Cleric's Comments On Women's Dress Spark Outrage

[singhni84]

's133k_s1kh',

You've asked a lot of questions that require lengthy answers so this is indeed a very long post. For the most part, I can completely understand where your questions sprout from. They are common misconceptions, which I disagree with mosly, but rather than offer only my opinion, I've tried to offer as much detail, background and statistics through examples to back up my claims.

1. Do revealing clothes play a role in person being raped ?

Anything could "play a role". As "Papi" pointed out, it could be a hand, a foot, a KID. However, we can't make blanket statements about clothing having a role (ie. "revealing clothing leads to rape" or "wearing a hijab and staying at home = no rape") because of the fact that women who are dressed modestly are raped in larger numbers than women who are immodestly clothed ("modest" clothing = what the average person would consider modest, not what a Sikh would consider modest). Therefore revealing clothing is not THE cause or even a MAJOR cause. It is my belief that everyone should dress modestly. The problem is that everyone's perception of modesty differs and even modest clothes can become immodest given a gust of wind, a button popping off, or any number of other factors. To a certain Muslim cleric, maybe all women without a hijab are "immodest", but to me, maybe a hijab is a sign of gender-based oppression and any woman who succumbs to it is immodest by default (I have no such views). It's all subjective though, see? We have to realize that rapists know what a woman's body looks like. They don't need to see it in order to rape her. This issue of clothing is entirely irrelevant.

2. This question has nothing to do with the first question. WHY WOMEN WEAR CLOTHES THAT BARELY COVER THEM?? This is a general question. What makes them wear SHOTTE SHOTTE KAPRE.

I can't say for certain why women wear skimpy clothing. And in fact, I refuse to give you my input on it. Why? Because the simple fact that we're caught up on the issue of women's clothing in a discussion on RAPE is thoroughly troublesome and indicative of how backwards our mentality is in terms of drawing the conscious/unconcious link between what a woman wears and where the guilt lies, thereby relieving the rapist of any fault. Whether we say it plainly or not, when our discourse revolves around issues of women's clothing, we are saying loud and clear that the woman is at fault. When we continue to reinforce such thinking, how will we EVER come to a time when women can willingly step forward and admit they've been raped and seek justice so that we don't have rapists walking our streets freely, being our friends and our family, actively seeking out their next victim?? 25% of women in Canada will be raped (1 out of every 4 women you know!), half of them will be raped before they even turn 18. Of those 25% raped, only 10% will ever report it to the police. ONLY 10%!!!!! Of that 10% of rapists who get reported to the police, there's a 94% chance that the rapist will NOT be convicted. Honestly, how much easier do we have to make things for rapists here?? I don't think we need to guilt/shame/scare the victim into silence any more than they already are.

I can't stress it enough but we REALLY REALLY REALLY need to get out of the "blame the victim" mentality. You, me, all of us. Whether we mean it or not, when we dwell on clothing in such matters, we ARE blaming the victim. How difficult must it be to be in that TINY 10% minority of women who can actually get up and tell the police what happened to them? How difficult must it be to be asked to describe your attire, often repeatedly, as if they're trying to determine which article of clothing it was that caused the rape? How difficult must it be to undergo this same scrutiny repeatedly by each and every party you build up the courage to tell? How difficult must it be that when you finallyyy take it to a courtroom in hopes of justice, you're required to sit infront of the man who raped you and be expected to tell the court and in essence tell HIM, while he watches you intently, what he did to you and how it made you feel, and then have his lawyer ask what you were wearing at the time?? It's shameful that such questions are asked of the victim by the system, by the defense. It's even more shameful that we ask it, unwittingly, of each other. In our midst, stats show that there must be at least 1/4 women here who know exactly what I'm talking about because it is their real lived experience. And yet here we are shaming and blaming them and asking about their clothing when we should be asking why the rapist gets away time and time and time again.

3. You have said RAPE IS NOT ABOUT SEX. I dont agree with that. You have said its about power and control. I'll give you a few examples

Having read the examples you provided and knowing that some cases can indeed be about sex, I still say it is about power and control overall. Whether you see it or not, many of the examples you've shown are in fact PURELY power/control rather than sex related.

