6 ms·

What she is saying, is that women should dress conservatively (presumably for their entire life, or at least for the entire time that they do not want to have s

What she is saying, is that women should dress conservatively (presumably for their entire life, or at least for the entire time that they do not want to have sex with any man who feels like it) so that when the time comes that they get raped, people are more likely to look favourably upon them, rather than on the rapist. That is absolutely nuts. Not to mention the fact that studies show that there is no correlation between what a woman is wearing and her likelihood of being sexually assaulted. So dressing conservatively won't even help avoid bring raped, but it means that people might side with you afterwards?

astrange 13y ago
> Not to mention the fact that studies show that there is no correlation between what a woman is wearing and her likelihood of being sexually assaulted. Could you link these studies, for the public interest?
- batiudrami 13y ago
  I'll have to dig them up, I was linked them a few years back (when I was on the other side of this argument, actually). edit: This interesting part from the paper I was linked: >While people perceive dress to have an impact on who is assaulted, studies of rapists suggest that victim attire is not a significant factor. Instead, rapists look for signs of passiveness and submissiveness, which, studies suggest, are more likely to coincide with more body-concealing clothing. (140) In a study to test whether males could determine whether women were high or low in passiveness and submissiveness, Richards and her colleagues found that men, using only nonverbal appearance cues, could accurately assess which women were passive and submissive versus those who were dominant and assertive. (141) Clothing was one of the key cues: "Those females high in passivity and submissiveness (i.e., those at greatest risk for victimization) wore noticeably more body-concealing clothing (i.e., high necklines, long pants and sleeves, multiple layers)." (142) This suggests that men equate body-concealing clothing with passive and submissive qualities, which are qualities that rapists look for in victims. Thus, those who wore provocative clothes would not be viewed as passive or submissive, and would be less likely to be victims of assault. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
  - Mz 13y ago
    Please note that I also talked about being less warm and friendly -- i.e. behavioral changes, not just clothing -- and the piece is primarily about workplace or professional issues between the sexes, not sexual assault. My rant was inspired by a discussion of a workplace issue where it was not clear cut if the man was "behaving badly" or not but it was clear that the woman wanted him to behave differently towards her. I was roundly criticized for suggesting that dressing more conservatively for a time in response to the issue might help convey a lack of romantic interest in the man without being confrontational. I was told how she dressed at work had absolutely nothing to do with how men at work treated her, the man was merely a creep, etc. We only knew her side of the story. Perhaps he was a creep. Perhaps not. Saying "it's all his fault, he is merely a creep!" is a) jumping to conclusions without knowing both sides of the story and b) pretty disempowering for the woman. If he is merely a creep and the things the woman does are irrelevant, that leaves you with what? Quit your job or put up with unwanted attentions? Not a great set of choices if, like most people, you need your paycheck. I am proposing that dress and behavior can influence how men treat a woman and if you are a woman who is serious about having a career, you should take some responsibility for your half of it and not just bitch about how all men are led around by their pecker and there is nothing a woman can do about it. I did work for a Fortune 500 company for over 5 years. I did deal (very diplomatically) with unwanted male attention on the job. I have also dealt with that in other professional situations. This is not just someone blowing smoke based on zero experience or research. As a woman who (somewhat to my bafflement) comes across as a LOT more aggressive than I wish I did, I assure you that a woman who reads as super aggressive on the job is doing herself no favors. Female passivity is pretty expected in most social settings. Being too aggressive gets you all kinds of attention of the wrong sort and does not help your career. I have also been sexually assaulted (as a child) and have read a lot about the topic. This is not really the place to argue that issue but I will suggest that a woman can dress conservatively and not read as submissive or passive. I tend to dress conservatively. I also tend to be mistaken for someone in charge, sometimes in situations where I am at the bottom of the ladder, not the top.
nemothekid 13y ago
I think you are missing the point entirely. There is a reason why she brought up the Rosa Parks example. You should study the reasons why the African American civil rights movement chose to focus on Rosa Parks rather than Claudette Colvin. This has nothing to do with statistics and correlations for sexual assault and everything to do with the fact that the people who judge you, despite the fact they are well meaning, may have subconscious prejudices based on the way you act or dress. Fact of the matter is, gender equality won't come in a single sweeping wave, and you will have to deal with people who are well intentioned but "don't get it". Looking at the Claudette Colvin example, it would have been easy for 1950's America to dismiss the whole case just because she was pregnant teenager - despite the fact there is no correlation between pregnancy/relationship status and where you can sit on a bus. You don't want to give your opponents the chance to dissuade people who can ultimately help you just because of your outfit choice. At the end of the day humans aren't machines. Despite the fact there airplane travel is far safer than car travel more people are still afraid of air travel. Despite what our "correlations" tell us, we are still, and will continue to be superstitious creatures. It would be wise for those us trying to change things to not play into those superstitions.
- batiudrami 13y ago
  I did get that point, I just feel that what she's asking of women is crazy for the net gain. If I had a child who was being bullied at school, I could stop that by forcing him to stay at home for the rest of his life. But that would be a crazy solution to a problem. Asking women to dress conservatively so that if they get raped, society will be more likely to side with them, is crazy. Sure, it will probably help change perceptions in the long term, but it is just not a reasonable solution. Asking women to change their behaviour to accommodate those who are victim blamers (whether they are concious of what they are doing or not) is not fair.
  - nemothekid 13y ago
    First, I'd hope in America that any rape serious rape trial will look into the facts and the evidence and throwaway any personal bias. From the author's article I got the sense she was talking about workplace sexual harassment. Secondly, I don't think "dressing conservatively" and "being denied one's education" are anywhere near on the same levels on sacrifice. I just can't see how being forced to a particular style of dress in the work place is an unimaginable thing. Consider a different group of people. Imagine you owned a business that hired black men. Now you know these men are all respectable men, however they dressed in oversized tees, baggy jeans and jordans, and because of this they were accused of being thugs. Now any rational person can see that your style of dress most likely has no correlation with your likelihood of committing a crime. Despite this however the NBA requires players to hold a certain dress code. The last thing you want in any situation is for a potential judge or employer to think "wow this guy looks like a thug." Is it racist? Maybe. However, again, humans are superstitious and it may take lifetimes to reverse this behavior and I don't think this was "too big of a change." In a minority position, you generally don't want to look the part. It sucks, it might be racist or sexist, but you don't want to further disadvantage yourself. I'm still sort of shocked that having to change one's style of dress is difficult, "crazy solution" for women, but I am not a woman so there maybe somethings I still don't understand (also, I'm not advocating for all women to wear burqa).
andrewflnr 13y ago
She's not talking about women being raped. She's talking about behavior ranging from creepy pickups to groping, and was very careful not to say anything that actually justifies it. Furthermore, she's not talking about what the ideal world is like, she's talking about what women can do today, where they are, to make their life better. If, as you say, a woman is going to be assaulted anyway, isn't it strictly better to have public support after the fact, no matter how small the advantage? Callous, perhaps, but unavoidably true, and ignoring uncomfortable trade-offs doesn't make them go away.

