Rowdy hen parties and very sensitive women

[Andy1976 10]

Have I missed something here. if your daft enough to wear a Wednesday shirt outside bramall lane at 2 45 today, then your asking to be assaulted.

 

More victim blaming

 

Just looking at this, I can certainly see the issue. I suspect that the people chanting 'it's victim blaming' know full well what posters such as Padders here mean, but don't want to admit it.

 

Of course the person at fault is the United fan (example) who punches the Wednesday fan outside Bramall Lane for his choice of top. Of course it's the assailant at fault.

 

What Padders et al are saying is that everyone has an element of personal responsibility, and if there is something that one can do to limit risks, they should take that step.

 

It's such an obvious concept that insurance companies literally base their products on it.

 

If your car is stolen, and you have left the engine running whilst you've gone inside, good luck claiming the money back.

 

Anyone would agree that the person at fault is the person who stole the car (MASSIVE EDIT THERE!). They chose to steal a car. You don't do that by accident, any more than you punch someone for their choice of top by accident.

 

The fact remains though that you can limit your risks, and insurers see that. You can lock and secure your property, in the same way that as a Wednesday fan, I wouldn't walk down Brammall Lane on a match day in a Wednesday top (not that I'd pay £60 for one).

 

That isn't victim blaming. It's people taking some responsibility for their own safety in the same way that you take responsibility for the safety of your property and don't leave your house unlocked.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Andy1976
Oops - typed too fast!

[Guest makapaka]

Does it scare you or your bandmates?

 

Why does that matter?

[Andy1976 10]

Does it scare you or your bandmates?

 

I wouldn't say scare - I'm a tall, large bloke, so very little scares me - it's certainly unwanted, particularly if my wife is at any of the gigs.

[Padders 2,891]

Just looking at this, I can certainly see the issue. I suspect that the people chanting 'it's victim blaming' know full well what posters such as Padders here mean, but don't want to admit it.

 

Of course the person at fault is the United fan (example) who punches the Wednesday fan outside Bramall Lane for his choice of top. Of course it's the assailant at fault.

 

What Padders et al are saying is that everyone has an element of personal responsibility, and if there is something that one can do to limit risks, they should take that step.

 

It's such an obvious concept that insurance companies literally base their products on it.

 

If your car is stolen, and you have left the engine running whilst you've gone inside, good luck claiming the money back.

 

Anyone would agree that the person at fault is the person who stole the car (MASSIVE EDIT THERE!). They chose to steal a car. You don't do that by accident, any more than you punch someone for their choice of top by accident.

 

The fact remains though that you can limit your risks, and insurers see that. You can lock and secure your property, in the same way that as a Wednesday fan, I wouldn't walk down Brammall Lane on a match day in a Wednesday top (not that I'd pay £60 for one).

 

That isn't victim blaming. It's people taking some responsibility for their own safety in the same way that you take responsibility for the safety of your property and don't leave your house unlocked.

 

Good post andy, well summed up. another thing what gets me, and I'm not victim blaming is when mega rich footballers walk about wearing on their wrists a £22,000 rolex watch (eg. andy carroll) its an advert for some thug to steal it... joe harts been targeted this weekend.

[Andy1976 10]

Good post andy, well summed up. another thing what gets me, and I'm not victim blaming is when mega rich footballers walk about wearing on their wrists a £22,000 rolex watch (eg. andy carroll) its an advert for some thug to steal it... joe harts been targeted this weekend.

 

Very true.

 

I once had this very argument with a lecturer at uni.

 

My view on it is very straight forward.

 

Yes, I should be able to walk in the worst areas of the city without fear. Yes, I should be able to leave the car running on the drive whilst I pop back in to let it warm up. Yes, I should be able to go out and leave a window open on a hot day.

 

I can't though. That, sadly, isn't 21st century life.

[Jonny5 10]

I was talking with my male friends the other day. Every one of us had had it happen too.

 

Whilst this is absolutely true it doesn't in any way excuse the way that certain men view and treat women.

[Andy1976 10]

Whilst this is absolutely true it doesn't in any way excuse the way that certain men view and treat women.

 

I don't think he's saying it does. I think he's saying it's unacceptable either way.

[Michael_W 11]

Whilst this is absolutely true it doesn't in any way excuse the way that certain men view and treat women.

 

There are so many women coming out saying that they have experienced this sort of treatment, that makes the issue one which concerns not just certain men but seemingly the male culture generally, that is unless this group of certain men is getting around a hell of a lot of women.

[El Cid 221]

There are so many women coming out saying that they have experienced this sort of treatment, that makes the issue one which concerns not just certain men but seemingly the male culture generally, that is unless this group of certain men is getting around a hell of a lot of women.

 

So its normal?

 

I guess we should all browse the internet and never touch anyone, or should be make it a prison-able offence, like in Saudi Arabia?

[SnailyBoy 10]

Just looking at this, I can certainly see the issue. I suspect that the people chanting 'it's victim blaming' know full well what posters such as Padders here mean, but don't want to admit it.

 

Of course the person at fault is the United fan (example) who punches the Wednesday fan outside Bramall Lane for his choice of top. Of course it's the assailant at fault.

 

What Padders et al are saying is that everyone has an element of personal responsibility, and if there is something that one can do to limit risks, they should take that step.

 

It's such an obvious concept that insurance companies literally base their products on it.

 

If your car is stolen, and you have left the engine running whilst you've gone inside, good luck claiming the money back.

 

Anyone would agree that the person at fault is the person who stole the car (MASSIVE EDIT THERE!). They chose to steal a car. You don't do that by accident, any more than you punch someone for their choice of top by accident.

 

The fact remains though that you can limit your risks, and insurers see that. You can lock and secure your property, in the same way that as a Wednesday fan, I wouldn't walk down Brammall Lane on a match day in a Wednesday top (not that I'd pay £60 for one).

 

That isn't victim blaming. It's people taking some responsibility for their own safety in the same way that you take responsibility for the safety of your property and don't leave your house unlocked.

 

Actually what Paddlers said was they 'deserve to be assaulted'.

 

What precautions should someone take to avoid unwanted sexual contact, in a bar/club etc?

[Padders 2,891]

Actually what Paddlers said was they 'deserve to be assaulted'.

 

What precautions should someone take to avoid unwanted sexual contact, in a bar/club etc?

 

I did"nt say that at all snailyboy, I said they were asking to be assaulted, there"s a difference.

 

precautions to take? well for a start don"t dress provocatively.

[Halibut 12]

Why does that matter?

 

Because I suspect most women perceive sexual comments and 'minor' sexual assaults as more frightening and threatening than most men.