SlutWalks

[Jive Turkey]

I'm usually pretty quick to call overreaction with the response to articles like this, but then I read it. It's pretty fucked up. Says a lot more about what goes on in that guy's head than anything else

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

"Dilbert" creator Scott Adams is finding himself in hot water again—this time with a blog post saying rape is a "natural instinct" for men.

The Dilbert creator wrote the post, called "Pegs and Holes," on his personal blog.

The cartoonist wrote a blog musing:

Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world. The current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior. That seems right. Obviously we shouldn’t blame the victims.

But then he starts blaming society:

All I’m saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness. No one planned it that way. Things just drifted in that direction ... But in general, society is organized as a virtual prison for men’s natural desires.

Yes, Scott Adams believes it's all society's fault.

So, what are we going to do?

He writes, "Long term, I think science will come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated for as long as they are on it. It sounds bad, but I suspect that if a man loses his urge for sex, he also doesn’t miss it."


Adams concedes that this might sound like a horrible world, but he says, "You’d have no rape, fewer divorces, stronger friendships, and a lot of other advantages. I think that’s where we’re headed in a few generations."

The ultra offensive blog post has been skewered all over the Internet, leaving most wondering if, instead of his thoughts on rape, Scott Adams can explain why he keeps blogging.



Pegs and Holes
Jun 15, 2011 General Nonsense | Notify

If you have a round peg that doesn’t fit in a square hole, do you blame the peg or the hole? You probably blame neither. We don’t assign blame to inanimate objects. But you might have some questions about the person who provided you with these mismatched items and set you up to fail.

If a lion and a zebra show up at the same watering hole, and the lion kills the zebra, whose fault is that? Maybe you say the lion is at fault for doing the killing. Maybe you say the zebra should have chosen a safer watering hole. But in the end, you probably conclude that both animals acted according to their natures, so no one is to blame. However, if this is your local zoo, you might have some questions about who put the lions with the zebras in the same habitat.

Now consider human males. No doubt you have noticed an alarming trend in the news. Powerful men have been behaving badly, e.g. tweeting, raping, cheating, and being offensive to just about everyone in the entire world. The current view of such things is that the men are to blame for their own bad behavior. That seems right. Obviously we shouldn’t blame the victims. I think we all agree on that point. Blame and shame are society’s tools for keeping things under control.

The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. In other words, men are born as round pegs in a society full of square holes. Whose fault is that? Do you blame the baby who didn’t ask to be born male? Or do you blame the society that brought him into the world, all round-pegged and turgid, and said, “Here’s your square hole”?

The way society is organized at the moment, we have no choice but to blame men for bad behavior. If we allowed men to act like unrestrained horny animals, all hell would break loose. All I’m saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness. No one planned it that way. Things just drifted in that direction.

Consider Hugh Hefner. He had every benefit of being a single man, and yet he decided he needed to try marriage. Marriage didn’t work out, so he tried the single life again. That didn’t work out, so he planned to get married again, although reportedly the wedding just got called off. For Hef, being single didn’t work, and getting married didn’t work, at least not in the long run. Society didn’t offer him a round hole for his round peg. All it offered were unlimited square holes.

To be fair, if a man meets and marries the right woman, and she fulfills his needs, he might have no desire to tweet his meat to strangers. Everyone is different. But in general, society is organized as a virtual prison for men’s natural desires. I don’t have a solution in mind. It’s a zero sum game. If men get everything they want, women lose, and vice versa. And there’s no real middle ground because that would look like tweeting a picture of your junk with your underpants still on. Some things just don’t have a compromise solution.

Long term, I think science will come up with a drug that keeps men chemically castrated for as long as they are on it. It sounds bad, but I suspect that if a man loses his urge for sex, he also doesn’t miss it. Men and women would also need a second drug that increases oxytocin levels in couples who want to bond. Copulation will become extinct. Men who want to reproduce will stop taking the castration drug for a week, fill a few jars with sperm for artificial insemination, and go back on the castration pill.

