Feminism, like a lot of “isms,” has much to contribute to social thought, when used critically. The problem is that some people use it uncritically and indiscriminately. It’s not feminist thought, per se, that I’m rolling my eyes at with my “blah, blah, blah.” To be blunt, that was directed at your application of it.

And, lastly, as to cordiality, you set the tone when you in your article use words like “asshat.” I know, I know — you were trying to be edgy. Have the last word if you wish. This is your forum. I’m done.

We will then disagree with markedly less cordiality from my end, but that doesn’t change the fact that we disagree.

“Officers are not telling women what not to wear [...] They are simply pointing out that as part of the pattern involving one or more men that the assailant(s) have targeted women wearing skirts.”

Is the pattern the police are claiming to identify not an accurate representation of the perpetrator’s M.O.? Are they mistaken? Are they jumping to conclusions — you know, because of the patriarchy, blah, blah, blah? The beat cop quoted in the article lacks finesse, and quite possibly good sense. But, either it’s smart for women in the area to avoid certain behaviors thought to increase their chances of being a target or it isn’t. I’m assuming it is. But what I’m getting from your piece is that it’s a no-no if we’re talking about dress. Why? No one is saying that these women are “looking to get raped” because of what they’ve got on anymore than anyone is looking to get raped because they are unwisely traveling alone at night. Your piece is completely reactionary.

What it boils down to is that you do not believe my imperative here is important. I disagree. Let’s do that cordially, but please don’t pat yourself on the back for having “won” a debate. That’s trollery.

If you meant rebut, then in fact you’re mistaken; yes, you’ve been rebutted.

>”being a native Texan I take offense at your comments about men telling women what to do. Yes there are >jerks in society who love to push their own agenda but when we see a problem with an obvious and highly >effective solution men like to solve it and move on.”

I assume you thought you were addressing a woman? My name, “Thomas” is clearly indicated on the byline, but your comment seems directed at a female writer. Also, I did not in any way berate Texans. As a rule I try to avoid insulting an entire state’s worth of people, which is rightly called “prejudice.” YOU are the one who did that, and I believe you heard what you wanted to hear. My observation was directed at the fact that Texan commenters had specifically insulted ‘libs’ in NY for NY’s gun laws. Their directly insulting, offensive and de facto “pro-rape” sentiments (“they deserve what they get”) were regionally-based. . Those specific commenters are the people I have a beef with, not Texans overall. THEY brought up Texas. I didn’t. Take offense if you don’t like me…not because you think I badmouthed Texas.

Anyway, if you’d like to school me in “how men are,” you should probably know you’re talking to a man. If “men” “like to solve [the problem] and move on,” then does that mean the world is a mess because women stop us from doing so? Would that it were that simple.

Also, “obvious and highly effective” is pushing it when it comes to CCW. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of responsible gun ownership, and I’m not anti-CCW. I would be happier if ALL states were “Shall Issue” states, so crucify someone else for being anti-gun. But if all states became Shall Issue CCW states — or even Open Carry states, that wouldn’t solve every problem, and it wouldn’t stop all rape.

Your claim that carrying (or did you mean “not wearing skirts?”) is the “obvious and highly effective” solution from which “men” can “move on,” speaks not to any “obviousness” or “effectiveness” of CCW for all women in preventing all rape, but to a distaste for hearing women’s concerns. That’s misogyny…sorry. And as a man, I’ll have no part of it.

Re: “In NYC a woman is allowed to go topless. This means that legally she has the right to wear nothing but a pair of thing panties in public. However, I think that wold be a dangerous thing to do at night while walking alone. ”

Would it, though? To my view, it would be so unusual to see a topless woman, especially alone and at night, that most people would think “Something isn’t right here” and would stop to ask if she needed help.

The danger, then, comes more from ignoring signs that something is wrong when most other aspects of a situation are within the bounds of normalcy. For example: watching a man watch and follow a woman down an alley. Yeah, he *could* just happen to be going in the same direction – but something might be wrong there.

And we can be mad at the NYC police for more than one thing at the same time. It’s not like there’s a limited amount of outrage in the world or something.

————–
“He pointed at my outfit and said, ‘Don’t you think your shorts are a little short?’” she recalled. “He pointed at their dresses and said they were showing a lot of skin.”

He said that such clothing could make the suspect think he had “easy access,” said Lauren.

