Lauren Southern speaks to Feminists at "SlutWalk".

[The Almighty Aardvark]

It's called the "Slut Walk". They dress up like a 'slut' and it's about rape. Where in that is "Dressing like a 'slut' is not an invitation to be raped"?

Maybe on all of the signs they're carrying?

Spoiler

 

[Trippy Turtle]

When we are talking about women's dress, we are talking about a long history of actual shaming, stoning, murder and abuse that has not actually even stopped in many parts of the world. The point is how a woman dresses has nothing to do with rape, and focusing on her attire is removing the focus on the rapist and placing blame on the victim. When someone robs a home, do they blame the home owner or do they blame the robber? the problem with sexual assault is they blame the victim rather than the perpetrator of the crime, and they still falsely use her attire to blame the victim.
They are clearly saying :
It is not okay to rape a woman if she is naked.
It is not okay to rape a woman if she is wearing a mini skirt.
It is not okay to rape a woman because she enjoys sex.
It is not okay to rape a woman if she is sleeping.
It is not okay to rape under ANY circumstances.
STOP blaming women for being raped and stop the rapist from raping.
In summary :" solve the fucking problem and stop victim blaming."
This is a problem that cannot be ignored, it has to be addressed. They have to finally be able to talk about the crime no one wants to talk about. Pretending like it isn't there will not make it go away.

They are saying that indeed. Most of us are left wondering why they are saying it. The rapists sure aren't going to think "Oh wait, wasn't there a protest about this? I shouldn't do this.".
And giving them what we see to be sound advice when it comes to protecting themselves is always met with hostility. I don't blame kids that get hit by cars, I do tell them not to play on the road however. Same thing with your robbery example. You don't see people protesting about how we shouldn't need locks, or how we should be allowed to leave our doors wide open without people stealing our stuff.
Pointing out that they done nothing to protect themselves is not victim blaming. It's a fact. And a hard learned lesson for some, I'm sure.
It looks to me like these people aren't protesting rape at all. They are protesting people pointing out that something could be done to mitigate the danger.
Teaching people to reduce the danger is the closest we can get to solving the problem. Rapists aren't suddenly going to get a new set of morals because a bunch of people told them they should, and we can't just go and hit a magic stop-all-rape button because you said we should. These protests are just making people think protecting themselves is a bad thing. The fact that they shouldn't have to play it safe doesn't mean its not the smart thing to do.

 

[inmunitas]

It's called the "Slut Walk". They dress up like a 'slut' and it's about rape. Where in that is "Dressing like a 'slut' is not an invitation to be raped"?

Maybe on all of the signs they're carrying?

Spoiler

Most of those signs are about consent and other stuff, so no it's not that obvious, and if you read the original comment I quoted they stated that most rapes happen to victims not dressed provocatively despite that being a common misconception. I don't see how dressing provocatively in protest is challenging that misconception, to a casual observer it would seem to reinforce it.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

They are saying that indeed. Most of us are left wondering why they are saying it. The rapists sure aren't going to think "Oh wait, wasn't there a protest about this? I shouldn't do this.".
And giving them what we see to be sound advice when it comes to protecting themselves is always met with hostility. I don't blame kids that get hit by cars, I do tell them not to play on the road however.
Pointing out that they done nothing to protect themselves is not victim blaming. It's a fact. And a hard learned lesson for some, I'm sure.
It looks to me like these people aren't protesting rape at all. They are protesting people pointing out that something could be done to mitigate the danger.
Teaching people to reduce the danger is the closest we can get to solving the problem. Rapists aren't suddenly going to get a new set of morals because a bunch of people told them they should, and we can't just go and hit a magic stop-all-rape button because you said we should. These protests are just making people think protecting themselves is a bad thing. The fact that they shouldn't have to play it safe doesn't mean its not the smart thing to do.

