Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

"Women In Miniskirts Want To Be Raped"

17:11 / 28.09.04

I am totally aghast at this story.

Swaziland Rapist Vigilantes

I realize we're dealing with a fairly backwater part of the planet in this case, but it occurs to me that I've heard similar sentiments from some people in the "civilized" world as well. Provocative clothing is taken by some as a signal that the wearer is inviting, or at least deserves, assault/groping/crude remarks/other forms of harassment. It's considered permissible to holler lewd comments at the girl in the tight clothes, because obviously that's what she wants, or she wouldn't be dressed that way, because she should know that's the reaction she'll get if she does... The reasoning is not only circular and misogynistic, it's frighteningly common. Every day I see men leering or making remarks at women on the street as though they think it's welcome - or worse yet, they're trying to embarrass and belittle the object of their attention in the process. It terrifies and angers me almost to the point of violence.

Why is this considered acceptable behavior? Where does this attitude come from? How does it persist even in civilized societies? Can anyone stay level-headed enough to engage in insightful analysis of this phenomenon?

08:31 / 29.09.04

Didn't Camille Paglia come out with some version of this?

Our Lady Has Left the Building

10:28 / 29.09.04

And various Judges in the last fifty years.

Ex

11:41 / 29.09.04

Can anyone stay level-headed enough to engage in insightful analysis of this phenomenon?

I'm always a bit defeated by it. The last time I spoke to someone who said obviously, women should be able to wear what they like and go what they like but if they were clearly wearing the wrong clothes and going through the wrong bit of town, then they knew what would happen. That wasn't sexist, it was just a fact.

I could only think to ask him what 'the wrong clothes' would be for a bloke - if a bloke could ever dress to so as to invite sexual assault.
Because it seems to me that this argument is based on a really standard and incorrect notion of sexual desire - all men want sex all the time. Women display their willingness to participate some of the time, often using clothing. They have to be really careful or everpresent and consistent male desire will just explode on them.

This is a fucked notion, and I would argue, naturalising it is sexist. As well as really screwing over women, it totally obscures the possibility that blokes are often uninterested in sex or refuse it, and thus muddies the waters around men being sexually assaulted.

To some extent, I think it serves people (both male and female) very well to think that there is some way in which victims cause crimes - you can reassure yourself that nothing so terrible will happen to yourself, or those you love, becase you're judicious, careful, not foolish. It's a comforting myth, and it prevents an analysis of the aggressor or the society.

(Just a note - I'm not really comfortable with the idea that Swaziland's a sexist backwater and we in the West know different, when I believe America has one of the world's highest instances of reported rape.)

13:07 / 29.09.04

I think that Camille Paglia did say that, but that's not all she meant.

16:57 / 29.09.04

I agree that there is a certain smug sense of cultural superiority implicit in the idea that we in the west are somehow more enlightened, yes -- but at the same time, there is a significant difference between having one of the world's highest reported instances of rape, and simply having one of the world's highest instances of rape. One could argue that women in the west feel safer reporting such a crime; that they feel less fear of reprisal from their attackers than some women in other cultures, and more certainty that they (themselves) will be well-treated by the authorities. Just playing devil's advocate here.

17:59 / 30.09.04

My sincere apologies if the "backwater" remark was taken amiss. I was mostly referring to the fact that Swaziland is apparently not very politically progressive (absolute monarchy, tribal chiefs, etc.), not asserting that the people there were any less advanced than, or otherwise inferior to, Westerners. Also, I was in a bit of a bad mood after reading the article and probably didn't phrase things as carefully as I should have. Sorry about that!

09:26 / 01.10.04

For me, the whole concept falls apart at the moment-of-definition for 'dressing provocatively'. Say someone 's daffy for striped socks and feel ridiculously compelled to rape at the mere sight... are they more or less responsible for their actions, than someone who, I dunno, feels the urge to fuck anything that moves after a flash of thigh or some incredibly stunning ankle?
Is the sock-wearer more or less responsible than, er, someone sexily sockless?
I may like a nice jawline, but how reasonable is it to try that excuse?
"Weren't my fault; she had her jaw all hanging out, and I mean, really, if she wasn't out for something, why dress with her chin showing?"
Eyes? General human outline? If you feel the unavoidable need to get it on with a toaster, because it's fine chrome finish was just asking for it, that's between you and the security cameras in WalMart, but...
Okeh, I admit, I'm on burn-out here, but the point's been made, no matter how badly.
It's stuff like this, and being randomly harrassed by gay neo-nazis (yes, you read that right) in West Hollywood, that just sort of make my love and admiration of the human race start to fall apart.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:53 / 01.10.04

My sincere apologies if the "backwater" remark was taken amiss. I was mostly referring to the fact that Swaziland is apparently not very politically progressive (absolute monarchy, tribal chiefs, etc.), not asserting that the people there were any less advanced than, or otherwise inferior to, Westerners.

