Monday, June 27, 2011

Feminists. You gotta love 'em.

Just when you thought feminism had gone away, here they are in the news again. Their new iteration is something called "Slutwalks." No joke.

According to a report in the Washington Post, reprinted in Sunday's Lexington Herald-Leader:
Thousands of women--and men--are demonstrating to fight the idea that what women wear, what they drink or how they behave can make them a target for rape.
"Slutwalks" have so far been planned in over 75 cities in the U. S. and Canada, the report goes on to say. They are, crows the story (very objectively, we assure you), "the most successful feminist action of the past 20 years." How this "success" is measured is unclear.

The marches feature suggestively clad women, some with "'slut' scrawled across their bodies." According to the objective writer of the story who speaks on college campuses on the issue she is writing about, "... the sad fact is, a miniskirt is no more likely to provoke a rapist than a potato sack is to deter one."

In addition to cladding themselves scantily, marchers will be chanting suggestive slogans such as "Hey Mr., looking for a good time?" and "Hey Big Boy, come on over and see me" in order to show that what women say won't attract unwanted attention either.

Organizers also will be hosting teach-ins to demonstrate how rape has absolutely nothing to do with sex at all.

They also hope their message will spread to other criminal issues, where they hope to educate law enforcement officials to understand that the desire to possess something has nothing to do with shoplifting, the desire to inflict violence has nothing to do with wife beating, and that the urge to cause someone else's death actually has little relation to murder.

Marchers will also ... Oh, no. Wait. Let me check something ... Um, sorry, that last part was not actually in the story. I don't know why I even thought there was a logical connection.

Nevermind.

8 comments:

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'Organizers also will be hosting teach-ins to demonstrate how rape has absolutely nothing to do with sex at all.'

Could you please quote the article or any of the feminist organizers where they state that sex has nothing to do with rape?

My impression is that their point is that how women clothe has nothing to do with the culpability of the man for raping a woman.

Do you disagree?

Would you, for example, suggest that certain rape cases be dismissed from teh outset if evidence suggests that, say, a woman walked into a bar wearing only a bra and panties?

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Could you please quote the article or any of the feminist organizers where they state that sex has nothing to do with rape?

Did you read the end? I'd suggest doing it again.

Martin Cothran said...

My impression is that their point is that how women clothe has nothing to do with the culpability of the man for raping a woman.

Do you disagree?


That's not the issue. Read the original article. The issue is whether a woman's dress will make rape more likely. It has nothing to do with culpability.

Singring said...

'Did you read the end? I'd suggest doing it again.'

I have. And again I ask you to quote whichever part prompted you to say that these women claim that sex has nothing to do with rape.

'The issue is whether a woman's dress will make rape more likely. It has nothing to do with culpability.'

I quote from the article:

'The idea that women’s clothing has some bearing on whether they will be raped is a dangerous myth feminists have tried to debunk for decades. Despite all the activism and research, however, the cultural misconception prevails. After an 11-year-old girl in Texas was gang-raped, the New York Times ran a widely criticized story this spring that included a description of how the girl dressed “older than her age” and wore makeup — as if either was relevant to the culpability of the 18 men accused of raping her. In Scotland, one secondary school is calling for uniforms to be baggier and longer in an attempt to dissuade pedophiles.'

and

'Women deserve to be safe from violent assault, no matter what they wear.'

and

'As one Toronto SlutWalk sign put it: “Don’t tell us how to dress. Tell men not to rape.” '

and

'Organizers encourage marchers to wear whatever they want because the point is that no matter what women wear, they have a right not to be raped. And if someone were to attack them, they have a right not to be blamed for it.'

Martin, your dogmatic filter seems to have made the objective reading of simple articles impossibles - otherwise I cannot explain the fact that you completely iss the main point of a three page article that is expressed clearly and directly multiple times. A secondary point is - I agree - that clothing does not influence
the likelihood of a woman getting raped - something I cagree with as well. The rape statistics within marriages alone should illustrate this quite sufficiently.

Martin Cothran said...

"The idea that women's clothing has some bearing on whether they will be raped is a dangerous myth feminists have tried to debunk for decades."

You're right, that was mentioned. But what the "Slutwalk" people are asserting is that they are no less culpable because dress doesn't affect behavior. That is clear from the italicized passage above.

That is what I am contesting. To assert that is simply preposterous.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'But what the "Slutwalk" people are asserting is that they are no less culpable because dress doesn't affect behavior. That is clear from the italicized passage above.

That is what I am contesting. To assert that is simply preposterous.'

Alright - but doesn't it strike you as somewhat contradictory that then week after week you (in some cases quite rightly) mock the media and society at large for making up any kind of excuse for people's sexual behaviour (Weiner, Schwarzenegger etc.), yet now suddenly come to the conclusion that the idea of outside factors having an effect on sexual behaviour is 'preposterous'?

How do you reconcile those two positions? Weiner is 100 % to blame for his 'sinful' behaviour (I would tend to agree), but a frat boy who pounces on a scantily clad freshman college student, rapes her and leaves her for dead in an alley is simply following his 'natural' sexual urges and the woman is at least somewhat culpable for 'enticing' the man?

You are aware that this is precisely the kind of talk the advocates of Shariah law in the Middle East espouse, right?

If you want to be consistent, then fine - say that woman are culpable when they get raped if they wear 'slutty' clothing - but then don't deny Weiner et al. the right to refer to their 'natural urges' or the fact that they were enticed by the online profile of some college girl. But you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

Finally, if you are going to assert that woman are at least somewhat cilpable, I'd like to know how you would go about implementing that in court. Where would you draw the line? Would dismiss certain rape or assault cases from the outset because of the dress the woman was wearing?

Would you dismiss the case of a woman who walked into a bar wearing a see-through dress? Would you dismiss the case of a girl walking home at night in hot pants and a tank top? Would you dismiss the case of a wife who was raped in her marital bed, sleeping naked?