A lot of people are just never taught that it's wrong. The image posted earlier in the thread is pretty indicative that a lot of people at a young age come away with the notion that there's plenty of situations where it is okay to force yourself on someone. Crystal Shadow's post earlier was about someone she liked who raped her, and she still doesn't think he was a horrible person, just incredibly oblivious and ignorant. And this is not an uncommon situation, I've known people who have had very similar experiences, and I've heard many more stories from people I don't know. Let's also not forget that most rapists know their victims, and are often close in at least some regard.

You might not see changes immediately, but social change does happen. Racism is much less prevalent nowadays than it was 50 years ago, and if you had decided to treat racists as unstoppable forces that you could only try to defend yourself from then that would have been unlikely ever to change.

On top of that, most of the women I know get the danger of rape drilled into their head for their entire life. Don't go out late alone, don't leave yourself alone with a man you're not positive you can trust (although people you trust are often the people you want to worry about the most), don't dress provocatively, don't lead people on... And if you slip up once on any one of the many anti-rape measures you're constantly supposed to be taking you get thrown in your face that this is why you got raped (Maybe you trusted someone you shouldn't).

Admittedly, with the rate that people try to discourage better education, and other measures that can change societal attitudes towards rape, maybe we should put our eggs in the "Expect women to do more to defend themselves" basket

EDIT:

Most of those signs are about consent and other stuff, so no it's not that obvious, and if you read the original comment I quoted they stated that most rapes happen to victims not dressed provocatively despite that being a common misconception. I don't see how dressing provocatively in protest is challenging that misconception, to a casual observer it would seem to reinforce it.

I'm really not sure I follow. Are you saying that they're not making it clear enough that they're against rape?

The dressing provocatively is supposed to assert that they should be allowed to wear what they want without being harassed for inviting rape. If it's trying to challenge a misconception, it's that women get raped because they dress provocatively.

 

[Raesvelg]

And, the one I find the worst, this

http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/womensissues/whenisrapeok/

http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/womensissues/whenisrapeok/whenisrapeok.jpg

The problem with that one, which caught my eye as I was skimming the thread, is that it's not exactly a current statistic. It's over 30 years old now, since the study it references was published in the early 80s. Which means the survey itself was probably conducted even earlier, given the fact that academia moves at a crawl, and either way it took place at a time when the incidence of sexual assault was about five to six times higher than it is today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800610.html

Would it have been a scary statistic 30 years ago? Absolutely. But it's no longer relevant.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

The problem with that one, which caught my eye as I was skimming the thread, is that it's not exactly a current statistic. It's over 30 years old now, since the study it references was published in the early 80s. Which means the survey itself was probably conducted even earlier, given the fact that academia moves at a crawl, and either way it took place at a time when the incidence of sexual assault was about five to six times higher than it is today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800610.html

Would it have been a scary statistic 30 years ago? Absolutely. But it's no longer relevant.

There's more recent surveys that indicate that you still have very similar attitudes regarding it:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/11/3610327/college-men-forcible-sex-study/

 

[Raesvelg]

There's more recent surveys that indicate that you still have very similar attitudes regarding it:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/11/3610327/college-men-forcible-sex-study/

This is beside my point, but I'll respond anyway.

The poll you quote falls into issue of semantics, and while they're important issues, to be sure, the fact that there's such an enormous contradiction between the rates of men who would "force" vs men who would "rape" raises more questions to me about the exact verbiage of the poll, and since the actual source is behind a pretty hefty paywall, I can't give it the sort of weight you seem to.

I can, however, do a quick search of the title and discover that the study had a sample size of 73, which makes its validity highly questionable.

 

[inmunitas]

The dressing provocatively is supposed to assert that they should be allowed to wear what they want without being harassed for inviting rape. If it's trying to challenge a misconception, it's that women get raped because they dress provocatively.

