Louisville Mojo: The Louisville Forums and Message Boards

page: ~1~ [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Author

Who's to blame?

Messages 1 - 17

Robotimon

msg local #18255

posted Thu Oct 29 4:16 pm	5187 posts · tenured: aug '04	Delete Edit
A woman has been visiting her boyfriend in a village nearby her home. She needs to go home after dark, but the problem is that the woods in between her boyfriend's home and her home have been the site of some grisly murders in the last few months. Afraid to go home by herself, she asks her boyfriend to accompany her. He says he has to work too early in the morning and that she's welcome to stay, but he's not going to walk her home tonight. Pissed off, she decides to find her own way home. She gets to the ferry at the river, which would allow her to bypass the woods in between her and home. Unfortunately, the ferry has just shut down for the night. She explains her situation to the ferryman, but he refuses to reopen just for her. This means she'll have to cross the bridge, and go through the woods. At this point, she's scared, because she realizes that she is going to have to walk home through the woods. But she decides to go through with it. She's murdered in the woods. Who's to blame?

grumm81

msg local #38364

posted Thu Oct 29 4:33 pm	277 posts · tenured: Feb '05	Delete Edit
Ooooo, good one. The chivalrous answer: The boyfriend's to blame, as he couldn't be bothered to walk her home knowing that the murders had been occuring. Another chivalrous answer: The Ferryman's to blame, as he couldn't be bothered to reopen, knowing that the murders had been occuring. The chauvinistic answer: The woman's to blame, because she could have just stayed at the boyfriend's house, knowing that the murders had been occuring. The realistic answer: Whoever is commiting the murders is to blame, because, well, they're killing people. The problematic answer: E) all of the above.

Beulahlandman

msg local #108777

posted Thu Oct 29 7:19 pm	8486 posts · tenured: Jan '06	Delete Edit
The killers are legally to blame. SHE bears the burden of being killed.

Urban Sasquatch

msg local #285987

posted Thu Oct 29 9:10 pm	1087 posts · tenured: Nov '08	Delete Edit
Grumm approached all angles. I'll say again, Grumm said it best; but that problematic answer is where things get tetchy. The girl wasn't just walking home, she was walking home despite that she KNEW murders were occurring in the wood AND her boyfriend made the offer to stay. The boyfriend could have sucked it up and walked her home, done the chivalrous thing; but he didn't. He DID, however, offer her an alternative and he DID tell her WHY he wasn't walking her home. Is that optimal? No, it's not, but it's a solution. What if he walked her home and was killed himself on his way back to HIS home? Would that just be the risks a man runs, or would she be accountable because despite being offered alternatives she just HAD to have her way? The ferryman COULD have opened the ferry, but he's really under no obligation to handle this girl's problem -- let alone that he is unaware it's a problem she's compounded by basically insisting on having her way regardless of circumstances. The murderer didn't have to murder her -- but he's not a man in the strictest sense, he's a criminal, someone who has demonstrated a disregard for both the property and lives of others. He's basically a predatory animal -- period. Saying he SHOULDN'T be doesn't change reality. In the end it's a series of unfortunate events; but ultimately the girl knowingly put herself into a dangerous situation, and not an accidental one. If there was a Brave Woodsman in this story and he killed the murderer and rescued the girl, then should he sweep her up in his arms and carry her off to safety where they build a house and have a picket fence and several children, or should he shake her around until her teeth rattle and say "What the fuck is WRONG with you, ya damned idiot? You came in here KNOWING people are getting killed, and you could have gotten ME killed! I had to kill someone to save your pathetic ass! How do you think I'm going to cope with that for the rest of my life, huh?!? You stupid bitch, I ought to kill you myself!" Or is that just too brutal for this poor, traumatized waif after all she's been through?

Cog

msg local #150781

posted Thu Oct 29 9:38 pm	6336 posts · tenured: Jul '06	Delete Edit
The ferryman can't believe his luck. He heads into the woods, unsheathing his blade as slips along the path behind her.

Robotimon

msg local #18255

posted Thu Oct 29 9:57 pm	5187 posts · tenured: Aug '04	Delete Edit
How about another example to make the point clearer: There's a serial rapist attacking women in a specific neighborhood. His method involves breaking in, blinding the women with a very bright flashlight so they can't see his face, and then attacking them. A woman on one street in the neighborhood gets sexually assaulted by him. Her neighbor a few houses down, a friend, knows about this and about his method. She chooses not to move from the neighborhood, but sleeps with the lights on for months because she figures he won't break in if he can't blind her with the flashlight. One night, she decides she's slept with the light on long enough--she's begun to feel paranoid. She turns out the light and goes to bed. The rapist has been watching, or happens to coincidentally see that her light is out, and climbs the porch to her second floor w i n d o w. He knocks something over getting the screen out and she jumps out of bed to see a flashlight beam on the wall in the front room. She turns on the light and runs out the door to the apartment across the hall. Now, if she were to have actually been attacked, was she to blame for not moving, not getting a dog, not insisting that her boyfriend stay with her every night, or turning out the lights on that night? Would her boyfriend have been at fault for not staying with her every night? Would her landlord have been at fault for not installing the safety lights she'd requested?

