I'm sorry you went through that, Amy, but damned glad you didn't let that ruin your whole life. When you think about it in perspective, it would be silly to make your whole life be about those few minutes -- and I am glad you thought about it.

As I've spoke of here before, my whole life was greatly affected by my ex. I will even have a lower pension because I chose to protect my daughter from him. I threw him the hell out over domestic violence and would have moved before going to a battered women's shelter because that's too damned much like the victim being imprisioned rather than the perpetrator. I don't condemn women who are driven to that despearte means to escape, I admire their courage but, personally, I'd rather be exiled. Frankly, I often felt just that -- exiled for his crimes.

For a woman to find herself in such despearte means to go to a shelter in the first place, she is in pain enough; for so-called feminists to then separate these already injured women and children (yes, all the children, the two younger had their sibling wrenched away from them) is dispicable. I'm glad it's being exposed but, as was pointed out, the down side is it is going to deter women who have no other option for escaping a dangerous situation.

My ex put me through hell. But that is one man. To assume all men are like him would be ridiculous; to say there are no good men because there are bad guys out there is absurd. I've said from day one of leaving him, I believe there's good men out there. (My problem is I don't trust my judgement, my ability to tell the bad from the good after him, but that's a bad quality of mine that has no reflection on the men that exist in this world.)

There are women who are real creeps. You just know these man-haters would be the first to scream bloody murder if all women were judged by the few bad ones. (I think the bad are the minority frankly; it may be naive of me, but I feel most people are basically good at heart.)

Separate the men from the boys in grownup bodies and learn to appreciate the men. It's time you did, hons.

Actually, being in a shelter is no picnic either. There is one in the town near where I used to live, that I dontate some of my kids' toys and clothes to, as they outgrow them. One of the mothers there told me about rampant theft and actual physical violence among the women and children that stay there! This poor young woman (she has 2 little ones) escaped one abusive siutation only to enter into another one, one that is supposed to be safe from the violence she ran from. I managed to speak to one of the counselors who told me that even though they try to help these women, some are using drugs and should have their children taken away from them. She also said that the women establish a kind of "hierarchy amongst themselves", with the dominating women taking the best of the things donated, and "ruling" over the submissive, scared ones. And it's tough to weed them out, because they don't get caught out or ratted out, they've got the other women and children cowed. It's crazy, and there's got to be a better way, but I'm damned if I know what it is.

The foster care - child protection - family shelter system: the more you see of it, the less you like it. I read a blurb that said a child's chances for sexual abuse went up if they were put into the foster care system.

"12-year-old boy who wasn't allowed to go into a shelter with his abused mother, but was instead packed off to foster care:"

Great example of black and white victim thinking and blockheaded bureaucracy. Makes me kinda ill.



"Often, the victim does bear some responsibility. Take me, for example"

Great example of someone making a rational decision in the face of a very sucky situation.

Most people (especially adults) that are on the receiving end of a crime need to take a hard look at themselves and whether they made themselves vulnerable to it, and what steps they could take to prevent it in the future. No one can protect you 24/7, and the most effective steps to prevent those situations can only be taken by those who were victimized.

I never think that victims necessarily brought them on themselves. They were a victim when the crime happened. It's up to them whether or not they remain a "victim" or not.
Doesn't matter whether it's domestic violence, robbery, or bullying.

"Often, the victim does bear some responsibility." This is really a question of circumstance. In your case you knew the place was shady and just made the mistake of being careless. If you are new to an area and don't know where you should and shouldn't go it's different. There are always obvious indicators that something is a bad idea then there are some situations where there are no warnings to it going bad fast. Most situations the warnings require some experience to see.

I know that most shelters have an upper age limit and to some extent they probably should, 12 is way too young. I can see why they would not want an 18 year old boy to be at the shelter. Many of the women at the shelter fear men in general, or so goes the explanation. Even the security and EMT/Paramedics here in Boston have to be female to get past the property line. I don't know if this is because the women actually fear men or some feminist ideology though.

Great article, Amy. Thanks for letting people know about this problem. I like the focus on personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility is a factor up to a certain point. Trusting no one ever is not an option for a healthy life style, trusting everyone is equally nuts. The extent to which you are culpable in what happened to you is proportional to you assailants skill at subterfuge and manipulation.
The more skilled a manipulator someone is the less you'd be responsible. Every one can be fooled once under a given circumstance. Now if you keep getting fooled under the same circumstance it's kind of hard to feel for a person. IE: If Amy walked down that street at the same time of night again. However most circumstances are not this obvious.