Oddly enough, here I am in my hotel room in Mass., hearing about two women who have been raped at gunpoint in the recent past... thank God for civilisation, eh?

For future reference, Swaziland, although pretty comprehensively fucked in many ways, has a democratic component - most of the House of Assembly is elected by popular vote, and it elects a third of the Parliament. The Prime Minister is appointed by the King, as is the Cabinet, on the PM's recommendation, and wields executive power. The King is theoretically the holder of absolute executive and judicial power, but in practice it doesn't really work like that. Not sure what the point about tribal chiefs is - they have those in democratic and non-monarchical South Africa across the border, and indeed in the reservations of the civilised US.

The idea of provocative clothing is like the idea of dangerous neighbourhoods or over-late hours, isn't it? It's a way to delineate the experience of being a woman - in a sense, an invisible chador. Which I think is where the examples above fall apart a little. We're not talking about a particular visible item, but the attitude expressed through the wearing of particular clothes...

20:36 / 03.10.04

(*waves hands about*)

Point made! I didn't actually do any research on Swaziland's history or government before posting what was admittedly a bit of a knee-jerk reaction that relied entirely too much on what little information was contained in the news article. Mea culpa!

I'm just trying to get at what the underlying mode of thought is that leads anyone to the belief that a woman (or a man, for that matter) who dresses a certain way is inviting assault - physical or otherwise. I'm at a loss. It's this bizarre, insidious kind of oppression that seems to hang on the hardest, even where everyone - theoretically, at any rate - has equal rights on all other counts.

In point of fact, I suppose the question needn't be resticted to an issue of dress, as some people seem to think women invite various forms of unwelcome attention simply by existing as women. I fail to comprehend the mindset that screaming come-on lines and sexual epithets out the window of a passing car or across a bar is appropriate or welcome. It seems to me that this sort of behavior reflects an attitude of either utter objectification, or total incomprehension of and lack of empathy for another human being. Possibly both.

I've been wondering what would happen if women started filing charges every time this happens, but the glut in the justice system would be insupportable. The only other reaction that seems appropriate to me is some form of physical violence, but of course that wouldn't help anything - I merely enjoy the idea of stalking over and planting a really good smack in the face of the leering dimwit fuckheads sometimes. More than likely it'd serve no purpose other than catharsis.

I suppose it falls under the same heading as every other type of discrimination, whether based on gender, race, creed, sexual preference, or what have you. Society will just have to keep struggling against it for the forseeable future, and there's no quick fix, as frustrating and irritating as that may be.

Tryphena Absent

15:28 / 04.10.04

I just want to make a general point that I feel people have already made a bit more explicit:

The problem for me isn't the idea that a woman dressed provocatively is at risk because people take risks all the time. Even the cultural application of the idea that it's a bad thing in this case isn't hugely affecting. The problem is that blaming women for one risk allows men so much space to do whatever the fuck they like. Why is it acceptable for any man to rape a woman, even if she is taking a risk? It's rather like saying, that guy who likes jumping out of a plane whose parachute lines were cut, it's his fault that he died because he was the one taking a risk. It excuses the perpetrator of the actual crime, which is either cutting the lines or raping a woman.

Ex

08:22 / 05.10.04

On the whole backwater/politically progressive thing (not to rub in a point, Sehkmet, just because I think it leads interesting places)...
I’m batting around two different arguments as to how women’s sexual assault works in cultures. There’s an argument from 1970s (Susan Brownmiller and others, I think) that it’s a part of the control of women in traditional societies, and that it’s sort of embedded in and supporting that traditional society. Then last week I was reading an argument by Lynn Segal that it’s in fact not in solidly traditional societies where it's really bad, but the societies in flux. When roles are changing and people feel a need to assert control, sexual assault becomes more prevalent. So it’s not an intrinsic part of traditional sexist societies but a by-product of the chaos that comes when a sexist society starts to break up.

(As eddie thirteen points out, it’s almost bloody impossible to get reliable statistics on that kind of thing, so it’s hard to demonstrate either point of view)

I bring it up because that would imply that sexual assault is more likely to happen in sexually/politically progressive countries.

I’m not sure what that would mean for idea about women’s dress and behaviour – whether blaming the way women dress is a traditional view that comes from solidly sexist societies, or whether it’s the kind of detritus that gets thrown up and circulated in a panic (through news coverage, gossip and official judgements) when women get more mobile and sexually independent.

