Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lusen 3647 days ago
indeed. victims of rape and sexual harassment are often blamed for the aggressors behavior, as if clothing or inebriation or past interactions makes such violations ok.

look at what the police asked the victim in the recent stanford rape case! it's baffling. https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/heres-the-powerful-let...

women who wear feminine or even sexual clothing and make-up aren't "sluts who are asking for it". they're not asking for unprofessional flirtation or jokes, and they're certainly not asking for bullying, disrespect or aggression. i'm not talking about dress code nuance. i'm not talking about whether someone is making destructive decisions or simply different decisions. i'm specifically talking about how femininity is used as an excuse to diminish and over-reach, as an excuse for those with power to project their desires and discount the will of those without. how one person dresses or behaves doesn't justify someone else being an asshole. and yet that is exactly how we make women feel when men cross boundaries, whether it is a rude joke or a physical violence.

the only other time i can think of clothing mattering in a crime is when black people are murdered and somehow it is justified because hoodie :-O

more generally, notifying authorities about sexual harassment or rape is extremely difficult - culturally, not just logistically. because of rape culture and the normative masculinity of most people in power, eg management and police, victims face aggressive doubt. people who speak up often face serious retaliation (bullying, asked to move locations rather than asking the aggressor to move, seen as a problem, stigmatized, etc), which can be even worse - professionally and emotionally - than the incident itself.

Casually telling people to shut up and file a claim reveals deep ignorance. In the Bay Area for example, we've recently had issues with police texting each other homophobic slurs, being involved with an underage sex worker, asking "shaming" questions of a rape victim, and of course being acquitted for murdering unarmed black and brown people. These are just the news-reading ways in the last 12 months that might lead someone to have less trust in authority, to think that maybe those with power aren't on their side.

One's parents, one's friends, one's experiences in the world - they also tell some people that police are not on their side. Daughter, always find a populated, well lit place to pull over at night if a police car flags you to stop. Son, you are black, so when the police pull you over for no reason be calm, be the bigger man, white people are taught to fear you, to see you as an "angry violent black man", so be extra small, don't draw attention. Child, you were born here like your friends, but your parents don't have papers, if you come home from work one day and we are not here it is because they found us, don't draw attention.

Having "the law" on one's side is a privilege. If someone can expect to call the police and have their problems taken seriously, they have a privilege. They don't need to feel guilty -- all of us on HN have some kind of privilege, eg access to the internet and reading and writing -- but they do need to acknowledge that not everyone is the same as themselves. they're not a jerk for having access to the police. but they are ignorant for not thinking about the challenges and differences others face, and then telling people they're doing it wrong for not shutting up and choosing an "easy" solution. have some compassion. be supportive. that's what it means to acknowledge privilege.

2 comments

I think this is a great post, but I have one small nit to pick:

> being involved with an underage sex worker

I've seen others argue, and I agree: there's no such thing as an "underage sex worker" or "child prostitute" -- terms that have been used for some time in the mainstream press. The correct term is "child sex trafficking victim" or the like. The point is that minors cannot legally consent to sex, so legally they must be victims, not criminals.

I don't know about the specific incident you're referring to, but if by "involved with" you mean "participating in the victimization of", I hope there were very serious consequences.

The questions at your link were asked during the trial, by the defense attorney.

Skimming, the first conversation with law enforcement is when a deputy informs her she had been assaulted.

(None of that is meant as push back about reporting being difficult, it's just that in that case law enforcement didn't do anything baffling, they rendered assistance to someone who needed it and prosecuted the obvious crime)