This is a linkpost for https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/did-you-lock-it
"Did you lock it?"
51Firinn
28Said Achmiz
14Firinn
9Said Achmiz
-12Firinn
8Noosphere89
7Said Achmiz
12ymeskhout
2Firinn
16ymeskhout
12Said Achmiz
1SeñorDingDong
2Said Achmiz
2Slapstick
2Said Achmiz
15Caerulea-Lawrence
3Said Achmiz
-2Caerulea-Lawrence
4Said Achmiz
-10Caerulea-Lawrence
6Jiro
-8Caerulea-Lawrence
8Jiro
8liamk
7jmh
7Said Achmiz
12Rosencrantz
9Said Achmiz
7ymeskhout
4jmh
5boubounet
4ymeskhout
3Caerulea-Lawrence
3ymeskhout
1BB6
2ymeskhout
New Comment
There is a vast difference in how compassionately this advice comes across precisely because bike theft is not something that people engage in very much actual victim-blaming about.
If I have had my bike stolen, I basically expect that people will be sympathetic about it. People will suggest making a police report, while also commiserating with me about the very low likelihood of the thief being caught and punished. Housemates might lend me a bike if I need to go places. If I'm late to class because I had to walk, I expect my professor will say something like, "Oh, that sucks, I'm sorry your bike was stolen." Fundamentally this means that when I tell someone that my bike was stolen, I may be feeling upset but not particularly vulnerable, and that means it's a perfectly good time to give me practical advice about which kind of lock to buy. Though if the bike was expensive or had sentimental value, I might still hope that people asked "are you okay?" before launching into advice about locks.
I have never heard anyone claim "oh, so-and-so's bike wasn't really stolen, they just made that up for attention" or "you shouldn't prosecute bike thieves because false bike-theft allegations can really hurt people" or "if you've ever had your bike stolen then some people just won't want to date you anymore" or anything else that would make me scared to tell someone that my bike had been stolen. We do not have a culture of victim-blaming or victim-disbelieving around bike theft.
If someone has been raped, they are frequently not optimistic about getting a sympathetic response. They may be too embarrassed to tell anyone. If the rapist is in their social circle, they may be worried that they'll be painted as a liar or ostracised from their social circle, because the rapist will loudly tell everyone that they're lying. They may be urged not to report anything to the police, or not to say anything in public at all, because they might "ruin the life" of their rapist. If the trauma impacts their performance at school or work, they might be worried that they'll be told it's "all in their head" and get no accommodations. This is all part of a wider abusive pattern of victim-blaming, in which victims of rape are scared to talk about what happened because of the numerous different negative responses they might get. When a victim of rape talks about their experiences, they are often in an extremely vulnerable state of mind and often anxious about whether they'll be believed. If your response is to immediately ask "what were you wearing?" or "were you drunk?" then you are, in fact, being a gigantic asshole. That is not an appropriate time to offer advice. Offering advice after the assault has already happened can come across as scary because of the fear that you'll follow up with "well it's your fault for wearing that" or "well if you were drunk then I don't believe you because you might have misremembered something".
Generally, people don't say that you're a misogynist victim-blaming monster if you give well-intentioned advice when that advice is appropriate (ie. usually before an assault could happen), like offering to call someone a taxi so they'll get home safely, or passing on what you've heard about a certain man's misconduct so people can decide whether to stay away from him, or suggesting that someone write down where they'll be and when they expect to return before they set out on a blind date. It's victim-blaming when you make yourself part of a wider pattern that terrifies victims into not wanting to speak at all about what's happened to them.
I have never heard anyone claim “oh, so-and-so’s bike wasn’t really stolen, they just made that up for attention” or “you shouldn’t prosecute bike thieves because false bike-theft allegations can really hurt people” or “if you’ve ever had your bike stolen then some people just won’t want to date you anymore” or anything else that would make me scared to tell someone that my bike had been stolen.
Of course you haven’t, because those things don’t happen / aren’t true. Nobody makes up “my bike was stolen” for attention; false bike-theft allegations can’t hurt people because it’s almost impossible to make them in the first place (how would you ever know who stole your bike unless you saw them run off with it, which pretty much never happens?), having your bike stolen doesn’t have any effect on anyone’s willingness to date you, etc.
If such claims were instead sometimes true, then they would sometimes be made.
For rape, they are sometimes true. So, they are sometimes made.
What else could we possibly expect or want?
