really? REALLY?

Though I've expanded my blog repertoire I do want to go back to my roots for a moment. I read an article in the Globe and Mail today that turned my stomach. A woman was raped and the guy who did it got a ridiculously lenient sentence (the ol' two years less a day, but under HOUSE arrest). That is actually not the part that bugs me (well, not as much). The part that really makes me mad is the comments that the judge gave in handing down the ruling. He gave the standard, 'well, she was dressed provocatively and didn't really say no.' Though I'm not a particularly provocative dresser, I do believe it's a person's right to dress however they want (as long as it falls within a certain modesty ie. no bits on display) and furthermore, the woman clearly didn't want to have sex with the guy and he forced her to. She didn't have to say no verbally, she was clearly saying no in other ways. The judge also points to the fact that the woman's friend made out with the guy's friend and said that was an indication that the woman was up for sex and partying. Apparently partying now includes rape.

I think the judge that presided in this case should be fired. He's so far been temporarily suspended from presiding over any cases of a sexual nature. That's not enough. He should be fired because he clearly thinks that women are chattel. And he sadly get to dictate some of the rules in our country with this warped sense of justice. This, my friends, is why feminism can't die. We have to convince people like Judge Robert Dewar that just because a woman wears a tube top and has friends who like to make out with other friends doesn't mean she an object to be played with.

Rosie the riveter image from wikipedia. Originally by J. Howard Miller in 1942.