Sexual harassment

[Corfish]

Snip

There's no point in admonishing them, because if you had ever actually talked to a survivor you would see they blame themselves first. Nothing you say can admonish them more than they have already done so themselves. They already hate themselves for falling into that trap, this is why therapy is so important, to teach them it ISN'T their fault first, because you shouldn't victim blame.

Like... imagine someone's baby getting kidnapped, and you go "Whelp, should've locked the window huh? Sorrt, just some tough love!" That parent probably already wants to die, and stating the obvious isn't helping.

[Melichoir]

snip

Maybe I was a bit blunt and tactless in the headslap, but I wasnt saying "Tough love, sucks to suck!" and not give support or help. I was attempting to illustrate that yeah, you need to be ensuring when people make mistakes that they know the lesson. Cause Trauma, often enough, distorts peoples perceptions of the situation, and can leave people fixating on the wrong aspects.


This is not only why people who get help dont just get told "Its all better and its not your fault," but help people unpack the entirety of the situation. To not only understand yeah, theyre a victim of something, but also what actually lead to the situation. Getting to that isnt easy, cause you cant just say "Welp, this is why. Youre a dummy." Getting htem to look at something and be like "Ok, this was a bad judgement call, and heres why I made that call, and what can I do with it going forward" is what is necessary. That doesnt happen overnight or instantly, Nor is it getting the person to say "Its all my fault. " Its a tricky dance between understanding what lead to what and self blame. Its the appropriate way to go rather than the current option I see far to often. The "You did nothing wrong, youre a victim, you dont have to change or evaluate your actions, the world needs to change so you dont have to."

Its a fairy tale way of looking at the world that relieves all responsibility from the victim. They dont have to learn, or change, or address something. No, its the world who has to be nicer. This doesnt help victims or potential victims.

[Miyha]

Its a fairy tale way of looking at the world that relieves all responsibility from the victim. They dont have to learn, or change, or address something. No, its the world who has to be nicer. This doesnt help victims or potential victims.

Just quoting this because it really is something profound that I only realized after the extensive trauma therapy I've had to go through, not just from the relationship I mentioned above.

To supplement that, you'll notice a pattern where a lot of people who get taken advantage of by predators like the aforementioned "prominent community figure" also have their own mental health struggles and other issues that make them prime targets. They have a lot of faults, and it's these faults that make them easy targets for abuse and manipulation. Sometimes one doesn't even realize it's a problem until they're put into the scenario of a relationship like that, experience that kind of trauma, then are plopped into trauma therapy; I promise you, your therapist will (or should, if they're doing their job correctly) make you own your sh*t and work on cleaning up your side of the fence as a major part of recovery.

It's not anyone's fault when they're victims of abuse; but they do have to take a step back, look at why they got themselves into that situation, why they stayed, and what they can do differently to avoid similar instances in the future. With the insight they gain, perhaps they could help prevent someone else's suffering as well. I know that's what I try to do.

[Solarra]

...kids need to come to realize that their decisions affect other people as well, it's not just about them. What about their parents, their friends, their relatives who actually care about them?

Wow! you seem to be taking victim-blaming to a whole new level here. So, are you really saying that if someone I care about gets abused, I not only get to admonish their poor decision-making but I can also cry, 'poor me!' because their being hurt is distressing for me!?!
I think such a reaction would be insensitive, self-obsessed and entirely inappropriate. Shaming someone because they have been abused is not only unfair, it's pretty abusive in itself.
The worst thing is, this lets the abuser off the hook. You are focusing entirely on the victim and what you think they did wrong. Implying people are just stupid if they let harassment or abuse happen to them (and now selfish too, because of the distress it could cause their friends and family) helps nobody apart from those who harass and abuse. Making excuses for these people simply allows them to continue their behaviour unchecked.

[AriaFairchild]

Wow! you seem to be taking victim-blaming to a whole new level here. So, are you really saying that if someone I care about gets abused, I not only get to admonish their poor decision-making but I can also cry, 'poor me!' because their being hurt is distressing for me!?!
I think such a reaction would be insensitive, self-obsessed and entirely inappropriate. Shaming someone because they have been abused is not only unfair, it's pretty abusive in itself.
The worst thing is, this lets the abuser off the hook. You are focusing entirely on the victim and what you think they did wrong. Implying people are just stupid if they let harassment or abuse happen to them (and now selfish too, because of the distress it could cause their friends and family) helps nobody apart from those who harass and abuse. Making excuses for these people simply allows them to continue their behaviour unchecked.

