The Blame Game
From yesterday's university newspaper, in an article about the increase in crime on campus:
Forcible sex offenses increased from one in 2006 to five in 2007, and burglaries more than doubled from 31 in 2006 to 72 in 2007, according to the [university's annual crime] report.
Assistant Police Chief Rick Gomez said most of the sexual offenses were "date rapes," crimes where the victim knew the offender. They often happened in residences and involved alcohol, he said.
"Women need to be smarter about who they date and be careful about what they drink, so that they'll have their senses about them so things like that won't happen," he said. "But as far as women just walking out around campus and being raped by a stranger--that's not happening."
In other words, if women were more discriminating and didn't drink so much, "things like that [wouldn't] happen."
I do believe that women need to be prepared to protect themselves if a man tries to rape or assault them (whether they know the man responsible or not), but the logic of Gomez's statement is not the logic of "just in case" but the logic of causality: if they "have their senses about them," are smarter, and behave themselves, then they won't be assaulted. After all, they're not assaulted when doing something innocent like walking across campus, he notes. It's true that most sexual assault and rape is perpetrated by someone the victim knows, but that doesn't indicate that the victim made a bad decision in getting to know that person (rapists don't wear signs) or that the victim invited the assault. Instead it indicates something about the sexual offender.
I am appalled at this statement. I am appalled that this logic is still so prevalent, that it comes from a source of supposed authority, and that it was published on the front page of a university newspaper.
[Also posted at my other blog--and I may submit a version of this to The Shorthorn as an opinion piece in response to their article.]
Forcible sex offenses increased from one in 2006 to five in 2007, and burglaries more than doubled from 31 in 2006 to 72 in 2007, according to the [university's annual crime] report.
Assistant Police Chief Rick Gomez said most of the sexual offenses were "date rapes," crimes where the victim knew the offender. They often happened in residences and involved alcohol, he said.
"Women need to be smarter about who they date and be careful about what they drink, so that they'll have their senses about them so things like that won't happen," he said. "But as far as women just walking out around campus and being raped by a stranger--that's not happening."
In other words, if women were more discriminating and didn't drink so much, "things like that [wouldn't] happen."
I do believe that women need to be prepared to protect themselves if a man tries to rape or assault them (whether they know the man responsible or not), but the logic of Gomez's statement is not the logic of "just in case" but the logic of causality: if they "have their senses about them," are smarter, and behave themselves, then they won't be assaulted. After all, they're not assaulted when doing something innocent like walking across campus, he notes. It's true that most sexual assault and rape is perpetrated by someone the victim knows, but that doesn't indicate that the victim made a bad decision in getting to know that person (rapists don't wear signs) or that the victim invited the assault. Instead it indicates something about the sexual offender.
I am appalled at this statement. I am appalled that this logic is still so prevalent, that it comes from a source of supposed authority, and that it was published on the front page of a university newspaper.
[Also posted at my other blog--and I may submit a version of this to The Shorthorn as an opinion piece in response to their article.]