skinz Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 So you actually agree with the Police Officer had he worded it differently and I'm sure you can get your head the concept that crime prevention was uppermost in his mind can't you? No one has argued "good advice". It's the terms used by a misogynistic idiot that's being criticized. Usually people are defined by what and how they say something. Because he's apologised doesn't exonerate him, if he was right why would he apologise and why wasn't he supported by the force? He did what Frank and the rest of the apologists are doing yet not in such a concentrated continuous fashion. I know you'll defend him because he's a "Police officer" with "years of experience" but that doesn't detract from the fact he's a moron. Like any institution, they all have their nutters, even internet warriors. It's a bit like me advocating your support for the BNP because their a bunch of sweet tea drinking flower arranging faggots. The thread is dead. As I suggested to danot, let the poll do the thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Had the advice been to men, 'do not make assumptions about a woman's dress, if she is dressed like a 'slut' it does not give you a carte blanche' rather than to women 'be aware of what messages you are conveying by dressing like a slut' then this whole debate would not have been necessary. The fact that all kinds of women from the elderly, young, children, women of all shapes, sizes, races, in a variety of types of dress are sexually assaulted, harassed and raped is evidence in itself that what a woman wears does not increase her risk of being attacked/harassed. Rape is also routinely used as weapon of war. Where does the provocatively dressed woman factor into this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 <snip> Rape is also routinely used as weapon of war. Where does the provocatively dressed woman factor into this? It doesn't. Quite simply rape is power. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 No one has argued "good advice". It's the terms used by a misogynistic idiot that's being criticized. Usually people are defined by what and how they say something. Because he's apologised doesn't exonerate him, if he was right why would he apologise and why wasn't he supported by the force? He did what Frank and the rest of the apologists are doing yet not in such a concentrated continuous fashion. I know you'll defend him because he's a "Police officer" with "years of experience" but that doesn't detract from the fact he's a moron. Like any institution, they all have their nutters, even internet warriors. It's a bit like me advocating your support for the BNP because their a bunch of sweet tea drinking flower arranging faggots. The thread is dead. As I suggested to danot, let the poll do the thinking. I haven't even voted on the poll but you certainly do come across as a bit of control freak who seems to be a bit of a moron yourself. You don't actually know what was said behind closed doors do you and do you know why that is? It's because people like you would be quite happy to see him out of a job, no amount of apologising would ever satisfy you and on the basis of one badly worded but sensible bit of advice you have him labelled and a woman hater! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Had the advice been to men, 'do not make assumptions about a woman's dress, if she is dressed like a 'slut' it does not give you a carte blanche' rather than to women 'be aware of what messages you are conveying by dressing like a slut' then this whole debate would not have been necessary. But then considering this debate three dimensionally, that advice would be as irrelevant as advising women what not to wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Had the advice been to men, 'do not make assumptions about a woman's dress, if she is dressed like a 'slut' it does not give you a carte blanche' rather than to women 'be aware of what messages you are conveying by dressing like a slut' then this whole debate would not have been necessary. The fact that all kinds of women from the elderly, young, children, women of all shapes, sizes, races, in a variety of types of dress are sexually assaulted, harassed and raped is evidence in itself that what a woman wears does not increase her risk of being attacked/harassed. Rape is also routinely used as weapon of war. Where does the provocatively dressed woman factor into this? He said victimised not raped and I'm not aware that anyone has said that all rape victims dress exclusively in any certain way so why do you keep labouring this point? Why do feel the need to attack this guy and twist his words when all he did was give out what I think most people would feel was sensible advice? If you've got any evidence to show that dress code/makeup/hairstyle etc of any kind does not alter people's perceptions of that individual then please show it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I disagree as the corollary of the above is that the perpetrator is somehow exonerated and perceived to be less at fault. That is utterly wrong on every possible level. These views should be challenged and not perpetuated. Not remotely. As I stated that is conflating the two entirely distinct concepts of vulnerability and culpability. Wearing slutty clothes may make you more vulnerable but it doesn't make the attacker any less culpable for his actions - after all he is not mind controlled by the clothes! Giving this sort of advice is (I think) reasonable but it is only a sticking plaster approach and the "she was asking for it" views that are pretty well embedded in society need to be dismantled. That process is not helped when you can't talk about rape without it becoming politicised in much the same way as it's very hard to talk about immigration or race without running into the "your just a racist" wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 He said victimised not raped and I'm not aware that anyone has said that all rape victims dress exclusively in any certain way so why do you keep labouring this point? Why do feel the need to attack this guy and twist his words when all he did was give out what I think most people would feel was sensible advice? If you've got any evidence to show that dress code/makeup/hairstyle etc of any kind does not alter people's perceptions of that individual then please show it now. And what do you think 'victimised' means exactly? He is of course 'advising' within the context of sex (which ranges from flashing, harassment, assault, rape etc) and not burglary or muggings, otherwise that advice would have been extended to men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Not remotely. As I stated that is conflating the two entirely distinct concepts of vulnerability and culpability. Wearing slutty clothes may make you more vulnerable but it doesn't make the attacker any less culpable for his actions - after all he is not mind controlled by the clothes! Giving this sort of advice is (I think) reasonable but it is only a sticking plaster approach and the "she was asking for it" views that are pretty well embedded in society need to be dismantled. That process is not helped when you can't talk about rape without it becoming politicised in much the same way as it's very hard to talk about immigration or race without running into the "your just a racist" wall. I see what you are saying, however, in the mind of the average person, many of whom will at some point do jury service, the two are one and the same which is why these comments are so damaging and dangerous. You only have to look at the rants of that lunatic Angry Harry and I daresay that many people think like him. He is basically calling women who dress in a certain way 'teases' and in not so many words stating that if you prod a snake too much it will bite. Provocation. Provocation = mitigation. This inevitably results in victim blaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 And what do you think 'victimised' means exactly? He is of course 'advising' within the context of sex (which ranges from flashing, harassment, assault, rape etc) and not burglary or muggings, otherwise that advice would have been extended to men. I know it doesn't just mean rape and sexual assault and I also know what the context was but it seems to me some people are avoding this little factoid. He possibly also meant "unwanted attention" which you couldn't really class as a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.