"Denouncing Binge Drinking Is Not Victim-Blaming"
It's telling young women -- and men -- to be responsible for their behavior; telling them that it's idiotic and dangerous to get so smashed you no longer have control of yourself. You could be raped; if you're on the streets, you could also be robbed -- or worse.
Ruth Marcus, in the WaPo, writes similarly:
Excuse me, but no one's suggesting that our daughters should be holed up in the library studying every night, forswearing any semblance of a social life. Yoffe (disclosure: she's a close friend) is saying that the responsible advice is the one that I've been trying to impart for years to my now-teenage daughters: When you drink (because, let's be serious, they're not waiting until 21), don't drink too much.Consider the female Naval Academy midshipman who started with seven shots of coconut rum and woke up in an off-campus "football house" wondering what had happened. (Answer: Sexual encounters with three midshipmen, two of whom are being court-martialed.)
None of this -- none of it -- excuses men, sober or drunk, who prey on women, sober or drunk, to have sex without giving consent. Men who behave that way ought to be punished. Parents should warn their sons: Not only does "no mean no," being too incapacitated to say "yes" also mean "no."
Here's the sort of ridiculousness this is fighting:
Yale law student Alexandra Brodsky, co-founder of a campaign against campus sexual violence, said suggesting that women drink less "preserves the power structures that perpetuate violence" and demands "that the victimized sacrifice their freedom . . . so we don't have to disturb the status quo."University of Massachusetts philosophy professor Louise Antony likewise warned that it sends the message "that we have chosen to regard misogyny as inevitable."
Feminism, as of late, is too often a terribly toxic thing, as it demands not equality and sense but special treatment and a world that works as the real world does not. This sends a message to women that they are impervious to dangers and challenges (or "should" be). And this ultimately endangers women and hurts men as well. This needs to change but I'm not sure how that can be accomplished.
"This sends a message to women that they are impervious to dangers and challenges (or "should" be). "
It's worse than that. It's teaching women that they have a privileged claim on the lives of the men around them: "I'm about to do something stupid, and it is your job to watch over me and make sure that no calamity befalls me." Equal rights AND special privileges -- what a deal!
Cousin Dave at December 24, 2013 6:08 AM
Something real to tell one's young lady:
No amount of punishment for your assailant will EVER make a rape go away.
Radwaste at December 24, 2013 6:37 AM
Attitides like that scream, "I demand the freedom and privilages of equality; but I don't want all that icky responsibility that comes with it."
Jay at December 24, 2013 7:11 AM
I like what's been done lately, with PAs telling guys not to be rapists.
I think the dual approach is best... we raise our kids not to be pickpockets, rapists, thugs, etc, but we also raise them to be aware of their surroundings and give them some street smarts.
We raise them to speak out or call 911 if injustice or crimes are being committed.
There are lots of angles to consider, and all should be.
Getting drunk is dangerous. You could get raped. You could become a rapist. You could get mugged. It doesn't negate the bad guy's badness, but still, street smarts are good.
NicoleK at December 24, 2013 7:27 AM
Teens Arrested for Letting Friend Drive Drunk in Fatal Crash
Somehow if she had not died but been arrested would they be blamed for her decision to drive drunk?
I learned years ago that if I get so drunk that I pass out or black out where I'm not supposed to be, there may be consequences that aren't pleasant.
The same thing with some other stuff I've done.
And if you can't be responsible for your conduct then don't do it.
Jim P. at December 24, 2013 7:28 AM
It's futile to try to reason with people who promote this kind of thinking. They're not actually interested in preventing rape. What they're attempting to do, is to establish a presumption of guilt towards men and to redefine rape to include any heterosexual sexual experience that a woman regrets.
Any time this subject comes up, well intended people will try to present practical arguments against getting too drunk or otherwise putting yourself in harms way only to be accused by these ideologues of promoting rape, blaming victims etc..
Don't fall for it, it's just a cynical scam to advance their morbid agenda. The reason these people don't want women to take steps to prevent rape is so that they can be exploited when they become victims.
warner at December 24, 2013 8:37 AM
How about just suggesting that no one get hammered, because no one should.
And if your "semblance of a social life" depends on getting sloshed, I would say that's pretty pathetic. In fact, it's no social life at all.
