The Dim-Post

May 28, 2011

Slutwalk, or social activism as reality TV

Filed under: general idiocy — danylmc @ 12:21 pm

The Slutwalk phenomenon is coming to New Zealand. I commented on twitter the other day that I think it’s a stupid gimmick, and this prompted a flood of outraged emails and tweeted responses, and since Twitter is not a venue for reasoned argument, here’s a more expansive take.

The original premise is rather witty. A policeman visiting a university in Toronto gave a speech in which he advised woman to ‘avoid dressing like sluts’ to avoid becoming victims of sexual violence. Social activist groups organised a protest outside the police headquarters and called it ‘Slutwalk’ to foreground the police officer’s offensive remarks. The organisers asked people to dress normally but some dressed as sluts, and this (inevitably) captured media attention and this attention, in turn, captured the attention of activists in other cities who immediately organised their own Slutwalks, with a stronger focus on dressing up like sluts.

Removed from the context of the Toronto protests what is Slutwalk about? Well, clicking around the different organising sites, it seems to be about a lot of things. It’s about celebrating female sexuality, and protesting against sexual violence, and the fallacy that women behave in ways that invite sexual violence, and re-appropriating the term ‘slut’ (eg. in the manner of suffragette and queer) and also protesting the use of the word, and also celebrating the use of the word.

I’m not going to pretend to a feminist analysis of Slutwalk, but as an amateur observer of political activism it looks to me like a train-wreck. You’d think that the main critics of the global Slutwalk phenomenon would be conservative groups and commentators, but the most outspoken naysayers are other feminists. The basic criticism is that it’s counter-productive to associate being a feminist with being a slut, that many feminists don’t self-identify as ‘sluts’, so don’t want to march on something called a ‘Slutwalk’. Feminist writers and intellectuals from non-white ethnic groups point out that there’s a huge stigma against sexual promiscuity in many non-western cultures and the identification of feminists as sluts is damaging to their struggle for basic human rights and gender equality. I don’t have a dog in these fights – but if there is one single issue you’d think all feminists and all progressives could unite behind it’s outrage against sexual assault and the culture enabling it – yet Slutwalk has managed to create division and polarisation around this very issue.

Sure, it’s superficially clever: the basic concept – chicks dressed up as sluts! – will attract massive media attention so it’s a forgone success if that’s your only goal. But the goal of protesting is to convey a message and attempt to bring about change. What message does Slutwalk send?

See, a protest march is not a nuanced, sophisticated medium. It’s about what it’s about, not an ironic meta-message. When Tuhoe marched through Wellington in 2007 to protest the terror raids some of them dressed as terrorists to make an ironic comment; but all the bystanders and TV viewers saw were a bunch of Maori dressed up as terrorists. The message conveyed was the opposite of the message intended. Compare that to the protests last year against mining in national parks: simple, uncomplicated theme; massive support; massive turnout: the government reversed its decision. That’s how you do it.

Slutwalk aims to convey a variety of messages: some worthy, some vague, others contradictory. But the means of doing so are highly mediagenic and sexualised and the basic, elemental message is about the right to dress up like a slut. That’s going to be the message sent to 99.9% of bystanders and TV viewers. Is that really where contemporary feminism is headed nowadays? You’re a feminist if you can get your picture in the paper or on TV by dressing like a slut? It’s not my movement, so if that’s what contemporary feminists think is important then good luck to ‘em. I just think it’s stupid.

About these ads

301 Comments

  1. The organisers asked people to dress normally but some dressed as sluts

    This is exactly where your analysis of the walk fails. Some of these feminists “dressed as sluts”? What does that mean? They wore low-cut clothing, so that makes them sluts? Women have been called sluts in some pretty conservative outfits. How do you know they weren’t just wearing what they wear? Because that’s the thing – women have been called sluts whatever we wear, however we behave. Slut is a word that’s been used to control women: our behaviour, our dress, where we go and what we do and how we speak. This is exactly the sense in which the Toronto police officer used the word, and it’s also the sense in which you have used it throughout this post. So naturally, you find the walk confusing and puzzling.

    Slutwalk’s message is, in fact, pretty simple: Women (and men!) cannot dress or behave in a way that makes their sexual assault their own responsibility, and – yes – have the right to walk down a public street wearing whatever they goddamn want. Because it’s called “slutwalk”, it has got media attention, and people like yourself have felt comfortable describing women participating in the walk as “dressing like sluts” and making the associated value judgements. But to say that it isn’t promoting a conversation about sexual assault seems to me to be false on the face of it!

    It’s not my movement, so if that’s what contemporary feminists think is important then good luck to ‘em. I just think it’s stupid.

    You don’t think the right for women to choose their own clothing is important? What do you think about restrictions on women’s clothing in religious countries? Recently a (conservative) Israeli paper erased two women from a picture – I’m sure you’re familiar with this – they don’t print images of women for, you know, the usual reasons: women are dangerous. Our bodies, our images. The way we dress. Our visibility. These women were pretty conservatively clothed: there is *nothing* women can wear to avoid this! “The right to dress like a slut” doesn’t exactly have a ring to it when you put it that way, no. But the right to be seen? The right to be heard? The right to see and the right to speak? *those* are the rights that the word “slut” is used to curtail.

    Comment by Tui — May 28, 2011 @ 12:42 pm

  2. The trouble with “If you dress like a slut, you are asking for it” is how far do you have to go before women have to travel in portable tents so as to not arouse the base male instincts
    And even then a flash of a woman’s eye or her scent could be enough for a trigger

    So let’s lay the blame where it belongs and march against men and their attitudes

    Comment by Raymond A Francis — May 28, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

  3. This is exactly where your analysis of the walk fails. Some of these feminists “dressed as sluts”? What does that mean? They wore low-cut clothing, so that makes them sluts?

    Yeah, that was just a massive judgement call on my part.

    Comment by danylmc — May 28, 2011 @ 1:09 pm

  4. If it is any help, I found a children’s book of Cinderella. In it the Step sisters called Cinderella a “slut.” This official reader was published in 1938.

    I think that the way people dress does tell something about them. The reaction to a woman wearing a Salvation Army uniform would be quite different to a semi-naked girl. That does NOT give anyone, male or female the right to assault them regardless of the signal the perpetrator might think that he/she receives.

    Comment by ianmac — May 28, 2011 @ 1:32 pm

  5. Danyl: does the sign she’s holding really have anything to do with the clothes she’s wearing? It is quite possible that this is how she dresses on a daily basis, and the sign is to do with the march.

    Plus, she probably likes sex. Good for her.

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 28, 2011 @ 1:39 pm

  6. Surely the whole ‘people should be able to dress whatever way they like’ thing is a bit disingenuous. In liberal countries, people generally are legally entitled to dress whatever way they want, which is fair enough. And in an ideal world the way you dress would also have no impact or whether you are likely to become victim of violence (although that is not strictly true – for example, I imagine wearing a Man U jersey in a bar populated by Liverpool hooligans is not particularly safe).

    But in saying all that, it is not the same is being able dress in any way and NOT be judged for it. The simple fact is every culture has its own rules about what forms of dress is considered ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’. Of course these rules are not hard and fast, depend on the context (the togs/undies ad comes to mind) and are liable to change over time. Nevertheless, such rules exist and it is pointless to pretend otherwise. Wearing a tight pink t-shirt as a male may see you being considered ‘gay’. Wearing short skirts and low cut tops as a woman will mean some people will judge you as trying to attract the attention of men in a sexual manner. Whether or not it is ‘right’, ignoring this issue is simple ignoring a reality of human nature.

    On that basis, danyl has a point: What is the march about? If it is about protesting against sexual violence, then there may well be better ways of doing so. Yes, the format of the protest is guaranteed to attract attention, but I’m not sure the format of the protest sends the right message and is as inclusive as it could be. If it is about protesting against being labelled as a ‘slut’ for dressing as a certain way, then I think that the protest is only going to further associated certain forms of dress with the label ‘slut’.

    Comment by Anonymous Coward — May 28, 2011 @ 1:55 pm

  7. Okay, first, mandatory “I don’t support rape” out: Of course the clothes that a person wears can’t be an invitation to rape them. Rape being non-consensual, that is definitionally impossible.

    But really? Will this really persuade any would be rapists, or rape apologists, to change their ways? Well, if it does, good luck, but I doubt it will.

    What I find annoying is those people who say that they should be allowed to dress how they want without being judged. That is bizaare. Except for warmth, comfort, and affordability, basically all of the huge variance between how people dress is in order to try and influence others to judge them in a particular way.

    Comment by DT — May 28, 2011 @ 2:06 pm

  8. does the sign she’s holding really have anything to do with the clothes she’s wearing? It is quite possible that this is how she dresses on a daily basis, and the sign is to do with the march.

    I guess you can convince yourself of that. But the march is called Slutwalk and is about women and clothing choices and she’s wearing all the clothes society associates with dressing like a slut, and holding up a sign reading ‘Proud slut’. So . . .

    Comment by danylmc — May 28, 2011 @ 2:09 pm

  9. Seems to be sending the same idiotic message as Boobs on Bikes or the Hero parade, ie. no message at all just a bunch of narcissists flaunting themselves.

    Comment by ropata — May 28, 2011 @ 2:14 pm

  10. @anonymous coward: you are right but perhaps their point is that some of the judgement criteria needs to shift.
    It’s not so different to gay pride marches is it? They seem to have made their point as well as making the participants feel more empowered. Not much downside really.

    Comment by Roger Parkinson — May 28, 2011 @ 2:15 pm

  11. Some of these feminists “dressed as sluts”? What does that mean?

    Indeed. To a conservative Gulf Arab, Western women pretty much by definition “dress as sluts.” Mate, you can see her hair, her face, her ankles, the fact her waist is smaller than her hips, everything!

    How shameful I find a particular woman’s outfit is a measure of how fucked up I am, not a measure of anything about her. Just a pity the late-night streets are a smorgasbord of male fucked-up-edness.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 28, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

  12. Regardless of whether these walks are a great success in changing attitudes, that Toronto cop must be feeling pretty shamed right now

    Comment by Newtown News — May 28, 2011 @ 2:32 pm

  13. I love this blog post, it’s a fine example of all the “No one but me will understand the complexity of this thing, because other people are all such morons. Here’s what you’re all doing, and I don’t understand that at all, because no one will understand it.”

    These days they call that mansplaining, I believe. Really, we are all just trying to help, even when we aren’t as smart as we think we are. 8]

    Comment by tussock — May 28, 2011 @ 2:50 pm

  14. These days they call that mansplaining . . .

    Rarely do you see the ad hominem fallacy used so literally.

    Comment by danylmc — May 28, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

  15. I love this blog post, it’s a fine example of all the “No one but me will understand the complexity of this thing, because other people are all such morons. Here’s what you’re all doing, and I don’t understand that at all, because no one will understand it.”

    That’s basically Danyl’s house style in these situations. I’m inclined to leave him to it.

    Comment by Russell Brown — May 28, 2011 @ 3:01 pm

  16. I don’t have a taxpayer funded but invisible TV show to write self-congratulatory blog posts about each week, so something has to fill the void.

    Comment by danylmc — May 28, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

  17. Uncovered Meat, anybody? Talk about blaming the victim.

    Feminism has splintered into various factions over the years. You have the ‘sex-positive’ feminists who adhere to Betty Dodson, and the ‘sex-negative’ feminists who have more in common with Andrea Dworkin (who apparently got chummy with the Jerry Falwells of this world later in life).

    Comment by DeepRed — May 28, 2011 @ 3:34 pm

  18. In a perfect world you could dress however you wanted and it would have no effect whatsoever on your chances of becoming a victim of violence. Unfortunately we don’t live in such a world.

    Growing up in a really shitty part of town you become aware of that fact pretty quick and adapt to reduce those risk factors.

    Comment by Anthony — May 28, 2011 @ 3:45 pm

  19. He :) I have no opinion on slutwalks personally (except the obligatory rape is not ok whatever you wear etc) but I do agree with your point that protests are not a good forum for a nuanced message. Recently I went to a cycling safety protest where one of the people there was holding up a sign saying “Not a cyclist.” The message was meant to be, you see, that rather than just being a faceless person on a bike that it’s ok to mow down, instead he was a normal husband, father, etc etc just like you…. But, that message didn’t really get over in the photos I took. Instead he just looked like an anti-protestor (you know, like people who go on protests to stop whaling with signs saying “I love whale meat” or whatever).

    Comment by Amy — May 28, 2011 @ 4:26 pm

  20. Actually she is holding up a sign that says “Proud SlUT” which any dyslectic reads as Proud suit, and doesn’t she look good wearing it

    Comment by Raymond A Francis — May 28, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

  21. there were also some investigations a few years ago into the possibility that women dressed in a sexually-attractive way were causing earthquakes. Any idea what came of that?

    Comment by Kahikatea — May 28, 2011 @ 4:44 pm

  22. This sort of thing is just a priviledged white woman’s media kiss-up. Those who do not like to stray too far from a latte and a comfortable computer chair and think they are changing the world.

    There are many more important issues for women which deserve marches and attention, especially the fate of women caught up in the many misognistic, violent foreign regimes. And I am a woman, so don’t call me sexist or nuthin’.

    Danyl is correct in his post.

    Comment by DS — May 28, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

  23. My view of protest marches is that if you have to explain to an average bystander – okay, an average bystander who follows the news – what your protest is all about in more than one shortish sentence, you’ve failed. ‘We don’t want mining in National Parks’ – good. ‘We disagree with the government banning us from smacking our kids’ – good. ‘The foreshore and seabed act is land confiscation and that’s a bad thing’ – good. ‘There was this cop in Canada and he said that if women didn’t want to be raped they shouldn’t dress like sluts and even though no one here has publicly said that, some people probably believe it and so we’re marching dressed like sluts to protest against that attitude in a manner which we believe is witty and also protests against the idea that female promiscuity is a bad thing’ – not so good. Marches are all about simple, simple messages, because that’s all they’re capable of conveying, hence the simplistic, borderline retarded slogans that people chant while marching. If your message is complex you need to express it via a different medium.

    Comment by helenalex — May 28, 2011 @ 5:31 pm

  24. Maybe the way she dresses is immaterial as rape is an act of violence rather than an act of sex. Perhaps rape should be thought of as a terrible assault as on the old chap walking home at night or the youths bashing a passer-by or the pizza deliverer. Would it matter what he/she was wearing to a predator?.

    Comment by ianmac — May 28, 2011 @ 5:31 pm

  25. Thinking about it a bit more, there’s an irony I like about Slutwalk, in that the feminist movement has traditionally been very critical of the excessive use of sex and female sexuality in the media and advertising industries, and this is a feminist movement explicitly based on the use of female sexuality to promote itself.

    Comment by danylmc — May 28, 2011 @ 5:43 pm

  26. I don’t disagree with any of your points exactly. And I like the Australian commentator you linked to. But I also feel like there’s something creepy and Chris Trottery about you telling feminists how they can and cannot carry out their social activism.

    Comment by Kate — May 28, 2011 @ 5:46 pm

  27. I don’t have a taxpayer funded but invisible TV show to write self-congratulatory blog posts about each week, so something has to fill the void.

    I clearly hit a nerve there, then.

    Never mind. I do read and appreciate your blog, but it remains my view that your patronising, passive-aggressive style here and on related topics doesn’t lend itself to discussion, and seems to be related to your hang-ups with other people.

    Comment by Russell Brown — May 28, 2011 @ 5:55 pm

  28. I read somewhere that the “rape is about power not sex’mantra doesn’t really hold water….sure power can be an element but sexual gratification via orgasm is surely the prime motivator…..for penetration to occur the penis has to be erect..and that’s due to lust and sexual desire.Power maybe a fringe factor but not the driving force behind the male sex drive.

    Comment by James — May 28, 2011 @ 6:01 pm

  29. I wouldn’t call dim passive-aggressive. My experience debating him on his blog is that he’s pleasant and respectful if you are but if you aren’t he’ll hit you with every thing he’s got which can be a bit traumatic.

    Comment by Kate — May 28, 2011 @ 6:16 pm

  30. I clearly hit a nerve there, then.

    Not especially. I was just reciprocating your earlier frankness.

    I also feel like there’s something creepy and Chris Trottery about you telling feminists how they can and cannot carry out their social activism.

    Good grief. I’m not telling anyone how to be an activist. I made a comment on Twitter and (unusually) people paid attention to it and got mad, so I expanded on my comment. It’s just an opinion, not a ‘mansplanation’, or whatever.

    Comment by danylmc — May 28, 2011 @ 6:36 pm

  31. I’m not going to read Danyl’s argument coz its got too many words but my impression was it’s a good idea but it’s not really a good idea.

    Anyway after reading this and the What is to be done post of a few days ago I gather Danyl has dusted off that copy of Rules For Radicles hidden beneath the complete set of Castaneda.

    Comment by NeilM — May 28, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

  32. impression of the march that is

    Comment by NeilM — May 28, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

  33. Not especially. I was just reciprocating your earlier frankness.

    Well, no. My comment was a genuine, if unkindly expressed, opinion with respect to your tone here and in comments on the Lady Garden blog. Your response was a sub-Kiwiblog flail that I don’t think you really believe.