If you can come up with some way to test this, then I will bet large-to-me amounts of money that people make up "my thing got stolen" at vastly higher rates than they make up rape. Like, telling your teacher/employer that you were late because your bike was stolen seems like an excuse you can get away with making once per few months. Getting a friend to borrow your bike so you can bum $50 off your parents for a new bike seems like something teenagers regularly attempt - like, I literally saw this sort of scam run by the other kids in high school and discussed on school buses. Putting a GoFundMe on the internet, asking for money to replace your bike because it was stolen and you can't work without it, seems like it would get a sympathetic response in some circles. If I was going to make up a crime for attention, theft just seems way easier....?
I feel like we're confusing multiple issues here, so I'll try to break them into discrete pieces:
- What is victim-blaming and why it is bad
- How prevalent victim-blaming is, and whether it varies depending on the offense
- What is the appropriate time to offer advice to a victim of an offense
- How often allegations from a victim are met with suspicion or doubt, and whether it varies depending on the offense
- How much reporting a given offense is discouraged, either formally or informally
- How humiliating being a victim is, and how much that varies depending on the offense
There's probably more but that's a good start. It seems to me that you're flattening all those discrete points under the same penumbra of "victim-blaming" with the implicit connotation of "therefore X is bad".
I admit I don't have a definition of victim-blaming that isn't question-begging, since I couldn't find a consistent standard for how to determine if something is 'blame'. But at minimum, it seems clear that victim-blaming is not the same thing as items 4 through 6. I think it would be helpful if you used more precise language because most of your post is an argument against victim-doubting, victim-humiliating, etc. It might be a good idea to taboo the word victim-blaming unless you can offer a detailed definition.
I disagree that we're confusing multiple issues; my central point is that these things are deeply related. They form a pattern - a culture - which makes bike theft and rape not comparable in the way the OP wants them to be comparable.
You might not think that 4 through 6 count as 'victim-blaming', but they all contribute to the overall effect on the victim. Whether your advice is helpful or harmful can depend on a lot of factors - including whether a victim is being met with suspicion or doubt, whether a victim feels humiliated, and whether a victim feels safe reporting.
If someone is currently thinking, "Hmm, my bike got stolen. That sucks. I wonder how I can get that to not happen again?" then your advice to buy a different lock is probably going to be helpful! The victim is likely to want to listen to it, and be in a good mental state to implement that advice in the near future, and they're not really going to be worried that you have some ulterior motive for giving the advice. When someone says, "Have you considered buying a different brand of bike lock?" I'm not scared that they're going to follow-up that question by saying something like, "Well, it's just that since you admit yourself that you didn't buy the exact brand of bike lock I'm recommending, I don't believe your bike was really stolen and I'm going to tell all our friends that you're a reckless idiot who doesn't lock their bike properly so they shouldn't give you any sympathy about this so-called theft."
If we lived in a world that had this sort of culture around bike theft - victim-disbelieving, victim-shaming, victim-blaming or whatever else you want to call it - then people might be thinking things like, "Oh my god my bike got stolen, I'm so scared to even tell anyone because I don't know if they'll believe me, what if they think I made it up? What if they tell me I'm too irresponsible and just shouldn't ever ride bikes in the future ever again? What if they tell me I'm damaged goods because this happened to me?"
In that world, if someone tells you that their bike was stolen, responding, "did you lock it?" is an asshole thing to do. Because there will be some fraction of people who ask, "did you lock it?" and then, after that, say things like, "well, if you didn't use a D-lock on both the wheels and the frame, then you probably just consented for someone to borrow it and you're misremembering. You can't go around saying your bike got stolen when it was probably just borrowed - I mean, imagine if your bike is found and the person who borrowed it gets arrested! You'd ruin someone's life just because you misremembered giving them permission to borrow your bike. Next time, if you don't consent for someone to take your bike, just use at least five locks."
People who are feeling scared and vulnerable are not likely to be receptive to advice about bike locks, or feeling ready to go to the supermarket and get a new bike lock. If you offer advice about bike locks in that world, instead of thinking, "hmm that's a great idea, I'll go to the shops right now and buy that recommended bike lock," they are more likely to be thinking, "oh fuck are they implying that they don't believe my bike was really stolen? Are they going to tell my friends that I'm a stupid reckless person because I didn't lock my bike properly?" In the world where we have a victim-blaming victim-shaming victim-disbelieving culture around bike theft, you need to reassure the bike theft victim that you are not going to be that asshole.