Patrick at December 24, 2013 10:37 AM
If a girl can be too drunk to consent to sex even if she is awake and says yes, why cant a guy be too drunk to form the criminal intent to commit rape?
lujlp at December 24, 2013 11:09 AM
What ever happened to the Orion, the guy who had all sorts of rules for the world he'd never taken part in? This is his kind of topic,
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 24, 2013 12:08 PM
Interesting and disturbing story, Jim P. The question I would ask is if the driver were male and the two passengers were female, would those two passengers still be arrested.
Possibly, but I doubt it. You can bet the prosecution would argue, "You're two young, able-bodied men, but you couldn't stop one drunk female from driving?"
Patrick at December 24, 2013 12:48 PM
"I like what's been done lately, with PAs telling guys not to be rapists."
Research shows (Lisak) that a small percentage of men are responsible for the overwhelming majority of rapes.
So what are those ads really doing?
In the meantime, research also shows that women initiate domestic violence about as often as men do. So ads that told women to stop beating the shit out of their husbands and that tell men to be justifiably worried about what their wives might to do them as they sleep.
jerry at December 24, 2013 12:54 PM
I wonder if a lot of the discussion, and perhaps even the research has been poisoned in that it is no longer reasonable to distinguish between violent sexual assaults (rape rapes) and non-violent but claimed non-consensual encounters.
These are all equally horrible rapes and to even try and distinguish between them or say that different things might stop one but not the other is just another kind of misogyny.
jerry at December 24, 2013 1:07 PM
Jerry, a lot of nice guys are a bit unclear on legal stuff, and don't want to be rapists.
Im all for PAs telling women not to be violent andPAs telling guys how to defend themselves
Nicolek at December 24, 2013 1:20 PM
What ever happened to the Orion, the guy who had all sorts of rules for the world he'd never taken part in? This is his kind of topic,
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at December 24, 2013 12:08 PM
Changed his name to Artemis. Still posts occasionally.
Isab at December 24, 2013 2:28 PM
Artemis is a girls name
lujlp at December 24, 2013 4:13 PM
How about parents tell their sons and daughters not to get so sloppy drunk that they do something stupid. If the man and woman are drunk only the man is blamed, fuck that.
NakkiNyan at December 24, 2013 4:13 PM
So, if I get drunk and walk off a cliff, is the cliff to blame? Or do I bear some responsibility for my own condition and behavior?
=========================
Patrick, you and Theodore Dalrymple:
"People in Britain often describe the night before as having been a really good one, the chief evidence for which is that they drank so much that they can remember nothing about it. But such brutish drunkenness is not a sign of people having enjoyed themselves, it is a sign that they do not know how to enjoy themselves, which is very sad."
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/192949/Our-binge-drinking-culture-is-a-living-hell-for-everyone
=========================
Because modern feminism isn't about empowering women, it's about castrating men (legally, if not physically).
Conan the Grammarian at December 24, 2013 4:18 PM
Artemis is a girls name
Posted by: lujlp at December 24, 2013 4:13 PM
Yes, but I suspect the connection is hunting, and Greek mythology.
I recognized the prose. Easy to spot.
Isab at December 24, 2013 4:47 PM
Thanks for the citation, Conan. I'd never heard it before, but I agree wholeheartedly.
Patrick at December 24, 2013 5:44 PM
From the same article:
We tried that already. It was the Eighteenth Amendment. It failed, miserably. Just like the War on Drugs.
So let's find more laws to impose from our overlords.
Jim P. at December 24, 2013 7:08 PM
No problem.
Theodore Dalrymple is the pseudonym of Anthony Daniels. He's a retired prison psychiatrist and has practiced medicine all over Africa. He is an atheist who defends religion. He writes about personal responsibility and its deterioration in the modern welfare state citing examples from his experiences. His writing appears in city-journal.org and other publications.
I recently finished his book, Life at the Bottom and recommend it for insight into the mindset of poverty in the modern welfare state.
Conan the Grammarian at December 24, 2013 7:20 PM
I recently finished his book, Life at the Bottom and recommend it for insight into the mindset of poverty in the modern welfare state.
Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at December 24, 2013 7:20 PM
Read it several years ago. I recommend it also. I think Mr. Daniels rightly defends religion. Religion teaches values. After two or three generations of an athesit socialist welfare state, guess what kind of values are transmitted by welfare recipeint parents?