Personal responsibility is a factor up to a certain point. Trusting no one ever is not an option for a healthy life style, trusting everyone is equally nuts.

But personal responsibility is ALWAYS a factor, and among the most important factor in mishaps not happening twice. So is being rational about applying that responsibility. The extremes you given don't mitigate this, because taking personal responsibility isn't about creating NO risk, but creating reduced risk. The goal is to be reasonable, not stupid or ignorant (trusting no one, trusting everyone), about risk*. Most books dealing with self-defense address this. It all comes down to practical reasonable precaution and situational awareness. Many good books out there, but I'm fairly partial to this one: Cheap Shots, Ambushes, And Other Lessons: A Down And Dirty Book On Streetfighting & Survival

If you were a victim once, you learn and do what you can to prevent it. If you stay a victim, you might well be one of your own making.


*And this coming from a guy that makes videos involving high voltage and fire. I personally feel safer doing that than I do sometimes among my fellow nutjobs on the freeway. Do I stop driving? No. But I drive defensively and don't take unnecessary risks.

"But personal responsibility is ALWAYS a factor," Ah, no most of the time yes but not always. There will always be shit you can't control. Don't put yourself in harms way, fine that's obvious. Now how do you know what is and what isn't harms way? In different parts of the country (goes double for the world) different things are a warning sign. In NY there are places you don't go, simple just stay the hell out. There a multiple HW signs that seam fairly nondescript unless you know the area. Would you say that getting lost and car jacked in one of these area makes you responsible for being car jacked.

The best way to survive is to stay out of dangerous areas. Does that mean that the kids of ass hole parents are responsible for for living in a shithole?

Does that mean that the kids of ass hole parents are responsible for for living in a shithole? (vlad)

It's a really bad example, because we don't hold children fully responsible for their actions. Insofar as one can exercise personal responsibility, one should. And it's right to criticize people who don't.

As for the NY carjackings, any prudent person reads up on crime in places they visit. So, yes they share some responsibility.

Of course, there is a difference between personal responsibility and moral culpability. the person who impoverishes themselves by a lack of personal responsibility may be doing nothing morally or legally wrong, but when he comes asking for handouts or assistance or even sympathy, we should scrutinize his level of personal responsibility. And then act accordingly.

"It's a really bad example, because we don't hold children fully responsible for their actions." That depends on the age of the "child". I believe you remain your parents child way past the point at which you would become self sufficient. Yes bad choice of words on my part but I still stick by my example. Most who climbed out of the shit neighborhoods had either inspiration (showed them how to get out), help (pushed them to get out) or both (pushed them and showed them why).

"As for the NY carjackings, any prudent person reads up on crime in places they visit." Oh yes no argument but the signs for specific exits are not labeled as "Brownsville ENY" or "South Bronx" which are the names you'll find on the crime logs. Unless someone got killed right by the exit or at least along the same street you have no way of knowing which exits represent a hazard. Unless you can memorize and maintain a full color coded map of NY city in your head. GPS units don't have gang land avoidance features that I'm aware of. I'm not arguing that you as a person can have a huge influence on being a victim. I just don't agree that personal responsibility is ALWAYS a factor. The concept behind shit happens is a universal one for a reason.

"Does that mean that the kids of ass hole parents are responsible for for living in a "shithole?"

No, but it's their responsibility to get the hell out once they are able. If they are able (due to age, laws etc) and don't...they are now a willing participant instead of a victim.

Would you say that getting lost and car jacked in one of these area makes you responsible for being car jacked.

Again, gross oversimplification and totally missing the point. If you did anything that made you vulnerable to being carjacked, then you are still partially responsible - even if it is just your responsibility to learn from it and take steps to prevent future mishaps. Situational awareness is key. There are reasonable ways to minimize the risk of getting mugged/carjacked/etc. It doesn't get rid of it 100%, but if you don't take reasonable precautions and instead just blindly presume you're safe, you are partly responsible for the consequences - especially when it happens a second time.

"The concept behind shit happens is a universal one for a reason."

Yes, it's a universal cop-out, I'll agree to that.

"Ah, no most of the time yes but not always."

Never said it's the only factor, but it is always one of many. You're oversimplifying the whole premise. I'm talking about taking reasonable precaution to minimize risk. This applies to any situation. There are always factors outside of your control. There are always factors within your control. You aren't responsible for those out of your control, but you are for what is. Thus personal responsibility is always a factor. Every example you've given has factor of personal responsibility, even if - at minimum (and I can argue otherwise in most cases) - it's only to learn and make sure it doesn't happen again, or to lay low/adapt until you're able to effect change.