Victim blaming seems to be everyone's favorite buzzword nowadays, because condemning the abuser and calling out the victim for their poor decisions are not mutually exclusive. The abuser must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, however, the victim needs to be reminded of their decision making.

You are just being overtly dramatic, nobody is crying "poor me" here, nobody is letting the abuser off the hook here. If you think telling your kid they are being irresponsible is being insensitive, and that their irresponsibility is affecting others, you are doing a poor job raising children. Children don't exist in a vacuum, they need to grow up to be responsible adults too and to make wise decisions too. Part of maturity is realizing that your actions affect others, and by not letting them reflecting on that perspective, they are going to make foolish decisions again.

[Solarra]

If you think telling your kid they are being irresponsible is being insensitive, and that their irresponsibility is affecting others, you are doing a poor job raising children.

*Jawdrop* You're taking ad-hominem to a new level, too.

My point was that if a younger member of your family is abused and all you can offer is a lecture on how irresponsible they were to let it happen and how it's affecting you then you are basically throwing yourself a 'pity party' and making their problems all about yourself. A bit of support and practical help might be more appropriate.

If you had read my earlier posts in this thread you would have seen that I am absolutely in favour of giving people the knowledge and tools to minimize their risk of being harassed and to cope with it if it happens.
However, putting all the emphasis on 'how not to be a victim' does send out the message to potential abusers that if a person doesn't respond to them in a certain manner then anything they do is at least partly excused.

[AriaFairchild]

If you had read my earlier posts in this thread

all you can offer is a lecture on how irresponsible they were to let it happen and how it's affecting you then you are basically throwing yourself a 'pity party' and making their problems all about yourself

*Jawdrop* You're taking tunnel-visioning to a new level.

I'll show her compassion, after chastising her for her immaturity/foolishness.

Take your own advice man. You are the only one who zeroed in on the 'pity party' aspect, when no one did such thing. All that I had said is that the kid needs to know how its action had affected others, and that showing compassion is a given in this case.

For example:

"You know what, Junior, what you did was very foolish. You left without letting me or your mom know. You made us worried sick about you. Now that you are here, you are safe. That's all that matter. But promise us to always tell mom and dad whenever you go, alright? We love you more than anything in this world."

cue jaw drop sound for dramatic effect

How can this example be used when someone was sexual harassed? Your example sounds more like a young child that went too far away from their parents, not someone that was abused or sexual attacked. Also what would you say to someone that went through that on the internet? For something that went on for months?

This is just used to illustrate that reprimanding (if the person did actually do something stupid) and showing love can happen at the same time. For a particular case, you can phrase it in a similar spirit. And also:

And 18 years is still a child. You don't become an adult until your early to mid twenties. Just because the state might consider you an adult for the purposes of the judiciary, it by no means indicates that you are an adult where it really matters. Neuroscience is the authority on this, not arbitrary legal thresholds.

There's this consensus that 18 is still a child, so I am doing exactly that, treating them like a child. In this particular case, the child did just that "went too far away from their parents" without telling the parents even.

[jameseoakes]

Now this line of thinking is dangerous, because kids need to come to realize that their decisions affect other people as well, it's not just about them. What about their parents, their friends, their relatives who actually care about them? you need to make her see that she does not exist in a vacuum and there are people who care for her and her well-being. She needs to be told the consequences of her poor decisions, so that she can think twice as hard in the future about any rash decision she may make, because it's not only her that is affected by it.

This sounds like a horrible attitude to take, and as Solarra says this be moving all the blame on to the victim. Also you should take her name out as it's probably naming and shaming

[Rogatum]

My question is why does it need to be one or the other? One can still reprimand a person for their actions while consoling and helping them through the next stages. When I was mugged, you know the first thing the cops asked me after checked to see if I was okay? "What the hell were you doing this late in this area, let alone taking cash out in front of people?" I was reprimanded for my actions, they told me it could have gone a lot worse, I could have been beaten badly or even worse killed. The police did not choose to help me for my foolishness and ignorance, but they did not sweep it under the rug either. They were sure to let me know that I was naive and extremely ignorant of the world. This lesson taught me a lot and I am thankfully for those officers,

So once again why does it have to be one or the other? I do not think anyone is saying we should put all the blame on the victim and not help them, but point remains certain actions lead to a point due to the actions of the victim. Now we cannot say if the outcome would have changed if they did not make the same choices, but who knows how differently it could have been though. Also regarding the example about the kidnapped child, what makes that case different then the Harambe one? At the core both happened because the parents was inattentive. Why is one consider victim blaming and the other is viewed as shitty parents?

