From: seiffe@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Erica Seiffert)
Subject: Re: Critisizing the victim?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:45:55 GMT

**>>>> 		A woman has to learn to appraise every situation and every
>> **>>>> 	person. DC do you ever worry that your placing yourself at risk 
>> **>>>> 	when you talk with a Professor alone? Do you ever wonder if you
>> **>>>> 	shouldn't have some one with you when the maintenance man comes
>> **>>>> 	by to fix something? Do you ever set up a little emergency code with
>> **>>>> 	your friends before going out on a first date?
>> 			
>> 			(DC, these are the questions I have asked you
>> 			that you have not answered.  I even addressed
>> 			you specifically. READ the above paragraph.)
>
>Sorry, I thought the above paragraph was rhetorical questions. Of COURSE I do
>not. As you already knew the answers, how could these be anything other than
>rhetorical? And, rehtorical questions are not asked to invite and answer, which
>is why I did not.

		No, they weren't rehtorical, I wanted you to answer them
		because that would force you to think about those issues.
		You've posted so much on the idea of frat parties and bars
		that I wanted to make sure you thought the other situations
		in which women get assaulted.

	
>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 		You keep saying you didn't call any rape survior stupid 
>>>> 		for being in a situation where they got raped. However, the
>>>> 		word itself, and particularly how you have used it has implied,
>>>> 		either directly or indirectly (consciously or unconsciously),
>>>> 		that very same idea(IMHO); that they were stupid..
>>>> 
>>>> 		Let me ask you something (I'm still waiting for you to 
>>>> 		answer honestly my previous questions) 
>>>
>>>Please don't start an Ataylor routine here. I do not believe I have failed to
>>>answer ANYONE's direct questions to me. If I have, tell me the date of the post
>>>and the title and I'll go back and re-read it.
>> 				
>> 			The questions are in this response. READ the statement
>> 			in paranthesis up above. And please don't use 
>> 			statements like "an Ataylor routine" when discussing
>> 			something with me. One, that phrase has negative 
>> 			connotation against Ms. Taylor that I don't appreciate
>> 			and two, unless you are bringing in point from her
>> 			postings that applies to this discussion than it isn't
>> 			necessary to mention her.
>
>I apologize to you. However, Ataylor has earned my disrespect for the reasons
>pointed out in another thread.
			
			Apolgoy accepted

>>>Nope. But, if I lived in downtown Detroit where cars are stolen every night,
>>>it might be kind of, for lack of a better word, stupid for me to leave it
>>>unlocked overnight. True, locking it up might not prevent the theft, but why
>>>make it easier for them. (Amazing how this whole analogy can be applied to rape
>>>situations.)
>> 			Really? What is that women should be "locking up?
>> 		Surely you are not advocating that we should all be wearing
>> 		chastity belts with the keys left at home in a cupboard?
>
>Congrats on winning the Flip Statement Award. Re-read my posts if you want an
>explination of what I said there.

		With all due respect, I'm sure you've been a close second
		if not a tie in the course of you posting on this topic
		(IMHO).
>
>No, some people object to me suggesting a re-read, so I will spell it out 
>clearly:
>
>Just as people lock-up their valuables in high-crime areas, so as to not make 
>them easy to steal, a man, or woman in a high-risk situation should alter their
>actions, if possible, so as is at lessen their risk of being attacked.
>
>There. Simple enough?
>
(NOTE: Lots of stuff deleted in this entire post in an attempt to say bandwidth
	not and attempt to twist DC's words.)

	DC, an unlocked car is still an unlocked car.


>Why do you think police like to publish stats on crime? Why do you think they
>tour and give lectures on how not to be a victim? It is because they want to
>educate people into modifying their behaviour.
>
>If they took the approach you are advocating above, they would come to the
>lecture and say:
>
>"You may be a victim at any place and at any time. Therefore, do what you want
>and give us a call when it happens."
>

	Wrong, the approach I take (and I am NOT advocating it) is that
"You may be a victim at any place and at any time. Learn to judge the 
environment around you at any given moment and act according to the best
information given to you. THAT is the FIRST step to self-defense."
 