astrange 13y ago

> Not to mention the fact that studies show that there is no correlation between what a woman is wearing and her likelihood of being sexually assaulted. Could you link these studies, for the public interest?

batiudrami 13y ago
I'll have to dig them up, I was linked them a few years back (when I was on the other side of this argument, actually). edit: This interesting part from the paper I was linked: >While people perceive dress to have an impact on who is assaulted, studies of rapists suggest that victim attire is not a significant factor. Instead, rapists look for signs of passiveness and submissiveness, which, studies suggest, are more likely to coincide with more body-concealing clothing. (140) In a study to test whether males could determine whether women were high or low in passiveness and submissiveness, Richards and her colleagues found that men, using only nonverbal appearance cues, could accurately assess which women were passive and submissive versus those who were dominant and assertive. (141) Clothing was one of the key cues: "Those females high in passivity and submissiveness (i.e., those at greatest risk for victimization) wore noticeably more body-concealing clothing (i.e., high necklines, long pants and sleeves, multiple layers)." (142) This suggests that men equate body-concealing clothing with passive and submissive qualities, which are qualities that rapists look for in victims. Thus, those who wore provocative clothes would not be viewed as passive or submissive, and would be less likely to be victims of assault. http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...
- Mz 13y ago
  Please note that I also talked about being less warm and friendly -- i.e. behavioral changes, not just clothing -- and the piece is primarily about workplace or professional issues between the sexes, not sexual assault. My rant was inspired by a discussion of a workplace issue where it was not clear cut if the man was "behaving badly" or not but it was clear that the woman wanted him to behave differently towards her. I was roundly criticized for suggesting that dressing more conservatively for a time in response to the issue might help convey a lack of romantic interest in the man without being confrontational. I was told how she dressed at work had absolutely nothing to do with how men at work treated her, the man was merely a creep, etc. We only knew her side of the story. Perhaps he was a creep. Perhaps not. Saying "it's all his fault, he is merely a creep!" is a) jumping to conclusions without knowing both sides of the story and b) pretty disempowering for the woman. If he is merely a creep and the things the woman does are irrelevant, that leaves you with what? Quit your job or put up with unwanted attentions? Not a great set of choices if, like most people, you need your paycheck. I am proposing that dress and behavior can influence how men treat a woman and if you are a woman who is serious about having a career, you should take some responsibility for your half of it and not just bitch about how all men are led around by their pecker and there is nothing a woman can do about it. I did work for a Fortune 500 company for over 5 years. I did deal (very diplomatically) with unwanted male attention on the job. I have also dealt with that in other professional situations. This is not just someone blowing smoke based on zero experience or research. As a woman who (somewhat to my bafflement) comes across as a LOT more aggressive than I wish I did, I assure you that a woman who reads as super aggressive on the job is doing herself no favors. Female passivity is pretty expected in most social settings. Being too aggressive gets you all kinds of attention of the wrong sort and does not help your career. I have also been sexually assaulted (as a child) and have read a lot about the topic. This is not really the place to argue that issue but I will suggest that a woman can dress conservatively and not read as submissive or passive. I tend to dress conservatively. I also tend to be mistaken for someone in charge, sometimes in situations where I am at the bottom of the ladder, not the top.

