The post where I get kicked out of the liberals club.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I want to talk a moment about robbery. More in particular, robbery at gunpoint. As a metaphor. For what, you can decide.

Imagine a case, some guy was walking down a back alley in the middle of the night. He's holding his wallet looking through it, its a pretty damn fat wallet. Suddenly some guy with a gun comes around the corner and sticks him up. Steals his wallet. Well damn, that sucks.

Are there some people who might say well the robber couldn't help it, the guy was asking for it? Yeah there probably are. Those people are fucked up, I think we will all agree on that. Lets disregard them for now. At the very start, I do not want anyone to assume this is anything to do with trying to excuse the actions of the perpetrator.

What I want to talk about though is that I think we should be able to acknowledge that people should try to not put themselves in bad positions. Lets be realistic. The world is not a perfect place, in fact very far from it. Should we be working to make it a better place? Absolutely. But in the mean time we also have to live in the world as it is. And in the world as it is, doing certain things is going to get you robbed. Fact is, as much as we work to change things, currently there are lots of robbers out there. There's even people, mentioned earlier, that think that robbing is in fact the right thing to do. Gangs, burglars, the Japanese etc live in a culture where its permissible or even glamorized and yes, we definitely need to work to change that. But right now it exists. (To the credit of the Japanese, I think they're not terrible at separating out the fetish of robbery and actually committing it, though I hear robbery is common on the subway)

So why do I bring this up? Because all too often I see people who are suggesting that people might want to take actions to ensure their personal safety in the world as it is painted with the "You are trying to excuse the victim" brush, when its not at all what they meant. I think it often serves as an easy excuse to demonize people who you might have had other disagreements with and view as "the other side". If you can make them look like monsters, well its easy to dismiss their arguments on everything else isn't it? What bigger monsters than those who think robbery is ok? (and remember that they do it too is never an excuse. What they do or not do can be discussed separately)

So this is the issue: Can't we separate out taking in to account our own safety without assuming any advice on doing so is "blaming the victim?" Can't we place the blame squarely on the perpetrator while still taking care to not put ourselves in bad situations? can't we work on reducing crime and *also* secure our own safety? Can't we work to make back alleys safer while also not walking down them in the middle of the night? Can't we do our best to create an environment where it's ok to have a lot of money on us while not flashing around large amounts of money in public until that actual environment exists?

What I am saying is that the "slut walk" is absolutely right to be trying to change the culture, but I think it got started for the wrong reasons. I think the police were absolutely right to suggest that people make decisions to improve their own safety in the imperfect terrible world that we have to live in. The protestors are right though because there still are people, as exemplified by the judge, that really do try to shift the blame to the victims, and that's an absolutely terrible thing to do.

Lets try to not stereotype people, lets try to have nuanced opinions, lets try to live in a colorful world where the best action is not black or white, with us or against us, absolutely right or absolutely wrong. We can believe very strongly in a position and still acknowledge when someone has a good point. This is just one example.

Comments

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

I can see your point, but assuming you're really talking about what I think you are, a huge proportion of those "robberies" aren't remotely related to "put[ting] themselves in bad situations." It's entirely different when, to extend the analogy, upwards of 80-85% of the robberies are committed by friends, relatives, and acquaintances (and that's only for the ones that are reported). I also think there's a difference, because the women and girls who get robbed get robbed regardless of whether they are flashing the proverbial wads of cash around.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Right, I totally agree with that, but what I'm trying to discuss specifically is the situations where the argument that "You need to protect yourself" is dismissed. I'm definitely not saying "protecting yourself" will prevent all robbery.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Not sure why liberals would disagree with this. Maybe you could explain.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

all too often I see people who are suggesting that people might want to take actions to ensure their personal safety in the world as it is painted with the "You are trying to excuse the victim" brush

is the core of the argument. People might agree with taking into account their own safety, but that's not how they address the argument, they strawman it.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Lots of people who call themselves liberal flip their lid when it's suggested they take precautions.

