From: zeborah@gmail.com   
      
   Jonathan L Cunningham  wrote:   
      
   > Aqua  wrote:   
   >   
   > > Jonathan L Cunningham wrote:   
   > > > Yes, I was wondering how "love of money" came to be "money".   
   > > >   
   > > > That's a bit like taking "paedophilia is evil" and concluding that   
   > > > therefore children are all evil. Or blaming a woman for inciting a man   
   > > > to rape her.   
   > > >   
   > > > The fallacy is a bit more obvious in the last two examples: why isn't it   
   > > > equally obvious when applied to money? Curious, eh?   
   > >   
   > >    
   > >   
   > > You obviously don't live in the country that has been reducing payouts   
   > > to rape victims because they were drunk at the time.   
   > >   
   > >    
   > >   
   > > I look forward to a time when women won't be blamed for being raped.   
   >   
   > Well, then I have to wonder where *that* fallacy comes from, too.   
   >   
   > Where does it end? Are murder victims blamed for being murdered? (It's   
   > your own fault. If you hadn't gone to that motel, the psycho mad axeman   
   > wouldn't have wanted to chop you to pieces. You should have gone to a   
   > different motel.)   
      
   With rape victims, I think there's two things going on:   
      
   a) a generic blame-the-victim, which I think comes from fear of the   
   crime happening to oneself:  if the victim did nothing wrong, then it   
   might happen to you or your loved ones, too, with nothing you can do to   
   prevent it, and that's a horrible thought.  So one says "Well, she was   
   wearing a short skirt, and I don't wear short skirts, so I'm safe," or   
   "She was wearing a short skirt, and you wear short skirts; stop wearing   
   short skirts so that you'll be safe!" and being able to say these things   
   is a comfort.  Of utterly no practical value, but comforting to the   
   speaker.   
      
   b) Western society is f*cked in the head about sex and gender.  There's   
   this idiotic belief that women have to be cajoled, tricked, and/or   
   forced into wanting sex, whereas men are helpless in the face of their   
   sexual and/or violent urges.  Since (says the fallacious premise) a man   
   can't control his behaviour around a woman, it must (goes the fallacious   
   reasoning) be up to the woman to control it for him.  And if it's up to   
   the woman to control his behaviour, then if he succeeds in raping her   
   it's because she failed to stop him; ergo it's all her fault.   
      
   The first of these, I think, does get generalised across a lot of   
   crimes; the second is more specific to sex-related crimes (including   
   domestic violence).  Murder victims generally get a dispensation even   
   from the first because they're dead, and one Must Not Speak Ill of the   
   Dead.   
      
   Zeborah   
   --   
   Gravity is no joke.   
   http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/   
   rasfc FAQ:  http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)