2 ms·

> Coincidentally it's the same type of guy who would have told her it was her fault for getting attacked if the man had raped her. You're way over the line wit

by chc 15y ago

> Coincidentally it's the same type of guy who would have told her it was her fault for getting attacked if the man had raped her. You're way over the line with that one. It's one thing for a man to think, "I don't owe it to women to walk on eggshells around them." That view might be a bit naive, but it is a very different and much less despicable thing than supporting rapists and blaming rape victims for what happened to them. I thought what he did was poorly considered, but he didn't show any ill intent, so it's very unfair to associate him with men who harm women. Why do I care about this? Because drawing that association actually plays into rapists' common delusion that trying to rape women is a normal and acceptable thing. It is important to draw the line between behavior that is merely inconsiderate and behavior that's actually evil, even if you dislike both.

parfe 15y ago
I agree with most of your comment, thank you. It was a good response to what I wrote. >so it's very unfair to associate him with men who harm women. I wasn't associating the person in the elevator with people who victim blame. I was speaking of people who responded in a backlash to her video describing the incident. Allow me to expand on that line you quoted to clarify. Let's take this comment, for instance: >The reason there was a huge shitstorm over it was that all he did was to ask -- he didn't do anything else. What he's doing here is invaliding her discomfort. He's implying she should have some way to detect a rapist and her danger-detection is faulty. She shouldn't have been uncomfortable because he didn't rape her. It only works in hindsight and it's "not" victim blaming only because she wasn't victimized. Claiming a person should know someone is not a rapist necessarily requires thinking a person can know someone is a rapist. edit: removed repetitive sentence for clarity.

by chc 15y ago

parfe 15y ago

I agree with most of your comment, thank you. It was a good response to what I wrote. >so it's very unfair to associate him with men who harm women. I wasn't associating the person in the elevator with people who victim blame. I was speaking of people who responded in a backlash to her video describing the incident. Allow me to expand on that line you quoted to clarify. Let's take this comment, for instance: >The reason there was a huge shitstorm over it was that all he did was to ask -- he didn't do anything else. What he's doing here is invaliding her discomfort. He's implying she should have some way to detect a rapist and her danger-detection is faulty. She shouldn't have been uncomfortable because he didn't rape her. It only works in hindsight and it's "not" victim blaming only because she wasn't victimized. Claiming a person should know someone is not a rapist necessarily requires thinking a person can know someone is a rapist. edit: removed repetitive sentence for clarity.