Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 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. Excuse me Angryharry is no lunatic he speaks far more sense than I've ever heard any feminist speak that's for sure. What a way to go on you get so offended with women being described as sluts and then come with comments like that. What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 What a way to go on you get so offended with women being described as sluts and then come with comments like that. What an incredibly stupid thing to say. No. "Don't dress like a lunatic if you don't want to be victimised" is a stupid thing to say. A personal opinion is an arbitrary judgement, and we're all entitled to them. A man who says that the NSPCC have done more damage to children than all the pedophiles combined is a mad-man. Just an opinion of mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 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. It may not be a crime but it is unpleasant to be on the receiving end of it, it can cause distress and can be extremely intrusive, intimidating and threatening. Perhaps you have never experienced it? Most people like to look their best, not just for themsleves but there will be women out there who are dressed up to attract someone of their own choosing, possibly to have consensual sex with. This does not not give every Tom, Dick and Harry the right to treat them as if they're open to all comers. Quite simple. Nor does it give morons the right to make comments such as 'slag, slapper, slut' etc or call them 'lezzers, tight' or 'frigid' such their advances be rebuffed, which all too frequently happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 No. "Don't dress like a lunatic if you don't want to be victimised" is a stupid thing to say. A personal opinion is an arbitrary judgement, and we're all entitled to them. Some people are, some people nearly lose their jobs over them. A man who says that the NSPCC have done more damage to children than all the pedophiles combined is a mad-man. Just an opinion of mine. And a pretty ignorant one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 some people nearly lose their jobs over them. Your boss a Billy Bragg fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Excuse me Angryharry is no lunatic he speaks far more sense than I've ever heard any feminist speak that's for sure. What a way to go on you get so offended with women being described as sluts and then come with comments like that. What an incredibly stupid thing to say. He doesn't speak any kind of sense at all. I pointed out several pages back that citing him in this discussion doesn't do your position any good at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Excuse me Angryharry is no lunatic he speaks far more sense than I've ever heard any feminist speak that's for sure. What a way to go on you get so offended with women being described as sluts and then come with comments like that. What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Any man who dedicates his blog to demonising women, portraying victims of rape as manupilative bitches described thus: But the most important point that my most excellent readers must take on board is not the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of very wicked women making false accusations every year, but that most of the government officials and the leftist/feminist academics who talk about these issues are lying scumbags. These are very, very nasty people. They really are. 60 years ago they would have been the first in line to push Jews into the gas chambers and the first in line to volunteer for the firing squads. And they should be prosecuted. In fact, they should be out of their jobs, face criminal charges and their pensions revoked. The level of malevolence that these abhorrent worms have inflicted on millions of innocent men and fathers must never be forgotten. How dare they treat us in this manner.. is clearly unhinged. Imagine Angry Harry's apoplectic response if a woman posted something like this about her husband: Strangler Walks Free Brian Thomas, who strangled his wife during a nightmare in the belief he was attacking an intruder, has walked free after the case against him was withdrawn. And quite right too! If you can't strangle your own wife when she looks like an intruder, whom can you strangle, eh? Missus, be warned! - because you are looking decidedly unfamiliar these days. What was once a firm-breasted, tight-buttocked, smooth-skinned nymphomaniac has sneakily metamorphosed into a whining lump of flabby lard. I recognise her not. Hand me the garrotte. And there is more: No Provocation A man has told a jury he stabbed his girlfriend and her sister to death at their Birmingham flat because he was falsely accused of rape. An old story from two months ago. He got 34 years. Taking the story at face value - and knowing something about the type of woman he was clearly dealing with - I find myself having a great deal of sympathy for him. It strikes me that he had to endure quite a lot, and that his girlfriend was treating him in an appalling manner. I also find that his reason for losing his temper was quite justified and that most men in his situation would have felt similar. In my view, this woman clearly treated him and her pregnancies with him as if they meant nothing. Finally, what is so disturbing to me about this case is that women who kill their partners, and who have had to endure far less in the way of provocation, usually get very light sentences indeed in comparison to what this man received. The above fallacious claim itself illustrates how ill informed this hateful man is. Justifiable homicide of a woman being compared to women who kill out of self-preservation and survival rather than a blind rage? He clearly has an axe to grind on the whole rape issue, I wonder if he has ever been accused of rape himself? My advice, if you don't want to be called a lunatic, then don't act like one. ETA: I am not so much offended by women being referred to as 'sluts' although it is an inappropriate and sexist term, I am more offended by the notion that by virtue of a woman's clothing, she is 'victimising' herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 It can mean any sort of minor offence, but isn't usually used in that manner. If the officer had said "don't wear revealing clothes if you don't want any attention, wanted or otherwise", then there wouldn't have been the reaction that followed. The students would have been miffed at having a salaried public servant telling them something they had much more knowledge of. Besides, the reaction came from the fact that the students knew very well what the officer was referring to, he even said he shouldn't be saying it, and when he apologised he made no reference to his words being misinterpreted. 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? You have written it down in a manner that is so obvious, that I'm surprised you fail to grasp it. If he had worded things differently to mean "attention" then he wouldn't have been doing his job of crime prevention because "attention" is not a crime. The fact that he was supposedly there to prevent crime informs us of the types of serious assaults he was referring to when he said "victimised". The students knew perfectly well what he was referring to, and the officer himself knew, he didn't say he was misinterpreted, and he apologised. One also has to read the first few pages of this thread to realise that everybody here knew what sort of crimes he was referring to. The conclusion that, after 40 pages of debate, it is now being suggested that the officer really meant some watered down definition of "victimised", basically means the debate is settled in favour of the majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Erm, it's you that seems to be stuck in the wrong mindset. Its about avoiding attack, not who's fault it is...You need to think it through... The only way to avoid sexual assault is to enter a convent, take a vow of silence and never ever speak to anyone. Or to go and live on a desert island. I wonder how the Toronto Police Officer would advise Egyptian women. Never to step outside the house I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthebean Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I wonder whether contributors to the thread think that children should avoid dressing provocatively as to avoid paedophiles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.