The SlutWalks have not just driven many MRAs to distraction; they’ve also driven one of the bloggers at the Gates of Vienna to set aside her usual Islam-bashing for a few moments to take on the awful bullies marching in the SlutWalks. Yes, bullies, for how else can we describe young women who go out of their way to highlight their foul sexiness whilst denying their bodies to the helpless males who happen to catch sight of them?
According to the blogger who calls herself Dymphna:
Women who walk around in slutty clothing in order to “voice” their opinion about male sexual aggression are indeed acting out a hugely immature power trip. … Call it for what it is. Strutting your stuff and daring anyone to stop you isn’t real freedom. It’s a sneaking, sadistic bully-girl game.
So evil is the behavior of these slutbullies that if any man decides, upon catching sight of one of them, to grope or otherwise assault her, well, she’s at least as much to blame as the dude who lays his hands on her.
If the act of strutting your stuff results in an equal reaction, a girl must take at least half the responsibility for whatever transpires as a result.
Dymphna seems to mean this quite literally, suggesting that a slut who gets assaulted should be charged
as an accessory before the fact — i.e., if some dolt grabs her, then at the very least she is his partner in crime. And the offense in which they both participate is a serious transgression against civil order. Sadistic provocation is a breach of the peace.
Ironically, Dymphna the blogger has apparently named herself after Saint Dymphna, a 7th century Irishwoman who, legend has it, was murdered by her father after she refused to marry him.
In the light of Dymphna the blogger’s airtight logic, we have to wonder if Saint Dymphna was wearing something really, really slutty. I mean, what else could have inspired her father’s foul desires?
antz: WTF does your Taco Bell encounter have to do with SlutWalks? SlutWalks are about raising awareness and challenging the perception that only women who are dressed a certain way get raped.
Does it ever occur to you that it’s not what you felt upon seeing what happened to that women that the police care about? If she felt harassed or threatened, she had every effing right to call the cops, and they had an obligation to enforce the law. Which forbids, btw, harassing or threatening ANYONE.
AntZ, if the Taco Bell story you’re telling is true and is not being wildly exaggerated, then the guy in the truck was a jerk. First, he glared at her. Glaring is a nonverbal way to threaten other people. Then he honked at her. People honk their horns because they’re pissed off on the road, road rage. I could see how she could feel threatened. He did two things to show anger and aggression toward her, a complete stranger. I don’t care if she was naked. That doesn’t mean he should threaten her.
@Antz: If it’s any consolation, upskirting is still legal in more than half the states. Apparently (if you are too lazy to click on the link), the majority of supposedly feminist-controlled courts have held that a woman who has the temerity to appear in a public place wearing a skirt does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her crotch. But, as we all now know, women who wear pants instead are sluts too (maybe because by wearing pants they deprive men of their God-given right to take pictures of their privates). So you see, contrary to your claims of doom and gloom, certain forms of sexual shaming, exploitation and harassment of women are still legal. Justice!!
(I love your argument, by the way. I expect now every rapist can say: “She has the right to do whatever she wants with her tits, and I have the right to do whatever I want with my hands and penis.”)
“If it is a woman’s body to do with as she pleases (which I support), then it is my fucking mouth and eyes to do with as I please.”
This is my view also, at least the part about your eyes. Looking at someone is not a crime. I don’t disagree with the notion that a woman should be free to dress however she sees fit, free from physical assault, or even verbal assault (a definition of which is no doubt problematic in it’s conception). But if a woman dresses in a way that is appealing to me, I will look at her, I can’t help it: and neither should I be expected to. Much like when Sharculese catches sight of my knee socks and sandals.
The things that I find unpleasant about the “slut walks” are: firstly the glorification of the word slut, as if it’s some sort of achievement for a man or woman to be seen as such, and secondly, the implication that men, in general, and not in fact rapists, need to be told, by women, not to assault them. As if we believe that it is in anyway acceptable to do so.
As if we believe that it is in anyway acceptable to do so.
Are you actually reading anything posted here? Many MRAs do believe that they have a sovereign right to do whatever they want to a woman who has the effrontery to turn them on. What else are the ‘waving raw meat around’ comments supposed to be? Metaphors for vegetarianism?
