blaming the victim, consequences, drunk girls, extending logic, feminism, how to be safe, irony, logical but nonsensical conclusion, rape, rapists, safe living, safety, sarcasm, steubenville, taking responsibility, victimization
There’s a lot of talk right now about the Steubenville rape case right now, not because of the case itself – that sort of thing happens far too often. In fact the same thing happened to a girl in Maple Ridge, B.C., not too long ago.
The reason everyone is up and arms about is because a news anchor whose mother named her “Candy” (a good start right there) spend a lot of time bemoaning the consequences of the rapists’ sentencing, rather than talking about how what they did was wrong.
The clip pissed me off, of course, although I do think that it may be a good idea to emphasize the consequences of raping a girl – in case the teenage boys out there need a stronger motivation than simply “because it is wrong”.
But then I read the comments, and of course you have idiots saying things like this:
“there is no doubt that what these teen boys did was wrong in that making mockery of someone they had sexual contact with over social media. Was it cold, was it callous, was it stupid…YES YES YES…but was it RAPE? NO. However, as a mother of young daughters and sons I am appaulled that no repermanding of the girl or her family is warranted. As a society, we have a moral obilgation to say something to a young girl or woman young or old who drinks to the point of not knowing what they are doing or sayng. To say that a 17 year old male is suppose to make the moral call and say ‘naw you are to drunk to know wht you are saying or doing” is a bit much.”
“men will be men. the more that is known the better. carry mace, dont get smashed at parties, dont walk down a dark alley by yourself. im a man and i realize that although i may not be looking for trouble walking home after a night at the bar, i better not get smashed in case trouble is looking for me.”
“What those teen boys did was bad, and they deserve to be punished, but where is her responsibility for herself? Apparently drunk women have no need to take responsibility for their poor choices, whereas drunk males will have to pay for their mistakes for the rest of their lives. So much for equality.”
“i am in no way condoning the actions of these juveniles and they should be punished. but acting like the girl had no part in her being in this situation undermines the importance of being responsible when consuming alcohol.”
It’s the Amanda Todd thing all over again.
“Oh, sure, what those boys did was wrong, but it’s the girl’s fault too, because she put herself in that situation.”
For all the people who want to talk about the consequences of being raped for a girl (something that gets almost NO coverage, and which I think really should be, because a lot of men clearly don’t get why it is considered to be such a big deal), there are people out there who want to talk about how stupid the girl was to be there in the first place.
And at first, I got mad.
Then I thought about it, and I realized, DUDE, they are totally right.
I mean, the girl went out and got DRUNK with GUYS around. Who does that? What normal teenage girl drinks around BOYS? Wasn’t she leading them on by simply being there, and then by becoming unconscious?
And why should we stop there?
Since the victim in the above case clearly is partially to blame for the consequences of her action, shouldn’t we be blaming MORE victims?
Take John F. Kennedy.
Why don’t we ever talk about how stupid he was to get assassinated? After all, sure, what the shooter did was wrong, but shouldn’t President Kennedy take some responsibility for his actions?
Let’s look at the facts:
a) He was the president of the United States, and at the time, 8.8% of past presidents had been assassinated, so clearly there was a risk.
b) He had already almost been assassinated once before, by a crazy postal worker (we can argue over whether that is redundant or not).
c) There was considerable political turmoil at the time, especially over de-segregation of schools and other civil liberty issues. JFK should have known how dangerous it is to piss off racists – look what happened to Lincoln.
Now, despite ALL OF THE ABOVE, President Kennedy got into the car WITHOUT A PROTECTIVE BUBBLE over him.
In retrospect, that was clearly a bad decision. And yet why do we insist on blaming the shooter, and arguing over who the shooter really was? Clearly the real person to blame for Kennedy’s death was… KENNEDY HIMSELF.
And yet all people ever do is go “boo hoo, poor Mr President” and moan about how great he was. Why don’t we ever talk about how stupid he was to put himself in a position where he could be shot?
And let’s talk about plane crashes for a minute.
I mean, sure, crashes like the 9/11 hijackings and Swiss Air 111 are pretty tragic.
All of those people, dead.
But for all the news coverage we see about the hijackers or the makers of the plane, all you ever hear is pity for the victims and their families.
