No, really. She did in fact use the sluts were asking for it argument. Read the story.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Ultimate "Blame The Victim" Argument
Rosella Candella, described as a "psychoanalyst" in this UK Telegraph story, claims that Pope Benedict and Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi were responsible for the physical attacks on them because they were dressed in too exhibitionist a fashion.
No, really. She did in fact use the sluts were asking for it argument. Read the story.
He's a Filthy Dirty Slut.
No, really. She did in fact use the sluts were asking for it argument. Read the story.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well, no, she didn't claim they were responsible. But don't let that stop you, Robert. "These shameless people" must be exposed!
Wow, Walt. The "shameless people" quote was from another post about blaming Jim DeMint for the failure to intercept the Pantybomber. Why use it here, totally out of context?
So when you say "these people are absolutely shameless," you're referring only to Margaret Talev? Anyone who reads your blog knows that there is a context here that's larger than the individual anecdotes you collect. Would you disagree with that?
@Wally: in the "Wow, That Takes Chutzpah" post I am referring to the MSM in their role as protectors and defenders of Barack Obama; those are the shameless people. They've let Obama get away with blaming George W. Bush for all the country's problems for the last year with not a voice raised in disagreement. Many of us on the Right are wondering just how many years it will take before Obama actually accepts any blame for something that happens in his administration, and if any in the MSM will ever call him out on it.
The "Ultimate Blame The Victim Argument" post struck me because it had a woman arguing that Berlusconi and the Pope somehow deserved the attacks on them because they comported themselves shamelessly and dressing in an "exhibitionist" manner. This is nothing more than the "blame the victim" scenario seen in most rape cases, where the victim is faulted for "dressing provocatively" or "behaving shamelessly." To have a female "psychoanyalyst" making that same argument in reference to Berlusconi and the Pope struck me as ironic, given that feminists have been very careful to educate us that "blame the victim" for dressing/acting provocatively is wrong.
And as for context of blogs, it's hard to avoid concluding that when you talk of conservatives/Republicans in your own blog, Wally, that you are somehow referring to a more primitive, retarded species of human. It's a practice that many of your "progressive" fellow bloggers engage in.
You'll notice that I didn't say anything disparaging about the larger context of your blog, Robert, I just contended that you had one.
I admit to being disappointed in the Obama apologists; I had hopes that they were really committed to acting less like politicians and more like real people. The fact that you give Bush and Cheney and Republican apologists a pass I chalk up not to primitivism on your part, but to a willingness to put victory ahead of reality. It's a practice that many of your "conservative" fellow bloggers engage in.
@wally: I put "progressive" in quotes because I know that many of you on the Left are ashamed to call yourselves "liberals," since conservatives were so succesful at re-defining liberalism during the 80's and 90's. Funnily enough, though, you guys were never as succesful at re-defining conservatism to the point that we would wear the label as a badge of shame. I actually have more respect for those of you who glory in your liberalhood and proudly fly your freak flag.
Wow, we're simultaneously shameful and shameless! We should just crawl off and shoot ourselves and leave the country to you conservatives. What a wonderful place that would be!
Post a Comment