Tryphena Absent

14:00 / 05.10.04

And more educated- it does seem to work in parallel with the kind of male centred hysteria that hits the newspapers annually with exam results.

17:20 / 05.10.04

I've had students quote to me some form of a statement usually attributed to the U.S. comedian Dave Chapelle, that women who dress like "hos" are essentially wearing a prostitute's uniform, so they shouldn't be surprised or upset if men come on to them aggressively or respond to them as if they are prostitutes.

Trying to find that statement on the web, I found this argument by some young scholar from the University of Nebraska which in its convolutions seems to be pretty much the mindset of your average white, middle-class man: I'm chivalrous, I like women, I think rape is wrong, but women bear some responsibility for "getting into situations" where they have a chance of ending up raped.

How would you try to get through to such a mindset?

Tryphena Absent

07:28 / 06.10.04

By smacking him in the face with a baseball bat?

07:39 / 06.10.04

Look, wankers who post like that are just asking to be smacked in the head with a baseball bat. And on some level, I'm sure they enjoy it. If not, why post so provocatively? It's all their fault if Jay and Silent Bob track them down and go all "Magnoliafan" on their ass.

09:38 / 06.10.04

Is that piece real? I mean - it's not some Onion-style piece of satire, is it? It sounds very much like it. I hope it is, because otherwise, aargh, where to start...

Ex

11:33 / 06.10.04

I suspect it's real.

"Chivalrous" - not suprising. I see chivalry is an exchange, where men treat women with respect, and women are expected to adhere to certain standards of behaviour or forfeit their respect. A chivalrous person could easily believe that if women are showing overt signs of sexual agency/alcohol they've forfeited male respect and protection.

I suppose, if I could control my temper, I would thank him for his subtle analysis of changing gender roles and ask what brave new world he is promoting where women continue to be responsible for the criminal behaviour of men.
I'd ask if he'd like to blame the victim for any other kinds of criminal behaviour - young men, for example, are disproportionately likely to suffer random street violence.

I'd ask why he feels that laudable and sensible advice about how to avoid sexual assault has to be accompanied by the message that women are partly 'to blame'. Also, whether he knows the difference between "taking responsibility for your/your friends' safety", "acting responsibly" and "being partly responsible for being raped"

I'd ask him how the tuppeny fuck he knows that all date-raped women "are not blameless". I'd ask whether he would say "you are not blameless" to the face of women who have been sexually assaulted, including his girlfriend, who undoubtedly read the piece.

I'd ask him if he regulates his own behaviour - staying out of sorority houses, checking his clothes aren't too sexy, not drinking too much, not being alone with women - or does he accept that he will be sexually assaulted at some point, and that it will be partly his own fault?

I would ask him what he gains - what service it performs for him, how it makes him feel better, what logical or emotional problems it circumvents - by assigning responsibility for one person's/gender's criminal behaviour to a completely different person/gender.

I wouldn't, of course, ask him any of these things, as I'd be too bloody angry.

Ex

11:38 / 06.10.04

And also, to anyone who says that if you dress like a 'ho' you should be treated like one: Why is it acceptable to assault sex workers?

20:26 / 06.10.04

I'll add my two cents here.

A generalist analogue of the "women ressing sexy want to be raped" argument is "people going at a certain time in certain areas of town deserve to be mugged".

What I think is basically wrong in both positions is, they deny the freedom of the individual of dressing like he or she prefers, and of going wherever and whenever they please without any risk to personal safety.

Once you accept the fact that anyone's free to do as he pleases as long as he or she does not interfere with someone else's freedom, you put the thing in perspective and can (hopefully) see that the rape/mugging/violence victim is just that - the victim, not the cause.

So, how comes so many people fail that simple trick?
Beats me.
Might come from the fact that we are taught from an early age not to run any risk - because if you run a risk, and it goes wrong, you deserve anything you get.
Like - if I douse myself in gasoline and then lit up a match, I can't complain of my third-degree burns.

The "getting what you deserve" meme is evidently pretty strong.
A reinforcement is probably to be found in the classic (but most likely wrong) practice of pointing out accidents and mishaps to kids with the explicit or implicit admonishment attached "See? Had he not done so and so he would not be in such a situation now!"
The things we learn as kids are the hardest to overcome.

14:36 / 07.10.04

Sorry - just a quick thread-rotting aside...

