She should be careful, her legs might get stolen! (Image from here)
Conversely, however, does it make sense to deliberately and unnecessarily behave in a way that a predictable proportion of aggressive, testosterone-driven males with poor impulse control will treat as an open invitation for a root? How does “slutwalking” differ in substance from the hypothetical example of a middle class person of either gender parading around the streets of a notoriously poor and violent inner city suburb displaying their iPod, iPhone, iPad and a wallet obviously stuffed with money?
There are all sorts of fascinating analogies happening in the post and comments thread linked to above. The iPod one suggest that if you don’t want something stolen, you should take steps to hide it away. All well and good as far as advice on how not to get your iPod stolen, (until you realise that, you know, the point of an iPod is to use it). But what exactly is being flaunted and stolen when a slut goes around being all slutty? Her midriff? Cleavage? Ankles? If there really is evidence that showing parts of one’s body makes it more likely that men will ignore women’s lack of consent, then we have only two options: like the extreme religious fundamentalists, we need to admit that women must cover themselves up completely; or, we must ensure that men, like uncontrollable animals, are never permitted to roam the streets unattended.
Now, it could be, as Ken suggests here, that the warnings against slutty dress are to avoid “sexual advances”. Except that there’s a world of choices and actions that come between sexual advances and sexual assaults. That advice of this nature slips so easily between the two betrays the lack of concern for a woman’s agency and her voice. Yes, slutty dress may lead to more sexual advances. But should that advance be turned down, then what? Are we suggesting that clothes speak louder than a clear “No”? Or physical resistance? Surely even if the woman simply ignores the advance then that should be the end of it? Are slutty clothes really so powerful that they can outweigh all of that?
To join in on the analogy game, let’s look at glassings. You are more likely to be the victim of a glassing while drinking in a pub. But nobody is suggesting that in order to avoid becoming the victim of a glassing, you may want to consider avoiding pubs. Not because we’re blaming you for any potential violence that may occur, oh no! But you should really consider changing your habits and not doing what you enjoy… just in case! We might judge the event differently if it was two people who were actively fighting each other, sure, but it would never occur to the police to warn against drinking in the presence of other people using glass implements due to the risk of being glassed by some angry drunk. So perhaps let’s agree that likewise, while we may judge events differently if both parties are trying to sexually assault each other, we should leave off telling potential innocent victims to stop doing things that they enjoy.
Women aren’t actually in the habit of leaving their “bread” unattended. To spell it out for those of you in the cheap seats, a woman’s body isn’t an iPod, or a loaf of bread. She can’t “leave it locked up” when she goes outside into the world. The way to stop sexual assaults is for people to a) find out whether they have consent, and b) care about the answer.
Good post. Just a quick comment: not all male 20th century judges were stupid, old unreconstructed masculinist apologists (though its fair to say most were). I remember one reading one judgement in first year law, in which the learned judge distinguished between an ‘irresistible’ urge, and one which was ‘simply not resisted’: the latter being something a defendent could go blow out his ear, as far the this judge was concerned.
I’ve always thought that got substantially to the base of this ‘debate’.
Actually, I would suggest that (not that I disagree with either argument in this post).
It’s the same reason I make sure cars stop at pedestrian crossing lights before stepping out. It’s one thing to have the right, it’s quite another to blindly expect that people will respect it. Righteousness isn’t much comfort in a hospital bed.
It’s a jungle out there.
BTW, “Bread”? Isn’t “uncovered cat meat” the preferred simile these days?
@ Craig Mc: I think it’s more akin to telling people not to be pedestrians in case they are hit by cars.
Looking back 32 years thus far of being female, I think the periods of time when I have received the most “unwanted sexual advances” (covering everything from abusive comments to creepy men following me to one actual attempt at being dragged off a street by a stranger) I have been dressed in some form of exercise attire – tracksuit pants, or gym shorts, with a t-shirt and perhaps a hoodie, possibly a baseball cap and on at least one occasion a bicycle helmet).
In fact, walking the dog, going for a jog or bike ride in my neighbourhood or a stroll in the local park seems to be just the most attention-grabbing thing I’ve been able to do.
This has led me to conclude that this “dressing like a slut” that everyone goes on about means wearing tracksuit pants, t-shirts and joggers whilst being female in public. I mean, that’s when I get the most “unwanted male attention” so clearly these poor men are just driven wild by the sight of my body in a pair of risque grey trackie-dacks.
(The other time I’m apparently irresistible to men is while coming home from work in my revealing pinstripe pants and daring cotton blouse, accessorised with truly shamefully revealing spectacles and incredibly tarty flat shoes, and quite often a lascivious cardigan as well. Could there be an outfit which is more carefully tailored to drive poor men wild?)
Sure, that might work in fantasy land where everybody follows the rules. It may even be possible to get to that point sometime in the future through education and activism. However, today in the real world people have to deal with the fact that a minority of people won’t follow the rules, and that sometimes their own actions may unintentionally influence others towards breaking the rules. I don’t think we should condemn people trying to raise awareness of the risks factors created by people who don’t follow the rules.
For reasonable people the answer would be no. However we’re not (always) dealing with reasonable people, so the answer might very well be yes. I’m not aware of any evidence that convincingly points as to whether or not dress style increases risk.
I think your glassing analogy misses the mark a bit. Let’s consider the following advice: “Don’t be verbally provocative towards people drinking from glassware at a bar.” Do you think this is good advice? I don’t think its suggesting in anyway that someone deserves to be glassed just because they say something rude or offensive. We generally generally accept that people have a right to voice their opinion even if it offends others, so it’s important to note the suggested restriction is context specific. Sure, we send the message that glassings are totally unacceptable. However if it is something that we consider an important issue, shouldn’t we address it from as many angles as possible?
I think it’s more akin to using discretion when assuming your rights will be respected. That doesn’t make your rights any less universal, but who’s going to help defend them when you’re alone on a deserted street at 3am?
You know, I’m beginning to think this is an argument for the right to bear arms.
BTW, this is not as gender-specific as the debate is being framed. I know men who have been victims of unprovoked assault. They had rights, but that thought wasn’t much compensation while rehabbing a brain injury.
Any of us can be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Advising people to avoid that shouldn’t be seen as an outrage.
So, is it even acceptable to violently take someone else’s property (robbery) because you can’t afford what they have? And as Anna says, it only goes down hill from there, (although in our legal tradition there is a real bias towards ownership and possession.)
I believe that prostitution should be criminalised. Is that impossible? I don’t know, maybe. At the very least then, it should be made socially reprehensible — it should be “minimised”. Prostitution is not just selling sex, but human trafficking. It is a human rights abuse and the circumstances which lead people to prostitution should be examined, because selling yourself to people isn’t like having to be a garbage collector or do some other type of undesirable job. Prostitution is not made acceptable by income. Prostitution is violent human exploitation and state regulation isn’t enough to prevent the abuse of prostitutes.