Yeah that's what I don't get, how are they challenging the misconception that women get raped because they dress provocatively by dressing provocatively while protesting rape. Shouldn't they be trying to disassociate that idea of dressing provocatively with rape?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

When we are talking about women's dress, we are talking about a long history of actual shaming, stoning, murder and abuse that has not actually even stopped in many parts of the world. The point is how a woman dresses has nothing to do with rape, and focusing on her attire is removing the focus on the rapist and placing blame on the victim. When someone robs a home, do they blame the home owner or do they blame the robber? the problem with sexual assault is they blame the victim rather than the perpetrator of the crime, and they still falsely use her attire to blame the victim.
They are clearly saying :
It is not okay to rape a woman if she is naked.
It is not okay to rape a woman if she is wearing a mini skirt.
It is not okay to rape a woman because she enjoys sex.
It is not okay to rape a woman if she is sleeping.
It is not okay to rape under ANY circumstances.
STOP blaming women for being raped and stop the rapist from raping.
In summary :" solve the fucking problem and stop victim blaming."
This is a problem that cannot be ignored, it has to be addressed. They have to finally be able to talk about the crime no one wants to talk about. Pretending like it isn't there will not make it go away.

They are saying that indeed. Most of us are left wondering why they are saying it. The rapists sure aren't going to think "Oh wait, wasn't there a protest about this? I shouldn't do this.".
And giving them what we see to be sound advice when it comes to protecting themselves is always met with hostility. I don't blame kids that get hit by cars, I do tell them not to play on the road however. Same thing with your robbery example. You don't see people protesting about how we shouldn't need locks, or how we should be allowed to leave our doors wide open without people stealing our stuff.
Pointing out that they done nothing to protect themselves is not victim blaming. It's a fact. And a hard learned lesson for some, I'm sure.
It looks to me like these people aren't protesting rape at all. They are protesting people pointing out that something could be done to mitigate the danger.
Teaching people to reduce the danger is the closest we can get to solving the problem. Rapists aren't suddenly going to get a new set of morals because a bunch of people told them they should, and we can't just go and hit a magic stop-all-rape button because you said we should. These protests are just making people think protecting themselves is a bad thing. The fact that they shouldn't have to play it safe doesn't mean its not the smart thing to do.

They are not just talking to the rapist, they are talking to the people who defend rapist. They are talking to the ignorant who believe " she was a whore so she deserved to be raped" to the people who think " she should not have dressed like a whore if she didn't want to be raped".. sadly so many do this still even now. When that 11 year old child was raped by 21 males in the US, the town had a town meeting to talk about how the 11 year old child caused it to happen by how much skin she showed.. In order to help prosecute rapist and make people not afraid to come forward, you have to deal with the issues in society that are causing them to be afraid. The issues of not believing rape victims, accusing them of causing the rape and public ridicule is still very much an issue in many western nations and something that must be addressed if we want to help resolve this long term. The problem with " sound advice" is much of the " sound advice" is not really sound at all, telling them to cover up, wear long sleeves and pants and not talk to men increases their chances of being raped, not decreases them.

From Houston Police Dept:

"Even though it is thought that women who dress provocatively are the most likely to be rape, studies show that women with passive, submissive personalities are more likely to get raped. These women tend to wear clothes that are concealing such as high neckline, long pants and long sleeves. This may sound ironic but, predatory men can identify submissive women by their style of dress."

http://internetwriter62.hubpages.com/hub/Through-the-Eyes-of-Criminals-Ways-not-to-be-Singled-Out

We reduce the danger by dealing with the threat. Telling a woman to " cover up" is not the same as telling someone to lock their doors. The lock on the woman's door is her telling them no, not what she is wearing. The way we prevent rapes is we lock up rapists and prevent them from having access to victims, not by telling women to " cover up." The soundest advice one can give for stopping rape is, "put the rapist in jail." That is what isn't happening currently due to how the system currently works in the rapist favor. We do not tell people to reduce their risk of being a terrorist victim by not going in tall buildings either for good reason, no instead we try to actually deal with the threat rather than make ridiculous statements that will not impact the threat at all.

 

[Erttheking]

And, the one I find the worst, this

http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/womensissues/whenisrapeok/

http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/womensissues/whenisrapeok/whenisrapeok.jpg

The problem with that one, which caught my eye as I was skimming the thread, is that it's not exactly a current statistic. It's over 30 years old now, since the study it references was published in the early 80s. Which means the survey itself was probably conducted even earlier, given the fact that academia moves at a crawl, and either way it took place at a time when the incidence of sexual assault was about five to six times higher than it is today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/18/AR2006061800610.html

Would it have been a scary statistic 30 years ago? Absolutely. But it's no longer relevant.