    You’ve started to behave on your own blog in the way you sometimes do in comments on other blogs and it’s not particularly appealing. That’s all.

    Comment by Russell Brown — May 28, 2011 @ 7:35 pm

  34. Ha! Russel Brown’s comment prompted me to go to Lady Garden and read Danyl’s comments. Which were fine I thought. But reading the responses… what were you thinking even TRYING to engage there? Why do you hate women Danyl? Why? (sniggers).

    Comment by DT — May 28, 2011 @ 7:53 pm

  35. I think it is a good idea. The reason feminists critique it is because the women who support a slutwalk are those feminists have been excluding for years. Those who think it is okay to buy into sexism if it gets them what they want.

    Comment by Rob — May 28, 2011 @ 8:06 pm

  36. Only Lady Garden blog I found dealth with technicalities of American gardening – why on earth Danyl was commenting there beats me – OTOH, found it most interesting (tho’ many of the plants and pests (Dutchman’s Pipe and suirrels) were not the sort of thing we get here
    Ah, the fun of Serendipity!!

    Comment by Leopold — May 28, 2011 @ 8:07 pm

  37. We are striving hard to reclaim this word and our efforts will see us in Tehran on April 2, 2012. All of you are welcome to join us as we, the veterans of Slutwalks all over the US/UK/CAN/AUS swoop down on Azadi square and reclaim this word!

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Slutwalk-Tehran-2012/190799127632817

    Join us. Be there. Reclaim. Chica bam pow!

    However we dress
    Whatever we show
    When we don’t say “Yes”
    We say “NO”

    Comment by Marcus — May 28, 2011 @ 8:10 pm

  38. I love this blog post, it’s a fine example of all the “No one but me will understand the complexity of this thing, because other people are all such morons. Here’s what you’re all doing, and I don’t understand that at all, because no one will understand it.”
    That seems a pretty significant over-reading of this post. It’s a blog, where Danyl has given his opinion (gasp!) and frequently suggested he wasn’t up to attempting a detailed feminist analysis. I don’t get this mansplaining thing (woooosh) but I fail to see how this is anymore than a standard blog post opining regardless of expertise.

    Comment by garethw — May 28, 2011 @ 8:12 pm

  39. The impression I get of local feminists is they are largely a bunch of middle aged pakeha academics, and mostly with comfortable lifestyles to boot.

    Instead of tut-tutting at anyone who questions their (completely ignored) 1970′s orthodoxy I suggest they should be asking themselves why slutwalk has managed to capture young women’s imagination at a time when they struggle to outnumber the blogs they create.

    Oh – and I was reading on stuff the other day that no one in gen x or y wants to work with baby boomers. Russell Brown perhaps illustrates here why.

    Comment by Sanctuary — May 28, 2011 @ 8:40 pm

  40. One criticism I don’t get about Slutwalk is that it’s a bad way to get the message across. Because any time someone makes this criticism, they first have to explain the message that the organisers are trying to get across. Slutwalk makes headlines (it’s already been in my local community newspaper) because of the transgressive name and occasional provocative dress. I’d be surprised if the organisers don’t get on one of the 7 o’clock media shows, explaining their message and answering the criticism that this might not be the best way to get it across. The controversy plays into that. Similarly, in the coverage of the march, there will be pictures of women in cleavage-y tops, but there will probably also be pictures of people dressed in less expected ways (one NZ blog commentator is going in surgical scrubs – I wouldn’t be surprised if some reporter picks her for a vox pop).

    tl;dr – the very fact that the methodology is so contentious acts to make this more of a media phenomenon and helps them get the message across.

    Comment by jack — May 28, 2011 @ 8:46 pm

  41. I think the initial march in protest to what someone said was a good idea.

    But formalising this as a regular event I don’t think makes sense. If it’s about conscience raising then shouldn’t it be about how most rape happens close to home and actually isn’t about clothing.

    I read what Danyl said over at Lady Garden and it seemed to me to an honest opinion. I find the accusations of bad faith disappointing.

    Comment by NeilM — May 28, 2011 @ 8:54 pm

  42. I think the problem is more that the essential message has not been made clear. From what I can see Slutwalk isn’t about a woman’s right to BE a slut, or the right of sluts to be given equal respect in society, or anything to do with actual sluts. It IS about the fact that victims of rape are not to blame for what was done to them.

    Also, while it is obviously sensible for women to be mindful of their own safety and not create problems for ourselves, it’s different to the situation of leaving your house unlocked and it being robbed – because if your house gets robbed and they catch the robber, he’s still treated by the law as a robber, whether your house had an open window or not. But what that policeman in Toronto was saying – and what a number of the more, shall we say, old-school crowd seem to be saying – is that where a scantily-dressed woman is raped, the criminal isn’t entirely responsible for the crime. Bullsh*t.

    So in conclusion, the march is OK but they need to be clearer what the message is.

    Comment by Milla — May 28, 2011 @ 8:58 pm

  43. wow, quite enjoying this little squabble btwn messieurs mc and br – but really where’s the line being drawn in the argument? without that being explicit I’m not sure what the problem is. Accusing Danyl of misogyny… really? may i suggest the rub is perhaps along a contour describing something of a disconnect between the promotion of authentic direct political action and the kind of soft identity politics favoured as a point of contention by aging but otherwise comfortable left leaners?

    Comment by dylan — May 28, 2011 @ 9:02 pm

  44. what that policeman in Toronto was saying – and what a number of the more, shall we say, old-school crowd seem to be saying – is that where a scantily-dressed woman is raped, the criminal isn’t entirely responsible for the crime.

    To echo Milt’s comment earlier, whenever I hear that argument I remember being in a mall in Riyadh with some Saudi workmates who pointed to a group of women in full burkha and whispered ‘Check them out’, without a trace of irony (the women were unescorted, so presumably single, hence intense excitement.)

    Comment by danylmc — May 28, 2011 @ 9:26 pm

  45. well I just think Scotty winning American Idol was really really crap.

    I didn’t much like Haley earlier with her Kylie Minoguish interpretation of Janis Joplin but she did do two of the best performances of the show.

    And Scotty did that terrible 9/11 song about being proud not knowing the difference between Iran and Iraq.

    And she did a duet with Tony Bennett. wow.

    Comment by NeilM — May 28, 2011 @ 9:31 pm

  46. @Sanctuary. I don’t think Russell Brown is a baby-boomer. Either way, it’s all getting a little ad hominem here. Also, “mansplain” should be banned. It’s not only smug, but doesnt even sound as good as the original term, “patronise”,.

    Comment by Matthew Littlewood — May 28, 2011 @ 9:40 pm

  47. Btw, I wasn’t suggesting Sanctuary used the term mansplain, just expressing my intense irritation towards that smug, precious neologism.

    Comment by Matthew Littlewood — May 28, 2011 @ 9:42 pm

  48. But what that policeman in Toronto was saying… is that where a scantily-dressed woman is raped, the criminal isn’t entirely responsible for the crime

    Did the policeman actually say that? From what I can gather in the above links, it appears that he said women could avoid being assaulted if they didn’t dress like ‘sluts’. While that may be offensive in itself, its not quite the same as saying that it was the victim’s fault instead of the criminal’s.

    Comment by wtl — May 28, 2011 @ 9:43 pm

  49. A bunch of men saying negative things about feminists. How enlightening…

    Comment by George D — May 28, 2011 @ 10:12 pm

  50. Why not George? They say plenty about us….rightly or wrongly.Its called equality buddy. ;-)

    Comment by James — May 28, 2011 @ 10:17 pm

  51. Deepred’s link quoted a guy saying: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”

    I’m intrigued by this reasoning, because it seems to be based on the assumption that women are responsible for their actions, but men are not responsible for theirs. If we took that to its logical conclusion, we wouldn’t allow men to vote or own property or have jobs outside the home.

    Comment by Kahikatea — May 28, 2011 @ 10:21 pm

  52. 51.Deepred’s link quoted a guy saying:

    you could engage with what real people are saying here or go to that site and engage with those views.

    Comment by NeilM — May 28, 2011 @ 10:34 pm

  53. Men are responsible for their actions…who said otherwise? But people are held accountable for their own actions that lead to negative consequences all the time.A home-owner who habitually leaves his windows open while out can quite rightly expect some criticism when a burglar uses them to enter his home and rob him.The proper comparison to this example is not however the Woman who once in a blue moon dresses up and go’s to town,gets rather tiddly and is taken advantage of by a chancer who has his way…..but the Woman who go’s to town every Friday and Saturday to party,get sozzled and off her face and greatly ups her chances of running into Mr wrong while defenceless as a result.

    Comment by James — May 28, 2011 @ 10:44 pm

  54. wtl: fair point. To me the officer is insinuating a level of blame on the sluttish victim’s part, but that may well be my own prejudices coming into play.

    Comment by Milla — May 28, 2011 @ 11:01 pm

  55. does anyone have a link to what the Toronto policeman actually said?

    Comment by NeilM — May 28, 2011 @ 11:20 pm

  56. James #53 seems to say that women who get drunk are accountable for the “consequences” of doing so – running into the wrong people and being raped. Since when is rape a consequence of being drunk? James – do you even have the faintest idea how offensive you are being? And why the hell do people assume that all feminists are women?

    Why is it so incredibly hard for people to understand that the only cause for rape is men raping.

    To me, Slutwalk is going through an evolution. It started in response to one specific event. But it is becoming something greater. It seems to be difficult for some people to understand that there are two fundamental components:

    Reclamation of the word “Slut” (although this seems to be something that has arisen as a secondary aim); and
    Reaffirming that how you dress is never an invitation to rape, sexual or any assault. How you behave is never an invitation to rape. In fact, as some have pointed out, rape is never invited – by definition.

    These are things that are universal. And it is a fight that will take a long time. So an annual event is not only reasonable but necessary.

    If you are ever in doubt about why such a movement is needed, all you need to do is read the sort of comments in reaction to the walk.

    Comment by Good Gravey — May 29, 2011 @ 12:14 am

  57. .but the Woman who go’s to town every Friday and Saturday to party,get sozzled and off her face and greatly ups her chances of running into Mr wrong while defenceless as a result.

    Your *own example* is getting drunk and engaging in risky behaviour. Nothing to do with what she happens to be wearing at the time. But if that girl you speak of DID get raped, people WOULD be all over her clothes. (And how can you tell if someone is out for a rare fling, and one who hits the town every night? Sure, one has more CHANCES of running into trouble, but if it does happen, are you going to assume that they must have been the latter? And therefore lacking the moral invulnerability forcefield that pushes off rapists and other attackers? Are you going to insist on finding out how often they partied before deciding if it was a Bad Thing?)

    And yes, engaging in risky behaviour is risky and drinking impairs judgement, but as has already been mentioned… most rapes are not girls going out partying getting attacked by strangers. It’s a completely misleading scenario.

    And as for the risky behaviour issue, it may be risky but, if you found someone passed out with drink as you walked somewhere with a friend, and your mate took their wallet and/or raped them, would you just shrug and say “it’s clearly their fault for being drunk. They should have known my mate might walk this way and be short of cash, and they’re wearing some kind of revealing get up, so they MUST want sexual attention”. Or would you go: my god, you sick bastard, what are you doing? And if you hadn’t been there and he’d told you later, would you have uncomfortably agreed with him, because HE says they asked for it?

    Back to the main post… the march is about the fact that it doesn’t matter what you wear – and ‘slut’ is just the catch-all, salacious word that people use to sum up the sort of girl who ‘asked for it’ – it doesn’t matter what you wear, you are not forcing someone to rape you. You aren’t even asking them.

    Comment by Flynn — May 29, 2011 @ 12:15 am

  58. Flynn….the people who know her and her habits will be the ones who lay judgement.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 12:36 am

  59. Flynn….the people like James will be the ones who lay judgement.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 29, 2011 @ 8:09 am

  60. Good Gravey # 57:

    It must be Sunday morning boredom, but I think probably that part of the cause for much of this disagreement is semantics. Specifically, the difference between `cause’ and `responsibility’ (as in, moral responsibility / accountability).

    Technically, it isn’t quite true to say that when a woman enters a risky situation and gets raped, that the risky situation isn’t one of the `causes’ of a rape, in the strict interpretation of what `cause’ means. But that is separate from what it seems to me (and I may be wrong) is the aim of slut walk, which revolves around affirming that the moral responsibility for rape lies completely with the rapist, and not with the raped.

    Moral responsibility is different from causation, which doesn’t have a moral or ethical component. Any given outcome is dependent on a range of causative factors which ultimately coalesce in that outcome (sounds like buddhist philosophy huh?), and decisions on the part of a victim can be partly causative of, BUT NOT MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR, the commission of a crime.

    Comment by DT — May 29, 2011 @ 8:41 am

  61. GG….If you don’t dangle a bloodied leg in the sea then you’re chances of having a shark attack you are considerably lessened than if you do is it not?

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 11:21 am

  62. Would anyone disagree that a Woman walking down the road stark naked is going to attach a hell of a lot more attention,and much of it male sexual attention, than a Woman who is heavily clothed?

    Now neither situation validates rape occurring or …..but the former certainly greatly increases the chances of it doing so….no? So would our feminist friends remain silent and allow one of their sisters to walk naked without expressing concern for her potential wellbeing?…..no? Then their argument that “dress is irrelevant” is revealed as bullshit.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 11:27 am

  63. James is one seriously confused libertarian. The individual is sovereign, unless she dresses in an unapproved manner and heads out the the pub, then she had it coming, and taxation is theft!

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 29, 2011 @ 11:30 am

  64. PM…..yes I would make a judgement claim when I had the facts of the matter…as a human being my nature requires me to judge and make choices based on that judgement if I’m to remain alive and prosper…reality forbids me any other alternative.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 11:31 am

  65. And Guy Smiley ignores,or more likely failed to get the point of my post….no surprise there.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 11:32 am

  66. It was explained to me that the new wave of feminism required women to go about dressed as freely as they liked. (No more un-lipsticked or burnt bras.)If they felt good wearing skimpy clothing then that is their right and no one had the right to respond in unwelcome ways. (Well they have that right regardless of what they wear.)
    And I was told that men could not be feminists. Maybe feminist-supporters but not feminists.

    Comment by ianmac — May 29, 2011 @ 11:44 am

  67. James is one seriously confused libertarian.

    Pretty much. If he lived in Saudi Arabia he’d be telling us women are asking for it when they leave their hair uncovered – because dress is not irrelevant.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 29, 2011 @ 11:51 am

  68. Well ianmac I am a feminist in the sense that I believe Women have the exact same individual rights as men…no more or less.And just like we Men Women also have to live in the same objective reality we do and like us they are not free to avoid the consequences of their actions….the law of cause and effect doesn’t discriminate on gender.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 11:52 am

  69. “Pretty much. If he lived in Saudi Arabia he’d be telling us women are asking for it when they leave their hair uncovered – because dress is not irrelevant.”

    In the context of SA dress IS not irrelevant and sadly an uncovered Woman IS asking for trouble there.One assumes if PM was in SA with a lady friend who wanted to go out in public that he would certainly advise her to think and take precautions about how she dressed considering the cultural context…? I think the obvious “yes” answer wins me the debate.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 11:57 am

  70. Danyl,

    Perhaps I wasn’t very helpful yesterday. Let me have another go at engaging with your argument in good faith.

    Feminist writers and intellectuals from non-white ethnic groups point out that there’s a huge stigma against sexual promiscuity in many non-western cultures and the identification of feminists as sluts is damaging to their struggle for basic human rights and gender equality.

    I don’t have a dog in these fights – but if there is one single issue you’d think all feminists and all progressives could unite behind it’s outrage against sexual assault and the culture enabling it – yet Slutwalk has managed to create division and polarisation around this very issue.

    Concern trolling much? The women who’ve got behind the Slutwalk idea are not only hurting feminism they’re damaging “the struggle for basic human rights and gender equality” and creating “division and polarisation” in the movement?

    Oh, for the days when all feminists everywhere subscribed to a single set of goals and ideas and used exactly the same language to discuss them.

    The Slutwalk idea seems simple enough to me. There’s a long and broad history of women not only being told what to wear, but being told they’re culpable for what they wear. Exactly what constitutes culpable dressing varies between, say, Riyadh and Auckland, but the wrongness of the idea doesn’t: no woman is culpable for her own rape because of what she took out of the wardrobe that morning.

    You seem surprised that some moral conservatives and feminists have found common cause on this issue. You don’t get out much, do you? The brandishing of doctrine to decree dress codes is as common in high feminism as it is amongst moral conservatives, and some of the women you’re butting heads with have experienced that fact in quite a bruising way.

    They’re told: you’re letting down the side. You’re breaking the code and you’re damaging feminism. It’s your fault.

    And — oh, look — that’s pretty much what you’ve said above. Can you see why that might rankle? Feelings will be heightened here, people will have different ideas about why they’re doing what they’re doing. It’s the kind of debate to which it’s appropriate to bring a certain generosity of spirit. Seriously, you should try that.