That there is even a discussion about the way people dress and that it is so quickly connected to ideas superficially related to Marxism and religious ideology just shows how fragile our togetherness as a society has become.
You cannot apologise rape, especially not because of the clothing the other person wore. What an incredible discussion.
There’s an awful lot to be unpacked in your attempt to extend Anna’s analogy there. A woman’s body is inherently provocative/rude/offensive just because of its fleshiness being obvious?
Please think a bit more about exactly what people consider to be “slutty” or otherwise transgressive of feminine modesty, and why they think that, and who has decreed that simply by virtue of wearing something deemed “slutty” that some women at some times are socially deemed ‘unrapeable’, their consent assumed by virtue of the urges men have towards them, going by lines of defence in court that juries all too often accept.
As a large-breasted woman, my body seems to be deemed inherently “provocative” no matter what I wear. A comfortable T-shirt? That’s showing off my boobs. A standard business blouse? That’s emphasising my cleavage, I must be well up for it. A turtle-neck sweater? Phwoar, I must want my arse to be groped. (And of course anything high-necked and sufficiently tent-like to truly hide my breasts is considered “frumpy” and “unprofessional” in an office work environment).
Thank goodness for reaching the age of male-gaze invisibility (most of the time). Considering that rapists attack women wearing tracksuits, women wearing burkhas and elderly/disabled women just because they can though, it’s not that reassuring.
Deispis,
I think you’re missing the point. We live together, and we have rules and acceptable codes of behaviour. We have social institutions which are mechanisms to come to agreements about what these rules and codes are, including public debate. You’re taking part in a public discussion about behaviour now and you’re saying that in the interest of self-preservation we should make way for the self-interest of an anti-social minority?! Well, that’s the end of western society. What you’re implying is that we only get together and stand up for the needs of particular groups in society? But it’s the same thing — we need to reinforce the centre and that is an ideological fight. It means standing together for the rights of free speech and sexual equality.
Sure, and I know that one of the risk factors for a pedestrian being hit by a car is crossing the road. But if a car wipes me out at the pedestrian crossing, no-one is going to say, “well, he shouldn’t have tried to cross, he knew the risk he was taking, he was asking for it really.”
Furthermore, no-one would be tempted to take this further and argue that I shouldn’t cross the road at a crossing because they would rightly agree that doing so creates a norm whereby law-abiding pedestrians become targets.
With apologies to the English language, fmark.
Joe “Prostitution is violent human exploitation and state regulation isn’t enough to prevent the abuse of prostitutes.” Joe, if it is violent you are doing it wrong, or you better not forget your safety word, and if you think state regulation does not work, try illegality and no protection from the ugly mugs. Not to mention being at the mercy of those keepers of our morality not squeamish about flaunting the rules for their own satisfaction.
Thanks for the post AW and sorry that comment was a little OT.
If a man/woman has it in him/her to rape someone it won’t matter what the victims are or are not wearing.
“I believe that prostitution should be criminalised”
So….slut-walking is OK unless you’re an actual whore. In which case you’re definitely a slut – almost certainly a trafficked slut – and should be ‘criminalised.’
More leaps of logic in there than a butterfly on crystal…..
Joe, not every sex worker fits the disempowered, trafficked-goods paradigm and it’s pretty uniformed to automatically assume that they do.
1. The pedestrian analogy is inapt. A person who is run down at a pedestrian crossing is the victim of her own trusting nature and/or the victim of negligence or recklessness of the driver.
The man who persists with unwanted sexual advances is neither negligent nor reckless. That man persists with malice aforethought. These chaps are aware of what the object of their attention feels or thinks but too often they don’t care very much what the object of their attentions feels or thinks.
2. The ipod analogy is inapt. You can hide an ipod. You can’t hide the fact that you are female.
I’m afraid that very few analogies can be constructed that map successfully the fraught psychological, cultural and juridical landscape of negotiation of sexual advances.
“nobody is suggesting that in order to avoid becoming the victim of a glassing, you may want to consider avoiding pubs”….
I haven’t been to a pub for the last 15 years for exactly this reason, other than on a Sunday for lunch with the kids amongst other families. Even then things can get ugly. Pubs are very dangerous places in Australia and I suggest that they be avoided at all costs. That’s a shame, but it’s real.
Having said that I agee whole heartedly with – “the way to stop sexual assaults is for people to a) find out whether they have consent, and b) care about the answer….”. This will need an esstenial shift in overall Australian (male) culture, and that is going to take a while. As men, we’ve just got to keep at it, and not let sexism pass when we are confronted by it, ever.
Well dylwah and Geoff, I say b*shit. The evidence is that legalised prostitution means more prostitutes and more abuse. You might feel better about going to a brothel, thinking this is just like buying candy, but I think you’re wrong. You two must also think that the people who run red light districts are just good businessmen.
human trafficking and sexual slavery
violence against prostitutes
No, but if they were smart before the fact they would have said, “make sure the cars are going to stop before crossing because sometimes they don’t”.
Just to repeat, I agree with both sides of the debate: 1. People have rights and are entitled to enjoy them. 2. We live in a world where people disrespect others’ rights all the time. Don’t become a statistic.
@Joe, there are, believe it or not, very politically active sex workers who have never been human-trafficked and who don’t have experience of violent abuse from their clients. So why don’t we treat the problems of human trafficking and violent abuse as problems to be dealt with on their own terms, without stigmatising the sex-workers who are just making a living?
I also suggest that the prostitution criminalisation debate is potentially derailing when what we are talking about is women “dressing slutty”. You can argue the toss over at the post I just linked to instead, should you wish.
Craig Mc, have you ever seen any actual evidence that women dressed sluttily are more likely to be sexually assaulted than women dressed modestly? Is it good advice if it’s not actually true?
In earlier days I used to go topless at the beach. There was a big difference between lying on your towel or going in for a swim to strolling up to the kiosk for an ice-cream. The latter of which I never saw anyone doing bare breasted. Context is everything.
I’m not sure what I think about slutwalking, but I do find the term appalling as it slips into our everyday vernacular and I don’t think it does anything for the cause other than to perhaps attract a host of unwitting Uncle Pervys.
In my middle years, I find there is a great case to be made for modesty in attitude and dress. My step daughters (12 & 15) wear to my mind, indecently low cut t-shirts of which I silently object not because I think they will solicit unwanted attention but because their lack of modesty embarrasses me. (A bit as my lack of modesty at 18 now embarrasses me.) I don’t think they’d ever go topless at the beach however, as their lack of adequate clothing has nothing to do with being uninhibited about nudity, but everything to do with presenting themselves in a highly sexualised way (at too young an age). Nudity per se horrifies them.
@ Eric Sykes
“Having said that I agee whole heartedly with – “the way to stop sexual assaults is for people to a) find out whether they have consent, and b) care about the answer….”. This will need an esstenial shift in overall Australian (male) culture, and that is going to take a while”
Sorry but you just tarred every Australian male with a very broad, and very nasty brush.
