Printer-friendly version
Author:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
See the link below for an explanation, but it seemed some police education officer opened his mouth and shoved both feet in it.
Anyway, power to the girls who started this campaign--they have my unconditional support in making rape and other sexual attacks the responsibility of the attacker not the victim. People should be able to wear what they like, where they like and when they like without risking attack from some predator--usually male, but not always so. It seems a lot of boys are supporting them too, although apparently 1:4 women attending a university in the US experiences some sort of sex attack. Sobering, isn't it?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/06/slutwalking-poli...
Comments
Out of the mouths of boobs
That policeman sure started something with his dangerously ignorant comment.
Seems to me that his implied message, that men can't be held accountable
if women insist on wearing short skirts is also pretty insulting to men.
~~hugs, Veronica
And speaking of dangerously stoopid, I'm glad that you're subscribing to the Guardian now
instead of the Daily Mail, Angha
And remember...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifLqzLEB3E0
The worst offenders
seem to be males of religion. It is all that "avoiding temptation". By avoiding it they never learn to resist it.
Perhaps...
...someone could show the (not very) Honourable Member for Mid Bedfordshire that article.
Nadine Dorries is creating a bit of a stir by proposing a new bill to give teenage girls (but not boys) lessons in abstinence.
There's more comment in this opinion piece.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't...
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!
To a point, I agree with the officer.
Yes, women should be able to walk down the street buck naked, and wearing nipple clamps and a vibrator, and not be bothered.
However, the fact is that there are predators out there, and we must protect ourselves from them. And at age 17-21 men have peak levels of Testosterone in their systems. So, common sense dictates that woman's garb be a little less provocative.
Yes, girls it ain't right ...
Khadijah
That implies
That men between the age of 17-21 shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.
In the event of a sexual assault, surely the assailant should be held responsible, or are crimes which involve animalistic behaviour - ie loss of control - be judged less severely because of it?
And beyond sex related crimes, doesn't this then mean that someone who lost control because they found a biological male wearing a dress and makeup made them lose control and kill their victim? It would by analogy make hate crimes acceptable.
Other than self-defence, no act of violence should be justifiable.
Angharad
PS to Laika - Ronni - I've been a Guardian reader for many years, I even won the prize crossword in 1999 to prove it and received a very nice dictionary for my efforts.
Angharad
Men should be held responsible, but ...
It is hard to phrase how I feel about the issue without sounding like I support the aggressor. And I don't support aggression. However, I think that some men in this age bracket are more dangerous than others. We can hold them responsible all we want to and punish them after the fact, however I really do not want to be one of the women who is part of the statistics.
Khadijah
What you're trying to say, I think
I think everyone needs to be responsible for their own behavior and their own safety. Society cannot make anyone safe, the necessary freedoms to enjoy life mean that some people have the freedom to do harm. Society then must retaliate, but it can't pre-emptively control. A lot more of the evil in the world actually comes from attempts to control people than comes from allowing too much freedom.
It's always a balancing act.
The idea that society should be safe enough that anyone can safely wear anything anywhere is not my idea of a society that would be pleasant to live in. A really small number of people actually cause the problems, how do you justify punishing all the innocents by restricting their freedom in order to curtail the danger from the small minority?
But there is a distinction here. For an authority to say that the victim invited an attack by their behavior is for that authority to cross a line into attempting to enforce a behavior standard against potential victims. Again, pre-emptive restrictions against innocents should be held to a minimum in a reasonable society.
When a series of rapes alarmed Israel some men in Golda Meir's cabinet suggested a curfew for women. Golda (not always in tune with feminism, BTW) punctured the logical fallacy there but it is still the response a lot of men have to seeing a danger to women: protect the women by restricting them. And it still makes no sense. Golda invited the men to put a curfew on themselves instead of on her; none of the men was willing to even discuss that.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Isn't there something?
If I remember correctly, isn't there some thing in Sharia law about 'cutting off the offending part'.
Seems to me that cutting off the dangly bits might discourage actual offenders from repeating the crime and would probably discourage future potential offenders as well.
After all it's not a death penalty and it will at least stop these thugs from spreading their violent uncontrollable genes.
I've been told that Rape is not wholly about sex but it's also often about power. Well even if the attacker persists after emasculation he (or she) will be punished for physical assault in any repeat attacks. Then we come into '3 strikes and your out!'
I leave it to the vermin in the cesspit of whitehall to sort out any law on repeat offenders.
Anyway, perhaps emasculation might curb the violent tendancies as well.
Girls, and anybody else for that matter, should be allowed to wear what they like, when they like, where they like, how they like and if they like. Let's make the streets safe for all and make the punishment fit the crime.
bev.
Growing old disgracefully.
I think MLK said it best
he was walking in an area known for violence and heard footsteps behind him, he turned and was relieved to see the person was white. He told this story to point out that there is prejudice and prejudice.
If you want to maximise your safety then discretion is required. It won't necessarily make you safe though and not using that discretion will not necessarily harm. It is people's choice to live based on principles or pragmatism.
And that is all the choice we have - principles or pragmatism.
Slut Walking
To me, anyone should be allowed to wear any clothing that they want to. And I treat all People with RESPECT.
May Your Light Forever Shine
May Your Light Forever Shine
An obvious place for a convention for this..
Tulsa Oklahoma. After all, Tulsa spelled backwards is asluT! Sorry. I tried REALLY hard not to type that, but I'm weak.
Feel free to throw stuff at me.
Cathy
As a T-woman, I do have a Y chromosome... it's just in cursive, pink script.