    Comment by Russell Brown — May 29, 2011 @ 11:59 am

  71. Well, let’s take James at his word. By the same token, it’s impossible not to judge those who flaunt the fact they have more money than others by buying nice stuff and then have it taken off them by force. Not their “fault”, of course, and we all deplore the crime of robbery and the like … but really, if you spend money on stuff then what did you expect? Dangling a bleeding leg in the ocean like that is bound to attract the sharks.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 29, 2011 @ 12:00 pm

  72. One would still assume the rich person would take precautions to avoid being the victim of theft by locking his doors,installing alarms,hiring security and voting ACT ;-)

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 12:10 pm

  73. Try telling your insurance company that you can leave your house insecure with impunity and that the burglary you suffered was totally the responsibility of the burglar and you weren’t to blame in the slightest and see how fast they exercise their judgement regarding your behaviour and the amount of your premiums…

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 12:16 pm

  74. So women can dress how they want, so long as they don’t let anyone else see them. And people can have nice stuff, as long as they don’t take it out of their fortress mansions. It’s consistent, I’ll grant you that.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 29, 2011 @ 12:24 pm

  75. Andrew….I had a low opinion of your intellect before this thread and if anything you have managed to lower it further…well done.

    So I assume you live life without any thought to your actions and the possible consequences there of….?

    Must be nice……..meanwhile in the real world…

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 12:32 pm

  76. Try telling your insurance company …

    Try telling a judge that the person whose home you’ve been burgling should share culpability for said burglary. I mean, really, their lack of secure window catches left you no choice but to break in and steal their stuff.

    Comment by Russell Brown — May 29, 2011 @ 12:43 pm

  77. And no surprise Red Russell also has a comprehension problem.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

  78. Russell’s right though, James – your insurance company might complain about your open windows, but you wouldn’t have to defend yourself about it in court or the media. The same is *not* true of survivors of rape or assault.

    Comment by Tui — May 29, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

  79. Basically these women are delusional.

    here is my take on it, after numerous conversations with them:

    http://slutwalkphenomenon.blogspot.com/2011/05/my-experience-with-slutwalk-ladies.html

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 1:20 pm

  80. Tui….it depends on the circumstances of the rape or assault…and that’s the point….were there contributing circumstances that increased the chances of an incident happening that could have been avoided with some care and thought?

    When the facts of the burglary are read out in court and its revealed that the burglar climbed in through an open window the victim admits he always left open the whole court will be thinking “well you were kinda asking for it in that case buddy”.

    And that’s a valid and natural thing to think.In the case of a rape where the victim admits that she always go’s to dark seedy clubs in a ski tight mini on Saturday night,drinks and uses E till she’s blotto and flirts with many men and regularly gets hot and heavy with them in the toilets everyone in that courtroom will also be passing judgement on her lack of it….and so they should.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 1:29 pm

  81. James, that’s totally logical, but the slutwalk people would look at a statement like that and interpret it as “so what you’re saying is that they deserve it!? how dare you! no woman deserves to be raped, under any circumstances, and you’re a monster for saying they do!”

    Seriously, read the blog I posted. You can’t reason with these people.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 1:36 pm

  82. I think the obvious “yes” answer wins me the debate.

    It’s so cute the way you always declare yourself the “winner” in a comments thread. It’s just a pity Danyl doesn’t have a certificate with some smiley-face stickers and gold stars he could give you.

    Turning to the actual points made, rather than your need for self-congratulation, you’re missing them. However, I’ve got time to waste on fruitless efforts to educate you, so let’s make a start:

    Do you think it a good thing that a woman in Saudi Arabia is asking for trouble by going out without her tent on? Is that a positive, heartwarming, praiseworthy feature of that society? Or does it reflect something extremely unpleasant that men in that society should be ashamed of and seek to change? Take your time…

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 29, 2011 @ 1:39 pm

  83. P….the answer your question deserves is…Well duh!

    You are usually better than this Milty….overdose on stupid pills last night did we?

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 1:45 pm

  84. Oh come on we all agree that their is never any defense for rape or sexual violence. What people are arguing about is whether or not it we should be telling women to behave in certain ways in certain circumstances for their own safety.

    Can’t we all agree that in an ideal world women shouldnt have to behave in certain ways to protect themselves and let’s all get on with working towards that. If we think this message is not being portrayed well by slut walk then as (predominantly) men why don’t we organise an event that says clearly that we don’t agree with sexual violence in any circumstances and that women should not have to dress or behave in certain ways if they wish to avoid sexual violence.

    Women are told throughout their whole lives how to “protect themselves” they don’t need dim post comments to help them out.

    Comment by Squirrel — May 29, 2011 @ 1:51 pm

  85. were there contributing circumstances that increased the chances of an incident happening that could have been avoided with some care and thought?

    I do not believe and I would like you to find court records which demonstrate that this is a mitigating circumstance taken into account or brought up in burglary cases. “Well, you stole the telly, but the windows were open, so we’ll reduce this sentence.” “Did you steal the telly?” “Yes, but the windows were open.” “Oh well, that’s OK then.” No! That’s not a line of defense! That’s a guilty plea!

    If you think that it’s shameful that women are forced into certain types of clothing in Saudi Arabia, why don’t you think it’s shameful when it happens here?

    Comment by Tui — May 29, 2011 @ 1:53 pm

  86. I think we all agree that in an ideal world they shouldn’t have to worry about being raped, just as parents in that some world shouldn’t have to worry about their kids getting kidnapped. Until we have that world though, don’t walk through dangerous neighborhoods alone, and don’t leave your 5 yearold alone at the mall for 4 hours.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 1:55 pm

  87. “Deepred’s link quoted a guy saying:”

    you could engage with what real people are saying here or go to that site and engage with those views.

    Neil,

    Firstly, congratulations. I didn’t realise you had been promoted to moderator on Danyl’s blog.

    Secondly, that link was to a reference site, not another discussion forum.

    Comment by Steve Parkes — May 29, 2011 @ 2:02 pm

  88. But Matt parents and women know what you are saying, they don’t need us to remind them. As I just said we all agree with the world the organisers of this march want. If we feel we disagree with how the message is being packaged then it would be very easy to repackage it. As men the media would be fascinated if we started doing something.

    Comment by Squirrel — May 29, 2011 @ 2:03 pm

  89. @ squirrel, I think you’re right, but ironically, the slutwalk campaign is preaching adamently against this. here are a handful of their beliefs:

    · Suggesting that a woman can take precautions to lower her chances of being sexually assaulted is equivalent to blaming victims

    · What a woman is wearing will not, under any circumstances, increase her chances of being sexually assaulted

    · Women should not have to modify their behavior to account for rapists/assaulters. Since women should not have to, we suggest they not take precautions against rape/assault. No one has the right to tell us what to do.

    · Rape is completely about power, and never has anything to do with a desire for sex. Any opinion to the contrary is a misogynist myth perpetuated by ‘society’

    · No matter what a woman does, and no matter what decisions she makes, she is equally likely, in any location, doing any activity, with any group of people, and dressed in any way, to be sexually assaulted or raped.

    · What a woman wears is completely unrelated to her desire to attract men. If a woman dresses ‘slutty’, it is because she wants to feel good about herself. This decision is made completely independently of any consideration for how men will respond.

    How much of this seems reasonable to you? If girls start listening to this, that’s going to be a problem.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 2:06 pm

  90. @matt: is that a verbatim listing of the organisers’ tenets or simply a listing of what you think they believe in? Seriously – please provide a link, it should be pretty easy and I’d love to know where you got those points.

    Comment by fishboy — May 29, 2011 @ 2:18 pm

  91. No matter what a woman does, and no matter what decisions she makes, she is equally likely, in any location, doing any activity, with any group of people, and dressed in any way, to be sexually assaulted or raped.

    Actually, most feminists would point out that that’s not true. A woman is far more likely to be assaulted by someone she knows, or a member of her family if she’s young, than a stranger who happens to like her outfit.

    If girls start listening to this, that’s going to be a problem.

    Shit, you better not say that when some of them might listen, then.

    The result of women believing this would be one, more women wearing clothes that men consider attractive, and two, more assholes being called to account for their behaviour towards women. Decent men have nothing to fear and plenty to gain.

    Comment by Trouble — May 29, 2011 @ 2:24 pm

  92. Matt I think its an understandable response from women many of whome will have experience sexual violence who have been told their entire life how to act and behave in a way which will supposedly limit the chance of sexual violence occuring. Men are not told by their parents oh and by the way don’t assault or grope anyone tonight but women going out are routinely reminded to protect themselves. Sure it may be frustrating that you feel the organizers are denying how the world operates – I am saying that they are fully aware of everything you are telling them but that they are sick of it and want to change it.

    Comment by Squirrel — May 29, 2011 @ 2:26 pm

  93. Actually, recently I was reading some rather unpleasant research about the dynamics of stranger rape, and it made the point that serial rapists target modestly-dressed quiet victims whom they perceive to be easier to isolate and dominate. The whole “uncovered meat” way of thinking is bullshit.

    It is instructive to note that when drunk men are beaten up on their way home, we rarely if ever see comment on how they deserved their beating and brought it on themselves. Indeed their incapacity makes them more sympathetic.

    Comment by Stephen — May 29, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

  94. I actually think most feminists would disagree with every one of the points I posted. That’s why the slutwalk people are ‘special’. they do believe these things. They see themselves as enlightened, and when they preach these things to others, they believe they are imparting wisdom. If you disagree with them, they will slander you as ignorant, and a misogynist who blames victims.

    I obviously have no problem with women dressing sluttier, doesn’t affect me. I have a problem with them throwing caution to the wind and doing unsafe things though. If I have a daughter some day, and someone tells her “don’t worry about arranging a ride home, don’t worry about walking in a dangerous neighborhood alone” and so on, then I have a big problem with that person.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

  95. @ Squirrel, I agree with you. but try talking to them. you will see how far deluded they are. Seriously, go on their facebook site and ask them “hey, is there anything a girl can do to reduce her chances of being sexually assaulted?”

    I guarantee they will answer with something along the lines of “HOW ABOUT YOU STOP BLAMING THE VICTIM”.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 2:32 pm

  96. Matt, that sounds a lot like trolling, and I’m not surprised people react angrily.

    The whole point of the whole business is to say that it’s not women’s job to reduce the incidence of sexual assault, and the measures people most commonly suggest to achieve this goal are ineffective, and those suggestions end up further hurting victims of sexual assault.

    Focussing on what women can do is effectively conceding that a certain amount of rape will just happen and we just have to try and make sure it happens to someone else.

    Comment by Trouble — May 29, 2011 @ 2:41 pm

  97. Matt many of my good friends are radical feminists and I have been involved in organising a few take back the night marches, if you ask a loaded question in a political forum knowing what the response will be then you’re a dick. We do have a victim blaming culture when it comes to sexual violence, issues like what a women was wearing should be irrelevant my position is that its entirely understandable that women are pissed off and sick of hearing crap about sexual violence. I think it might take a bit of humility to look beyond that and actually engage in a constructive manner in building the kind of world that I think we all want to see.

    One point I feel I should make is that amongst any group of political activists there are always fanatics who drive the public away, these people infuriate me. Try and ignore anyone who shows that they are unwilling to engage in dialogue and move on.

    Comment by Squirrel — May 29, 2011 @ 2:45 pm

  98. Matt, when I followed the link you gave to supposedly ‘prove’ your assertions about what supporters of Slutwalk believe, all I found was the same claim that this is what they believe, presented as an assertion by a critic of the movement called ‘Matthew’. Are you even a different person from him? or is this just a fancy form of the ‘because I said so’ argument?

    Comment by Kahikatea — May 29, 2011 @ 2:51 pm

  99. there are 2 parts to this: 1 [Focussing on what women can do is effectively conceding that a certain amount of rape will just happen] and 2 [we just have to try and make sure it happens to someone else].

    I agree with you on the first part; but this is a true thing. A certain amount of rape will happen, and so will a certain amount of murder, and a certain amount of kidnapping. Society will make growing pains to have the rates of all these crimes reduce to lower and lower levels as our society evolves (not to be dismissive of the efforts required to make that happen, it will involve growing pains and a lot of arguments/clashes of perspectives).

    For the second part, I don’t think it’s as simple as displacement. For most murders/rapes, I imagine it’s not done by strangers, it’s probably mostly done by people the victim knows. I’m not sure what the solution is for those cases, but I doubt it’s anything the slutwalk has to offer. For cases where it is done by strangers though, there are things that can be done, and I don’t think it’s as simple displacing the rape from one party to another. I think if girls in general took precautions like carrying pepperspray, using a buddy system, refused drinks from strangers etc. This would lower the incidence of rape/sexual assault by strangers.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 2:54 pm

  100. Kahikatea, you don’t need to take my word for it, but go talk to them directly and see how they feel about those issues. Then you’ll have your answer. What I posted was an example of my dialogues with them, and if you’re not convinced that they hold these opinions, go ask them yourself (like I did) and you’ll see.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 2:57 pm

  101. Squirrel, I don’t feel like we have a culture of victim blaming. Can you really think of anyone you know who feels that there is some circumstance under which a girl deserves to be raped, or that the rape was in some way her fault? I think it’s a question of interpretation. Someone might say “oh, well she didn’t help her chances much by going into that neighborhood by herself dressed like that, and alone no less”. Someone in the slutwalk group would interpret that statement as blaming the victim, and a more rational person would say the statement is accurate, but also that it does not imply anything about fault or blame.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 3:00 pm

  102. What the slutwalk has to offer for victims of non-stranger rape is a challenge to the suggestion that they could have prevented it by being less slutty. So, for the woman (a girl is under 18, if you’re not sure) who goes out on a date with someone she met last week who then rapes her, perhaps her friends will think twice about lecturing her on whether she should have accepted a drink from him or worn her attractive clothes out on that date.

    Comment by Trouble — May 29, 2011 @ 3:06 pm

  103. @ Trouble, I partly agree with you, but I also believe you are over simplifying, and I think you know that too. The world is full of shades of grey, and rape prevention will never be absolute, but the bottom line that I’m making is that it’s reckless and dangerous to be dismissive about efforts you can make for your own safety. A lesson on sensitivity to victims and how to make them feel comfortable is one thing, but Slutwalk is not that; it’s a militant knee jerk attack on common sense in the face of reality. Some girls may feel empowered with all the cheerleading and emotional support, but if they think they’re better off by taking on those perspectives, it will be a short lived perspective if they get assaulted again (in part from their recklessness).

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 3:13 pm

  104. Matt @103 asked, Can you really think of anyone you know who feels that there is some circumstance under which a girl deserves to be raped, or that the rape was in some way her fault?

    Well, just look at all the venom spilling forward – on both sides – in the Julian Assange sexual assault allegations case. The women at the centre of this have had their lives examined under a microscope and their reputations torn to shreds, comments and previous actions taken out of context (as, indeed, has Mr Assange). None of which tells us what happened between the people concerned in this particular circumstance. But it is used as ammunition by both sides who are, for the most part, fighting bigger battles that have nothing to do with trying to establish the truth about what happened here.

    An example of victim-blaming in this case: some bloggers commenting that the women deserved anything that happened to them because they flirted with Mr Assange and consented to sex. Consent in a general sense removes any right to not consent to something in particular. If that’s not victim blaming, I’m not sure what is.

    Comment by Dorothy — May 29, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

  105. ….If you don’t dangle a bloodied leg in the sea then you’re chances of having a shark attack you are considerably lessened than if you do is it not?

    If you don’t drive a nice car, your chances of having it stolen are considerably less than if you do, is it not?

    And your analogy fails in other ways: sharks don’t analogise to humans when discussing issues that involve free actions, and a pointlessly putting a bloodied leg in the sea doesn’t analogise to a person going out for some fun on a Friday night. At least you’re up front about being a misogynist of the Sheikh Hamid Hilaly school.

    “Pretty much. If he lived in Saudi Arabia he’d be telling us women are asking for it when they leave their hair uncovered – because dress is not irrelevant.”

    In the context of SA dress IS not irrelevant and sadly an uncovered Woman IS asking for trouble there. One assumes if PM was in SA with a lady friend who wanted to go out in public that he would certainly advise her to think and take precautions about how she dressed considering the cultural context…?

    You’re all over the place, James. Before you mentioned we all had “the same objective reality”, now it’s about cultural context? If you support the cultural practices that oppress women, then you’re a bigot for supporting others’ bigotry; if not, then it does nothing for your point about western women.

    James, that’s totally logical, but the slutwalk people would look at a statement like that and interpret it as “so what you’re saying is that they deserve it!?

    You mean some people get “you’re saying that they deserve it?” from James’ “well you were kinda asking for it in that case buddy”. Quelle surprise!

    Comment by Steve Parkes — May 29, 2011 @ 3:28 pm

  106. What matt said……and very well.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 3:38 pm

  107. ^ You’re missing his point. It was that a comment like “you were kind of asking for it buddy” would never be viewed as controversial for robbery victim. In the case of sexual assault or rape, poor judgement for ones own safety would never get that kind of a response because there’s too much heat on the topic, regardless of how reckless the behavior was. If the slutwalk perspective on this topic goes mainstream, advice like “keep a charged cell phone on you, make sure you arrange a ride home, don’t walk alone if you don’t have to” will stop because people will be afraid of being labelled victim blamers. I think the world has more common sense than these people, so I don’t expect that perspective to become the norm, but you never know.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 3:39 pm

  108. Steve….re read (if you even bothered the first time) what I actually said and the point I was actually making…..then get back to me….so far you are embarrassing yourself.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 3:41 pm

  109. P….the answer your question deserves is…Well duh!

    I presume that’s “well duh” to it being something shameful. You are indeed a difficult student, but I’ll persevere:

    The Saudi example provides us with some useful info:

    1. It tells us that if we follow your precautionary principle of women’s clothing to its logical conclusion, we eventually arrive at women dressed in tents.