I have not noticed a “culture” in Australia where men constantly think of women like that.
Men who think of women in “that” way are belittled and shunned in Australian male culture, well in my part of Australia anyway.
Maybe you hang out in different circles?
Joe – “You might feel better about going to a brothel, thinking this is just like buying candy” No Joe, i am happy that friends and family are safer. safer from assault, from the law, HIV and the rest. They will always be face some kind of threat, but your snide prudery would amplify them.
tt,
yeah, had that feeling myself. Srry, it’s an issue of mine and we had a really terrible case of abuse here just recently, which really got to me.
<Mr Garrison>Sluts are bad, mmmkay</Mr Garrison>
I think this is what it comes down to, If you believe dressing ‘sluttishly’ is morally wrong, you may believe people that dress ‘provocatively’ deserve what they get. And it seems you’ll take advantage of crime against people who offend your morals to justify your objection.
If you don’t have a moral objection then it seems fair that people have a right to dress how they like. And that people, especially those who are doing nothing wrong, don’t deserve to be victims.
tigtog, in today’s culture I think it is possible for women to dress in a style that will be provocative from the point of view of some men (or at least more provocative that other dress styles). There’s a point I’ve seen continually made that women (and girls) are expected to dress or portrayed as dressing in a sexual style. Does this not imply that some styles are more sexually provocative than others, even if just in a cultural context?
Joe:
I said no such thing. I’m saying an anti-social minority don’t give a damn about our rules, and we ignore that at our own peril.
OnTheBus #21
Funny, I haven’t noticed many of the footballers who have assumed that a young woman implicitly consents to sex with them because she just said yes to one of their mates (or was lying unconscious and helpless somewhere) being belittled or shunned lately. They mostly seem to be getting their contracts renewed or even lucrative TV work.
Desipis #25
Where’s the line between sexually inviting and sexually provocative?
A person might feel interested in sex and choose to dress in a sexually inviting way in hopes of attracting a personable partner. Dressing in hopes of attracting somebody personable does not mean the person gives up their right to say no to sexual interaction with anybody/everybody else.
@ tigtog
“Funny, I haven’t noticed”
Really? So your family and friends agree with the footballers behaviour?
Or do they all think it is reprehensable and the clubs are to be shunned for supporting the alleged rapists?
“They mostly seem to be getting their contracts renewed or even lucrative TV work.”
The tv and football clubs are representative of “overall Australian (male) culture” ?
I do not think so.
never actually been “on the bus” @ 21 “you just tarred every Australian male with a very broad, and very nasty brush”. Yes, quite right, I did that on purpose. And of course there are exceptions that prove the rule, although in Australia, few, and far between.
tigtog @ 26 is spot on, pointing out the norm.
Well I will be slutwalking with many different women. I hope there are prostitutes by my side, Joe. Thousands of them. I’m going with a neck to knee Christian who won’t say the word “shit”. And I’m going with slut reclamation women who will be wearing the slut outfits. I am going with 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists. The point being – we all come from different feminist worlds, me from Avalon with a big shiny sword, them from everywhere really. We have been all to some degree formed within a patriarchal culture and taking into account our different personalities and ages, you would have thought there might have been a divide about the walk and the word ‘slut’. But it’s amazing. We all agree on this: sexual assault is the fault of the sexual assaulter. It’s rather fucking glorious. No one amongst the women is actually arguing about whether our clothes attract the assault. It’s a given that’s a big minimising free pass by which patriarchal culture gets to not change its behaviour nor cede an inch of power. I’m going to assault you then blame you or start using analogies whereby you are likened to an object. Fuck that in the head. Anti-Kate, those tracksuit pants – may I suggest if you are going to put yourself out there like that you just wear an ipod on your arse next time? Apparently it amounts to the same thing.
OnTheBus, a discussion about the culture at large is not the same as blaming each and every individual in that culture. Thank you for making that point, let’s move on now.
OnTheBus, instead of threadjacking with regard to Eric’s wording, and making yet another post on this blog all about whether OnTheBus has been outraged by horrible lefties, how about you tell us whether you agree with his conclusion?
Sorry Anna, comments crossed.
I haven’t made any assertions about womens’ dress. To the contrary, I’ve pointed out that violent assaults (sexual or otherwise) are a non-gender-specific issue.
The only assertions I’ve made are about personal safety.
Which neatly sums up what Slutwalk came from – women being told that for their personal safety they should not dress like sluts. Which says that if you do dress as a slut you are endangering yourself, and neatly ignores the fact that if there is no rapist deciding to rape you, you won’t be raped and if there is a rapist deciding to rape you it doesn’t matter what the hell you wear.
tigtog, there is no “line”. We’re talking about uncertainty and risk which implies a continuum not some sort of discrete step between safe and risky. It’s up to the individual to consider the spectrum of risk and draw their own line (which can only be done if they’re aware of the risk).
I agree.
Where “slut”, if translated to male attire, often just means “dressed for hot weather”.
Both men and women are sometimes at risk if they go into dark and lonely areas, if there are people there with evil intent. The difference is that women (and, sometimes, gay men) who are informed that they should not have been there in the first place and therefore should bear some responsibility, even though they were only minding their own business in the first place.
In other words: this idea, as it is applied to women, transsexuals and other marginalised groups, is a restriction on our freedom of movement and association. Nothing more, nothing less.
Unless you’re Jeff Fenech, walking in that dark alleyway is dangerous for you too, bro. Difference is you have social permission.
how about you tell us whether you agree with his conclusion?
Eric’s conclusion seems to be that he is ashamed of being a man.
[snide personal attack deleted ~moderator]
Helen – I think that you’re wrong that it is not applied to men. Have you seen the coverage that Kevin Foley (former state treasurer, now police minister) has copped over getting assaulted in public? The media were quite happily getting into him for being out at 3am on Sunday morning by himself looking for a taxi and implying therefore that he had some level of responsibility for what happened. They didn’t let up much when he was assaulted a second time a few months later and it was before midnight either.
btw I think its a disservice to refuse to warn men or women of the increased risk (and its risk – not a guarantee that something will or won’t happen if you do or don’t do something) of some act. Or worse, deny that an increased risk exists if the statistics indicate that it does.
Its a separate issue if people wish to protest that the increased risk should not exist or want to work towards solutions to ensure the risk is reduced.
@PeterTB,
Vowing to challenge sexism whenever he is confronted by it equates to being ashamed of being a man?
That reads as if you believe that giving sexism a pass when expressed by other men is some sort of masculine duty. Is that really what you believe?
Great post!
Eric “Yes, quite right, I did that on purpose. And of course there are exceptions that prove the rule, although in Australia, few, and far between.”
Sorry tt, but this is just unhealthy self-hate, and it’s important (especially for Eric), that he is called on it.
PeterTB:
How does men fighting against sexism reduce their masculinity?
Just curious…
PA: “How does men fighting against sexism reduce their masculinity?”
