Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!mom
From: mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: ``they'' vs *US*
Message-ID: <442@sftri.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-May-85 11:34:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: sftri.442
Posted: Mon May 20 11:34:43 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 22-May-85 01:05:05 EDT
References: <186@timeinc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J.
Lines: 73

> In article <397@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes:
> >
> >"Provocative clothing" is no excuse for rape.  Don't try to
> >blame women for someone else's lack of control (or sanity).
> 
> I know that this will probably start flames, and I wish it wouldn't:
> 
> 
> If I told you that I was walking in a "bad" area of town, late at night,
> and had $100 bills sticking out of my pockets, and that somebody
> mugged me, would you be shocked???

No. Not particularly.
 
> Chances are you would tell me: you should have known better.  Now, this
> doesn't mean the robbery was right, and it doesn't represent that the
> society that allows for someone to mug me is protecting me from myself
> (given that there *are* nasties out there).

OK so far.
 
> So why shouldn't the same caveats apply to a women in some provocative
> clothing?  If I have to be careful of not being mugged, why can't the
> women in the see-thru blouse and the tight leather micro-skirt be
> aware that she *is* provoking some sickie out there. It doesn't make
> her the guilty party.....it just means that *maybe* she could have
> avoided the problem by not dressing in a manner that is thought by
> many to be provocative. The problem still resides within the rapists
> mind, just as the above problem existed in the muggers mind.
>
> And if somebody were to say to her: "You should have known better than
> to dress like that..." that person would probably be labeled sexist!!
> 
> Let the flames fly --- after you consider the *logic* of the above
> and after you get over my inherently sexist attitude for mentioning
> an unspeakable.
> 
> Ross M. Greenberg  @ Time Inc, New York 

The trouble with your analogy is that it falls apart too soon.  The
situations are not synonymous, to wit:

Defendant: I'm sorry, Judge, but when I saw those bills hanging about
           of his pockets I couldn't help myself.

Judge: No excuse.  Take him away.

*** VS. ***

Defendant:  I'm sorry, Judge, but when I saw her dressed like that,
I just couldn't help myself.

Judge:  I guess so.  Well, we'll just have to take the provocative dress
        account...

The second case here still happens all too often, with the judge now
musing about questions like "Did she ask for it?".  In the first
case, yeah, you don't go walking around in "bad areas" or after dark
or whatever.  But when you get robbed, that isn't really taken into
account.  Besides, you may not have a choice about walking thru a
"bad" area-- in some cities, just about everywhere may be a bad area
as far as rapes and assaults are concerned.

  If you're a robber, you might be able to plead mitigating
circumstances if you were starving, but that doesn't (or rather shouldn't)
hold in the case of rape (Honest, Officer, I just couldn't stand it
any more...).  Starvation, though, or perhaps an ownership dispute
[I don't even want to TOUCH that one] are about the only mitigating
circumstances in a robbery, and there are no corresponding
mitigating circumstances for rape.

Mark Modig
ihnp4!sftri!mom