This study performed in London finds that a larger percentage of women feel that women should take responsibility for when they have been raped and the circumstances that caused the rape.
One third felt that provocative dress or returning to the attacker's house to have a drink makes a victim deserving of some blame for the rape, according to the survey, which was reported by BBC News.The online survey of more than 1,000 people in London, called Wake Up To Rape, found that more than half of both men and women said that in some instances, the victim should take responsibility for a rape. The survey participants, who ranged in age from 18 to 50, included 712 men and 349 men, according to BBC News.
Some 71 percent of the women who said they felt some rape victims should take responsibility said the victims were accountable for the crime if they'd gone to bed with the attacker. Only 57 percent of the men felt that way, according to the survey.
Well we already know that victim-blaming is a no-no and not just because it is unfair, but because it doesn't take into consideration the ways that attitudes on rape and women's sexuality are full of assumptions about the ways women are supposed to "preserve" their own sexuality and assumptions that certain men just "act that way" so it is on us to protect ourselves from their potential inclination to rape. Victim-blaming fails to take into consideration the role that negative attitudes on women's sexuality shape predominant understandings of rape.
But sadly, this study doesn't surprise me. Fear of sexual assault has forced women in many instances to internalize negative assumptions about their own sexuality. It is hard to suggest that woman are uniquely more sexist than men but perhaps they have internalized the belief that to protect themselves from rape they have to act and dress a certain way to avoid the potential threat. So while this attitude smacks of victim-blaming, part of why a study would show that a disproportionate number of women feel that women are to blame is because they believe on some level, they might be to blame for their own potential assault, a narrative that sexism has embedded into the heads of women. This is not to suggest that women shouldn't be held accountable for unjust attitudes on sexual assault, but instead to find an explanation for why women would believe such a depressing myth.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Study Shows Victim-Blaming is Still a Trend Among Women. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classic.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/18295
Sometime last year, I read a former roommate a statistic on how many people believe that a woman holds at least partial responsibility for being raped if she is wearing skimpy clothing. I was appalled, and my roommate said, "Well, I can understand, I mean, if you're wearing -"
I (rudely) interrupted and said, "It doesn't matter! It doesn't matter if I'm walking down the street naked, that doesn't give anyone the right to do anything to me that I don't want them to!"
So, I'm depressed but not surprised by the results of this study. (I do hope that overall my former roommate's perspectives aren't representative of the greater population's, we also got into a bit of a tiff when she made a joke about Chris Brown beating up Rihanna and I told her it wasn't funny.)
This seems to be closely related to the outsized fear of date-rape drugs or strangers in empty parking lots. We all know the horrifying statistics of rape and we're looking for a reason to say "it can't happen to me" and "no one *I know* could ever be a rapist."
Women blaming other women is an effort to reassure themselves that they could not be raped because they are smarter/stronger/more modest/more pure/whatever than those victims. If you turn survivors of rape into the 'other', then you don't need to fear for yourself.
Likewise, women who are raped while under the influence of alcohol often over-report concerns of date-rape drugs because they do not want to accept that they could have been raped in any circumstances less than drugged or through the use of a weapon.
All of these are tactics that reassure us that it couldn't happen to us, that the men in our lives could never do it, and that even in the face of rape culture, we have absolute control over what happens to our bodies.
I think this is insightful of you. It's perversely (but ultimately deludedly) empowering, to think, "If I do x, y and z, this will not happen to me. Therefore, I am the boss of me."
However the fact is, if you go out clad in a dress made of whipped cream and do jello shots until you are passing out drunk every damn night, as long as the people you encounter are not rapists, you will 100% definitely not be raped. Whereas if you sit at home, sober, in a burka, wearing a chastity belt, and only interact as necessary with trusted, familiar friends and relatives, and one or more of them is a rapist, you'll be raped.
Victim-blaming is, in a sense, the flipside of believing that we have free will that nobody can take away without our say-so. Rape is about the negation of the victim's free will by the attacker's. People literally cannot conceive of this, so they co-opt the victim in her (or his) own assault to reinforce the myth of universal, constant personal choice.