It doesn’t. That’s not my beef.
Chris @40,
so you really think men are equally criticised for being out at night?
Really?
You seem to have been inhabiting a different universe.
I find the criticism of that politician pretty unusual, and I think the underlying reason is that they think he represented a target, as a politician and police minister.
The difference is that that “brought it on yourself” attitude is the default for us, rather than a newsworthy exception.
How did we go from:
“The way to stop sexual assaults is for people to a) find out whether they have consent, and b) care about the answer.”
to
“ohhh poor men we’re victims too even if its self hate and it must be addressed cos blah blah blah.”
I’ve got an idea, lets comment on a thread about the unreasonableness of blaming victims – especially female victims of sexual assault – and make it all about us and how hard we’ve all got it. Sounds like a good idea hey fellas?
FFS.
“Craig Mc, have you ever seen any actual evidence that women dressed sluttily are more likely to be sexually assaulted than women dressed modestly? Is it good advice if it’s not actually true?”
Tigtog, I have, in Indonesia in 2000. I was on holiday there and in a guesthouse in Bogor, to the south of Jakarta. One of my fellow guests was a young Dutchman who had come down with his girlfriend through Sumatra as part of their grand trip which was going to end up, after they had travelled through Java, Bali and Nusa Tenggara in a working holiday in Australia.
I know Sumatra well and have the happiest memories of its peoples’ courtesy, generosity and hospitality, which I think is the best you would find in a country filled with courtesy, generosity and hospitality.
His and his girlfriend’s experience of Sumatran hospitality was very different. In fact he told me of a nightmare experience as they took a bus trip down from northern Sumatra to the Sunda Strait where they crossed into Java. His girlfriend he told me had been spat upon by Sumatran women and the young men on the bus touched her up constantly. He described a thirty six hour horror story.
I couldn’t believe him for the experience he described was so at odds with my experiences in Sumatra and I told him so.
Then his girlfriend, who had been sleeping, joined us. She was wearing a pair of crotch hugging denim shorts and a low hanging flimsy top which exposed much of her breasts. Appropriate clothing, I don’t doubt for young Dutch people travelling in a hot tropical climate. Sluttish dress by any Indonesian standard.
I asked, and she confirmed, that this was how she was dressed on the bus journey. I sugggested that that form of dress would be offensive to the conservative Indonesians. She strongly asserted her right to dress in any way she pleased.
I didn’t point out that the Indonesians would then assert their right, in that case, to spit on her, and their young men to molest her as the prostitute their society had cued them to think of someone who dressed as she had.
I did suggest that a nice gesture would be to go to a local market and buy a traditional sarong which the Indonesians would see as a courtesy to their culture. She sounded pretty dubious about this but I hope she did. If not she was likely to experience a lot more spitting and molesting as she made the rest of her way through Indonesia.
Peter TB, unless you think that ES is claiming to embody the whole of Oz masculinity, your assertion of self hate makes no sense, and i didn’t see him do that. I have a more benign view of Oz masculinity than the one ES has expounded, but he is entitled to his view and you unfortunately are entitled to waffle on and miss the point.
Eric’s got every reason to be proud. From what I see here he’s Doin it Rite.
jules “ohhh poor men we’re victims too even if its self hate and it must be addressed cos blah blah blah.”
Stop making stuff up jules and try to follow the discussion
@47: You think people should have the right to spit on other people? Jeebus…
No Helen. I don’t think it’s right to spit on people.
But conservative Indonesians do when their values are offended.
I wasn’t passing judgment but telling what I observed.
You should be a little less judgmental yourself.
dylwah: “Peter TB, unless you think that ES is claiming to embody the whole of Oz masculinity, your assertion of self hate makes no sense”
Have a look at ES original statement again, dylwah: “This will need an esstenial shift in overall Australian (male) culture, and that is going to take a while”. Then, when challenged on that, he came in harder with “Yes, quite right, I did that on purpose. And of course there are exceptions that prove the rule, although in Australia, few, and far between”.
Now, these statements, individually and together can only mean that, according to ES, the majority of Oz males are sexist, and blame the victims of sexual assault. The statements themselves are clearly and blatantly sexist – and nonsense, I think.
Now, ES would have no reason to think that he is any different from the majority of Oz males, now, would he?
PeterTB we’re done with this subject now. Which men are rapists and which men hate themselves is not the subject at hand.
pax AW
I support your right to walk in safety BTW
@GregM, so your response when asked for evidence is to offer up a single personal anecdote?
How is that one woman’s experience of public disapproval of her attire supposed to be evidence that transgressing dress mores is more likely overall to lead to more rapist attacks (which is what the original policeman claimed)? You don’t even know whether following your advice occurred and whether, if it did, it made any difference to her experience.
The plural of anecdotes is not data. Data is evidence. You have provided no evidence.
“The tv and football clubs are representative of “overall Australian (male) culture” ? ” OTB @ 28
They are a representation of acceptable norms. So its not “every Australian male” as such, just within the bounds of acceptable behaviour for men, especially blokes.
“Eric’s conclusion seems to be that he is ashamed of being a man.”
- PeterTB
Well I can’t speak for him, but since he makes a point I agree with I can assume you’d say the same applies.
I’m not ashamed of myself or my masculinity.
I’m not ashamed of my schlong or my capacity for violence. I’m not ashamed of my irritating nature or my athletic prowess. I’m not ashamed of my tendency to put myself on the line physically for people. I’m not ashamed of aggresive nature when I feel its appropriate and I’m not even ashamed of my attraction to people I find attractive.
Of course I’m not ashamed of all the aspects of masculinity either, the ones that don’t fit our typical cultural stereotypes. My capacity to be gentle, caring, nurturing, vulnerable and even scared sometimes.
Thats way different to being shamed by the behaviour of other men. Its more than embarassing. It brings us down. Makes us less than we should be.
I’m ashamed that males with a voice in our national media can reflect on an alleged rape by the head of one of the most powerful institutions on the planet as “embarassing” and no one screams blue murder about it.
That someone else on a political blog thats sposed be serious can compare women to ipods or wallets then claim to be offended by the notion that he might be behaving in a misogynist manner by doing so.
I’m ashamed of the way the whole St Kilda/Nixon thing was presented from day one.
And I could go on and on and on but this thread shouldn’t really be males yelling about how it is to be a male.
@Craig Mc 6: “Any of us can be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Advising people to avoid that shouldn’t be seen as an outrage.”
Avoid what? That’s the problem. Assault can happen anywhere to anyone and rape often happens when the person is *known* to the victim. You are implying that the freedom of movement for some groups is going to be more restricted than others (especially when they are disproportionately affected) and that it’s somehow ok for this to be the case. Don’t go to pubs? Don’t go for a jog by yourself? Don’t go outside alone, anywhere? What about at home? Don’t have acquaintances over alone? Basically, the list is never ending and impossible to implement.