That might sound to you like a horrible world. But the oxytocin would make us a society of huggers, and no one would be treated as a sex object. You’d have no rape, fewer divorces, stronger friendships, and a lot of other advantages. I think that’s where we’re headed in a few generations.

 

[financeguy]

On mainstream television (Newsnight) the Conservative MP Louise Bagshawe said that the word "slut" could never be reclaimed, would always be a horrible word, because it "lionised promiscuity". Meanwhile, in mainstream print (the Sunday Times), columnist Minette Marrin wrote: "There is no universal human right to dress and behave like a sluttish streetwalker touting for sex, without occasionally being taken for one."

Feminism in the 21st century | Zoe Williams | Books | The Guardian

 

[yolland]

So they held one of these in Delhi last weekend, under the Hindi name Besharmi Morcha (lit., "Shameless Front"--besharam is often used in a gender-specific way to slam a woman for 'unladylike' behavior, and that's "front" in the sense of vanguard). Delhi has a rather bad reputation within India as a woman-unfriendly city, with a shockingly high rape rate by Indian standards (about the same as NYC's) in addition to high reported levels of sexual harassment. The turnout wasn't very good; around 500-800 people by most estimates, the majority of whom, interestingly, were men (several men I saw quoted relayed tales of sisters or other female relatives whose own troubles inspired them to participate, but who were too embarrassed to attend themselves). Almost without exception young people, college-aged. Unsurprisingly, numerous participants commented to media that they felt the association of the event with the term 'slut,' even though the organizers had renamed it, was a strong deterrent for many who might otherwise have participated. As expected, the mood was low-key compared to Western SlutWalks, some music and dancing and a bit of street theater, but dress and signage were on the restrained side--I cringed to note from the photos and clips I saw that most if not all the handful of (overly-photographed) women who showed up scantily dressed were visiting Westerners...best to follow how the local women wish to play it if you want to directly support something like this.

The event did attract quite a bit of national media coverage in India, although disappointingly little commentary/op-ed from what I saw, indicating they were mostly presenting it as a curiosity.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

So I guess if a bunch of men wearing shorts were getting mugged the police would tell them that wearing shorts might not be a good idea? Logically speaking that should be the case.


NYPD Warns Women About Skirts in Brooklyn Sex Attack Probe | NBC New York

Women in a Brooklyn neighborhood on edge over a spate of sex attacks are being told by police that wearing skirts and dresses might not be a good idea.

The surprising message from the NYPD is not being taken well.

"I think that women should be able to wear whatever they want," said Theresa Troupson, a Park Slope resident. "I don't think that they should be held responsible in any way for the actions of criminals."

Lauren, who did not want her last name used, told the the Wall Street Journal that she was walking down the street in shorts and a t-shirt after leaving the gym on Monday when she was stopped by an officer who also stopped two other women in dresses.

Lauren said the officer asked them if they knew what was happening in the area, and asked them if they knew what the suspect looked for.

"He pointed at my outfit and said, 'Don't you think your shorts are a little short?'" she told the Journal. "He pointed at their dresses and said they were showing a lot of skin."

The officer also told them that "you're exactly the kind of girl this guy is targeting," according to Lauren.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said the officers "are simply pointing out that as part of the pattern involving one or more men that the assailant(s) have targeted women wearing skirts."

A group called Safe Slope says the NYPD effort is "completely inappropriate."

"There have been reports that the women attacked were all wearing skirts," said Jessica Silk, a Safe Slope founder. "Unfortunately this might be a common link between the women that were attacked but the message shouldn't be that you shouldn't wear a skirt. The message should be that, 'Here are ways that you can protect yourself.'"

 

[Jive Turkey]

I'm a little torn about that article. The 'shorts are a little short' comment was inappropriate, but I don't think warning women that a guys is specifically attacking women in skirts is a bad thing. Are they supposed to keep that to themselves? It seems like a bit of a knee jerk reaction to get all upset and offended over it. If a guy was shooting people in the face who wear blue tshirts, I wouldn't wear a blue tshirt until they guy was caught. It just happens that this guy is sexually targeting women.