    2. It tells us that this precautionary principle is about women inconveniencing themselves to suit men, and that this is a Bad Thing.

    And most importantly,

    3. It makes it plain that what constitutes “dress as a slut” is culturally defined.

    That last one is important because how cultures define things can be changed. For example, we can conceive of the idea that if the Saudis change their attitudes a bit, one day a Saudi woman might be able to go out in an ordinary dress without having someone rush up to beat her with a stick, and we can recognise that change as a Good Thing.

    Saudi is an exaggerated example for the sake of clarity, however the same principle applies in Western countries. The culture can change, but the first step in changing it is to make people recognise when their attitude is fucked up and make them want to do something about it. What we’re looking at here is merely the local equivalent of women wanting to go out minus the tent without having some male retard decide they’re obviously gagging for it. Instead of defending the retards, take the opportunity to promote a Good Thing. It’s really not hard.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 29, 2011 @ 3:42 pm

  110. Steve the ninny said….

    If you don’t drive a nice car, your chances of having it stolen are considerably less than if you do, is it not?

    That’s not the right comparison…it would be a compatible analogy if the owner didn’t bother locking the car or parked it in dodgy areas on a regular basis with the keys still in it.

    And your analogy fails in other ways: sharks don’t analogise to humans when discussing issues that involve free actions, and a pointlessly putting a bloodied leg in the sea doesn’t analogise to a person going out for some fun on a Friday night. At least you’re up front about being a misogynist of the Sheikh Hamid Hilaly school.

    Fail again Steve….the point that is repeatedly being missed or ignored is the one about percentages of risk…and management of that risk.These apply both in the shark example and the Women out of a night one who fails to take any care for herself.

    “Pretty much. If he lived in Saudi Arabia he’d be telling us women are asking for it when they leave their hair uncovered – because dress is not irrelevant.”

    In the context of SA dress IS not irrelevant and sadly an uncovered Woman IS asking for trouble there. One assumes if PM was in SA with a lady friend who wanted to go out in public that he would certainly advise her to think and take precautions about how she dressed considering the cultural context…?

    You’re all over the place, James. Before you mentioned we all had “the same objective reality”, now it’s about cultural context? If you support the cultural practices that oppress women, then you’re a bigot for supporting others’ bigotry; if not, then it does nothing for your point about western women.

    Christ you are a special kind of thick aren’t you? Of course we all live in the same objective reality of the Universe we inhabit…we have no other option….but there are specific contexts within our reality that compel us to think upon them and adjust our behaviour accordingly if we wish to remain alive and happy.Would you not wear warm polar gear in the Arctic? Would you go swimming in known shark waters with a bleeding wound?How about orienteering in the Cambodian bush with all those millions of mines about? Do grow a clue please.

    James, that’s totally logical, but the slutwalk people would look at a statement like that and interpret it as “so what you’re saying is that they deserve it!?

    You mean some people get “you’re saying that they deserve it?” from James’ “well you were kinda asking for it in that case buddy”. Quelle surprise!

    Those sentences where examples of what normal people would think to themselves after hearing the facts of the cases….are you saying you have never privately thought similar things about various events you have seen and heard about?…yeah right.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 3:56 pm

  111. PM I presume that’s “well duh” to it being something shameful. You are indeed a difficult student, but I’ll persevere:

    I was meaning that the answer to your point was glaringly obvious and hardly needed restating again….in other words :No!

    <The Saudi example provides us with some useful info:

    1. It tells us that if we follow your precautionary principle of women’s clothing to its logical conclusion, we eventually arrive at women dressed in tents.

    Silly Milty….life is risk…..we can’t escape that fact.What we can do is attempt to manage that risk by the application of our reason to reality.

    2. It tells us that this precautionary principle is about women inconveniencing themselves to suit men, and that this is a Bad Thing.

    …..Agree in general but then we don’t live in the bubblegum utopia you seem to think we should be in…..some men rape….just as Sharks attack blood and landmines blow up.Shit happens….be prepared as you reasonably can be for if and when it does.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 4:14 pm

  112. The most objective debating is done by attacking the argument, not the opponent. I’ll admit I’m guilty of doing it though, I try to control myself, but by god do people tempt me sometimes…

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 4:17 pm

  113. “Of course we all live in the same objective reality of the Universe we inhabit…we have no other option….but there are specific contexts within our reality that compel us to think upon them and adjust our behaviour accordingly if we wish to remain alive and happy.”

    What is the “objective reality” around this issue, James, and what unalterable law of the Universe conferred it on us? ‘Cause the whole point of this discussion (and the protests that it references) is that social attitudes towards dress and what it signifies are contested and can be changed. Hence the absence of “Bleeding Swimmers Walk” or “Cambodian Mine Orienteerers Walk” … no point protesting that which will not alter.

    Also, note how REALLY smart people don’t need to tell others that they are dumb. This is behaviour indicative of a 15 year old taking a break from his social studies assignment. Just sayin’.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 29, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

  114. @Russell Brown:

    Maybe I am being a big old concern troll, subconsciously. This is always the accusation I got at PAS when people couldn’t quite believe I might hold an opinion different to theirs. But basically my impression of Slutwalk from reading about it was that its aims seemed rather vague and the criticisms of it seemed very cogent, and I got them impression it was more about theatre dressed up as activism than actual activism, and that’s what I wrote about in the OP.

    But thinking about it today and exchanging emails with a friend I do wonder if I’ve gotten it totally wrong. Debates like this one are happening in every city in which there’s a Slutwalk, and they probably wouldn’t if it was a simple pro-feminist march. Which makes me think that Slutwalk is a kind of meta-activism in which the protest exists not for its own sake but to provoke debate around the protest.

    If that’s the case then it’s a huge success and a work of genius and I’m totally wrong about its efficacy, and I’m also an unwitting participant in Slutwalk.

    I have an increasingly strong suspicion that’s the case.

    Comment by danylmc — May 29, 2011 @ 4:31 pm

  115. What is the “objective reality” around this issue, James, and what unalterable law of the Universe conferred it on us? ‘Cause the whole point of this discussion (and the protests that it references) is that social attitudes towards dress and what it signifies are contested and can be changed. Hence the absence of “Bleeding Swimmers Walk” or “Cambodian Mine Orienteerers Walk” … no point protesting that which will not alter.

    The reality is that some men rape and always will (I confidently assume) as long as humanity exists,Women who act in certain ways attract attention from males and that life contains risks….any possible disagreement with that assessment of the facts?

    Also, note how REALLY smart people don’t need to tell others that they are dumb. This is behaviour indicative of a 15 year old taking a break from his social studies assignment. Just sayin’

    I call it as I see it…if you make obviously stupid comments then expect to have your intellect questioned….just sayin…

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 4:41 pm

  116. @danyl — the unwitting mouthpiece of cunning linguists ?

    Comment by ropata — May 29, 2011 @ 4:45 pm

  117. The reality is that some men rape and always will (I confidently assume) as long as humanity exists

    But rape incidence is highly variable. During wartime incidence of rape increases and as reporting of the crime and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system increases we expect the incidence of rape to decline. That’s one of the broader goals of feminism. Do you reject that as a legitimate goal on the grounds that women should just dress differently?

    Comment by danylmc — May 29, 2011 @ 5:01 pm

  118. “Do you reject that as a legitimate goal on the grounds that women should just dress differently?”

    No, I just expect them to approach the relationship between their safety and their behavior with common sense. Slutwalk’s perspective is women should make no such efforts on the grounds that they shouldn’t have to. The goal to make society’s propensity to rape drop is a valid one, but I don’t think marching down the streets dressed like a fool and shouting like a jackass is a valid way to accomplish that goal.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 5:10 pm

  119. Again…what matt said. :-)

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

  120. “Slutwalk’s perspective is women should make no such efforts on the grounds that they shouldn’t have to.”

    That is entirely your reading of the objectives/perspectives of Slutwalk, not actually what the people organising it are saying. Linking to another blog where your sockpuppet says exactly the same thing is no proof that you’ve even explored the issue in good faith.

    Comment by fishboy — May 29, 2011 @ 5:39 pm

  121. James: “I call it as I see it…”

    Snap. What is your assignment on?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 29, 2011 @ 5:39 pm

  122. ‘Mental blankouts of patently obvious facts by so called intellectuals.”

    ;-0

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 5:42 pm

  123. “Slutwalk’s perspective is women should make no such efforts on the grounds that they shouldn’t have to.”

    I think Matts 100% correct…that does seem to be exactly what some of them think….and they are at war with reality.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 5:46 pm

  124. “I think Matts 100% correct”

    Cogito, ergo est.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 29, 2011 @ 5:53 pm

  125. fishboy, I promise you that this is what they, for the most part, believe. If you are astounded that such ignorance is possible, please go ask them about these issues yourself. I encourage you to do that rather than take my word for it anyway. I’m some guy on the internet; never ever trust some guy on the internet. I’m glad that you’re skeptical. but do go check it out. Go to their facebook page and read their comments, ask them questions around these topics, and see for yourself. I think your opinion on what their beliefs actually are will change.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 6:00 pm

  126. The reality is that some men rape and always will (I confidently assume) as long as humanity exists,Women who act in certain ways attract attention from males and that life contains risks….any possible disagreement with that assessment of the facts?

    The list of available irrelevant facts is of great length, please don’t start reciting them. Bottom line is, you and Matt and Sheikh Hilaly are unanimous when it comes to the need to mitigate the risks of “uncovered meat,” you merely differ slightly on the definition of uncovered meat and the appropriate mitigations. The differences are of degree rather than kind.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 29, 2011 @ 6:05 pm

  127. what piffle Milty.I have no issue with Women choosing to wear anything they like….as I do.What I’m saying is that whether they or I like it or not there ARE consequences for certain courses of action in certain situations.I’m a realist…shit happens.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 6:15 pm

  128. James, the more you talk, the more you sound like you think rapists are forces of nature rather than criminals who have the ability to make and reflect on their decisions. Next you’ll be saying there’s no point imprisoning them.

    Comment by Trouble — May 29, 2011 @ 6:28 pm

  129. ^ not a valid interpretation at all. What do you mean forces of nature? be more specific please. also, at no point did he say they weren’t accountable for their actions, any more than a thief/kidnapper/murderer wouldn’t be held accountable for their actions. All he is saying is that it’s prudent to accept the reality that there are people who will do you harm, and no amount of protesting or educating will change that. Implicit in this assumption is a reasoning that it is prudent to take actions that, within reason, will reduce your exposure to them.
    For example, one way to avoid rape is to purchase a panic room, hire a team of people to drop food in through a drop box, and never, ever leave it. This would have an extremely good chance of preventing rape altogether, but it’s not terribly practical.
    At the opposite extreme is doing nothing at all, walking alone in bad neighborhoods with lots of skin showing, drunk, no underwear, glass heels, and looking for drug dealers to score some dope off of. While this action might be highly suitable to one’s lifestyle choice, it is insufficient in accounting for the risk of being raped. Something in the middle is reasonable, and that “sweet spot” is debatable.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 6:35 pm

  130. Sigh – a few – well, the Matt/James double-team of douche-baggery, have commented that the fundamental view of slutwalk – being that women should be allowed to wear what they want without fear of assault or intimidation – is flawed because we do not live in that ideal world.

    What they spectacularly fail to realise is that, if you want to change societal attitudes and behaviour, you have to start somewhere. And this is what Slutwalk (as far as I am concerned) is about. It is a start in changing attitudes.

    If someone does not stand up and say “No! This is not acceptable and we will not allow it to continue!” despite overwhelming odds, then nothing will change. We have seen significant changes in society because various marginalised groups have done just that.

    So an argument of “that would be nice in the ideal world” is facile and ignorant.

    People seem all too willing to come up with different analogies for women being raped because they are “on display”. Particlarly offensive – and probably delierately so – are the “piece of meat” comments. Trouble is, there is no analogy to someone being attacked and raped.

    Never forget – ever – that there is only one cause for assault and rape. And that is the offender.

    “Slutwalk’s perspective is women should make no such efforts on the grounds that they shouldn’t have to.” It is more that they shouldn’t have to make any such concessions. Why should a victim ever change their behaviour because of an offender? The sooner we all start demanding a change in offender behaviour instead of victim behaviour, the sooner we’ll see some real social change. And as I said, it’s gotta start somewhere. From my perspective, this is it.

    Comment by Good Gravey — May 29, 2011 @ 6:37 pm

  131. Trouble…you take the cake for stupidest comment on this thread so far.How the hell could you construe that from what I have posted here so far?

    Yet again I say….rapists EXIST…they are a sad fact of reality and if Women want to avoid being violated by them they need to think about pattens of personal behaviour and putting themselves in potential situations that may exacerbate the risk of rape occurring.

    Jesus how hard is this to grasp….?

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 6:38 pm

  132. “I’m a realist…shit happens.”

    So what? What’s the flow on consequence from that inane statement? Who is denying that some men may as a matter of fact see dressing “sluttily” as an invite to rape – a viewpoint which society (to some extent) validates?

    Now take the next step. Is it the responsibility of the individual to recognise that “shit happens” and so act to avoid it, or is it a collective responsibility of society to recognise that “shit happens” and so act to make the necessary changes to prevent it?

    “Shit happens” will not get you an “achieved” in NCEA, James. Must. Try. Harder.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 29, 2011 @ 6:40 pm

  133. GG……….wish and whimper all you like.Click your ruby red slippers together and repeatedly say “Rapists don’t exist,rapists don’t exist”…then slip on ya miniskirt , head to a seedy bar at 2am,knock back a few vodka cruisers and flirt with every man in the place…..and have no fear about a thing.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 6:47 pm

  134. “I’m a realist…shit happens.”

    You’re an objectivist James. That’s the polar opposite of a realist. Oddly, there’s quite a strong strand of moral puritanism running through objectivism. Perhaps this is where your odd obsession with modest dress is coming from Jimbo. It’s certainly not based on any empirical evidence.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 29, 2011 @ 6:49 pm

  135. Does anyone remember the infamous Howse brothers, Peter and Bruce? In one of Pam Stirling’s more sensible columns, their mother blamed ‘a society in which schoolgirls walk around “with dresses up to their backsides … no wonder they get raped”‘. Stirling went on to write, ‘Females on Pitcairn are blamed by similarly distorted thinkers for “enticing” island men into sexual acts’.

    Comment by DeepRed — May 29, 2011 @ 6:52 pm

  136. @Good Gravey # 132:

    “It is more that they shouldn’t have to make any such concessions. Why should a victim ever change their behaviour because of an offender? The sooner we all start demanding a change in offender behaviour instead of victim behaviour, the sooner we’ll see some real social change”

    Well, that sounds fair. I wish that it was explained that way, then the apparent disagreements would end. Women shouldn’t have to worry about being sexually assaulted because of the way they dress (not that they never have to think about their safety, sadly they do). I can’t think any right thinking person would disagree if it were put like that.

    Comment by DT — May 29, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

  137. Geddis the simple says: Now take the next step. Is it the responsibility of the individual to recognise that “shit happens” and so act to avoid it, or is it a collective responsibility of society to recognise that “shit happens” and so act to make the necessary changes to prevent it?

    A bit of both I would say…and have been if you had paid attention.Society acts to prevent rapes and imprison rapists while individuals practice keeping oneself safe by exercising a bit of thought and moderating behaviour….not hard is it?

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

  138. @Good Gravey: Attack the argument, not the opponent. Do you see me attacking you because you have a different perspective than me? Why do you want to say things to offend me? Have I done something against you?

    “Why should a victim ever change their behaviour because of an offender?”

    Because if you leave your 5 year old at the mall alone for 4 hours, that’s a good way for said child to get kidnapped. Should I rally society to say kidnapping is wrong? Should I say “just because I leave my kid alone at the park does not mean I’m inviting you to kidnap him”.

    I do believe that people in general, not just women, should feel safe anywhere in the world, doing any activity, and under any circumstance. I think I should be able to leave my house unlocked and not be robbed. It doesn’t work that way though, and I can’t rely on society to improve to such an extent that there are no more rapists or robbers. I can do socially responsible things, and support education programs that improve people’s morality, but those risks will continue to exist. Slutwalk actively encourages people to disregard those risks, and that is my issue with them; they are going to cause harm.

    If you’ve found something that I’ve written here offensive, I’m not sure what else I can say; this was the most diplomatic effort you’ll get out of me to iterate my point.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

  139. A bit of both sounds right to me as well.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 6:55 pm

  140. James, I’m construing your forces of nature comment from your comparison with, um, forces of nature: sharks and landmines which have no free will to speak of and simply respond to stimulus.

    I’m assuming you don’t think it’s worth paying attention to changing rapists’ behaviour because all you’re talking about is changing women’s behaviour.

