We are what we wear...
by David and Tim Bayly on May 11, 2011 - 8:09am
Take a look at these two women and guess which one says she wouldn't warn her daughter against dressing provocatively? We're so intent on not blaming the victim we've turned into a nation of idiots.
(TB, w/thanks to Mike L.)
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (18)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Abortion euthanasia... (584)
Feminism (584)
Politics (366)
Reformed world (322)
PCA (302)
Evangelicalism (294)
Homosexuality (294)
Misc. (268)
Throw the radio in the bathtub (258)
Academia (256)
Reformed theology (234)
Culture (227)
Children are a blessing (217)
Emergent church (208)
R2K (Radical Two Kingdom) (196)
Recent Comments
- Tree service The Woodlands on Musical worship must be manly...
- Sue McKeown on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Fr. Bill on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- K. Bartholomew on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
Comments
"There's nothing wrong with looking like a sexual object."
But if a man treats a woman like a sexual object? She will bring down all manner of abuse on his head.
How many of us would call a man a fool for sticking a three inch thick roll of $100 bills in his back pocket and then acting surprised when he finds it missing at the end of a day of sightseeing? And yet a female can dress like a cheap tart and other cheap tarts take to the streets in her defense when she complains about being treated as if she is precisely what she has been telling them she is!
The woman went on, without the least hint of irony to say women can protect themselves by looking for the warning signs of impending violent behavior. I don't think she has a clue what she said there.
I am actually more disappointed with Hannity and St. James for enabling this woman's immodest display.
I am more concerned about professing Christians such as Hannity and St. James aiding this woman's self-degrading display.
Sorry about the lack of editing. I thought I had fixed it.
Wow, the seething angry rebellion of that woman was remarkable.
Kamilla, I'm not sure why you think Hannity? and St. James did something wrong? I sensed that it was good that the interviewer was at least willing to entertain the possibility that women could reduce the risk of rape by dressing less provocatively (contrary to what he seemed to suggest at the start of the interview). And I think it was good R.St.James was upholding the value of modesty. To those that have ears to hear it will be helpful to have seen that woman's seething rebellion as a warning not listen to her devilry.
Great example, Kamilla. The thief is without excuse for his thievery. The tourist with the wad of dough hanging out of his pocket is an idiot. These two things are not mutually exclusive. Somehow, we seem to have a problem with the idea that blame can be affixed to two parties without excusing either one's actions. Anyone with more than one child should understand this. To say that women are foolish for wearing the uniform of a harlot does not excuse the men who mistreat them.
>>Somehow, we seem to have a problem with the idea that blame can be affixed to two parties without excusing either one's actions. Anyone with more than one child should understand this.
Perfect.
Yes, excellent Amanda! That's what I was thinking but never quite put it that succinctly.
I posted on this yesterday--even if one can completely ignore the sexual nature of rape (as if), does not the person attired "as a slut" announce to the world that (a) she will be less than able to run away or fight back and (b) she does not have a man in her life who will protect her?
Kamilla wrote:
The woman [the speaker with the viewpoint opposite to Rebecca St. James] went on, without the least hint of irony to say women can protect themselves by looking for the warning signs of impending violent behavior. I don't think she has a clue what she said there.
Preach it, sister!
FBI profilers, psychologists, and psychiatrists who spend years learning how to predict violent behavior* and spend considerable time with a person before delivering a judgment about someone's potential for violence can still miss the mark.
How can she think she can read a person that well after seeing someone for only a few minutes, if that, and especially if she might be drunk or high?
--------------------------
*I realize folks with serious mental illness are much less likely to be violent if they take their meds properly.
Sue, not only can, but very often do. Just ask any parole officer, not to mention people who work in mental health.
(my sister-in-law is bipolar, and suffice it to say that her counselors, who spend hours with her, almost always fail to figure out that she or her soon to be ex-husband are due for a manic episode....the rule of thumb is that if her husband starts buying cars, watch out!)
For that matter, a woman out on the town does not have minutes to figure out whether a given stranger might have violent intentions--it's generally seconds of warning.
I kept waiting for someone, anyone, even the Tara-woman herself, to state the obvious. Now THAT would have been an interesting interview.
Add new comment