1. Government exists to take care of you.
2. Nothing is ever your fault.
Isab at December 24, 2013 8:46 PM
I believe that young women would really rather be warned than not warned as to under what circumstances men commit rape, since many women would rather take any politely suggested precautions. I.e., it's not what advice you give, it's how you give it.
However, here's something to think about: To my knowledge, no one has suggested a simple defensive strategy that would prevent a lot of future Target-style data thefts. Namely, use debit and credit cards as seldom as possible. That is, I don't expect Target to suggest that, of course, since it would cut sales in half, but since police departments are supposedly backlogged, why wouldn't THEY want to suggest it?
Are some victims more equal than others? I wonder.
lenona at December 24, 2013 9:08 PM
However, here's something to think about: To my knowledge, no one has suggested a simple defensive strategy that would prevent a lot of future Target-style data thefts. Namely, use debit and credit cards as seldom as possible. That is, I don't expect Target to suggest that, of course, since it would cut sales in half, but since police departments are supposedly backlogged, why wouldn't THEY want to suggest it?
Are some victims more equal than others? I wonder.
Posted by: lenona at December 24, 2013 9:08 PM
Electronic commerce has taken over every aspect of the American economy in the same way that cars replaced the horse and wagon.
Many people don't even have physical access to their bank anymore, and the bank transfers their money electronically anyway.
I don't think having people use their debit cards to get cash, and then spend it at Target is much of a solution. It also really complicates the returns, because if you lose the receipt, you have no way to return or exchange.
This is a solution like having people walk and ride their bikes to lower automobile fatalities is a solution. Unworkable, and impractical.
Isab at December 25, 2013 9:22 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/12/24/denouncing_bing.html#comment-4148848">comment from IsabCredit cards and debit cards are quite different. Debit cards back up to your bank account.
Credit card companies will remove fraudulent charges from your bill -- you just have to call.
Amy Alkon at December 25, 2013 9:31 AM
Many people don't even have physical access to their bank anymore,
________________________________
Other than people with physical handicaps, I don't know what you mean.
________________________________
I don't think having people use their debit cards to get cash, and then spend it at Target is much of a solution.
_________________________________
Works for me. (OK, so everything's simpler when you don't have kids.) One can withdraw cash only once a week or less and carry only what's likely to be needed daily. You can also bring a debit or credit card anyway, for emergencies - but that's a word that needs to be redefined anyway, IMO.
________________________________
It also really complicates the returns, because if you lose the receipt, you have no way to return or exchange.
___________________________________
I can't remember the last time I needed to return ANYTHING....and any adult ought to be able to learn to avoid losing important pieces of paper. Hint: Pack little things with little things and vice versa. Example: do not pack a scarf/bandanna/etc. with a cellphone or a piece of jewelry; the latter will likely get flipped onto the sidewalk when you pull out the cloth.
___________________________________
This is a solution like having people walk and ride their bikes to lower automobile fatalities is a solution. Unworkable, and impractical.
Posted by: Isab at December 25, 2013 9:22 AM
________________________________________
Auto fatalities are accidents and not crimes, as a rule. (I'm assuming that most are not the result of drunken driving or murderous intentions.) Not the same at all.
______________________________
Credit cards and debit cards are quite different. Debit cards back up to your bank account.
_______________________________
So?
________________________________
Credit card companies will remove fraudulent charges from your bill -- you just have to call.
Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at December 25, 2013 9:31 AM
_________________________________
But the thieves still get away with their loot - and the police are still burdened with the aftermath. Not fair.
lenona at December 25, 2013 11:09 AM
Credit cards and debit cards are quite different. Debit cards back up to your bank account.
Credit card companies will remove fraudulent charges from your bill -- you just have to call.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 25, 2013 9:31 AM
It is a bit more complex than that, but they operate the same way at the merchant, and you don't get any discounts at Target for using a debit card, which is really just a simplified electronic check.
Many low income people have limited debit cards, and secured credit cards) but dont have standard credit cards for the obvious reasons.
if you are traveling overseas, in a country where cash rules, (and you get discounts for using it) you will take a pretty good hit, for cash advances on your credit card.
