Chumming for Sharks – Part II

In reply to that Chumming for Sharks nonsense, thankfully someone has posted a sensible post at blog6thdensity.
For those who are not aware of what nonsense, Lady Lydia’s son-in-law is capable of, please read the LAF site and check out:
Aug 2, 2004 – 12:00:00 PM
The blog6thdensity post is titled Women’s Job: Not Making Men do bad things.

It reads:

I read stuff like this and I despair
Women who dress like harlots chum for sharks – with their own bodies. Women who dress like harlots make the waters unsafe for everyone. Women who dress like harlots are not the only ones who get attacked – they draw out predators who prey on innocent girls, who just happened to be in nearby waters. “What did I do wrong?” asks the innocent. Nothing – it’s just that the waters are chummed by your friends. We should execute all rapists. But the waters won’t be safer until we pull the chum out of the water.
Sin makes the waters unsafe for everyone.
I just don’t have the words for that kind of fanaticism. It’s bad enough to blame some women for getting other women raped. However, there’s an implication that if you’re raped (and you, ahem, happen to be “innocent” – ugh, isn’t any woman who’s raped by definition “innocent”?) it’s because you’re friends with “harlots”.
Can we not practice our faith in a quiet and sincere way that eschews political grandstanding and the absolute worst equivocations, such as this dude’s appeal:
One primary purpose of modesty is to prevent men from “falling” on account of a woman’s unguarded body.
I’m all for whatever faith or belief one needs to inspire oneself to live life to the fullest. But when that faith turns into making other human beings serve your purposes, one has turned one’s religion into a cult of human sacrifice and slavery to absolve oneself of the nuanced responsibility of living a decent life.
Christianity doesn’t have to be this way. If you want to make political or social commentary, do it without dragging Jesus into it. Last I heard, he was hanging out with the harlots, murderers, and other sinners, anyway.
There were some sensible comments posted on this article:
I really wish this were the first time I’ve seen something like this… 

One idiot believing something like this is understandable… several is disgusting. And sad.

Well, check out the first link. A *lot* of people still engage in this kind of thinking. I can’t say I haven’t found myself thinking along similar lines before. We all have a dark side.
The problem isn’t faith, of course; it’s using faith as an excuse for sloppy thinking.

Sloppy thinking should have no excuse. Especially thinking like that…. and the Ladies Against Feminism are amusing. They are…. odd.

I don’t think saying to women to beware of the situations they put themselves in is “blaming the victim”. Saying that because beautiful women tempt men into bad things and are therefore to blame for the actions of bad men…. THAT is ridiculous. (And interestingly enough is the exact justification I got from a Muslim friend of mine for the hijab (face covering).) Being religious is no excuse for that… faulty logic, and irresponsible blame placing…. wrong.



Filed under Lady Lydia

3 responses to “Chumming for Sharks – Part II

  1. “Saying that because beautiful women tempt men into bad things and are therefore to blame for the actions of bad men”

    I think you misrepresented the person. You performed a logical fallacy called appealing to nature or the naturalistic fallacy.

    Just because beautiful women statistically lure more rapists than ugly women, this does not give any normative conclusion.

    You performed the naturalistic fallacy when you combined the descriptive statement “Saying that because beautiful women tempt men into bad things” with the normative statement “therefore to blame for the actions of bad men.”

    Therefore, see no “sloppy thinking” here.

    I did not ever think of raping anyone or plan to rape anyone, and I disagree with modesty. I never had believed in any religion. I posted this because I felt motivated to show this logical fallacy.

    • ladylydiaspeaks

      This blog is a spoof.

      I don’t hold such sexist views. Its this blogger called Lady Lydia who does. She writes for Ladies Against Feminism and this is a spoof on her homeliving blog

  2. Gothelittle

    Er, sorry, both of you have got Lady Lydia’s point confused. She wasn’t saying that women who have friends who dress immodestly deserve to be raped for having immodest friends. She specifically pointed out that she wasn’t saying that women who were raped were victimized due to dressing immodestly.

    She was saying that any woman who dresses in such a way as to hold herself out as a sexual object contributes to a general atmosphere and culture in which women are sexually objectified, which in turn raises the danger level of rape for every woman, even complete strangers.

    (I’m here because I was doing a Google search for her article, which I read ages ago, and came across your blog post as the top result.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s