The following article offers an interesting explanation of why there are diverse reactions in a wide ranger of situations in labeling who the good guy is and who is the bad guy. Why are some rape victims supported and others are harshly attacked for causing problems for the rapist. Likewise - why do someone people attack the messenger when it is pointed out that some rabbis and even gedolim have committed significant crimes and others view it as a acting according to what halacha and thus G-d wants? The authors argue that it depends largely on whether the prime value is group unity or the focus on the well being of the individual
IF you are mugged on a midnight stroll through the park, some people will feel compassion for you, while others will admonish you for being there in the first place. If you are raped by an acquaintance after getting drunk at a party, some will be moved by your misfortune, while others will ask why you put yourself in such a situation.
What determines whether someone feels sympathy or scorn for the victim of a crime? Is it a function of political affiliation? Of gender? Of the nature of the crime?
In a recent series of studies, we found that the critical factor lies in a particular set of moral values. Our findings, published on Thursday in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, show that the more strongly you privilege loyalty, obedience and purity — as opposed to values such as care and fairness — the more likely you are to blame the victim.
These two sets of values have been the object of much scholarly attention. Psychologists have found that when it comes to morality, some people privilege promoting the care of others and preventing unfair behaviors. These are “individualizing values,” as they can apply to any individual. Other people privilege loyalty, obedience and purity. These are “binding values,” as they promote the cohesion of your particular group or clan.
Binding and individualizing values are not mutually exclusive, and people have varying degrees of both. But psychologists have discovered that the extent to which you favor one relative to the other predicts various things about you. For example, the more strongly you identify with individualizing values, the more likely you are to be politically progressive; the more strongly you identify with binding values, the more likely you are to be politically conservative.
Our animating insight was that these two clusters of values entail different conceptions of victims. Proponents of individualizing values tend to see a dyad of victim and perpetrator (a victim is hurt, a perpetrator does the hurting). Proponents of binding values, however, may see behaviors as immoral even when there is no obvious victim — for example, the “impure” act of premarital sex or the “disloyal” act of flag burning — and may even feel that doing the right thing sometimes requires hurting others (as with honor killings, to pick an extreme example). So we hypothesized that support for binding values would correlate with a greater tendency to blame victims. [...]
Consistent with our previous findings, the more participants endorsed binding values, the more blame they assigned to victims and the less blame they assigned to perpetrators. But we also found that focusing their attention on the perpetrator led to reduced ratings of victim blame, victim responsibility and references to victims’ actions, whereas a focus on victims led to greater victim blaming. This was surprising: You might assume that focusing on victims elicits more sympathy for them, but our results suggest that it may have the opposite effect.
Victim blaming appears to be deep-seated, rooted in core moral values, but also somewhat malleable, susceptible to subtle changes in language. For those looking to increase sympathy for victims, a practical first step may be to change how we talk: Focusing less on victims and more on perpetrators — “Why did he think he had license to rape?” rather than “Imagine what she must be going through” — may be a more effective way of serving justice.
The article concludes its a matter of (defining the) degree. In some societies, wife beating andhonor killings (and beating or shaming husbands for a desired result) is proper. Whether or not there are alternatives.
ReplyDeleteThe parsha of na'ara meorasa accentuated by Rashi in Devarim 22:23 clearly tells us that every person is responsible to do all he (or she) can not to become a victim. Hence, anybody that needlessly puts themselves in a compromising situation carries a share of the blame for what happens to them.
ReplyDeleteרש"י דברים כב
ReplyDelete(כג) ומצאה איש בעיר - לפיכך שכב עמה, פרצה קוראה לגנב הא אילו ישבה בביתה לא אירע לה:
Rashi says the obvious if she locked herself up in her house then this would not have happened. Your conclusion is not what Rashi says. Where does it says that one should view a woman as sharing the blame when she gets raped? That merely being a woman in a situation where he can take advantage of her is enough to take away some of the blame for her being raped?!
The first 3 words: פירצה קורא לגנב
ReplyDeleteYH
He is saying that a ganiv is attracted by opportunity - where does he say that that takes away the blame or share the blame?
ReplyDeleteWhy can't it be both? One can accept that a crime was committed and person was violated while pointing out that they should have thought ahead better?
ReplyDeleteI understand it to mean: Do not attract a ganiv.
ReplyDeleteThis is why, in most cases, if you leave your house door wide open and get robbed or your keys in the ignition and there goes your car, insurance companies won't pay you unless you shelled out for All-Risk.
Aside from all this, it all just seems logical to me. There is no excuse for negligence.