@qwert: It has already been discussed above that the word “slut” is used and was originally made up just to shame women. To keep them “in their place.” As I mentioned before if the word “slut” means “someone in charge of their sexuality who refuses to disappear into the woodwork” then I have no problem with that.
@ KathleenB
“Many MRAs do believe that they have a sovereign right to do whatever they want to a woman who has the effrontery to turn them on. What else are the ‘waving raw meat around’ comments supposed to be? Metaphors for vegetarianism?”
Whoever says such things is an idiot and completely wrong in their assertions. I don’t agree with them in the slightest. But, as you might admit, there are very few MRA’s: there are a lot more men. The slut walks are not about the way MRA’s view women they are about the way women are viewed by men, as in all men. Big difference.
But if a woman dresses in a way that is appealing to me, I will look at her, I can’t help it: and neither should I be expected to.
There’s a difference between looking to appreciate and looking to violate. I don’t mind if people appreciate my body, that’s what we’re designed for. As long as they’re polite, it fine. But looking can be a violation – outright staring, leering, the looks that are a prelude to some obscene proposal. And the only person who gets to judge the difference is the person being looked at. If a person tells you that your looking offends them or makes them feel unsafe, you responsibility is to apologize and STOP DOING IT, not try to make your inability to control yourself their fault. (the ‘you’ here is general, it applies to everyone)
qwert666 said, “The things that I find unpleasant about the “slut walks” are: firstly the glorification of the word slut, as if it’s some sort of achievement for a man or woman to be seen as such”
That’s exactly what I suspected. I knew that part of the reason MRA’s and misogynists get upset about slutwalks is that they don’t know what to do if the word slut loses its sting. They want to make women feel ashamed of their sexuality, and they don’t know how to do if we pesky feminists take the word back and spoil their fun.
Whoever says such things is an idiot and completely wrong in their assertions. I don’t agree with them in the slightest. But, as you might admit, there are very few MRA’s: there are a lot more men. The slut walks are not about the way MRA’s view women they are about the way women are viewed by men, as in all men. Big difference.
if you already understand that women in revealing clothes dont deserve to be raped, great, youre not the target of slut walk. plenty of people, like oooh i dont know, the lady david wrote the post about, dont seem to get that.
The slut walks are not about the way MRA’s view women they are about the way women are viewed by men, as in all men. Big difference.
SlutWalks are about a general perception that if you dress in a certain way, if you don’t go out at certain times or in certain places, that you don’t drink or dance, that if you only live a cloistered, virginal life, it won’t be your fault if you’re raped. But women are raped all the time, no matter what they’re wearing, and the perceptions I mentioned hinder their ability to report their assault or get any kind of legal remedy for it.
@ ClioPersephone
Slut:
1) A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
2) A woman prostitute
3) a dirty slatternly woman
4) an immoral woman
I don’t dispute the reason why the word came to be, but it still means what it means. I don’t think it really advances women’s position in society to pretend that being a slut is a positive thing. In fact, I think it has the reverse effect. There’s nothing wrong, in my view, with “someone in charge of their sexuality who refuses to disappear into the woodwork” but I don’t believe that this is in fact the definition of slut. I’m of the opinion that there are plenty of women who would agree with me here.
Small addendum to my comment about looking: If another person says, ‘The way you’re looking at the person/small animal/police call box is making me uncomfortable,’ then the response should also be as above.
@ KathleenB
“There’s a difference between looking to appreciate and looking to violate. I don’t mind if people appreciate my body, that’s what we’re designed for. As long as they’re polite, it fine.”
This is very true, appreciating a woman’s beauty and “looking to violate” are not one and the same thing. But still, I don’t want to live in a society where looking at someone is considered a crime. That is some scary stuff right there. Especially when the proof of an offence is if the person being looked at is not happy about the way that they are being looked at. The next step is being arrested for thinking the wrong thing.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
@qwert: No, not staring at someone who has asked you to stop is not a slippery slope to thought crime: it’s common fucking courtesy. Courtesy and respect for the boundaries of others is what allows large numbers of human beings to live together without killing each other over who’s in line first.
