alerted by ginmar

[novapsyche]

A third of people believe a woman is partially or completely responsible for being raped if she has behaved flirtatiously, a survey suggests. (Note: this survey took place in Britain)

Also, as ginmar notes: "Why... do we keep saying 'when women get raped'? It's passive voice without an actual person doing the raping. Why is that, huh?"

Comments

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Her point is that rape is conveyed in popular culture as a passive act: the woman gets raped. To get across the full impact of the act, it would make more sense to frame it with the actor (as well as the acted upon).

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Well, only when you are interested in the actor (as well as the acted upon).

Personally, when I am talking about the time when I was stabbed, I talk about the time that I was stabbed. When I talk about the person who stabbed me, I talk about the person who stabbed me.

Ginmar's words are not baseless; but overgeneralisation would be easy.

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

This is my point, exactly. The person/event being talked about should be the subject of the sentence; everything else comes in add-on clauses or prepositional phrases.

[pachamama.livejournal.com]

I disagree. Take the sentence in the post:

A third of people believe a woman is partially or completely responsible for being raped if she has behaved flirtatiously, a survey suggests

-- it could just as easily be phrased:

A third of people believe a woman is partially or completely responsible for a man raping her if she has behaved flirtatiously, a survey suggests.

Likewise, you could just as easily talk about "the time when X stabbed me" as opposed to "the time when I was stabbed" and still be talking about you and the stabbing, not about X.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

What do you disagree with?

I don't actually see any contradiction between your reply and my position, so it's likely that I was unclear.