Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the most odious misogynist bullshit I have seen thus far on the topic of the Slutwalks: a post on The Third Edge of the Sword, a blog that seems to go out of its way to be offensive and “edgy,” that takes victim blaming to a whole new level. Here’s the basic, er, argument of the post, which the author has put in giant pink letters so we won’t miss it:
Every woman marching in the Edmonton Slut Walk is publicly declaring herself a slut. This means every woman there desires sex with any and all partners. Any sexual activity you initiate with them comes with implied consent. They cannot say no, and if they do understand all their ‘no’s mean yes. They are all asking for it. They want it bad. Now. From you. Go get ’em!
Some other highlights:
[I]f you … dress slutty, men are going to stare at you. We’re going to catcall. We are going to tell you all sorts of sexual things we want to do to your body. And if you dress slutty and wave your ass in our face, we will do them. The organizers of this event are not oblivious to this point: what they want is a fake sexual revolution. They want to be able to impersonate sluts without actually being sluts, and that’s unacceptable. If you don’t want to be treated as a piece of meat, don’t marinate and grill yourself and sit perched on a piece of garlic toast. You dress slutty, you show off the goods, you try to get a reaction, you will get one. Hint: it’s not always going to be the one you want. …
The “reaction” he has in mind is rape. By calling rape a “reaction” instead of what it is — a criminal assault on someone, an act of sexual violence, a violation — he of course is attempting to switch the blame to the victim. He spells out his “logic” in more detail:
[W]hen you impersonate a slut we don’t fine you, and we don’t throw you in jail. There’s really only one punishment for dressing like a streetwalker when you aren’t one: you do have to endure the occasional rape. You should really suffer it in silence. Accept the character flaw within you that caused this, and move on. Police and court resources are already busy enough with real criminals: like actual rapists who do nasty things to their niece or the homeless native chick passed out under the bridge, or a conservatively dressed urban professional walking to her car, or a girl out jogging in a track suit. To equate the act of actually violating and raping one of these people with having sex with a girl who’s every square millimetre of public persona screams anybody who wants to can screw me right now is ridiculous.
Once again, this brand of misogyny leads to some conclusions that are pretty misandrist – namely, the notion that men are at heart rapists who can’t control their violent urges:
If you go out on the street in an outfit that would make Britney Spears feel uncomfortable, you do so knowing that your ultimate aim is to make men want you. Well, they want you now. Congrats. Oh, wait, you mean you didn’t understand what that implied? That in the great Bell curve of sexual congress you’ve just pushed everybody on the right-hand side of the -2 std devs line past that imaginary barrier that says “there is no power in the universe powerful enough to stop me from sliding my finger inside your panties”? I call bullshit. You do know. But you want to be a virginal slut, to dress in ways that makes men helpless to their urges but still leaves you fully in restrictive control.
The blogger concludes by arguing that the Slutwalkers are all “lying bitches” because they dress like they wasn’t to be raped, but do not actually want to be raped. Then he makes this lovely suggestion:
If your wife is one of them, I’m very very sorry. Maybe a good rape might make her a little more manageable around the house.
Now this post is an atmittedly extreme example of a misogynistic response to the Slutwalks. But the basic “logic” of this blogger’s would-be argument is essentially identical to that of many MRA and other “manosphere” pieces I’ve seen on the subject, the main difference between them being that this guy embraces the logical conclusion of his argument — that Slutwalkers deserve to be raped — while the MRAs who make essentially the same argument (and fling the same sorts of insults at the Slutwalkers) make a show of saying that they don’t really think the Slutwalkers “deserve” it. And maybe they’ve convinced themselves that this caveat means something . But in that case the extreme reaction that manosphere misogynists have had to the Slutwalks – the insults thrown at the Slutwalkers, the “jokey” references to rape, the prurient sneering – makes little sense. If you argue that women are “asking for it” when they dress like “sluts,” you’re essentially saying they deserve it. You’re making the same argument this guy is making, but pretending you aren’t.
NOTE: The graphic above is taken from the official web site for the Edmonton SlutWalk 2011, which took place a week ago. Here are some pictures of the march.
Amused has made the best comment in the history of evar! Is there even a use for the internet after this?
Ion: “Is it your belief, and everyone else’s here, that there is no behavior that women could engage in that could possibly place them at higher risk for sexual assault, and claiming the contrary constitutes ‘victim-blaming’? Because in the end, that’s what this whole thing is about, isn’t it.”