>>>Yes, a woman can be attacked anywhere. But that statement does not nullify the
>>>fact that she is more likely to be attacked in a frat house or dorm room than
>>>That does not nullify her need to always be on guard, it merely states she had
>>>beeter be on additional guard when walking through the Valley, because unless
>>>He is with her, she is very alone.
>> 
>> 			Who is he (with a capital h) in the above statement?
>> 		God?  Are you referring to,
>> 				"Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the
>> 				shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou
>> 				art with me, thy rod and they staff comfort 
>> 				me."
>> 		Not every woman is religious and even Nuns are raped.
>> 			(Note this is not an attack on religion.)
>> 		Further more, not every woman believes in a male deity. 
>
>Congratulations on placing the refernce. Now, let's see if we can't just
>correct the meaning of why it was used here. It was not to mean that nuns and
>devout women do not get raped. It was a way of pointing out that a woman should 
>try to avoid situations which move into the 'likely victim' category, as if an
>attack occurs, the only people liekly to be there are her, her attacker, and
>God--who hasn't made a personal appearance in about 2,000 years. (Except, of
>course, for cameo appearances on grain silos and gas station walls.)
>
>As for not every woman believing in a male deity--what is your point? My post
>was not politically correct? You could not discern who I was talking about
>because I used the traditional "He" as opposed to the much more fashionable
>"They"? (Tell me, if someone form Egypt were to say "Allah be with us" would
>you point out that the majority of people in America do not beileve in Allah,
>but believe in God? Or, would you understand wht the Egyptian was saying, and
>not bring it up?) 

		I was just questioning why you brought a religious reference
	in the first place. I don't think it belongs here. And no, I wasn't
	trying to be "politically correct" (geesh If I had 50cents for every
	time you've used that buzzword...), it was more like a knee jerk
	reaction to your religous reference and other personal considerations
	which I'd be happy to take up with you on e-mail, but not here.

>>>Do yo agrre that some situations are more high-risk than others?
>>>
>> 	NO, I believe that EVERY situation is a high-risk situation.
>
>Then you believe what is not true.
>
>Is a woman at high-risk of being raped while she is addressing the Republican
>National Convention while the images is being braodcast to the world?
 
	I don't know, I think Anita Hill's integrity was raped on a national
	broadcast.
>
>Is she at high risk while she is in the middle of an audience at a large
>rape-wareness seminar hosted by NOW?

	Tricky DC, very tricky. No. *I* don't think it is a high-risk
	situation, because everything I've learned about the women's community
	says that it a "safe" place. However that doesn't mean that the
	potential isn't there. Now, perhaps someone who thinks that all
	feminist are men-haters might feel at risk in that situation.

>>>Do you also agree it would be a smart thing to do to avoid the high-risk
>>>situations?
>>>
>> 
>> 	I believe that one must evaluate each situation and determine if
>> 	it is one wherein one feels that they can "trust" it. If part of 
>> 	that evaluation includes statistics on rape in frat houses, fine.
>> 	If that evaluation involves an account of a woman being raped by
>> 	her dentist, fine. EVERY situation must be approached as a high
>> 	risk situation and then the elements appraised; weighed and 
>> 	balanced before deciding whether to trust that situation.
>
>Thank you. This is what I have been (basiclly) saying since my first post on 
>the thread. 

	I thought that you were saying involving yourself in high-risk 
	behaviors was "stupid." I'm saying what may appear to be a high-risk
	behavior to you may not appear to someone else. They may have honestly
	thought themselves "safe." I agree with you about statistics, quote
	them..put the information out. However, just don't say that you are
	at a high-risk when you got to the bar down the street. Say based
	on the information out there, alcohol inhibits your ability to think
	and to judge a situation so don't drink on a date, but don't say
	that drinking on a date is "stupid" because it's a "high-risk 
	behavior."

>(However, instead of saying one should start with a perception that
>all situations are high-risk, I would place all situations in a neutral
>category, and as 'danger elements' enter the picture, the situation moves into
>high risk. BUT, this may be because I am a male and tend to look at life
>differently. If a woman wishes to view everything as high-risk, and then drop
>it down into 'safe' as elements are removed, or bump it up into 'higher-rsik'
>as elements enter, the end result is pretty much the same.)
>
		*sigh*


>>>>		In other words, it's probably not a good idea to
>>>> 		wave a red flag in front of a bull, if all you want to do
>>>> 		is get his attention.
>>>
>>>The reason why the matador waves the red flag is so the bull will charge, thus
>>>exposing its vulnerable back and shoulders as it charges by...
>> 		
>> 		So then I am to deduce that you are here in order to get
>> 		a "charge" out of us rather than to learn or to educate?
>
>Close, but not right. More like when someone is already charging, it is prudent
>to waive a red cape in front of them so that they expose the vulnerable parts
>of their reasoning.
>

		If nothing else DC you don't fail to amuse me. I don't 
		recall anyone "charging" around here until you showed up.
		I'm not sure whether that's good or bad. However, not
		every matador walks off the field with a pair of ears
		and a tail. 

		Futhermore, I fear this verbal skirmish is going in circles
		and unles you have something new to offer I suggest we either
		end this or take it to e-mail.

		-ems
		*********************************************************
		I don't speak for my employers and we both like it that way.