Jamie, I agree with you for the most part, but now I'm going to give you a fer instance:

When a woman meets a man who sweeps her off her feet, to the point of blissful happiness, she quite often does not see an ulterior motive. ("Reasonable caution" isn't in her vocabulary right now.) In a perfect world, there wouldn't be one. HOWEVER, let's say the man is a classic Boderline Personality Disorder Manipulator, and that this woman is young and naive enough to have never experienced such a deviant person. He strings her along, with pretty promises, romantic getaways, and expensive trinkets, to the point of exclusion of all else in her life. (And believe me, the BPD Manipulator is fabulous at this. Having once been a victim, I know.) Her life is now inextricably intertwined with his to point she knows and acknowledges little else. Once he knows she's hooked, the terror begins. It's little things at first;: she didn't cook the eggs just right, she didn't wash his shirts properly (or hang them on the right type of hanger), then it becomes: she's not responsive enough to him in bed, she's an inept housekeeper, this list goes on and on, and he starts to yell at her for the slightest thing. It escalates to to the point where she is constantly walking on egg shells,doubting and second guessing herself, because she never knows what will set him off next. She has no friends now to talk to, they're all his friends, or he presents such a different persona to them that they all tell her she must be mistaken, he's the nicest guy they ever knew, look at all he does for her. After about a year of this, the emotional and mental abuse escalates to the physical, and she never saw it coming. How much personal responsibility does she have? How much has been taken from her by the Manipulator? How on goddess' green earth does she get it back?

I was one of the lucky ones. I had help, before things got as bad as I described. So many women don't. And even some that do get help go back, because the have a misguided sense of what "love" is. They think they can "change" him. They can't.

"Thus personal responsibility is always a factor." You minimize your risk but it still happens. Then your personal responsibility in keeping yourself safe was fulfilled. So if you did all you could along the lines of personal responsibility to mitigate the situation how is it still a factor.

"You're oversimplifying the whole premise." Yes I don't have hour to make detailed write ups of events that have occurred. Also unless it's some what simplified your playing Arm Chair General which is bull shit. If you have all the facts leading up to an event including how the event played out you should easily be able to make better decisions.

"- it's only to learn and make sure it doesn't happen again, or to lay low/adapt until you're able to effect change." Right but that would only be a factor in the next such event. Learning from previous events is only a factor in following events. Knowing that you got car jacked down Shit hole lane will only help you the next time you have the option of turning down shit hole lane. It is not a factor in the first time you turned down shit hole lane.

"and I can argue otherwise in most cases" Hind site in an academic setting is always 20/20.

"Jamie, I agree with you for the most part, but now I'm going to give you a fer instance:" Said it better then I could.

Her responsibility would be this: Get the hell out as soon as it went south. When in that sort of situation (I went through something similar (emotional rather than physical tho) and my mother went through worse - with kids) the longer you wait, the worse it gets - and the harder it becomes to leave.

Sticking it out in the name of "love" and "trying to change them" just makes you a willing participant - a victim of your own making. In the experiences I know (mine, my mother's and others) NOTHING was "taken" from them. They passively let the taker take. Once I saw things go bad, I could have left. I didn't. That is MY fault. What happened to me after was done by her, but I LET it continue.

Incidentally, my mother's only regret is that she didn't leave the first time he raised his hand to her. She's practically was an enabler to everything that happened after - both to her and her kids. We were all raised with a serious dose of personal responsibility.

It's not her fault she was in that situation, but as soon as it goes south and as soon she had any means to do so, it was up to her to get out because no one else will do that for her. And it remains her responsibility to learn from it to reduce the chances of it happening again.

It sounds harsh and unsympathetic. But reality isn't warm and fuzzy either. If there's any factor in your control at all, it's your job to handle it.

""Jamie, I agree with you for the most part, but now I'm going to give you a fer instance:" Said it better then I could."


Yes, she left her straw men at home, you haven't yet.

Any exceptions that you can choose to find specifically would be statistically minor, if not such to the point of being negligible. In any situation, there are always factors under your control. Any that you didn't handle was your responsibility. Period. Accept it, learn from it, and move on. It doesn't mean you "deserve it," nor that you "are to blame." It just means that you should own up for where you could/should have done better.


Flynne said it better because she used one specific example (which I relpied to, agreed with or not), whereas you made up over-generalized generic hypotheticals and refuted those as though they meant something (straw man) - not refuting my main point. Instead sound like you feel living the life of a perpetual victim is okay because "shit happens."