 

[canedge]

There is no pointing in discussing this issue because it is so entrenched in male/female dynamics.

They should have a female police officer come out and say it because if a male officer said it it will get misinterpreted. You know how the feminists are.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'll get offended over it. The fact is that sexual targeting happens even if you're covered up head to toe. Not wearing a skirt, or a short skirt, is not going to stop it. And no police officer is going to tell me that my skirt is too short, sorry. Maybe if black people are being targeted they should tell them that they're a little too black. Or maybe a better analogy would be telling gay people that they're just being a little too gay by kissing in public, etc. if gay people are being targeted.

I'll wear what I want officer and protect myself the best I know how otherwise...you just take care of working to catch the rapist. Oh well, if women all over Park Slope just stop wearing skirts maybe he'll stop. Or just go somewhere else where women wear skirts/short skirts.

 

[canedge]

Are you assuming that the police officers are male? I am sure a large portion of the NYPD are female.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I'll get offended over it. The fact is that sexual targeting happens even if you're covered up head to toe. Not wearing a skirt, or a short skirt, is not going to stop it. And no police officer is going to tell me that my skirt is too short, sorry. Maybe if black people are being targeted they should tell them that they're a little too black. Or maybe a better analogy would be telling gay people that they're just being a little too gay by kissing in public, etc. if gay people are being targeted.

I'll wear what I want officer and protect myself the best I know how otherwise...you just take care of working to catch the rapist. Oh well, if women all over Park Slope just stop wearing skirts maybe he'll stop. Or just go somewhere else where women wear skirts/short skirts.

This particular active sexual predator is attacking women in skirts. They aren't telling you that you can never wear a skirt. If there was someone attacking gay black males, you don't think they would say something so gay black males can be more vigilant?

 

[Jive Turkey]

Or lets put it this way. If the guy was attacking women who wore pink puffy winter coats, would you get all upset if they said that maybe you should put away the pink puffy winter coat until they caught him?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

This particular active sexual predator is attacking women in skirts. They aren't telling you that you can never wear a skirt. If there was someone attacking gay black males, you don't think they would say something so gay black males can be more vigilant?

And tomorrow he could be attacking women in jeans. So then you shouldn't wear jeans. Blue tops, red tops, blond, brunette. Change your wardrobe, change your haircolor. The energy would be much better spent teaching self defense classes and trying to catch the rapist, not commenting on skirts or skirt lengths. No amount of arguing is going to change my mind about that. The fact is that skirt length has that old "slut" implication. You're exactly the kind of girl doesn't exactly sound just like the type of girl who wears skirts. At the very least poor word choice there.

And obviously they could be female, not assuming anything. And some female officers would say something like that. But this article uses the word he. Has nothing to do with "feminists" and how they are. Yes, we know how they are.

 

[Jive Turkey]

And tomorrow he could be attacking women in jeans. So then you shouldn't wear jeans. Blue tops, red tops, blond, brunette. Change your wardrobe, change your haircolor. The energy would be much better spent teaching self defense classes and trying to catch the rapist, not commenting on skirts or skirt lengths. No amount of arguing is going to change my mind about that. The fact is that skirt length has that old "slut" implication. You're exactly the kind of girl doesn't exactly sound just like the type of girl who wears skirts. At the very least poor word choice there.

And obviously they could be female, not assuming anything. And some female officers would say something like that. But this article uses the word he. Has nothing to do with "feminists" and how they are. Yes, we know how they are.

Read my post after that one. I think it was more toward what I was trying to say

 

[Jive Turkey]

And tomorrow he could be attacking women in jeans. .