    Comment by Trouble — May 29, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

  141. Well, as the debate is well and truly raging, how about this for another question:

    Does the Slutwalk phenomenon promote the respect of men for women, or does it undermine it?

    I pose the question because I would think that it is a key factor in terms of reducing the incidence of sexual violence, particularly when the perpetrator is someone the victim knows, and in light of the reports that some of the men observing the marches made comments like “We Love sluts!” and “I’ll be in too, if all goes to plan. Shouldn’t be too hard with so many sluts to choose from!!” (see link above).

    Comment by wtl — May 29, 2011 @ 6:58 pm

  142. Guy S: You’re an objectivist James. That’s the polar opposite of a realist. Oddly, there’s quite a strong strand of moral puritanism running through objectivism. Perhaps this is where your odd obsession with modest dress is coming from Jimbo. It’s certainly not based on any empirical evidence.

    Objectivism is 100% about respect for objective reality and facts and living in accordance with those facts Guy…so fail.I have no “odd obsession” about modest dress at all…..what I am concerned about is the deliberate mental blank out of unpleasant facts and cold, hard reality by some people who want reality to conform to their whims and wishes of how things should be.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 7:00 pm

  143. ^ not valid; he never said it’s not worth trying to change rapists behavior, all he said was that it would be an error to disregard their existence.
    When he said “a bit of both” was the best solution available, part of that is on society to help teach morality (reduce the number of rapists in said society) and teach prudence (making sure you have a ride home, not leaving your drink unattended at parties/bars, etc).
    Accepting one does not mean rejecting the other; both are important.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 7:00 pm

  144. And yes….again what matt just said. ;-)

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 7:02 pm

  145. Does the Slutwalk phenomenon promote the respect of men for women, or does it undermine it?

    I think it just makes us more like “wow… there’s a lot of battle axes out there. Pretty much everything pisses these girls off, I better steer clear of them and keep my mouth shut on this”

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 7:05 pm

  146. I think it just makes us more like “wow… there’s a lot of battle axes out there. Pretty much everything pisses these girls off, I better steer clear of them and keep my mouth shut on this.

    Yes….its akin to the all too common situation when a Woman hooks up with a newguy who turns out to be an abusive,controlling scum bag and she’s surprised at this when her male friends could have told her what he was like from the get go as guys pick up on the danger signals from these guys while Women seem blind to them.That they don’t is usually because they got the message before that their view is invalid and “how dare they even think that way?” A lot of “I could have told her so” thinking results in men and who’s surprised?

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 7:16 pm

  147. I better steer clear of them and keep my mouth shut on this

    Good instinct. Chances are that you know someone who has been sexually assaulted, whether you realise it or not, and they may be very upset or angry to be told maybe there’s something more they could have done.

    Comment by Trouble — May 29, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

  148. “Objectivism is 100% about respect for objective reality and facts and living in accordance with those facts…”

    No not really. For example, AGW isn’t permitted to exist in Rand Land. It’s not happening is it James? Besides, what facts are you using in this debate? Where’s your evidence that female dress sense effects the probability of sexual assault? You must have some, your whole argument depends on it.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 29, 2011 @ 7:29 pm

  149. A a man myself I KNOW that female attire can and does have a direct link to levels of sexual interest on the man’s part…..been there,felt that.;-)

    If you were a man yourself you might have known that yourself.

    As to AGW…..got any evidence of any occuring that we should be concerned about?

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 7:36 pm

  150. @Trouble put yourself in a parent’s shoes. Your daughter comes home with a police officer wearing a skimpy little dress, no underwear. She’s crying. The cop tells you she was found beaten and raped in an alley by a good Samaritan. You ask what she was doing. she tells you she went to a party in the bad part of town, and she decided to walk home alone.

    You want her repeating those habits in future? or are you going to tell her that if she needs a ride, she should call you to pick her up?

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 7:40 pm

  151. Good instinct. Chances are that you know someone who has been sexually assaulted, whether you realise it or not, and they may be very upset or angry to be told maybe there’s something more they could have done.”

    And if they then went on making the same choices that put them at a higher risk of being raped? Damn right they should be told to engage their brains.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

  152. Matt….why was the police officer wearing a skimpy dress and how did you know he had no undies on? ;-)

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 7:45 pm

  153. I am not sure why people bother with James. A delusional crazy guy who thinks he is Napoleon will simply interpret the psychiatrist talking to him as evidence he is an important emperor, not that he is a delusional crazy guy who deserves to be in the hospital.

    Comment by Sanctuary — May 29, 2011 @ 7:46 pm

  154. right… my gmat training has eluded me

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 7:48 pm

  155. And your point,assuming you had one was what Sanctuary? If you can’t muster an argument its a safe bet you don’t have one to put up.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 7:51 pm

  156. A a man myself I KNOW that female attire can and does have a direct link to levels of sexual interest on the man’s part…..been there,felt that.;-)

    Not that offering this up in response to a question about likelihood of a woman experiencing sexual assault could be construed as even remotely creepy or anything…

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 29, 2011 @ 7:56 pm

  157. going to sleep. most of you were fun to talk to, at least more critical thinking here and better arguments than the slutwalk people were putting up.

    If any of you are still unsure about what to think of these people, I encourage you to find their facebook page and ask them about stuff. If you’re a rational person, some of their opinions should blow your mind. here was my experience with them:

    http://slutwalkphenomenon.blogspot.com

    goodnight all.

    Comment by matt — May 29, 2011 @ 8:00 pm

  158. My point James is YOU are that delusional crazy guy.

    Comment by Sanctuary — May 29, 2011 @ 8:01 pm

  159. How so Sanctuary? Please refute my argument…if you can.No-ones been able to so far…

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 8:06 pm

  160. “Objectivism is 100% about respect for objective reality and facts and living in accordance with those facts Guy”

    Read any Hume? Seriously?? If it is “a fact” that dressing “sluttily” (note the moral connotations to that term) makes one more likely to be raped … so what? One can not dress sluttily. Or one can say “fuck that for a world – I’m going to do something to change it”. Appealing to “objective facts” does nothing to say one is a “better” response than another.

    Take another example. In the 1960s, it was an objective fact that the American South was governed by racist laws. Under this objective fact, blacks had to sit in the back of the bus or else suffer the inevitable consequence. So Rosa Parks was a dumb bitch, right? Objectively speaking, of course.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 29, 2011 @ 8:11 pm

  161. “Read any Hume? Seriously??”

    Sorry … sorry … forgot … only 15 years old. Shouldn’t be too tough on you.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 29, 2011 @ 8:12 pm

  162. Milty…grow a pair please,Just how is stating my life experience as a male in these matters in any way creepy? I’m a straight guy therefore I tend to find Women attractive….some I find sexier than others….clothes or the lack of them have a big influence either way…..what’s the shocking revelation contained in that statement of basic fact applicable to men everywhere? Have an issue with nature do you?

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 8:13 pm

  163. Andrew…if you can’t comprehend basic logic then please don’t waste my time….

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 8:15 pm

  164. It IS an undisputed fact of our sexual nature as human beings that Women dressing in certain ways attract male attention….its virtually the whole point of why Women do dress up to go out….its gets them noticed by men….anyone really surprised by this fact? But my point wasn’t really about the clothes…they are a part of the package sure but the excessive consumption of alcohol and the subsequent slipping of critical thinking,decorum and modesty are the real issues…and they heighten the chance of attracting unwanted and violent male attention.This is not to excuse the rapist in any way at all….and no-one has.But the heightened risk factors are there and they are a controllable variable in the equation of potential outcomes.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

  165. If it is “a fact” that dressing “sluttily” (note the moral connotations to that term)…

    Well, we’ve both tried James out on the idea that what constitutes “dressing as a slut” may actually be a matter of “culture” rather than “objective reality” or “fact,” but it all goes whoosh over his head. As an objectivist, it’s his job to ignore inconvenient intrusions of rational argument (or what might make him look seriously creepy, for that matter).

    Milty…grow a pair please,Just how is stating my life experience as a male in these matters in any way creepy?

    You stating your “life experience as a male in these matters” isn’t creepy, when the “matters” under discussion is likelihood of sexual assault? Er, right. Grow a pair of what? Horns?

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 29, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

  166. But my point wasn’t really about the clothes…

    Hello? The entire point of Slutwalk and this post was about “dressing like a slut.” Are you commenting on some other post somewhere? If so, maybe you should post there instead.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 29, 2011 @ 8:28 pm

  167. “Andrew…if you can’t comprehend basic logic then please don’t waste my time….”

    Jimmy, you’re the one who claims to have derived ought from is. And the crux of your argument on the case in point is that since you have dark thoughts when you see women it’s (partially) their problem if you can’t control yourself (and that is creepy). You can’t lecture anyone on logic.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 29, 2011 @ 8:33 pm

  168. There is no is/ought dichotomy…that shit is old news.

    Guy..What “dark thoughts”..? Having natural sexual urges for what they find attractive is what NORMAL people do you twat….I think your problem is that YOU don’t…and it shows.

    Milty….the slut definition/culture thing is obvious…where have I said I disagree with that? My whole argument has been about the fact that rapists existent independently of any whims or wishes to the contrary and that this being the case the potential victims need to take that fact on board and respond accordingly if they wish to avoid harm.If they don’t want to do so then that’s their look out….at least I cared enough to offer my advice on the matter.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 8:44 pm

  169. “Having natural sexual urges for what they find attractive is what NORMAL people do you twat”

    Newsflash: For most people there’s a big big leap from there to rape pal. Jesus you’re weird.

    “There is no is/ought dichotomy…that shit is old news.”

    This will be fun. How so?

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 29, 2011 @ 8:53 pm

  170. Having natural sexual urges for what they find attractive is what NORMAL people do you twat”

    Newsflash: For most people there’s a big big leap from there to rape pal. Jesus you’re weird.

    Duh!Its obvious there’s a difference you fuckwit…where did I say anything different? If you have to totally lie about what I actually said it proves you are losing…The point I was making is that despite the view of the feminists that how a woman dress’s is irrelevant to whether she is raped or not the plain cold fact is that the way she is dressed DOES have an attraction effect on men and can and does lead some men to make assumptions about her sexual availablilty and standards.Now that may not sit well with the sisterhood who like to think that there is no law of cause and effect but thats tough for them because reality says otherwise..and it always gets the deciding vote.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 9:08 pm

  171. Re is/ought….

    It is only an ultimate goal, and end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”

    In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.

    Ayn Rand

    ……….and please try to debate the argument rather than retreat to the usual ad hominem attacks on Rand…thanks.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 9:11 pm

  172. “The point I was making is that despite the view of the feminists that how a woman dress’s (sic) is irrelevant to whether she is raped or not the plain cold fact is that the way she is dressed DOES have an attraction effect on men and can and does lead some men to make assumptions about her sexual availablilty and standards…”

    But you have produced no evidence that this, to the extent it’s even true, leads to sexual assault. Just squawking that that’s REALIDY does not make it so. Check your premises, as your Goddess would say.

    Still waiting for you to logically derive ought from is. Suspect it will take you a while.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 29, 2011 @ 9:14 pm

  173. “The fact that a woman is raped, determines that it ought to be.”

    Hooray I am a philosopher too!

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 29, 2011 @ 9:18 pm

  174. Or you could just fall back on a ludicrous Rand quote you don’t really understand and which even she admits isn’t deductively sound. God you’re boring.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 29, 2011 @ 9:19 pm

  175. Whatever…..night.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 9:25 pm

  176. Actually the last line says it all….

    “The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

    Non contradictory and obvious to anyone with a clue…..shame your little head can’t process that Guy. ;-0

    Ok..real night now.

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 9:31 pm

  177. Because something’s living and exists its normative actions are logically determined? Wow! Are you some sort of Calvinist? And how does that work for snails? Or lemmings? Or Rand’s smoking? Yes, I think you’re tired Jimmy.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 29, 2011 @ 9:40 pm

  178. I am alive…..that is what is…..what I ought to do is…remain that way! And everything else follows on…

    Definitely night now.

    See ya failboy! ;-)

    Comment by James — May 29, 2011 @ 9:45 pm

  179. Yeah, but no. That’s not an argument. Sorry, you are fail (as you would say).

    Past your bedtime obviously. Read this when you get up http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ought_From_Is.html.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 29, 2011 @ 9:56 pm

  180. It’s quite the elegant justification of whatever you want it to be.

    James lives under the perceived jackbooted oppression of the state, therefore he ought to live under the perceived jackbooted oppression of the state. Brilliant really. Deranged, but brilliant.

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 29, 2011 @ 9:57 pm

  181. “The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do.”

    Except … not. My child is drowning in a river. If I try and rescue my child, there is a high probability (but still less than an absolute certainty) that I, too, will drown. What ought I to do?

    That said, if this whole thing is coming down to “who was the better philosopher, Rand or Hume?”, then fuck me but we wasted a lot of time.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 29, 2011 @ 10:10 pm

  182. True dat Geddis.

    However, the answer to your question is that, logically, you should do some real estate deals, loser.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 29, 2011 @ 10:18 pm

  183. Linking to another blog where your sockpuppet …

    To be fair, Matt was quite upfront that he was linking to his own blog to expand on his views. So that’s not really a sockpuppet situation.

    Comment by Steve Parkes — May 30, 2011 @ 1:44 am

  184. What do you mean forces of nature?

    Umm, you missed the shark analogy?

    [Matt at 109]: You’re missing his point.

    You wrote: “…but the slutwalk people would look at a statement like that and interpret it as “so what you’re saying is that they deserve it!?”

    James’s statement: ‘the whole court will be thinking “well you were kinda asking for it in that case buddy”. And that’s a valid and natural thing to think.’ (This was in reference to a burglary, but for the purposes of analogising to the topic at hand.) So he specifically approved of the “you were asking for it” view. How is it unreasonable to interpret that as “they deserve it”??

    In the case of sexual assault or rape, poor judgement for ones own safety would never get that kind of a response because there’s too much heat on the topic, regardless of how reckless the behavior was.

    And because the person raped would never deserve that response, no matter how reckless the behaviour was, right? You said so yourself: “Can you really think of anyone you know who feels that there is some circumstance under which a girl deserves to be raped, or that the rape was in some way her fault?”

    Nope, I can’t either. So you and I agree: there is no circumstance where a woman (or man, for that matter) who is raped could be described as having been “asking for it”, correct?

    Comment by Steve Parkes — May 30, 2011 @ 2:25 am

  185. [Andrew at 115]: …the whole point of this discussion (and the protests that it references) is that social attitudes towards dress and what it signifies are contested and can be changed. Hence the absence of “Bleeding Swimmers Walk” or “Cambodian Mine Orienteerers Walk” …

    Heh. Yep, but the fatuousness of James’ analogies seems genuinely lost on him. I actually laughed out loud at his contention that he is somehow assessing “percentages of risk” by bringing up the comparison of people who, for no apparent reason, put their limbs into shark infested waters.

    Their bleeding limbs.

    Comment by Steve Parkes — May 30, 2011 @ 2:34 am

  186. AG: Except … not. My child is drowning in a river. If I try and rescue my child, there is a high probability (but still less than an absolute certainty) that I, too, will drown. What ought I to do?

    Protect your highest value…be it the life of your child …or your own physical existence.”Survival” isn’t locked into meaning you personally remaining alive…it can also mean ensuring that your own genes/lineage lives on in the form of your offspring….so diving in to save your child from drowning is actually a self-interested survival action in that context.Of course one would hope that wasn’t the main reason you did it.

    James’s statement: ‘the whole court will be thinking “well you were kinda asking for it in that case buddy”. And that’s a valid and natural thing to think.’ (This was in reference to a burglary, but for the purposes of analogising to the topic at hand.) So he specifically approved of the “you were asking for it” view. How is it unreasonable to interpret that as “they deserve it”??

    You are wilfully ignoring the words “in that case”….which mean that there were extenuating circumstances within the control of the victim that allowed the commission of the burglary to be much more likely to occur so of course some scrutiny of the victims actions must and should occur.

    In the case of sexual assault or rape, poor judgement for ones own safety would never get that kind of a response because there’s too much heat on the topic, regardless of how reckless the behavior was.

    And because the person raped would never deserve that response, no matter how reckless the behaviour was, right? You said so yourself: “Can you really think of anyone you know who feels that there is some circumstance under which a girl deserves to be raped, or that the rape was in some way her fault?

    I have never said or intimated that a woman deserves to be raped and I defy you to show where I have said that.I HAVE consistently said that a failure to recognise the facts of reality in regard to the existence of rapists and the personally controllable factors that can lead to one increasing the chances of being the victim of one are valid topics for examination and possibly criticism.

    It is common knowledge that young Women getting boozed while wearing sexually alluring clothes in pubs/clubs and engaging in animated flirting without restraint does attract higher levels of negative male attention than Women do in other contexts… simple fact.To not pass some judgement on this fact is to be morally remiss and indeed semi-compliant in the violation of these young Women.In the course of my work I have seen and intervened in situations of this nature and carry no guilt for having done so…I had most likely spared some girl a life long nightmare…which of you can claim to stand on higher moral plane?

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 9:17 am

  187. Question: Why do sexually active Men go out to pubs and clubs of a weekend? Answer….because that’s where the Women who are MOST likely to gratify them will be.Not at Countdown,not at Church,not at the 10 pin bowling alley but the pubs and clubs.So straight away the percentages game has kicked in.