Many of the women at the shelter fear men in general, or so goes the explanation.

This is irrational and not helpful. Men in general aren't the problem. My boyfriend would no more hit me than he'd strip down, paint himself red, and run down Melrose shouting cock-a-doodle-doo.

The problem is, many women live in wishful thinking-land instead of in reality, and do not try to see who they're with - they just cross their fingers and hope the person turns out to be Prince Charming. They typically do this because they have low self-esteem, and it typically doesn't end well.

A good book to combat this sort of thinking:

The Art of Living Consciously: The Power of Awareness to Transform Everyday Life

Her responsibility would be this: Get the hell out as soon as it went south.

Easier said than done, for the most part. The abuse can be so subtle that you don't know exactly when the relationship started to go south.

When in that sort of situation (I went through something similar (emotional rather than physical tho) and my mother went through worse - with kids) the longer you wait, the worse it gets - and the harder it becomes to leave.

Absodamnlutely, there's no doubt about that. The trick is how to tell when it's time to get out, and then you have to have the courage and the backbone to stay out! For me, going back was not an option, once I was able to look at the situation objectively, which I couldn't do when in the throes of it. Having the strength to grow a backbone where your wishbone is takes a lot of faith in yourself, which a majority of women with low self-esteem issues just don't have. YMMV

I'll be brief: Do not get married to or have sex with someone you do not know, no matter how wonderful they appear.

Do not think that only lonely sailors have trouble with relationships; nearly all sailors who do pick girls whose only reasons for picking a particular guy is that he is the first thing that shaves that can get her out of a) the house, b) the town, and or c) having to get a job. There are exceptions, of course - but having seen this myself cruising on two submarines, I can say that the guys who had things work out really knew who it was saying, "I do!"

And it works both ways. You want the best damned advice about leaving somebody? Don't put yourself in that position in the first place.

Other people routinely show us how NOT to conduct our affairs - but we think they're different in some regard, we don't take the example. We're better than they are, "it's different". Nope.

Hey, you know, Amy has said this a million times: you want to stay out of a bad relationship, you have to forge a healthy life for yourself alone, first. That way you can not only be a better judge of prospects, you can be an actual asset to your sweetie instead of a neurotic albatross.

Absolutely right, and I love the description of a "neurotic albatross."

did you know that in a lot of places a formerly abused woman cannot get health insurance or homeowner's for herself or her children because domestic violence is a "pre-existing condition"? not everywhere, not everyone, but it's not that uncommon. and that she still has to share custody with the father, if there's no evidence of child abuse? probably. but anyway.
and one of the big problems with the personal responsibility idea is the assumption that the woman in question is actually capable of rational thought like you and me (ok, i'm not always rational, but still), when in reality most of the time she's not, for the reasons flynne pointed out. and yes i am speaking from experience, just in case you're wondering. but having said that, while i understand and know most of the reasons people stay with abusers and some of them are even good reasons, none of them are good enough. especially when kids are involved.
anyway, i'm happy to say, teenage boys are definitely allowed at the shelter here. it is quite ridiculous for them not to be.
personally i think that a big problem is that a lot of people look at people in bad situations and making bad decisions and believe that they are somehow different from the rest of us. it's a nice protective device, but it's not true. that's just my random thought.

Well said, Flynne and kt, and, as someone who's been there, I have to chime in.

I had my own life, had been living singly and independently for years with a secure state job when my Borderline Personality Disorder Manipulator (love that, Flynne, is it a real medical term) came along. I know exactly what you're talking about. I was 23 and still somewhat naive perhaps but it wasn't that I was desperate to get out of a house, town or needed a pay check to avoid working. And boy are those BPDM's ever good actors excellent at reading what you're looking for.

Tell me about it, kt. When he hit, I walked. But I had means. And, all false modesty aside, I'm stronger than most -- much stronger. After I walked, I wound up running -- to another state to protect my daughter from her father when the courts failed to. The proof you have to have to deprive someone of their parental rights is unreal. That was in 1986. I don't even want to think about what would incur today when the courts grant automatic joint custody. Because I had full custody, the only crime I was committing was interference with visitation rights, not kidnapping. And you can get a kid's pic on the milk cartons with nothing, no questions asked about why the other parent might have taken off. I ever see a kid that's with one of the parents from one of those flyers, I definitely am not calling the 800 number. This is not something you do lightly. It is damned hard.

