So, to summarize - evocative dress should never be used as a defense for a rapist or other predator, but to say that only the person doing the dressing can state for the record whether or not the outfit is provocative... strikes me as naive.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Monday Misogyny
I was expecting to do a Donna Troy opinion myself, but then I saw it. Buried amidst a jumble of "fishing stories" and personal qualifications, so deeply hidden in obfuscation that you can just barely catch the underlying attitude -- and in the very last place I expected to find such an attitude:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"but to say that only the person doing the dressing can state for the record whether or not the outfit is provocative... strikes me as naive."
ReplyDeleteI would say that it is a bit naive to think that. Yes, only the wearer can tell if the outfit was intended to be provoctive unless that wish to be provactive was buried somewhere deep in their unconcious mind. However intending to be provocative and being percieved as provocative are two different things. What's provocative for one person may not be for another. Is walking around nude provocative. Most would say yes, but what if you lived in a village where that was normal? It wouldn't be provocative at all. I would say it's our culture that states whether an outfit is provocative to others. For instance say you walk out of the house in a dress that ends a little below the knee. Today no one would think, "My God! Look at her ankles!!! Pfftt...we know what she's up to.", but if we look back at one time the showing of ankles was considered highly arousing and provacative. It's not either persons job to say what's provocative, but society's. Does that make sense?
Also, I'm not trying to make a definative statement here, I'm just trying to start a conversation.
Except that society stll tends to give men a tacit pass on keeping a lid on their response to women in whatever men deem provocative, in one or another "boys will be boys" formulation.
ReplyDeleteThat comment on the linked site hits all the smug and superior high notes, right down to taking swipes at an insufficiently "feminine" supporting character from X-3.
"Except that society stll tends to give men a tacit pass on keeping a lid on their response to women in whatever men deem provocative, in one or another "boys will be boys" formulation."
ReplyDeleteOh I agree. I'm not saying that men should get a pass, but I am saying that straying from societies norms can be percieved as provocative by the rest of society.
Society, though it determines what's "normal", can still be wrong and people sometimes have to challenge it in order to change it's thinking.
In a lot of ways society has come a long way in it's treatment of women, but in a lot of other areas society still has a long way to go.
Absolutely. And I agree with your other points. Society's a vicious Wurlitzer is what it is.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I just ran across that today. I was going to delete it because I don't want that kind of stuff on my blog and I don't have the energy for the kind of rebuttal that post would require. But I guess I'll let it stand for now, and direct the discussion here.
ReplyDeleteUh, that is if it's okay with you...
ReplyDeleteAnd then there's Alan Moore's Halo Jones, who started out in a society where flashing a little ankle was considered incredibly provocative, and basically an invatation to gang-rape.
ReplyDeleteThat comic was kind of depressing. But still good.
Anyway, the idea of provocative dress just now struck me as an absurdity; Is dressing nicely an invitation to robbery? Is dressing like a nerd an invitation to assault?
Really, when it comes to a crime like assault, if the perpetrator says "I did it because I didn't like the way he looked" it marks him as more dangerous then usual, almost inhumanly evil.
But if he's a rapist, it's an excuse. Blargh.
Also, is it me, or is Erik Larson kind of a whiner?
In Western society, women have been considered dressing inappropriately by showing their ankles, calves, necks, and any other part of their body that "poor, defenseless" men would be driven into a raving, lustful state. Funny, I thought men were supposed to be the logical gender instead of the emotional one.
ReplyDeleteI was considering this point from different angles when I recalled something that happened to me recently.
ReplyDeleteSome guy said I was dressed like a hooker. It's true that at the time I had this Daisy Duke cowgirl thing going with little blue shorts and a cowboy hat. But I was also playing City of Villains at the time, and wearing a costume that was downright conservative compared with many female characters.
But then I've also been told that my character iCandy looked sexy, and she's a robot.
The whole comment seemed to ooze with doublespeak and arrogance, but this bit in particular sotod out.
ReplyDeleteLook at the contradiction. It seem initially reasonable "Well, I don't support the EXTREME view here, but you know, they've got a point." He's essentially supporting the basis for that defense. If looking okay, why not touching, if touching, why not rape? It's a slippery slope.
It also stood out because about a week ago I was at a fair with my ex-boyfriend. There were misters there for the heat. He told me I should walk through them and I asked why. "Because you're wearing a white shirt," he joked.
Now I laughed, I'm not mad at him for saying it, but it goes to the point. It hadn't occurred to me in the morning that someone would find a plain white blouse (it was renfaire attire, and it didn't show much cleavage) sexy but there it was. It was actually a lot more material than I would normally wear on a day that hot. I mean, this was swimsuit and suntan weather and when I wear a tank top it's because it's too damned hot a day for long sleeves not because I want to show off my breasts.
Really, in this case it's on the beholder. Your reaction is happening in your body, and everyone's standard is different. It's not the fault of the person you're looking at that you looked.