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

Gangs, burglars, the Japanese etc live in a culture where its permissible or even glamorized and yes, we definitely need to work to change that. But right now it exists. (To the credit of the Japanese, I think they're not terrible at separating out the fetish of robbery and actually committing it, though I hear robbery is common on the subway)

I lived in Japan for over 2 years and I never got robbed or heard of anyone getting robbed (other than umbrellas). What sort of "fetish of robbery" are you talking about?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

anyone getting robbed (other than umbrellas)

They got robbed with umbrellas? So *that* is what umbrellas are for. D:

[moonchylde.livejournal.com]

Portland allows women the same right to be topless as men. If they are harassed, is it their poor judgment? Or the person who thinks it is okay to harass them? Should we expect men to be as polite to a topless woman as to a shirt-wearing woman? Or are we as a society still limited to judging others by the outside?

Regardless: the original topic is not the same as burglary, because you usually aren't mugged by friends and family, in environments where you should feel safe, like your home.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

the original topic is not the same as burglary, because you usually aren't mugged by friends and family, in environments where you should feel safe, like your home.

Yeah metaphors only work so far don't they. I don't want to say that safeguarding yourself will protect you from *all* "burglary", definitely not.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Portland allows women the same right to be topless as men.

Interesting. I knew that the naked bike ride was allowed nudity exceptions, but I didn't know going topless was actually legal.

If they are harassed, is it their poor judgment?

No, I don't think it is. I think though they have to acknowledge that they are putting themselves in a situation where it might happen, but "harassment" is probably worth it to bring to light the harasser's bigotry in public-- given for certain values of harassment purely verbal.

Should we expect men to be as polite to a topless woman as to a shirt-wearing woman?

We should definitely expect men to be as polite to a topless woman as to a shirt wearing woman.

Or are we as a society still limited to judging others by the outside?

We as a society are very shallow and judgmental.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with and appreciate this post. :)

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

I think the police were absolutely right to suggest that people make decisions to improve their own safety in the imperfect terrible world that we have to live in.

That could be right and appropriate for the police to have done. As you say, there's a meaningful distinction between blaming victims and talking about what behavior is wise in an imperfect world. Surely there is stuff that would be wrong to say to someone who had just been victimized that is entirely appropriate to say during a safety training.

Let's look at the incident that sparked the SlutWalk movement. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358453/Police-officer-tells-student-avoid-sexual-assaults-dressing-like-sluts.html) It was a safety training, but it wasn't even an appropriate comment in that venue.

Constable Michael Sanguinetti made the stunning remark during a meeting about safety at Toronto's York University.

While a more senior officer was talking, Mr. Sanguinetti interrupted and reportedly said: ‘You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here. I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this, however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.’

So what's wrong with this picture?

There's the important context that we live in a culture where there is a lot of victim-blaming going around. So one should step carefully to avoid reïnforcing that pattern. Constable Sanguinetti didn't make any effort at that; in fact, he alluded to having been warned about it and dismissed that warning.

If you look at his comment, he implies that dressing differently is reliable protection against being victimized. He's not talking about improving your odds; he's implying that it's a way to be safe. Which we all know isn't true. You may protest that I'm reading the comment too closely, and that the constable meant to say only that dressing provocatively increases the risk of being raped. If we grant him that meaning — which in his position as an expert offering his expertise he should have made more clearly — then he's still wrong because there is no reliable evidence that how a woman is dressed significantly affects her risk of being raped. (Look it up. (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=risk+factors+for+rape)) So even if we set aside the cultural politics, this was a very irresponsible statement.

And he didn't say “dressed provocatively,” did he? He said “dressing like sluts.” Sluts. Not a neutral term, a derogatory term for women who are “too willing” to have sex. Using the term “slut” at all is using a slur; using it linked to the threat of sexual violence” is even worse.

So it is my nuanced opinion that no, the police were absolutely wrong.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

This is diverging from the point of the posts but do you think it would make it better if "sluts" was a gender neutral term? Should we caution males to avoid dressing like sluts too?

I ask because I think there's value in not having an oversexualized society, which means we need words to describe different levels of overtly sexualized appearance for instance.

[weswilson]

Without the significant social and religious stigma laid on women by society, I think you might have a much more logical debate about this topic. But the problem is that there is a TREMENDOUS amount of shame heaped onto rape victims, and the debate that focuses on their culpability in these situation aggravates the situation. The patriarchal push to blame women for their sexual abuse is clearly demonstrated in other nations, so denying that undercurrent plays a hand in what's going on here seems myopic and misinformed.

