Park Slope, Brooklyn: One of New York City’s most desirable neighborhoods and home to a whole bunch of famous people, like Steve Buscemi and that actor everyone confuses with Samuel L. Jackson. Recently, though, Park Slope hasn’t been so idyllic. A slew of gropings, rapes, and molestations have occurred since March, making the locale more infamous than anything else. The suspect has been targeting women between the ages of 20 and 35, all of whom at the time of assault were wearing short-hemmed clothing. (Police do have a “person of interest” in custody as of October 11.)
A recent Wall Street Journal article covering the attacks had me thinking about what I believe to be a tragically misguided focus. According to the Journal, police officers patrolling the area have been telling young, female residents to be mindful of what they’re wearing because the assaulter has been going after women dressed in short skirts. Granted, some of the quotes from the officer, as mentioned by “Lauren,” sound a bit obnoxious, especially if, in your head, you add a certain tone or emphasis on particular words. But there’s no way to know exactly how those warnings were delivered by the officer, unless you have access to a flux capacitor and a Delorean. I digress. The point I want to make is that instead of focusing on the assaults and keeping women safe, some members of the fairer sex have seized on the cops’ sartorial advice and deemed it inappropriate, insensitive, and sexist.
NYPD spokesman Paul Browne responded to the uproar by saying: “Officers are not telling women what not to wear — there’s a TV series that does that.” (Do I smell a career in stand-up?) He continues: “They are simply pointing out that as part of the pattern involving one or more men that the assailant(s) have targeted women wearing skirts.”
Alas, Skirtgate was born.
The incident soon became the latest cause celebre for feminist groups, inspiring protests and yet another Slut Walk, a demonstration against explaining or excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman’s appearance. Not too long ago I attended the Boston version of Slut Walk, organized by feminist figure Jaclyn Friedman.
While I agree that the way a woman dresses is NEVER an invitation to be raped or sexually assaulted (I’m having visuals of the horrific Jodie Foster rape scene from The Accused), I do have to wonder: What’s so wrong with suggesting that women exercise a little common sense in these scenarios? If I know that a man is assaulting women wearing short skirts in a certain area around a certain time, you can damn well be sure that I’ll take all precautions necessary. Nor would I ever tell my daughter (if I ever have one) the following: “Sure, honey, wear those hooker heels and that dress that barely covers your vagina proudly when you walk through Boston Common at 3 a.m. on a Saturday.”
The notion that humanity is perfectible — that we can reason with or socially engineer sick-minded individuals — is puerile. We do not live in an ideal world. We never will. Unfortunately, we live in a world where police won’t always be able to save everyone or catch the criminal right away. Unfortunately, we also live in a world where this happens and people like this exist. We do not live in an ideal world. So what’s wrong with merely suggesting that women take precautions?
I admire their passion and dedication, but I do think that certain feminists are so ideologically attached to their ideas that they often become blinded to reality. What if a woman came forward on the night of a Park Slope attack and said she felt she had been saved by an officer’s counsel earlier that day, in which he mentioned to be sure to cover up late at night? Of course, there’s no way to know for sure in this hypothetical if that’s the reason the attacker avoided her and went after someone else, but would the feminists turn a blind eye to this kind of testimony? I wonder.
I would be remiss, however, if I didn’t mention the fact that I remember many nights walking home late from the bars in outfits that, to be sure, revealed some skin. Part of me feels a bit uncomfortable, hypocritical even, espousing calls for good judgment when the mistakes of my youth burn brightly in my memory. But the truth is I was lucky. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dispensing advice based on the filtered wisdom one gains with age.
After writing this piece and tiring of my own opinions on the matter, I was curious to see what others had to say about the Park Slope contretemps, so I reached out to a few people who I knew would view the incident through different lenses. The first of which was Susan Walsh, author of the popular blog Hooking Up Smart (HUS), a strategic take on dating, sex, and relationships. Walsh was a guest on my radio show back in the day. She was recently profiled in this tremendous piece about the lives and realities of today’s single woman. HUS has a large following and is worth a weekly check-in.
Next, I contacted the aforementioned Jaclyn Friedman, Feministing.com’s Jessica Valenti, and author and speaker Amanda Marcotte, all avowed feminists and leaders of the movement. Marcotte responded; I never heard from Friedman or Valenti. Marcotte, by the way, is no stranger to controversy – this woman has balls! (In one of her entries for John Edwards’ campaign blog, of which she was blogmaster, she wrote: “Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.” Yowsa!)
In many of Walsh’s blog entries, she goes toe-to-toe with all three ladies, so I figured their juxtaposed opinions would be interesting. Below are Walsh’s and Marcotte’s thoughts on Skirtgate and a few other topics I wanted them to answer about dating, sex, relationships, and feminism.