Hm...a very good point. Thank you for pointing that out.

Well, guess I gotta see if I can find anymore up to date statistics.

 

[deeman010]

lots of words

How could anyone lock up a potential rapist though? Have you seen the manhunts in Japan that are caused by males approaching female students and asking for directions or smiling/ saying hello? It's ridiculous man.

Given the above, how do you go about preventing rape? You said that rapists target persons who appear "weak". How do you stop vulnerable people (such as kids) from being vulnerable without breaching people's personal freedoms by policing actions that may be correlated to specific types of behaviour but may not necessarily cause the above?

Btw.... I'd also be very interested in hearing about the context in which you argue because I come from a country where women have much more rights than men. The social context where I am from always puts the woman as the main... something ... not provider but in a place where they are treated with a lot of respect as a figurehead of the family.

 

[Silvanus]

Btw.... I'd also be very interested in hearing about the context in which you argue because I come from a country where women have much more rights than men. The social context where I am from always puts the woman as the main... something ... not provider but in a place where they are treated with a lot of respect as a figurehead of the family.

If y'don't mind my asking, which country is that?

On a side-note, it's worth noting that respect does not necessarily go hand in hand with rights. Women may be treated with respect as a family figurehead, but the social system may still be restrictive for women who want to do something else with their lives (pursue careers, not have children, etc).

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

lots of words

How could anyone lock up a potential rapist though? Have you seen the manhunts in Japan that are caused by males approaching female students and asking for directions or smiling/ saying hello? It's ridiculous man.

Given the above, how do you go about preventing rape? You said that rapists target persons who appear "weak". How do you stop vulnerable people (such as kids) from being vulnerable without breaching people's personal freedoms by policing actions that may be correlated to specific types of behaviour but may not necessarily cause the above?

Btw.... I'd also be very interested in hearing about the context in which you argue because I come from a country where women have much more rights than men. The social context where I am from always puts the woman as the main... something ... not provider but in a place where they are treated with a lot of respect as a figurehead of the family.

MANY rapist are repeat offenders. The man who raped me as a child raped many other girls before being prosecuted. They would not prosecute him until they had witnesses and FILM. If he had not been stupid enough to film him raping, he may never have been prosecuted. The teacher who raped 142 - 144 boys at my school was able to rape THAT MANY children before being prosecuted. The problem is the failure to prosecute rapist, and of those prosecuted they still have low conviction rates, and of those convicted, they let them out and they often repeat offend, so the system is failing. Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. What needs to happen is communities and the system need to start protecting and supporting the victims, not the rapist.

You do not stop kids from being vulnerable, that is the point. You do not stop people from being victims of terrorist attacks by telling them do not go to "sports games and tall buildings". You deal with the people who do these things and try to prevent them from being able to do it instead. You create an environment where " gang banging" isn't seen as cool. You create an environment where people are not afraid to report their attackers, where rape victims are not ridiculed and blamed for what happened to them and it is viewed as cowardly rather than power over someone to rape someone. Changing how society views something is a long slow process, but it is the most effective method to reducing these things long term. There is no " quick fix" to this problem, that is why they need more campaigns that educate the public about rape and strong organizations such as this ( http://www.mencanstoprape.org/What-We-Do/ ) that show fighting rape to be strong and being a rapist is cowardly.

 

[FogHornG36]

She actually says "you're sounding a little bit like a 12 year old because this is irrelevant" after her shouty rant. As far as 'attacks' go, that is extremely mild.

Ok, so your argument now is: yes she attacked her, but it wasn't a real mean attack

also, you can take you "triggers" right back to tumbler

No I said it was an insult not an attack. I actually immediately said that in the next sentence which you cut out of the quote there, hence the reason 'attacks' is in commas like that, as I pointed out it doesn't count as an attack even by your own criteria. Things said in the parts of the quote you cut out. You need to take things out of context because you have no actual argument anymore, you've even stopped talking about the events in the video.

