We want to focus the discussion on the rapist and why he did what he did, and how we can work to lower the incidence of rape. But when the overwhelming focus of the media and the information given rests with the victim, it’s difficult for commenters like us to draw conclusions from such scanty evidence.

What do we know about Draymond Coleman? That he had previous arrests; that he was involved with drugs; that he was a small-time pimp and worked as a bouncer at times; that he lived in hotels and flop houses; that he had his name tattooed on his neck. It’s not a lot to work with.

What the fuck does it matter if she was a ‘teen beauty’? It isn’t why she was raped, that’s for sure. Is it supposed to make me feel even worse for her?… but I think that language has the reverse effect. ‘Oh, well, obviously she was raped… I mean, she was pretty!’

Let’s see, I went to my mailbox by myself today. Oh, and I wasn’t wearing a potato sack either. Nor a chasitity belt. And most of the people in my complex are at work at this time, so it was pretty empty. Also, Durham is not exactly the safest city in America. OBVIOUSLY, I would have been “asking for it” had a rapist happened by.

God! You can take a victim’s every single move and interpret it as “stupid.” It won’t keep you, your sister, your mother, your daughter, and friend safe.

Back when the D.C. sniper was on the loose, were there any articles that focused on the people who were shot that followed that template? For instance: “John Doe was eating dinner with his family one night, when he suddenly remembered he needed gas. Rather than go to the gas station near his house, he wanted to go to the one a few blocks away that had a minimart. Even though it was late, John decided to skip full-service and instead opt for self-serve gas. He was wearing a bright orange shirt, which made him an easy target for a sniper, and his fate was sealed the minute he chose to get out of his car after dark.”

Then we could have comments about how we should all wear bullet-proof vests and helmets, wear dark clothes, get gas in pairs during the day – but no, we’re not blaming the victim, because obviously the gunman was at fault! – but really, you should try to get full service and maybe make sure you have 911 on speed dial and for the love of god, make sure there are no cars around and check any that are for sniper-holes in the trunk!

This might seem silly – after all, random snipers are rare, and rape is really common – but isn’t that the point? Do you think we’d put up with snipers if one in four people were randomly shot and/or killed by them?

Take the headlines about this particular incident (shown in this previous post): “Her Tragic Last Steps: Jennifer’s night on the town ends in abduction and gruesome murder,” and “‘There’s a guy following me… he won’t leave me alone’: LAST CALL: Teen beauty’s horror murder.” Even though neither of those headlines even hints at blaming her, they make the story fundamentally about her. The rapist, as far as he even exists, is cast in a minor role and not as the principal actor in the crime. (Actually, from context in posts above, it sounds like the man who wouldn’t “leave her alone” in the second headline isn’t even the perpetrator.)

It feels counterintuitive to say that telling the story from the victim’s point of view that actually reduces sympathy for her, but I’m wondering whether one step towards shifting the focus of blame back onto rapists is to narrate their crime like any other from the beginning: with the criminal at the center of the story.

Most of us are from the suburbs of a not-very-big city. None of us are or ever were addicts, drunks, hookers or sluts. None of us have walked home in the dark.

So, Daniel, what was you point? We have not made these “bad” decisions the you say increased this woman’s exposure to injury and yet we all have these stories. Perhaps you’ve missed the point of Zuzu’s post completely?

The acknowledgement that women should take reasonable precautions against certain dangers is not inconsistent with the belief that it would be better off if the dangers did not exist

I think Sarah in Chicago over at the Pandagon thread on the other feministe thread summed it up perfectly:

The point is people coming into rape discussions and either demonising women/girls or suggesting ways in which women could behave differently/fight back. In these kinds of discussions it places the fault of the rape at the feet of the victim, and constructs her as deserving it!

IF we have a discussion on rape prevention and self-defense techniques, THEN is a good point to bring them up. The amazing thing; we KNOW THIS! Women bloody well know this!! But a) that’s not going to work against the vast majority of rapes which are not stranger rapes, and b) THAT’S NOT THE FUCKING POINT HERE!

The point is that whenever a rape case is brought up, focus is brought to what the woman did or did not do, NOT what the guy did OR how society perpetuates rape.

It doesn’t matter if what you are saying is right, it’s NOT fucking appropriate!

Also:

I still think it’s a bad idea, for a man or a woman, to be alone and too drunk to take care of oneself in the streets. It’s also a bad idea take cab rides to New Jersey with crackheads.

So, what would you have done in her situation? Been alone in the streets being followed by a crazy guy offering you drugs, or gotten into a cab with someone who could potentially be a crackhead? How do you tell whether someone is a crackhead or not? And what’s wrong with taking a cab ride to New Jersey when that’s where you live? What if she had waited for the cop, and then been raped and/or murdered by him? (It’s not like that’s never happened). Would she have made a poor choice then, too?

All of her options were bad, and faulting her for making the best choice with only bad options is pure and simple victim-blaming, regardless of whether you are willing to call a spade a spade.

If you’re going to make that sort of judgment at all–which is quite common–it’s important to make it from the point of view, and level of knowledge, of the person making the decision. Choices which are “bad” in retrospect may have been perfectly rational at the time.