To me, “Slutwalk” is all about people who are against victim-blaming. I don’t see it as men vs. women politics. Victim-blaming can affect men too. How else can you explain stories of the police laughing at a man reporting that he has been raped? Or, as Hungry Beast showed, why it’s underreported in prisons? Particularly hopeless in the prison case, because of society’s attitude that ‘they deserve it’ . Prisoners are released back into the community, struggle with intimate relationships, even perpetuate the crime itself.
I also have female friends who have not reported being raped to the police because they were worried that the police would think it was their fault. Is it fair to expect someone to report a crime when the pervasive attitude is that they are to blame for it, for not following some rule that is impossible to implement? This doesn’t help reduce rape, all it does is ensure that rape statistics are inaccurate and renders the perpetrators invisible.
I’m sure Greg doesn’t think so. Probably more that 300M people might think otherwise. As a tourist you’re not likely to change their minds – however wrong they are.
I wouldn’t recommend Saudi Arabia to Greg’s Dutch acquaintance.
I too wonder if there’s any evidence (in the Australian context) that “dressing like a slut” puts you at greater risk of sexual assault and rape. It seems pretty clear it increases the risk of verbal harrassment but beyond that, is it true? I think it might be a cultural hangover and/or a control mechanism. And I agree with Anti_Kate at 4 that, from the experiences my female friends have had, they really aren’t able to easily judge either a) what clothes might “encourage” men to assault them OR b) what clothes might encourage men to find them sexually attractive.
If it were true that there were a simple rule (“if you wear clothes like X that make you appear sexually available in manner Y then you will be at a greater risk of sexual assault) then I can appreciate people giving personal safety advice (like a policeman) telling women to consider making a judgment about their right to wear what they want vs. the increased risk.
But I don’t think such a rule exists and I don’t think the personal safety advisors usually hand out their advice in such a non-judgmental way.
“@GregM, so your response when asked for evidence is to offer up a single personal anecdote?”
Umm, tigtog your question of Craig Mc was:
“Craig Mc, have you ever seen any actual evidence that women dressed sluttily are more likely to be sexually assaulted than women dressed modestly? Is it good advice if it’s not actually true?”
That question lends itself to a single personal anecdote which is evidence in itself.
Your claim that “The plural of anecdotes is not data. Data is evidence. You have provided no evidence.” is so unintelligent, given your original question and given the history of what you call “anecdotes” but which our courts refer to as evidence, and which they sift to find the truth in their judgments, as they have for seven hundred years, that you really should take some time to actually learn what evidence is in our society.
Strong hint: It’s not just data. only the truly ignorant would think that it was.
Your idea of evidence only works for courts testing the facts of individual cases, where an individual anecdote is indeed considered somewhat acceptable testimony regarding the fact that this one woman was indeed harassed while “dressed sluttily” (although of course your anecdote is merely hearsay, not eyewitness testimony).
However, you may have noticed that courts rarely rule on matters of statistical probability, which is what we were discussing. For assessing risk ie whether “women dressed sluttily are more likely to be sexually assaulted than women dressed modestly” , you need statistical data.
[comment edited to increase clarity ~tt]
Helen @ 45 – I didn’t claim that men and women were criticised equally in those sorts of cases. It was you who implied that it was only something that happened to women and sometimes men who are gay. I was pointing out that it does happen to men too.
What happened to Foley is because of an public expectation that “responsible” people should not be out and about partying to 3am. And as Treasurer he should be a responsible person. And the logic follows (which I don’t agree with) that therefore he bears some responsibility for what happened. And when he got assaulted again there was an argument over whether he was in a nightclub or a wine bar, with the implication being that as a responsible person he shouldn’t be in a nightclub.
The area I disagree with is that warning people of increased risk (where there is evidence) is victim blaming. I don’t believe it is, though there is an unavoidable risk of it being seen that way when real life examples are used. The problem is not that we warm women too much, its that we don’t warn men enough – eg we should be telling young men/boys the increased risks when they go out and get drunk. Not only do they leave themselves more vulnerable to assault (and men are more likely to get assaulted than women) but statistically they’re more likely to do something they’ll really regret when sober again.
For example I think the recent drunk walking campaign is a good thing. If a drunk walker gets run over in many cases a large part of the responsibility is still going to reside with the driver. But its important to educate people of the increased risk of getting run over when drunk walking.
Tigtog. your question of Craig Mc was this:
“Craig Mc, have you ever seen any actual evidence that women dressed sluttily are more likely to be sexually assaulted than women dressed modestly? Is it good advice if it’s not actually true?”
This was the question I answered, and only this. I answered your question with anecdotal evidence, with which, in the terms on which it was asked, it was properly answered.
Nothing of your question of Craig Mc raised the issue that you now raise:
“However, you may have noticed that courts rarely rule on matters of statistical probability, which is what we were discussing. For assessing risk, you need statistical data.”
You are now trying to move the goalposts and making things up.
In any event, if you read Court decisions you’d be surprised at how often Courts refer to matters of statistical probability in reaching their decisions.
I know of a case where people might claim the way the victims (plural) dressed was a “contributing factor”. Bullshit. There was only one contributing factor, that was the attitude of the guys involved.
I’m just wondering at which point the guest house owner asked GregM to leave because he was freaking the other guests out by staring their girlfriends and offering fashion tips.
GregM,
I’m following you, you’re at pg56 of the How to be a blog troll for dummies book. How tiresome for everyone else that you’re working though all the exercises.
GregM isn’t a troll, Joe. I think it is worth pointing out, though, that even taken as a singular anecdote it still isn’t even an example of skimpy dress putting someone at risk of sexual assault.
But if we’re making claims without evidence, then why not consider the idea that creating a cultural meme in which how a woman dresses puts her at higher risk may in fact work in the opposite direction. That focussing on the victim’s choices gives the perpetrator a way of claiming diminished responsibility. Even if there is a link, the causal relationship could work the other way.
I think that females should be allowed to wear basically whatever they like – and from what I’ve seen around Leederville and Northbridge recently they do – no matter the temperature. Bravo!
They also should be allowed to carry semi-automatic pistols in order to protect their honour. You can get some really cool ones these days that match your shoes and fit in a relatively small purse.
Er, no I’m not, and I challenge you to quote where I imply that.
I’m saying we’re all primarily responsible for our own personal safety, and that everyone should always be aware of their surroundings and risk when in public. Some places and times are worse than others. i.e. The CBD on a Saturday night.
Yes, but “I’m saying we’re all primarily responsible for our own personal safety” is applied in a different way to men and women. We are expecting women to limit their movements and association much more than men do for “safety”.
From a UK study:
Helen:
Of course the true figures on those attitudes are likely to be far worse as people tend to tell pollsters what they want to hear rather than their true beliefs.
Could I propose a “C”, — understand that sexual assault is committed by the aggressor, and not provoked by the victim?
