I read this on the blog of someone who posts here. The writer is a new wmtc commenter, and I enjoy her posts, and in no way am I trying to single her out for disapproval or contempt. To that end, I'm not linking back to her post or mentioning her by name. If she wants to do that, she can; I'll just keep it anonymous.
Many months ago, I blogged about something similar, after overhearing something at the gym.
In this case, the writer was talking about things she now does that she used to be afraid of. One of these is bicycling home from work late at night.
If anyone would have told me a few years ago that I would be riding my bicycle home from work at one o'clock in the morning, I would've said, "No way. I'll be raped." But in reality, crime usually happens to criminals. Drug dealers and gang members shooting each other. The cab driver tried to frighten me the other night by telling me that there were recently some stabbings down by the river. Turns out it was homeless people stabbing each other. And I am blessed with a gut instinct, like we all are, and I think it will stand me in good stead.This is a common misconception: crime usually happens to criminals. Good instincts can keep you safe. For the millions of people who have survived violent crime (as I have), or worse still, those who loved people not lucky enough to survive, this can be very painful - or enraging - to hear.
Sexual assault can happen to anyone: male, female; old, young; good, bad; drunk, sober; upstanding citizen, underworld criminal. While it's true that many victims of sexual assault know their assailants, it's equally true that what is called "acquaintance rape" is still a crime. And a good 50% (give or take) of rape victims do not know their assailants - i.e., "stranger rape". (I hesitate to use these expressions because they imply there are different kinds of rape. All the expressions mean is whether or not the victim knew the assailant.) Children who are sexually abused are also crime victims - and obviously, they are not criminals.
Again, I'm not singling out the person who I'm quoting. Most people want to believe that victims cause their own victimization. "She did such-and-such, that's why she was raped. I won't do that, so it won't happen to me." If only it were that simple. All we'd have to do was avoid "bad" neighbourhoods, not wear certain clothing, not go out alone at night, not whatever. But rape victims don't cause rape: rapists do.
What we call "gut instinct" is just a feeling. Someone feels safe, so she believes she is. Someone feels nervous and jumpy, and she believes she is unsafe. Gut instinct is not a rapist detector. Those don't exist. All the rape survivors in the world, male and female, didn't lack gut instinct. They were just unlucky.
If crime usually happens to criminals, then all we have to do is not commit crimes, and crimes probably won't be committed against us. As for people who have committed crimes, if they become victims, well, who cares. The drug dealer who was killed, the prostitute who was raped - they were asking for it anyway, right?
I applaud anyone who finds new courage, who puts aside fear and moves into the unknown. I don't want anyone to live in fear. I sure don't, and I'm a rape survivor myself. But when we take pride in our own growth, let's not make assumptions about other people's experiences.
14 comments:
But when we take pride in our own growth, let's not make assumptions about other people's experiences.
Simply brilliant, and true! The ability to rise up from and grow in response to a personal tragedy has been called by some the "phoenix phenomenon", and even among professional counselors we have to be careful not to act like this phenomenon is the norm, and that people who can't grow from tragedy are deficient or stunted. It also becomes a stress management issue--don't assume that people expeirencing more stress just have "lower stress capacity" and they j ust can't deal with it. There is a constant but subtle tendency to blame the victim. Thanks for your observation, which professionals and laypeople alike need to consider.
Peregrinato, thank you for the validation. You are so good at that!
Me again. I think I'll be linking to this post in the next day or two. I have an experience to share which will further illustrate your point but I'm still working out in my own mind the difference between healthy fear, which can be a good thng, and the other, the paralyzing fear which robs one of the full enjoyment of life.
Hmm, I don't know...
Blog entries. Should people be held so accountable for them? Maybe she was trying to express one thing and ended up writing something which didn't quite mesh with her inner thoughts but was close enough for the time being. It seems like you're making a "straw man" (gendered expression, I know, but I don't know of a better way to put it) out of her.
The point of the passage you've excerpted, as I read it, is basically a contrast between what she used to feel and what she feels now. Her logical working out of the feelings seems to be a bit rushed; I read the crime happens to criminals part as a throw away rationale rather than a deep-rooted belief she holds.
In any event, compared to a lot of other cities, especially in the states, Toronto really does seem to have much, much less random crime. If you mind your own business in this city, you probably will be safe. Of course, it's possible to be randomly targeted, but the kind of fear I've felt in other cities is totally absent here. All night long there are women, young people, old people, all sorts of people wandering around alone, in most areas of the city. Crime is possible, of course, but almost nobody is afraid of it.
Maybe that's naive, but it's also something to treasure.
I'm still working out in my own mind the difference between healthy fear, which can be a good thng, and the other, the paralyzing fear which robs one of the full enjoyment of life.
Oh yes, a huge difference, a crucial one. Yet no one can say for any other person where the line is drawn, right? What seems like a limiting fear to me is necessary to someone else - and certain fears of mine are brushed off by others.
Maybe she was trying to express one thing and ended up writing something which didn't quite mesh with her inner thoughts but was close enough for the time being.
If that's so, that's more reason not to link to her and put her in the position of defending her words.
It seems like you're making a "straw man" (gendered expression, I know, but I don't know of a better way to put it) out of her.
I don't mean to be. I was hurt and offended by something I read. I left a comment on her blog, we discussed it a little there, got nowhere, and I felt frustrated. After thinking about it for a day or so, I decided to write about it. It seems valid to me. But I do appreciate your feedback.
The point of the passage you've excerpted, as I read it, is basically a contrast between what she used to feel and what she feels now. Her logical working out of the feelings seems to be a bit rushed; I read the crime happens to criminals part as a throw away rationale rather than a deep-rooted belief she holds.
You might be right. The words jumped out at me.
In any event, compared to a lot of other cities, especially in the states, Toronto really does seem to have much, much less random crime.
It absolutely does. This person does not live in Toronto. She doesn't live in Canada.
If you mind your own business in this city, you probably will be safe. Of course, it's possible to be randomly targeted, but the kind of fear I've felt in other cities is totally absent here. All night long there are women, young people, old people, all sorts of people wandering around alone, in most areas of the city. Crime is possible, of course, but almost nobody is afraid of it.
Maybe that's naive, but it's also something to treasure.
It is. You're right. It's both naive, and something to treasure.
But what I'm talking about isn't a fear of crime. Believe it or not, most people in New York aren't afraid of crime either, and people are out at all hours of the night, doing whatever they please.
As I said, or as I tried to say, crime happens between people who know each other, too. Sexual assault where the victim knows her/his assailant is still a crime. The victim is not a criminal, or a bad person.
My issue is not people's fear of street crime or lack of it. It's the belief that bad things happen to bad people, and if you're good, nothing will happen to you. The corollaries to that are very victim-blaming.
Thanks for weighing in, Scylla. I appreciate it.
Does she really not agree with your basic premise, that crime can happen to good people?
I wouldn't be surprised if she's tied to her words and you're tied to your experiences and in the conversation you two are miscommunicating because you're not fully listening to or understanding each other.
I mean, if you step back for a second and look at what you wrote in that last comment to me (the last para or two), it's not a very startling thing you're saying. It's pretty basic, isn't it: the realization that victimless crimes occur. Some people, of course, act as if that's not the case, and victim-blaming absolutely does occur. But is the writer of that blog passage really doing that and/or thinking that?
I guess I'm just a bit uncomfortable when I see people's words in a blog used as somehow representative of the person's inner thoughts/beliefs. People write blog entries for a host of reasons, and I wouldn't be surprised if the blog entry you quote is actually some sort of self-fortification (using words to reinforce an emotion, such as courage or determination). In other words, isn't she trying to understand why she's no longer afraid of something, and, more importantly, aren't the words she's using most likely a first attempt at that understanding? Isn't that one of the reasons people write: to try to understand themselves?
And if so, wouldn't she be particularly attached to those words and defensive against any perceived attack on them?
And if she is defensive, is it even possible to have the larger, context-independent discussion which you would like to have with her? To have that discussion and truly communicate, wouldn't it be necessary to meet on safe ground? How can the ground be safe when one's words are at issue?
I'm falling into the same trap, I suppose, so I'll shut up now :)
Frustration and miscommunication and blog entries and every combination of those three things interests me, so I thought I'd share some thoughts, that's all.
And I thank you for those thoughts. :)
I'm sure you're right in a theoretical way, regarding defensiveness and communication, and you might be right in this specific instance, too.
But words are how we communicate. People put their words on their blogs, they make their blogs public, they invite (or at least allow) others to comment on them, and those commenters have reactions.
If what's in this person's heart and mind differs from her words, that's not something we can know. All we have is her words. If I don't take the writer's words at face value, then communication is impossible.
I'm not saying she's a bad person for writing these words - I'm not even talking about her in particular, as I tried to make clear.
I simply saw an idea expressed, and I wanted to discuss it. That accounts for a fair portion of what's written on blogs. No?