Because it literally achieves nothing. The victim already blames themselves.

I learned a lot from the police that reprimanded me after I was mugged. I got a lot out of that talk with the officers. The talk I had with them taught me that I have personal responsibility for my actions, I cannot control those around me but I can control my own actions and I was taught that each choice we make in life has inherent risk, and if I am not comfortable with the potential risks it is probably best I do not do said action. I am glad those officers did not sugar coat what could have happened, how my choices not only impact myself and those around me and my family. I think it did achieve a great deal, wouldn't you? Do not get me wrong in the moment I was shaken up, and upset with the officers in the moment. After I slept on it I realized what they did was to help me. While I did not thank them in the moment, next day I went to the precinct to thank them. I get it can be scary to get scolded when you already feel like shit, but in what world should that mean the scolding was unnecessary or does not achieve anything, or worst of all invalidate the help? One can both reprimand and help a person through the next stages they are not mutually exclusive.

Edit: My response the comment below, seemed silly to use a post for such a quick response.

Look, I'm gonna assume you probably already knew you have personal responsibility to yourself. Everyone already knows that. It's likely that you already knew that there'd be an inherent risk in withdrawing money from the ATM at that time. To be honest, you would have to be extremely dense to not already know that.

When the tire in my brother's car blew out because I didn't remember to put air in it, it didn't matter that I didn't remember that and it didn't matter that he should have replaced the tire a long time ago. While we were sitting there berating each other for the things we had done wrong, what really mattered was that I was stuck on a rural highway with a blown out tire. We knew we were each at fault in this situation, but it wasn't important. All we were doing was wasting time. The committer of a crime is the person at fault for the crime. We all know that. What did it matter that you could have taken steps to prevent that from happening to you? You made a mistake, it happened, but you didn't do anything wrong. You were perfectly within your rights to visit that ATM and withdraw cash at night, and frankly, the police were very unprofessional to bother with reprimanding you for doing something legal when they should have been focused on the person who mugged you.

That is the thing though they still helped me throughout the process after they reprimanded me. They did their job, sure they could have worded it nicer, and consoled me more but does not invalidate what they said. While I knew their was a risk with drawing from the ATM, I will be honest and did not think how that action would ripple and what kind of impact it would have on others around me not just myself. In the moment I will be honest I put all the blame on the person that mugged me, I kept asking myself why me, why me. I refused to take personal responsibility for my actions in that moment. I felt as if it was the worlds fault and not my own. If that makes sense. Now if you the scolding halts progress then I understand where you are coming from, but that normally only happens when a person is not receptive to the information being told. That is when conflict comes about, and progress comes to a halt. In the moment I did wonder why I was getting scolded for making a executing poor judgment, since the ways the cops put in the end that one mistake could have been my last. If that makes sense.

Personally I thought they were extremely professional and helpful despite the fact in the moment I was annoyed at the fact I was getting told by these officers what could have been. They were not wrong.

[Elamys]

My question is why does it need to be one or the other? One can still reprimand a person for their actions while consoling and helping them through the next stages.

Because it literally achieves nothing. The victim already blames themselves.

I learned a lot from the police that reprimanded me after I was mugged. I got a lot out of that talk with the officers. The talk I had with them taught me that I have personal responsibility for my actions, I cannot control those around me but I can control my own actions and I was taught that each choice we make in life has inherent risk, and if I am not comfortable with the potential risks it is probably best I do not do said action.

Look, I'm gonna assume you probably already knew you have personal responsibility to yourself. Everyone already knows that. It's likely that you already knew that there'd be an inherent risk in withdrawing money from the ATM at that time. To be honest, you would have to be extremely dense to not already know that.

When the tire in my brother's car blew out because I didn't remember to put air in it, it didn't matter that I didn't remember that and it didn't matter that he should have replaced the tire a long time ago. While we were sitting there berating each other for the things we had done wrong, what really mattered was that I was stuck on a rural highway with a blown out tire. We knew we were each at fault in this situation, but it wasn't important. All we were doing was wasting time. The committer of a crime is the person at fault for the crime. We all know that. What did it matter that you could have taken steps to prevent that from happening to you? You made a mistake, it happened, but you didn't do anything wrong. You were perfectly within your rights to visit that ATM and withdraw cash at night, and frankly, the police were very unprofessional to bother with reprimanding you for doing something legal when they should have been focused on the person who mugged you.