I'm actually trying, just as much, to make the opposite point: That the person whose bicycle is stolen after they left it unlocked, or whose cell phone is taken when they made it visible in the wrong neighborhood, is also a victim and has also been wronged and also does not deserve to be blamed for it. I have been the victim of property crimes twice, and once it was "my own fault"—I left in a hurry and didn't close a ground floor window. And such victimization also carries a sense of personal violation. I don't doubt that it was less intense than what would be felt by a victim of rape, but the feelings are real. And I don't think it would have been helpful in that case to say that it was my own fault for not making sure the window was locked. The reactions of people who dismiss property crime victims by saying "It's your own fault for being careless" strike me as failing to deal with the real emotional issues of such crimes.
As to how women dress—I'm truly not a good judge of this: I'm male and I'm not very visually perceptive. Perhaps the folklore about some forms of dress being interpreted as a sexual invitation is entirely wrong, and what you wear does not affect the probability of sexual assault in any way. My concern is more with the broader issue of prudence and self-protection. I'm saying that both "you have a right not to be attacked" and "it's prudent for you to behave in ways that make attack less likely to occur, or less likely to succeed if it does occur" are valid ways of looking at the world, and you need both—whether or not dressing one way rather than another can have any effect on the odds. I will grant that I could be entirely wrong about the effect of clothing and appearance. But you seem to me to totally reject any sort of prudential or self-protective perspective on the matter. And I think that perspective is also needed.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-10-04 06:53 pm (UTC)As to how women dress—I'm truly not a good judge of this: I'm male and I'm not very visually perceptive. Perhaps the folklore about some forms of dress being interpreted as a sexual invitation is entirely wrong, and what you wear does not affect the probability of sexual assault in any way. My concern is more with the broader issue of prudence and self-protection. I'm saying that both "you have a right not to be attacked" and "it's prudent for you to behave in ways that make attack less likely to occur, or less likely to succeed if it does occur" are valid ways of looking at the world, and you need both—whether or not dressing one way rather than another can have any effect on the odds. I will grant that I could be entirely wrong about the effect of clothing and appearance. But you seem to me to totally reject any sort of prudential or self-protective perspective on the matter. And I think that perspective is also needed.
I'm not saying "either/or" but "both/and."