There was a short story (by Heinlen?) in which a super-duper genius in the far future is asked to do a study to determine if there is a predictable factor among human societies that have collapsed. She came back with the conclusion that there are multiple ways to know that a society is sick, but the only commonality among the ones that went down was the breakdown of politeness. And not just the lack thereof, but the celebration of that lack.
This was a story, and I don’t know if it’s true, but it struck me as a truism: it’s very difficult to be too polite, or too respectful of other’s rights.
@Qwert
“Slut:
1) A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous.
2) A woman prostitute
3) a dirty slatternly woman
4) an immoral woman”
Modern usage of the world is mostly 1 and sometimes 2 (and sort of 4, but really only as applied to sex and sexuality–you never hear “You embezzled money, you’re a slut!” or “She stole a pack of gum, what a slut!”)
And the people who are trying to “reclaim” (really, claim the first time around) the word are making the point there is nothing wrong with being promiscuous. It does not make you less of a person. Also, the association between the word slut and a manner of dress is ridiculous. Which is where Slutwalks come in – you don’t get to treat women as inferior, or as if they were “asking for it” because they dressed “slutty.”
Or, as someone else put it: My Rights End Where Yours Begin (or Your Rights End Where Mine Begin, both are equally true).
“I don’t dispute the reason why the word came to be, but it still means what it means. I don’t think it really advances women’s position in society to pretend that being a slut is a positive thing. In fact, I think it has the reverse effect. There’s nothing wrong, in my view, with “someone in charge of their sexuality who refuses to disappear into the woodwork” but I don’t believe that this is in fact the definition of slut. I’m of the opinion that there are plenty of women who would agree with me here.”
What you’re really saying is “I obviously know how to advance the cause of women better than women”. You’re just full of old cliches, aren’t you?
@theLaplaceDemon: Thank you! I was trying to come up with a way to say exactly that, but I couldn’t get it to fit together in my head.
Did someone just say they “couldn’t help” what they did with their eyes? I call bullshit. You can definitely control what you do with your eyes. It’s a bit like saying that if you see someone with some kind of deformity or injury that you can’t help but stare. Absolute bullshit. You can close your eyes. You can look at something else. There are other options available to you because YOU control your eyes. The person who looks a certain way that makes you want to stare does not have some kind of eye magnet embedded in their skin. They don’t MAKE YOU stare at them. You choose to stare. You can choose not to stare too.
Feminists are supposed to be the huge “misandrists,” but it’s always the men who are claiming that other men can’t control their bodies and become weak in the presence of tits. If that were true, nudist colonies and nude beaches would be giant rapey gang-bangs. And they aren’t. Men have impulse control. They have brains. They have free will. They can choose to do things or not choose to do things. If they choose to do things that are rude or illegal, there is no excuse. “But if she wears a short skirt, she wants me to stare!” Nope, still not an excuse unless you have a notarized document informing that she does, in fact, want you to stare whenever she wears short skirts. Learn to be a human being. Free will and impulse control are supposed to set us apart from animals. So stop treating men like animals and stop acting like one yourself.
Otherwise we’ll lock you in the zoo and you can find out what it’s like to be ogled endlessly every day.
@ Spearhafoc
“You say that like it’s a bad thing.”
As far as definition 1 goes, then I’d say the more sluts the merrier! More sluts means more sluts for me to have (consensual) sex with! I don’t however think it’s particularly beneficial, or desirable for a society to be made up of a bunch of rutting sluts. I’m no altruist so I won’t pretend to care too much about this, I’m just saying. A slut is a slut, man or woman.
“a bunch of rutting sluts”
Uh. What?
Zarat, you do realize that the link you provided in no way confirms your account of this incident, right? You gave a link that takes you to a post that is almost identical to the post containing the link. Is there any independent verification of this story apart from your, undoubtedly, unbiased eye-witness account?
“A slut is a slut, man or woman.”
And how, exactly, does that affect you in a bad way? Or are you asserting some position onf the “greater good”?