Rationality isn't always about making the maximally theoretically correct statements all the time. Rationality is systematized winning. It doesn't matter if the statement "you should buy a better bike lock" is literally true. It matters whether saying that statement causes good outcomes to happen. For bike theft, it probably causes good outcomes; the person hears the statement, goes out and buys a better bike lock, and their bike is less likely to be stolen in future. For rape, it causes bad outcomes; the person worries that you're not a safe/supportive person to talk to, shuts down, and hides in their room to cry. You can argue that the hide-in-the-room-and-cry trauma response is irrational, and that doesn't matter even one iota, because being an aspiring rationalist is about taking the actions with the best expected outcomes in an imperfect world where sometimes humans are imperfect and sometimes people are traumatised. You don't control other people's actions; you control your own. (And in our imperfect world, it's not irrational for rape victims to be scared of talking to people who send signals that they might engage in victim-blaming/victim-shaming/victim-disbelieving.)
If people were forced to bet on their beliefs, I think most people would be forced to admit that they do understand this on some level; when you say "try buying this different bike lock" the expected outcome is that the victim is somewhat more likely to go shopping and buy that bike lock, whereas when you say "try wearing less revealing clothing" the expected outcome is that the victim feels crushed and traumatised and stops listening to you. When people give that advice, I don't think they are actually making the victim any less likely to be raped again - they're mostly just feeling righteous about saying things that they think the victim should listen to in some abstract sense. (To back this up, a lot of the advice that is most commonly shared - like "don't wear revealing clothing" or "don't walk down dark alleys at night" or "shout fire, don't shout rape" - is basically useless or wrong. Rape is not mostly committed by complete strangers in dark alleys, and covering more skin doesn't make someone less likely to be raped.)
If rationality was all about making the purest theoretically true statements, then sure, whatever, let's go ahead and taboo some words. But rationality is about winning, so let's take context into account and talk about the expected outcomes of our actions.
If you like, just aggregate all the "victim-blaming"/"victim-disbelieving"/"victim-humiliating" things into the question, "From the perspective of the victim who just disclosed something, what is p(this person is about to say or do something unpleasant | this person has said words that sound like unsolicited advice)?"
I disagree that we're confusing multiple issues; my central point is that these things are deeply related.
This is what I'm talking about. It's ok to say that these issues are related to each other, but it'll remain useful to retain the ability to discuss and evaluate individual components. Otherwise:
A: "It's ok to offer victims advice on how to reduce their risk."
B: "No because the advice gets packaged with doubt over whether the victim really is a victim."
A: "Ok but I'm not saying we should doubt victim's stories, I'm only talking about advice on how to reduce risk."
B: "But the advice tends to be given at inappropriate times and with what appears to be insufficient compassion"
A: "Yes that would be a problem, but again I'm not suggesting that people give advice inappropriately. I would hope that when I advocate for something, folks can presume there's an implied 'appropriately' qualifier in there."
B: "Well most of the advice people give is straight up wrong."
A: "I just said..."
And so on. I'm not saying that the concerns you raise are invalid! But stuffing everything into the same discourse gets confusing very quickly. My post was strictly about "giving advice to victims" and the pushback you're giving invokes all these collateral issues I never argued in favor of.
Maybe it turns out it's impossible to disaggregate "giving advice" from all the other phenomena you're describing, or maybe it's impossible to give advice with appropriate timing and grace. Those are important discussions to have but nevertheless it helps to first imagine the least convenient possible world and to keep issues discrete, otherwise it all gets mixed into a murky soup.
If people were forced to bet on their beliefs, I think most people would be forced to admit that they do understand this on some level; when you say “try buying this different bike lock” the expected outcome is that the victim is somewhat more likely to go shopping and buy that bike lock, whereas when you say “try wearing less revealing clothing” the expected outcome is that the victim feels crushed and traumatised and stops listening to you.
This analogy is inaccurate.
The analogue of “try wearing less revealing clothing”, in the bike situation, would be something like “try not having such an expensive bike”. (In both cases, the advice is “make it less appealing for the evildoers to do this crime to you, while reducing the utility/pleasure you get from your property”.)
Conversely, the analogue of “try buying this different bike lock”, in the sexual assault situation, would be something like “try buying this roofie detector gadget”. (In both cases, the advice is “make it more difficult for the evildoers to do this crime to you, by putting obstacles directly in the way of their crime attempts”.)
Once the analogy is rectified, we can see that the responses to each set of “advice” also becomes analogous:
“Try wearing less revealing clothing” seems like an insulting thing to say—but the same is true of “try not having such an expensive bike”.
“Try buying this different bike lock” seems like non-insulting, well-intentioned advice, aimed at harm reduction—but so does “try buying this roofie detector gadget”.
To put it another way, the person saying “try buying this different bike lock”, or “try buying this roofie detector gadget”, is trying to empower you. The person saying “try wearing less revealing clothing”, or “try not having such an expensive bike”, does not seem like they’re trying to empower you.
