I certainly found the Frontline video interesting, but I would like to expand upon a comment I made in response to jdoucette's post. The video, in my opinion, not only showed the story of how the internet is a powerful and sometimes dangerous tool in the lives of individuals, but touched upon this whole culture of predator/prey, aggressor/victim in our society. I want to make it clear that I am not trying to mitigate the crimes of online predators; simply, I would like to shed some light on this whole notion of victim hood in the context of online sexual abuse/harassment and the offline, real-world harm it creates.
For some reason, victims almost always seem to be completely absolved of any guilt they may have had in contributing to these crimes. The idea of the victim appears to overcome any feeling or thought that the victim somehow actively and willingly engaged in some activity to lead to the crime. Frankly, a 14 year old girl should know well enough to not go on sex chat rooms or other sites where predators loom. And, if she does and continues to converse with an unknown, offline 40 year old man, she should not be completely freed of any guilt. Yes, it's despicable a 40 year old man is trying to secretly and anonymously solicit sex from a young girl, but that girl has the power to end a conversation or any uncomfortable online situation with the click of a mouse.
I can see how my argument here can be taken down a slippery slope, but I stress that my argument should be considered in the context of online predators and their prey. I'm not advocating the whole line of thought of "If you wore a longer dress, you wouldn't have been raped." But, as individuals who use the internet, we all know the basic functions of operating in cyberspace. If an AIM screen pops up with a message "look at my pix!" or "hey cutie, wanna meet?" the person with common sense hopefully would know to simply close the dialogue box instead of engaging in a conversation with a complete and utter stranger. Unfortunately, the mother in the Frontline video placed too little faith in her children and their abilities to recognize a threat and avoid it with a simple movement of the hand-pointer over the "X" in the top, right-hand corner of the screen. She bought too much into this idea of the overwhelming power of the faceless online predator, without realizing her children had as much power in neutralizing in any threat. If she raised her children well, they probably are as or more wary of online threats as she is and they know how to deal with them.
The online victim needs to be removed from the sacrosanct pedestal it's placed upon, and the actions of both parties should be evaluated in this ever-increasing culture of online use where the power to start an online dialogue is equal to the power to end it.
-David Lindgren
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
David,
ReplyDeleteI'd agree with this post and go one step further. You talked about a the slippery slope toward placing the majority of the blame for these incidents on the victim. There is another, just as dangerous slippery slope here that should be addressed. The idea of having to protect people from these predators leads to a long series of events that chokes of communication on the internet for productive purposes. Children will naturally try and avoid any affront to their ability to roam the internet. To stop this avoidance the logical step for parents is to raise the barriers even farther. The farther they're raised the more innovative the children become and eventually it leads to a cycle where the parent is over the child's shoulder all the time or there are only a handful of authorized sites.
So really, if we take this to its logical end, good, worthwhile communication is then stifled in the name of security. There is one alternative which you explain, giving the children the knowledge to avoid the situations in the first place. That sounds like a brilliant idea.
Nick
I completely agree with what you are saying. I think we are too quick to jump to the victim's aid, but at the same time, these kids are poking around where they shouldn't be. You're right; a fourteen year old girl should know to never meet a stranger on the internet. It is something ingrained in all of us, even as little kids, to never talk to strangers.
ReplyDeleteI hate to do this, because I feel like our society always wants to blame the homelife and parents for problems today, but at the same time, I think if there was a little more parental supervision, then maybe these atrocities wouldn't happen. I think the crazy mom in the Frontline video was way too overbearing, but I do think it is necessary for parents to know what their children are doing on the internet. For instance, that girl that was taking pictures of her self and putting them up on the internet, her parents had no idea what she was doing. She was locked in her room with a computer for hours. Maybe if parents expressed a concern about what their children are doing, and told their children was is and is not acceptable for the internet, then maybe we wouldn't have these problems.
I agree with the idea that we should not entirely absolve the victims of online predators of guilt. But there are still cases where a young girl think that the predator is someone actually their age or a classmate. The solution has already been brought up, which is to have internet education for children in schools to prevent these things from happening. As we have seen in the video, parental supervision and controls don't work, the kids are able to get past them, and parents frequently don't know enough about technology to completely understand what their kids are doing. It is also not worth undertaking monitoring of the internet to prevent these cases, for it would lead to self-censorship and stifle communication. Giving the kids knowledge about how predators work is the best way to deal with this problem.
ReplyDelete