The term slut-shaming is used for a reason. It is part of a continued effort to demonize female sexuality and insist it is unwelcome. Holding sexuality responsible for sexual abuse continues this misguided effort, and mitigates the importance of claiming dress, location or behavior may have on the end results. More often than not, rape is performed by acquaintanceship at non-risque locations. Pushing the idea that rape is preventable in a few areas by modest and subservient behavior makes women in more common rape situations question what they could have done to prevent their suffering... when they should never have to even ponder that they were at fault in any way.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Well anyone who offers advice to someone who just was made the victim of a crime is probably a bit of an asshole. But giving a bit of advice beforehand I don't see as being equal to victim(pre-victim) blaming.

To give an analogy, if a fireman told me as he extinguished the flames from my house that I shouldn't have left the oven on unattended, I'd be offended. But if while discussing fire safety he told me that I shouldn't leave an oven unattended, I'd take it as decent advice with no offense. Now that doesn't mean the advice he gave me is intended to prevent all fire situations but maybe reduce the risk of a few particular ones.

As to stigma, I already stigmatize as much as I can those who violate the rights of others.

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between advising your friend on ways she can avoid being attacked and believing that avoiding bad neighborhoods and dressing more conservatively could have prevented a rape survivor's attack. Because statistics show that it will not (http://www.aaets.org/arts/art13.htm).

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Advice on how to avoid crime is not intended to avoid all crime.

If it's only 10% of the cases then well... there's 10% of victims it could have helped. Will it eliminate the crime entirely? Probably not even make a huge dent in it. But if one woman can avoid falling prey to a rapists because she thought twice about walking down a dark alley, then I see that as good.

Anyone who asserts that a woman can't get raped if she does "x" is probably someone that isn't worth listening to for advice.

[chaoticgood0405.livejournal.com]

I think few people would take offense to things like: use the buddy system, stick to well-lit areas, never let your drink sit unattended.

But telling a woman, often after the fact, that she shouldn't have had so much to drink or she shouldn't have worn certain clothes or danced in a certain way or been so flirty is absolutely victim blaming and does nothing to secure anyone's safety.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

I think telling people not to drink so much would increase people's safety.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

The slutwalk thing was exactly what I was thinking of after your first couple of paragraphs. I also thought those people might have gone overboard, depending on the context, tone, etc. of the original policeman's comment. Would they be angry if a policeman said not to drive a new Aston Martin in certain neighborhoods? I don't see any good reason to have used the word, though.

Also, the article someone else posted that there's no evidence "dressing like a slut" makes you more likely to be raped makes me wonder about the policeman's motivation for saying that.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

When I was in the military, I was told to keep my valuables locked up. "Don't make someone a thief", they said. It's a funny way of stating things, but looked at in a certain way, it makes sense.
If you are targeted by a dedicated criminal determined to get you, minor precautions are almost a waste of time. If you can avoid a few crimes of opportunity, maybe taking precautions is worth it.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

A nutshell... it's in it.

Tangents ahoy, but this is important.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

I despise that metaphor. Rape is like rape, it is not like a robbery. At all. For starters, 2/3 of rapes and 73% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim, (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders) knocking out the "stranger in a dark alley" bullshit. Further, from the same link, more than 50% of rapes occur in or within one mile of the victim's home -- some dark alley. Fully four in ten take place within the victim's home.

Rape has NOTHING to do with how you dress or where you walk. Rape has to do with someone who is a rapist deciding to rape someone. The blame never rests on the victim, regardless of what she was wearing, how much she'd had to drink, or where she was walking. Saying it should have an impact -- that we should counsel victims and possible future victims on how to behave so they won't be assaulted -- is victim-blaming, and further, it's asinine. Rape is the fault of a rapist. Period. And there is, unfortunately, nothing anyone can do to make themselves less likely to be a victim, especially when more than one in six women in America will be the victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims) (sexual assault statistics are much higher; I've heard one in three).