My ex told me he was going to drive me insane. I thought like fuck you are and here I am more or less intact. (You don't go through hell unscarred.) My ex told me they were going to find me dead in the street. I looked him in the eye and said try it and we'll see who they find dead in the street and meant it. But that's me. A New York bitch and proud of it. When threatened, I don't get scared, I get pissed off and am apt to act on that anger. 90% of women (and probably 70% of men) don't have my balls (for lack of a better expression) through no fault of their own.

Even being me, it took one hell of a lot of courage and fortitude. I can easily see that a person just might not have that much of both these things. I also had some means -- a place to stay out of state until I could withdraw the funds from my pension plan and I knew someone who got those funds to me within a couple of weeks instead of the several months it usually takes. Even with guts and some means, I have regrets. Was it better for my daughter than being abused by her father? Of course. And I'm glad I did it for every day that she was safe from him and wouldn't otherwise have been. But is she unharmed? Of course not. Her whole childhood was spent in hardship caused by flight only starting with the $7,000 drop in pay. I had no help dealing with the abuse (and impoverished from the flight no financial means of getting it myself). Social Services in Denver was great at promising help but, even with my New York mouth, never actually came through with it. She was harmed by my constant home sickness because I didn't move to Denver in the best frame of mind for accepting that city as my home. When she was 12 and her father was arrested for abusing children in VT and I moved back because of that homesickness that hadn't abated in 9 years, I yanked her away from where she had grown up. All of this hardship caused by one asshole is the main reason I wouldn't have a child if I had it to do all over again.

Jamie, it's easy to point fingers and say that someone should have, could have and you would have but it's another fucking story to live the reality of a situation instead of sitting outside judging it. You're not listening to what vlad is saying. He's not saying don't be responsible for keeping yourself as safe as possible. He's not saying be stupid and excuse it with shit happens. He's saying shit sometimes happens even when you've done everything humanly possible to prevent it, sometimes just because you can't always know what to do.

His example of being in a strange place rings true to me someone who's lived in the Capital District all her life. Here in Albany one of the best areas in town is literally just over a bridge from one of the worse and there's absolutely nothing to warn you. The physical layout has a curve that prevents the view of what you're driving into. Someone who doesn't know the area could be literally driving along admiring beautiful estates and wide lawns then literally drive over a bridge and find themself in one of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods.

Yes, we should all be responsible for ourselves as much is humanly possible. But we aren't all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful. There is no god.

"Jamie, it's easy to point fingers and say that someone should have, could have and you would have but it's another fucking story to live the reality of a situation instead of sitting outside judging it."

Like I said earlier, I've been in a similar situation. Another example (since I linked a bullying blog item) I was also "the school past-time" through elementary school (physical and emotional) - had a hiatal hernia, spastic colon, and 3" duodenal ulcer (all aggravated by stress) by the time I was 13 and was sent to a "teen ward" by my school for 6 weeks. Those are just two examples. Apparently my view isn't valid unless I have some sort of personal hell that you can relate to. I have more, but I didn't really think it relevant to the discussion.

I'm not someone judging from the outside, I speak from experience. When I say that you are responsible for yourself, and the situations you get yourself into, I'm including myself. The lessons I learned from what I experienced was "where did I fuck up?" There are ALWAYS people that abuse and take advantage, but in most cases that ability is limited to what their "victims" let them do. Those people had no real power over me, other than what I GAVE them. Realizing this gave me the ability to put a stop to it, and get out of the situation. Looking to others to fix it (support? maybe. fix? no) doesn't work. The fact that any of those situations lasted past the first incident is more my responsibility than anyone else's. Not the bullies nor the abuser. Mine. The "blame" lies with those who do the act - because it wouldn't happen at all without them, but part still lies with me for letting them do it. It has nothing to do with being "all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful," it has to do with accepting the fact that if you're in a shitty situation - it is almost a certainty that you are partly responsible for allowing yourself to stay there.

Lacking god, if I had a religion it'd be the church of "suck it up and deal." And I apply that more to myself than anyone else.

And from where I stand, there's quite a bit of difference between what you and Flynne have said, and what Vlad has said.

"Here in Albany one of the best areas in town is literally just over a bridge from one of the worse and there's absolutely nothing to warn you." I lived on Long Island when I was young. Same road within pistol range of each other are projects (Yeah the real freaking projects, section 8 housing) and homes the sell in this market for 1.5 mil and up.

"Yes, she left her straw men at home, you haven't yet." First you might want to look up the term sraw man. I'm not changing your argument into something else and then attack it. I have not personally been in a situation (outside of work) that was completely out of my control. I have friends that have and did not feel right sharing their stories in a public forum.

