An addendum to today’s earlier post

Mostly because I’m tired and I need an eHow break (it’s been a frustrating day——details will come later in the week).
As I pointed out, Charlotte Allen’s claim that women walking around in public dressed sexy is as foolish as a guy flashing his big bankroll in a waterfront dive totally distorts the reality of rape. A further example of how that’s true: The Los Angeles Times actually printed her column (I misidentified the paper as the Washington Post, though I’ve now corrected that).
If a man actually did get robbed after flashing money in a bar or flaunting his wealth in front of the unemployed, does anyone would think the Times would accept an op-ed saying millionaires should be more careful flashing their cash? Or that the victim should have “taken steps to reduce the risk,” in Allen’s words of advice for rape victims?
Even with the current heated debate over income inequality, nobody’s seriously arguing that theft is acceptable. With rape, on the other hand, it’s perfectly acceptable to do as Allen does and explain it’s the woman’s fault. She asserts that the cops who triggered the original SlutWalk protests by warning women to dress more modestly were actually doing the right thing. Like the rest of the rape apologists, she never considers that maybe cops should be warning the guys (“Buddy, it doesn’t matter how she dresses, it doesn’t give you the right to rape her.”).
The LA Times should be ashamed of itself.