Mayim Bialik NY Times Op-Ed Backlash

[aygart]

What do you mean?

Do you have anything to back up your assertion that it didn't?

then you must accept that objectification of women leads to sexual assault. Meaning, the woman had a part in getting herself assaulted.

1+1=9999999?
Only to the extent that women are part of society.

Do you feel that it is ever possible for someone to have done something which they were not wrong for doing yet that had a part in their being the victim of a crime?

You can use this example if you wish.

Does having done something which makes it more likely to be the victim of a crime mean that you are shaming them?

If someone walks through a high crime neighborhood wearing very visible diamond jewelry making it very obvious that they have valuables with them are they at fault for the crime if they are held up? Did their actions making it more likely? Is saying that the crime may not have occurred with more more discretion shaming them?

[regular]

Please explain how dressing modestly affected every frum tznius-dressed rape victim. Dress has nothing to do with sexual abuse. Thats not check box stuff. Thats basics. Modest dress and behavior may prevent licentiousness on the part of the person so dressing and behaving. However, it never dictates the behavior of the abuser. Therefore, any suggestion that the victim's dress had anything to do with the abuse is victim shaming.

It doesn't. But it does explain the extremely low rate of rape among the Frum world

[aygart]

It doesn't. But it does explain the extremely low rate of rape among the Frum world

Do you have any statistics to back up this assertion or is it only your assumption?

[hvaces42]

1+1=9999999?
Only to the extent that women are part of society.

Do you feel that it is ever possible for someone to have done something which they were not wrong for doing yet that had a part in their being the victim of a crime?

You can use this example if you wish.

First off her opinion piece is n response to the Harvey Weinstein story. She did not write that in a vacuum. Second flashy jewelry in a bad neighborhood does not equal flirtatious clothing. Stealing flashy jewelry is a crime of opportunity. Sexual assault may be, but usually isnt.

[Shauly101]

+1000

I'm pretty sure almost everyone here would agree on two points:

1) No matter how a woman dresses or how much she flirts, sexual assault is never excusable.

this is part of her op-ed

[ChaimMoskowitz]

In LAS and don't have time right now.

For those that think modest dress is going to help I suggest you go to any inner city.

[aygart]

For those that think modest dress is going to help I suggest you go to any inner city.

What would we find there?

[CS1]

For those that think modest dress is going to help I suggest you go to any inner city.

those don't help assualts, and it's the full responsibility of the man to not be a bully, however both males and females keeping the laws of 'nigia' (no handshakes, hugs, touching) and laws of 'yichud' (no male and female alone in a room) would make sure that the Holllywood stories would not occur. There would always need to be 3-4 people in every actor/actress/director meeting.

[beeweegee]

What do you mean?

Again, if you accept what she says as true and she does not participate in the objectification of women, then you must accept that objectification of women leads to sexual assault. Meaning, the woman had a part in getting herself assaulted. Ergo victim shaming. I dont say I agree with her detractors. there is much to be taken form her op-ed. But still how is it not victim shaming if a woman can, even minutely, be blamed for her own assault? 

Thats linear logic. I cannot fathom why this simple step is so hard to grasp. If "A" then "B". If no "A" then no "B".

Only skimmed your comments and I havent read through the whole thread, but that's a complete logical fallacy. Google inverse error, or denying the antecedent.

[zale]

I read her opinion piece in its entirety, and while I have always believed Mayim to be a genuine person, I think that (among other things) the timing of this article is ill-conceived.

Imagine someone has a heart attack. When they wake up in their hospital bed after a triple bypass surgery, their friend is sitting there next to the bed with a bouquet of flowers and says "I don't have any heart problems because I exercise every day and only eat healthy food. There is a terrible culture of eating junk food, but I don't have that issue because I'm proud to eat healthy".

There are two problems with this: 1. even people that eat healthy can have heart problems (even if it's less likely), and 2. it's, in a roundabout way shaming and admonishing the heart attack victim.

If the friend were wise, he or she would wait several months and then convey their opinion. It will be received in a better manner and may actually be appreciated.

[Yehuda57]

A more apt analogy is a guy has a heart attack, and in so doing, shines a spotlight on an epidemic of unhealthy eating habits within a specific community or industry.

A member of said community or industry speaks about the issue while the spotlight is still on instead of waiting till the light goes out. Also, said person doesn't go to the bedside of the victim, and certainly doesn't say the victim is to blame. Rather, she goes to the most public venue possible and tackles the broader subject and community, not the individual.

[Freddie]

I didn't read the piece and probably won't.
All I will say is can't we give a little credit to a yiddene for using her influence to attempt to spread Jewish values (whether or not her piece was well executed)?

[good sam]

If "A" then "B". If no "A" then no "B".

Lol. That explains a lot of your arguments.

[skyguy918]

A more apt analogy is a guy has a heart attack, and in so doing, shines a spotlight on an epidemic of unhealthy eating habits within a specific community or industry.

A member of said community or industry speaks about the issue while the spotlight is still on instead of waiting till the light goes out. Also, said person doesn't go to the bedside of the victim, and certainly doesn't say the victim is to blame. Rather, she goes to the most public venue possible and tackles the broader subject and community, not the individual.

Plus the fact that it's not right after the incident itself. It's more like a year later, when the public finds out about the heart attack.

[aygart]

Only skimmed your comments and I havent read through the whole thread, but that's a complete logical fallacy. Google inverse error, or denying the antecedent.

Lol. That explains a lot of your arguments.

I hear that. It seems that many of our disagreements revolve around such logic.

[zh cohen]

For those that think modest dress is going to help I suggest you go to any inner city.

Victim shaming! How dare you say that the victim is at fault for going into inner cities...

[zh cohen]

@hvaces42 , would you agree that if a woman would lock herself in her house and never come in contact with any men her chances of being assulted would be drastically lower?

[hvaces42]

@hvaces42 , would you agree that if a woman would lock herself in her house and never come in contact with any men her chances of being assulted would be drastically lower?

Go ahead with the next absurd irrelevant scenario.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

@hvaces42 , would you agree that if a woman would lock herself in her house and never come in contact with any men her chances of being assulted would be drastically lower?

Would you agree if G-d never created woman they would never be assaulted? 

[good sam]

Would you agree if G-d never created woman they would never be assaulted? 

If not for the woman Adam would still be in paradise