She said the officer explained that “you’re exactly the kind of girl this guy is targeting.”
———————-

The police officer’s comments are directed towards her appearance and behavior (not to mention referring to her as a “girl” and not as a “woman”). On one level, this makes the assumption that the rapist(s) is walking around as a normal functioning member of society – not raping anyone, not committing any crimes at all – when he suddenly encounters a woman dressing and acting in a manner that either REQUIRES him to rape her and/or that she DESERVES to have somebody/anybody rape her. This mindset takes the approach that her appearance and/or behavior is the CAUSE of a man unable to prevent himself from raping her. If you were to balance on a scale “shapely skirt and huge cleavage” against “man wants to sexual attack a woman” – are you trying to say that exposing legs and cleavage is “more wrong” than the male’s desire for sexual violence? Do we really have to explain in detail/bulletpoints as to why this is so wrong?

Also it is disappointing that so many of the comments here (and seemingly on the site of the original article) are focusing on the woman/women instead of focusing in catching the rapist(s) and/or discussing how to deal with and/or “treat” men so that they understand that rape is wrong. This is disappointing because once again the focus is in the wrong place – the woman. This is not a Muslim country in which a huge portion of the citizens approve of this type of violence, nor is this the wild west or caveman days where issues are settled by the fastest gun or the biggest stick. Our society has deemed that rape is wrong, basically because we have decided that we are a civilized society in which we are able to control our sexual urges to the degree that it is wrong to physically attack someone because of our sexual urges. To claim that a well toned leg poking out from under a skirt is more powerful that the male willpower to control himself is absurd. And, for males to not accept this about other males is a copout – be a man and step up and say that rape is wrong regardless of what the woman is wearing or doing.

Lastly, another disappointing aspect of the discussions about this issue is the gender stereotyping. What if the rapist(s) was attacking and sodomizing males? Would we and the police go around and tell men to not wear shorts or open collar shirts? Tell men to not walk around alone or at night? Should we make this scenario even sillier by making the rapist a female with a strap-on?!?!?! If you were a man in this scenario would you want society focusing on you and your behavior instead of focusing on catching the rapist(s)? Whether or not you have faith in the police being able to do their job and catch criminals, the fact it that it IS their job to catch criminals. Certainly teaching awareness is a nice minor aspect of their job, but, as a generic citizen i prefer that they spend most of their resources focusing on criminals and not on innocent people. And as generic citizens, i prefer that we spend our resources focusing on criminals and not on innocent people. Goodlooking and scantily-clad women do not cause rape – men who are criminals cause rape.

In NYC a woman is allowed to go topless. This means that legally she has the right to wear nothing but a pair of thing panties in public. However, I think that wold be a dangerous thing to do at night while walking alone. Nevertheless if a woman chose to do that and was raped, it’s still rape and still a crime.

Of course, the fact that a woman may feel unsafe to exercise her right to walk about in just panties means that her freedoms are being infringed upon. But that infringement is by the would-be criminals, not by a police officer who makes a well-meaning *suggestion*.

Anyhow, if you want to be mad about NYC police, get mad at the assholes (a minority of NYC police) that think it’s ok to pepper-spray women who are protesting peacefully.

There was a rape case some years back where the judge ruled the victim was “asking for it” because her jeans were too tight.

If I may, just how many years back did a judge make this ruling?

The best way to fight rapists, or any such sexual deviancy, is to build community (Safety in numbers!), build strong sex education programs, and fight to end the sexual repression that runs rampant in America. We are bombarded with sexual imagery, then damned for being sexual. Basically, women and men are getting the message, “You must be sexy but you mustn’t have sex.” No wonder we’re confused! No wonder we don’t know who to blame.

We are human. Denying our sexual urges is defying nature, and tends to manifest in unhealthy behavior. (Sexual misconduct being one type) So educate yourself and support sex education in schools. Knowledge is the best weapon society has against such repression.

The best thing for woman to do is be aware, walk with a friend if it’s late and in the target area, and I think pepper spray on the key chain is a excellent idea… Sad story, but unfortunately, not new…

Anyone, male or female, should have the right to wear whatever they want but advice that you may be in danger is useful information.

A friend was once stopped in central London and told by a policeman that there were pickpockets operating in the area and that should stop keeping his wallet in his back pocket as it made him an easy target.

I was in the military and traveled overseas quite extensively. (EU, and SA primarily.) In South America in particular kidnapping targeting Americans is rampant. While in Colombia we were instructed to be exceptionally vigilant in regards to our own personal security while on shore leave, owing mostly due to the FARC. (The drug cartel/guerrilla/terrorist organization who’s semi-submersible drug craft we were primarily targeting on our deployment.) The FARC has also been known to put out bounties on the heads of policemen, and as American Sailors we could be highly prized targets.