I was trying to avoid emotional topics like spousal abuse because it's hard for someone who wasn't there to actually access what triggers were present. What warnings were present and what past life experince was available when analyzing them. Also playing armchair general with someone who got the crap beat out of them is both cruel and point less.

"it is almost a certainty that you are partly responsible for allowing yourself to stay there." This is very different than
"Thus personal responsibility is always(bold) a factor."

You even added the emphasis for the word always. For a scientist there is a very big difference between almost a certainty and always. I was never arguing with you about the fact that for the vast majority of cases you are correct.

To use your case, if what ever you did to deal with the bullying enraged an unstable person. Would him/her killing you or maiming you be a factor of personal responsibility?

Lets look at the caste system in India. You are discouraged in the strongest way from even trying to move up during your life time. There is no way in hell anyone from the "Untouchable" caste can swing the cost of a trip to a different country (never mind the US). If you are born into the lowest caste you aren't going any where. Now show me how dieing a poor person if you are born into this caste has any factor of personal responsibility.

"To use your case, if what ever you did to deal with the bullying enraged an unstable person. Would him/her killing you or maiming you be a factor of personal responsibility?"

Fuck, yes. I chose to "deal with it," and thus take responsibility for my part in the results. Not the entire - but at least part of it. I see myself (and all thinking creatures once they're adults) as being partly responsible for all of results of my actions. If I chose to live in San Francisco, and die in an earthquake (knowing that area is earthquake prone), I am partly responsible. I have no control over earthquakes, nor do am to blame for it happening, but I put myself there.

"First you might want to look up the term sraw man."

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.
You seemed focused entirely on one word, and your examples were mostly generic and hyperbolic - which you then refuted - thinking that refuted my position. Close enough for me.

"Now show me how dieing a poor person if you are born into this caste has any factor of personal responsibility."

It isn't their fault that they're born poor (because there was no possible choice), but how well they deal with that situation IS (within their means, and so long as they have any choice, they have some means). For example: the choice of whether they rail and complain about the oppression of the system, or make the best of what they have as best they can.

If ANY factor in the situation is within your control (i.e. you can't blame yourself much if you get hit in the head with a meteor), then you are partly responsible.

All actions and choices have consequences. Even if you had no way of knowing at the time, or didn't see any way out at the time...if there was, then you are partly responsible for the result. Good or bad.

"I was never arguing with you about the fact that for the vast majority of cases you are correct."

It certainly sounded that way, and if you had said THAT (above) in the first place, I wouldn't be nearly as annoyed. If such was your intention, and I misinterpreted it, I apologize.

""But personal responsibility is ALWAYS a factor," Ah, no most of the time yes but not always." These were my words. Most of the time yes you are at least partly responsible for your situation. However there is the shit happens factor. If you regard your self as plain unlucky (shit always happens to me mentality) then it is your fault cause you choose to wallow in it.

"or make the best of what they have as best they can." There are simply situations (they are rare, usually very rare) where you do not have control of the situation at all. Wrong place wrong time type shit happens. Your statement of ALWAYS while claiming to be a scientist (slightly mad or otherwise) is exactly what I have the problem with. It's presumptuous to say that you have seen all situations and thus know that anything is always the case.

"If I chose to live in San Francisco, and die in an earthquake (knowing that area is earthquake prone)" Now your changing your stance, or at least that's how it looks. Now your stating that you are not responsible if you are ignorant. If you did not know that there are earth quakes in San Fransisco you would not be personally responsible for you dieing in one after moving.

"If ANY factor in the situation is within your control (i.e. you can't blame yourself much if you get hit in the head with a meteor), then you are partly responsible." If you did control all factors that you could control (you can't control other people try as you might) and it still went to shit how is personal responsibility involved.

"If ANY factor in the situation is within your control (i.e. you can't blame yourself much if you get hit in the head with a meteor), then you are partly responsible." Only if the factors that you had control over lead to the situation. Otherwise no it goes back to your meteor example (this is even worse then the examples I used).

"If you did control all factors that you could control (you can't control other people try as you might) and it still went to shit how is personal responsibility involved."