The only thing that ridiculous, so-called "common sense" notions about what someone should wear and where they should walk accomplishes is making some individuals feel "safe" and superior because, well, they don't do x, y, or z, so they won't be raped. The reality of the situation is much different. And yes, it does feel horrible to sit here and say, "There's nothing you can do to make yourself less likely to be a victim of rape." All I can say is, surround yourself with people who are not rapists. Carry pepper spray or mace if it makes you feel safer. And do not ever, ever tolerate violent, possessive, or misogynistic behavior from men in your life.

You may make it out as "common sense" or "protecting yourself," but telling a woman she shouldn't be able to wear a short skirt because it will make her more likely to be a rape victim is bullshit. It implies that if she is raped while wearing a short skirt, it's her fault because she should have "known better." It's victim blaming. THAT, along with what I've already said? That is why people object to so-called "advice" about how "not to be a rape victim." It's bullshit and it just makes victims feel awful and gives proponents a smug sense of superiority. It doesn't actually HELP anyone.

How about this: We just say the common sense thing, the thing you can do to help women not be victims of rapists is just... don't tolerate that behavior. Tell your brothers and your sons and your friends not to rape girls, not even if they're drunk or wearing a short skirt. Don't tolerate rape jokes from your friends and family that trivialize the experience and trauma of rape. Don't apologize for rapists and don't blame their victims. I think that's a much better plan than saying "don't wear that short skirt or you'll get raped."


Before anyone jumps on me, I generalized severely by short-handing rape victims as women and rapists as men because the vast, vast majority of rape victims (9 out of 10) are women, and the vast, vast majority of rapists are men.

ETA: I feel I should mention that I obviously am referring here to what was in the OP -- the "short skirt in a dark alley" bull, not the more actually common sense things people in the comments are suggesting, such as not leaving a drink unattended.

Re: Tangents ahoy, but this is important.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

There is just entirely too much emotion built up in the subject to ever have a rational conversation on it. I was hoping by using a metaphor, people might be able to get around some of that.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this comment. It is a perfect illustration as to how we can do everything right and still fall victim to rape, or sexual assault.

I am very sorry you had to go through that. I'm also so saddened that you need to undergo dangerous surgery just because rape is so prevalent in our society and it is too big of a risk for you to take. I wish you luck in your surgery and recovery.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

You know what... no. You see, here's the thing: Going about naked, or in a corset and nothing else, or whatever? Believe it or not, it DOESN'T MAKE RAPE THE FAULT OF THE WOMAN. It doesn't mean she should have been ~less reckless~ or some shit. It means SOME GUY SHOULDN'T HAVE RAPED HER. It is NOT her fault that some asshole decided to take advantage of her, regardless of what she was or wasn't wearing.

It isn't "reckless" to wear a short skirt. It isn't "reckless" to wear a tube top, or skinny jeans, or a minidress, or booty shorts. It isn't "reckless" to have a few drinks. Even if it WAS, it isn't the fault of the wearer if someone assaults them, and they should never, EVER, EVER be blamed for it or told "well, if you'd just covered up..." or whatever bullshit. That's crap.

Also, not that it even MATTERS, that woman probably dressed like that for Slut Walk because she felt SAFE there, surrounded by like-minded people. I somehow doubt she -- or anyone else -- regularly walk around like that.

But hey, nice victim-blaming by posting her goddamn picture and using her as an example of, what, a potential victim you feel okay with blaming for her hypothetical assault? VERY classy.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The issue hear is there's a whole multitude of arguments put forth about the issues raised and a lot of people aren't exactly speaking about the same things. Coupled with not be able to explain what they mean well you have a heated mess.

The cop indicated in his comment that there exists a point where rape can be expected if you dress a certain way. Maybe the guy doesn't really feel that way and he just used really really bad words to express it but the offense people have is well warranted still. Because at plain value, that's what he said.

Now, there is an issue that can be put forth, and perhaps this is what the officer meant and what you mean, that a person should be mindful of their surroundings and take efforts to account for it. Akin to not displaying money... not because displaying money is an invitation to theft but because miscreants will be looking for someone with money with which to take. Likewise, a scumbag who is perfectly fine with raping women may get turned on by a woman dressed loosely or sexy.

And let me state this right here.... rape is always wrong. If you can't get explicit permission first from a woman capable of giving consent, don't have sex with a woman.