Well, no, I think in this case, they sound quite sure that he's specifically targeting girls in skirts. It would be totally different if they said "never wear skirts because you'll attract a rapist". I understand where you're coming from. But I think, if you don't mind me saying, that you're allowing your strong opinion on the latter (a very reasonable opinion) affect your objectivity on the former. And I say that with all due respect

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I'm not letting anything affect it other than my experience and common sense. The situations in my life in which I have felt in the most danger of being assaulted, well in all cases I have been as covered up as possible-other than a burqa. And not wearing a regular or long length skirt, and not thinking that not wearing certain clothing could protect me. It was during daylight and not in the city but in non crime ridden suburbs. If a police officer told me about skirts or puffy pink coats or blue shirts, all the same to me. None of those are going to mean jack ultimately in terms of whether or not I get attacked or not. Could get attacked wearing them, could get attacked not wearing them even if it is the guy's alleged mo.

I can't cloak myself in false safety, because I know how doing that, well you can let your guard down. And experience has told me that nowhere is really or comparatively safe. The city can actually feel safer sometimes, with all the people around. Would I walk there at 3 AM down a dark and secluded alley, no. But I have also walked down a suburban street in broad daylight and had problems, and who knows what could have ended up happening.

You do the best you can or you hide in the house. I can't control criminals any more than I can control the family I was born into or the US economy or the price of gas. So I wear what I want and still proceed with caution.

He could decide tomorrow for any random reason to attack a women in jeans after all this time attacking women in skirts. That's the point.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Well then I guess we agree to disagree

 

[canedge]

its pointless arguing. I gave up along time ago discussing male female issues.

 

[Diemen]

You know how the feminists are.

 

[Pearl]

I just want to give some input on this topic, especially in regards to how women dress effects whether she gets harassed or raped.

I read a book some time ago about an American woman who worked in Afghanistan after the Taliban fell. Even though the Taliban were not around in Kabul, she had to wear a burqa when going out in public. One day, she was followed by a man who kept grabbing her ass - all while wearing a burqa. I'm guessing some of you here in FYM have heard about the sexual harassment that happens in Egypt towards women who are covered from head to toe.

So, this whole argument that women need to cover up in order to avoid harassment or rape is total bullshit. Perverted men will take advantage of women no matter what they wear.

Personally, I think there's a chance that when women are blamed for sexual harassment or assault, whoever is blaming them - male or female - has a fear and hatred for female sexuality.

 

[kafrun]

There is no pointing in discussing this issue because it is so entrenched in male/female dynamics.

They should have a female police officer come out and say it because if a male officer said it it will get misinterpreted. You know how the feminists are.

If a female police officer told me the same thing, I'd still be offended. Sadly, there are plenty of women who STILL have this same victim-blaming attitude.

And I fail to see how believing in a women's right not to be raped is a feminist issue. It's a human rights issue.

Anyway, they're saying women who've been targeted were wearing shorts and skirts. Go figure - during summer! What are the odds of that. The fact remains that a rapist will target a woman who is some way vulnerable, which involves a myriad of reasons, the least of which being what she's wearing. The police are right to tell women to be vigilant. The idea that they should avoid skirts and shorts to protect themselves is flimsy at best. I can compile a very large list of things women can do to stay safe, and dressing conservatively and staying indoors isn't even on there.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Anyway, they're saying women who've been targeted were wearing shorts and skirts. Go figure - during summer! What are the odds of that.

I suppose it is a bit like the Williamsburg police warning of attacks on males with ironic mustaches

 

[Achtung11]

The real question is: what affect does a dressing style have on chances of being raped or assaulted? If a rapist saw two female twins walking in front of him, one in a burqa, the other in a bikini, who is he more likely to rape? My guess is that it is the woman in the bikini.

Of course, 100% of the blame should fall on the rapist no matter what, even if the woman is naked. So that's not the issue. The issue is taking precaution vs. doing what you want. It's the woman's choice on how she would like to dress, and nobody should blame her regardless. But on the other hand, I don't think there is anything wrong in taking precautionary measures.

To all the woman, I understand the frustration. It would piss me off also if I was advised to dress differently than I like dressing. As a man, I enjoy white t-shirts. And if a woman rapist is targeting men in white t-shirts, and I was advised not to dress like that anymore, I'd be pissed too. But it's a matter of statistics in my opinion.