How many "examples" can you come up with where what led to that situation (regardless of whether or not you knew this would happen), what happens during, or the end consequences thereafter are not in any way impacted by the choices that you made or could have made and didn't? Not a single one I've seen so far has. That's why I said always. I have never seen a situation where there isn't at least one factor that points to your own responsibility in some respect or another. And I constantly see evidence everywhere else that points to the same. Actions and consequences aren't just what happens right at that moment. It's what led up to it, what happens during, and the aftermath. If I walk out the door and was shot, I would still admit that I PUT myself there at that time. Doesn't make me at fault for being shot (if I did nothing to instigate it and it was truly random), but my being there at that time was my choice, with its inherent risks (which I chose to be acceptable, not knowing all factors), and I'd accept that (if I survived).

And my example was used to contrast to my own statement, not to "refute" yours.

"If ANY factor in the situation is within your control (i.e. you can't blame yourself much if you get hit in the head with a meteor), then you are partly responsible."

I love the saying 'there are no victims, only volunteers', which I find more applicable to extended abuse. Domestic violence, oppression, even molestation. But I think that there are many cases where certain factors, are within your personal control and you would still be a victim, with no responsibility for the consequence.

I like how Amy says, "Often, the victim does bear some responsibility" Note the word often, and some, and gave a good example of how she walked down a street that SHE KNEW was a bad area by not paying attention. Now if she had walked down a well occupied area, that was known to be a good part of town, and was assaulted (groped, fondled, mugged) ... would that have been her fault? Well I guess she could avoid walking down the street entirely.

Jamie you seem to be changing your stand "I never think that victims necessarily brought them on themselves. They were a victim when the crime happened. It's up to them whether or not they remain a "victim" or not." This one I agreed with.

Vlad,
"Many of the women at the shelter fear men in general, or so goes the explanation."

Good point. If you fall off a bike, you don't have a fear of riding just that bike, you have a fear of all bikes.

"Doesn't make me at fault for being shot (if I did nothing to instigate it and it was truly random), but my being there at that time was my choice, with its inherent risks (which I chose to be acceptable, not knowing all factors), and I'd accept that (if I survived)." How's this different then the meteor example. Getting struck by a meteor would only kill you if your standing where the meteor hits.

"I would still admit that I PUT myself there at that time." Causality and responsibility at two very different things.

"I wouldn't be nearly as annoyed." Don't really care.

"Jamie you seem to be changing your stand "I never think that victims necessarily brought them on themselves. They were a victim when the crime happened. It's up to them whether or not they remain a "victim" or not." This one I agreed with."

Not changing my mind one bit, but trying to explain it better. In getting passionate about the topic, I guess I'm not doing a very good job of that.

For any situation there is the following stages: the factors that led to an event, a specific event, and the results of the event. All 3 are involved in a specific situation, and I have yet to see any that aren't impacted by personal choice.

The only caveat I'll even consider is where a person was unconscious for the entire thing - or not mentally capable (regardless of emotional state) of making any choices whatsoever. Such a small amount that it's just about negligible.

If someone chooses to base their entire argument on refuting "always" or "just about negligible" then that's their prerogative.

A mentally ill man who was horribly abused as a child kills someone. Does that mitigate ALL of his responsibility? I say no, even though it might reduce it considerably.

I chose to date someone that was abusive (but I didn't know at the time). My part was that I didn't leave as soon as I saw how she really was.

A disgruntled employee, who I don't know nor had any association with whatsoever, comes in and goes postal and I'm shot. He still would have gone postal if I wasn't here, but my being shot still resulted because I chose to work here. So I still had a part in the consequence - because it came about in part through my choices. However, it wouldn't stop me from working somewhere else later (if possible) since I would most likely decide that it's such a minor chance (especially of happening twice) that its an acceptable risk.

That's why I've said it's always a factor. And the "A" should be emphasized more than the "always," I guess. That would be my fault.

I believe that everything in life has consequences, but that I'm responsible for the consequence of any choice I make, regardless of what I based it on, or my motivations. The degree to which I'm responsible might vary, but it doesn't go away.

If I haven't clarified that by now, I probably never will, but not for lack of effort I guess.

Now I know I'm distracted, forgot to close my damn italics tag. (sigh)

"The degree to which I'm responsible might vary, but it doesn't go away." There in lies the disagreement.

With regards to the girl friend becoming abusive. Are you responsible for her becoming abusive in the first place or for not leaving her when she did.

"but that I'm responsible for the consequence of any choice I make, regardless of what I based it on, or my motivations."

As per the statement above (and the bullet analogy) you are not only responsible for staying with her (which you are not argument) after she became abusive but for ever having dated her in the first place.

"My part was that I didn't leave as soon as I saw how she really was." states that your responsibility is for not leaving her when she became abusive.

Am I misreading one of these two sentences.