(Note that all of this is distinct from the question of which, if any, of these four pieces of advice will, if followed, actually reduce your relevant risk of victimization, and by how much.)
As far as the commentary on rationality being winning… indeed, you are quite correct that truly rational strategies must take into account human irrationality, as well as emotions, values, etc.
However, it seems quite implausible a priori that there should be no actions that one could possibly take to reduce one’s chance of victimization by sexual assault. But if that’s not the case—if there are indeed such actions—then your view amounts to the claim that it’s not possible to communicate any information about such actions to anyone who has once been victimized. In other words, it seems like you’re saying either that there’s literally nothing that anyone can do to reduce their chance of being raped, or that if someone’s been raped once, there is no way that information about such actions can ever be conveyed to them.
Neither of those things seem the least bit plausible; indeed, they run directly counter to common sense, as well as to actually existing advice which it is trivial to find online, including via organizations specifically devoted to such causes.
I think your analogy gestures at something useful but needs expansion. The 'roofie detector gadget' example could be reframed in a way which disempowers - eg, 'it's your fault for not using this gadget', or 'well you really ought to have used this gadget', etc.
This suggests to me subject matter of the advice is less important than its underlying motive or attitude. I think advice will generally be disempowering if it presupposes the level of risk a person can acceptably run. Contrast the following: 'well, you were wearing revealing clothes' versus 'you can wear whatever you like, but just note that you might be at a greater risk of being assaulted if you go to bar X.' The latter lets the recipient make their own decision about risk. As a separate matter, whether we then have sympathy for a victim who runs a large risk depends on the justifications for running it: cf the freedom to go out at night and choose one's own clothes versus building your own airplane out of scrap metal for fun.
Of course, even 'empowering' advice could still be upsetting to a victim if given as an immediate response. That's not surprising. Advice in general - especially highly personal or intimate - often needs to be given delicately and sensitively for it to help someone. There is a reasonable position between 'never being able to give advice' and 'not doing it immediately after the incident.'
In any case, I tend to agree Firinn here that there are important disanalogies between bike theft and rape which cannot be reduced to differences in the prevalence of false allegations. The latter is simply a more complicated crime both socially and legally - it is more serious (in psychological effect, social stigma, and legal penalty, with a few fringe cases excepted) and more closely implicates contentious political beliefs which cash out in different allocations of blame, responsibility, wrongfulness etc.
It seems sensible to remember that by giving advice you will engage in this complex social phenomena. But then, reading your comments, I don't think you would deny this?
I think your analogy gestures at something useful but needs expansion. The ‘roofie detector gadget’ example could be reframed in a way which disempowers—eg, ‘it’s your fault for not using this gadget’, or ‘well you really ought to have used this gadget’, etc.
If you add blame to the advice, then of course you change the impact—because you’ve added something that wasn’t there before. “If you do X, Y will result” is simply not the same thing as “you are at fault for not doing X”. This isn’t a reframing, it’s simply a different claim.
This suggests to me subject matter of the advice is less important than its underlying motive or attitude.
The substance of advice is important if you’re trying to accomplish some goal (i.e., improve your outcomes somehow).
The motive for advice-giving is important for interpreting advice (i.e., determining whether it’s likely to actually be useful), but is screened off by the judgment of usefulness.
As for “attitude”, it may be “important” in the sense of affecting interpersonal relations, but as far as the utility of advice goes, attitude is irrelevant.
Contrast the following: ‘well, you *were *wearing revealing clothes’ versus ‘you can wear whatever you like, but just note that you might be at a greater risk of being assaulted if you go to bar X.’ The latter lets the recipient make their own decision about risk.
The recipient can make their own decision about risk no matter how someone else phrases advice to them. I’m afraid I don’t see what you’re getting at, here.
Of course, even ‘empowering’ advice could still be upsetting to a victim if given as an immediate response. That’s not surprising. Advice in general—especially highly personal or intimate—often needs to be given delicately and sensitively for it to help someone. There is a reasonable position between ‘never being able to give advice’ and ‘not doing it immediately after the incident.’
No doubt (especially if the incident in question is as traumatic as rape). But who here is suggesting that “immediately after the incident” is a good time for advice-giving of any sort? This seems like a red herring.
However, there does at some point come a time when advice is warranted. At some point, one must continue living one’s life. And then one must make various choices; and it is possible to choose well (and reduce one’s chances of repeated victimization), or to choose poorly (and maintain or even increase those chances). Advice, at this point, is appropriate.