See Magid Mishne Ishus 13:11
ReplyDeleteagain where do you see that Rashi is referring to negligence. Where do you see that Rashi is distinguishing between a woman who has been locked up for 6 months in her house and now is going to buy some food to avoid starvation and a woman who spends most of the day outside of the house because she likes to get out?
ReplyDeleteמגיד משנה הלכות אישות פרק יג הלכה יא
ReplyDeleteאבל גנאי הוא לאשה וכו'. בב"ר כשמזכיר גנותן של נשים אומר נשים יצאניות הן שנאמר ותצא דינה ואמרו רבותינו ז"ל גבי נערה המאורסה פירצה קוראה לגנב:
ויש לבעל וכו'. כך אמרו ז"ל במדרש וכבשוה וכבשה כתיב מלמד שהאיש דרכו לכבש את האשה שלא תהא יצאנית:
And therefore what? He states it is a disgusting thing for women to be out of the house and if they are out of the house it provides a rapist an opportunity to rape them. And therefore what? The original statement said that a woman is partially responsible if she is UNNECASSARILY out of the housel. The rapist does not discriminate according to the reason the woman is out of the house.
Bottom line - where do you see that a woman who is raped because she wasn't in the house behind locked doors and window bars is to be viewed as being partially at fault and that therefore the rapist is less at fault?!
According to your logic it seems from this Magid Mishne if the husband or father doesn't keep the woman locked in the house - he is the one at fault
Take out the word "blame".
ReplyDeleteWhat we see from the M"M is that
1 a woman should not be a "yotzanis"
2 It is the responsibility of her husband to ensure that she isn't a yotzonis,
3 When Chazal said "פירצה קורא לגנב" they were pointing to the pitfalls of being excessively outgoing (this is deduced from the fact that he brings this מאמר חז"ל to support that גנאי הוא לאשה להיות יצאנית(.
Now that it is established that being a יצאנית is wrong, and when something happens to her it can be attributed to that behavior, the question is, whose responsibility is it to prevent such behavior?
I believe that although the husband is reponsible, it's also her responsibility, as she is a baalas bechira and should not act in a way that Chazal were מגנה.
the point that you are missing is the definition of yotzanis today is not what is was in the time of Chazal. A woman who is taking care of her normal activities is not to blame if she is attacked. While it is clear that what Dina did was considered to be excessive interest in getting out of the tent - but that is largely irrelevant today. Even the standards of the Rambam have nothing to do with what is normal and any husband who demands his wife stay locked up in the house would be viewed - at least in my circles - as an abusive husband.
ReplyDeleteThe same logic applies to child abuse - if a child would only stay home and not go out to school we could eliminate a lot of child abuse. So that shows that the child or his parents is partially responsible for his being abused?! Better yet if the child had no contact with people - friends, relatives and neighbors there would be even less child abuse and if we really are careful and the child has no contact with his parents or siblings then we would solve the problem!
From recent cases I have read about in the frum' world on blogs like this one, the situation is entirely different.
ReplyDeleteIt is not that there is no sympathy for victims, it is the refusal by many followers to accept the possibility of the [alleged] perpetrator committing the offences. This hurdle MUST be addressed before even any of the points in the original blog post can be debated.
No it cannot! Thinking ahead is good advice. By not heeding to it, does neither give just cause to a criminal nor make the victim any more guilty for being violated. Carelessness or acting stupid is not a crime.
ReplyDelete@ YH
ReplyDeleteSee Devarim 22:25,26. Veim basodeh yimtzo hoish.... velanaarah lo saaseh davar ein lanaarah cheit Ki kaasher yokum ish al re'ehu urtzochoi nefesh ken hadavar hazeh!
Will you blame her for being in the field or even if getting murdered? It will not diminish any crime for someone being unsuspected nor does she take part of the blame.
It is unwise to cream yourself with honey and then walk out into the open since bees will sting you. Just for being unwise, you need not justify for her to be stung.
Blaming the victim has additional consequences. As a direct result, many commit suicide from the pain of losing a lifelong support of family and friends including at times their own flesh and blood, their children. Just happened this week, a distraught Yidishe tayere neshomo jumped off the GW Bridge to make an end to her unbearable misery. In her will, she pointed fingers at some rabbi without disclosing details. She also wanted the Dusim (religious) to read her Parsha plight of her life.