This, a million times over.
This smells of benevolent sexism, sure, but I also think it generally speaks to belief in a just world: people "get what they deserve."
Not to mention, the world is rampant with female chauvinist pigs and I'm sure some of these responses are merely reflective of that ("Hey, women are just temptresses and men are hypnotizable buffoons. I -get- it and feel we women should take more responsibility to ease up on the guys, why don't you?")
Unfortunately, based on the way the article is written, there's no way to know whether this survey result is utterly appalling or entirely reasonable. It all depends on what "take responsibility" means. If it means the respondents think some victims are morally blameworthy or somehow deserve what happened to them, then that's obviously appalling. However, if it means the respondents think some victims acted stupidly by putting themselves in a situation they should have known was risky, that strikes me as pretty reasonable.
I think that's a good distinction. The only problem I have is the use of the term "dangerous situation." It's almost as if we as a society believe that these so-called dangerous situations are phenomena akin to weather or laws of physics. What feminism has taught me about victim blaming is that we have to remember that there's a thinking person involved--the rapist. The rapist is the one creating this dangerous situation. Without his decision to rape, there'd be no danger.
I absolutely agree, LindseyLou, which is why I'm always careful in these discussions (and in my own thinking) to note that a victim's failure to mitigate risk does not in any way imply that they deserved it or that they share moral culpability with the rapist.
Stabbygail's talking points and buzzwords notwithstanding, there are certainly situations where the risks are elevated, and I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging that. It's terrible, infuriating, and depressing that a woman strolling through Central Park alone at night is at greater risk of getting raped than she would be during the day or in the company of a group, but that is the sad, pathetic reality.
If a survey asked me whether a rape victim under those circumstances was morally deserving of her assault, I'd obviously say no, but if it asked whether her actions had contributed to the likelihood of the assault occuring, saying no would be to deny reality. My point was simply that the article linked in the OP doesn't clearly indicate which of those ideas the respondents had in mind.
It's terrible, infuriating, and depressing that a woman strolling through Central Park alone at night is at greater risk of getting raped than she would be during the day or in the company of a group, but that is the sad, pathetic reality.
Is that true, though? Rape by someone you know is far more common than stranger rape, and I once read (though can't remember where) that you're at the highest risk of being raped in your own home.
It's probably true for the "rather than in a group setting" statistic. As far as other times or situations, I'm not so sure. I question the attitude that I'm more likely to get raped because I put myself in X situation, unless that situation is being in an abusive relationship.
Truth is, you're probably more likely to get mugged in Central Park at night than raped. That doesn't mean anyone should go strolling through the park at 1 am, but it does mean that I think people place too much of a focus on stranger rape and not enough on other kinds.
I think that people tend to forget that rape is about power and control, more than it is about sex. I'd probably be just as likely to get raped in sweat pants than if I was wearing some skimpy outfit at a night club. A man doesn't go out and rape a woman just because he finds her enticing. I honestly do not believe that argument for a second.
I wonder if any *credible* studies have been done on the subject of dress/appearance and rape. It seems like there would be a lot of ethical problems with studies like that, and possibly conflicts of interest. In any event, it bugs me when dressing in skimpy clothing is perceived as stupid. I don't dress like that, but I think any woman has the right to and not have her wisdom or intelligence questioned.
I think you made some really great points. The "group setting" idea totally struck a nerve for me because a friend of mine was raped our first year of college by a guy who inserted himself into our group of friends and went with her to her room to watch a movie once it started getting late and people began leaving to go to bed.
It would be interesting to see if there have been studies done on appearance and sexual assault; I fear that if there are, they would be used to blame the victims rather than to get some insight into the thought processes of people who commit rape.
Those studies have been done, by Steven Thompson of Central Michigan University, and, according to him, they strongly illustrate that a woman's clothing has nothing to do with a man raping her.
He describes the studies quite well when he speaks on primary rape prevention--his talks include a strong section on myths associated with who commits rape, and how, and why.