If I'm dressed down because of the weather, because I didn't realize I was feeding someone fetish or even because I was on a date and am dressed specifically for the guy I am dating (not for just any random creep we run into!), those are my reasons. In those situations, if I catch a stranger looking and call him on it, a "Sorry I made you feel uncomfortable" is going to go over a hell of a lot better than "Well, look at how you're dressed."
One statement acknowledges that you thoughtlessly intruded on human being and the other statement protests that you were entitled to a good long leer.
(Oh, if you want, Dan, I can reproduce the whole thing over here and you can delete it.)
Now I laughed, I'm not mad at him for saying it, but it goes to the point. It hadn't occurred to me in the morning that someone would find a plain white blouse (it was renfaire attire, and it didn't show much cleavage) sexy but there it was.
ReplyDeleteWell, that's why the comment is so ridiculous; "provocative" and "sexy" vary so much between people. Do men in business suits consider while they get dressed that I (or anyone) might find that their suits are sexy? Just Because someone finds a particular mode of dress sexy doesn't give them open invitation to assault that person. We might dress a particular way to inspire flirtation or simply to look good / be fancy / etc, but this does not allow for an immediate jump to violence.
Er, delete "an immediate jump to," that made more sense in my head.
ReplyDeleteHmmm... let me state first that *none* of this constitutes any kind of defense or excuse for those who commit crimes against persons or property.
ReplyDeleteTaking it away from sexual assault for a moment, I know NYC pretty well from having grown up nearby in NJ. There definitely are areas of the city, where if a male friend chose to walk around alone, in a nice business suit, with a Rolex or other expensive watch or nice piece of jewelry showing - well, I'd have to say they were being pretty dumb.
Again, this in no way excuses the actions of anyone who chose to mug my friend, and I would not *blame* him (the friend) in the sense that I thought the crime shouldn't be fully investigated and prosecuted - but it would definitely fall in the category of unwise behavior, much as would failing to lock your car or front door in the same neighborhood.
There's a point at which the combination of a woman's choice of clothing, the setting, and other factors (physical size, companions or lack thereof, etc.) can make the clothing choice fall under that same category of 'not advisable'. Again, I'm not saying that the victim in such a case bears any of the *blame* for what then happens, although it should be noted that unfortunately such a warped perception ("she's asking for it") might play a role in an assailant's judgement that he is less likely to be punished for an attack.
It's an unfortunate reality that human predators are common enough that what should be a freely expressive act (choosing what to wear and where to go) can end up having such hazardous consequences.
The real answer, long-term, to this issue is of course to refuse to accept sexual assault as a common event in one's society, identify such predators early, and rehabilitate, incarcerate, or in the extreme case even exterminate as required. However, in the interim, it may be considered unwise, if not blameworthy, to dress certain ways in certain neighborhoods, in much the same way you really don't want to park your car there - more unwise, in fact, given the potential consequences. Or if you do - to have an effective means of self-defense.
ben -- :) Actually, I, and a number of women I know find business suits sexy.
ReplyDeleteScott -- Much of your comment is beside the point, though. Certainly, your friend was unwise in the given circumstances, but would you go so far as to say he was courting jealous attention? That he wanted people to look at him and want his money?
Even if he was in a hurry, had no access to a vehicle, and took a shortcut home?
That's the problem. The comment above is saying that simply because someone finds a certain method of dress sexy, the point of the dress was provocation.
It is unwise to wear suede when the forecast calls for snow. If you wear suede on a day with 50% chance of snow, are you just trying to get a $200 coat ruined even if you missed the forecast?
You have to turn your attention to Golden Age Science Fiction one day!
ReplyDeleteHere's a priceless line from James White's Hospital Station, "Oh well, misogyny is an allowable neurosis." (I should point out that the book is by no means a consciously sexist work, more a reflection of the boys-club air of much classic SF.)
"That's the problem. The comment above is saying that simply because someone finds a certain method of dress sexy, the point of the dress was provocation."
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's saying that the *point* of the dress was provocation at all, merely that the *effect* was provoking. How much the person choosing to wear the dress (assuming it's for different reasons) *can* or *should* anticipate this effect is going to vary by the specifics of the dress, the audience, and the wearer's cultural awareness of the specific situation, of course.
There are some outfits that make total sense to wear in certain contexts for reasons having nothing to do with wanting people to look at you, and anyone caught leering has absolutely no excuse; then there are others where some large majority of beholders is going to assume the point was to be looked at, rightly or wrongly (e.g., microskirts with high heels, egregiously tight anything, out and out fetish/latex wear) and the wearer would be naive not to anticipate this fact - not that any degree of provocation justifies physical assault of any degree.
One pet peeve - if one has writing or detailed symbols on clothing that goes over the breasts or buttocks - don't be surprised if somebody takes the time to read or decipher those same words or symbols, or accuse them of staring too long. Although it is particularly funny if the writing starts off, "These are not the breasts you're looking for..."