People shouldn't have to account for the low nature of their neighbor but the world we live in means we may not have that luxury. It's a tricky subject to set forth though because some people will get spun up too fast.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Problem is women are raped no matter what they are wearing. Women in full hijab have been raped, nuns in full habits have been raped. Secondly how do you define what is 'slutty'? to many cultures(and not just muslim to avoid the standard right wing knee-jerk) not covering your hair is considered 'slutty' or showing your ankles, or whatever.

So essentially telling women not to dress like sluts to avoid being raped is not only offensive, it is fundamentally wrong.

[nano-muse.livejournal.com]

Just so you know, I'm assuming you're saying that while we shouldn't blame people for being in a bad situation, they should try to avoid it. If not, correct me.

I think one thing you have to realize is most of the time, people don't necessarily want to be in that dangerous situation. I know that when I walk home after work in the dark streets, it's dangerous. But that doesn't stop me because I have to get home. I know that walking down certain back-street short-cuts is a bad idea, but so is spending even more time outside of my home in the middle of the night. So I take measures to protect myself (pocket-knife in hand at all times) and go forth, because a.) I don't really have a choice and b.) I know this is not a good neighborhood.

I get that you're trying to say people should take care of themselves, and we shouldn't blame them if something happens regardless. Good idea in theory, but in practice, it doesn't work that way. People don't always get to choose what kind of people are in their neighborhood, or where they live, or when they get to go home. People don't really choose to go through a dark alley in the middle of the night - they're usually there because they have to be.

And, while the idea of "we shouldn't blame them" is nice, the problem is that by saying that people should take care of themselves in a certain way, the implication becomes that the onus is on them if they don't, and something happens.

Oh, and, fun fact: if some guy is going to target a woman walking on the street, he probably won't pick them based on clothes, but demeanor. Modestly-dressed women get assaulted on the streets, to, while scantily dressed ones go unscathed, because targets are selected by how meek and submissible they look - which can sometimes correlate to clothes, but not always. There's a difference between the woman scantily clad in a desperate bid to gain male attention and a woman scantily clad because she feels proud of her body, and the attacker will get that difference, even if they don't realize it.

I do not remember which publication it was in, but there was one which showed the results of a study in which convicted criminals were shown footage of average streets of people and asked to pick the one they'd attack - time and again it had more to do with confidence and how much you appeared to be aware of your surroundings and how capable you looked, rather than how you were dressed.

So while I agree that your post is a nice sentiment, in the real world, it doesn't work, because it involves a choice which many people don't have, and it depends on people not picking even the most arbitrary reason to blame the victim.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I'm assuming you're saying that while we shouldn't blame people for being in a bad situation, they should try to avoid it.

Its a small part of what I'm saying. Maybe the point I was trying to make was overly complex. What I am trying to say is that we should not jump to demonize someone who says people should try to avoid bad situations. We should take the time to have nuance in our opinions that we can accept a good point from someone even if overall we don't agree with them.

What I really want is for people to have a little more open communication, and hopefully by that, in the end, some reciprocation so people do listen to points like "Most rapes happen from people you know, not in a dark alley". It's never going to change anybody's mind if we just stand there and shout at them. We're in a place where people who will listen already agree with us, and people who don't aren't going to listen because any time they try to bring up a point we demonize them as inhuman monsters. We need to be able to say "yes, you are right about that point", now, how about this point.

So I was hoping maybe we could bring up this one point and say "yeah ok we can agree on that".

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

I see where you're coming from.

Alex Alvarez on Mediaite discussed something similar in an article (http://www.mediaite.com/online/summer-of-the-slut/). I thought it was a refreshing point.

When women are raped and harassed and catcalled, it’s not the fault of women. Repeat: It is not the victim’s fault. But walking with a designer purse brimming with cash in a dark alley at 3 in the morning is placing myself in a dangerous situation, and I know that. A good person can walk by and leave me alone, because that person isn’t a thief. But my decision makes me vulnerable to those who are thieves, and to those who would take advantage of me in this situation because, you know. They can. Women should be able wear what we’d like without fear of being assaulted or attacked or belittled, but this isn’t the reality of how the world we live in works, and so it’s up to us to remain aware.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

once the tone arguments started coming out I basically took it off my mail list. @.@ I don't think anyone is ever going to give an inch even with something as basic. I don't really see any sort of open communication ever happening.