nemothekid 13y ago

I think you are missing the point entirely. There is a reason why she brought up the Rosa Parks example. You should study the reasons why the African American civil rights movement chose to focus on Rosa Parks rather than Claudette Colvin. This has nothing to do with statistics and correlations for sexual assault and everything to do with the fact that the people who judge you, despite the fact they are well meaning, may have subconscious prejudices based on the way you act or dress. Fact of the matter is, gender equality won't come in a single sweeping wave, and you will have to deal with people who are well intentioned but "don't get it". Looking at the Claudette Colvin example, it would have been easy for 1950's America to dismiss the whole case just because she was pregnant teenager - despite the fact there is no correlation between pregnancy/relationship status and where you can sit on a bus. You don't want to give your opponents the chance to dissuade people who can ultimately help you just because of your outfit choice. At the end of the day humans aren't machines. Despite the fact there airplane travel is far safer than car travel more people are still afraid of air travel. Despite what our "correlations" tell us, we are still, and will continue to be superstitious creatures. It would be wise for those us trying to change things to not play into those superstitions.

batiudrami 13y ago
I did get that point, I just feel that what she's asking of women is crazy for the net gain. If I had a child who was being bullied at school, I could stop that by forcing him to stay at home for the rest of his life. But that would be a crazy solution to a problem. Asking women to dress conservatively so that if they get raped, society will be more likely to side with them, is crazy. Sure, it will probably help change perceptions in the long term, but it is just not a reasonable solution. Asking women to change their behaviour to accommodate those who are victim blamers (whether they are concious of what they are doing or not) is not fair.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  First, I'd hope in America that any rape serious rape trial will look into the facts and the evidence and throwaway any personal bias. From the author's article I got the sense she was talking about workplace sexual harassment. Secondly, I don't think "dressing conservatively" and "being denied one's education" are anywhere near on the same levels on sacrifice. I just can't see how being forced to a particular style of dress in the work place is an unimaginable thing. Consider a different group of people. Imagine you owned a business that hired black men. Now you know these men are all respectable men, however they dressed in oversized tees, baggy jeans and jordans, and because of this they were accused of being thugs. Now any rational person can see that your style of dress most likely has no correlation with your likelihood of committing a crime. Despite this however the NBA requires players to hold a certain dress code. The last thing you want in any situation is for a potential judge or employer to think "wow this guy looks like a thug." Is it racist? Maybe. However, again, humans are superstitious and it may take lifetimes to reverse this behavior and I don't think this was "too big of a change." In a minority position, you generally don't want to look the part. It sucks, it might be racist or sexist, but you don't want to further disadvantage yourself. I'm still sort of shocked that having to change one's style of dress is difficult, "crazy solution" for women, but I am not a woman so there maybe somethings I still don't understand (also, I'm not advocating for all women to wear burqa).

andrewflnr 13y ago

She's not talking about women being raped. She's talking about behavior ranging from creepy pickups to groping, and was very careful not to say anything that actually justifies it. Furthermore, she's not talking about what the ideal world is like, she's talking about what women can do today, where they are, to make their life better. If, as you say, a woman is going to be assaulted anyway, isn't it strictly better to have public support after the fact, no matter how small the advantage? Callous, perhaps, but unavoidably true, and ignoring uncomfortable trade-offs doesn't make them go away.