Edit: I'm adding the following link to a good round-up of the feminist arguments against SlutWalk. I agree with a majority of the points, although the authors are undoubtedly on various other points on the political spectrum. Although I'm not particularly convinced that we live in a culture which actually encourages rape. While women are continually objectified in our society, I resent the implication that men can easily be somehow turned into rapists by their environment. It's a very low opinion of men and devalues the importance of their individual characters.
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2011/05/link-round-up-feminist-critiques-of-slutwalk/
When I first learned about the “Slut Walk” protests being held around the world I wasn’t sure what to think. Then when I discovered that they were being held after a police officer in Toronto made a stupid remark insinuating that women should dress more modestly to avoid being sexually assaulted, I thought “this is a cause I can get behind! I’ll march.” Then I started reading more about the protests and a sense of profound disappointment set in.
Obviously, the idea that women are at all responsible for being assaulted, harassed, or raped is a sickening one which should be met head on and protested against vigorously. Blaming the victim is never an appropriate response to a crime (one immediately recalls the appalling number of apologists who excused Bill Clinton’s sleazy behavior toward women by suggesting that the victims in question were attracted to his power and charisma, rather than intimidated by the same.) I have many female friends who have been flashed, groped, catcalled, and assaulted. I’d venture to say the majority of them. And even if evidence was produced that women in short skirts get harassed more than the Amish, that would in no way shift the blame from the aggressor to the victim. So I was 100% behind the message of the Slutwalk.
Then I saw some pictures of previous marches. It involves many women dressed as, well, sluts. The idea behind this is that women should be allowed to dress however they want without fear of being harassed. This is true. But just because someone has the right to dress however they want doesn’t mean it’s always a good idea to dress that way. I’d like to make it clear that I’m not saying that women should never dress how they want – I’m saying that for the purpose of a protest against sexual violence, dressing in bras and fishnets is a breathtakingly stupid way to go about things. And this idea of mine isn’t confined to the Slutwalk protests specifically.
The idea that people shouldn’t be judged on how they dress or appear is not only foolish but undesirable. The very same people who affirm the right to dress as they please will often assert that their dress is a form of expression. That concept is, in fact, the very basis of the idea of dressing like a slut as a form of protest. One’s choice of clothing should be, and indeed is, a first amendment right. The people who say they don’t make a big deal about how they dress are often making a big deal about how they don’t make a big deal about how they dress. And I’ll give good odds that many of the hippies who say “don’t judge me for the way I dress” aren’t afraid to be suspicious of a white man in a suit and a tie. So, if dress is a form of expression, the question must be asked: what does your dress express?
I’ve often thought that one of the most self-defeating aspects of modern protest culture is the number of people involved with dreadlocks, ripped clothing, stretched earlobes, and dirty beards. Does anyone think this is a great way to be taken seriously by the people you’re trying to reach (although very often the target audience of protests is markedly vague – are they hoping to change policy? Recruit more true believers in the cause? Change people’s minds? Make themselves feel better because they’re taking some kind of action?) I understand that this particular fashion - and it is a fashion - is mean to be a contrast to the suits and ties of the people in power. The idea that it’s somehow non-conformist is ludicrous when one sees how many people actually dress like that. But the probability that people who look like that will be genuinely listened to and that their opinions will be seriously considered doesn’t seem very high.
Let’s look at a case study: the most stirring, poignant, and important protests in this nation’s history – the marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, starting with the famous 1964 march in Selma Alabama. I invite you to look at photographs from these marches. Everyone is wearing their best clothing. These men and women, black and white, are asserting their dignity, even their humanity, by appearing this way. These are not the naked slaves brought over to be bought and sold like chattel. They are citizens; responsible, serious, and equal citizens. If one looks at a photo of the redneck Sherriff Eugene “Bull” Connor in Birmingham Alabama, his pot belly stretching the front of his disheveled uniform, next to a picture of Dr. King in immaculate suit and tie, this distinction truly has meaning and should not be ignored. It is not a coincidence that just happened to work in King’s favor. A black friend of mine recently told me that growing up he couldn’t afford to look like a slouch. He had to dress more carefully than his white counterparts in order to get any respect. If you want to be taken seriously, dress seriously. And if you want to be really subversive, dress better than the people you’re protesting against. Dressing worse than them is the easy way out and hurts your credibility.