Continuing in the same vein: All kinds of behavior that women engage in possibly places them at risk for sexual assault. I went to college; that placed me at higher risk for sexual assault. I work outside the home; that places me at higher risk for sexual assault. I have a job that takes me to poor neighborhoods around the city; that places me at higher risk for sexual assault. I don’t live in a bunker; that places me at higher risk for sexual assault. I live in a society where, still, men are considered entitled by virtue of their manhood to (1) make a unilateral judgment based on my appearance as to whether or not I am a “slut”; and (2) “punish” me for being a slut, regardless of the morality of their own ways; THAT places me at higher risk for sexual assault. I am female; THAT places me at higher risk for sexual assault. What’s your point, anyway? If you drive a car, that places you at higher risk for car accidents. Does it mean that if you get injured in an accident, we go into a discussion of how improvident it was of you to drive your own vehicle instead of, I don’t know, taking a train? We want and need to live our lives in a way that’s reasonably free and fulfilling, and not be admonished for it or have the threat of rape used as a bullying device to keep us confined to the kitchen and the childbed. To say that the victim’s behavior was a factor in the crime is to state the obvious; that’s true even of child molestation. But no matter how you cut it, when it comes to rape, the point of discussions like this is always that women should restrict their lives in significant ways and live in constant fear of sexual assault; anything less than that, and you are a contemptible “slut”.
Ion: “The advice given to men and boys is usually “be aggressive! be the hunter! take charge! women play hard to get but they’re secretly turned on by guys who are aggressive! nice guys finish last! Be a real man, not a wimp!” etc. And this comes from both men and women, btw.”
Sigh. I find it interesting how MRA’s talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to mental abilities as a function of gender. We are told that on the one hand, men possess the superior intellect needed to run things, but when it comes to dating, courtship, and sexual assault, all of a sudden men are these mentally feeble little morons who don’t understand nuance. Obviously, if a given individual is so stupid that he applies the same two-word rule (“Be aggressive!”) to every single situation in life, then really, he should be institutionalized and kept away from society. There is a time and place for everything in life. There is a time to be aggressive, a time to be observant, a time to butt out, a time to compromise and a time to defer. There is a time to be a hunter and a time to be a gatherer. There is a time to take charge and a time to be a partner and a friend. A time to be aggressive and a time to be compliant. From what I hear, men and boys are also usually given the advice: “no means no! respect your partner! be a good listener!” Funny how people imbibe some lessons, but not others? Is it because those other lessons do not validate their wishes? Or are boys so stupid that if you tell them to “take the bull by the horns” in a calculus class, they will interpret it as advice to rape women? Please.
Someone posted a link to a scenario that makes the issue very clear to me:
So Ion, say you went to a bar and saw a pretty girl. She smiled back at you and accepted the offer of a drink. You met her and her friends and thought you might get somewhere. Her friends and her go back to her house for more drinks and invite you. Score! Everyone has some more drinks. You think you might get lucky and you do….
Then afterwards when you are kind of dizzy and unable to stand up very well, her boyfriend comes in the room. And he thinks that since you slept with his girlfriend, you should be perfectly okay with sleeping with him. You try to say no but are too drunk and dizzy to say so. You try to fight him off but you start to pass out. Then his friends come in and expect to do the same thing with you. After all-you made the choice to get drunk and sleep with this one person-you probably are okay with a few more right? Oh you did not consent-but you made the choices to drink and go to her house…that means you are responsible right?
In your mind, yes, yes you are. In our minds, oh hell no. You have the right to not be forced into anything you do not want to do even if you made the choice to get intoxicated while visiting with this woman and have sex with her.
Fuck Hugo Schwyzer.
Oh, hi, MRAL!
Oh, do you want some attention? OK, I’ll pay some attention to you now.
(Takes a moment to read MRAL’s post a few times)
OK, now run along. The grownups are talking.
Did MRAL just consent to sex with Hugo Schwyzer? He better not cry rape later.
I was just reading his blog (I read it a lot) and was made hugely angry but his fucking new post.
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2011/06/13/feminism-porn-and-slutwalk-part-one-of-a-conversation-with-meghan-murphy/#more-3982
Why? He seems to be saying something quite sensible. Try to not use too much profanity while writing your response and no violence please.
This is why HE needs his own blog xD
MRAL, if you want a discussion of the post here then you have to give us more to work on. Why did it make you angry? What do you disagree with and why does it apply to this thread specifically? I don’t see anything offensive in what he had to say, it seems to be a reasoned reaction based on personal experience and (dare I say it?) personal morals.
I do admit self-avowed “male feminists” creep me out a little (yes yes, I know, I’m a retrograde brute), but that article didn’t seem particularly offensive. What made you so angry about it?
Elizabeth: question – why would I get so drunk and dizzy that I was unable to defend myself? And why would this girl’s boyfriend want to have sex with me? Is he bisexual? What if I’m into it? And then her friends come in – where am I, Amsterdam? Sounds like a hell of a night. 😛
“Elizabeth: question – why would I get so drunk and dizzy that I was unable to defend myself?”
