Should women dress modestly to avoid rape?

Perspective:






Wouldn't one be really tempted to answering: Yes?
But before attempting to answer the question, wouldn't it be a good idea to define the word modest in this context, first?
In other words; how modest is that "modest", which would protect women from masculine molestation?
* Would a pair of baggy trousers and a loose long top be modest enough?
- If the answer is yes, then how come that women in Sudan get flogged for wearing such kind of "indecent clothes"?

   A pair of trousers and loose long top are not modest enough, then, in Sudan.
* Would a long loose skirt, under-trousers and a head scarf be modest?
- If the answer is yes, then how come women in Egypt get harassed, assaulted and hurt in the streets wearing such kind of clothes.
So a long loose skirt and a scarf may not be modest enough in Egypt. Walking without a head scarf is definitely "asking for it"!


* Would a black loose attire covering the woman from the head to toes, be modest enough then?

-  Not if eyes are attractive!!

Women with "attractive eyes" are required to cover their eyes as well - or get punished, in Saudi Arabia - how do you define sexy eyes?
So a black Would a black loose attire covering the woman from the head to toes might not be modest enough either.

So what is the answer?

The answer is that rape - as it seems, is not all about sex or desire. It is rather about masculine sadistic lust for domination. It is a culture that needs to be confronted and terminated rather than encouraged by imposing more censorship on women, leading - as observation and statistics* indicate, to more assault.

Once you start blaming women for sick men's assault, and dictating the kind of clothes they are required to wear, so as to avoid harassment and rape, the list of restrictions does not come to an end.

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

* Statistics indicating the intensity of violence against women in oppressive communities are likely to mirror much less of the reality. If the statistics indicate that one out of three women, for example, report having been sexually assaulted in a "morally conservative" community, the women surveyed would probably exclude spouse/husband assault. Spouse/husband rape and domestic violence are regarded - in most of the Middle East, as a masculine "right", and is too normalised to be noticed. In Egypt, it is legal for a man to beat his wife (and children), and a woman who doesn't give her husband "his rights" (by submitting to his sexual demands), is condemned by the community, and is said to be cursed by angels as well.


The assault reported, is also unlikely to include the offensive child marriage or catcalling, or the ultra-feminist sort of assault reported in the West, such as getting a compliment on the social media or cyber trolling. These are considered too normal and too frequent to be noticed.


If reported, surveys tend to disregard the frequency of catcalling and the intensity of the street assault, which might force women to withdrawal and isolation.


Statistics and the relativity of data-analysis can be very tricky when it comes to violence against women.






Realated:


FGM as a way of social engineering

Time Feminism evolved!

If feminism stands for gender equality, then I'm a radical feminist.


However, I'm not happy with the name of the movement(s). I, as a "gender-equalist", like to be categorised as a gender-equality activist rather than a feminist.



This is for two main reasons.

I'm using gender-equalism rather than the more generic "egalitarianism".

The first reason is the name itself: F-e-m-i-n-i-s-t. I don't see any equality in that! It seems to be all about women. But gender equality is not just about women, it is about the whole community benefiting from raising the profile of women and advocating their rights. Gender inequality is harming humanity, not just women. It affects nations, economies, and life as a whole.

The second reason is the lack of consensus over the definition of feminism. People define it (and use it) in many different ways and contexts.


While many women groups (and I'm a proud member of one) have gained a lot for the cause of gender equality throughout history, the term may also be used in other contexts conflicting with what gender equality is about.


1- It is used by oppressive groups to propose limitation and censorship on women's clothes and mobility, so as to "protect" her.



2- It may be used by some "male" feminists to lure "grateful" women into abusive relationships.



3- It may be used by some female trolls to incur unfair gains or abuse men just because they are protected by feminism.

When comparing a man that makes his money by hard work, creativity, and progress (while not being abusive to women) and a woman that makes her wealth by silicon-stuffed curves. I would take the side of the man, not the woman, in this particular case although pleasing men is normally the reason behind such cosmetic trends. I'd say that women need to rise up to the responsibility of gender equality.



4- There is a competency gap that feminism seems reluctant to acknowledge. Women have been conditioned for long not to compete in the job market. Witch hunt, lobotomy, theocracies, colonialism (including Arab colonialism in the Middle East) have pulled women down across generations. Women must empower themselves and each other more in science and technology as much as they demand "protection"; so that equal opportunities - when reached, would work out for them and the world. Ask yourself, if you call yourself a (female) feminist, and you're not living in a community where women are normally cut, denied basic education, or financial independence; have you ever learned to operate a power tool, write a programming code, or build a shed; Have you ever repaired an electric switch or replaced a damaged fuse, or do you always ask a man when it operating any machine other than a car, a dishwasher, and a hoover? If you haven't, now is the time for learning and gaining skills, go for it!



5- Many time feminism slips into man-hate speech and will never blame women for contributing to the current inequality, while the truth is that a great deal of such inequality - and sometimes violence, is nurtured by women themselves. Take Female Gentile Mutilation as an example. Inequality is an ecosystem.

Girls queuing helplessly to be cut - picture from It’s Time to End FGM - GirlsGlobe (link to GirlsGlobe website) /

6- The existence of such a biased expression (which was OK at a certain stage of history) defining those who work for gender equality seems like asking for "women care" rather than overall communal synergy based on gender equality. Again, this is all implied by the name, the lack of precise definition, then by the practices of some irresponsible, ignorant or misinformed individuals/groups.


I have to admit that I myself became a man-hater at a certain stage of my life, because of all the violence and brutality practiced by and for men against women in the Middle East, but when I looked closer, I was stunned at realising the massive role of many women in sustaining aggressive masculine cultures. Women think of themselves as trophies or candy bars to be covered and protected, women who would "snatch" men from each other, women who are happy to commodify their bodies and women who get violent against each other to please men. I finally came to the conclusion that gender-equality may need self-liberation and empowerment rather than self patronizing.

Shocking: What makes women settle for such fake pride; being the highest shareholder!

Just look at the amount of money and fame a distinguished female scientist makes, compared to the wealth and fame made by silicon-stuffed* female entertainers, to know that women should work harder on liberating themselves while they ask for justice. Justice is a double-edged sword!

Again, it is not what feminism stands for that is the problem, it is what it seems to be standing for due to the biased name and the lack of consensus over the definition. It is time the term feminism gets firmly and terminally replaced by gender-equality (perhaps gender-equalism) and still be advocating women's right for equality when and where necessary; for the whole community to prosper!

 Relevant articles:
FGM & Circumcision: Two different battles.
* This is not about cosmetic surgery, and is not about a certain profession. All are respected. This is rather about voluntary self-commercialisation for profit or power, and is also about what women are comfortable to pride themselves in, while men prefer making professional and developmental progress.