I realise my proposed (c) is implied by your (a) and (b), but it could be that it needs to be spelled out for the hard-of-thinking. Around half the responses on this thread alone, (which is, if anything, representative of a community who shouldn’t require educatin’ in these matters…) appear to be from some folks who need it spelt out for them, anyway…
Well I held off as long as I could but I can’t any longer. I find this whole “well the victim is partly to blame” attitude contemptable. And the whole I-Pod comparison also contempable. I find that sort of arguement to be self hating from a human perspective, it assumes that at heart all humans are just animals and unable to strive to be better.
I can only talk from personal experience. I remember as a kid a few things.
We were poor and I was insanely jealous of the kids who had their own Walkman. It would never have even crossed my mind to steal it or attack the owner and steal their Walkman. Because even as a kid I knew such behaviour was wrong.
When a was abused as a kid I’m pretty damn sure I wasn’t wearing anything slutty.
Things are improving though. When I was bullied at school it was strongly implied that maybe the responsibility lay with me, the victim. (Which was part of the reason back in the day I didn’t have the confidence to report the more serious abuse.)
However it’s clear from the arrest of the IMF chief that sexual assualt is finally being treated seriouslly and “don’t you know who I am” doesn’t cut it anymore.
I just want to point out that me and my body isn’t an IPhone or an IPad. That’s all.
Fine – what about when Apple release the iPod 10.0 skull implant?
Helen – those stats are obviously a worry, but I dare say they are also cause for optimism – I strongly suspect those number would have been even higher 20 years ago.
a bit late but hey you get that…
Anna, I agree. A woman’s body should not be objectivefied. Drawing analogies on the basis of biological sex to a consumer item only reinforces a social structure that says women’s bodies are objects to be consumed, by men. This may not have been Ken’s conscious intention but it is clearly contained in his choice of analogy. His concern about protecting property implies that the behaviour of men is fixed, a “natural” feature in the human landscape. As you say in the post, the answer is lies in addressing something more fundamental to social structure, ie, why is half of the human population considered to be better, superior, more deserving etc, than the other half. Why do we even see a divide or the “other sex”?
Hey TT
I’m either very dopey and didn’t notice it first time or you’ve added it since, but the inline preview is pretty nifty! Love your work!
The big difference, I suppose is that a person can give consent, but a piece of property can’t. All property is theft, anyway.
[...Ddoh!OH!!] and ss!!!! Where is the chagrined emoticon when you need it?
[no worries - comment inadvertently placed in wrong thread has been removed ~ moderator]
Joe – “You might feel better about going to a brothel, thinking this is just like buying candy
Actually Joe, my employment responsibilities include the NSW Sex Worker Outreach Project. It’s staffed by some remarkable women and men, dedicated to health promotion principles, who might well change your mind about sex workers.
I just got back from a walk by the river.
At one stage on an isolated part of the path I was accosted by an elderly gentleman who said hello, asked me the time and then grabbed my hand and moved in close while asking for a kiss. If he’d been a bit younger I could have been easily overpowered there, but he was too frail to insist when I twisted my hand up, palm outwards and ready to shove him hard, so he backed off.
I was wearing mid-calf baggy trousers, a loose T-shirt, a loose jacket covering my hips and running shoes. Hair in a pony-tail, no makeup, plump and middle-aged.
Some people have absolutely no idea how the threat of harassment/assault is present every day in women’s lives as regular background noise. What we wear makes not a blind bit of difference.
This charges against Strauss-Kahn should really be instructive to anyone who advises that women can avoid sexual assault by being “sensible” or “dressing appropriately”.
Here was a (relatively powerless) woman who was at work, in the daytime, dressed in what I imagine was one of those nurse-style shifts that cleaners often wear, no doubt in sensible shoes, who was sexually assaulted. How, pray tell, could she have dressed any more modestly or behaved any differently to stave off the assault?
Well, that’s different, sings the chorus of concern troll men who insist on telling us women it’s all our fault that men find us so damn irresistible.
But you see it isn’t any different – she was guilty of the being female, and that was enough to make her a target.
I hate to play the slippery slope game but as Anna so kindly made clear with the above illustration, the endpoint of all this “don’t dress like a slut and you won’t be raped or harassed” mansplaining is, indeed, something akin the burqa*, and a repressive anti-woman culture such as in place in parts of the Middle East, where women are blamed for being assaulted simply because they have the temerity to walk to out of their front doors unaccompanied.
I recall reading about one of the victims of the ‘Sydney gang rapes’ (wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_gang_rapes) that she was sitting reading a book at a rail station when she was forcibly abducted. Doesn’t appear that dress had anything at all to do with the assault. Ethnicity, yes; dress, no. There are, therefore, many more factors at play in sexual assault against women than what they’re wearing at the time of the assault.
Just gave my sister the heads-up about my assailant, because she jogs on that same river path regularly, and discovered that her houseguest was accosted in exactly the same way by almost certainly the same man only last week.
That makes it a pattern, and that makes it a police matter. There were elderly women walking that path today, and young girls too. He might not be quite so frail as all that.
The police should be coming by sometime later tonight to take a statement.
FMIW, I dont think ” dressing slutty ” has anything to do with men getting raped in prison, and certainly nothing to do with ” gender suppression”.
Plus everyone deserves to be able to take a walk unmolested, regardless of what they are wearing.
I think there’s a big difference between claiming that certain behavior will avoid something bad happening compared to claiming that certain behavior reduce or increase the probability of something happening. I think in most cases the claims around clothing are about the latter rather than the former – though I have no idea whether they are true or not.
One thing which I think is probably true is that predators prefer targets which appear to be more vulnerable than those which don’t. Perhaps clothing does influence that perception, perhaps it doesn’t. Being visibly drunk or appearing to be unaware of what is going on around you I would guess probably does.
I totally agree, but that is not really related to whether in the current situation one’s own behavior does or doesn’t affect the risk of being assaulted. Its kind of like when holidaying in places where the crime rate is really high. Tourists get warned not to walk alone at night. Its not at all their fault if they get attacked, nor is not walking alone at night a guarantee that they won’t get attacked, but it will reduce the likelyhood of that occurring.
Ken Parish is being obtuse:
“Conversely, however, does it make sense to deliberately and unnecessarily behave in a way [slutwalk] that a predictable proportion of aggressive, testosterone-driven males with poor impulse control will treat as an open invitation for a root?”
The whole point of slutwalking is that it is an intensely political act. The sight of dozens of women “slutted up” would cow the most impulsive propositioner. Such propositions arise only when the male senses he is in a position of power over the object of his attentions. Being howled down by an assembly of “sluts” would dampen the libido of the most insensitive chauvinist.
In a clever, Gandhian sense, slutwalking overturns the usual power relationships between the ogler and the object. The ogler may grow resentful but that resentfulness diminishes his sense of potency.
I won’t speculate as to why Ken Parish fails to recognise this fact.
