Dear Editor,
In an obvious attempt at grasping at straws, Roger Ally, in letter (SN, January 3) entitled ‘Boodram has unwittingly made the argument for modesty and decorum in dress‘ cites a quote of mine in a previous letter and infers a conclusion that is not only not supported by the quote but that was never even an intended thought.
According to Mr Ally, the fact that sociologist Michael Kimmel concludes that, “violent men often view their actions as revenge or retaliation. They say, women have power over me because they’re beautiful and sexual and I want them and they elicit that and I feel powerless,” he says. “Just listen for a minute to the way in which we describe women’s beauty and sexuality. We describe it as a violence against us. She is a knock-out, a bombshell, dressed to kill, a femme fatale, stunning, ravishing. I mean all of these are words of violence against us. It’s like, wow, she knocked me out. So the violence then, or the aggression or the sexual violence is often a way to retaliate,” is for proof that rape and sexual violence against women results from the manner in which women are dressed. To even call this fuzzy logic would be a quite a stretch, since there is absolutely no logic involved here, nor is there a connection between the quoted premise and Mr Ally’s conclusion. After all it is quite clear that the sociologist is emphatically stating that these sexual predators are disconnected from reality and simply rationalizing their acts of depravity.
Neither has Mr Kimmel implied a connection between dress code and rapes, nor is the evidence that leads to Mr Kimmel’s conclusion inclusive of or implying such a connection. So one could very well conclude that Mr Ally is displaying exactly the kind of mindset used by the rapists – creating a rationalization out of nothingness.
Yours faithfully,
Annan Boodram