On the other hand, if there is evidence showing that dressing style makes absolutely no difference (showing more skin doesn't increase your chances of being assaulted), then that would help remove the stereotype of a rapist, and we shouldn't even have this discussion.

Although all of this has already been said, I'm just trying to put it into a different perspective so hopefully people understand the point that some in this thread are trying to make.

Edit: Like kafrun mentioned few posts above, there are many other measures that can be taken also, besides dressing style. So yea, its a matter of odds.

 

[canedge]

Personally, I think there's a chance that when women are blamed for sexual harassment or assault, whoever is blaming them - male or female - has a fear and hatred for female sexuality.

I see this radically different. I am going to PM you to tell you why off the board.

 

[canedge]

I suppose it is a bit like the Williamsburg police warning of attacks on males with ironic mustaches

I say a moustache is a moustache. Hipster Irony or not.
Sellick wannabees, all of them.

 

[BVS]

I gave up along time ago discussing male female issues.

Probably a safe bet.

 

[kafrun]

I suppose it is a bit like the Williamsburg police warning of attacks on males with ironic mustaches

Indeed. Now that would be something.

The real question is: what affect does a dressing style have on chances of being raped or assaulted? If a rapist saw two female twins walking in front of him, one in a burqa, the other in a bikini, who is he more likely to rape? My guess is that it is the woman in the bikini.

Perhaps, but not necessarily the case at all. It's been discussed earlier in this thread, but the experience of many women is that a rapist will go after a woman who appears distracted, insecure, or vulnerable - regardless of what she's wearing - over a woman who's scantily clad, but who walks with self-assurance and awareness.

Rapists want a victim. They go for the woman who appears as though she won't fight back.

Of course, 100% of the blame should fall on the rapist no matter what, even if the woman is naked. So that's not the issue. The issue is taking precaution vs. doing what you want. It's the woman's choice on how she would like to dress, and nobody should blame her regardless. But on the other hand, I don't think there is anything wrong in taking precautionary measures.

As the last line I just wrote shows, the idea of dressing any differently making an iota of difference in a woman's safety is flimsy and even irresponsible to throw around.

To all the woman, I understand the frustration. It would piss me off also if I was advised to dress differently than I like dressing. As a man, I enjoy white t-shirts. And if a woman rapist is targeting men in white t-shirts, and I was advised not to dress like that anymore, I'd be pissed too. But it's a matter of statistics in my opinion.

If police advised me that there was a rapist on the loose targeting women wearing dresses, I'd continue to wear dresses, but carry a baseball bat with me. Plain and simple.

On the other hand, if there is evidence showing that dressing style makes absolutely no difference (showing more skin doesn't increase your chances of being assaulted), then that would help remove the stereotype of a rapist, and we shouldn't even have this discussion

We really shouldn't be having this discussion. It's a side note to the real issues, and an excuse for many to rant about their opinions on women's style/sexuality.


And for the record, when I was attacked, I was wearing dark work pants and a winter coat. Nothing overtly sexual about that. However my hair was down. In some cultures, a woman's hair is seen as sexually enticing. Perhaps we should advise women to cover theirs up? Do you see where I'm going with this?

It's a cultural thing. We need to raise boys and and influence men all over to understand that regardless if a woman's hair is down or she's wearing a skirt - hell, wearing a serran wrap mini-dress for all I care - that it is unacceptable in the slightest way to attack/degrade/control her.

 

[Liesje]

The real question is: what affect does a dressing style have on chances of being raped or assaulted?

Nothing? As far as I'm concerned, rapists are power tripping sociopaths that will be power tripping sociopaths regardless of whether I walk out of my house half naked or wrapped in a wool blanket.

 

[Achtung11]

Perhaps, but not necessarily the case at all. It's been discussed earlier in this thread, but the experience of many women is that a rapist will go after a woman who appears distracted, insecure, or vulnerable - regardless of what she's wearing - over a woman who's scantily clad, but who walks with self-assurance and awareness.