Chris – you can make the choice or not to holiday in a crime prone area. You can’t make the choice to leave your vagina at home, it’s kinda built in. There is no analogy that will work when 90 year old women in nursing homes have been sexually assaulted. It doesn’t matter what you wear, where you are, who you are, what matters is that you are in the presence of a rapist who has decided to rape.
The only behaviour that reduces the potential to be raped is the rapists – i.e. deciding not to rape someone.
“It doesn’t matter what you wear, where you are, who you are, what matters is that you are in the presence of a rapist who has decided to rape. ”
This is true.
If a woman or girl decides to wear a mini-skirt, no underwear and flash her bits about is purely her own affair.
It is a matter of her own dignity, or lack thereof.
It is NOT permission for sexual assault.
It is permission to oogle her bits.
Sexual Assault Prevention Tips
Mindy @ 92 – thats quite an assertion there. I’m curious as to what you think is different about rapists than from other criminals such that they do not in any way a change their behavior based on the way the people they prey on behave.
For example, why is a thief to some extent deterred by a locked door or attracted by a door or window left open, but a rapist is not. Why a thief would consider a person passed out drunk on the street a more attractive target than a sober one walking with some friends, but a rapist would not? Why a violent mugger may find a vulnerable looking person walking alone at night a more attractive target than someone in a crowd in the middle of the day, but a rapist does not?
Because by claiming that
then that is effectively what you are asserting.
Chris, have you read this thread at all?
Let me save you some time. Read comments @76 and @84-@86 inclusive.
Then reconsider whether your line of questioning is really so clever or wise as you reckon.
It’s really simple, Chris. Rapes wouldn’t happen if people chose not to rape. Is that really, really so difficult to follow?
Mercurius @ 97 – no kidding. And robberies wouldn’t happen if people chose not to rob. Assaults wouldn’t happen if people chose not to assault other people. No one would get murdered if people chose not to murder other people. I wish we lived in a world like that, but we don’t. I wish we would as a community put more effort into getting to a world closer to that dream, but we don’t currently live in that world.
That doesn’t mean that people are unable to do anything which reduce the probability of that happening to them. Note: reduce the probability, not remove the possibility of that happening. Why is it pretty much accepted that it is the case with other crimes such as theft or assault, but not rape? What’s different?
Chris, regardless of whether someone has their house done up like Fort Knox or if it’s protected by a fly screen, if some thugs came in and beat the shit out of the occupant before robbing them would you then feel comfortable saying to the victim that it was somehow their fault? That the people who broke in were somewhat less to blame? That their criminal responsibility was somewhat mitigated?
Also, once more, exactly how is a long skirt like a security system or an extra deadbolt?
What’s different is-
-A woman is not a house
-Society does not yet discuss, except for some notable exceptions like Men Can Stop Rape, reducing the probabiility of rape by changing how boys are socialised, rather than reducing girls’ and womens’ freedom of movment and association.
Currently, the legal system and media contribute to an impression that if a woman has failed to perform her womanhood in certain approved ways, a rapist is to a greater or lesser degree off the hook. That is rape culture.
Another thing that is different is that for all the “common sense” pap about skimpy dress being equivalent to sending up the Rapist Signal into the night sky to alert the Local Rapist to a target, there’s still no actual data being produced as evidence to support the hypothesis that more flesh-coverage = less risk of rape. Unlike the actual data that supports risk-reducing messages about security doors and deadbolts on houses.
Helen “reducing the probabiility of rape by changing how boys are socialised…” exactly, that seems to me to be a long term but far more sound prevention plan than women never leaving the house (in anything other than chain mail trousers).
@98, Chris you mention all these crimes like they’re a fixed, inevitable, part of the landscape. Cultures can influence and shape behaviours to the point of virtually eliminating certain ones.
For example, Japan is a place with famously low rates of property theft. It’s not because Japanese people all have armed guards outside their house. It’s partly a cultural thing, and partly a choice individuals make as a result of how they’ve been enculturated.
After the recent earthquake and tsunami disaster, the virtual absence of looting and civil chaos was a notable feature of the public response. It’s not because the Japanese army had shoot-on-sight orders and put the populace under military curfew. It’s a cultural thing.
Your initial premise, that “crime happens”, so starkly removes any notion of agency (individual or cultural) as to deny human agency altogether. You probably consider the modest proposition that men actually can stop rape to be at odds with reality. But it is your account of the inevitability of rape, theft and murder that is at odds with everything we know and believe about human agency and socialisation.
And, as mentioned previously, have you read comments @76 and @84-@86 inclusive yet? Your initial reply would indicate that if you have read them, you have failed to understand the germane point.
Nuns get raped, Chris. How do you account for that, other than as rape having a direct 1-1 correlation with the actions of rapists?
Tigtog, I hope the cops arrest that swine that attacked you. That’s a shocking thing to have happen to you.
Reading this thread is just so depressing.
Thank you Scott for the support. Given that as assaults go, this one was relatively trivial and thus unlikely to lead to a conviction in court of an old man that any half way competent defence lawyer will present as a very sympathetic defendant? I’ll be awfully surprised if he is ever arrested, unless he does the same and worse to many more women.
Which I hope for their sake never happens.
I wish that the men here and (and not so strangely enough I think it’s all men) who write about women’s bodies as though they’re a piece of property that can be left at home, locked up, somehow safely secured, would ponder the implications of their attitude. You say that the problem is that there will always be men who don’t respect our rights to bodily autonomy and you’re just suggesting ways of mitigating the risk. But, what you’re actually doing is replicating the structures that lead to rape. And no, I’m not calling you a rapist, so no high horses please. You’re treating my body like an object. You’re not respecting my bodily autonomy by implying that my body is some sort of valuable consumer item. I guess that means it can by bought, sold, traded, bartered and stolen. You need to realise that makes women feel really weirded out by setting out some sort of strange mind/body split. As I said, my body is not an IPad.
You also need to supply some evidence that dressing scantily incites rape. Does anyone have any evidence? Or is this just something you know? How do you know it? What kinds of barely acknowledged, assumed attitudes are buried within that knowledge? Why aren’t you listening to the women here who are saying that our experiences of sexual assault and harrassment have had nothing to do with what we were wearing?
Interestingly enough, over at Club Troppo there’s a post which highlights some research that the opposite is true; that women have more chance of being raped if we’re dressed demurely because it indicates passivity and victimhood. I’m not saying that’s true either. The women I know who have been raped have been raped by men they know well; ex-boyfriends, friends and friends of friends. Always in their own home. Never out on the streets.
So, I suggest that you actually put up some evidence for your arguments and that you start listening to the experience of women. We might actually know a few things about it.
http://mymilkspilt.tumblr.com/post/5571861874/awesomenesssaveslives-slutwalk-boston-162-by
Fine – I think the key message from Theresa Beiner’s paper is: “While people perceive dress to have an impact on who is assaulted, studies of rapists suggest that victim attire is not a significant factor.”