In short, when we’re discussing “what advice is appropriate”, we are presupposing that we’ve chosen the timing properly. Having assumed this, the question of what advice we should give does still remain.
In any case, I tend to agree Firinn here that there are important disanalogies between bike theft and rape which cannot be reduced to differences in the prevalence of false allegations. The latter is simply a more complicated crime both socially and legally—it is more serious (in psychological effect, social stigma, and legal penalty, with a few fringe cases excepted) and more closely implicates contentious political beliefs which cash out in different allocations of blame, responsibility, wrongfulness etc.
It seems sensible to remember that by giving advice you will engage in this complex social phenomena. But then, reading your comments, I don’t think you would deny this?
I don’t deny it, mostly because there’s hardly anything here to deny… what is contained in these two paragraphs except platitudes and generalities?
in short, when we’re discussing “what advice is appropriate”, we are presupposing that we’ve chosen the timing properly. Having assumed this, the question of what advice we should give does still remain.
If you presuppose things like proper timing, and presumably other considerations about appropriate contextual cues, I don't think there really remains any issue here.
I think generally the type of person who actually has valuable advice to offer in this context is also the type of person who's socially aware enough to offer it via methods which are recieved well.
Well… maybe. Before making assumptions as broad and vague as “presumably other considerations about appropriate contextual cues” and “methods which are recieved well”, I’d want to see at least a sketch of what any of those things are supposed to be referring to.
The question, let’s recall, is whether the sort of advice described in the OP is appropriate, in the general case. Sure, we can assume the advice is given with reasonable attention to basic tact, with common sense about timing, etc., but it wouldn’t do to make assumptions which make the original question moot!
Hello ymeskhout,
If you look at the Sexual Assault Statistics, you see that 51% of rapes happen in intimate relationships, and 41% by an acquaintance.
As such, the reasonable thing to assume in your case, if we are to draw parallels, is that the one doing the stealing, was another person highly interested in bikes, wheels and adjustments... In other words, one of your in-group friends. Or, someone in your family. Both with easier "legitimate" access to things like your key, your habits or your number-code.
You say there was nothing sadistic about the inquiry, but since one of you "were" stealing the bikes, and having a blast "Yeah, someone stole your bike? Well, did you lock your bike? (Victim blaming)", I would still call that quite insidious. Maybe one of you were even aiding the thief, to easier create more Smokes and mirrors to confuse and misdirect.
I mean, are you completely sure you weren't part of the "insidious" compassionate victim blaming yourself? If you are comparing these two, then you failed to notice.
If your point is to just make sure that rape doesn't happen, the obvious choice seems to be to select for friends, acquaintances and partners that are guaranteed not to rape you... Which of course is similar to "best of luck with completely overhauling the nature of man", so why are you arguing against this in your post?
Caerulea-Lawrence
If you look at the Sexual Assault Statistics, you see that 51% of rapes happen in intimate relationships, and 41% by an acquaintance.
This is not quite right. If we look at the source for these numbers, we can see that these numbers are for “Lifetime Reports of Sexual Violence Among Female Victims by Type of Perpetrator” (with an explanatory footnote that says “Relationship is based on respondents’ reports of their relationship at the time the perpetrator first committed any violence against them. Due to the possibility of multiple perpetrators, combined row percents may exceed 100%.”; additional explanation is on previous page).
In other words, among all female rape victims (who were respondents to this survey), 51.1% reported that they had, at some point in their lives, been raped by a “current or former intimate partner”; 12.5% (possibly overlapping in whole or in part with the previous category) reported that they had, at some point in their lives, been raped by a family member; etc.
Unfortunately, this is not enough information to infer what percent of rapes happen in intimate relationships, what percent are done by an acquaintance, etc.
EDIT: Needless to say, this substantially affects the conclusions of your comment.
Hello Said!
You are my commenting senior, and I understand you want a high standard - Still, I'm very positive that intimate relationships and acquaintances are the number1 group of perpetrators, and that my argument is a valid one - So I'm content with my level of research in the context of this post. I understand if you might disagree with my level of skill, but I hope you can have some leniency.
In the future, I might want to rise to a different level of discernment. To check the small details more, and try to achieve the level of Commentator Enlightenment you have. To have the power to nitpick posts and comments to Death, like you're able to, or also give them the extra flair that lets them shine - or both.
I must admit, I'm far from that level, But since you have made basically 5432.1% more comments than me, I believe I might rise to the occasion in time.
Remember that all your comments to me are a chance to reflect on myself, and to choose to be better, and I am grateful you give me some attention.
Thank you.