Indeed, why? I mean, it’s not like men ever get so drunk that they become impaired. Really, it’s unheard of. And if they do, it’s only because they want to get fucked in the ass.
“And why would this girl’s boyfriend want to have sex with me? Is he bisexual?”
No, silly, he would want to have sex with you as a public service, in order to teach you a lesson about accountability.
“What if I’m into it?”
What if you are not?
“And then her friends come in – where am I, Amsterdam? Sounds like a hell of a night.”
Yes, that proves only perfectly sober, God-fearing virgins can be raped.
@PosterFormerlyKnownAsElizabeth That was basically the situation involving David Frost, the hockey agent up here who was accused of raping and molesting the junior players under his charge. There were girls involved too (who had consented to sex w/ the boys, like they had consented to them before Frost would join them after plying them w/ alcohol and getting them together, etc) but they weren’t complainants cuz the Crown worried about the slut-shaming, but they were the ones who they could get to testify against Frost (most of the boys didn’t, cuz off the shaming, or betraying their teammates, or being afraid the defense was gonna paint them as gay on the stand, and not betraying their community or their coach… lots of manly suck it up crap, and that Frost was a hero in the community for putting together their star players, even the parents of one of the boys didn’t believe it until they found pictures, which the defense claimed was consensual). And the defense basically tore into the girls w/ slut shaming and victim blaming, and you dressed like a slut, you were a puck bunny (hockey groupie) and etc etc… and that since they had consented to each other, everybody had consented to Frost… neways, they got tarred w/ all of that and so their credibility and reputation was sullied (it was rly brave of them imo to testify for the guys knowing this would happen) and Frost was found Not Guilty -_-;; And his victims were BOYS. It was rly disgusting 🙁 (and shows how all the things we’re against, victim blaming, slut shaming, ideas of manhood, ideas of the “slut” and fallen femininity, homophobia, etc… can intersect to create s- like this)
Amused, you are awesome. You keep writing everything I want to say but am not eloquent enough to!
Hugo the asswipe writes:
“That means really hearing women, without giving into the temptation to become petulant, defensive, or hurt. It means realizing that each and every one of us is tangled in the Gordian knot of sexism, but that men and women are entangled in different ways that almost invariably cause greater suffering to the latter. Stepping up doesn’t mean denying that, as the old saying goes, The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too (TPHMT). It means understanding that in feminist spaces, to focus on male suffering both suggests a false equivalence and derails the most vital anti-sexist work.”
Translation: Accept your status as second-class without bitching about it, because you deserve it. Also, when you’re verbally slandered for no reason, you can’t defend yourself or you’re a misogynist. Act like women are not privileged even though, in this day and age, sexism toward women does not exist in notably greater amounts than sexism toward men.
OK, here’s the relevant passage in bold. Not everywhere, everywhen. But ya, if you’re going to walk into someone else’s house. don’t be the loud jerk who insists that everyone talk to and about your issues. Listen to the people already there who are hosting the event and see if you have anything to add to the conversation.
And if I went onto an audiophile forum, I’d do my best to respect them too and not talk down to them about the fraud that is gold-plated cabling – they probably know way more about it than I do, and I’d come across as a child trying to get the adults’ attention, and maybe they don’t want to go through audiophile 101 every time I show up.
Please read for comprehension instead of just speed.
Oh come on. I’ve read all of Schwyzer’s work (many multiple times) and listened to all the audio lectures he puts up. He clearly thinks that the WORLD is (or should be) a feminist space.
But that’s not what you brought up. You brought up a specific post of his, that was kinda sorta relevant to this thread. So I addressed that. If you want to talk about how much you disagree with him in general there’s better places for that conversation, and you need to provide a heck of a lot more information than you did here.
But that conversation doesn’t belong on this thread.
Okay, let’s make it simple then. The feminist assumption is that women suffer sexism far more than men. This is not true. Therefore, all his fucking posturing is bullshit.
He’s also just a smarmy asshole.
MRAL = thread derail.
Laura, Xtra: Thanks, ladies.
*citation needed
**citation needed
***assumption based on facts not in evidence
I think I’ve explained my politics fairly thoroughly in other threads. My own life is proof that men are not privileged.
Then my life is evidence that they are. Because I had to work twice as hard to get good marks from male science teachers who challenged my work, claiming that I couldn’t have done the work on my own because “you couldn’t have done this without power tools”.
Which is why scientists demand double-blinded studies before they are comfortable drawing conclusions. Because while enough anecdotes can demonstrate a possible trend, they don’t constitute data.
but this has nothing to do with the slutwalks anymore, so I’m not going to continue engaging with your attempted derail (there was a possibility that there was a connection, but you failed to make it)