Rapists want a victim. They go for the woman who appears as though she won't fight back.

Right, but when I said two twins, I meant all else being equal. So if two equally insecure & vulnerable girls, one covered head to toe, and one barely covered, which one would a rapist pick? I completely agree that psycho/power/dominating aspect of it is what causes someone to attack in the first place, so as long as a woman can be dominated, that's what matters to him. But dressing slutty would add an extra attraction factor on top of that psychopathic mentality, and that's all I'm trying to say.

As the last line I just wrote shows, the idea of dressing any differently making an iota of difference in a woman's safety is flimsy and even irresponsible to throw around.

If police advised me that there was a rapist on the loose targeting women wearing dresses, I'd continue to wear dresses, but carry a baseball bat with me. Plain and simple.

This makes a lot of sense. There are many ways to take precautionary measures, so covering yourself up doesn't have to be one of them. I understand.

We really shouldn't be having this discussion. It's a side note to the real issues, and an excuse for many to rant about their opinions on women's style/sexuality.

As a man, I never understand those who rant about their opinions on a woman's style/sexuality. I think it's sexy when a woman dresses, for the lack of a better word, "slutty". And I think most guys agree with me. Why do they then rant about this? Beats me.

And for the record, when I was attacked, I was wearing dark work pants and a winter coat. Nothing overtly sexual about that. However my hair was down. In some cultures, a woman's hair is seen as sexually enticing. Perhaps we should advise women to cover theirs up? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Very sorry to hear about your attack. Yea I completely get what you're saying though.

It's a cultural thing. We need to raise boys and and influence men all over to understand that regardless if a woman's hair is down or she's wearing a skirt - hell, wearing a serran wrap mini-dress for all I care - that it is unacceptable in the slightest way to attack/degrade/control her.

I would think people who are rapists already know that it's wrong to rape someone, but they have an uncontrollable urge because they are fucked up in the head, and so they go ahead and attack.

 

[yolland]

I don't have a problem with police mentioning via their media notices about the assaults that most or all (they've not specified) of the women assaulted by this guy (or guys--that's not known either) have been young, petite, were attacked late on weekend nights as they were unlocking the doors to their apartment buildings/houses, and were wearing skirts (I'm not making the former three up; those also have been cited in the media as common factors). That way, women who fall into some or all of those categories can decide whether or not to take added precautions. But going up to individual women wearing whatever the officer in question perceives as a provocative skirt and making that clear to her is just bad policing and bad community relations. The analogies to T-shirts and puff coats miss the point--if you come up to me and say "Ma'am I see you're wearing a U2 jacket, just so you know there've been several muggings of people wearing U2 jackets lately" then no, I'm not going to be bothered by that; but if you come up to me and say, "Ma'am that's a very revealing dress you've got on there, do you realize women dressed like you have been getting sexually assaulted around here lately," then of course I'm bothered by it (humiliated might be a better word). It should really be a no-brainer that that's dreadful community relations strategy.

 

[Jive Turkey]

The analogies to T-shirts and puff coats miss the point--if you come up to me and say "Ma'am I see you're wearing a U2 jacket, just so you know there've been several muggings of people wearing U2 jackets lately" then no, I'm not going to be bothered by that; but if you come up to me and say, "Ma'am that's a very revealing dress you've got on there, do you realize women dressed like you have been getting sexually assaulted around here lately," then of course I'm bothered by it (humiliated might be a better word). It should really be a no-brainer that that's dreadful community relations strategy.

But just to play devil's advocate here for a second (or maybe not. I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this particular incident), does that not reveal the woman's subjectivity in how she feels about what she's wearing rather than a faux pas on the officer's part? I understand the differences in these two scenarios and I have no way of knowing how I would feel on the receiving end, but why should they be different? They're about facts and safety in one particular case, not a commentary on how all women should or shouldn't dress all the time. It seems as though it's almost taboo to speak of a woman's sexuality