All the best to you,
Caerulea-Lawrence
I’m very positive that intimate relationships and acquaintances are the number1 group of perpetrators, and that my argument is a valid one
That’s as may be. My point was simply that, in support of your argument, you cited as a source as making a claim that it did not, in fact, make; instead, the source made an importantly different claim. The record must be corrected on the facts. Now it has been.
So I’m content with my level of research in the context of this post.
That is, of course, your business. What is relevant in the context of public discussion is that you’re saying “this is what’s true; I offer no evidence, except that my assurance that I’ve researched this”.
Such a position is not inherently problematic, as long as you make it clear that that’s what you’re saying.
What is problematic is erroneous factual claims, erroneously quoting sources, etc. Hence, such errors ought to be corrected, as I have done. Corrections in such cases benefit us all, yourself included.
I understand if you might disagree with my level of skill, but I hope you can have some leniency.
Such concepts as “skill” and “leniency” are totally irrelevant here. The facts are what matter. We must get the facts right if we’re to have any hope of drawing any correct conclusions and taking any useful actions.
As far as the question of what is, or is not, “nitpicking”, which details are “small”, etc., this old comment of mine may be of some interest.
Finally, returning to your object-level claim—
intimate relationships and acquaintances are the number1 group of perpetrators
—by my admittedly vague recollection of other rape-related statistics that I’ve seen, I believe that you are correct. I do not have references handy, and so I am not very certain of this; but I would certainly be surprised if this turned out to be false.
Of course, the exact numbers (to an accuracy of, at the least, ±5%) do matter, so if I were to make an argument on the basis of this tendency, I’d certainly want some concrete data. (Which attitude is complicated by the difficulty of finding reliable and unbiased data in this domain.)
I'm reading Unwanted Advances by feminist scholar Laura Kipnis, and coincidentally just finished the chapter Sexual Miseducation. She makes a compelling case along the same lines as the Kathleen Stock quote.
"In short, harm reductionists want to aim educational efforts at women; preventionists want to aim them at men." (Referring to educational programs intended to mitigate incidence of campus sexual assault.)
Among other things, she points out that there is no evidence that preventionist programs work; and evidence that risk-reduction programs decrease the likelihood of female students being assaulted by as much as 50%.
In addition to efficacy, there are other reasons to believe harm reduction is a better way to go.
This was something I already believed based on various life experiences, so it was nice to have my hunch confirmed by actual research.
I appreciate the effort to explain Stock's position to those who accuse her of victim blaming, via the bike lock metaphor. I agree with the gist of it, but I fear there are enough differences it will not be persuasive. There is a fundamentally ideological argument going on here. Stock must be wrong, no matter how illogical that may seem, because the unquestionable premise of her detractors' faction is that a) men are presumed responsible/culpable for all sexual interactions and b) women lack agency. Yes, the latter is regressive, from a feminist point of view. Therefore, to suggest women have some agency in protecting themselves from dangerous or regrettable situations runs counter to ideological precepts and must be forcefully rejected.
Logic and clever metaphors aren't going to persuade—or deter—the ones accusing Stock of victim blaming.
This is a thornier problem.
Anyway, I mostly wanted to mention the book Unwanted Advances because I'm really enjoying it. It's wry, sardonic, well researched and referenced—and explores this subject in a way that others may find of interest.
1I think the whole victim blaming thing, or the bike theft QA in the post, really miss the target. ALL that advise is of zero value at the time it is offered. The cows have left the barn. Water passed under the bridge. The milk was spilled and the eggs broken. The type of advice one need ex post is how to deal with the repercussion.
Once you offer that type of advice or, if you really cannot/should not if you lack experience with the situation, you've offered you sympathies and moral support that they can come through okay and the person is in recovery mode -- be it ready to buy a new bike or whatever -- then you can start offering advice about how to prevent a recurrence of the violation.
While I agree that such advice an be very useful how, and particularly when, it is offered with matter a lot in terms of how it sounds and how it is received.
ALL that advise is of zero value at the time it is offered.
Obviously false if the situation that led to the misfortune is likely to repeat in the future (thus allowing for the possibility of taking actions to avoid repeats of said misfortune)—which is the case both for bike theft and for rape.
Don't you think someone whose bike has been stolen realises they should have locked it afterwards without you telling them? Saying so may be fine but it actually depends how you tell them, I can imagine "Shoulda locked it" being a pretty annoying comment.
Don’t you think someone whose bike has been stolen realises they should have locked it afterwards without you telling them?
No, not necessarily.
And, as the OP describes, there is the question of how they secured the bicycle, with what sort of lock, etc. There is no reason to believe that someone who’s had their bike stolen automatically thereby knows what is the optimal method for securing a bike against theft. (If they knew, they presumably would’ve secured their bike thus, and would not have had it stolen!)