Their responses couldn’t be more different. Check them out below – they are worth a read. Who do you agree with?
BLAST: What was your reaction to the Park Slope incident in which cops warned women about wearing short skirts?
MARCOTTE: First, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the NYPD responded to feminist complaints.
It was unacceptable of the NYPD officers to exploit the existence of a rapist as a cover story for an obvious power trip on women. Authoritarians all over the world love how rape gives them an excuse to indulge the misogynistic desire to tell women what to wear and how to act, but the police work for us, and because of this, they should treat women with respect. We women, after all, pay their salaries with our taxes.
WALSH: I understand why the women who were stopped by the policeman were offended. He may have been insensitive in his approach. I think it’s very important to consider his intention, though. As far as I can tell he was attempting to advise women about real risks to their safety. Though the journalist suggests that the police department disapproves of all shorts, skirts and dresses, he appears to have specifically taken issue with “short shorts” and dresses that “show a lot of skin.” Is it in fact prudent for women in that neighborhood to be careful about their appearance and behavior at night? Of course!
The WSJ article describes how many women in the neighborhood are taking concrete steps to stay safe. 80 have attended self-defense workshops. Women have stopped wearing high heels because they make it difficult to run away from an assailant. Women have been observed taking taxis to travel two blocks at night. All of these strategies are sensible and effective. Do they guarantee that a woman will not be attacked? Of course not, but they lessen her risk considerably.
Does it lessen a woman’s risk to refrain from “showing a lot of skin” at night in the very neighborhood where these attacks are occurring? Probably! It sure can’t hurt! Evidence that all of the attacks have been against women in skirts just adds to the good sense of such a strategy.
What’s going on among feminists here is that the political is getting in the way of the personal. When we stifle prudent advice to women about keeping themselves safe from assault because it doesn’t fit the agenda of sex-positive feminism, we risk the health and safety of women in a very real and measurable way.
Pages: 1 2
About Neely Steinberg
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
10
If the news reports are saying that the criminal is attacking women in short skirts, it’s common sense and good judgement to be mindful about what you’re wearing. The fact of the matter is, in this scenario, the NYPD has said that the attacker is going after women in short skirts. Even if one of the victims happened to not be wearing a shirt skirt, but the rest were, then I’m going with the odds. I’m not saying it’s the ONLY way to stay safe. You seem to be missing the point. It’s simply one suggestion of a way to protect yourself.
Thanks for your feedback!
Neely
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Doubtful. They probably just caved to pressure.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
5
I think you’re building a strawman argument. The facts as they were presented to us were about what the women were wearing at the time of attack. You can choose to accept those facts or ignore them.
Of course we have the right to a quality of life which includes being able to dress how we choose, but that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to the realities of certain situations in the name of “well, this is the way it should be in an ideal world.”
It’s not taking attention away. I’d argue that attention was taken away the second women started complaining about the officer’s comments. Frankly, I think the guy was just trying to be helpful.
But to answer your question, though: If it was reported that a man was attacking only blonde women in a certain area, and I happened to be blonde, you can be sure I wouldn’t be walking in that area until he was caught.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
6
It’s not about blaming anyone. In the case of Park Slope, it’s about considering the facts of a case. The NYPD was simply making a statement based on the facts of the case. If a man is systematically attacking women wearing short skirts, does the public not have a right to know? Have we gotten so PC that the police will no longer be able to mention facts like this because they are afraid to offend? I guess so.
I see your points, but I do think you’re taking things too far, going from Point A to Point Z. You say that because I think it prudent to simply consider what you’re wearing in an area where a maniac on the loose is attacking women wearing short skirts, I should also then think that women shouldn’t leave their homes ever. Nonsense! The police need to present their evidence based on case facts, and people can choose to ignore it or consider it. But at least they give us the option of knowing. Granted, the way the cop phrased his statements was a bit obnoxious, but I truly believe it came from a place of wanting to keep women safe. I don’t believe his advice was malicious in any way or an excuse for a power trip.