One of his main messages is that men decide to rape women for reasons that have nothing to do with the women.
He does not tolerate--and is educated enough to shoot down all excuses for--victim blaming.
http://www.cmich.edu/SAPA/Programs/Steve_Thompson.htm
Thanks for linking to this! I didn't know about this study, and am a Michigan resident, so it's encouraging to see studies like this being done right at Central.
I think I recall reading that, because of the fact that domestic violence and rape are most often committed by boyfriends/friends/acquaintances, a woman is actually safer wandering around outside than in her own house.
My best friend was raped by a male high school friend when she invited him over to watch a movie one night - in her own home. I don't buy any of the "but she might have put herself into a dangerous situation" bullshit. You simply do not expect (and should not have to expect) to get raped when you invite a male friends over to your house to watch a movie. Idiotic.
However, if it means the respondents think some victims acted stupidly by putting themselves in a situation they should have known was risky, that strikes me as pretty reasonable.
Situations people should have known were risky:
-- going to public places
-- wearing clothes of any kind
-- being in the company of other human beings without being 100% sure that they are not members of a rape culture
-- "putting themselves" in situations in which they could not ensure they would be the strongest/fastest individual and thus be able to facilitate escape
Yeah, those are some silly situations to put yourself into.
This is a really pernicious attitude and just as bad as the one you cite as problematic. There is never, ever, ever a time when the responsibility for sexual assault lies with anyone, at all, besides the rapist. And there is never a time when anybody needs to evaluate what a victim/survivor could have done differently or better.
Your response makes me think of that ruling a while back, can't remember where, that a young woman who tried to take legal action against a creep who took a picture up her skirt didn't have the "reasonable expectation of privacy" because she wore a skirt in public.
I don't think the snark is fair. There's a reasonable attempt being made here to be judicious. Obviously, while its not my fault if I forget to lock my door & a robber burglarizes my home, its extremely unwise to leave my home unlocked. There's a big difference between moral culpability & unwise behavior. Surely we can agree that while the moral culpability is 100% exclusively that of the rapist, limiting your exposure to risk & criminal behavior is something we all can do to improve personal safety. I carry pepper spray for instance, and have a gun. Other prudent steps may be declining drinks from strangers (or at least watching that they didn't tamper with it). I wouldn't leave my car windows down, with the key in the ignition & the engine running next to a known chop shop for instance. There's a big difference between that & saying "women shouldn't wear short skirts."
I have no problem with anything anyone wants to do to make themselves feel safer in the world around them, such as the pepper spray you mention. At the same time, I simply do not think that the "what could she have done differently" discourse, no matter how well-intentioned, is a particularly productive one. The onus is not on women to do anything differently because there is never a circumstance in which it is appropriate or excusable to assault someone.
"I simply do not think that the "what could she have done differently" discourse, no matter how well-intentioned, is a particularly productive one."
I think any discussion that educates people about good common sense ways to improve their own personal safety & reduce risk is a good one...and at least in terms of protecting the life of me & my family, extremely productive.
Discussions such as these are better aimed at those who are not victims of rape, I think. Outlining ways to stay safer in a general sense is more productive than saying "Well, if you did x, you wouldn't be in this situation."
Seems to be the same general principle, but the execution changes it from victim blaming to advice.
Given that women are most likely to be raped by a current or former partner, it seems to me that being in a relationship with a human male is 'acting stupidly'.
The whole 'acting stupid' thing really grinds my gears. If a gay couple show affection in public they're probably raising their chances of being beaten up, but surely only a total wankshaft would suggest that they were being idiots.
I liked your comment, but please don't use the term "wankshaft"; it's gendered.
You're right, sorry!
Given that most rapists know their victims, avoiding "risky" situations would mean avoiding dates, male friends, boyfriends, husbands, brothers, fathers, and uncles. You couldn't have a male roomate, or ask your male neighbor for a cup of sugar, or accept a drink from a male bartender. Do you seriously think women should "take responsibility" for failing to cut themselves off from half the population?