My favourite T-shirt slogan of recent weeks was "Talk to the face, the breasts can't hear you".
ReplyDeletenot to mention(she said, 2 days later) that even if someone picks their outfit thinking, "i want everyone to look at me and think i'm really sexy and attractive!" that DOESN'T MEAN she wants people to yell filth at her, or grab her, or threaten her, or fucking rape her. You'd think the assumption that anyone you see in public doesn't want you to assault them or insult them would be the default, but of course that would require men to PUT A FUCKING LID ON THEMSELVES from time to time, and we can't have that.
ReplyDeleteit's the same bullshit that declares any woman who expresses any sexuality at all must be willing to do anything sexual for anyone at any time. and then, of course, they call us frigid man-haters.
Mari -- I always liked "I'm up here."
ReplyDeleteLcs -- I hate the assumption that you're dressed up for everyone to ogle, when you're just dressed for that special someone that you are with.
Scott -- Once again, you're missing my point. A plain white shirt. A business suit. A tank-top because it's 100 degrees outside. Swimwear.
These are not invitations to ogling. These are appropriate clothing.
"Scott -- Once again, you're missing my point. A plain white shirt. A business suit. A tank-top because it's 100 degrees outside. Swimwear.
ReplyDeleteThese are not invitations to ogling. These are appropriate clothing. "
Absolutely agreed, and I'm not sure where you thought I was saying those examples were provocative, either in intention or mass perception... the original post you quoted gave me the impression it was some other kind of outfit entirely we were talking about, however.
Anyway, I'll quit on this now since we seem to be coming perilously close to arguing over something that (as far as I can tell) we agree on, apart from nuances of how one should phrase things.
"But then I've also been told that my character iCandy looked sexy, and she's a robot."
ReplyDeleteMen also routinely call cars, MP3 players, and game consoles "sexy" - I wouldn't read too much into it. :-)
"He's essentially supporting the basis for that defense. If looking okay, why not touching, if touching, why not rape? It's a slippery slope."
I think you're reading too much into his statements. His basic sentiment seems to be: "There's never a defense for sexual assault, but c'mon - how can you dress like that and not expect / want to be noticed?!" Which isn't exactly enlightened, but is hardly on the road to justifying rape if that's as far as his sentiment goes. Don't make the mistake of falling onto the slippery slope you just accused him of being on. :-)
JP -- *nod* I love the canon SH stories, despite the horrible assumptions about feminity found within them. It's a time-period filter, I guess.
ReplyDeleteScott -- it's just that your sidepoint, the walking in a dangerous area wearing dangerous clothes being condemned as unwise point, is a sidestep from the issue I meant to address with the quote. The "provocative is in the eye of the beholder" point. I'm not normally adverse to side conversations, but that one is too easily confused with the issue at hand and can go off on a really long and arduous tangent. It' best left for another post dedicated to it.
Ferrous -- Well, here's the thing, that thinking is the very basis for the "You were asking for it" justification. There are a lot of reasons people choose the clothing they do. And even if they expect to be noticed (work uniforms, damned hot days), it's not because they want to be and his statement was about placing the responsibility for the reactions of the viewer on the person being viewed. What happens in your body is your responsibility. It's the viewer's responsibility to control his/her reactions and how intrusive they are, not the passive person being viewed.
It's stripping it down to the basics, which makes the qualifier meaningless because of the slope.
His line of thinking may be the basis for the "You were asking for it" justification, but it is certainly not the whole enchilada: it is a necessary but not sufficient part of the argument. There is a difference between a man who doesn't understand what's wrong with staring down a woman's blouse and a man who doesn't understand what's wrong with raping an unconscious woman. There is nuance and shades of gray to this issue, as there is to all issues. By putting his statements onto the slippery slope towards "Rape is A-OK!" arguments, you are essentially attributing motivations beyond what he states.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying his assertion is right, because it isn't. His stance is hypocritical: he acknowledges that different people have different standards as to what counts as provocative, yet he says it's the dresser's fault if someone else finds their attire provocative, even if it isn't intended to be? That a woman should always know how the way she dresses affects how every man will perceive her? Why don't we expect every man to always know why a woman dresses the way she does? Seems to require the same level of psychic powers to me... :-)
I'm also not disagreeing with your basic point, just pointing out a flaw in something you said. You're piling your own inferences onto his words: you're suggesting that because he's partway down the "YWAFI" path, he's gonna slide the whole way down; and nothing I see in his post suggests that. If you strip his statements down to its "basics," you're no longer dealing with what he said, just an oversimplification of his words inside your own head. Don't compound the man's errors based on what you think he means. :-)
Ferrous -- Fair enough. I hadn't intended to say this man personally, I was just pointing out that his attitude had the same basis as the other. I suppose that could have been better worded.
ReplyDelete