The case might be made that Gandhi wore a loincloth and talked about Indians spinning their own cloth to wear simple clothes. First it should be obvious that Gandhi recognized the importance of appearance – he knew that his campaign of non-violence was, in its most basic sense, a PR campaign. It called into question the moral authority of the British Empire using dramatic means to trigger human emotional responses. The importance of press coverage and, by extension, image, to all of this was something that Gandhi recognized very well. It also seems clear that part of Gandhi’s very deliberate personal image was calculated to play on naïve Western ideas of Indian simplicity and Eastern “spirituality” – a cliché that any self-respecting person should reject. It should also be noted that Gandhi’s followers, while they did significantly wear native clothing, were not dressed in loincloths, and the British authorities were much more comfortable engaging in genuine political negotiations with men like Nehru and Jinnah.
I am 100% in favor of public protest. But I think that the hippie generation in America specifically (the soixante-huitards in Europe are an entirely different matter,) changed the nature of protesting for the worse. Ever since Abbie Hoffman (a SNCC veteran,) and his Yippies tried to levitate the Pentagon assisted by chanting from overrated poet and North American Man-Boy Love Association member Allen Ginsberg, protests in America have become decidedly gimmicky. The new impetus is toward various forms of street theater – people blowing vuvuzelas, wearing jester’s caps, staging passion plays. One can’t help but wonder, once again, who the protesters are trying to reach – I have a suspicion it may be their fellow choir-members. The American hippie generation, which never tires of acting like it profoundly changed the world for the better (how many wars did they actually stop, again?) also left a legacy of turning the act of protest into a rather self-indulgent circus. We have them to thank for the stereotype that everybody who demonstrates in defense of their ideals are probably just pot-smoking hippies. Only some of them are and they’re the ones ruining it for the rest of us.
Groups like code pink yell and disrupt meetings while wearing pink. Brilliant. Someone told me about a “hilarious” shirt during demonstrations for gay marriage which read “I taught your husband how to do that thing you like.” This is undoubtedly a surefire way to bring any fence-sitting conservative opinion around to your side (incidentally, gay marriage is one of those issues on which I find myself at odds with the liberal consensus, with myself taking a much more radical stance: marriage should not be a government-run institution and people should be taxed equally regardless of their romantic relationships or lack thereof.) The amount of undeserved self-congratulatory back-slapping for how clever organizers’ forms of protest are rather than what is achieved is cringe-making. This isn’t me being dour or joyless – I think that if aesthetics are taken into consideration one has to conclude that having beauty on one’s side is far preferable to squalor or tackiness.
So, dressing like “sluts” in order to reclaim the word (the argument has been made on numerous feminist websites that this entirely endorses the patriarchal lexicon rather than heroically co-opting it,) doesn’t seem to me like a good way to get across such a serious point. And if one wants to reclaim “slut,” (which seems incidental and distracting to me when compared to the noble aim of advocating against blaming the victims,) dressing like a misogynist’s fantasy doesn’t make any sense. The first thing the organizers should do is decide who their audience is. It definitely isn’t rapists – savvy cultural argument won’t change their behavior. It probably isn’t the legal system – rape is already illegal and the way the victim was dressed does not affect the sentence. So the audience must be a younger generation of people who need to be taught that holding people at all responsible for the crimes committed against them is a completely indefensible position. And if they see their elders running around in panties and behaving like particularly vulgar men, that message might not come across.
On the topic of intended audience, I’m reminded of a pamphlet I saw at Columbia University. It was called “Consent is Cool.” First of all, “cool,” isn’t the same thing as “mandatory,” but I’ll let that go. It’s always lame (and probably counter-productive,) when public service messages try to speak to kids in the manner in which adults think kids speak. It’s also condescending. Most kids – and especially not Ivy League College students – shouldn’t be talked down to. Now, my question is who the intended audience of this document is. Is it the kind of scumbags who don’t care about consent? The roofie contingent? Because their behavior isn’t going to be changed by a pamphlet. And you know what? They already know they should have consent. They’re just so fucked up they don’t care. As far as I can see, the only people this pamphlet will have any effect on are the already-timid. The document is entirely about spelling out in almost lawyer-like precision exactly what you want from your partner (i.e. “May I touch your breast? Would you be willing to unzip my trousers? How far do you bet I could insert this object into my person?” ) Not only does this completely ruin the romantic nature of a sexual experience as well as rob young people of the important experiences of learning together, overcoming discomfort (or even enjoying it a bit,) surprising one another and oneself, and discovering a few things the hard way, but it also devalues sex emotionally by treating it like a legal transaction. Want to prevent date rape on campuses? Encourage victims to come forward in safety and prosecute the perpetrators seriously and publicly. And don’t imagine it will go away with a fucking pamphlet encouraging kids to be blatant and about their desires. Most boys will learn from experience that a lack of subtlety is usually a bad thing.
