Why women might feel the need to wear trousers

[AMM]

While surfing around the web, I ran across this story: A Hell of a Time (you may need to fiddle with your cookie and JavaScript settings to get to the full story -- it took me a few tries to get it.)

It's a pretty disgusting read -- the incident itself was bad, but some of the comments are even worse. However, I bring it up here because people here keep asking: why don't women wear skirts more often? and: why do women wear trousers with skirts?

It seems to me that this story gives a lot of the answer. Quite a few of the comments say flat out that, among other things, wearing a short skirt (even with bicycle shorts) means that she "asked" to be sexually assaulted. That because he found her attractive, it wasn't his fault that he assaulted her, but hers.

Now, it's definitely debatable as to whether wearing a skirt actually makes it more likely that you will be assaulted. (Assaulters and rapists have no shortage of rationalizations for what they do.) But I'm sure it does not make you feel more like putting on a pretty skirt if people keep telling you that doing so entitles every creep in the area to do whatever he wants to with your body, or worse, and that it's a signal that your clearly stated "No!" really means "Yes!"

Please note that the women who comment are pretty much unanimous that this sort of thing goes on all the time, and that most of the time they don't make a stink about it because they know that they'll get the sort of response that this person got. From everything I've heard (and not just in this story), this is the reality that most women live with on a regular basis, and it explains a lot. If you wonder why women might choose to be "unattractive" or unfriendly, well, this sort of thing is IMHO a large part of the reason why.

[owen]

That article looks libellous to me, directly making a serious accusation against a named man. Would it be possible to get this link removed?

[TomH]

As to Owens comment, it looks like the censor police are alive and well. To bad the rest of us can't see something and make up our own minds... As an adult with free speech rights, I resent someone keeping me from seeing the whole picture.

Tom

[Milfmog]

As to Owens comment, it looks like the censor police are alive and well. To bad the rest of us can't see something and make up our own minds... As an adult with free speech rights, I resent someone keeping me from seeing the whole picture.

Tom

Really? I just clicked the link in AMMs post and there was the story. No sign of the censor having been around.


Ian.

[crfriend]

[Mod hat on]

The "censors" have not been around, and now that I've received additional counsel on the matter can state that the moderation staff will not act on this..

It is standard editorial practise to specifically or implicitly disclaim any responsibility for the content of sites not directly under the control of a linking entity. This means that SkirtCafe is not responsible for another writer's work on a site that SkirtCafe does not control. In certain very specific instances editorial control may be exercised if there is clear illegal activity or that the target of a link contains content that clearly contravenes SkirtCafe policy. SkirtCafe also operates under US law which is comparatively lax in libel law compared to the UK.

My reading of the linked-to article indicates that it neither contravenes SkirtCafe policy nor is there sufficient illegality posted thereon to warrant a edit to the original poster's work here.

Proper procedure in this case would be if a reader is offended by, or concerned about the legality of, a linked post would be for the reader to complain to the site administrators where the material was published.

[Mod hat off]

The above having been said, I did find the linked content rather offensive, but the reason for that was not the (potentially) libelous calling-out of an individual but rather the repugnant notion expressed by more than a few of the commentors that somehow the woman "had it coming". That is what I found really and deeply offensive. We are supposed to be civilised individuals, not savages; with this come certain responsibilities and standards of behaviour. That we tacitly condone behaviours such as described in the linked article by placing blame on the victim I find backward and repellent.

[TomH]

Would it be possible to get this link removed?

Really!

Tom

[Uncle Al]

Would it be possible to get this link removed?

Really!

Tom

Hi Tom

My question to you is your meaning to Really!

Do you mean Really that you agree with the removal
or
Do you mean Really that you mean it sarcastically

Uncle Al

[TomH]

I thought I might be able to say something lightly and not make a big deal out of it. Wrong.

When Owen made the statement about deleting the link from skirtcafe, I was not happy as I could have arrived on site later and not had a chance to read the offending article if it had been removed. Then I would have wondered forever what the fuss was about. That was my point.

I think Ian misread my point thinking I was upset about the article itself and I was responding to him with the note you wonder about, (really). Thankfully, Carl jumped in and answered Owen's comment with what I feel is fair and just for all concerned.

Now that we have topic wander to technical issues, can we get back to what I've always felt is a miscarriage of society, the way many treat women.

We are partners on this earth and all are equal in my mind.

Tom

[crfriend]

I thought I might be able to say something lightly and not make a big deal out of it. Wrong.

What we have here is a classic case of how we use the two English languages -- spoken and written -- for they are two distinct entities. Tom's spoken comment of, "Really!" would have been accompanied by many extra cues conveyed by his tone and body language; his written comment of, "Really!" contained none of that extra information and, so, lost its context resulting in confusion when people read it. I confess confusion myself regarding that post, and based on incomplete information and the use of the exclamation mark interpreted it as a comment made in anger, rightly or wrongly. We all fall into that trap periodically, and this author is no exception; however, we should all try to stay out of it as much as humanly possible.

When Owen made the statement about deleting the link from skirtcafe, I was not happy as I could have arrived on site later and not had a chance to read the offending article if it had been removed. Then I would have wondered forever what the fuss was about. That was my point.

In the entire span of time I've been toilling behind the scenes at SkirtCafe I think I've removed one link that was entirely off-topic and where the content of which directly contravened SkirtCafe policy and posted an editorial caution on another one. Editing on-topic links has never happened here to my knowledge. There have been times where posts have been edited to tone down commentary, mostly related to women's underwear, but those get an editorial comment inserted in place of the offending text so the change is obvious. The admins and moderators here are all from the US, so we take our freedom of speech rather seriously and tend not to step on things lightly. That is not to say that there aren't limits on what one can say; just as it's considered a crime to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded moviehouse where there isn't one, there are limits here, and those are spelled out fairly well and the rationale for those reasons is stated.

Now that we have topic wander to technical issues, can we get back to what I've always felt is a miscarriage of society, the way many treat women.

We are partners on this earth and all are equal in my mind.

Here we come back on topic, and Tom's observation strikes a chord with me. Things have gotten measurably better for women in recent years, but as a group are sadly quite a long way from complete parity -- and the article that AMM referenced points out one of the darker sides of that. To put this pointedly into the context of SkirtCafe, how can we invoke the notion of equality of fashion yet deny it in other places? Are we not being more than a little hypocritical if we raid our sisters' wardrobes yet deny them the basic human right of being our full partners? Whatever happened to dignity and showing respect for one's fellow human beings? (The old-school "fellow man" might have been misconstrued there, so I used the more modern PC version as a statement.)

To AMM -- Thanks for posting that. It was, to be sure, a disgusting read (from several angles); behaviour blunders were multiple and legion on all parts, but those blunders do not excuse the abuse of a basic human right.

[TomH]

Thank you Carl and the other moderators here.

You do a good and needed job.

Sorry to stir things up.

Tom