I guess I'm just a bit uncomfortable when I see people's words in a blog used as somehow representative of the person's inner thoughts/beliefs.
Hmm. I guess I don't know how else to construe people's blogs. My blog is absolutely representative of my inner thoughts and beliefs. Not all of them, of course, just the ones I share. Because of that, I suppose I expect everyone else's to be, too.
And since I've been verbally attacked on my own blogs and some others, I tried to express my thoughts in a non-confrontational way.
Communication is always difficult. But words are all we have, I think.
My blog is absolutely representative of my inner thoughts and beliefs.....
Communication is always difficult. But words are all we have, I think.
The reason I read your blog is exactly that. You use your words well and express your thoughts and beliefs in such an exquisite fashion. You have poignant stories and write about so much- current events, personal stories, and so much more. You do put in your opinions which, I agree, are exactly what blogs are for!
I can only hope to have my blog become more like yours, as I struggle to find the time to write well again. I seem to have lost that time in the last few years, and now I am struggling to get it back again, so that I can use my blog to express my self in the same way that you do.
I do like to express myself in photos, but I used to write well along with that. I will get it back at some point soon. For now, I read, read, read.... many books, and several well expressed blogs, one of which is definitely your blog!
Thank you for sharing!
~Lindsey
Hmm. I guess I don't know how else to construe people's blogs. My blog is absolutely representative of my inner thoughts and beliefs. Not all of them, of course, just the ones I share. Because of that, I suppose I expect everyone else's to be, too.
You have the writing skills to pull this off. I'm not so sure that's generally true of other blogs. The difficulties in expressing oneself increase when the subject becomes emotionally close to one's heart, maybe.
And since I've been verbally attacked on my own blogs and some others, I tried to express my thoughts in a non-confrontational way.
How dare you say that!
Ha, no, I'm just kidding. Sometimes I think we should have little "troll killer" buttons on our computers. When we come across a troll, we just press the button and a jolt of electricity flies through the ether and zaps it.
Who do we lobby for such a thing?
Jeez Lindsey, thank you so much. I have found that blogging has helped me write and think more clearly. It's very cool that way.
Scylla, as far as any blogger's respective writing skills, I don't know how we could account for that. This person is intelligent, she seems articulate, so I take her words at face value.
She could write in a private journal. (Remember those?) But she's not, she's putting her words in the public sphere.
So while I understand what you're saying in a theoretical way, I don't know how I would apply it to real life. I don't want to think myself in circles trying to decide if someone means what she wrote.
Sometimes I think we should have little "troll killer" buttons on our computers. When we come across a troll, we just press the button and a jolt of electricity flies through the ether and zaps it.
I think that's called the delete key. :)
Allan has helped me to stop engaging with trolls and just delete them. It's taken some of the fun out of it, but it does stop them sooner.
I think this is the sort of thing that we all interpret drawing heavily on our own experiences. While I agree with everything you said in your entry here and totally see how the quoted section could be interpreted that way.
However, when I read it through the lense of my own experience, I see something like "Wow, I just realized that most criminals aren't after me personally! They're either specifically targeting people who fall into another demographic, or they're just looking for victims of opportunity. They might get me because of bad luck, but they aren't actually seeking me out. So I'm safer than I thought I was!"
I'm obviously reading it this way because I had a similar epiphany recently. I can't speak for the original author (obviously) and I haven't looked for her blog so I don't know where she's coming from, but for the vast majority of my life since I've been old enough to be aware of current events, there has been some crime wave or another targeting girls/women aged X in geographical area Y, and in every case I have either fit perfectly into that profile, or would have if it weren't for an unexpected stroke of good luck (i.e. I would have been living in geographical area Y if it weren't for a last-minute change in student housing.) So for me, the idea that I'm most likely to be a victim of crime because of bad luck as opposed to because I fit perfectly into victim profile is a huge relief. However, for someone who has been a victim of crime primarily because of bad luck, it's obviously not going to sound that comforting.
So for me, the idea that I'm most likely to be a victim of crime because of bad luck as opposed to because I fit perfectly into victim profile is a huge relief. However, for someone who has been a victim of crime primarily because of bad luck, it's obviously not going to sound that comforting.
Well, we all interpret what we read through our own experiences.
However, my point is that all victims of violence are such because of bad luck.
Even if you buy into this idea of victim profiles, wouldn't your fitting the profile, and the assailant's target of that profile, be just bad luck? Certainly it would be no fault of the victim.
Post a Comment