female is some sort of "advertisement" to a rapist. The sad fact of the matter is that simply being FEMALE AT ALL is enough to get you raped. enough to advertise your vulnerability to a straight rapist. Being drunk has not much to do with it.

If you don't want to see this, this is your damn problem. I can't save everyone from become a complete moron with silly things like facts, I suppose.

 

[nomadthethird]

is there a difference between victim blaming and just being honest about the facts?

The fact is that you are LESS LIKELY TO BE ASSAULTED WHILE DRUNK AT A BAR than you are at home with a friend or relative. THIS MEANS that STATISTICALLY it is SAFER TO BE DRUNK IN A BAR THAN at HOME IF YOU ARE A FEMALE who is afraid of being raped.

Those are the facts.

It is simply not factual that more women who are raped are severely physically incapacitated by alcohol.

 

[nomadthethird]

http://www.athealth.com/Practitioner/ceduc/alc_assault.html

Several studies that compared the characteristics of men who had committed sexual assault with those who had not noted the following differences (Seto and Barbaree 1997):

• With respect to personality traits, men who had committed sexual assault were more hostile toward women and lower in empathy compared with other men
  
• With respect to attitudes, men who had committed sexual assault were more likely than other men to endorse traditional stereotypes about gender roles--for example, that men are responsible for initiating sex and women are responsible for setting the limits.
  
• Perpetrators of sexual assault also were more likely to endorse statements that have been used to justify rape--for example, "women say 'no' when they mean 'yes'" and "women enjoy forced sex."

I don't think I've ever read a thread on Dissensus so full of posts by people who are this stupid since the Bell Curve thread.