Some victims of sex crimes were so drunk they could not remember what had happened.
"During investigations, it has become apparent that many of the victims have been under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substance at the time of the offence and do not recall the act itself or the circumstances surrounding their complaint ..."
A feminist writer at Hoyden, Lauredhel, took this as an example of police blaming the victim. It seems that Lauredhel and several other comment writers at Hoyden don't want women to be warned about risky behaviour.
I wrote a comment at Hoyden gently suggesting that the police were being responsible in warning young women of the dangers they faced. I was told to get lost.
Then the Hoydenites opened up a little on what lay behind their feelings on the issue. Lauredhel started the ball rolling when she announced that it was a case of "institutionalised victim blaming". She thinks the problem exists at an institutional level. Then a commenter, Jodie, claimed the police were "ignoring the real problem of rape". Beppie then added that a woman was more vulnerable at home than passed out drunk with a stranger. Tigtog listed dating men as also being more dangerous.
At this point the influence of patriarchy theory was becoming increasingly clear. Patriarchy theory claims that the institutions of society exist so that men can enjoy an unearned privilege as an oppressor class at the expense of victimised women. According to patriarchy theory, violence and rape exist to enforce the dominant male power in society.
If you believe in patriarchy theory, then you're more likely to think that the police force, as an institution in a patriarchal society, might somehow act to enable rape by blaming the victim. You might also prefer to think that rape was relatively common within society and that it was associated with men dominating women in relationships.
It's a depressing scenario, isn't it? Imagine being a woman and believing that rape was a prevalent form of social control by men over women, one enabled by the institutions of society.
Which brings me to the comment of QoT, who announced in disgust that she was ready to start advocating radical lesbian separatism. Lauredhel replied:
QoT, I don’t see what’s inherently irrational about positing lesbian separatism as being one possible survival strategy in this world.
And so we get to the logical end point of feminist patriarchy theory. Nor is it the first time we've been there; when I was first at uni in the mid-80s there were notices for lesbian separatist communes on the housing boards.
There has not been an adequate reconsideration of the theoretical foundations of feminism since then. So we are still getting, even during a less radical period of feminism, the most dead-end of solutions for the average woman: that of joining a lesbian separatist commune in order to "survive" the world.
And all this coming from one of the more prominent and mainstream of Australian feminist websites.