I’d like to make it clear that I am, in fact, a great fan of naked women. I’d go so far as to say that I enjoy them significantly more than naked men. In paintings, sculpture, magazines, and my bed, I appreciate them very much. But context is important, and by walking half naked through the streets you’re making bodies far less fascinating, mysterious, and powerful than they are. Both clothes and the lack of clothes are powerful symbols. And people who are themselves uncomfortable with dressing like sluts might feel estranged by these walks. The embracing of a “slutty” look might even imply that people who don’t exercise their right to behave with promiscuity or give a public display of skin are somehow less comfortable with their bodies, their sexuality, or are even against the message. But liberation and freedom are expressed best with nuance, restraint, and careful consideration. This kind of common pageantry can be alienating and can detract from the cause, which is indeed a righteous one. I’d love to participate in an event highlighting the injustice of blaming victims of sexual assault. But I’ll feel embarrassed standing next to a bunch of girls gone wild. And I’m willing to be that many other people who the organizers would like to have on their side will be turned off by their methods as well.
I sincerely hope that future generations be taught that one can behave like a lady or a gentleman (and I’m not talking about gender roles here, but civility,) and that, if one is genuinely serious about enacting change, dignity is far more important than cuteness, gimmicks, or in-your-face spectacle. I think that the Slutwalks were founded with the best intentions and I fully support their original message. Women should never be held responsible if they’re sexually assaulted or harassed. The only things that will prevent rape is encouraging respect for women (wearing pasties and writing “slut” on your stomach in lipstick seems a misguided way of doing that,) prosecuting offenders, keeping tough but fair laws on the books, creating a safe environment for victims and witnesses to come forward in, teaching both men and women to be vigilant and aware of their surroundings and situations and setting up counseling services for survivors, giving them a chance to speak up, and organizing events (including marches) in order to keep this issue in the public eye.
Reclaiming the word “slut” to assert that women have the right to act just as vulgarly as men sometimes do is at best a distraction, at worst counter-productive.
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2011/05/link-round-up-feminist-critiques-of-slutwalk/
When I first learned about the “Slut Walk” protests being held around the world I wasn’t sure what to think. Then when I discovered that they were being held after a police officer in Toronto made a stupid remark insinuating that women should dress more modestly to avoid being sexually assaulted, I thought “this is a cause I can get behind! I’ll march.” Then I started reading more about the protests and a sense of profound disappointment set in.
Obviously, the idea that women are at all responsible for being assaulted, harassed, or raped is a sickening one which should be met head on and protested against vigorously. Blaming the victim is never an appropriate response to a crime (one immediately recalls the appalling number of apologists who excused Bill Clinton’s sleazy behavior toward women by suggesting that the victims in question were attracted to his power and charisma, rather than intimidated by the same.) I have many female friends who have been flashed, groped, catcalled, and assaulted. I’d venture to say the majority of them. And even if evidence was produced that women in short skirts get harassed more than the Amish, that would in no way shift the blame from the aggressor to the victim. So I was 100% behind the message of the Slutwalk.
Then I saw some pictures of previous marches. It involves many women dressed as, well, sluts. The idea behind this is that women should be allowed to dress however they want without fear of being harassed. This is true. But just because someone has the right to dress however they want doesn’t mean it’s always a good idea to dress that way. I’d like to make it clear that I’m not saying that women should never dress how they want – I’m saying that for the purpose of a protest against sexual violence, dressing in bras and fishnets is a breathtakingly stupid way to go about things. And this idea of mine isn’t confined to the Slutwalk protests specifically.
The idea that people shouldn’t be judged on how they dress or appear is not only foolish but undesirable. The very same people who affirm the right to dress as they please will often assert that their dress is a form of expression. That concept is, in fact, the very basis of the idea of dressing like a slut as a form of protest. One’s choice of clothing should be, and indeed is, a first amendment right. The people who say they don’t make a big deal about how they dress are often making a big deal about how they don’t make a big deal about how they dress. And I’ll give good odds that many of the hippies who say “don’t judge me for the way I dress” aren’t afraid to be suspicious of a white man in a suit and a tie. So, if dress is a form of expression, the question must be asked: what does your dress express?
