Hey Ian,
Ok, this is a good debate and you have some good points too. The feminist in me balks but I must respond.
This is not intended as a flame or "man bashing" by any means, but as debate.
"The world is not fair. People are not describing what they think SHOULD be--they are merely describing what IS, or at least what they believe is.
Well, what happens to a woman's career when she goes to work dressed like Madonna or Elvira or something? What if she simply refuses to wear a dress or heels? I don't think those things should be required, but they sometimes are. I know we're talking about assault and not work, but of course dress has repercussions."
It should be noted that dress codes in work situations usually are comparable between men and women or the employer is subject to legal action. If a woman must wear skirts and heels, men should be required to wear ties, slacks, and suit jackets. The main difference is the restrictions on movement that women have from those requirements. Personally, I'm all for women wearing slacks and men wearing kilts! That would be an equal dress code.
Yes, I am talking about assault. However, the same people that promote those biased dress codes at work are reinforcing the idea that a woman's dress justifies treating her differently. From there it is a slippery slope to restricting other rights for women a la veils and birkas in interest of her "protection." The slope keeps on going to where rape and assault are justified because a woman "engaged in risky behavior." That of course gets back to radical Islam and women as property.
No, the world is not fair. However, it is my position that as long as any of these attitudes about clothing are condoned, the blame will continue to be shifted to the woman for the way she dresses. Reinforcing the social view that a woman's dress influences whether or not she is attacked in turn validates and promotes the attitude of those justifying attacking women because of how they dress. By telling a woman she shouldn't dress a certain way to reduce chances of assault, society sends the message that if she does dress that way, assaulting her is, if not justified, at least understandable and in part her own fault.
" I submit that it's possible that a woman who goes to a fraternity party dressed like an eskimo on the north pole is not going to be courted or pursued as much as one who wears a skimpy tight black dress--or takes it partway off. And that means less risk of assault. CAN a woman dress in very little safely? Sure, depending on where--women do it on public beaches all the time. But it may be possible--not right--that dress can increase your risk of attack. "
Why? Because society has taught that one woman is "asking for it" and the other isn't. Furthermore, society has also supported the attitude that men's dress has no similar connotation. As a woman, I deal with men on a daily basis in what I would consider the equivalent of that skimpy tight black dress: i.e. tight jeans, fitted slacks, tight tee-shirts, open collars, muscle shirts or workout tanks (or no shirt at all!), shorts, or clingy sweats. Am I tempted? YES! I'm a healthy adult woman. Do I even let them know what I'm thinking? NO WAY! This is a big generalization, but here it goes. Women in general are quite capable of restraining inappropriate impulses despite what I would consider equal provocation. We don't blame men and tell them to dress differently or we will consider ourselves justified in "jumping" them. We are responsible.
So here is a question for you. Why do you think society promotes the belief that men are unable to similarly restrain their inappropriate impulses and therefore tell women to dress differently or else?
"AND YET, that point is of little comfort to the victim of assault."
There is significantly less comfort in telling her that she had anything to do with causing the assault, even if it is only to subtly imply that she could have "avoided it" if she had only dressed differently. Talk about guilt tripping the victim! This is just another means of shifting blame. It comes across to women as saying, "You did something to deserve it."
"If I had to choose conservative dress and no assault, vs. risque dress plus assault plus that assailant doesn't use my clothing as an excuse, I go with the former option."
How about another option? Start by making it absolutely clear that dress has nothing to do with assault. Educate young men (and plenty of older ones too) to understand that women are not objects and that they must restrain their impulses regardless of how women dress. Finally, teach women how to defend themselves to enforce this in the event that they meet the "uneducated" man who didn't get the point. It may take a while, but I'm talking wide spread social attitude change. This kind of change can happen. It's actually some of what is going on right now with the awareness programs at universities. Its part of what I'm going to graduate school to do.
"There are predators out there who do not care about your dignity, but they are more likely to take it when it becomes more available--just like people are more likely to steal your car if it's unlocked."
We are obviously defining availability differently. Dress choices are not availability indicators, but fashion statements.
"Not at all--but my civic was stolen from in front of my jamaica plain apt because there is a low-rider culture here that values souped up civics and stolen parts. It's a very high risk car to own. Having one made it more likely that I would be victimized than if I owned a beat up '85 sentra. Not fair, not right--just more likely. And when my car was stolen, complaining life is not fair did not get it back."
How many people told you that you could have avoided having your car stolen and that, in effect, you were in part responsible for its theft because of the type of car you chose to drive? Did they tell you that you didn't "avoid" getting your car stolen because of how it looked?
"*IF* there were predators seeking male victims bigger than their intended victims more likely to be lying in wait on running routes, wouldn't men have to modify their behavior to protect themselves, right or wrong?"
I disagree about the reasons. I believe women are attacked more frequently because of the social attitudes promoted about masculinity and justification for that kind of behavior. If we resort to the "might makes right" concept, there are plenty of men out there who should be attacked before many women. I'm a few inches taller and probably 20+ pounds heavier than my current male martial arts instructor. Weapons make size irrelevant. It's back to the attitudes about how women can be treated. Admittedly, this is probably an issue for discussion in a gender philosophy forum.
I don't believe men would modify their behaviors. I believe they would be more active in eliminating the threat itself. To eliminate this threat against women requires education and total responsibility being assigned where it belongs: with the assailant.
"What men and women do for their health does not necessarily depend on fairness and equality. For example, men do not need pelvic exams for pap smears and mammograms, but women do. One must respond to the relevant risks in one's life. I don't worry about tornado safe housing in boston, but heck, recent events show that some people had better, fair or not. "
Are you using a physiological justification for inequitable treatment? We are not talking about health treatment for something with natural causes such as breast cancer vs. testicular cancer (or at least I'm not), but the attitudes that create situations of gender inequality. Those same attitudes, I believe, are what promotes and validates attacks on women more than any dress style they could wear.
Yes, one must respond to the risks in one's life. However, we are discussing the inequitable risk of a socially constructed sort. As such, it takes social rectification. Tornados are acts of nature. Rape and assault are acts of (in)humanity.
"True on some levels. The rapist does not rape for sexual pleasure--however, rape is obviously intensely sexual. It's based on sex--male vs female--and one sex's inherent hate of the other, and it's accomplished through sex. There are many ways to humiliate, and terrorize--this is the sexual way. It's wrong, but it's based on sex. It's based on a man's disgust of a woman, and frequently, a woman's sexuality. Perhaps the man is conflicted between attraction and revulsion, perhaps the man is disgusted by a woman whose sexuality isn't for him to control because she exerts it herself, and her expression sets off a trigger. These are ways dress could influence rape. "
I've heard many times that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." The "weapon" is not the issue. In rape, forced sex is the weapon. What it is about, as you mention, is humiliation, hate, terrorization, power, and control. Making it about sex and, even worse, claiming that the woman sets off the trigger because of her innate sexuality is logically the same as blaming a child for child abuse and pedophilia since their innate status as a child is what "triggered" their abuser to abuse them. Being female is just as basic and just as unreasonable a trigger as an individual's age. Or do you suggest that a woman can separate her sexuality from her being a woman?
"And perhaps it's things that go along with seductive dress that predispose, but not the dress itself. But it's not advisable to enter a risky situation and make it riskier."
Again, this sounds like blaming the victim.
This is a very complex issue obviously. I don't believe a simplistic approach, such as telling a woman to dress "less seductively" (whatever that is since different people have different "turn ons"), is a solution at all. In fact, I think its part of the root problem.
Thanks for the good discussion! Really good thoughts to consider!
Le'
