As regular visitors know I’m quite a fan of walking, going as I do do for a regular walk once a year on November the 5th with other like minded individuals. Well my attention has been brought to another walk which I rather feel I should join. It would seem that a police officer in Toronto told a group of law students that in order to avoid being raped ‘women should avoid dressing like sluts’. This rather understandably caused a bit of upset, after all whilst one should be sensible in ones behaviour (you know don’t let a politician see your wallet that sort of thing) one really should have the freedom to dress how one likes. In fact it turns out that by law one does, and yet here’s a police man (what do they teach them in the colonies) suggesting that if a woman is dressing as she pleases if it could be seen in some way as “slutty” then well they’ve just got to expect to be raped. Of course that means they’re expected to guess what some violent thug they happen to run across, or some bone headed police officer, would consider slutty – perhaps a burqa would be safe? Now if this was just a single police officer in some colonial back water one might ignore it, but sadly this attitude of “dressed like that, she was asking for it” is far too common amongst the legal establishment – you know those people we pay to enforce laws against committing acts of violence against other people and to punish those that break those laws.
As the SlutWalk London page rightly points out manner of dress really isn’t a magic shield that stops people getting raped. So as someone who gets the odd bit of hassle for how I dress, sometimes even from the police I feel this is really rather something I should support. Besides the logical conclusion of such an attitude towards how women should dress is pretty much what some of those on the Muslim fringe would support. So I shall be taking additional exercise this year and going for a little stroll on June 11th and almost certainly not in my usual garb.
FaceBook event is here.
Just on a slightly ancillary note it would seem that Nadine Doris is in hot water again this time for suggesting that it might be a good thing if children where taught how to say no to sexual advances as it might be useful later in life to be taught early on that they can say no. Some people are interpreting her comments as saying that the victim is responsible, but I’m rather with Ms Raccoon in taking it as being told from an early age that you can say no to sexual advances even when you’re in your teens or later is a really rather handy life skill.
Update On another related note over at Harry’s place there is a report that:
“The Commons Home Affairs Select Committee has suggested that forced marriage should be made a criminal offence.”
Which seems likely a terribly good idea, though one suspects it might fall foul of cultural diversity laws and the like (Ok one doesn’t but it will be interesting to see how various groups react to the proposal).
As someone who likes to wear short skirts & has had plenty of verbal in the past for doing so, I truly think these people who say you’re “asking for it” need taking down a peg or two! Having been out with (supposedly) my nearest & dearest one night & he just sat back & laughed while I was talked about in a way that I can only describe as verbal rape. To then confront him about it & be told “well dressed like that what do you expect?” I think people really do need their arses kicking out of the dark ages. Oh, the guy doing the talking was thrown out of the pub, barred until he apologised, then the landlord always had him buying my drinks whenever we were both in the pub so at least someone thought he was in the wrong.
There are otherwise impeccably logical people who really think that how a person is dressed might ‘provoke’ an attack, whereas the reality is, if an attacker is going after a woman or child (or anyone) what they are wearing is irrelevant.
On the plus side, the police remain outraged at the killing of Sophie Lancaster and have never once allowed anyone to suggest that how she was dressed was any kind of viable explanation. One of the difficulties I have with her poor mother’s campaign is that with its emphasis on tolerance it inadvertently gives the idea that somehow the way she was dressed is an explanation, based on the garbage the defendants spoke.
No, no, no, they were wrong to be kicking anybody to death, no matter how the person was dressed.
It is worrying how they seem to have forgotten a lesson that I thought most people learnt in primary school, that if someone is out for a fight or something they’ll find an excuse no matter what. Be it how you’re dressed, that you’re ginger, fat, wearing something or even just there. It’s all just a pretext to do what they were going to do anyway.
It’s an odd plus side though isn’t it. I’ve all sorts of difficulties with her mother’s campaign – some of them entirely unrelated to the actual campaign (like the mawkish diana-esque turn out at her memorial service in Whitby (at the goth weekend) when before she got killed hardly anyone knew her) .
Indeed, kicking people to death has been frowned upon for a very long time – I think there are even laws against it. What difference the excuse used to carry out such an act makes I’ve yet to fathom – I suspect it doesn’t hurt any less no matter what the people kicking say or don’t say at the time.