TRUST IN GOD, BUT TIE UP YOUR CAMEL...

TRIGGER WARNING:

Below the cut I will be critiquing a cartoon which contains information about sexual assault and/or violence which may be triggering to survivors. The descriptions themselves will not be graphic but I thought I should include this warning as a courtesy.

     I saw this, uh...comic? (what do you call comics which were never meant to be funny but are still done in the style?) the other day, but I'm only posting the part relevant to what I wanted to say here. The original post is here (same TRIGGER WARNING applies if you follow the link). It's this argument, which I've heard before:

(click on image to enlarge)

     Understand me, I grasp what she is saying. I'm also not going to sit here and type out an argument that suggests it is entirely the woman's responsibility "not to get hurt". No, I just think the logic behind the argument, not the argument itself, is faulty and I think the way to illustrate it is to offer at least two examples, each of which has been stripped of its sexual variables and replaced with something else. I'll offer one malignant exchange and one benign one and I'll try to stick to the original poster's wording as much as possible.

The malignant example:

1. It's not fair that I have to be terrified when I go walking in my finest jewels and lavish fur coat after 6 p.m. or when I'm on the bus holding a wad of cash out in the open going to the bank to make a deposit.
2. Then don't go out wearing your finest jewels in a lavish fur coat or flashing a large sum of money when you go out. That's common sense!
3. That's ROBBERY CULTURE. When you tell me it's my responsibility not to get robbed, you take away the responsibility of a human being not to STEAL.

A benign example:

1. It's not fair that I have to be terrified my dog will eat my dinner when I get up to go to the bathroom or go outside to get the mail.
2. Then put your food where your dog can't get at it when you have to get away for a few minutes. That's common sense!
3. That's TRAINING CULTURE. When you tell me it's my responsibility not to have my dog eat my food, you take away the responsibility of a dog not to TAKE WHAT ISN'T HIS.

     Oversimplification? Probably. Belittling? Not my intent. The first part of the argument where she claims that it isn't fair that the onus is on her to prevent her own rape is something I agree with wholeheartedly. It really isn't fair. In fact, it totally sucks that a woman needs to take any such precautions in life. She should be able to walk down any street of her choosing at any time and with or without as many companions as she desires and should expect no ill to come of such a decision. Should a woman ever be raped? No. Emphatically no. Is there ever any justification for it? Absolutely not. However, it does not absolve her from being aware that there are in fact monsters which walk among us and that those monsters wear our faces. At least with predation among the lesser species, the terror comes from another. A hare does not fear another hare, but a hawk or a fox.

     But think of the first example. If I were to go walking down a street bedecked in jewelry and flashing a lot of cash, would I deserve to be robbed? And if I were robbed, did I deserve it? The answer to both questions is no. I should not have been robbed nor would I have deserved to have been robbed and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking asshole. No one deserves to have their property forcibly taken from them. However, is it really so wrong to suggest that I should have taken some sort of precaution? The police already warn not to announce vacation plans on social networking sites; you are advised to freeze delivery of newspapers and have your mail held when going away (so that it doesn't become obvious no one is home); it is advised you don't have shrubbery which blocks your windows (where a thief could get in and out undetected); among many other precautions, the least of which is to lock your door (surprisingly, a major cause of burglary is an unlocked door - breaking and entering makes noise, but if you can just walk in...).
     The original argument in the cartoon suggests that she feels it should not be her responsibility to even lock her house or car door when leaving it unattended because it is the responsibility of others to not steal. And again, she's right. People should not steal...but they do. They also should not lie, cheat, murder, betray, etc. ... but they do. So in light of this knowledge, does it not behoove us to take at least minor precautions with regards to our possessions? And if so, would it not also follow that we are also obligated to take at least minor precautions with regards to our safety? If you would scold someone for walking down a street flashing easily stolen, unsecured valuables, why is it wrong to scold someone for failing to employ basic personal safety measures? I don't hear outrage at Halloween when children are advised to bring flashlights and not to wear masks which obscure their vision, especially their peripheral vision, too greatly - why is it the children's responsibility to not get hit by cars? It is the responsibility of drivers not to hit children, right?
      And let me cut in for a moment before I hear the usual bullshit argument about the clothes the girl was wearing or something like that. I'm pretty sure rape is an opportunistic crime based on a confluence of circumstances like you were alone (no one will see you taken or fight to protect you or simply make a lot of noise), the attacker could conceal himself easily (bad lighting, bushes, etc.), and that you and the attacker could be hidden from view while the attack happens. None of that has to do with fucking clothing.
    
     The second argument is admittedly at least slightly belittling. The point is, that it is naïve to live life under the assumption that others will live responsibly. Human beings SHOULD live responsibly and ethically and morally...but some don't. Thankfully their numbers are few, but enough exist that it is foolish to pretend they don't and more foolish still to feel one should not have to deviate from idealistic behavior while existing in this world. The behavior of men is mostly good...mostly, but the behavior of evil men is really no different from that of the Frog and the Scorpion, and such a lesson should be heeded.
     I am a coin collector, but I am not a proud one; but rather, a closeted one in public and in places where my name is known. Believe me, I wish I could display my favorite find or the finest I've acquired and talk about them on my Facebook wall and in other public places...but I know no good would come of that. It would be stolen from me in time...years of work ruined, many thousands of dollars lost.

      My problem with the cartoonist's argument is that it is 0% her and 100% everybody else when the balance is decidedly not so extreme. I would not argue that it is 50-50. That would be absurd as well as paranoia-inducing. I'm not sure what that balance of responsibility would be except that it would be greater than 0%. I'm sure our personal responsibility, while small, will always feel unduly burdensome whereas our responsibility as people to not harm others would be very large, but hardly felt at all as most of us are not tempted to commit crime...or even tempted by its temptation. Just get a feel for the odds, and act accordingly I suppose. I'm tired. Sleepy time for me. Educate me in the comment section.