Re: [wc] JonBenet

Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:00:00 -0700

I should know better to throw a bomb into the middle of a thread and then have to go back to work, so it looks like I'm not interested in responding.  Anyway, this line was the one I was reacting to in specific:
 
So even though I don't think the parents did it, I still don't
think
> > they are off the hook because putting her in the pageants put her
at
> > risk for pedophiles. My 2c.
 
Clearly, I HATE lines of reasoning like this where people apportion blame to crime victims.  I recognize that a lot of people are going to disagree with me on this one basically along the lines of the TSTL (Too Stupid To Live) principle.  But when we apportion any responsibility whatsoever to people who did not commit the crimes and are in fact victims, we negate part of the responsibility that should wholly belong to the perpetrator.  To my understanding, violent crime is zero-sum. 
 
I also think people use this excuse as a crutch.  We think, "It won't happen to me because I'm not stupid," when that makes little difference (I did say little).  Plenty of children participate in these pageants and don't die, and plenty of children are never anywhere near them and are abused by people they know.  People are raped, robbed, beaten and murdered all the time, in all kinds of situations whether they were 'being smart' or not; and people make it home safe and unharmed when they were being dumb as dirt.  When we talk about "You shouldn't have been in that situation," we're really trying to say, "How do I make it so that doesn't happen to me?"  Because we identify with the victim and the thought of being powerless in the face of physical threat is so frightening we end up blaming the victim which is also making excuses for the murderer.  Thatsort of reasoning is what I was reacting to (albeit without explaining myself well).
 
Should you sleep naked in Central Park or let your kid play alone with a defrocked priest?  I'm agreed, statistically unwise.  But where is the demarcation of responsibility?  Should your kids never be allowed to walk home alone? Should all women never get drunk in bars?  Should all grown men be kept away from small children?  Where's the line where it stops being our fault we 'got' mugged/raped/killed?
 
 
On 8/17/06, Ellen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm just repeating what I read in several places. Blaming the
victim? No I'm not blaming the victim. I'm partially blaming beauty
pageants for young children and the parents who think this is a good
idea. These pageants have long been thought to objectify children as
sex objects. I think you're jumping to conclusions.

--- In [email protected] , "Hannah Robinson"


<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You're just trying to send my blood pressure throught the roof,
right?
> Because when you blame the victim you realize you shift blame from
the
> perpetrators, right?
>
> I hope you're never on a rapist's jury. Clearly it would have been
her
> fault for being in the bar in the first place.
>
>
> On 8/17/06, Ellen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I know this isn't funny, but I wonder whether the JonBenet
case will
> > cause parents to think twice about putting their kids in beauty
> > pageants. As I said, I never thought the parents killed her, but
at
> > the same time I didn't think her being a child beauty queen was
> > coincidental. Looks like her pageants caused the suspect to have
> > pedophiliac attraction to her, which to be honest is not
surprising.
> > So even though I don't think the parents did it, I still don't
think
> > they are off the hook because putting her in the pageants put her
at
> > risk for pedophiles. My 2c.
> >
> >
> >
>


__._,_.___


SPONSORED LINKS
Identity Flag Guessing

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



__,_._,___

Reply via email to