Every time I walk past a building site in a vaguely attractive outfit I steel myself, ready for the cat calls and wolf whistles from the builders. I recently moved to an area where a good proportion of the local population are Polish, and whenever I walk past a house being renovated and there are builders on the scaffolding.... well... nothing! There are no comments or salacious shouts. It's bliss to be able to walk past confident in the knowledge that no comment will be passed on what I'm wearing. This sort of behaviour must not be as acceptable in Polish society and thank goodness for that!

Tryphena Absent

14:18 / 08.10.04

(Polish builders only catcall when they see money. I mean actual money)

14:45 / 10.10.04

Hmm..I'd have to say I have two opinions on this. First, and foremost, there is NEVER, EVER any excuse, in my mind, for cat calling and anything involving touching(groping, rape, etc.). Even if the woman/man/sheep/whatever is causing people to think in a sexual manner, that is the person who is having the thought's problem, not the person they are looking at.

With that in mind, I have found, both for me and for others, that there is at least one reaction that seems much more difficult as it is almost instinctual and that being looking, and in some cases(sadly) even leering. Allow me to present an example.

I go to middle ages reenactment events relatively often and, as such, am usually surrounded by women wearing corsets that I find attractive. In one particular case I met a young woman who had said corset in which her breasts were situated quite prominently and had a teardrop pearl situated much like an arrow pointing at her cleavage. Now, I don't hold her responsible or feel it was "her fault" in some way, but to a healthy heterosexual male who had a strong attraction to shiny things, I literally could not stop myself from looking. In cases like this, I feel that some small amount of tolerance should be shown.

So, in short, I guess I would have to say that cat calls, any form of touching, or anything even along those lines no person ever asks for, but I am not quite so sure that hard of a line should be drawn for simply looking, as long as the gentleman in question stops it when he catches himself doing it.

James

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:05 / 11.10.04

From the Wiki, just for Lord Morgue:

The Head Shop is for the discussion of Philosophy and Cultural Studies - including postmodernity, deconstruction, marxism, Queer Theory, Feminism. Stuff like that. Consider it a place in which to analyse the 21st Century?.

The Head Shop is one of the most serious bits of Barbelith; a throwaway gag that would be laughed at in the Conversation might get requests not to rot the thread in the Head Shop)

So, in short, I guess I would have to say that cat calls, any form of touching, or anything even along those lines no person ever asks for, but I am not quite so sure that hard of a line should be drawn for simply looking, as long as the gentleman in question stops it when he catches himself doing it.

Ah, which raises another issue. If a woman is wearing a corset, that corset supporting a majestic embonpoint, is there not the possibility that she *wants* you to look at it? Like a young man in a muscle shirt may want to draw attention to his manly arms, or a fellow in Liverpool-FC-circa-1984 shorts may want to display his pert buttocks? Talking in terms of "catching oneself" surely suggests that the provocative dresser is unaware of the provocative element of their dress and does not, in fact, want to provoke.

Problem being, where do you draw the line? Somebody might want to dress the way they think brings out their most attractive features without having to resign themselves to talking to the top of somebody else's head, and certainly without then being harrassed by builders - I think we can probably conclude anecdotally that this constitutes welcome attention to a statistically minute group - or physically harrassed. But is there another side where feeling that one is misbehaving by paying attention to displayed physicality - whether through short skirts, tight shorts or tightly-laced corsets - is representing the subject as necessarily a victim of one's own gaze?

00:26 / 12.10.04

In my experience, at least(and I am loathe to go too terribly outside of that experience or say it is universal without much more research into the topic), the only real way one can get around the question of he/she wants that type of attention is to actually sit down and meet the person.

I have found that, if a person does that, then one finds that it is almost a crapshoot as to wheather or not XYZ person wants you to notice their *insert body part here*, they honestly have no idea that people would notice, or just like XYZ type of garment.

From my understanding and experience, it seems possible to make educated guesses which category said person falls under, but that is dicey at best and takes practice to get it at an even reasonable rate of success.

To bring it back to topic, I think that this is a valid point, but one that only makes the distinction more difficult as most people who would want to go to the trouble of being able to determine on sight if a person is wearing XYZ thing to attract a mate or not would usually not be doing the things we are calling negative in the first place(or at least would be much more subtle and cunning about the whole thing).

If I can find a way to resolve this muddle, I'll edit this post with it. Otherwise, well..help?

James
actually is practicing learning the very skill he described.

09:14 / 13.10.04

This question of rules and boundaries made me think about the few times I've been out and about in the fetish community. One of the things that I loved was that looking/gazing appreciatively was absolutely expected, but touching without an invitation was utterly taboo. It's fantastic to spend an evening in a sexy sexy outfit and receive loads of compliments without feeling that you're inviting trouble. If only these rules could be adhered to in the mainstream world.