Rape victims do not bear any responsibility for their rapes, period. Women should not have to apologize for living their lives, whether that means going on a date, getting drunk in the presence of a man, or even walking down that dark alley most people imagine to be prime rapist territory (and what if you live at the end of that alley?).
Samitha
apart from the fact that an online poll can hardly be considered representative of anything...
interestingly, I think that predominant understandings of rape are predominantly shaped by a negative attitude towards male sexualiy. Feminism tries to get around that by assigning the negative attitudes to cultural rather than essential phenomena (eg rape *culture* rather than men *are* like that), but the discoursive result is, in my opinion, pretty much the same.
As long as such a negative/predatory view of male sexuality/accultured male sexuality is the default position even in enlightened quarters, it seems obvious that women will adopt a defensive stand with respect to their own sexuality and responsibility.
I apologize for my dismissiveness, but jayjay323, your comment makes no sense.
No one who knows what they're talking about would say that male sexuality is inherently predatory. In fact, it seems that feminism exists to crush that lazy stereotype as much as it exists to crush lazy stereotypes about female sexuality.
We all come up in a culture that supports male dominance. That means that thoughtful men have to fight against jacked-up acculturation. It does not assume that all men are predatory. It does mean that both men and women have to be honest in response to facts about who usually gets raped and who usually decides to commit rape.
Godsey,
I don't see a contradition to what I've said. I didn't say that (most) people who know what they're talking about would actually hold that position, but rather that the discoursive result (what sticks in people's minds) will be similar. If you asked a representative group of people about whether their perception is that feminist discourse generally believes that "male sexuality is predatory" you would very likely hear mostly "yes". But if you asked an equally sized sample of feminists, they would likely say that they don't believe that male sexuality is predatory, just like you say. The self-perception and the external perception of the feminist discourse are quite different, which means that it is quite possible for feminists to inadvertendly contribute to a discourse they are hoping to abolish.
What exactly in your opinion should feminists do to remedy this situation? Should they NOT critique a culture that doesn't take rape as seriously as it needs to be taken? Should we not encourage men to be respectful of a woman's bodily autonomy, and vice versa?
adag87,
Be a bit more aware that their discourse may be inadvertendly contribute to the social perception of the problem rather than be a part of the solution *even if it does not appear that way to them*. Find a way to explicitly include positive male sexuality in the discourse rather than (usually) only mentioning male sexuality when something went wrong - Naomi Wolf territory, basically.
Shira Tarrant's books Men and Feminism and Men Speak Out are strong examples of explicitly including positive male sexuality in the feminist discourse. They are not the only ones.
Godsey,
Thanks for illustrating my point. I think books like these are perfect examples of the problem I mentioned.
I'm not saying that people like Robert Jensen are not a part of masculinity discourse - but it strikes me as unrealistic to believe that books about and by people like him - who consider themselves to be "traitors to their gender, race, and class" as well as (at least at some point) claim to have given up sex at all because not even practicing homosexuality was, in their mind, able to change their perception of their own sexuality as violent and a tool of patriarchy - are an example of a positive inclusion of male sexuality in the feminist discourse and would not - certainly for people who aren't fluent in feminist lingo and history - contribute to the understanding of male sexuality as predatory.
jayjay323:
Shira Tarrant's books (and many other feminist books that address male sexuality) include quite a few perspectives other than Jensen's and those like his. Reducing any book that includes his perspective to being defined by his perspective seems like a mistake.
Blog comment sections lead to all sorts of miscommunication, so I could be way off, but it seems like this is what you're arguing: Many people who misunderstand basic feminist theory stereotype feminists as believing that men's sexuality is inherently predatory.
It also seems like you're putting responsibility for such misunderstandings on feminists.
Which seems like it could amount to putting responsibility for correcting lazy, ill-informed stereotypes on the people who are stereotyped, and not on the lazy, in-formed stereotypers. (Stereotypists?)
That's what doesn't make any sense.
Godsey,
yes, that's what I'm saying.
