The point continues to be missed: why is it unsafe?
No one disputes that that situation is unsafe. People are saying that it’s unsafe because of rapists. Pointing out that you shouldn’t do unsafe things is asinine when the point being made is that people shouldn’t act in a fashion that makes them a danger to others.
Ignoring that the hazard is due to the choices of live humans with agency and entirely placing the agency on the victim is the crux of the problem.
Flip it around: you shouldn’t be inebriated in a situation where there are hundreds of people you can hurt.
The victim has no control over where the hazard goes. The rapist chooses where it’s dangerous for the victim to be. Big party? Dangerous if there’s a rapist there. Intimate gathering of friends? Dangerous if one of them is a rapist.
Rapists are not lightning. They don’t randomly strike in hazardous situations beyond anyone’s control where the best advice is “don’t stand under a big tree or you might get raped by lightning”.
They’re humans committing a crime against another person.
I like to analogize victim blaming to blaming someone who was hit on the head with hammers for not wearing a helmet. Like, yes, wearing a helmet would make you safer, but these conversations always get derailed into talking about helmets and not really asking why are people hitting others on the head with hammers?
You’re not wrong. It’s further than that though, because there are accidental head-hammerings (if we want to get all OSHA I suppose we’d say there are head hammerings from systemic negligence, but thats the same on an individual level), but you just don’t have an accidental rape.
I guess I should’ve specified that in this analogy you’re just a normal person going about a normal day, not like a construction worker. So the expectation of wearing a helmet is absurd.
Oh, you’re totally correct. Just, as the other commenter immediately demonstrated: people love to latch on to any discrepancy or possible inconsistency.
You’re doing the thing I said about derailing the conversation into talking about risks and preventative actions the victim should take rather than asking why head-hitting is a risk in the first place and what we can do about that. Stop.
It’s closer to the ladder thing because the person swinging the hammer knows they’re doing it. So it only fits if you define rape the way it was under patriarchal society norms - but the Cornell case had nobody thinking it was rape while it was happening, it only got defined as rape after the fact. So, it is not something you can defend against by telling people not to rape. Thus much more akin to a hammer falling out of a bag on a ladder. Should the hammer have been secured? Of course. Did the person walking by hit their leg on the ladder and knock the hammer? Maybe. Does it change that the person was hurt by the hammer falling? No.
The point continues to be missed: why is it unsafe?
No one disputes that that situation is unsafe. People are saying that it’s unsafe because of rapists. Pointing out that you shouldn’t do unsafe things is asinine when the point being made is that people shouldn’t act in a fashion that makes them a danger to others.
Ignoring that the hazard is due to the choices of live humans with agency and entirely placing the agency on the victim is the crux of the problem.
Flip it around: you shouldn’t be inebriated in a situation where there are hundreds of people you can hurt.
The victim has no control over where the hazard goes. The rapist chooses where it’s dangerous for the victim to be. Big party? Dangerous if there’s a rapist there. Intimate gathering of friends? Dangerous if one of them is a rapist.
Rapists are not lightning. They don’t randomly strike in hazardous situations beyond anyone’s control where the best advice is “don’t stand under a big tree or you might get raped by lightning”.
They’re humans committing a crime against another person.
I like to analogize victim blaming to blaming someone who was hit on the head with hammers for not wearing a helmet. Like, yes, wearing a helmet would make you safer, but these conversations always get derailed into talking about helmets and not really asking why are people hitting others on the head with hammers?
You’re not wrong. It’s further than that though, because there are accidental head-hammerings (if we want to get all OSHA I suppose we’d say there are head hammerings from systemic negligence, but thats the same on an individual level), but you just don’t have an accidental rape.
I guess I should’ve specified that in this analogy you’re just a normal person going about a normal day, not like a construction worker. So the expectation of wearing a helmet is absurd.
Oh, you’re totally correct. Just, as the other commenter immediately demonstrated: people love to latch on to any discrepancy or possible inconsistency.
More like walking under a ladder with a bag of hammers on it. Not your fault but a known risk of the action.
You’re doing the thing I said about derailing the conversation into talking about risks and preventative actions the victim should take rather than asking why head-hitting is a risk in the first place and what we can do about that. Stop.
It’s closer to the ladder thing because the person swinging the hammer knows they’re doing it. So it only fits if you define rape the way it was under patriarchal society norms - but the Cornell case had nobody thinking it was rape while it was happening, it only got defined as rape after the fact. So, it is not something you can defend against by telling people not to rape. Thus much more akin to a hammer falling out of a bag on a ladder. Should the hammer have been secured? Of course. Did the person walking by hit their leg on the ladder and knock the hammer? Maybe. Does it change that the person was hurt by the hammer falling? No.