Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: ``they'' vs *US*
Message-ID: <1395@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 23:27:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1395
Posted: Tue May 21 23:27:55 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 22-May-85 01:34:44 EDT
References: <186@timeinc.UUCP> <442@sftri.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 64
Summary: 

Ross M. Greenberg wrote:
>> 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???
> 
>> Chances are you would tell me: you should have known better.  Now, this
>> doesn't mean the robbery was right,...
> 
>> 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. ...

Mark Modig replied:
>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...

I don't beg to differ... I just differ.

The two situations *are* analogous.  The *real* problem is that some
judges fail to consider this analogy and as a result, produce an
inappropriate sentencing decisions (ie. let rapists off too easily).

Feminists repeatedly insist that the choice of clothing has *nothing*
to do with the likelihood of being raped.  I haven't been shown much in
the way of evidence.  Mostly all I've seen is the "Proof by Assertion",
and questions about the morality and intentions of anybody who doubts
this statement.  By repeating it a lot, with vehemence and moral
indignation, you can convince a lot of people of this statement without
resorting to evidence and reasoning.  And if enough people believe it,
including the judges, then the frequency of such inappropriate
judgements will drop.

But what if the choice of clothing *does* influence the likelihood of
rape?  A woman who truly believes that this is not so will see no need
to be careful about how she dresses, and she'll innocently increase her
chances of getting raped.  If the standard feminist opinion is widely
believed, but wrong, there will be more rapes.

I've seen no arguments over the net that could convince a reasonable
person of the truth of the feminist position.  Moral indignation and
dogmatic assertions prove nothing.  It is important to have good
evidence for such a statement, because the consequences of being
wrong are serious.
-- 
	David Canzi

"The Indians got revenge on the white man.  They gave him tobacco."