It's one of the oldest rules of public speaking/writing that the reader/listener is not responsible for understanding what you intended to say, it's the author's responsibility to make sure she's/he's not misunderstood. So, yes, you're right - I think correcting that should be part of the feminist discourse.
Particularly since correcting it would be in the best interest of women, because changing that discourse would, in my opinion, more than anything, allow heterosexual women to truly liberate their own sexuality.
Audience assessment in writing and speaking is indeed important. Vital, even.
But human beings, even those who self-identify as being feminists or supporting feminism, don't have the same abilities or obligations to assess audiences that writers and speakers have.
Feminism as a concept can't craft a message that anticipates and addresses possible misunderstandings. Neither can feminists (and their allies), in their many flavors and factions, en masse.
Correcting stereotypes is the responsibility of people who use them as ostensibly accurate definitions. If stereotype targets could correct misperceptions by just speaking more clearly, then most social-justice movements like feminism wouldn't need to exist.
Are you also taking to task the increasing popularity of seduction and pick-up communities, some of whom also describe male sexuality as predatory? How about religious fundamentalist views on sexuality?
Frankly, feminist discourse of rape culture is probably the fairest way to discuss what really amounts to probabilities. Not the probability that any man is a threat, but the probability that at any given moment the woman is under threat.
And as far as where the negativity is coming from, please consider what happens when we remove the he said/she said and the nuance of courtship. What happens when sexual intent is explicit? That's pretty much what consensual sex work is, right? So in a way sex work should give somewhat of a pure view of sexuality from at least the perspective of those persons seeking out sex.
And while I'd like to think that the gatekeeping/predator narrative is absent, I don't think it is. I won't say it's dominant either, but it seems to be high enough up on the list of concerns of both men and women who have male clients. For example, there is prejudice against sex workers who are raped or assaulted "on the job", even when sex work is legalized. This is unacceptable.
And we won't even get into the scope and extent of non-consensual sex work, which is unequivocally predatory in nature.
aka spike the cat,
the "males are inherently predatory" is a very old cultural thread and those contributing to it deserve criticism. Usually though, those promoting such a point of view will believe that is an accurate description of reality, whereas, I think, most contemporary strands of feminism explicitly distance themselves from the idea of inherently predatory males while their discourse will inadvertendly continue to be seen as supporting that stance.
I don't quite understand why you use a sex worker example, but I completely agree with your statement -
I think, most contemporary strands of feminism explicitly distance themselves from the idea of inherently predatory males while their discourse will inadvertendly continue to be seen as supporting that stance.
Could you be more specific about how feminist discourse is being seen as supporting the idea of the predatory man even though it's trying to do the opposite? I'm not sure that I'm understanding where you're coming from.
I don't quite understand why you use a sex worker example, but I completely agree with your statement
If we are asking questions about the nature of sexuality, it shouldn't matter if the victim is a wife or a sex worker.
In fact, sex work tends to be devoid of a lot of the so-called gray areas that obfuscate consent---areas which unfortunately people seem to get hung up on when trying to understand the root of sexual violence.
Attitudes toward and legal treatment of sex workers, reveal the true minimum standard for people to start placing blame on the woman; and these attitudes speak truth about whose sexual agency is mostly accepted and whose is largely rejected.
Although the study didn't ask about view on sex worker victims, sex work provides some clarity of just how the gatekeeping/predatory theme extends largely unchallenged across the full range of heterosexual partnering in our society.
The discourse about rape culture isn't perfect by any stretch, especially with respect to male victims and female victimizers, which is a fair criticism. But when you said the following:
I think, most contemporary strands of feminism explicitly distance themselves from the idea of inherently predatory males while their discourse will inadvertendly continue to be seen as supporting that stance.
How would you change the discourse such that it doesn't support that stance?
darned these moderated comments that don't show up right away, lol. You can ignore the last part of my comment (hopefully it shows up in order, lol). I see you answered the question above about changing the conversation...
i gotchu aka spike the cat!
-community moderator
"...if they'd gone to bed with the attacker."