We use our debit card "only" on US military base ATMs overseas. The banks generally limit all debit cards to 500 dollars a day in cash withdrawals, to limit their exposure to fraud. (And you can get that money back in the event of fraud, just like a credit card) the biggest danger is having a low balance in your bank account, where the debit card fraud empties the account, and then your automatic bill payments start bouncing or overdrawing.
Last time we had any true fraud was when my husband was in Baghdad in 2008. Everything since then the credit card company has shut it down before we even noticed the issue.
if you "lose" cash or have it stolen, there is no recourse at all.
So even in a world with occasional large scale data loses, for most people, either a credit card or a debit card will be safer than cash.
Isab at December 25, 2013 11:39 AM
On the original subject, I forgot to say: I don't understand those who sneer at the idea of trying to reach out to potential rapists in the hope of re-educating them and preventing them from committing rape. Yes, of course everyone knows that rape is illegal, and that only the most idiotic boys under 16 or so are unaware that when a girl's kicking and screaming (assuming she isn't too terrified to do so), she's unwilling and it's rape, so it would indeed be difficult to get the right men to listen instead of preaching to the choir.
However, IIRC, society still makes far more of an effort than it once did to reach out to potential "postal" murderers and animal torturers in order to get them the help they need, and not just for the sake of future victims, so what's the difference? After all, there's been no shortage of studies as to who is a rapist, so we have several portraits by now of similar traits. The main one is that rapists - long-term ones, anyway - do not see women as human beings. Plenty of them make no secret of this, so how hard is it to start talking to them, diplomatically?
lenona at December 25, 2013 12:31 PM
@Lenona I don't think that anyone is opposed to educating men on their ethical and legal responsibilities, or to prevention efforts. But the same people who promote the idea that it's misogynistic to warn women about risky behavior also deny the fact that perpetrators of sex crimes are overwhelmingly recidivists and that they are psychologically abnormal. Instead they claim that there is nothing distinctive about sexual predators because all men are latent rapists inspired by a sense of entitlement over women that that is embedded in the culture - hence the Rape Culture. It's that ideology that's the target of criticism.
warner at December 25, 2013 1:54 PM
Can't find it right now but I have read there is a strong correlation between rapists and sexually and emotionally abusive mothers (and other female caretakers).
Maybe if we take women's abuse more seriously and protect boys...fewer will grow up to be rapists.
Fatherlessness is also a correlation.
Katrina at December 26, 2013 6:58 AM
I seem to remember that in the popular teen book "Changing Bodies, Changing Lives," it was mentioned that rapists were often beaten as boys, by their parents. No mention of fatherlessness as a common factor, IIRC, but I can imagine they wouldn't want to mention that.
And there are people who write pieces like this one:
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2013/11/04/rape-culture-does-not-exist/
He makes some good points, but, quote:
"You’ll often hear very uneducated people make statements like, 'If people taught their sons not to rape women then we wouldn’t have a problem.' There are a couple of problems with this statement.
"First, it’s incredibly ignorant. Anybody who’s ever watched the news knows that rape is illegal, and yet the above paints the picture that our society is failing to educate young men on rape. Secondly, it implies that education can prevent true acts of evil. We teach kids not to murder and rob, but people still do it. Once again, you can’t always stop criminals."
(end)
I have never heard anyone claim that rape would cease entirely if we talked to boys rather than girls. I HAVE heard people point out that we're sending boys a very warped message when we give all the talks to girl and don't so much as ask boys what they would or should do when some friend of theirs is trying to drag an unconscious girl into a closet or what have you. "When good men do nothing...."
lenona at December 26, 2013 12:48 PM
I HAVE heard people point out that we're sending boys a very warped message when we give all the talks to girl
Know why? Cause when a guy tries to find out things like at what BAC a woman becomes too drunk to say yes, but not to drunk to drive you back to her place were call rape apologists
lujlp at December 27, 2013 7:02 AM
I HAVE heard people point out that we're sending boys a very warped message when we give all the talks to girl
_________________________________
Know why? Cause when a guy tries to find out things like at what BAC a woman becomes too drunk to say yes, but not to drunk to drive you back to her place were call rape apologists
Posted by: lujlp at December 27, 2013 7:02 AM
__________________________________
As if anyone ever said that talking to kids about sex and/or violence is easy.....why do adult lecturers whine about ANYTHING particular thing being difficult when it's not likely to become easy?