Why isn’t anyone pointing out the obvious – that these people CHOSE to get on the planes in the first place?
They knew that planes could crash. They knew the risk and they DID IT ANYWAY.
Shouldn’t they take some responsibility for the consequences of their OWN choices? What about their families? Where were they? Did they try to STOP their loved ones from boarding the plane? Did they actively condone such a risky action?
Why do we spend so much sympathy on people who did nothing to prevent the death of their own loved ones?
Take Christmas fires.
They happen EVERY YEAR.
Oh, everyone makes a big fuss about the family losing their home and all their possessions and occasionally their children at Christmastime, while the blame is put on things like faulty artificial trees or badly designed light strings.
It is pretty clear that it is the families’ own faults for celebrating Christmas.
After all, if you know that having either a real or a fake tree could result in a house fire but you get one anyway, shouldn’t you be expected to take responsibility for your poor decision when things go up in smoke?
Really, just living somewhere is pretty stupid.
Everyone made a big fuss about the Mythbusters putting a cannonball through someone’s house, but really, if you own a house in California, you must know that’s a risk. That’s WHERE THE MYTHBUSTERS ARE.
If you choose to live near people who blow things up on a regular basis, should you really deserve sympathy and apologies when your own house gets blown up? You knew the risks, and you owned property in California anyway.
And look at me – living in Vancouver. When the big earthquake hits, will I really deserve any sympathy? I knew that there might be an earthquake some day.
In fact, even robbery “victims” get far too much sympathy from the liberal media.
Take people who have their jewellery or their electronics stolen while they are not at home.
Isn’t it their own fault that they got robbed?
After all, you KNOW robbers exist.
You KNOW that money, jewels and electronics are highly prized.
And yet people go ahead and OWN TELEVISIONS ANYWAY.
Are they really blameless? Shouldn’t people whose televisions are stolen be asked to carry some of the responsibility because they placed their new HD TV and PS3 within view of a window, which is practically like INVITING A BURGLAR IN?
When you think about it, burglars should be punished less if they break into a house without an alarm, because the home owner was basically asking for a burglary in the first place.
I mean, really, if I own a television or some diamonds, and I don’t bar my windows, or install an alarm, should the burglar even really be punished at all?
Wasn’t I basically LETTING him victimize me?
Especially if I actually LEFT MY HOUSE.
I mean, if I am not there to say “no, don’t take my television,” then how can the burglar know that I didn’t want him to come in in the first place? There was no alarm to tell him “no, stop” after all.
So really, if someone steals my stuff, it’s my own fault for owning it and leaving it unattended. I can’t just walk around hoping that the goodness of others will prevent them from taking the possessions that I have left lying around in my home.
If I don’t want my house burgled, I should take proper preventive measures by not owning valuable goods to begin with or leaving my house unattended.
Cancer victims are constantly getting pity parties. But after all, cancer has KNOWN risk factors, like genetics, exposure to chemicals, old age, and so on. Furthermore, most forms of cancer are quite treatable if detected by doctors early enough.
So when people die of cancer, isn’t it really their own fault for smoking/not getting colonoscopies regularly/eating unwashed organic produce/using diapers/being born?
Why doesn’t the media ever point out that cancer victims are not really victims at all, merely suffering the consequences of being alive?
So, for those of you who don’t want to to be the victims of their own poor choices, I have some advice:
- Do not lose consciousness.
- Do not own things.
- Do not celebrate holidays.
- Do not have fun.
- Do not leave your home.
- Do not own a home in the first place.
- Do not live places with known risk factors, like war, natural disasters, or crime.
- Do not stay home alone without someone to protect you.
- Do not stay home with someone who might possibly hurt you.
- Since the above two may be contradictory, it is advised that you stay home ALONE but only with a ROBOT for protection.
- The robot mentioned above must be Three Laws safe.
- It is probably ideal to have a flexiglass barrier between you and the robot in case it develops higher intelligence and finds a loophole in the Three Laws.
- In fact, if it is necessary to move around at all, you should probably put yourself in a bulletproof hamster ball.
- Never leave your hamster ball except for once a week, when you should get a full colonoscopy and blood work up to catch disease before it catches you.
I think it is perfectly clear that if anything bad happens to anybody, they should not get any pity or sympathy, because they weren’t following the above rules.