Because I do have an ingrained habit of thinking that says "all men are (potentially) dangerous," but "so [all women should] stay away from them" only follows a little and "if you get hurt it's your own fault" doesn't follow at all. What is says to me is that I should make an evaluation of each situation based on a whole lot of circumstances, before deciding whether I'm comfortable walking home alone or being alone in a room with someone. It definitely doesn't mean "rape is normal" as described by [info]lilairen above. It definitely doesn't mean that anyone other than the rapist is to blame.
I agree with you that the assertions don't necessarily make logical sense or follow from each other, but I don't think that the fact that the idea is not well-formed stops people from believing in it, or having it shape their behavior and attitudes, to various extents. I also agree that individual situations should be assessed on their own merits whenever possible. I also agree that it shouldn't mean "oh, you were hanging out with men, you got raped, no big deal," or that anyone other than the rapist is to blame.
I think the point that I am trying to make is that so long as the attitude of "you got raped because you were hanging around a man, what did you really expect" exists, that that idea is going to color the talk about sexuality and emotions surrounding sexuality in general, such that the idea is going to be there hanging around, ready to be brought out as a wrongheaded justification, when the conversation turns to rape in particular (since rape is part of people's experience of sexuality). That is the point I was trying (and failing, I hope I explained it here) to make.
It's hard to tease out connections; these ideas seem to exist in the opposite of a contextual vaccuum, where the connections from idea to idea are almost too thick to see and follow. I am going to make a personal aside here by way of explanation, and hope I don't derail the conversation:
My sophomore year of college I went home for the summer and was having a lot of trouble finding a job. I needed to have a job to be able go back to school the next year, so I was interviewing for anything. My father drove me to one interview at a pizza place, where I interviewed for a delivery person job, and was informed that I had gotten the job. I told my father, who said, "turn it down. I don't want you to take this job." I boggled, and argued, but my father was very firm: "I won't let you take it." I gave up, angry and mystified. Later on that same summer, he became convinced that I shouldn't walk around in the woods where I had been going since I was 8 because homeless people lived "down there in the bushes." Later on that summer, I realized that my father probably didn't want me working with an all-male pizza delivery staff or to run the risks of delivering pizza to the "bad part of the city," where drug deals and shootings were/are a regular occurance. I also realized that he was worried about my being dragged into the bushes and raped by the non-existant homeless people.
I think that in his head there was this narrative, of "I don't want my daughter to get hurt, especially by being around men who are possibly dangerous, so I will make her stay away from where I think there may be possibly dangerous men." I feel like in all of this, he never actually needed to utter the word "rape" to get across the idea that he was worried that men *might* rape me, because it was already there in the cultural discourse surrounding men's and women's sexuality and rape; I knew it already without ever talking about it, and so did he (although I am not clear if he knew that I knew it. I find it more problematic that he didn't realize that I'd already started educating myself about rape, and realized that I could and ought to take steps to prevent being raped as much as possible). I think in this case my father and I discussed emotions surrounding sexuality and men by avoiding discussing them, but the idea, "dangerous men rape so I will not let you put yourself in a situation where rape is to be expected/assumed," was still so strong neither of us had to state it aloud.
no subject
I agree with you that the assertions don't necessarily make logical sense or follow from each other, but I don't think that the fact that the idea is not well-formed stops people from believing in it, or having it shape their behavior and attitudes, to various extents. I also agree that individual situations should be assessed on their own merits whenever possible. I also agree that it shouldn't mean "oh, you were hanging out with men, you got raped, no big deal," or that anyone other than the rapist is to blame.
I think the point that I am trying to make is that so long as the attitude of "you got raped because you were hanging around a man, what did you really expect" exists, that that idea is going to color the talk about sexuality and emotions surrounding sexuality in general, such that the idea is going to be there hanging around, ready to be brought out as a wrongheaded justification, when the conversation turns to rape in particular (since rape is part of people's experience of sexuality). That is the point I was trying (and failing, I hope I explained it here) to make.
It's hard to tease out connections; these ideas seem to exist in the opposite of a contextual vaccuum, where the connections from idea to idea are almost too thick to see and follow. I am going to make a personal aside here by way of explanation, and hope I don't derail the conversation:
My sophomore year of college I went home for the summer and was having a lot of trouble finding a job. I needed to have a job to be able go back to school the next year, so I was interviewing for anything. My father drove me to one interview at a pizza place, where I interviewed for a delivery person job, and was informed that I had gotten the job. I told my father, who said, "turn it down. I don't want you to take this job." I boggled, and argued, but my father was very firm: "I won't let you take it." I gave up, angry and mystified. Later on that same summer, he became convinced that I shouldn't walk around in the woods where I had been going since I was 8 because homeless people lived "down there in the bushes." Later on that summer, I realized that my father probably didn't want me working with an all-male pizza delivery staff or to run the risks of delivering pizza to the "bad part of the city," where drug deals and shootings were/are a regular occurance. I also realized that he was worried about my being dragged into the bushes and raped by the non-existant homeless people.
I think that in his head there was this narrative, of "I don't want my daughter to get hurt, especially by being around men who are possibly dangerous, so I will make her stay away from where I think there may be possibly dangerous men." I feel like in all of this, he never actually needed to utter the word "rape" to get across the idea that he was worried that men *might* rape me, because it was already there in the cultural discourse surrounding men's and women's sexuality and rape; I knew it already without ever talking about it, and so did he (although I am not clear if he knew that I knew it. I find it more problematic that he didn't realize that I'd already started educating myself about rape, and realized that I could and ought to take steps to prevent being raped as much as possible). I think in this case my father and I discussed emotions surrounding sexuality and men by avoiding discussing them, but the idea, "dangerous men rape so I will not let you put yourself in a situation where rape is to be expected/assumed," was still so strong neither of us had to state it aloud.