Any other hyperbole's, triggers, or out of context quotes you want to get out of your system? Anything else offended you during that video? Or will we just end it here, now that your first wave has been cleared up as not actually happening?

My criteria for an attack, is when you stop talking about the subject of discussion, and insult the person you are having the discussion with, Telling the other person that they sound like child, is an attack because it has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Fox12]

Lauren Southern comes across as a bit of an idiot, to be frank.

The cameraman was assaulted? I saw no such thing, lets get real. And Lauren was accused of being a rapist? That's pushing things. She was intentionally antagonistic, and then tried to use people's reactions to provoke an emotional response from her audience. What's sad is that you have people watching this, and their response is "yep, that's what those crazy feminists are like." It's sad, because the marchers actually seemed to know what they were talking about.

"How do you know 10% of rapes are unreported if others aren't."
"Because the women call the woman's centers for help."
"So they are reported?"

No, you fucking ingrate. Many women don't press charges. Many receive medical or psychological care, wherein it's obvious that the victim was raped, but they refuse to admit it or press charges. Other times it comes years after the fact, or from other sources. And it's not just a problem for women. Men are even LESS likely to report the crime, because of the added stigma that's attached. And can you blame these people? Having everyone treat you like victim? Having people check your body after suffering a traumatic event? Having to relive the experience over, and over, and over in court? Having people call you a liar or a slut? Many victims just want to make the problem go away. Pretending that there's no problem here only makes it worse. Men and women are scared to admit that they've been raped. We should be making it easier for them.

Furthermore, I'd argue that there is rape culture. I know, because I've seen it. It's not that people support rape, or that it's institutionalized. Almost no culture in history really supports rape. But the institution can defend a rapist if he's popular enough. I had a friend who was raped by a smart, popular, athlete in high school. The teachers and faculty loved him. He was popular with the student body. When she brought it up with a counselor years later, the faculty threatened her to keep quiet, saying that they'd make sure she never got into a college. When she became more vocal the student body turned against her, and she was ostracized. Look at how long it took for Bill Cosby to come under fire, despite the information being out for YEARS. It only became accepted when so many women came forward that it couldn't be ignored anymore. Lauren Southern doesn't know what she's talking about.

 

[inmunitas]

Furthermore, I'd argue that there is rape culture. I know, because I've seen it. It's not that people support rape, or that it's institutionalized. Almost no culture in history really supports rape. But the institution can defend a rapist if he's popular enough. I had a friend who was raped by a smart, popular, athlete in high school. The teachers and faculty loved him. He was popular with the student body. When she brought it up with a counselor years later, the faculty threatened her to keep quiet, saying that they'd make sure she never got into a college. When she became more vocal the student body turned against her, and she was ostracized. Look at how long it took for Bill Cosby to come under fire, despite the information being out for YEARS. It only became accepted when so many women came forward that it couldn't be ignored anymore.

That sounds more like denial, you'll see the same behaviour exhibited from people with other kinds of allegations that contradict the character of someone that is otherwise well regarded.

edit:

Denial is probably one of the best known defense mechanisms, used often to describe situations in which people seem unable to face reality or admit an obvious truth (i.e. "He's in denial."). Denial is an outright refusal to admit or recognize that something has occurred or is currently occurring. [...]

Denial functions to protect the ego from things that the individual cannot cope with. While this may save us from anxiety or pain, denial also requires a substantial investment of energy. Because of this, other defenses are also used to keep these unacceptable feelings from consciousness.

In many cases, there might be overwhelming evidence that something is true, yet the person will continue to deny its existence or truth because it is too uncomfortable to face.

Denial can involve a flat out rejection of the existence of a fact or reality. In other cases, it might involve admitting that something is true, but minimizing its importance. Sometimes people will accept reality and the seriousness of the fact, but they will deny their own responsibility and instead blame other people or other outside forces.

Source: http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/ss/defensemech_3.htm