The Muse

The sheer variety of symbols and artefacts in use across the ages and geographies does not necessarily point to a multitude of assumptions and values from which they spring. The study of mythology and folklore then, is a reverse approach to anthropology. This blog is dedicated to my favourite symbols, tales and artefacts - both ancient and contemporary.

Transition

Read previous round here. Table of Contents here.

As I previously said, the debate took a new turn when Mr. Alok issued a clarification. This post is not a debate but a discussion. It is probably the most boring part of the whole series, but also vitally important. 


The Clarification

Just a clarification regarding attribution theory. Attribution and implicit theories do not just explain how people construct post hoc explanations; their prime concern is to explain how people approach things. If post hoc attributions are significant for victim dress and attribution of vulnerability, then it is likely that perception of vulnerability is significantly influenced by dress. This is not to say that proper dress is any guarantee against rape because, like most human phenomena, rape has multiple-determinants. A robbery analogy may be easier to understand. People may perceive that a house is vulnerable if the doors are open without security, valuables are known to be inside, and the house is located in an area where robberies are not uncommon. Once robbery happens, then people may attribute vulnerability to a house if they know about these facts. However, even if the house were well-secured and in a safe locality, robbery might still happen. The evidence linking attribution of vulnerability and victim dress needs to seen as the evidence for perception of vulnerability and victim dress. Needless to say that 'vulnerable' and 'deserving' are entirely different. Advocacy may be more fruitful if it targets that "a woman doesn't deserve rape because of her dress" rather than "a woman doesn't become vulnerable because of her dress".

My Reply


Thanks for your permission.
You're effectively saying that we should mellow down our campaign so that our immediate goals are met.
Somehow this reminds me of the moderates in the INC in 1885-1905 who followed the policy of prayers, petitions and protest.
I'm not saying that they were a total loss, but the whole point of the moderates was that they laid the groundwork for the Radicals who did the actual work.
I for one believe that the feminist agenda has remained moderate for far too long.

As it appeared, he wasn't arguing for mellowing down. This is where the next debate starts.

No comments: