Saturday, 4 June 2011 (posted in error on wrong blog)
Sluts and shits
The problem with the debate on Feedback was that it seemed to be about whether Phillips had behaved badly or not, which kind of misses the point. She is clearly an extremely unpleasant person, and I'm not sure what's to be gained by persuading her to try to hide the fact. Better just to get rid of her, or not listen to the Moral Maze, which is Ivor's preferred solution. Frankly I'd rather chew my fingers to the bone while not listening to her.
The topic of the original programme was 'slutwalks' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13320785), which leads me to another observation. The chief objection to the police officer's comment, and many similar ones by police and others, has been that it suggests women are to blame if they are attacked; to which the response is 'we're not blaming women or saying it's their fault, just advocating sensible precautions.' What I haven't seen, though, is any evidence that women who dress modestly are less likely to be attacked. 'Provocative' clothing on a woman can be exciting or unsettling (or both) for a heterosexual man, and may lead to various verbal and non-verbal reactions; but I'd have thought the motivation behind rape was quite different and just as likely (if not more so) to happen to a woman who's hurrying home in a hat and coat as one who's sashaying down the street in glittery hot pants. The sexual politics debate is an important one to have, but a bit of discussion of the evidence might be useful too. No?
