I made a couple of comments that I wanted to expand into a blog post, regarding common tropes used in rape apologism.
Trope #1 - Rape =/= Being hit on.
Being raped or assaulted is not the same as being hit on. I cannot stress this enough. But it seems that every time brings up the topic of victim blaming, especially in regards to someone's manner of dress, some jackass always brings up the "Why do women get all dressed up if they don't want to get hit on?"
I'll say it again.. being raped or assaulted is NOT the same as being hit on. It's not a compliment. Don't try to equate them. Ever.
If I get all gussied up and head out on the town looking like a million bucks, then no, I shouldn't be surprised if someone offers to buy me a drink, or asks me to dance, or asks for my number.
THAT IS CALLED BEING HIT ON.
However, if I go out all tarted up and someone asks to buy me a drink, and then puts drugs in it, or gets belligerent and abusive if I decline a dance, or corners me in the parking lot after I leave, well that is NOT okay. No matter HOW hot/slutty/provocative (because the semantics are objective, you know) I am dressed.
THIS IS ASSAULT. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
This was the point that was being made by the Toronto Slut Walk last week. It wasn't about whether or not it's cool to dress 'slutty' or whether it should be socially acceptable to do so - especially when the definition of what is considered 'slutty' is subjective, as is the perception of what the term actually means. Personally, I think a lot of women could stand to show a little more class in how they dress. But I do not ever think that manner of dress should be justification for being assaulted. And that's why there was such an uproar over the OPP officers comments.
Trope #2 - Rape =/= Having your car Stolen.
Another common argument is the 'if you leave your car unlocked you shouldn't complain when it gets stolen'. I'm just going to repost my response to the guy who made this comment on April's post:
So if a person leaves his car parked on the street with the keys in the ignition and the windows rolled down and the car gets stolen, would it be victim-blaming to say, "Hey, maybe you shouldn't have made it so easy to steal your car"?Here is my response. I don't really feel a need to add anything.
When you leave your car running on the street unlocked with the keys in the ignition, and someone steals it, no one argues whether the car was actually stolen or not. No one denies the validity of the claim of theft, regardless of how easy it was. No one ever says "Well, do you think they really stole the car? The car owner must have wanted them to have the car. I mean, they gave away their last car, so they must have wanted the the so-called car thief to have this one. Now they're just saying it was stolen so they don't look like fools who give their cars away."So folks, can we please stop with these two incredibly lame arguments already?
And ultimately, yes, it's still victim-blaming, because even being dumb enough to leave a car running with the keys in the ignition doesn't let someone off the hook for saying "Hey, this isn't mine, but I'm taking it anyway."
Oh, there's that whole pesky issue of women's bodies not being the equivalent to personal property or an inanimate object such as a friggin' CAR. But I'm sure you knew that already.