ReplyDeleteWhen you take revenge on the victims and isolate them as a punishment * Just because you can *, it can end up in suicide and the Av Harachman bochen kloyos volev knows who is to blame. My heart bleeds for all these victims that end up like that or even if they still breathe and with great pain kol od nishmosom bam. I This must also be addressed, and not be swept under the rug. Their hands drip from the blood of the victims from beneath the earth where they made a Kisui haDam and scream ad lev haShamayim ZECHOR na veal tishkach! Rachmana litslan, they should be modeh umisvadeh yadeinu shofcho es hadam hazeh. Oy vey Gevald, aval asheimim anachnu al achinu veal achoseinu asher rainu tzoras nafsham behitchanenam elenu velo shamanu al ken bo'oh elenu hatzarah hazot. She is pleading and begging from us all on behalf of her and behalf of all the children and all victims of "Just because they can", Eretz al na techassu es damam! Please do something.
Rashi (Devorim 22:23) says, “THAT’S WHY he slept with her. The breach invites the thief. Had she sat at home, this would not have occurred to her.” Rashi doesn’t come to say the obvious. Rashi's “obvious” observation all but implies that when a woman (or anybody) puts herself UNREASONABLY at risk, she is blameworthy for the moral crime of putting herself unreasonably at risk. (Carelessness or acting stupid is a moral crime.) This does not in any way mitigate the blameworthiness of the criminal. Her blameworthiness, however, may reasonably reduce the degree of empathy that people will have towards her.
ReplyDeleteWhat is an unreasonable risk? Yes, that depends on context, culture, time, place, etc.
Rashi does not say or even imply your distinction between reasonable or unreasonable risk. He is stating the obvious if their is no opportunity because she is locked securely in her house with minimum contact with the outside world -- she is safer
ReplyDeleteplease move this to the correct post
ReplyDeleteDONE!!!!
ReplyDeleteVeim basodeh yimtzo hoish, she probably had business to take care of working in the field or getting where she needed to go. THAT'S WHY ==> .... velanaarah lo saaseh davar ein lanaarah cheit Ki kaasher yokum ish al re'ehu urtzochoi nefesh ken hadavar hazeh! Albeit had she stayed home it would have not happened to her. BTW, Sarah Schnirrer changed and updated all this with haskomas haGedoilim. The girls don't stay home for domestic help and do go to Beis Ya'acovs etc. There are washing machines and all kind of Electronic equipment that has replaced their being homebound all across the board, to education for todays modern world. YES, times indeed have changed along with Hoiroas hazman, vehashaa, vehamakom! Nothing immoral nor criminal about being less gifted.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's fair to suggest that conservative-minded and religious people absolve the vicious attacker of wrongdoing or even the severity of their depraved behavior.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that is fair to suggest that liberal-minded people are more compassionate towards victims. In fact, there are liberals who disgusting enough to say that pedophilia is not wrong!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10948796/Paedophilia-is-natural-and-normal-for-males.html
No serious religious or conservative-minded person would ever suggest such insanity.
Having said all this, there is indeed never an excuse for anyone to exploit, use or force someone else to do anything in order to derive pleasure. Certainly, there is never an excuse to rape.
However, it is still not suggested or wise for anyone to walk past a rickety bridge.
It is not suggested or wise for anyone to walk through a bad neighborhood unprotected.
It is not suggested or wise for woman to get drunk in an unsafe enviroment.
To me the issue is very pashut.
ReplyDeleteWhen somebody does something that is a dvar mitzvah or toelles, there is a shmira min hashamayim. When one puts themselves into risky situations without need - they open up the "record books".
We see this from numerous Torah sources such as Kir Natui, Tzinim u'pachim b'derech ikesh, V'nishmartem meod l, nafshosechem (ki yipol hanofel) - this seems to be a recurring dream.
Besides all this, it is just plain common snese. Like the earlier poster said - if you smear yourself with honey, you're gonna get stung.
So it doesn't really matter how you want to interpret Rashi. This Rashi is just anther piece of the big picture.
We all have to do a din v'cheshbon after 120. You can learn Rashi your way and take it upstairs. If you are right, good for you. But if not...
Don't be foolish or reckless!
Why would Rashi want to state the obvious? What lesson is there in it? Is Rashi recommending that a woman avoid all risk, even reasonable risk, by locking herself securely in her house? I think not!
ReplyDeleteForget Rashi for a moment. Consult your own intelligence. Is a person blameworthy of a moral crime (i.e. guilty of a sin) for putting himself UNREASONABLY at risk of attack, injury, or loss? If a provocatively dressed woman goes for a midnight jog in a dangerous, deserted area, is she blameless?