"A mentally ill man who was horribly abused as a child kills someone. Does that mitigate ALL of his responsibility? I say no, even though it might reduce it considerably." My understanding of your argument is that the person who is killed (not the crazy one doing the killing) bears some responsibility. This is the point of contention.

"(which you are not argument)" Can't type it should read "(which you are, no argument)"

Okay. I've decided to post one more thing. It's long-winded, so feel free to ignore it. This is not in response to anything anyone has said, except maybe the statement that my position is "unscientific," and my belief that the way by which I chose to state my position may have been unclear, so I'm going to revise how it's stated and make it more procedural/logical. However, it's so damn long I don't feel right posting it here. If someone wants to read it, go here. Otherwise you can just ignore it and not have an entire blog page taken over by my ranting.

"As per the statement above (and the bullet analogy) you are not only responsible for staying with her (which you are not argument) after she became abusive but for ever having dated her in the first place.

Yes. I'm saying exactly that.

Since it wouldn't have happened at all if she hadn't done it, places the most responsibility (and if you will, all of the blame - since that's a value judgment) for that action upon her.
However, if I hadn't dated her, it wouldn't have happened to ME, which makes me in part responsible for it having happened to me. I was a factor in that event happening the way it did. Personal Responsibility (my application of the term) is refusing to ignore any action or choice I had control of that influenced the event or it's results. It is NOT a value judgment, just an observation of the event in an objective, dispassionate manner. That is, until I decide how MUCH exact responsibility is due to whom and for what.

It might make more sense if you read my long-winded explanation of the thought process behind my conclusion, maybe not. But it's probably the best I can do.

For what it's worth, I do appreciate the challenge and not letting me just throw it out there if you felt it was incorrect.

Thanks.
That applies to Flynne, Donna, Dena, kt, even vlad :p.

jamie, you're a riot. (that's a good thing in my family, just in case it's not in yours) :)

Jamie, the only reason you're not being understood is because you're not making any sense. The reason you're pissing people off is that you seem to have a real blame the victim mentality which is vastly different from the personal responsibility thing Amy promotes. You'll note, for instance, she doesn't blame the victims of honor killings for being unfortunate enough for having been born into a Muslim society. With all due respect, I'll pass on torturing myself with your long-winded explanation.

Donna,

I'm just taking into account all factors - including any that are under my control - that led to the situation having happened to me. It isn't about sympathy, feeling sorry for myself or others, or being nice. It's also not about being mean. I'm deliberately distancing myself as far as I can from emotions being a factor in both cases. Emotion isn't objective, it's subjective.

It seems your confusion comes from thinking that I'm blaming anyone. Blame is a value judgment that is deliberately left out. If I had a "blame the victim" mentality, I'd say that I personally deserved (another value judgment) what I got in any situation I found myself in - if any factor involved in that event were under my control. In your emotionally-laden example, I also wouldn't blame those who were killed, but I'd also ask whether or not those women could have left? Since I have no way to know one way or the other whether they could have (since I didn't know them, nor could I ask them), I'd eventually have to leave that question as inconclusive. I'd also ask myself if there was anything I could have done, or anything I could do in the future to prevent that from happening again. If so, I'm a factor, and thus partly responsible. Responsibility doesn't mean blame nor guilt. In any killing, the person killing is the most responsible for the event taking place. Guilt (a separate concept) would then be decided based upon things such as motivation (was it self-defense?) and circumstances (was it accidental?). That's separate from my model.

And when you say "with all due respect" then refer to what I'm saying as "torture", it sounds rather insincere. Similar to the baggage guy's apology. If you want to judge what I'm saying without attempting to understanding the reasoning given behind it, then you're willfully ignoring the entire picture, and simply choosing what best suits your personal preferences.

For your amusement.

I read the updated blog entries right before leaving work. I decided to wait until I got home to post a reply, and to try to give it as much thought as possible (resulting in "torture" apparently). The “debate” going on in my head that resulted had me very mentally distracted.

My wife and I had an appointment after work.
The plan was to drive straight to there from work.

I went straight home.

Once I realized my error (took my stepdaughter saying “why are you home?!?”), I drove to their office on the northwest side of the city.

The appointment was actually on the EAST side of the city (and yes, I knew that previously).

I drive to the east side, walk into the building, realize that it’s the WRONG BUILDING (next door).

I finally make it to the meeting. Mind you, as I hate being late, I had allowed myself enough time to do all that, and still make it to the meeting early.

Hopefully that improves the "riot" factor...but only if it's meant as a good thing.