We were specifically instructed to not wear our uniforms. We also had to have a sober and responsible liberty group shipmate with every group that went on shore. (They were breathalyzed upon return to the ship to “encourage” compliance.)

I’m not sure if you have ever been a scenario where you could possibly be the target of violence for something you have zero control over, (Race, Gender, Country of Origin, etc…) but it is quite an unsettling feeling.

Actively practicing risk reduction behaviors in an attempt to minimize the risk of being targeted by a hostile element is something that is practiced in the military, in countries all over the world.

Is wearing pants an effective risk management strategy for young women from a potential rapist? I’m not sure. I don’t know of any studies that have been done, or how such a study could be ethically conducted. (Just like I’m not sure how effective not wearing our uniforms was at disguising the fact that we were American. Probably not very.)

However, in the case of many pathological criminals, they do have fetishistic victim profiles. (IE: They only victimize people with green eyes, and not blue eyes.) If I knew that the FARC only targeted Sailors in uniform I definitely wouldn’t wear my uniform. If there is a pattern of this rapist only targeting women wearing skirts, I’d probably advise my daughter to not wear skirts until he is caught.

I would never blame someone who has been the victim of violence because they somehow “brought the violence on themselves.” I have however taken a pragmatic approach to my own personal security in potentially hostile environments, and would advise others in similar circumstances to do the same.

There are individuals who actively seek to harm others. Until we can eliminate the threat it does seem prudent to take precautions against being a target and being vulnerable. It is unfortunate that this is the case, however it is necessary to acknowledge the unpleasant reality of the situation in order to effectively deal with it.

-Greg

I can’t imagine a more absurd surmise from my article above.

Mario, “have your cell phone ready” and “be aware of your environment” are not gender-specific suggestions. They do not have historical misogynistic overtones. They are not equivalent to demanding that women change their dress or prepare to get raped.

Drawing the conclusion that I have objected to women traveling in pairs when possible is your own reducto ad absurdum, and has nothing to do with what I have written above.

@Elf — I’m absolutely with you; learning self-defense is advisable for everyone who has that ability. In the above, I’m not suggesting it’s not, but blaming those who don’t is not the answer either, nor is police shifting from “don’t wear short skirts or you’re asking for it” to “learn self defense or you’re asking for it.” That’s equally wrong, not to mention ableist. Not everybody has the capacity to defend themselves.

The advocacy of community self-policing and the availability of self-defense information is a cornerstone of the feminist movement and an important aspect of queer activist work in the ’90s, and I believe it’s it’s a good model for community safety programs in all urban environments. That’s why there was Street Patrol in San Francisco, that’s why there’s Slutwalk, Take Back the Night, and many more (though certainly not as many as there could be). I’m totally with you there.

Human beings are targets for some kind of crime, somewhere. It’s sad and sick that women bear the brunt of it. I don’t think every woman should, or even could, carry a weapon. But learning self-defense is not a bad thing in and of itself, and self-defense is not, and ought not to be, a male prerogative.

“[T]he ‘thin line’ as I see it is the line between telling women that if they behave a certain way they are in danger of being sexually assaulted, and telling women that if they are sexually assaulted, they are to blame. But that’s not a line between appropriate and inappropriate; they’re both incredibly inappropriate [...]”

While I realize that commenting on a woman’s dress is fraught with misogynistic overtones, and that, going by the conversation as reported by the woman in the article, the officer was not handling the advice delicately, the fact is that traveling in groups rather than alone, restricting your travel to daylight hours rather than walking the neighborhood at night, and carrying a cell phone at the ready to place a call rather than simply relaxing and enjoying the scenery and fresh air are all good advice — even though it’s recommending that women “behave a certain way” to protect themselves against this criminal. Is that so wrong?

So mugging is the fault of the mugger, not the person with nice jewelry. Auto theft is the fault of the thief, not the guy who bought a nice car. And rape is the fault of the rapist, not the woman no mater what she wears or if she choses to walk alone. So let’s hope the rapist gets caught, and in the mean time do what we can to be safe. If we feel that the actions to be safe quash our freedoms, let’s also remember who’s fault that is.

It’s not necesarrily the Reality of what a woman is or looks like, it can simply be the Idea of the feminine that triggers arousal in a man.

Seriously, if we want fewer rapists, we should have more adult stores and better porn, to help blunt the edge of the desire for people who don’t have or an unable to find a partner. For those people who are driven to assault women for other mental reasons, well, I don’t know, I only have experience in approaching women because I want to share screaming passion with them.