3
1The failure mode isn't always obvious. I had a friend that was very new to biking who used a dog collar chain to lock up a $1k bike. It got stolen within 5 minutes. A lot of times we couldn't tell what the issue was because the bike would have vanished, so we'd ask what precautions they took and then scour the scene for clues. Sometimes we'd have no idea until and when the bike was recovered.
I think you are missing the point about the timing of the advice. If advice is offered at a time that a person is not in a suitable frame of mind to even digest the information it's not useful to them. Save it for later is may claim.
Being faster than the slowest one does not apply in the context of sexual violence
It wasn’t possible to reach full immunity but you never need to be the fastest gazelle to escape the cheetah, just faster than the slowest one.
and
intimate relationships and acquaintances are the number 1 group of perpetrators
The "faster than the slowest one" doesn't apply in the context of sexual violence. You might not care about someone else's bike being stolen but you will never drink less hoping your friends or others are assaulted instead of you.
Risk reduction advice in the context of sexual violence are often against the person's intent.
This has been discussed in the comment already but most advice given to prevent bike theft is agreed upon. The only argument I can see against locking your bike is someone saying "It's taking too much time" for example. And locking your bike doesn't prevent you from enjoying your bike so there is almost no reason not to do it.
However many risk reduction advice regarding sexual assault go directly against what the person wants to do. Advice such as "don't wear such revealing clothes" or "don't get wasted" often go directly against the person's intention when going out to party. I agree that not all advice are like this. For example, an event that provides glass covers to prevent drugging doesn't prevent your enjoyment of the night.
I think the parallel between bike theft and rape falls short in many ways discussed here and in the comment already. I think it makes the problem appear "simpler" than it is and should not be used as an argument for encouraging risk reduction advice.
You're right, the gazelle analogy absolutely does not apply in the context of sexual violence. I didn't realize I left that implication until later and though I didn't intend to imply a connection, I regret not saying so explicitly.
The parallels between bike theft and rape are obviously not going to perfectly match, nor should we expect them to. My point here was to start with something small ("giving advice to victims on how to reduce risk") and then start extrapolating to see if we can reach a consensus on what precisely is bad about that. I'm not sure that the distinction you draw about "against what the person wants to do" is valid in this context. For one, protecting against bike theft goes beyond just time consumption. For me personally it has affected so many decisions I make about what components I'm willing to buy (and willing to risk), what places I'm willing to bike to, whether I should carry just my u-lock or bring a heavy cable as well, and has made the prospect of getting an electric motor & battery a non-starter. This also applies in other crime context, for example some people like to start a car early and leave it running to warm-up, but several states make it illegal to do so because of car theft concerns.
Hello again ymeskhout,
looking at the answers you have given to people, and the comments I have got on my own reply to this post, I was wondering if I read your post in a specific light, and went through it more in-depth.
You write in your comment that "[...]My post was strictly about "giving advice to victims" and the pushback you're giving invokes all these collateral issues I never argued in favor of."
and in a later comment
"The parallels between bike theft and rape are obviously not going to perfectly match, nor should we expect them to. My point here was to start with something small ("giving advice to victims on how to reduce risk") and then start extrapolating to see if we can reach a consensus on what precisely is bad about that."
Reading your post again with this in mind, I notice that I am really confused by some issues.
Here they are:
Our questions were problem-solving endeavors saturated with sympathy; we wanted to know what went wrong precisely to help others avoid the same fate.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this sentence, but if you ask someone 'what went wrong' to help alleviate further victimization - isn't that gathering information on what advice to give, and not about giving advice? This might be a small thing, but it is something I noticed.
Kathleen Stock charges right into deconstructing the surprisingly enduring ritual of affixing the “victim-blaming” reprimand to any advice aimed at reducing the risk of sexual assault.
There seems to be no doubt that many people blame some rape victims for what happens to them, irrationally. In one 2010 survey, more than half of respondents thought that “drinking to excess” or “dressing provocatively” made rape victims more responsible for the outcome. Yet it is rapists who are responsible for their crimes.[...]
From the paragraph before the one you quoted.
Maybe there is some statistics on this, with regard to bike theft too. I would imagine the things that have been mentioned in the comments already, like having an expensive bike/what lock(s) you used to where you parked it - would be something people would be prone to blame the victims for.
Still, isn't there a clear distinction between the explicit goal of your OP and the text by Kathleen Stock? She is talking about giving advice to women (and her sons) that are 'pre-victimized', and you saying that the goal is to give advice to 'post-victimized' people.