I’ve often thought that one of the most self-defeating aspects of modern protest culture is the number of people involved with dreadlocks, ripped clothing, stretched earlobes, and dirty beards. Does anyone think this is a great way to be taken seriously by the people you’re trying to reach (although very often the target audience of protests is markedly vague – are they hoping to change policy? Recruit more true believers in the cause? Change people’s minds? Make themselves feel better because they’re taking some kind of action?) I understand that this particular fashion - and it is a fashion - is mean to be a contrast to the suits and ties of the people in power. The idea that it’s somehow non-conformist is ludicrous when one sees how many people actually dress like that. But the probability that people who look like that will be genuinely listened to and that their opinions will be seriously considered doesn’t seem very high.
Let’s look at a case study: the most stirring, poignant, and important protests in this nation’s history – the marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, starting with the famous 1964 march in Selma Alabama. I invite you to look at photographs from these marches. Everyone is wearing their best clothing. These men and women, black and white, are asserting their dignity, even their humanity, by appearing this way. These are not the naked slaves brought over to be bought and sold like chattel. They are citizens; responsible, serious, and equal citizens. If one looks at a photo of the redneck Sherriff Eugene “Bull” Connor in Birmingham Alabama, his pot belly stretching the front of his disheveled uniform, next to a picture of Dr. King in immaculate suit and tie, this distinction truly has meaning and should not be ignored. It is not a coincidence that just happened to work in King’s favor. A black friend of mine recently told me that growing up he couldn’t afford to look like a slouch. He had to dress more carefully than his white counterparts in order to get any respect. If you want to be taken seriously, dress seriously. And if you want to be really subversive, dress better than the people you’re protesting against. Dressing worse than them is the easy way out and hurts your credibility.
The case might be made that Gandhi wore a loincloth and talked about Indians spinning their own cloth to wear simple clothes. First it should be obvious that Gandhi recognized the importance of appearance – he knew that his campaign of non-violence was, in its most basic sense, a PR campaign. It called into question the moral authority of the British Empire using dramatic means to trigger human emotional responses. The importance of press coverage and, by extension, image, to all of this was something that Gandhi recognized very well. It also seems clear that part of Gandhi’s very deliberate personal image was calculated to play on naïve Western ideas of Indian simplicity and Eastern “spirituality” – a cliché that any self-respecting person should reject. It should also be noted that Gandhi’s followers, while they did significantly wear native clothing, were not dressed in loincloths, and the British authorities were much more comfortable engaging in genuine political negotiations with men like Nehru and Jinnah.
I am 100% in favor of public protest. But I think that the hippie generation in America specifically (the soixante-huitards in Europe are an entirely different matter,) changed the nature of protesting for the worse. Ever since Abbie Hoffman (a SNCC veteran,) and his Yippies tried to levitate the Pentagon assisted by chanting from overrated poet and North American Man-Boy Love Association member Allen Ginsberg, protests in America have become decidedly gimmicky. The new impetus is toward various forms of street theater – people blowing vuvuzelas, wearing jester’s caps, staging passion plays. One can’t help but wonder, once again, who the protesters are trying to reach – I have a suspicion it may be their fellow choir-members. The American hippie generation, which never tires of acting like it profoundly changed the world for the better (how many wars did they actually stop, again?) also left a legacy of turning the act of protest into a rather self-indulgent circus. We have them to thank for the stereotype that everybody who demonstrates in defense of their ideals are probably just pot-smoking hippies. Only some of them are and they’re the ones ruining it for the rest of us.
Groups like code pink yell and disrupt meetings while wearing pink. Brilliant. Someone told me about a “hilarious” shirt during demonstrations for gay marriage which read “I taught your husband how to do that thing you like.” This is undoubtedly a surefire way to bring any fence-sitting conservative opinion around to your side (incidentally, gay marriage is one of those issues on which I find myself at odds with the liberal consensus, with myself taking a much more radical stance: marriage should not be a government-run institution and people should be taxed equally regardless of their romantic relationships or lack thereof.) The amount of undeserved self-congratulatory back-slapping for how clever organizers’ forms of protest are rather than what is achieved is cringe-making. This isn’t me being dour or joyless – I think that if aesthetics are taken into consideration one has to conclude that having beauty on one’s side is far preferable to squalor or tackiness.
