Mini-skirts should not provoke rapists, claim slutwalk inspired women and protest police warning of a series of attacks on scantily clad victims.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Note to women in the South Park Slope and surrounding Brooklyn: You might want to think twice before wearing shorts or skirts when you walk home alone at night.
That’s the message some women say police officers are spreading as they step up patrols in the area in response to at least 10 unsolved sexual attacks that have taken place since March.
A considerate approach in the neighborhood to help women to lower their risk to become attacked, you might think. Not for the liberal and feminist, we learn.
Jessica Silk (…) called such interaction with police “completely inappropriate.”
“There have been reports that the women attacked were all wearing skirts,” she said. “Unfortunately this might be a common link between the women that were attacked but the message shouldn’t be that you shouldn’t wear a skirt. The message should be that, ‘Here are ways that you can protect yourself.'”
Like offering them a selection of guns, tasers, pepper sprays, or at least the addresses of stores where to buy those? Giving away stickers which read “Rape is a crime – think twice before you land yourself in prison!” or “Fuck off – I got a black belt in karate!”
Lauren said she’s been surprised by the male responses to the incident—including from her own father. She said the consensus among men is that while it was inappropriate for the officer to broach such a topic, they all think he has a point.
So she was surprised that men do not deny the reality of the provocative effect of women showing their thighs. Which tells us, she thought men would either comply with feminist inspired slutwalk pride in confirming her idea of entitlement to provoke without consequences, so that she would not take offense, or they would simply forget what her sex’ kin do not like to remember about the dynamics of sex appeal.
“I completely disagree,” she said. “Where do you draw the line? I can’t wear shorts? Besides the fact that I wasn’t wearing anything that was inappropriate or provocative….I don’t think that should be part of the problem. At all.”
She does not specify what she disagrees with. Is it the warning, or the statement the officers have a point, that is, they argument on the base of reality? Next she misinterprets the situation knowingly by leaving out that the rapists or gropers have attacked only women with short skirts, and reacts instead as if it had been a general warning, regardless of the unresolved series of 10 sexual offenses in the recent past.
But immediately she slips into admitting that she’s perfectly aware of the righteous and realistic character of the police’s warning, when she refers to not having been wearing anything “inappropriate or provocative”. Which reveals she confuses the protective advice regarding provocation with a moral educative reprimand to dress “appropriately”. In this way admitting unintentionally that the outrage she enacts is beside the point altogether. As was the case with the slutwalk reaction.
Outright hilarious it gets, when she states, the way women dress should not be part of the problem, at all. Is she aware that she is telling the gropers/rapists who go for flashing thighs they should not make a distinction between provocatively and unprovocatively dressed women in the choice of their victims? Because it’s macho, first, and discriminating, second?
We could continue in her train and appeal to muggers they should hold up people in rags as often as people in expensive looking outfit, for the sake of non-discrimination against the better-off.
And car thieves should direct their ignoble desires to rust buckets no rarer than to Porsches and Mercedes all shiny and brand new.
An end to discrimination in criminal victimization is yet unaddressed by the proponents of equality for all, that’s right.
Most remarkable to behold is the Wall Street Journal’s buying into the denial of the reality of sex appeal’s dependence on women’s dressing and outfit, which is proven twice to the apprehensive female reader. First, rather veiled:
In a neighborhood with a reputation for liberal and feminist tendencies, the message is, as to be expected, not going over so well.
Second, more bluntly kowtowing to the slutwalkers’ hubris:
Note to the NYPD: It should be apparent by now that commenting on women’s clothing is not a good idea, no matter how good the intention.
And the WSJ is not Ms. Magazine’s or Cosmopolitan’s newspaper, as far as I’m aware of. Should one lobby for a new item to be listed under “hate crimes”: Rape of scantily dressed women, as opposed to modestly dressed victims? The choice of the slutlike clad rests on the class prejudice of being turned on by them more than by decently dressed females, after all!
And then, how about ageism playing a vastly discriminating role in sexual harassment of all sorts and gravity? You harrassed a girl under 30? Double prison time! Under 50? 50 percent extra time! Under 70? 25 percent extra! Over 80? 25 percent prison time reduction!
Wouldn’t that catalogue of prison terms nudge those discriminators into hate-less criminality in almost no time?