Thursday, August 13, 2009

Marriott Hotel engages in victim-blaming  

From The Huffington Post:

A Connecticut hotel where a woman was raped at gunpoint in front of her children says the victim was careless and negligent.

The papers filed last month in Superior Court by the Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa say the victim "failed to exercise due care for her own safety and the safety of her children and proper use of her senses and facilities."

Prosecutors say Gary Fricker assaulted the woman in her minivan in the hotel's parking garage in front of her two children, then ages 3 and 5. Fricker is now serving 20 years in prison.

The hotel's lawyers were responding to a lawsuit claiming the hotel failed to prevent the 2006 attack.

The woman's lawyer didn't immediately return a message Thursday.

Because reprimanding a woman for not being "careful enough" is a proper response to a her being raped. Not "the attacker deserves to have his balls removed," not "we're sorry we don't provide more security in parking lots," not any type of sympathy or apology. Just "why weren't you more careful, you dumb bitch?"

Send a fucking e-mail to the fucking Marriott right the fuck now.

What next?

You can also bookmark this post using your favorite bookmarking service:

Related Posts by Categories

6 comments: to “ Marriott Hotel engages in victim-blaming

  • August 13, 2009 at 5:08 PM  

    Well, they are being sued by her. Perhaps their language could be better, 'we cannot be responsible for the actions of Joe Blow Rapist whose intentions we could not be aware of.' but...

  • August 13, 2009 at 5:18 PM  

    Right, their language was my main issue. I was also ranting about victim-blaming in general ;)

  • August 14, 2009 at 1:37 AM  

    Yeah, my point was that the victim was blaming them, putting them in a very weird position.

    I'm very certain the hotel could have done a few things to make her safer; security patrols can be cheap and effective; keeping the garage parking in full view of employees or lit where there were motion; of built to reduce blind spots and isolated areas.

    But even giving that, it would be really hard to indicate that they intended for someone to sneak around their garage and attack someone.

  • August 19, 2009 at 4:42 AM  

    Well I know it's not very feminist but I don't think the hotel or the government is responsible for her safety. I know feminists are mainly socialists but it reminds me of a quote from one of our founding persons.

    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -=Benjamin Franklin=-

  • August 19, 2009 at 9:58 AM  

    why not sue police? government? Obama?
    It is her fault. Someone who can't protect himself should have another one who can.

  • August 19, 2009 at 12:43 PM  

    It happened on the hotel's property - how is it not their fault? Hotels and other establishments hire security guards for the purpose of protecting people on their property.

    And Burn, the attacker had a gun. Most people cannot "protect themselves" against a gun. I don't know what you expect the victim to have done in this situation. She was held at gunpoint and raped in front of her children, and no security guard was in sight to stop it. She's suing the hotel to ensure that this doesn't happen to more people in the future. It's dangerous to not have security guards in a darkened parking lot.