Content notice for discussion of sexual assault, child abuse, and rape
Sometimes, a cut-off ask.fm question linking to a really incoherent anti-feminist meme can be a reminder of just how irrationally-prioritized people’s ideas of danger, if not fears. can be.
To address these signs, counterclockwise from 12:
- Playing in traffic means placing yourself bodily in a dangerous area not intended for people who aren’t in cars. If we were to accept that a woman entering a space where she might be raped is as ill-advised as a child playing in traffic, then we would have to basically tell women to stop existing. Since rape happens everywhere, not only would women not be able to go anywhere, we wouldn’t be able to stay home.
- Looking both ways before you cross the street is sensible. However, given that most rape victims know their rapist and there is often no indicator that they are a predator, I can’t think of any equivalent for rape; there is no way to “look both ways” for the presence of rapists.
- The candy thing is a load of crap even in the case of children. The Halloween poisoned candy incidents involved deliberate targeting by relatives. As in the exact people a kid is supposed to accept candy from instead of from strangers. Oops. As for the “strangers with candy” model of sexual abuse, it’s also rather hyped up, as strangers are not as much of a danger to children as people they know.
- Once again, stranger danger is overhyped. Most people who will harm a child are someone the child know (especially their own parents). The exact same goes for rape, which most often involves someone the victim knows rather than a stranger.
Anyone else reminded of the “lock your door” analogy? This meme is just another poorly-thought-out analogy in the long and storied history of poorly-thought-out, fallacious, unfactual rape analogies.