What the heck does "gone to bed" mean here? Date rape? Marital rape? One-night-stand-that-I- regret "rape"?
I wonder if the disparity between men and women have to do with how they imagine that question. For example, guys are thinking "well of course if the guy rapes his gf, that's not her fault" whereas the women read the question as "yeah, if you go to a guy's apartment, you are consenting to sexual activity."(I REALLY hate that meme, btw)
When I was in college I never went to bed with women that had been drinking because even though they were at the time active, consenting participants becasue I was a afraid of One-night-stand-that-I- regret "rape" accusation, or a consenting partner waking up not remembering that she had consented.
I actually left college with the opinion that women were drinking to get laid. Just like a guy doing drinking to get the courage to approach somebody. it seemed the ladies at university were desirous to blame it on the vodka, or perhaps the henny, but I was terrified that they might blame me.
... it seemed the ladies at university were desirous to blame it on the vodka.
When you live in a culture where women who desire, have, or enjoy sex are treated like used-up dirty whores whom no one will want to marry or have a family with, and when women's worth is tied up with their sexual purity (try Jessica's _The Purity Myth_), this is what results. :/ When you don't "plan" for the sex, or are able to "blame" at least part of it on the booze, you're less of a whore.
Isn't patriarchy great.
Unfortunately, I am not surprised. I was in a production of The Vagina Monologues this year and a discussion of rape degenerated into a "*tsk tsk* stop dressing like a ho if you don't want that kind of attention" thing. Ick.
It sucks that you had that experience at a VDay! Whatever happened to "My Short Skirt"?
stabbygail;
"The onus is not on women to do anything differently because there is never a circumstance in which it is appropriate or excusable to assault someone."
I must say I disagree. While I agree that assault is never appropriate or excusable, it is bad risk management to totally remove the onus for victims (I write victims, not women) not to do any thing differently.
Rapist + Victim = rape.
It's wrong to say "Life is unfair, and bad things happen, but I shouldn't have to do anything to protect myself". We wear seat belts when we drive, yes? People long ago learned to store grain in times of plenty for famine and built cisterns for dry times.
And also, is somebody who has never raped a rapist? I understand the formula above is simple and lacks a belief that rape is okay and opportunity. What do you have when you have somebody with rape in their heart but not opportunity and no victims? A wanker?
What, exactly, is the "seatbelt when you drive" protection equivalent for rape?
The problem with your analogies is that neither have an adversary who chooses to injure (unless you believe in weather gods, or want to consider the tiny portion of drivers who might think crashing into another car is a good idea). In these instances you are protecting yourself against things not people.
By suggesting that women should take steps to protect themselves from rape, you add to the weight of perception that restricts their movement and oppresses them. Rape warnings, or advice are equally as oppressive as the fact that rape occurs. Perceived fear can be just as limiting as real violence.
The only warnings that anyone should ever give are specific warnings. Warnings about specific individuals or a particular park/street if multiple sexual assaults have occurred there are appropriate. But only if the warning is given as information which a woman can then use to make her own decision.
I don't think that sexism is entirely to blame for this attitude. More often than not, those victim-blaming attitudes are coming straight from rape crisis centers.
When perhaps well-meaning agencies put out the message that women can prevent their own rape, they're doing a disservice to the people who are raped. By telling women that if they watch their drink enough, if they limit their movement enough, if they're enough of a 'good girl', etc they would be less likely to be assaulted.
The not-so-between-the-lines message here is 1) if you're raped, you were probably engaging in risky behavior (even if you weren't, people would think you were), so even if you're not to blame there will be a big ol' social stigma assigned to you & 2) that if you were better at protecting yourself, rape wouldn't happen to you.
Before I was raped, I heard that message. After I was raped, counselors at the local crisis center gave me the, "I don't care if you were standing naked in the street- nobody has the right to do that to you. Ever." My response was, "That's not what you told me yesterday." It took a while to shift my perspective.