BTW, it's also OK (but not always easy) to talk to boys about what makes them angry and how they can handle that in advance. I posted most of this at Bratfree in 2012:
While there's no arguing with "prevention is better than cure," why, I ask, does that never seem to include the need for PARENTS to do what they can to make sure their SONS don't grow up to abuse their power?
After all, if it helps, parents can also teach boys that they don't have to put up with rudeness and emotional abuse - but if they want to be treated like gentlemen, they still have to ACT like gentlemen. E.g., it's OK to expect a girl to pay for date 2 if he paid for date 1. It is OK to stop seeing her if she refuses to do this. It is not OK to expect sex as payment. Of course, it's also OK to go on dates that don't include spending money until you have a better understanding of what your date's money policies are.....
....whether we're talking about crimes of profit by desperately poor criminals or not, the whole idea of "prevention" seems to be issuing perennial warnings to adult would-be victims.
I.e., what would be so horribly controversial about focusing like a hawk, instead, on the development and changing behaviors of (mostly male) CHILDREN? Isn't THAT real prevention, while the former is only the "cure"?
After, society didn't used to think much about boys who torture animals, because aside from society's not caring about animals, it was assumed to be "just a phase." Nowadays, most people understand it ISN'T, and that it must be nipped in the bud, with medication if necessary. So, what's the difference when boys start to insult or bully girls just for being girls? Aren't girls more important than animals?
(Again, note that I said earlier that boys deserve respect too. Just not in the ways they might prefer.)
Sam Harris, in this Prague crime story -
http://johnvondoeh.blogspot.com/2009/01/im-going-to-quote-couple-pages-in-full.html
- pointed out that every time we lie or do other types of "avoidance" with criminals, we're shifting the burden of mental and ethical confrontation to someone else - and those thugs will see no reason not to target some other woman in the future.
Again, if it's outrageous and unthinkable even for the POLICE to suggest that people take on a few minor burdens in their shopping habits to protect themselves - and also so the police will have more time for harder crimes - why is it not just as outrageous to suggest that women walk in pairs or groups all the time, when often, that's even MORE unrealistic than not using credit cards? Especially when almost no adult takes a chaperone on a date anymore?
Not to mention that the more we engage in avoidance, the harsher the pressure becomes on the victims to just stay locked up instead of say, demanding the right to walk around at night IN GROUPS.
I mean, it's one thing to argue that blowing up at criminals - or your enemies - is no way to get them to change their attitudes, or that men, as opposed to little boys, tend to cling fiercely to their opinions, even when the law and most of society is against them, but that's hardly an excuse for implying that society shouldn't be doing everything to communicate with them in the HOPE of changing their minds. Even KKK members have been known to reform.
(And another thing that bothers me about the site is that they say more than once than it's wrong for feminists to assume that all men are potential rapists - and, the site adds, rapists tend to show other signs of anti-social behavior, such as constant rudeness, in advance - but then the site prints all sorts of rules and suggestions for defensive dating, just in CASE Mr. Nice Guy turns out to be a con artist. Great contradiction.)
lenona at December 27, 2013 9:39 AM
Without this statement I probably would have totally blown you off as liberal feminist.
If I were to come into a scene as the guy described in the link, I would have to decide how to intercede, but I would have been in the rescue even if it was calling 9-11 and standing back.
The problem is that males generally aren't at a point where they can evaluate a female's grasp of reality when she is in a blackout state. I ended up almost doing it with a friends girlfriend after we knocked off school did some stuff and then ended up at my place and knocked back a couple of screwdrivers. She ended up in a blackout state and I didn't realize it as we were making out semi-naked. She still doesn't remember it to this day. That was 20+ years ago.
For that matter my ex-gf could get to a blackout state as well, but I realized it somewhere during the second time it was happening. (She weighed about 120 lbs soaking wet.) I told her what I thought was happening and made it a point to be careful not to abuse her trust.
There is a difference between fucking someone who is out cold and knowing that a moving, semi-coherent female has no short to long term memory processing going on because she drank a ¼ bottle of alcohol before you met up with her.
So it does take some responsibility on the guys side. But a female getting drunk at a party is acceptable. But they need to have the same sort of plan like having a Designated Driver for stopping a DUI.
It still comes back to responsibility.
Jim P. at December 27, 2013 5:10 PM
Leave a comment