    The rest is simple cause and effect….

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 9:30 am

  188. Steve: And because the person raped would never deserve that response, no matter how reckless the behaviour was, right? You said so yourself: “Can you really think of anyone you know who feels that there is some circumstance under which a girl deserves to be raped, or that the rape was in some way her fault?”

    Nope, I can’t either. So you and I agree: there is no circumstance where a woman (or man, for that matter) who is raped could be described as having been “asking for it”, correct?

    But there IS a circumstance where a Woman could be seen to have acted in a manner that greatly contributed to the percentage CHANCES of such a thing happening….

    Example A: A Woman is at home watching TV of an evening.She’s been round and locked her doors and drawn the curtains and feels secure.A rapist smashes his way in through a locked window,overpowers her after she fails to evade him and she is brutally raped.

    Example B: A woman is at home in the evening having consumed a few vodka cruisers and she decides to go clubbing in the party area of town.She puts on her shortest mini and dolled up to the nines gets a taxi into town.She heads to the hottest club and has a few more drinks reaching the point of high intoxication.She strats flirting with many men and ends up going with one into the restroom where she gets all hot and heavy with one who,thinking he’s been given the ok begins to penetrate her.In her state of intoxication the oman doesn’t really say yah or nah and the deed is done.Te Woman somehow makes it home in the wee samll hours and falls asleep.When she arises she knows somethings happened but is not sure exactly what.She eventually beliveres shes been raped calls the cops….and so on.

    Now…..is anyone going to claim that,depite the basic and obvious moral fact that neither Woman DESERVED to be raped,that the pre-actions of the latter Woman are somehow totally irrelevant in the lead up to her being raped and are of no discernible difference when compared to the actions of the former woman in the lead up to her rape?

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 9:59 am

  189. Everything is relative; when you say irrelevant, what are the actions irrelevant to?

    Woman B’s actions were reckless. Is that relevant in a defense case against the rapist? No. He will (or should) be convicted and tried just as harshly as the guy who raped woman A.
    Is it relevant to a discussion about some precautions that might be a good idea in future? Sure, but that’s an awkward talk that I hope I never have to have with anyone.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 10:07 am

  190. “Protect your highest value…be it the life of your child …or your own physical existence.”Survival” isn’t locked into meaning you personally remaining alive…it can also mean ensuring that your own genes/lineage lives on in the form of your offspring….so diving in to save your child from drowning is actually a self-interested survival action in that context.Of course one would hope that wasn’t the main reason you did it.”

    Now it is a complete stranger’s child drowning in a mild surf. There is a small, but still non-zero, chance of you, too, drowning if you try to rescue said child. What does “The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do” require of us?

    Remember, also, that as an “objective realist”, your answer must conform to the real-world behaviour as observed amongst actual human beings. Otherwise you are being very “realist”, are you?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 30, 2011 @ 10:24 am

  191. The actions are relevant to increasing the perfectly foreseeable increased risk of receiving aggressive sexual attention from someone.

    Is it relevant to a discussion about some precautions that might be a good idea in future? Sure, but that’s an awkward talk that I hope I never have to have with anyone.

    And that’s the crux of the debate we are having here Matt.Some people don’t even want to acknowledge there is a debate to have on this issue and they resent anyone even suggesting that there is.Its called “Blanking out”

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 10:28 am

  192. well… I don’t know if i’d call it that. I think the stances haven’t been well articulated or interpreted.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 10:30 am

  193. Andrew….it comes back to recognition of ones highest values.If you value your own safety as your highest value and you deemed a rescue attempt too dangerous to attempt you would have to let the kid drown.

    However if you knew that you couldn’t live with yourself if you didn’t at least try to save the kid and you dive in then that’s also valid in the survival context in that you are still trying to protect the values you personally hold dearer than mrer physical existence.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 10:34 am

  194. Matt well… I don’t know if i’d call it that. I think the stances haven’t been well articulated or interpreted.

    I agree although I would say some stances,basically yours and mine have been deliberately and blatantly misrepresented and indeed lied about.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 10:36 am

  195. But James … where do these “values” come from, if not from “my being”? And if there are “values” that an individual legitimately may rank higher than self-preservation, then the statement “The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do” as explicated by you last night (“I am alive…..that is what is…..what I ought to do is…remain that way! And everything else follows on…”) is, well, wrong – isn’t it? Or are you simply saying “people ought to live by the moral code they believe to be true” – which is either trite (“people should do what they should do”) or false (if the moral code they believe in is wrong – unless you endorse Nazi’s following their moral code because it consists of their “highest values”?)

    I’m beginning to think arguing with you isn’t worth the time, because you actually don’t know what you believe.

    Also – these females whose attire affects your sexual interest so … in the unlikely event you ever get talking to one of them, I’d recommend at least pretending you’d save the kid’s life no matter what the risk. It’s more likely to lead to beneficial outcomes than your Rand fixation.

    Right – got to go work. And you’ve school, James, so you’d better motor too.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 30, 2011 @ 10:46 am

  196. The opposition to our stances Matt is just a sub-squabble in the whole leftist rebellion against the idea of taking some personal responsibility for our actions.Notice the appeal to a collective “societal” approach to eliminating rapists altogether which,while its sounds nice and should be encouraged,blanks out the fact that meanwhile rapists are still amongst us and it behoves us all to take precautions against harm from them just the same.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 10:46 am

  197. It’s all just kind of a mess now; everybody’s drifted away from any kind of tangible thesis statement and the whole thing is just one pointless insult after another.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 10:50 am

  198. AG : But James … where do these “values” come from, if not from “my being”? And if there are “values” that an individual legitimately may rank higher than self-preservation, then the statement “The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do” as explicated by you last night (“I am alive…..that is what is…..what I ought to do is…remain that way! And everything else follows on…”) is, well, wrong – isn’t it? Or are you simply saying “people ought to live by the moral code they believe to be true” – which is either trite (“people should do what they should do”) or false (if the moral code they believe in is wrong – unless you endorse Nazi’s following their moral code because it consists of their “highest values”?)

    Andrew…our nature as man,as the universe we life in endowed upon us with our creation within it is the source of what we ought to do…from where/what else do you suggest we draw inspiration?

    I’m beginning to think arguing with you isn’t worth the time, because you actually don’t know what you believe.

    I’m crystal clear in my postition buddy…its you et el who are muddy as hell in your philosophy towards life.

    Also – these females whose attire affects your sexual interest so … in the unlikely event you ever get talking to one of them, I’d recommend at least pretending you’d save the kid’s life no matter what the risk. It’s more likely to lead to beneficial outcomes than your Rand fixation.

    If ever in the situation of the drowning boy I will do exactly as I wrote above…and carry no unearned guilt for the outcome.And any Woman who requires me to lie about that is not one I would consider bothering with.

    Right – got to go work. And you’ve school, James, so you’d better motor too.

    Nah….off till 6pm so its a fun day for me. ;-)

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 10:54 am

  199. It’s all just kind of a mess now; everybody’s drifted away from any kind of tangible thesis statement and the whole thing is just one pointless insult after another.

    And that’s what they do Matt…..knowing they are losing the argument and that we are consistent and are sticking to facts and evidence they are retreating into ad hominem and evading our points.Notice how they have yet to even attempt to answer my example of the two raped women?

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 10:57 am

  200. my bet is that on both sides, your opinions on things are more similar than you think, but you’ve both had some misinterpretations happening. I doubt they believe that a girl’s actions/decisions are unrelated to her probability of being assaulted. I doubt they see no harm in reckless behavior like what you outlined. I don’t think anything they’ve said implies they feel this way either.

    I think they interpret your stances as “it is the proper order of things that girls dress a certain way, and there’s nothing wrong with that” (which is not a proper interpretation to what you’ve been saying). What it comes down to is that i think you guys just aren’t understanding each other properly.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 11:04 am

  201. I think they interpret your stances as “it is the proper order of things that girls dress a certain way, and there’s nothing wrong with that” (which is not a proper interpretation to what you’ve been saying).

    Thank you.As a Libertarian I support the right of Women,or anyone to dress as they choose….but I’m also not going to pretend in some Pollyanna manner that in certain circumstances there are no consequences for doing so…..and those consequences can be negative.I’m not being a conservative sexist…I’m just stating the facts of the reality we live in.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 11:16 am

  202. anyway… my point is just that the argument gets kind of pointless when both parties are arguing against perspectives that neither opponent actually has.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 11:47 am

  203. …knowing they are losing the argument and that we are consistent and are sticking to facts and evidence…

    Declared yourself a winner again? You are consistent in your assumption that whatever cultural norms you happen to subscribe to are “facts” and “objective reality,” I’ll give you that. That your cultural assumptions are not “facts and evidence” has been pointed out to you in various ways, but you seem incapable of understanding this concept. If people are drawing conclusions from that, it’s hardly surprising.

    Notice how they have yet to even attempt to answer my example of the two raped women?

    This is because your example is irrelevant to the post, which was prompted by a protest about a cop telling woment not to dress like sluts if they don’t want to get raped. You remember there’s a post at the top of this comments thread, right?

    Now, if you’re agreeing with the cop on this matter, you have a couple of tasks you need to perform if you want to justify that agreement:

    1. You need to define what “dress like a slut” means.
    2. You need to demonstrate that dressing in that defined way increases a woman’s chances of being raped.

    Then, if you want to say that the protesters are pointlessly disregarding reality and wasting their time, you need to demonstrate that the definition of “dress like a slut” is independent of social culture and therefore not something that can be influenced in any way by protest marches.

    For a big fan of “facts” and “evidence,” you don’t seem to have actually done any of those things.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 30, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

  204. Milt… let’s get real, there’s no point in even talking about point number 1 there, we all know what that means. I’m aware that everything is relative, but you can tell “slutty” clothing from modest clothing, the only debate might be around what the tipping point from one to the other might be… It’s a sliding scale, but honestly, why complicate the discussion with a topic that should just be unanimous; some clothing is sluttier than other clothing… nuff said. For the sake of this discussion, consider “slutty” to be clothing that would be considered that way by 98% of the people you ask, here’s an example of what I feel would meet that description: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/02/slut-shaming/ (and I haven’t read the article, so don’t read into that too much)

    2. I don’t think it’s this simple; context is everything. if you’re at home, it doesn’t matter what you where, it won’t affect your chances of being assaulted. Even if you’re out at the club dressed that way, if you’re around people you know and trust, and don’t take drinks from strangers, it probably won’t matter. but if you’re walking around alleys trying to score some drugs, and you’re dressed like a prostitute, that probably does contribute to what is already a pretty reckless set of decisions.

    Can we agree on this?

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 1:14 pm

  205. and there’s a difference between being assaulted and being raped. If a girl dresses slutty (and please don’t be difficult about the subjectivity, just accept the intended meaning of the word), even if she’s with her friends at a club, she’ll attract attention from the drunken club doods, and they’ll whistle, shout obscenities, grope, and grind that girl the second she’s out on the dance floor. It highly unlikely she’d be raped, but she’ll definitely get this kind of attention, which would under most people’s definitions, be considered sexual assault.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 1:18 pm

  206. “… our nature as man,as the universe we life in endowed upon us with our creation within it is the source of what we ought to do …”
    “I’m crystal clear in my postition buddy…its you et el who are muddy as hell in your philosophy towards life.”

    The fact these two sentences were, apparently without irony, written in the same comment literally blows my mind. Literally. You “win”, James, in that it is impossible for a mind to cope with this stuff.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 30, 2011 @ 1:29 pm

  207. … our nature as man,as the universe we life in endowed upon us with our creation within it is the source of what we ought to do …

    This makes me wonder if objectivists believe in evolution, or even neuropsychology. Maybe it’s all moocher, parasite science?

    Comment by danylmc — May 30, 2011 @ 1:41 pm

  208. @ Andrew

    “I’m beginning to think arguing with you isn’t worth the time, because you actually don’t know what you believe.”

    Yikes, you mean it really took 200 comments to get you to that point? I thought you must have been playing around for the last 190.

    Comment by insider — May 30, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

  209. Matts answered you already so I’ll deal with this…

    Declared yourself a winner again? You are consistent in your assumption that whatever cultural norms you happen to subscribe to are “facts” and “objective reality,” I’ll give you that. That your cultural assumptions are not “facts and evidence” has been pointed out to you in various ways, but you seem incapable of understanding this concept. If people are drawing conclusions from that, it’s hardly surprising.</i?

    My cultural assumptions are based on the empirical evidence of the reality about me.Matt noted that we can all recognise "slutty" dress from more moderate dress in our NZ context when we see it….are you saying you can't? I,and I would bet money that 95% of people would agree with me,would define "slutty" dress as very skin tight and high cut dresses that accentuate cleavage and body outline worn by Women with the intention of gaining sexually inclined male attention.There is a line between that and attractive evening wear in the form of looser and longer dresses and formal gowns that don't draw the attention as much and to the same areas.Now as I have already said I support a woman's right to dress how she chooses…but there's no getting away from the fact that different standards of dress do inspire different responses from observers and that can lead to certain actions following….doesn't make that right…just real.

    From the males point of view the standard of dress of a Woman in the context he and she are in sends certain signals to him that either "this Woman is looking for attention" and so he feels more "authorised" to offer it if he so wishes to….or that "this Woman isn't seeking that level of attention so restraint and decorum are in order".You may wish to deny this common fact known by most people but that doesn't change the fact that this is how it is.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 2:15 pm

  210. Funny how Andrew and Danyl can’t or won’t actually refute what I’m saying and instead carry on their usual snide attacks that amount to nothing.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

  211. “Funny how Andrew and Danyl can’t or won’t actually refute what I’m saying and instead carry on their usual snide attacks that amount to nothing.”

    Well, we can’t “refute what [you're] saying” in the same way as you can’t tell me what this means: “In the Chicago prison there’s a consumptive assassin three women with white hands with enamel eyes a doctor with tortoise shell glasses a clergyman shaved with a star razor nurse him”. A proposition must have meaning to be open to refutation.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 30, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

  212. Andrew and Danyl can’t or won’t actually refute what I’m saying and instead carry on their usual snide attacks that amount to nothing.

    Every time someone refutes what you’re saying you cry, ‘See how they’re afraid to refute what I’m saying! I win!’ Which is amusing but not vastly so. And when I hear people talking about the universe endowing them with rights at their creation I genuinely wonder if they believe in evolution.

    Comment by danylmc — May 30, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

  213. Insider: “Yikes, you mean it really took 200 comments to get you to that point? I thought you must have been playing around for the last 190.”

    What began as a game took a far more sinister turn, as I began to suspect my opponent was not of this earth, but instead was Xenu … a galactic ruler who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living. These events are known as “Incident II” or “The Wall of Fire,” and the traumatic memories associated with them are known as the “R6 implant.”

    I’ve got the right religion, don’t I?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 30, 2011 @ 2:26 pm

  214. I tried to warn you all about discussing strategy with Napoleon.

    Comment by Sanctuary — May 30, 2011 @ 2:28 pm

  215. We’d best be careful, though. James might withdraw his genius from this site, causing the interweb to crash … then we’ll see how much the little people really, really need him.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 30, 2011 @ 2:35 pm

  216. What have you refuted? Nothing.You haven’t touched on my post of the example of the two Women so I conclude you are unable to….have a good squeal and snarl about you impotence,,,its amusing.;-)

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 2:47 pm

  217. just a pissing contest now. both sides are more interested in dumping on the other than actually debating, or reconciling perspectives. I had a post where I asked if there was something in there we could all agree on, haven’t seen anyone reply to it.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 2:49 pm

  218. Matt….they have given up and are just lashing out now…yep its time to call it a day.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 2:52 pm

  219. James, to be fair, I did say both sides. you can admit that you’ve been a little confrontational as well; impotence? was that word constructive to anything? they’ve been throwing turds as well, but there’s some turd on all our hands here.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 2:54 pm

  220. Matt…I checked out your link.I would say the ladies depicted are approaching “slut” status….some a bit more than others.They know their bodies are magnets to attract men and they are using them for that purpose….as nature designed them for.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

  221. well… there are a lot of loaded statements you added to what I was suggesting, but one step at a time. let’s just see if the other team is also in agreement that those girls are indeed dressed “slutty”. and also, that under a certain set of circumstances, it is possible that such clothing might affect their chances of being sexually harassed (not necessarily raped). I feel like this is something they would agree with, but maybe i’m wrong, only way to know is to ask politely and see what they think.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

  222. Matt…I’ve been trying to argue them on the facts of the matter while they want to make snide digs and avoid engaging with the points I make….so yeah I do get a bit frustrated.I have concluded they can’t really dispute my points and are engaging in a form of fingers in their ears and singing la la la….

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

  223. I think they probably feel similarly about you. both perspectives are fair, for whatever reason, you guys have been taking a lot of shots at each other.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 3:02 pm

  224. Milt… let’s get real, there’s no point in even talking about point number 1 there, we all know what that means.

    First: you think you know what it means, because it’s your culture’s meaning and you experience your own culture as normal. If you were from Saudi Arabia, you’d also think you know what it means, but that meaning would be very different. In other words, “slutty” is a cultural artifact, not an objective fact.