According to Wikipedia:
“In 2008, Amanda Marcotte published her first book, entitled It’s a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.[37] Jill Filipovic of AlterNet described the book as a “how-to manual for feminist-minded women to take on a sexist society and have a good laugh along the way.”[38]In August 2007, Marcotte posted an image of the chosen book cover on her blog; the image “was a retro-Hollywood pulp cover of a gorilla carrying a scantily clad woman.”[39] The image immediately came under fire for perpetuating racisttropes, and, consequently, Marcotte and Seal Press changed the cover image.[39]
When the book was finally released, it again set off controversy in the feminist blogosphere for use of images that many saw as racist.[40][41] To illustrate the volume, the publishers used images taken from the 1950s Joe Maneely comic,Lorna, the Jungle Girl,[42] which was chosen for its retro comic art look. The illustrations used included stereotypical images of “savage” black Africans being beaten up by a white, blonde, superhero, described as “racist cartoons of ‘natives’ in a jungle setting.”[38]Marcotte subsequently issued an apology, adding that a second printing of It’s A Jungle Out There will not contain illustrations.[43]”
Is Marcotte a racist because she chose those images? Of course not! She simply wanted to make a point and had no idea people would take it in that direction. I think it’s a similar situation in Park Slope. The cops were presented the facts of the case, and simply wanted to protect women based on that evidence.
Your argument is black and white, based on absolutes. Mine is greyer, because life isn’t always ideal.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
1 
6
I consider myself lucky that I have not been assaulted period. I consider myself even luckier that I have not been assaulted given the fact that I have walked the streets of Boston late at night, drunk, while wearing stilettos and skimpy outfits. I’m not blaming myself; I’m simply recognizing that I put myself in dangerous situations, because the world is not a perfect place, and walking home at 3:00am in sky-high heels and little dresses while inebriated is probably not the safest idea. Sure, women can be attacked wearing anything (sweats, etc.), but I can’t help but think that a woman stands out even more when wearing skimpy attire – after all, that’s what skimpy attire is designed to do. I believe women should be able to walk down the street naked and not have one finger laid on them, but you can’t apply that logic when dealing with criminals. You can’t reason with a criminal. Also, consider this article: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/do-skimpy-outfits-make-men-objectify-women-2585077/;_ylt=AhjYlZOh6KpQXLg_yreWjA37hKU5
I agree, though, that there are plenty of other ways for women to protect themselves – the strategies you outline above are all good ones and I’m sure tactics that NYPD has espoused before, many times over.
Would a woman be better served by packing a pair of sneakers (to swap with her 4-inch stilettos) in her bag if she knows she has to go through an area late at night, in which attacks have been rampant? Yes. I’d say sneakers would be a safe choice, so she has a better chance of getting away if attacked. Should she have to think of that? Of course not. But does it make sense to consider it? Probably. The onus shouldn’t fall on women, because it’s NEVER their fault if/when attacked, but the world isn’t perfect, and until we can eradicate every single criminal, it may just have to, sadly, be our responsibility.
Great idea Neely, to place both replies side by side: Marcotte comes across as a lazy, blinkered sloganeer, without an original thought in her head. Susan Walsh, on the other hand, is thoughtful, intelligent, alert, informed & compassionate, & the future of male/female debate. I know who’d get my vote.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
4
Thanks, Byron! Appreciate your comment.
If we could view parallel universes, one in which the police share information about what victims are wearing, and one in which all tips related to women’s appearance are censored, I wonder what we might see. It’s certainly highly plausible that with suppression of key information about the attacker’s triggers, more women would fall victim to assault.
Would the rad fems here be willing to change their position if that could be proved? I am certain they would not. They are wedded to a political ideology that actually serves to make women unsafe in cases like this. Fortunately, as is clear from the article, many women were practicing safe measures, including not walking at night at all, much less in short skirts. If women want to adopt the SlutWalk argument for themselves, that is their right, even if it’s extremely unwise.
What is necessary, however, is that women like Neely Steinberg write pieces like this one in an effort to get important safety information out to women that counters this very imprudent campaign.
Neely, I appreciated what you said about how you might broach this with a future daughter. As the mother of a 22 year-old, I can assure you that I would be doing everything possible to elicit promises from her that kept her off the streets as bait for this rapist.
I cannot imagine any mother adopting the feminist position here. It’s truly unthinkable.
Hot debate. What do you think?
6 
3
By attacking women who dress in revealing ways, this guy does a great job of setting women up to be blamed. And our society is great at doing just that. The police are great at it too. If the rapist liked to attack women who wore green parkas, would we be as quick to blame a green-parka-wearing victim as we would be to blame a revealingly-clothed victim? No, because the parka-wearing victim would have been exhibiting culturally acceptable levels of female modesty at the time of the attack. Many of us are kind of ok with immodest women being physically punished (through rape) for violating gender ideals. The police should try to emphasize other common features of the attacks. What were the times of day/night? Were the women alone? What else do the victims have in common other than the fact that they’re WOMEN? To me, that’s what really matters. There’s a man on the loose who insists on attacking only women. Not men, women. What the police should be emphasizing is that women should walk in groups because there’s a woman-hating rapist on the loose and he is taking away womens’ ability to be in public without fearing for their physical safety.