I don't know why some in the prevention community have such an affinity for handy tips & lists of do's & don'ts (or how they can compose such a list without laughing)... but I do know that an empowering message goes a lot farther than a terrifying one. I'd settle for any message that isn't mixed w/victim blame.
We need to clean our own house first.
Those attitudes are quite pervasive. In a comment above, I mentioned a friend who was raped by an acquaintance of mine who wormed his way into our group of friends that were hanging out one night. When she reported it to the local police department a few days later, they gave her a lecture on drug and alcohol use. When I heard that happened, I was infuriated; she had never done any drugs or had any alcohol besides wine at church, and he was the one who had been drinking that night before he came over. What did the police think that kind of lecture would accomplish? This was five years ago, and it still makes me sick when I think about it.
Some police departments and individuals who work at them just don't get it. I'm sorry that happened to your friend. I know others who have had similar stuff happen when they've reported their assaults. It just makes survivors more reluctant to report.
While I agree that those lists suck, I think they are okay when directed at a general audience for general safety, such as "don't argue with the mugger who has a gun" or "here's how to beat someone out if they try to attack you" kind of stuff. But, along with that, there can't be any blame if someone doesn't do something...in those types of situations your brain doesn't really think back to the list because it's in fight or flight mode.
And please be careful when talking about rape crisis centers. You did insert 'some' into your comment later on, but at the beginning I thought "Okay, here is a big generalization..." I've volunteered at one and I know they're not perfect, but they can be one of the best resources for survivors these days.
We may be talking about different lists here...
I'm referring to lists like "Tips on How Not To Be Sexually Assaulted" which usually include many of the things mentioned whenever we talk about victim-blame, such as "don't drink, watch your drink, don't dress 'provocatively' (whatever that means), don't trust strangers, don't go out at night, etc ad nauseum."
I think that the "How Not to Be Fooled By a Serial Killer" variety are similarly, although perhaps slightly less, unhelpful. As you said, once someone's in a situation like that- the response it autonomic. Any "tips & tricks" really serve to fuel the victim-blame... not only of oneself, but it encourages victim-blame from the rest of the culture. (ie. See- look at this simple list. Anyone can read it. Why didn't you do it? Did you want that to happen to you? Didn't you get that fwd email about not getting into the stranger's van to save the puppy he says he has inside?")
Thanks for catching my lack of modifiers- I'm sure that well meaning & ethically operated rape crisis centers exist... it's just been a very long time since I encountered one. And I work at one as an advocate. The agency I work for published one of those lists, which was 85% about not drinking at parties around the holidays. The ad campaign was called "Keep Your Wits"... as in "if you had kept your wits about you, maybe you wouldn't have gotten raped! HA!" Which comes right back to the original idea.
This study points out how internalized sexism is such a serious problem. Even in this thread there are comments that somewhat support the views of the 71% of women and 57% of men in London.
I know how terrifying the constant threat of sexual assault is. I live with it every day and I have survived two attempted assaults at the age of twenty-two. But believing in a list of safety tips to "protect" me from harm and looking down on other women who didn't follow "the rules" is ridiculous.
"Safety tips" mean nothing when the majority of rapes are committed by individuals the survivor knows personally. Personally, every woman I know who has been raped or molested was attacked by someone they knew very well, i.e. their father, their cousin, their uncle, their boyfriend, their date, their best male friend. So even when these tips are delivered with the "best intentions" by progressive individuals, they only further encourage victim-blaming, which perpetuates our rape culture.
No matter what the circumstances are, the survivor is never to blame for their rape. The rapist is 100% responsible every single time because without their actions, there is no rape.
I don't know how or why the whole "but she dressed too provocatively" shit manages to retain its currency. All one need consider is the simple cross-cultural comparison of how much the burka has helped stop rape or enhanced respect for women's rights in Middle Eastern countries, or the historical consideration of how much long gowns or corsets prevented rape or enhanced respect in earlier European centuries - and that's pretty much ZERO. Women get treated like shit and raped whether they're wearing a goddamn burka, 70-pound long-sleeved gown, or a bikini.