First of all, in terms of examples concerning different races/classes/castes, the underlying issue behind the rape is the imbalance of power and people's social locations in terms of privilege versus oppression. Where different races are concerned, it is often complemented with "curiosity of the other". A European/white woman being raped by an urban working-poor rickshaw driver in India should be a clear example of that. I see what you're saying about "white meat" but that still isn't about sex, it's about two people in two different positions in the midst of an unequal power dynamic. If it were about sex, the rickshaw driver could go home and be with his wife instead of committing an illegal act of violence, just as many rapists could go home to their wives as well (48% of male rapists in Canada are heterosexuals that are married or living in a common-law relationship, so, if it were about sex, it's not as though they had no option besides raping someone). It's clearly not about sex.

This power/control concept is hard to grasp. I readily admit that it seems crazy to think of rape as an issue of power/control rather than sex. But it's true. Proof of it is in the fact that in the VAST majority of all rape cases, the rapist malfunctions. If it was about sex, this would not and could not happen as often as it does. This is a fact and I've brought it forward but in the interests of maintaining a "clean" conversation, please don't ask for details or clarification on this point. It is however a well-known fact in the field of work with assaulted women/children and those (police, lawyers etc) who have to hear details of how the assault happened.

Moving on...

Your third example:

c.) Mughal Invaders during the time of Guru ji's era used to take beautiful women back home. If it was solely about power they could have slaughtred them as they did kill women and children. They took them to satisy their sexual desires

This is a classic example of how rape works in times of war or other periods of crisis/unrest. Rape in such cases is one of the strongest weapons of war. Forget guns, tanks and bombs...rape has a much wider and more potent impact. When women are viewed as the "property" of their men, there is nothing that will send a clearer message about who's winning and who's stronger than by raping their women. When there is war, there is rape. Why? Killing a woman is one thing; raping her is quite another. If the enemy soldiers are raping the other side's women, they are exerting power and control over the women, the men, and infact, the entire future of that people through the "honour" they have stripped that community of. In general, one out of every 12 rapes will result in a pregnancy. In mass rapes, the number goes sky-high because the women are raped multiple times over an extended period of time. This will naturally lead to mass impregnated women who will be carrying children of "questionable" parentage (likely fathered by the enemy). The "honour" of every individual woman who is raped is seen as the honour of every man in her life -- her father, her brother, her husband, her son. One dishonoured woman is MULTIPLE dishonoured men. When this happens on a mass scale, it is the community's honour. What is a person without honour? An entire people? A nation??

Look at Darfur and other such examples where gender violence is exploited and especially rape as a communication tool and weapon of war. The raping is carried out in a systematic manner by the Janjawid, often in coordination with Sudanese soldiers and the Air Force, with TOTAL impunity. Specific ethnic groups are being targeted. It is not about sex (if it were about sex, ANY woman would do, not the specific ethnic groups being targetted). This is not about sex. This is the systemic use of rape as a weapon of war. When rape is used as a weapon of war, a SYSTEMIC weapon of war, the women are not often killed. They are raped and MARKED so that their men will know they have been raped. They are sent home with a slit across the thigh. One slit across her thigh is all it takes to say "we win".

[side note: I don't really support the concept of "dishonoured women" being a sign of who's winning. nor do I condone the view of seeing the entirety of her honour being wrapped up in some body tissue. Maybe if the rest of the world stopped seeing it like that, rape would no longer be used as a weapon of war. The raped women and any resultant offspring should be able to return to their homes and their families if they so desire, and they should be accepted back just as a wounded soldier is welcomed back, without any sense of lost honour.]

Phoolan Devi ( THE BANDIT QUEEN )...raped 17 times. It wasn't about totally about violence. she was stripped naked in front of the whole village. It was about male and upper caste superiority in her case. BUT IT WAS ABOUT SEX TOO. she took revenge from these upper caste ZAMEENDARS and men used to accompany her in all the killings. These men never raped the ZAMEENDAR women. WHY??

You've answered your own question! If it was about sex, then why WOULDN'T they have raped zameedaar women? If it was about sex, they would have raped ANY woman. Indiscriminately. What would caste or class matter if it was about sex? If it was about sex, why would they strip her naked infront of the village? They should have taken her somewhere, raped her, the end. Why did they strip her? The fact of the matter is that it wasn't about sex. It was power and control. They stripped her because it would shame her. Shame is a strong emotion and is pretty much void of any power and control. They stripped her publically so that she would be shamed and so that everyone would KNOW she was shamed and so that they would FEEL her shame as well. It's a way for the rapists to silently say "we're in control, we have the power to do this". From what little I know about her story, all villagers knew the upper caste men were raping the lower caste women. They were scared mindless and were silenced through the threat of having their OWN women stripped publically and raped. Their silence was a protection of their "honour", a concept which they mistakenly tie to the tissue of their unmarried daughters and the wombs of their wives. But the rapists did it publically in order to maintain the impunity and the blanket of silence, passivity and acceptance through fear. Being controlled by the power of fear. And so the villagers closed their doors and pretended to sleep through the screams.

[curlytopper]

I would say he is right but only if someone can prove to me that women who completely hide themselves in islamic countries have never been raped.

Very precisely said.In muslim countries, even to those that practice sharia law rape is not uncommon. In these places women are even covered almost completely except for the eyes. When the Pope said some things that muslims found to be offensive they immediately caused an uproar, how come when one of their own does the same thing they just remain quiet?

[Guest s133k_s1kh]

1. Do revealing clothes play a role in person being raped ?

Anything could "play a role".Therefore revealing clothing is not THE cause or even a MAJOR cause. .....This issue of clothing is entirely irrelevant.

Contradicting statements :D

("modest" clothing = what the average person would consider modest, not what a Sikh would consider modest).

Sikh is an average person. Did you mean hardcore fundamentalist SIKH ??

but to me, maybe a hijab is a sign of gender-based oppression and any woman who succumbs to it is immodest by default (I have no such views)

Elaborate this statement for me, Please.

We have to realize that rapists know what a woman's body looks like.

Is it like he knows what he wants? I dont see any power/control theory in this. It is all about fulfillin the sexual desire or i should say certain fetish.

I would still say the way you are dressed does play a role to a certain extent in some cases.Note here i am not saying it is the sole cause of a rape, but it does play a part.

Example - I have lived in punjab for 22 years and i have been with people who had their carnal needs aroused just by the sight of a woman wearing tight clothing that would reveal her body. I have seen them approach woman in crowded areas just to feel/touch them. If you still see power/control/violence here then i don't agree with you.

2. This question has nothing to do with the first question. WHY WOMEN WEAR CLOTHES THAT BARELY COVER THEM?? This is a general question. What makes them wear SHOTTE SHOTTE KAPRE.

I can't say for certain why women wear skimpy clothing. And in fact, I refuse to give you my input on it. Why? Because the simple fact that we're caught up on the issue of women's clothing in a discussion on RAPE is thoroughly troublesome and indicative of how backwards our mentality is in terms of drawing the conscious/unconcious link between what a woman wears and where the guilt lies, thereby relieving the rapist of any fault.

I had clearly stated that this qustion has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. It was a simple question and had no relevance whatsoever with rape and i got the answer in the very first line you wrote.

I can't stress it enough but we REALLY REALLY REALLY need to get out of the "blame the victim" mentality

I agree with you on that but lopsided mentality needs to be taken care of too ( This statement might infuriate you but i hope you understand what i am trying to say.) . Every problem has a cause. When we know we have this problem, we look for means to nip the problem in the bud. If we are unable to eliminate the problem, we start looking for solutions to rectify it to a certain extent. Umm...AIDS could have become an epidemic but by taking certain preventive measures that risk has been averted.

3. You have said RAPE IS NOT ABOUT SEX. I dont agree with that. You have said its about power and control. I'll give you a few examples

Having read the examples you provided and knowing that some cases can indeed be about sex, I still say it is about power and control overall.

I never denied rape wasn't about power/control. The examples were given just to show it was about sex aswell. I completley understand the concept of rape and war. But mughals taking BEAUTIFUL WOMEN justifys clearly they were taken for pleasure reasons.

Statement 1: The "honour" of every individual woman who is raped is seen as the honour of every man in her life -- her father, her brother, her husband, her son. One dishonoured woman is MULTIPLE dishonoured men. When this happens on a mass scale, it is the community's honour. What is a person without honour? An entire people? A nation??

Statement 2: Forget guns, tanks and bombs...rape has a much wider and more potent impact

Statement 3:You've answered your own question! If it was about sex, then why WOULDN'T they have raped zameedaar women? If it was about sex, they would have raped ANY woman. Indiscriminately.

You said if it was about sex they would have raped the zameendar women. Dont you think the 3 statements above are contradicting in themsleves. If it was about power/control they should have raped the women to "dishonour" the zameendar clan. Your side note holds weightage and is respected :TH: .

Conclusion from my side

My arguments might seem to be favoring the rapist but i in no way defending them. The problem is in the system. As stated in the discussion women conceal the truth of them being the victims of rape. Reason being FEAR of facing derogatory remarks, FEAR of the society you dwell in. FEAR makes a person weak and a weak person is susceptible to harassment. When they know that a sinful act that might affect their future has been commited WHY REMAIN SILENT???

Once the FEAR FACTOR has been dealt with all the bits will start falling in the right place. SANGAT here knows what makes an indiviual strong and courageous to raise their voice against the unjust system. Who will make the AVERAGE WOMEN audacious enough to seek justice .

PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES, RESOLUTE JUSTICE SEEKING INDIVIDUALS AND A JUST SYSTEM are the need of the hour .

Bhul Chuk Maaf

GURU SAHAI !!

[singhni84]

"s133k_s1kh",

I had clearly stated that this qustion has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. It was a simple question and had no relevance whatsoever with rape and i got the answer in the very first line you wrote.

I know you stated it had nothing to do with the topic, but think about it. Why would you ask it here in this discussion if you didn't feel it was relevant in some way? Whether it's conscious or unconscious, we ARE drawing a link between what the victim wears and her assault.

Every problem has a cause. When we know we have this problem, we look for means to nip the problem in the bud. If we are unable to eliminate the problem, we start looking for solutions to rectify it to a certain extent.

As I've tried to show you, the cause is not clothing or anything else related to the woman/victim/survivor. The cause is in the rapist. That's the "bud" we need to nip. Our solutions should begin and end with the rapist, not with the victim/her wardrobe. There's no point in focusing on the victim, whether it's her wardrobe or her character or her behaviour or anything else about her, BECAUSE, no matter what, no matter where, no matter when, NO woman deserves or asks to be raped. When we focus on the victim, we are looking for solutions in the wrong place because we're letting the problem walk the streets freely.

You said if it was about sex they would have raped the zameendar women. Dont you think the 3 statements above are contradicting in themsleves. If it was about power/control they should have raped the women to "dishonour" the zameendar clan. Your side note holds weightage and is respected

The zameendaar women were their OWN women. They wouldn't dishonour their own women. If it was about sex, then yes, they would have raped any women available, not limit it to certain women based on CASTE. If it was about sex, then ANY woman -- high-class, low-class, without any class at all! -- every woman would have been raped indiscriminately.

My arguments might seem to be favoring the rapist but i in no way defending them. The problem is in the system. As stated in the discussion women conceal the truth of them being the victims of rape. Reason being FEAR of facing derogatory remarks, FEAR of the society you dwell in. FEAR makes a person weak and a weak person is susceptible to harassment. When they know that a sinful act that might affect their future has been commited WHY REMAIN SILENT???

The problem is indeed systemic, but you've got it backwards here. The problem isn't that women fear coming forward. The problem is that we MAKE them fear coming forward. The problem isn't that they are silenced, the problem is that WE silence them.

"s133k_s1kh", I can totally see where you're coming from, especially since I had similar views not that long ago. I haven't responded to much here but as per your PM request, you can add me to your MSN and we can battle it out there :D

[Guest s133k_s1kh]

"s133k_s1kh", I can totally see where you're coming from, especially since I had similar views not that long ago. I haven't responded to much here but as per your PM request, you can add me to your MSN and we can battle it out there :D

FATEH !!

For the battle you have to be online <_<

[singhni84]

For the battle you have to be online :D

Haha, my bad. I'm very rarely on MSN, but I'm on now if you are.