    Second: this is significant because cultural artifacts can be modified – through, among other things, well-publicised protest marches. In other words, there is scope for the Slutwalk organisers to help push our cultural definitions of “dress like a slut,” “asking for it” etc in a more desirable direction.

    As to why they might want to do that, James keeps providing excellent examples. I’ll use his latest one, as it is particularly excellent:

    From the males point of view the standard of dress of a Woman in the context he and she are in sends certain signals to him that either “this Woman is looking for attention” and so he feels more “authorised” to offer it if he so wishes to….or that “this Woman isn’t seeking that level of attention so restraint and decorum are in order”.You may wish to deny this common fact known by most people but that doesn’t change the fact that this is how it is.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 30, 2011 @ 3:11 pm

  225. so you disagree then?

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 3:13 pm

  226. let me ask you this, if you showed the picture in the article I posted, and asked 10 of your friends at random “would you say these girls are dressed slutty”. how do you think they would answer?

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 3:14 pm

  227. Matt: It looks to me like they’re at a strip club, so by comparison they’re probably quite well covered. Just sayin’.

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 30, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

  228. Let me simplify the question;

    1. Is there such a thing as an outfit that a large majority of the people you know would describe as “slutty” if given the option to choose from “slutty” or “modest” as the description?

    yes or no please

    2. Do you believe there exists a circumstance where a girl’s decisions, including, but not limited to the “sluttiness” of her clothing, may contribute to the likelihood of her being sexually assaulted?

    yes or no please

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 3:19 pm

  229. That might be true simon, but for other less biased benchmarks, they are dressed pretty slutty. When I say less biased, I mean more representative of what the general population tends to wear. Such benchmarks include:
    - malls
    - bus stops
    - downtown streets
    - house parties
    - university campuses

    etc

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

  230. Slutty is a subjective definition based on the objective facts of Women’s intent by their dress and manner and men’s natural reaction to that dress and manner.In other words, sluttyness…we know it when we see it….in our NZ context.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 3:28 pm

  231. well… one step at a time James. need baby steps. the first thing is to get them to acknowledge that there is such a thing as an outfit that would generally be considered slutty. If they won’t agree that such an outfit actually exists, there’s no use talking about what the objectives might be of a girl who dresses in that way.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 3:30 pm

  232. Matt (not James – you’re a weirdo),

    The problem is not so much “the facts” here, as how you are framing them. I don’t think anyone really has a problem with the concept of giving messages to women (especially young women) about how to keep themselves sexually safe. So – witness this programme (http://www.rapecrisis.org.nz/content.aspx?id=24). There also was that ALAC ad with a woman getting toasted after work and getting bundled into an alleyway with a guy from the bar (‘tho I seem to remember some flak about this on the grounds of “blaming the victim”, so maybe not the best example?). Of course anyone who is desirous of avoiding physical harm ought to be aware of situations in which harm may come to them – that’s a bit of a no-brainer.

    But when the message is “be safe – don’t dress like a slut”, then the EXPLICIT statement is “how a woman dresses indicates her preparedness to have sex with anyone who happens to be around … so if you dress in a way that gives such indications, then the consequences will follow”. Now, as the statement about dressing=intent is (objectively) bollocks, the consequences claim can be true only insofar as some men in our culture hold an erroneous belief about dress= intent. And erroneous beliefs can be changed – which is what “slutwalk” is mean to do. Whether it is a particularly good example of consciousness changing is questionable, but whatever. It’s not my march.

    Look – if the cop in question simply had said “keep yourself safe – stay with your friends, don’t put yourself in danger, be aware that there’s creeps out there”, then this conversation wouldn’t be happening. But by using the pejorative term “slut”, he revealed a particular viewpoint about what dress is taken to say. So sure – behaviour in the world may have consequences, etc … but where it shouldn’t have those consequences, there’s nothing wrong with people standing up and saying that.

    Anyway – this is my one attempt to try and convey a counter-position to you, matt, in recognition of your many contributions to this post. It’s just a shame you’ve attracted a funny little friend.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 30, 2011 @ 3:37 pm

  233. I hand over to you Matt…..I’ll be interested to see how log it takes for them to get stuck into you personally.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 3:38 pm

  234. Ok, that’s a very reasonable thing to write. I actually agree with all of it. My point to you though, is that the slutwalk people do not seem to agree with us on this one point here:
    “I don’t think anyone really has a problem with the concept of giving messages to women (especially young women) about how to keep themselves sexually safe”

    My issue with their movement is that they are encouraging girls to be reckless, and would consider the good advice you’ve described, such as “keep yourself safe – stay with your friends, don’t put yourself in danger, be aware that there’s creeps out there”, as victim blaming. I consider that an extremist perspective, and a dangerous one too!

    So the question in your mind is “is it your opinion that they do this, or is that what they’re actually doing”. I think it’s both, and if you spend time talking with them on their facebook page, and research them in other ways, you’ll come to the same conclusion.

    They make SOME good points; a girl’s dress is probably of negligible impact in most rape cases, and ‘don’t dress slutty’ isn’t the most effective advice for safety. But these girls have taken it too far, and have taken PC into the crazy-zone.

    For this reason, among others, I see this movement as counterproductive to women’s rights and safety.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 3:50 pm

  235. matt,

    Insofar as you give an accurate report of your interactions with the slutwalk folk, agreed.

    See James … not so hard, is it?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — May 30, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

  236. yeah, that was a fairly enjoyable exchange right there. We were just persistently misreading and misinterpreting each other, and then the insults started, and everything got out of control. But we did have common ground all along, but it was tough to find it in all the crap and tangent issues that got thrown in.

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 3:56 pm

  237. I don’t think anyone really has a problem with the concept of giving messages to women (especially young women) about how to keep themselves sexually safe”

    That line leap out at me from Andrews post because its the very thing Matt and I have been saying throughout and as Matt says it IS a matter of controversy with some of the feminists that someone would say exactly that.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 3:57 pm

  238. Andrew…then why the need to start attacking me for things I never said or intimated?

    Ok…..later

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 3:58 pm

  239. you guys definitely attacked each other. I don’t think you can put that on Andrew any more than he could put it on you. I find it pretty ironic that you guys both held the same root opinion (tho the branches may be different), and you kept arguing against and attacking ideas the opposing party didn’t actually have (or maybe some you did, but the root was solid enough).
    so conclusions we can all probably agree on:

    1. There is such a thing as good advice to help prevent sexual harassment, but “don’t dress slutty” probably isn’t an example of that.
    2. The burden of ones own safety is not entirely society’s responsibility. Education and moral teachings are important, but it is also important for the individual to exercise common sense.
    3. If the Slutwalk campaign does indeed disagree with both points above (whether explicitly, or just in what it preaches indirectly), then it’s probably not a great cause, and could be considered extremist.
    4. There is never any reason to blame a girl who has been a victim of rape, and there are many cases where the girl could not have done anything to avoid the assault she experienced. Despite this, it’s still a bad idea to be reckless with your safety because this would give strangers the opportunity to do you harm.
    5. Acknowledging that certain decisions are riskier for your safety than others is not equivalent to blaming the victim.

    I think this is all pretty reasonable, but maybe someone disagrees (I doubt it though).

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

  240. Fully agree with all your points Matt….although I would wonder how much of the responsibility is society’s to keep you safe but anyhoo…

    As to the biffo Andrew and I have had run in’s on other threads so there’s history at work.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 4:39 pm

  241. it happens. not sure exactly what a biffo is (I’m canadian fyi)

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

  242. Biffo…..a slang term for conflict in these parts.

    Canadian eh…? Explains a lot. ;-0….is it a real country yet? lol.

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 4:48 pm

  243. we do okay, 9th largest economy in the world by GDP (11th if you prefer World Bank’s opinion to the CIA and/or International Monetary Fund)

    Comment by matt — May 30, 2011 @ 4:52 pm

  244. the first thing is to get them to acknowledge that there is such a thing as an outfit that would generally be considered slutty.

    Whoosh! Still just sailing straight over the top, isn’t it?

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 30, 2011 @ 5:01 pm

  245. …and there’s Milty to bite your ankle Matt….have fun. ;-)

    Comment by James — May 30, 2011 @ 5:04 pm

  246. James is becoming spookily Peter Zohrab-like in his comments. I’m expecting the word feminazis to pop up some time soon…

    Comment by insider — May 30, 2011 @ 5:28 pm

  247. You are wilfully ignoring the words “in that case”….which mean that there were extenuating circumstances within the control of the victim that allowed the commission of the burglary to be much more likely to occur so of course some scrutiny of the victims actions must and should occur.

    “Some scrutiny” to the extent of saying “you were kinda asking for it”. Matt wrote that “the slutwalk people” would look at such a statement and equate it to “they deserve it”. Well yeah, and that’s hardly surprising.

    I have never said or intimated that a woman deserves to be raped and I defy you to show where I have …

    The only reason to mention these “extenuating circumstances” is to suggest similar could apply to some women who are raped. (We are not, per se, discussing burglaries here.) Why mention a hypothetical burglary comparison where the jury would think “you were asking for it”, if not to imply the same could be true for a victim of sexual assault?

    Then there’s your bizarre analogy with people putting their bleeding limbs into shark infested waters.

    You claim that you’ve been “deliberately and blatantly misrepresented”, without realising, it seems, how your words and tone come across. There may be some genuine misunderstanding, but I think the blame for that lies largely in your camp. It seems that in your rush for rhetorical impact you expressed yourself poorly and insensitively in some instances. If you’re willing to admit that, fair enough. But if you stand by all your comments, then I stand by my assessment.

    Comment by Steve Parkes — May 31, 2011 @ 3:05 am

  248. Steve; James may not have articulated it perfectly, but to his credit, he’s not the first person to make that analogy, I’ve seen it before.

    Here’s a better presentation of it.

    http://unamusementpark.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/gender-feminism-harms-all-women/

    Comment by matt — May 31, 2011 @ 3:30 am

  249. Matt….great link.It makes the case I have been trying to here.

    Steve:I used that analogy because I have seen it used before on more than a few occasions….and because it IS valid. Steve …are you really saying that going ocean swimming with a bleeding wound is NOT going to up your chances of attracting a shark attack? Newsflash buddy….all marine biologists would disagree with you.

    The only reason to mention these “extenuating circumstances” is to suggest similar could apply to some women who are raped. (We are not, per se, discussing burglaries here.) Why mention a hypothetical burglary comparison where the jury would think “you were asking for it”, if not to imply the same could be true for a victim of sexual assault?

    Because…draws breath…in a way it iS true….a victim,by their preceding actions may very well have attracted the rapist to her.If its accepted that the leaving open of the window has attracted the burglar to that house….why is it therefore wrong to reach the logical conclusion that certain behavioural actions drew the attention of the rapist to the Woman? This of course doesn’t exonerate the rapist from his crime which IS a crime no matter how you slice it…but it DOES raise the valid line of thinking that the Woman has not helped herself by engaging in a pattern of behaviour that an objective analysis would have to conclude greatly raise her chances of meeting her rapist.

    So Steve….please return to my previous example of the two rape victims posted earlier and study them and then tell me that,even with all the empathetic feeling you can muster for both victims as fellow human beings,that you can sympathise with both equally with NO greater moral or rational judgement cast upon the actions of the second victim or a belief that she is no more responsible for what happened to her than the first victim.

    I say its simply not possible to evade passing at least some differing judgement over these two cases.

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 4:34 am

  250. Its not Matt,or I,or anyone who determines if a victim “deserves” what happens to her…that’s done by big boss reality and its main enforcer…the law of cause and effect.Matt and I are the ones saying “look out!…there’s this thing called reality and it lays out some pretty harsh punishment via his law of cause and effect…here’s how you could avoid suffering at its hands.”

    How does doing that make US the bad guys?

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 4:52 am

  251. Brilliant….this guy makes my case so well and sums up the point I seem to have failed to articulate….

    “There is a crucial difference between acknowledging a cause and blaming the victim.The officer was acknowledging a cause: women whose outfits are designed to turn men on, are at a higher risk of attracting a rapist; thus their choice of outfit is a partial cause of their rape. If he had wanted to blame some victims, he would have said something like this.

    I’m supposed to tell you about how not to get raped or some shit, but I’m not gonna do that. You know why? ‘Cause if you get raped, it’s your own goddamn fault! You were asking for it, with your slutty clothes and your lip gloss and your hair all done up! You wanted it!

    [stunned silence]

    You all deserve to get raped!

    http://unamusementpark.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/hatred-part-2/

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 6:06 am

  252. You guys and Sheikh Hilaly have really got those sluts’ number, huh?

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 31, 2011 @ 7:21 am

  253. You see Matt? I just presented a reasoned argument with backing from a source you lead me to in a pretty mild and constructive manner and what’s Miltys response…?

    Makes you wonder if they even want to debate civilly huh?

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 7:41 am

  254. As pointed out several times already, your “reasoned argument” is actually Sheikh Hilaly’s “reasoned argument” with some minor differences over the definitions of “dress like a slut” and “reasonable precautions.” I wouldn’t debate very civilly with him either.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — May 31, 2011 @ 8:48 am

  255. Fine Milty…then accept you are a rape enabler and we’ll leave it there.Sitting on your hill and singing Kumbya into the wind will be great consultation to the girl who’s raped and beaten in the toilets of a club somewhere in the world tonight huh…?

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

  256. Skipped to the end from the middle, but I have to mention the logically flawed and dishonest method of argument coming from this Matt/James pair. When one of their essential points is countered or shown to contradict others they just change the subject, then circle back around to the same crap again. Rinse and repeat in a never-ending circle.

    Comment by Andrew — May 31, 2011 @ 6:50 pm

  257. which club james?

    might have to tell the cops before you get there.

    Comment by Che Tibby — May 31, 2011 @ 7:02 pm

  258. Shit you’re a weirdo Jimmy. Perhaps you should go and play somewhere else. Cresswell’s place is full or intellectual titans such as yourself. You’d feel at home there sneering at the moral pygmies, moochers, looters, second-handers, Rand diminishers and Atillas who infest western civilisation.

    Or the motorway maybe.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 31, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

  259. And those last two comments show beyond any doubt who’s really concerned for Women’s well-being and who thinks they are just political pawns….you should be ashamed of yourselves.

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

  260. James, I have a very simple question for you. Who is personally responsible for rape?

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 31, 2011 @ 8:33 pm

  261. Why are you conflating a total disrespect and disdain for your pathetic excuse for an argument with a lack of concern for women Jimbo? That is really weird.

    You’ve wasted days on this and all along your fundamental premise is something for which you’ve produced no evidence at all. It’s an assertion based on your feelings. It’s laughable. Of course even if your premise was true your conclusions don’t necessarily follow. But you don’t really do logic, You’re an objectivist after all.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 31, 2011 @ 8:59 pm

  262. The rapist is responsible for the act of rape….no question and I have not said otherwise.However the degree of risk and contributing causes CAN and sometimes ARE partly the responsibility of the victim.

    Now….what is wrong with what I said there?

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 8:59 pm

  263. Fuck off Guy…you contribute nothing to this debate.

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 9:00 pm

  264. Contributing causes? Like… having a vagina?

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 31, 2011 @ 9:02 pm

  265. Simon….really? sigh.

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 9:04 pm

  266. Right, right. But, in your opinion, should “degree of risk and contributing causes” be the responsibility of the victim?

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 31, 2011 @ 9:11 pm

  267. My fundamental premise,which is shared by the vast majority of thinking people, both male and female,and also the owner of this blog from what I’ve read here…http://theladygarden.org/2011/05/26/questions/#comments

    ….is that rapists are unfortunately a fact of our reality and while that’s the case then a Woman who increases her risk factors for being raped by making certain behavioural choices that objectively can be seen to do just that is not immune to some criticism for that.Just as we point some blame at life long smokers who get lung cancer we also naturally do this.We would be morally remiss if we didn’t.

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 9:14 pm

  268. PC….I clearly said “partly the responsibility of the victim”….which in SOME,but not ALL cases is true.It seems insensitive I know and thought and discretion should be exercised sure….but its still valid.

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 9:18 pm

  269. While I can understand why you might believe that, it doesn’t really answer my question. I am not asking about what the current situation is. I’m asking you about what you think should be.

    I’ll use an analogy you might appreciate. Currently, individuals who earn above a certain threshold are required to pay an increased marginal amount of tax. This is often considered something of an immoral act of force by the state. However, it is something that the individual being taxed can avoid by not earning such an ostentatious (and slutty!) amount. In this situation, would you consider the moral and right position to advocate they just earn less? Or would you instead fight for their right not to be taxed because of how much they choose to earn?

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 31, 2011 @ 9:20 pm

  270. James: Did you say that clothing choice is to rape as smoking is to lung cancer?

    I’m out.

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 31, 2011 @ 9:25 pm

  271. No Simon I didn’t and if are thick enough to get that from what I said its probably better you stay out….jeez.

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 9:32 pm

  272. Your fundamental premise Jiminy, is that clothing choices can increase your chances of being raped. Where’s your evidence? You’ve shown none other than your feelings. And even if it is true you’ve over-egged your conclusions ludicrously. You haven’t added anything to the debate for two days Jimjim, so why don’t you fuck off.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 31, 2011 @ 9:33 pm

  273. Don’t listen to them James! I’m not sure that I agree with you, but the fact that you have kept these guys arguing with you well over 100 comments after anything original was said means that you must be getting to them. Or something.

    Comment by DT — May 31, 2011 @ 9:46 pm

  274. PC : While I can understand why you might believe that, it doesn’t really answer my question. I am not asking about what the current situation is. I’m asking you about what you think should be.

    That rape would cease to exist and Women could go about as they choose free from risk….ok? But that world seems a way off so in the meantime we have to dael with things the way they are.

    I’ll use an analogy you might appreciate. Currently, individuals who earn above a certain threshold are required to pay an increased marginal amount of tax. This is often considered something of an immoral act of force by the state. However, it is something that the individual being taxed can avoid by not earning such an ostentatious (and slutty!) amount. In this situation, would you consider the moral and right position to advocate they just earn less? Or would you instead fight for their right not to be taxed because of how much they choose to earn?

    I don’t think your analogy is exactly comparable but I appreciate your attempt at a genuine debate…others seem unable to offer that…

    Of course as a Libertarian I would advocate for and do do the latter,I fight for peoples rights not to be robbed of their property regardless of how rich or poor they are…theft is theft.I do believe people should contribute towards the functioning of the state to carry out its legit role of rights protection and naturally I believe that if you want that service you are morally obligated to pay for it…user pays…but this is another argument for another thread.

    As to the first part of that analogy….no I would not advocate that they just earn less….but these people already respond to the disincentive of over-taxation by adjusting their behaviour to mitigate it…they form trusts, company’s,tax shelters and even move away to places where the taxation is less oppressive.So some personal responsibility is taken to lessen the negative effects of high taxes.

    This tax avoiding action is comparable to Women who,knowing that there IS an increased rape risk in carrying on in certain causal pattens of behaviour, adjust themselves and their actions to avoiding it as best they can.

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 9:50 pm

  275. Guy….go out on the weekend and hang with a bunch of men drinking in a pub/club and just observe and listen to what they say in regard to Women they see in tight minis etc…it can get quite crude but its perfectly natural and has been since year dot.”Nice!Yeah baby!…damn shes fine! Hot! I so want to tap that ass!” etc etc…To anyone who’s been a hetro male and spent time in the company of others where Women and drink have been involved this sort of talk is just basic,matter of fact stuff.The manner of the Woman’s dress most certainly does attach the attention of sexually interested males and causes value judgements about the Woman and her possible sexual availability to be made.Now the potential rapist is another thing again…he’s an aroused guy who’s doing all this AND is prepared to go that bit further and cross the line to satisfy his craving.And he’s the one the Woman have to be prepared for trouble from.

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 10:01 pm

  276. Thanks DT…..yeah its a mission.Who would have thought that having concern for Women’s safety would engender such snaring derision and negativity from supposed elevated “liberals” and advocates of Women’s “rights”….?

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 10:09 pm

  277. Okay.

    Here’s the thing though: throughout this post you’ve really been arguing that women should only do the former, and that it isn’t possible to do the latter. That is, they should attempt to mitigate their risks by changing their manner of dress, and sluts are sluts regardless.

    Except that they’re not, since the style of dress that could define a ‘slut’ changes with culture and trends in a fashion, sexuality and a whole bunch of other confounding factors.
    The point people have been making is that, even if you can establish a causal relationship between dressing a certain way and being at higher risk of rape, why should it be that way?

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 31, 2011 @ 10:11 pm

  278. Bah, you and your is/ought dichotomy PC. That shit’s old hat.

    And he can’t even establish a correlation. Hopeless.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — May 31, 2011 @ 10:18 pm

  279. Because PC … contrary to gormless Guy….what we ought to do IS based on things as they are….if we want to survive and prosper…. as living beings reality allows us no alternative.

    To be clear PC I would actually advocate a bit of both……avoid the taxation as best you can…and fight to end it altogether.There’s no reason you can’t and shouldn’t do both….just as we should avoid rape as best we can while also fighting to eliminate it altogether…..no?

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 10:31 pm

  280. Well, yes. This is why things like Slutwalk (and other attempts to change attitudes towards gender and sexual entitlement) are based on how things currently are, and not,for example, on the cultural norms of a Papua New Guinean tribe.

    Comment by The PC Avenger — May 31, 2011 @ 10:53 pm

  281. Agree…..but I disagree that Slutwalk is the way to go to achieve that end.Indeed I think that it has helped alienate a lot of people very sympathetic to eliminating rape and Women’s safety and may have in fact aided rapists in sending very bad advice to Women.

    Comment by James — May 31, 2011 @ 11:01 pm

  282. Sorry, James, I know I’m a bit thick and I really did mean to leave, but can you please explain that last bit for me? The bit where people may have in fact aided rapists in sending very bad advice to Women.

    Comment by Simon Poole — May 31, 2011 @ 11:41 pm

  283. At the end of the day, rapists seem to do what they do, not necessarily because they’ve just read a copy of Hustler or seen a thinly-dressed woman walk by – they’ve likely had issues even without seeing one or both. It’s more likely because they got fiddled or bashed by their relatives, or otherwise instilled with some kind of psych disorder. From a technical point of view, rape is basically GBH with a penis, instead of a pistol or knife.

    It’s a bit like blaming Grand Theft Auto or Doom for school shootings – the shooters had issues even without them. Hell, violent video games weren’t around when Ted Bundy and Ed Gein went on their killing sprees. It’s also worth noting they both hailed from religious fundy backgrounds.

    Comment by DeepRed — May 31, 2011 @ 11:47 pm

  284. Simon…..if Women have been told something over and over that may not be true and they come to believe it and make choices based on that false belief then they are at a disadvantage against the rapist who takes advantage of that Woman’s mistaken belief to violate her.If a Woman comes to believe that her dress,drinking habits and flirtatious behaviour has no bearing at all on how some men view her and subsequently act towards her then she in for a rude shock…and that’s just if she’s lucky and avoids a full rape.

    Woman have come to believe the mantra that “rape is all about power,not sex”.To any hetro male with a sex drive that’s pure bullshit….its ABOUT sex! Steven Pinker in the “Blank Slate” destroyed this power myth with obvious examples to the contrary.

    http://unamusementpark.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/hatred-part-2/

    The power theory of rape originated in gender feminist Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book, Against Our Will, in which she wrote that “[rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” (emphasis in original). Well, that doesn’t sound crazy at all!

    Of all the ludicrous left-wing postmodern blank-slate myths, this one is certainly the most dangerous for women, so it should be the first target of attack by feminists, not one of their core beliefs. Steven Pinker demolishes it, and many other myths about sex and gender, in Chapter 18 of The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.

    (Pinker):”Think about it. [Oh, if only they would!] First obvious fact: Men often want to have sex with women who don’t want to have sex with them. They use every tactic that one human being uses to affect the behavior of another: wooing, seducing, flattering, deceiving, sulking, and paying. Second obvious fact: Some men use violence to get what they want, indifferent to the suffering they cause. …

    A rapist always risks injury at the hands of the woman defending herself. In a traditional society, he risks torture, mutilation, and death at the hands of her relatives. In a modern society, he risks a long prison term. [Score one for traditional society.] Are rapists really assuming these risks as an altruistic sacrifice to benefit the billions of strangers that make up the male gender? … If [encouraging rape to consciously keep women down] were men’s tactic, why would they have made rape a crime in the first place?”

    He goes on — it wouldn’t be necessary in a sane world, of course, but Pinker knows we don’t live in one — to prove that rape is not, in fact, about power or control. It really is about sex. For one thing,

    (Pinker): “date rape is a particularly problematic case for the not-sex theory. Most people agree that women have the right to say no at any point during sexual activity, and that if the man persists he is a rapist — but should we also believe that his motive has instantaneously changed from wanting sex to oppressing women?

    Well?

    Comment by James — June 1, 2011 @ 12:15 am

  285. James, the problem with linking what Pinker suggests with how women dress is that that the things that signal perceived sexual availability or proclivity (i.e “Sluttyness”) are in no way consistent between cultures, between countries, between age groups, or even between decades.

    But, lets take this to it’s logical end: assuming that dressing or acting “slutty” makes a women more likely to be the victim of rape or sexual assault, how do we change this? Do we insist that all women be locked away for fear of tempting men?

    Comment by The PC Avenger — June 1, 2011 @ 2:27 am

  286. James, the problem with linking what Pinker suggests with how women dress is that that the things that signal perceived sexual availability or proclivity (i.e “Sluttyness”) are in no way consistent between cultures, between countries, between age groups, or even between decades.

    The one constant thing across those categories is…. men’s sexual arousal.As stated at length above in this thread the rape ACT is the responsibility of the rapist…no argument.The rapist is a man who cannot or will not stop till he’s achieved sexual release with a Woman who doesn’t want him.Now the fact that some Men do get really aroused and then go as far as rape is NOT the Woman’s responsibility…she doesn’t control what go’s on in his head.What she DOES control however is how vulnerably she makes herself to him…and the fact that she has a measure of personal control over this vulnerability factor is what justify s the exercising of other peoples judgement on her judgement…or lack of it.

    Comment by James — June 1, 2011 @ 3:25 am

  287. Steve; James may not have articulated it perfectly, but to his credit, he’s not the first person to make that analogy, I’ve seen it before.
    Here’s a better presentation of it.

    Okay, let’s take a look. First line after blog title: “There Are Innate Racial Differences in Intelligence” Good start!

    Later, sure enough, the silly shark analogy, and generally confused approach to issues of probability that James also flounders around. Look at his comment under the shark photo: “Swimming increases your risk of being eaten by a shark? VIIIIIIICTIM BLAAAAAAAMING!” That’s an obviously dopey point to make. Of course swimming increases your chances of been eaten by a shark; that’s trite. Actually using your car, rather than leaving it locked in a garage all the time, also increases the chance it will get stolen (yes, even if you lock the car – locked cars get stolen too). So what? People shouldn’t swim, or drive their cars?
    The problem is that the shark analogy is too crude. “If you don’t do X, you reduce your chance of Y to virtually zero.” Don’t swim = won’t get eaten by shark. Don’t put bloodied limb in water = won’t get attacked by shark. Don’t ever use car = car won’t get stolen. How would we reduce the chance of a woman being raped to virtually nil? Taj El-Din Hilaly has some ideas on that:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_El-Din_Hilaly#Comments_concerning_dress_and_rape

    So what next from your link? This: “Same fallacy. Same stupidity. No one said she’s asking for it…”
    Except we have an example right here on this discussion of someone using exactly the “asking for it” phrase.

    Next. Then he latches on to one of Pinker’s least compelling arguments. “Rape is about power, not sex” is simplistic, but refuting it by simply inverting it to say “rape is about sex” is obviously flawed.
    Then if you read his earlier post (which he links to) you get these gems:

    Yes Go ahead, hold men to any standard you want. The ancient subroutines in their reptilian hindbrains will whir and spin regardless, and if they hit the right — or rather wrong — combination of hormones and neurotransmitters and… whatever, they are going to attempt to assault you. Yes, I know, this means we don’t have free will. Live with it.

    Oops, Libertarians won’t be happy with that, eh James?

    “Instead of saying stupid shit like “he’s blaming the victim” and “rape is about power” and “what I choose to wear does not give you the right to sexually assault me,” and marching around town proclaiming how proud you are to be a slut and how you would never give up dressing slutty even if it means making yourself a target for rapists, instead of that, why don’t you try to understand the chain of events that leads to a sexual assault — a chain of events that depends very much on the victim’s appearance and behaviour;

    If you don’t get the victim blaming implied there, I can’t help you.

    Comment by Steve Parkes — June 1, 2011 @ 3:32 am

  288. Steve: Okay, let’s take a look. First line after blog title: “There Are Innate Racial Differences in Intelligence” Good start!

    Irrelevant to THIS topic…I saw that too and shook my head…but on this topic he’s right.

    Later, sure enough, the silly shark analogy, and generally confused approach to issues of probability that James also flounders around. Look at his comment under the shark photo: “Swimming increases your risk of being eaten by a shark? VIIIIIIICTIM BLAAAAAAAMING!” That’s an obviously dopey point to make. Of course swimming increases your chances of been eaten by a shark; that’s trite. Actually using your car, rather than leaving it locked in a garage all the time, also increases the chance it will get stolen (yes, even if you lock the car – locked cars get stolen too). So what? People shouldn’t swim, or drive their cars?
    The problem is that the shark analogy is too crude. “If you don’t do X, you reduce your chance of Y to virtually zero.” Don’t swim = won’t get eaten by shark. Don’t put bloodied limb in water = won’t get attacked by shark. Don’t ever use car = car won’t get stolen. How would we reduce the chance of a woman being raped to virtually nil? Taj El-Din Hilaly has some ideas on that:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_El-Din_Hilaly#Comments_concerning_dress_and_rape

    So you have conceded the point on the validity shark/risk example wile finding it not to your taste…thanks! ;-)

    So what next from your link? This: “Same fallacy. Same stupidity. No one said she’s asking for it…”
    Except we have an example right here on this discussion of someone using exactly the “asking for it” phrase.

    “Encouraging the likely hood of it” is a more accurate way to phrase it.And that would be accurate….

    Next. Then he latches on to one of Pinker’s least compelling arguments. “Rape is about power, not sex” is simplistic, but refuting it by simply inverting it to say “rape is about sex” is obviously flawed.

    As a male who’s experienced sexual arousal and release I think Pinkers argument that it is about sex is correct and undeniable.I have never wanted sex for “power” …I wanted it for the satisfaction of orgasm.Find me a male who’s done it for any other prime reason beyond that.The penis gets erect due to arousal caused by the thought of sexual pleasure and eventual release….even a man unable to achieve an erection and commit penetrative rape due to medical reasons is still aroused by the thought of sex resulting in his orgasm….not power over his victim.

    Then if you read his earlier post (which he links to) you get these gems:

    Yes Go ahead, hold men to any standard you want. The ancient subroutines in their reptilian hindbrains will whir and spin regardless, and if they hit the right — or rather wrong — combination of hormones and neurotransmitters and… whatever, they are going to attempt to assault you. Yes, I know, this means we don’t have free will. Live with it.

    Oops, Libertarians won’t be happy with that, eh James?

    Why…? Libertarians don’t deny man has urges and desires that can cause him to act in certain ways. Libertarianism isn’t about free will…its about political freedom from other men.

    Instead of saying stupid shit like “he’s blaming the victim” and “rape is about power” and “what I choose to wear does not give you the right to sexually assault me,” and marching around town proclaiming how proud you are to be a slut and how you would never give up dressing slutty even if it means making yourself a target for rapists, instead of that, why don’t you try to understand the chain of events that leads to a sexual assault — a chain of events that depends very much on the victim’s appearance and behaviour

    If you don’t get the victim blaming implied there, I can’t help you

    If you choose to blank-out where he clearly described the difference between “Acknowledging causes” and “laying blame” then you aren’t really interested in resolving this issue.

    Comment by James — June 1, 2011 @ 3:57 am

  289. HTML no go it seems….

    Comment by James — June 1, 2011 @ 3:58 am

  290. Matt – you tell me to attack the argument, not the person. Gee thaks for that moral lesson. How about this then: you know there are people who will attack you when you behave like a total asshat. You should expect it, it’s real. You can’t avoid it unless you change your behaviour and stop making douchebag comments.

    I’m glad someone raised the Rosa Parks. I’ll leave it to you to understand the connection.

    Comment by Good Gravey — June 1, 2011 @ 8:51 am

  291. Thanks Gravey, I’ll keep that in mind. good post.

    Comment by matt — June 1, 2011 @ 9:43 am

  292. James: “Why…? Libertarians don’t deny man has urges and desires that can cause him to act in certain ways. Libertarianism isn’t about free will…its about political freedom from other men. ”

    Problem being, of course, that “political freedom from other men” is not possible unless “other men” are free to choose not to oppress you. So, libertarianism kind of has to be about free will.

    Do you really need other people to explain every aspect of your purported political beliefs to you?

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — June 1, 2011 @ 10:03 am

  293. What, this debate is still going on? If we were French, I would have run out of Gitanes days ago, and my remote and impossibly beautiful girlfriend would have moved in with another philosopher.

    Comment by Sanctuary — June 1, 2011 @ 10:14 am

  294. She is far far happier with me Sanctuary.

    Comment by will — June 1, 2011 @ 10:52 am

  295. and me.

    it appears that she is using philosophers like wine glasses.

    i chose not to complain.

    Comment by Che Tibby — June 1, 2011 @ 11:24 am

  296. If we were French, there wouldn’t be philosophers on the thread who appear to regard personal prejudices derived from their culture as universal human constants.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — June 1, 2011 @ 11:47 am

  297. Yeah there would Milt; they’d just be doing it in english and everyone would be laughing along with.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — June 1, 2011 @ 11:56 am

  298. I have nothing to say, but just wanted to be 300th on this bizaare thread….

    Comment by DT — June 1, 2011 @ 11:59 am

  299. And that seems to be a good point to close things off . . .

    Comment by danylmc — June 1, 2011 @ 12:08 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

The Rubric Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 336 other followers

%d bloggers like this: