The other thing that bugs me about this whole attitude is that it seems to say that men are weak, prisoners of their irresistible urges. Sounds like a great big get-out-of-responsibility card that allows them to get away with all the ogling, feeling up, etc. Come on, men! Grow some balls and take responsibility for your own actions!
Like I mentioned upthread, another online community I’m involved with spent the weekend fighting over this exact topic and it’s pretty obvious that while it’s more internalized and less socially acceptable to say, a pretty large percentage of Westerners feel this way too.
In a community made up almost entirely of educated women from wealthy Western nations (most of whom are apparently liberals and self-professed feminists), there were still people arguing that if you’re smart, you don’t go out late, you don’t get drunk in the presence of strangers, you don’t dress like a “slut”, well, it’s not too surprising that bad things happen to you. Maybe you shouldn’t act like such a slut in the future, you know? Even women who disagreed with this feel that the idea is so deeply embedded in our culture that women who are assaulted (especially if they aren’t actually raped; we know what to do about rape, lesser forms of assault and harassment are more of a gray area) feel a great deal of shame over their experiences. If only they had dressed differently, or acted differently, or not gotten so drunk, or smiled so much, this wouldn’t have happened.
It’s worse in Egypt, but I’m concerned that people might say “oh, look at these backwards cultures where women who don’t dress appropriately are called sluts who deserve what they get” and then ignore the fact that this exact same mindset is a major problem here, too.
In the Western world, there have been judges saying that it wasn’t rape because:
- she was wearing a “miniskirt”, therefore provoking (in one case the “mini” was a just-above-the-knee pencil skirt),
- she was wearing tight jeans, which the man could not have peeled off her without her help (in this particular case, the lollipop was having a knife held at her throat),
- she was wearing flowing skirts, which were easy to lift
Apparently, those judges believe that being a woman is a sin unto itself, and one which must be thoroughly punished by themselves (we wouldn’t want it to spread through society!).
I’m thinking of bup’s notion (thanks, matt_mcl) that gay-hater-fixers can’t believe most men don’t have any interest in gay sex and therefore have no temptation to fight. Sounds like the men behind the mentality that “any man will rape any woman who shows any skin or shape” are having their own problems with temptation… Or, in the Spanish sentence, “thieves believe everybody is out to steal”.
Forgot to post the link to bup’s original post.
And, if I remember correctly, it was originally somehow set up where somehow women were responsible. And I understand how the (il)logic could go:
Two men are talking together. They see a woman, and start having these urges. Since they were perfectly fine before the woman showed up, it must be her fault.
You might not see a message of blame, but everyone else in the thread knows that it’s inherently blaming rape victims for their own rapes.
ADVERT: Drunk driving kills!
IMPLIED MESSAGE: Everyone who has been in a car accident is an alcoholic!
…
Nope, I’m not seeing it.
When all females are ninja’d up and there are still rapes, I wonder what they will do then?
If you can’t see the difference between telling women that they should dress modestly (read: covered head to toe in a robe) so that they won’t get raped and your hypothetical advert, there’s no arguing with you.
These are the same people who punish rape victims because they wouldn’t have tempted the rapists to crime had they been accompanied by a male.
The whole women-cover-up campaign in Egypt is a damned lie, through and through.
Sexual harassment of women in Egypt is on the increase and observing Islamic dress code is no deterrent, according to a 2008 survey.
An Egyptian newspaper editor says: “This verbal incitement is based on the extremely sordid and impudent allegation that our women are not modestly dressed. This was, and still is, a flagrant lie, used to justify violence against women in the name of religion.”
One Egyptian man said he’d harass a woman wearing the niqab because “she must be beautiful, or hiding something.”
That modest dress does not protect a woman from street harassment has also been found to be true in Yemen: Idle young men hanging out on the street target women whose faces are veiled.
So the mullas and their cover-women-up campaign, including that poster, are doubly wrong: In the first place, they’re factually wrong about covering up protecting women from harassment-- the contrary is true. On top of that, they’re just plain evil for placing the onus on the women victims instead of the men who perpetrate these crimes.
She should be stoned for insulting men like that.
Somehow, the fact that women who are fully covered gets as much or more harassment than immodest women perversely makes me feel better, in one regard at least. You see, I pondered this a great deal last night, and what I found really troubling (besides, you know, ALL of it) was the idea that as a group, there was some sort of societal imperative to harass or assault “immodest” women. I wondered if little boys grew up thinking they had some sort of moral obligation to teach those uncovered harlots a lesson. That terrified more than little girls being taught to cover up- a girl being taught that blame the victim bullshit isn’t the monster the little boy is. I was concerned that the poster was actually useful and relevant.
The fact that people there know that rape isn’t caused by being able to see a square inch of feminine flesh - well some people anyway- gives me hope for the rest of them.
An excellent question. I believe Johanna has indicated in a recent thread in a recent thread that she speaks Arabic - perhaps she could fill us in?
As offensive as I find the ad, I must say that in my experience unveiled women in Cairo, particularly Westerners and even more particularly blondes, do generally experience far higher levels of harassment than their veiled peers. And veiled women, especially younger women, frequently make the choice to veil of their own free will, not because it was forced upon them. Finally, many veiled young ladies in Cairo manage to wear quite provocative clothing - it has to be seen to be believed, but the combination of tight jeans and a tight (albeit long-sleeve) shirt is quite common, to the amusement of outsiders who don’t quite get what’s going on.
So the situation (by which I mean, the extent to which one can fairly judge Egyptians and their culture) is most likely far more complicated than simply viewing that ad - out of context, and without language skills or knowledge of Egypt - might suggest.
The fact that men are thinking “She must be hot if she’s covered up like that… let’s rape her!” instead of “She’s hot and uncovered… let’s rape her!” doesn’t make me feel better at all.
It seems that rape is quite often about dominance more than gratifying sexual urges. Therefore, this campaign is both stupid and offensive. It’s stupid because it’s suggesting that the answer to a problem of men dominating women is for the society, run by men, to dominate women more. It’s offensive because it implies that women can incite and even deserve rape by defying restrictions placed on them to control their sexuality and keep them oppressed.
Even if it were factually true that women showing skin got harassed and raped more often, there are two interpretations of that situation: one is that the perpetrators, and any cultural attitude supporting them, are wrong and to blame. The other is that the victims are wrong and to blame. The first interpretation is rational and respectful of human beings; the second is benighted and evil.
Well, no, the implication of those ads is that drunk drivers are responsible for the deaths caused in their accidents. Which is absolutely, 100% true. In fact, I’d bet that Mothers Against Drunk Driving would be horrified at the suggestion that their message is “everyone who has been in a car accident is an alchoholic” - they want people to know that people who’re just out for a few drinks with friends have just as great a duty to avoid drunk-driving as a hardened boozer.
The fact that one can, as you did, draw a wildly illogical conclusion from an advert doesn’t mean that one can’t also draw logical conclusions from adverts - as we’ve done in this thread.
Its horrific that the men in question are saying anything that ends in “so let’s rape her!” No, that doesn’t make me feel better. It makes me think those men are monsters who are just looking for an excuse to violate a woman. That’s different culturally encouraged monsterhood.
I don’t think this is even it. I think this is a more socially acceptable position than the probable reason why these rapes occur. The real thought process is probably “if she is covered up then she has absorbed our cultural norms which teach that women must be subservient to men. Therefore, she probably won’t tell anyone I have raped her, nor will she use violence to stop me.”
Well, I’m buying a bag of tootsie pops. Their eventual use? I’ll leave that to the imagination of the reader.
My impression is that harrassment is, basically, a means of social control. From talking to friends from the ME I understand that if you are a woman and go out in public immodestly dressed, you are much more likely to be harrassed, insulted, assaulted - and the guys doing so are often doing it specifically because they are pissed off at your “disrespectful” clothing.
In essence, dressing “disrespectfully” gives license to every would-be bully and sadist to let loose, secure in the knowledge that most men, and even some women, will not blame them.
OTOH, wearing "disrespectful’ clothing can also be seen as a deliberate political statement. In Iran, for example, there were protests early in the formation of the Islamic theocrasy where women paraded about in “disrespectful” attire, as a gesture of protest - though mass beatings and rapes soon persuaded them otherwise. Thereafter, subtle clues in the wearing of headscarfs and the like were used to signal liberalism.