I guess the main question is: is there ever any situation in which the person to whom something bad happened might be seen as 'responsible' for it? Can the victim have been 'negligent' in any reasonable sense? Or is it never the case?

Now, I want to distinguish very clearly 'reducing compensation' from 'blaming the victim'. Nobody is going to think, even in the worst-case scenarios -- a totally stupid choice, like going into a really bad place with all your precious jewels clearly visible plus a thick wallet full of money -- that being mugged makes the victim guilty. The culprit is of course the mugger, not the 'muggee'. But if a victim is being offered compensation, going beyond the mere condemnation of the criminal and the medical, transportation and/or relocation needs of the victim (+ loss of work, etc.), then I suppose certain facts about the situation might be use to increase or decrease the value of the compensation. Or would you disagree?

Of course, the compensation for any medical expenses goes without saying. The hospital bills should always be paid, even if there are 'stupidity' factors involved. I understood the question to be: should even more than that -- costs directly derived from the crime -- be paid, or not? And according to which criteria?

If I were to decide on reducing victim compensations, I might include 'deciding to go into a bad neighborhood late at night while flaunting valuables' as a factor for reducing. But I would certainly not count 'living in a bad neighborhood', since the person had no choice there. These would be simply two different situations for the purpose of computing the compensation.

as Ms Berman has pointed out and as we all have seen (I wonder why Sarah Silverman wasn't mentioned? maybe her style?). More and more will certainly appear.

But I must admit I'll agree with bigguns here: Mr Hitchen's piece was not saying that women aren't funny, period. Leaving aside the talk about averages, he was obviously writing a funny piece (with 'provocation' in the subtitle), making often obvious generalizations and offering rather simplistic explanations that, to me, sound at best half-serious. He seems to want someone to come out and say he's wrong (hence again 'provocation'). And that is, all in all, not bad. His half-serious piece is not so different in style from some of the more humorous posts I've seen in Broadsheet.

Is he right? He says some things that ring bells; but no, I don't think he's really right. I've met sufficiently many witty and funny women to think otherwise. As far as I can see, he is only right inasmuch as we still live, to an extent, in the old form of courtship and mating rituals between men and women whereby men traditionally make women laugh to get them interested. The more the traditional routine changes, the more we'll enjoy ladies who actually can make their guys laugh.

just have a look at the letter thread on the Cosmo post here at Broadsheet. A number of gems, among which Ellabean's deserves a prize, are certainly sufficient proof.

See, again you exaggerate to make points that you could perfectly well make with better language. I really don't know what you think you're gaining by doing this (other than expressing anger I guess). I'll respond to only a couple of things you said, wisely suggesting that pretty much all of them, even those that do contain some truth, were wrapped in exaggerations that really don't help your cause.

And that's the core problem with feminism. It think only women are victims, ones who need endless protection and compensation. It thinks men are heartless brutes who never feel pain and always need to be blamed-mocked-punished-etc.

As far as I know, feminism only thinks women are more often victims of sexual assault and rape than men. And, as far as I know, the statistics actually confirm that. Do you have any better ones? Your description of what they think about men is quite also exaggerated. Where did any of them (except perhaps for the fringe extreme radicals) ever say anything like that?

Men in prison are THE biggest rape victims. Yet most folks, including feminists, think that's okay. So what if a white collar male gets raped? He's a yucky man. But suggest that it's okay for women in prison to be routinely raped and knickers get twisted.

Not only do most feminists think it's OK, as far as I remember, many, usually most members of activist groups fighting against rape in prisions are women and/or feminists.

Consider the list of staff members at Stop Prison Rape ( http://www.spr.org/en/about_bios.asp ); I count 10 women and 8 men. It doesn't seem to me that women or feminists are really underrepresented there.

MerelyMortalMale, could it be that some of the things you say actually stem from your imagination -- your desire/fear of seeing gender equality problems as a real war, where only one of the sides can win and survive? An all-out war of the sexes like the war in Georgia? I don't want to presume anything about you, or to offend you; but you do give this impression. Why not calm down, and make your points more reasonably? You often do have legitimate things to say.