Now Your Clothes Can Defend You From Rape

So apparently in Japan they made an “anti-rape” dress. It actually looks like a skirt, and basically it turns into a giant vending machine costume so that women can hide from would-be rapists. Oh Japan! You so crazy. 

Let’s just point out the obvious flaws with this first, shall we? First of all, most vending machines don’t billow in the wind, outlining a female form. And while the concept of sentient vending machines sounds like an adorable plot for a heartwarming Pixar movie (or a horrific idea for a sci-fi thriller about evil A.I. technology, depending on your point of view), most do not have feet.

But I have to say, I really don’t like this idea.

For one thing, why must it be marketed as an “anti-rape” dress? I get why it is marketed at women; while I don’t have a problem with it, I get that the majority of men don’t wear skirts on a day-to-day basis (and certainly not butt-ugly giant table-cloth orange ones). Ignoring the fact that it is way too obvious to actually help someone hide from attackers, why “anti-rape”? The vast majority of rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. If you’re with your boyfriend who’s trying to rape you, he’ll probably notice when you turn into a massive vending machine with toes. This dress would only be (conceptually) effective if the attacker was a stranger who saw you on the street, which, as already mentioned, happens less than rape by someone you already know. So that’s problematic.

And also, just like everything else in our culture (OK, I realize this is from Japan but same idea) it is trying to stick the responsibility on the woman. Nobody has ever asked a victim of attempted murder whether they said no. Nobody has ever taken a victim of a mugging’s “morality” into question (because as everyone knows, you can’t rape a slut, because she was asking for it). Nobody says a victim of a mugging was “asking for it” because they looked rich and had a nice watch in a bad neighborhood. Women are expected to order their lives around keeping themselves safe from rape. Nobody is expected to be constantly careful not to be murdered. And if someone is killed, the murderer is always held responsible. There is no gray haze in murder, muggings, assault, etc. Rape is a violent crime just like murder, muggings, and assaults, and rapists need to be held responsible for it.

Being safe is one thing. It is good to be aware of your surroundings, and know how to take care of yourself. But nobody’s coming out with “anti-murder” ties. This is one more thing that puts responsibility on the woman instead of the rapist. “Well, ma’am, you may have been raped– but you could have avoided it, if you’d been wearing this anti-rape skirt”. Obviously that’s an extreme example, but a rapist in Italy got off because his victim was wearing jeans. JEANS, for Chrissakes. Because apparently the woman must have helped him take her pants off, as jeans are too hard to remove forcibly. You know what? Even if she’d been buck naked and ready to have sex, if she changed her mind and said no it would still be rape.

So while I do not approve of putting responsibility for rape on women’s shoulders, this is still a fucking awesome dress. Seriously, it would be so cool to wear this to finals week and just get up in the middle of the test and turn into a vending machine. OH! I know. I’d sing the Transformer’s theme song while transforming. Transformers, robots in disguise… I’ve got class.


Rabbit is Rendered Speechless with Disgust

Iman al-Obeidi, a Libyan woman, may face charges for naming four men who raped her and held her hostage for two days, because instead of going to a police station and filing a case, she went to the media and released their names. Now their “honor is tainted”. In my opinion, it’s a hell of lot more than tainted. It is gone, flushed down the toilet, zip, nada, zilch, gone with the wind, over. It is no more. Well, assholes, maybe you should have considered how it would look on your resume before you gang-raped a woman. On Saturday, she entered a hotel full of foreign journalists and told them her story; she was forcibly removed and taken away. Now, she’s being held by the government, and her mother, Aisha Ahmad, has been called by the government who have told them to back down. A reporter for Financial Times, Charles Clover, gave the official misogynistic prickster comment as to her story’s truth: she “behaved very much like someone who had been through the events she was describing and did not contradict herself”.

At least he believes her, but that was an utterly disgusting comment, Charlie boy. I spy with my little eye… four different examples of Rape Culture! So, according to you, there is only one way to act after you’ve been raped, and if you don’t act that way, you’re not to be believed. And can we stop with the pretty-pretty-princess, heavens-forbid-we-offend-anyone-when-talking-about-rape, euphemisms for rape? Why is it so hard for him to say “rape” instead of “the events she was describing”? And any one with half a mind could tell you that women do not report rape just to “get back” at men, or whatever it is dickbags say these days. Reporting rape is not something any woman would take lightly, and 61% of rapes go unreported; believe me, no women are just “pretending” they were raped.

The whole thing is so utterly revolting. I hope Iman is freed quickly and her rapists brought to justice.

Read the original article here.

Today’s post brought to you by “Frat Pig” by Tribe 8. I would attach the audio, but I can’t figure out how, as my computer is acting screwier than a pro-lifer.

Boys Who Rape (Should All Be Destroyed)

I think “Boys Who Rape (Should All Be Destroyed)” by the Raveonettes is my new favorite song. It sounds so cheerful, and you know how I feel about women musicians. I love ’em like I love that face my dog (well, one of the two) makes when one ear gets flipped up and his tongue is hanging out of his mouth, and his lip is all bunched up and he looks like a dork. I feel like I should dress in a bright yellow sundress and Mary Janes and wear pigtails and go skipping down the hallway singing the chorus and reveling in the horrified looks passersby give me. What? Boys who rape should all be destroyed. Or, at the very least, neutered and sent to Rapist Camp. I imagine Rapist Camp to be something like summer camp. Only Rapist Camp would NOT be all about lanyards and singalongs and promising to email each other after you leave but never actually doing it. Rapist Camp would be more like, “24/7 maximum security living situation surrounded by 19 feet tall electric fencing and guarded by buff, all-female (transwomen welcome) guards with massive tasers and few qualms about using them”. Rapist Camp would not be as fun as summer camp.

The Raveonettes, writing catchy songs about rape and she has really great hair. No, seriously.

Auditing Abortions

This is disgusting.

A proposed law, H.R. 3, would force the IRS to audit abortions. That’s right. To make sure that taxpayers (read: WOMEN taxpayers) have followed the law, IRS agents would have to investigate terminated pregnancies; specifically, whether the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest. The law could even end up adding a few new questions to your tax forms, like, “Have you had an abortion?”

Is it any of your freaking business? No, it’s not.

Our screwed up, patriarchal system makes it hard enough for women to accuse and convict their rapists, regardless of the fact that pretty much every rapist ever accused (or not accused, considering the high rate of unreported rape) has been guilty. If this law were passed, women would have to prove that their terminated pregnancy was a result of rape/incest, or whether any tax benefit had been used to pay for their abortion. They would have to prove it preferably through “contemporaneous written documentation”. How many women do you think have “contemporaneous written documentation” of their rape? Who could, in their right mind, believe that it is not outside of a woman’s rights to have to explain to an IRS agent how they were raped, and have them judge whether or not that was the right thing to do? I may be only 14 and not exactly have much experience with taxes, but I sure as hell know that this is a sick law.

What if the woman was a victim of rape or incest and did not use a tax benefit to pay for her abortion (even though you should be able to have a federally-funded abortion regardless of your situation), but the IRS agent happens to be a super-right-wing “pro-life” (read: anti-woman)  asshole and think that abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstance? Is it not possible that an IRS agent with that much power could let their own personal beliefs affect their decision? If the law is passed, it’s going to happen, and we all know it.

There is no real logic behind this law except to debase women and set up another law that would harass women who’ve had abortions.

I really, really hope this law isn’t passed. It’s revolting.

Read more here.