kaitlynnblyth:

It bothers me that a journalist, especially one from the New York Daily News (Caitlin Flanagan), is voicing her bashing opinion regarding a major, debatable topic: the issue of rape.

There is a difference between not agreeing with a viewpoint while writing about it respectably and arguing against it, and completely bashing something you don’t believe in. This opinion piece is the latter half.

Before you read further, please check it out here:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-08-04/news/29865976_1_young-women-men-and-women-dress

My problem with the entire piece is that much like the views of the police officials and narrow-minded people in society, Caitlin Flanagan conveys that women who dress somewhat provocatively will more than likely get raped, so ultimately dressing a certain way permits sexual violence, so women need to protect themselves by dressing conservatively because they’re weak and if they get raped, she’ll deem it as their fault.

Last time I checked, the way a women dresses doesn’t grant permission for rape, as she has conveyed throughout the piece.

The lead already establishes a sense of fault for victims of rape to remain the victims: “Rape is a crime of physical power, of the strong doing what they will and the weak suffering what they must.”

 

Um, there is no person who “must” suffer from rape. Actually, it is a conscious choice by a forceful person to act upon an innocent victim without his or her consent, not a God-sent order of violence.

She suggests that there are many solutions to rape, but bashes SlutWalk (a movement which promotes changing victim-blaming, no matter what the circumstance) because some women choose to dress provocatively while on the walks.

 

She writes, “Get a group of barely dressed women to shout about how horny they are and men will reliably show up to cheer them on and get their digits.”

SlutWalk is actually a proactive movement, not a provocative one. Obviously Caitlin, you have it backwards and just add to the problem. Not all people at the walks dress provocatively, but those who do are making a statement promoting SlutWalk’s mission: “No matter who you are, No matter where you work, No matter how you identify, No matter how you flirt, No matter what you wear, No matter whom you choose to love, No matter what you said before: NO ONE has the right to touch you without your consent.”

 

The fact of the matter is that any person can go around “shout about how horny they are” (even though this isn’t the case), dress however they want to, and get as many numbers as they wish, but regardless, NO ONE should be able to touch them WITHOUT CONSENT.

 

Caitlin Flanagan has the entire mission backwards, “On the one hand, SlutWalkers believe it’s a myth that a woman’s style of dress has anything to do with her likelihood of being raped. On the other, they are demanding that law enforcement reform itself so that women dressed like sluts won’t suffer an increased risk of attack.”

 

SlutWalkers KNOW that a woman’s style of dress provokes unwanted attacks and are demanding law enforcement to reform so that how a women dresses isn’t deemed as a permitted and accepted reason to get raped. The fact is that there is NO reason for rape.

 

She ends the article, “With their ridiculous costumes and lewd slogans, they have, in fact, accomplished the very thing they were intended to protest: They trivialize rape.”

 

Actually, you and people like you are the reason rape is “trivialized.” Why? Because you allow for and create excuses to be made regarding people being raped, when in reality, there is NO REASON FOR RAPE.

 

Next time you write an opinion piece, please think about what you say. As a journalist, we are allowed to have ideas of our own, but it isn’t good to publically denounced ones that you are against. For example, an acceptable form of this is “I am pro-choice because of the following reasons…”, not “All pro-life supporters bomb Planned Parenthood, so I am pro-choice instead.”

Another response to the New York Daily News article.