She isn't saying you should talk to victims like that, the title is "Telling women how to cut the risk of rape is anything but sexist." not telling Victims.
So there seems to be a sort of conflating of the two in your text, and I would really prefer it if you made it extensively clear which one you are talking about, as they are extremely different issues. There is a difference between "any advice aimed at reducing the risk of sexual assault" and "any advice aimed at reducing the risk of a repeat of sexual assault." Two different situations, best not get them conflated.
Imparting wisdom on the implacable chain of consequences is about the most compassionate thing you could do.
This goes back to the conflation. If you are talking about pre-victimization, I would say that it could be helpful information - but not a compassionate thing in itself. If we are talking about post-victimization, there are many issues you are dealing with, not to mention problematic physical/emotional issues - neither of which learning about the 'implacable chain of consequences' will help you with.
They can choose to accept that advice, and if it is sound then they’ll be met with the disastrous outcome of…not having their bike stolen.
This hearkens back to the point from before: Is this text about talking to people 'pre-' victimhood, or 'post-'? Moreover, neither accepting nor following the advice saves you from being raped or having your bike stolen - You only reduce the chances. As is talked about in the text you quote, but as also mentioned by @liamk; Among other things, she points out that there is no evidence that preventionist programs work; and evidence that risk-reduction programs decrease the likelihood of female students being assaulted by as much as 50%. - There is no guarantee it won't still happen. Which doesn't defeat the purpose of prevention - but shouldn't be conflated with 'safety'.
That was all I was confused about when it came to your post.
Your post seems to align more with 'Preventing' victimization from happening, so wouldn't it be better to build on that, as that seems more coherent with the source you use.
If we are to focus only on the goal you mentioned earlier, and answer that using your experiences,
"giving advice to victims on how to reduce risk") and then start extrapolating to see if we can reach a consensus on what precisely is bad about that." to me it breaks down the second when you go outside your in-group of similar-minded people. I wouldn't like to get advice if I lost a bike, I would like empathic support, care, understanding and a friendly hug.
As such, I must admit that it is very hard to read a post like this, that even if indirectly, compares Bike Theft and Rape. If you are either a survivor or secondary survivor, the after effects of trauma goes from terrible to hellish. There are also secondary issues like pregnancy, transmission of diseases, PTSD symptoms and stigma, to name a few.
Caerulea-Lawrence
Sidenote:
Thanks to @Firinn and to @Said Achmiz for making this comment a reality. The former for their empathic listening, which was essential for me to regain my clarity and groundedness. The latter for their willingness to interact with me, and do what I would describe as "throwing wrenches into my mental faculty", which irks me in such a way that it helps me with my fundamental rationality work. I would have not been able to write this without either of you. Thank you.
Maybe I am misunderstanding this sentence, but if you ask someone 'what went wrong' to help alleviate further victimization - isn't that gathering information on what advice to give, and not about giving advice? This might be a small thing, but it is something I noticed.
I don't understand the difference. You can't give someone advice if you have no idea what happened to them.
Regarding the distinction between pre & post-victimization, I agree the two circumstances are not identical but the advice for the two situations will have a significant amount of overlap. "Make sure to use a u-lock" is good advice for all cyclists in the city, including those who just had their bike stolen because an insufficient lock tends to be the most common failure point in my experience.
I wouldn't like to get advice if I lost a bike, I would like empathic support, care, understanding and a friendly hug.
I agree that a different tact might be necessary for post-victimization, but I flatly don't understand the aversion to advice. I mentioned a friend who locked up a very expensive bike with a dog collar chain, thinking it would be enough. Her bike was stolen within 5 minutes. She ended up buying the same bike again within a week, and it would've been absolutely cruel to not warn her that she should get something stronger than a dog collar chain.
Lastly, I fully agree that rape is far more traumatic than a bike theft! The purpose of analogies is to pare down the common elements to avoid confusing what motivates our positions on each respective issue. That's precisely why I picked something relatively trivial like bike theft, it doesn't stop anyone from adding distinguishing factors.
I have found this older post and read the comments, one pointing me to actual advice to prevent being raped, which a police department wrote up: https://police.charlotte.edu/safety/sexual-assault-prevention/reduce-risk-becoming-sexual-assault-victim
Some of it easy to follow, but some would be difficult or very inconvenient to obey.
"If you live in an apartment, avoid being in the laundry room or garage by yourself, especially at night."
"Exercise extra caution when using underground and enclosed parking garages. Try not to go alone."
Ultimately, we sometimes make tradeofs in favor of living normal life without a need to be paranoid or babysitted all the time.