Robotimon

msg local #18255

posted Thu Oct 29 9:59 pm	5187 posts · tenured: Aug '04	Delete Edit
The murderer didn't have to murder her -- but he's not a man in the strictest sense, he's a criminal, someone who has demonstrated a disregard for both the property and lives of others. He's basically a predatory animal -- period. Saying he SHOULDN'T be doesn't change reality. So, he or she is not to blame?

Cardinal Scooby

msg local #143207

posted Thu Oct 29 10:27 pm	29799 posts · tenured: Jun '06	Delete Edit
Cog gave the best answer.

Cog

msg local #150781

posted Thu Oct 29 11:37 pm	6336 posts · tenured: Jul '06	Delete Edit
It appears to be human nature to try to separate ourselves from the thought of those sorts of things ever happening to us. We're too smart to go into the woods alone like that stupid woman who died her grisly death. ...and, well duh, everyone knows you're supposed to sleep with the bathroom light on. I'd certainly move, get a dog, and sleep with klieg lights on if that would save me from being raped. Why was she so lazy. Way deep down inside we evaluate how these women failed to protect themselves, where they went wrong, then go down our checklist of why we are safe. There is only one other way to feel really safe. Blame every noise you hear on the cat. We blame, specifically, the murderer and the rapist. We blame them, prosecute them, punish them, release them, and they never commit another act of violence again.

turnmon

msg local #50396

online

posted Thu Oct 29 11:47 pm	4799 posts · tenured: Apr '05	Delete Edit
There is only one other way to feel really safe. Blame every noise you hear on the cat. Or, hang out with badasses. Or, realize that what is YOU isn't in danger . . . ever.

grumm81

msg local #38364

posted Thu Oct 29 11:58 pm	277 posts · tenured: Feb '05	Delete Edit
Again, while it is the specific individual who is commiting the crimes that bears the true blame, every single person in the area where the crime is being commited bears a sort of illusory blame, because each could, at some point, prevent the crime from happening. You cannot blame the victim for what the criminal does, no matter how stupid the victim behaved. That's like looking at a woman who was raped and sayig "Yeah, but you were dressed slutty, so it's your own fault for enticing men like that".

turnmon

msg local #50396

online

posted Fri Oct 30 12:12 am	4799 posts · tenured: Apr '05	Delete Edit
You cannot blame the victim for what the criminal does, no matter how stupid the victim behaved. I think this site has covered that pretty thoroughly in the last couple of days.

turnmon

msg local #50396

online

posted Fri Oct 30 12:23 am	4799 posts · tenured: Apr '05	Delete Edit
Or, realize that what is YOU isn't in danger . . . ever. me. I think this is the first time I've ever had to quote myself here. . . ever. hehe. I just wanted to make clear that this is no excuse to forget that we live now in this dimension, and that all our actions have consequences. It's a damned strange-ass world these days. Protect yourselves. The daemons are rising. Witness brothers n sisters!

Urban Sasquatch

msg local #285987

posted Fri Oct 30 7:58 am	1087 posts · tenured: Nov '08	Delete Edit
How about another example to make the point clearer: How about this: In that example it's not a woman being offered alternatives and refusing to take them despite knowing the risks, it's a woman determining whether to give up her home. - I want to go home tonight through the woods where people are being killed and I'm going to get my way no matter what. - I can't believe this is happening in my neighborhood. Should I MOVE and deal with all the inconveniences that bears while coping with the knowledge I let "them" win? They're NOT the same thing. Like it or not, it's different. Every possible scenario comes under some form of judgment or scrutiny. In the second scenario you offer, NO, I wouldn't think the woman should have to move. In a perfect world crime wouldn't happen and good people wouldn't have to endure bad things from bad people because there wouldn't be any bad people. I know what we're after here is A) proving that women who end up in bad situations are blameless, and B) finding some form of perfect blame assignment. The problem with that is that A) some women end up in bad situations through NO fault of their own and that totally sucks, while B) some women end up in bad situations because they're full of shit about how the world works and they think they have only RIGHTS, no RESPONSIBILITIES. I find myself in partial disagreement with something Grumm said above; only partial because again, it varies in degrees. Women have had charges diminished because of "temporary insanity" brought on my menstrual fluctuations, PMS, etc. I'm not saying it's widespread and rampant, but it's happened. I knew a woman once who was forced to go on testosterone therapy for a condition she had, a very, very LOW dose of test, not even what a man has coursing through him on a daily basis. After two days of sweating and moodiness she asked me, point blank, if being constantly horny was what men went through all the time because she couldn't believe how fried out of her mind she was with sex coursing through her veins, felt like she was going insane looking at men she'd NEVER look at, wanting to tear her husband apart and not feeling like it was enough. It opened her eyes a bit; she admitted to me later that she felt differently about men after that, realized that we had reasons for constantly seeking reasons to blow off steam. Frankly, I wish a lot more women had to go through that, much as women wish men had to endure periods or giving birth. Thing is, we're expected to rein it in, control ourselves, while women have the right to do as they please with no consequence. It's ironic that in a conversation like this every woman assumes women WON'T and DON'T behave this way because the individual involved at the time feels that SHE never would and that must be representative of womankind; yet if you ever call a woman "a typical woman" she's infuriated because she knows she's different than the women around her. In EVERY rape case (which is where this thread was inspired) I feel the perps need to be punished, in some cases brutally. But the degree of sympathy I feel for the victims varies. In cases where they're simply attacked, I feel total sympathy. In cases where they're young and stupid, got into something bad and couldn't get out, I feel some sympathy, wish it didn't happen, but shrug it off more easily. And in cases where they're toying with lions, attempting to see how far they can take things while maintaining control, purposely pushing buttons to rev men up for the twisted pleasure of saying "No" at the last minute -- in my bedroom you'll still be safe but I'll damned sure never, ever invite you there again. In a bar filled with brutes and alcohol, you kind of got what you asked for, you just weren't allowed the prerogative of changing your mind. Some may think less of me for saying that, but I'm tired of the free ride ticket women have come to feel they deserve while placing the onus of restraint on men.

Robotimon

msg local #18255

posted Fri Oct 30 8:01 am	5187 posts · tenured: Aug '04	Delete Edit
You can easily change the woman in the first scenario to a man. Murders aren't specific to women. Does it change anything? edit: In fact, change the woman in the second scenario to a man. Sex crimes aren't specific to women. Edited Fri Oct 30 @ 08:10 AM

Urban Sasquatch

msg local #285987

posted Fri Oct 30 8:23 am	1087 posts · tenured: Nov '08	Delete Edit
In the first scenario, it actually does change something for me, and that something is a prejudicial failing on my part -- but not in the way you might think. Over the 40-odd years of my life and having grown up during the 70's, 80's and 90's I've come to expect certain things from men and women. It's not politically correct to say, but there are certain realities with which we must deal. Stereotypes hold some degree of truth, otherwise they wouldn't exist in the first place. In the first scenario, if we change it to a man I find I have pretty much NO sympathy for him because he should have known better. Men aren't raised to get their way, they're raised to cope with situations as best they can. In the case of the man insisting on going home and heading into the dangerous forest only to get killed, I think -- unjustly, but I think it nevertheless -- that's chlorine in the gene pool. I KNOW this is wrong, but it's what I've come to view with society. When I see a woman changing lanes or turning a corner without her signal I grit my teeth, perhaps shake my head, but in my mind are the words "Oh, well... normal." And I let it go. When I see a man do the same thing I actually get angry because he should KNOW better, and deserves to be slapped as a reminder. It's more than mere expectation, however. For a few years with the National Guard I made a point, since signals are one of my pet peeves, to actually approach my fellow Guardsmen (and women) and mention when I'd seen them NOT use their signals, suggest that they do so. Guys have always reacted thusly: "Huh? Whoa, I guess I didn't. Yeah, I probably should." Whether they do or not remains to be seen but that's just how the cookie crumbles. I've never had a woman react that way, ever. I'm told to mind my own business, or told "Oh, lighten up, it doesn't matter." There just might be a reason I've come to expect certain things as a rule of thumb. In the second scenario, nope; doesn't change a single thing. We're still talking about giving up one's home as opposed to risking a dangerous walk.

Arden

msg local #7657

online

posted Fri Oct 30 9:22 am	3862 posts · tenured: Mar '04	Delete Edit
Possibility one: There is no one to blame, all of this was preordained by a higher power before any of us were born. Possibility two: No one ( or everyone ) is to blame; all of life's choices are derived from a long list of previous actions. If Pope Urban hadn't farted during mass, then a priest named Georges wouldn't have been offended and formed his own church outside the notice of the Vatican. Years later Martin Luther questioned the actions of his church and was expelled to a distant land, where it is possible that he gained support from the descendants of Georges and enabled him to extend his voice beyond his original sphere of influence, thus aiding to the protestant reformation. Several groups of separatists eventually traveled to the new world and settled in New York. After several generations, they had grown tired of the immorality of city life and moved to "greener pastures", and several generations later one family settled in the area in question. Because of their religious beliefs, coupled with a Victorian attitude towards talking about the dangers of the world to women, it all lead to the events in question. SO if the Pope hadn't farted, or if the priest wasn't so easily offended, none of it would have happened.

Messages 1 - 17 page: ~1~ [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]