So, dressing like “sluts” in order to reclaim the word (the argument has been made on numerous feminist websites that this entirely endorses the patriarchal lexicon rather than heroically co-opting it,) doesn’t seem to me like a good way to get across such a serious point. And if one wants to reclaim “slut,” (which seems incidental and distracting to me when compared to the noble aim of advocating against blaming the victims,) dressing like a misogynist’s fantasy doesn’t make any sense. The first thing the organizers should do is decide who their audience is. It definitely isn’t rapists – savvy cultural argument won’t change their behavior. It probably isn’t the legal system – rape is already illegal and the way the victim was dressed does not affect the sentence. So the audience must be a younger generation of people who need to be taught that holding people at all responsible for the crimes committed against them is a completely indefensible position. And if they see their elders running around in panties and behaving like particularly vulgar men, that message might not come across.
On the topic of intended audience, I’m reminded of a pamphlet I saw at Columbia University. It was called “Consent is Cool.” First of all, “cool,” isn’t the same thing as “mandatory,” but I’ll let that go. It’s always lame (and probably counter-productive,) when public service messages try to speak to kids in the manner in which adults think kids speak. It’s also condescending. Most kids – and especially not Ivy League College students – shouldn’t be talked down to. Now, my question is who the intended audience of this document is. Is it the kind of scumbags who don’t care about consent? The roofie contingent? Because their behavior isn’t going to be changed by a pamphlet. And you know what? They already know they should have consent. They’re just so fucked up they don’t care. As far as I can see, the only people this pamphlet will have any effect on are the already-timid. The document is entirely about spelling out in almost lawyer-like precision exactly what you want from your partner (i.e. “May I touch your breast? Would you be willing to unzip my trousers? How far do you bet I could insert this object into my person?” ) Not only does this completely ruin the romantic nature of a sexual experience as well as rob young people of the important experiences of learning together, overcoming discomfort (or even enjoying it a bit,) surprising one another and oneself, and discovering a few things the hard way, but it also devalues sex emotionally by treating it like a legal transaction. Want to prevent date rape on campuses? Encourage victims to come forward in safety and prosecute the perpetrators seriously and publicly. And don’t imagine it will go away with a fucking pamphlet encouraging kids to be blatant and about their desires. Most boys will learn from experience that a lack of subtlety is usually a bad thing.
I’d like to make it clear that I am, in fact, a great fan of naked women. I’d go so far as to say that I enjoy them significantly more than naked men. In paintings, sculpture, magazines, and my bed, I appreciate them very much. But context is important, and by walking half naked through the streets you’re making bodies far less fascinating, mysterious, and powerful than they are. Both clothes and the lack of clothes are powerful symbols. And people who are themselves uncomfortable with dressing like sluts might feel estranged by these walks. The embracing of a “slutty” look might even imply that people who don’t exercise their right to behave with promiscuity or give a public display of skin are somehow less comfortable with their bodies, their sexuality, or are even against the message. But liberation and freedom are expressed best with nuance, restraint, and careful consideration. This kind of common pageantry can be alienating and can detract from the cause, which is indeed a righteous one. I’d love to participate in an event highlighting the injustice of blaming victims of sexual assault. But I’ll feel embarrassed standing next to a bunch of girls gone wild. And I’m willing to be that many other people who the organizers would like to have on their side will be turned off by their methods as well.
I sincerely hope that future generations be taught that one can behave like a lady or a gentleman (and I’m not talking about gender roles here, but civility,) and that, if one is genuinely serious about enacting change, dignity is far more important than cuteness, gimmicks, or in-your-face spectacle. I think that the Slutwalks were founded with the best intentions and I fully support their original message. Women should never be held responsible if they’re sexually assaulted or harassed. The only things that will prevent rape is encouraging respect for women (wearing pasties and writing “slut” on your stomach in lipstick seems a misguided way of doing that,) prosecuting offenders, keeping tough but fair laws on the books, creating a safe environment for victims and witnesses to come forward in, teaching both men and women to be vigilant and aware of their surroundings and situations and setting up counseling services for survivors, giving them a chance to speak up, and organizing events (including marches) in order to keep this issue in the public eye.
Reclaiming the word “slut” to assert that women have the right to act just as vulgarly as men sometimes do is at best a distraction, at worst counter-productive.
0 comments:
Post a Comment