If it is a factor, then it’s not clear what influence it has. It seems to me that the burden of proof lies with people who claim that revealing clothing increases the risk of rape.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2011/05/17/does-provocative-clothing-protect-women-against-rape/
“The women I know who have been raped have been raped by men they know well; ex-boyfriends, friends and friends of friends. Always in their own home. Never out on the streets.”
Fine reminds us of an important truth here. The kind of stranger rape allegedly provoked by a woman’s attire comprises only a sliver of all rapes. Yet this trope dominates all discussions of rape, including this one.
Now let us turn our attention to the stranger-rape sliver under discussion. Again, Fine quotes an important insight:
“Interestingly enough, over at Club Troppo there’s a post which highlights some research that the opposite is true; that women have more chance of being raped if we’re dressed demurely because it indicates passivity and victimhood.”
This insight highlights an important feature of the crime of rape. That is that sexual assault is an expression not of sex but of power expressed in a sexual manner.
As in all crimes the essential nature of the crime is not the identity of the victim but the mens rea of the offender(s). In these terms, this sliver of stranger rape can be further divided into single offender and gang rape. Again, it is worth considering that the demurely dressed may be disproportionately the victims of single offenders. Nuns being raped customarily occurs during times of civil disorder. Otherwise, the opportunity hardly arises.
Anna @ 100 – that came up because it appears that some people appear to be claiming that there is absolutely no behavior of a person which either increases or decreases the probability of them being raped. Absolutely none. This seems to be rather inconsistent with all other forms of crime.
tssk, TT, Helen – just to reiterate, I’m not claiming that because there may be things which women (and men) can do which reduces or increases the probability of them being raped that this in anyway reduces the culpability of the offender. Neither does someone who leaves their front door unlocked and open does not deserve to be robbed or bashed in their home.
Neither am I claiming that it is fair that actions which may reduce the probability of being raped may restrict what women can do compared to what men can do. Though some, such as walking alone at dark would apply to men with respect to being assulted/robbed as well. I believe that anyone should be able to walk around at night without being assaulted in any way, but thats not the society we live in.
Mecurius – I’m not claiming that this is the sort of society I ideally want to live in and that we should work to something better, just that it *is* the sort of society were are in. And in the meantime, if some action is statistically more likely to put someone at risk, it is useful to let people know that the risk exists, so they can make an educated decision as to what risk they want to take.
As for the way people being dressed being a factor or not, I don’t know – but I’d be a bit surprised if there haven’t been any studies into this at all.
Just in case you missed it before Mercurius, I’ve never claimed that any action can 100% guarantee that someone will not get raped/robbed/assaulted. I am questioning the claim that there is nothing at all that affects the *probability* of that happening.
Anyway apologies in advance for not responding further. Am headed off on a holiday for the first time in a few years and probably won’t have internet access!
@ Chris – read the comments again. You.just.aren’t.getting.it. In fact, read this post from Bluemilk. http://bluemilk.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/dont-get-raped/
Chris, I’m sorry – but are you being deliberately obtuse? Why do you keep making your dubious claims, when as you say, you have no evidence to back them up?
Don, I’d agree that dress isn’t a factor in rape. I find it so bizarre that people assert so confidently that it is.
The only piece of advice my father gave me about rape when I was growing up was that I should avoid the local police at all costs when I was out. The cops basically ran the local sex trade and raped and bashed sex workers as a way of keeping their employees in line, as well as stealing their money. Any other woman was also in danger from them. Again, not the stereotype of how rape occurs and not much that you could do about it.
Yep, ‘stranger danger’ sexual assault is a minority of cases: a significant minority, but a minority nonetheless. One study found it was 33%, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1487328/pdf/cmaj00080-0039.pdf
But Ive heard as low as 20% in other studies.
I think we can all agree – even Chris, if he puts his thinking cap on – that since the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by someone who already knew the victim – there’s no logical reason at all to think the victim’s dress could conceivably be a factor.
Basically – the whole idea is tosh. Even in the minority of cases where it theoretically *could* be a factor, the argument doesnt stand scrutiny, (since stranger assualt is just as likely no matter what someone was wearing) – and more importantly, its not even an arguable factor in more than 2/3rds of cases.
In sum: Its a failed, dated idea, based on objectively incorrect assumptions about sexual assault. Anyone who asserts otherwise is simply ….well, wrong.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
Shit! These stats are a worry. Assuming they are even remotely accurate (?), a real worry. More self hate my end? No…simply a genuine concern that in Australia we need to have a good hard look at how we socialise boys.
I think the defensiveness comes because people don’t want to take the next logical step. We all know women who have been assaulted, most of the assailants were known to those women, and therefore to us, and very few of them were ever charged with a crime, let alone convicted. We all know men who have raped, we could point out their houses, their businesses and their favourite watering holes, but society acts as if they don’t exist unless they have a mug shot or belong to some convenient group that the media is currently giving a good kicking.
One of the most depressing conversations I have had was with a group of highly educated woman who began talking about their experiences of sexual assualt “I was so stupid then”, “I just keep away from him now when we are at the same parties”, “it taught me a lot”. The killer was a woman married to a solicitor who said that after telling him about his friend with the wandering hands, her husband told her that he thought that the only thing that prevented men from becoming rapists was fear of being caught. Needless to say, he said nothing to his mate. I don’t think there is anything extraordinary about me, if I have had this sort of conversation, then everyone else here has probably experienced some version of it as well.
Men are privy to conversations with their fellow men that give them cause for concern. What do you do about it? Why do we never have this conversation, about society doing its job and enforcing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, but we shoot the shit over the length of a woman’s skirt. It isn’t obtuseness, it is fear of confronting the bleeding obvious, that we are giving a pass to rapists on a daily fucking basis.
“Men are privy to conversations with their fellow men that give them cause for concern.”
I wouldnt be quite so sure about that one Su. Despite the stereotype (‘cant wait to tell me mates!’), men very rarely discuss any detail whatsoever; rarely going past the fact of a consensual sexual encounter, sometimes not even that.
Presumably, non-consensual ones would be even less discussed. I agree men have to take responsibility though. There must be a lot of cases where they know what someone else has done – but I wouldnt presumeroutine knowledge among every bloke an assaulter-in-question may know.
Does anyone have any info on when it became necassary in a culturl sense for women, and men to a lesser extent, to start covering up in “western” culture? Obviously there would be environmental/climatic reasons when comparing Europe to Africa for instance but it would be interesting to know when the various taboos were attached to womens bodies. I expect it has something to do with religion … as always.
I agree, this whole tread is depressing reading.
My wife was recently a juror in a child molestation case a few years ago of a defacto having sex with the underage daughter of his girl friend. The case presented by the prosecution, she felt, was pretty well “cut and dry” – the defendant admitted to having sex with a minor and he admitted this in court. This, she felt, was a no brainer – he broke the law – guilty. Or so she thought.
The defense, however, presented a “she’s a slut, she deserved it” argument (she wasn’t a saint and they had evidence to prove it) and so, to her amazement, the rest of the jury (sans 1 other decenting voice) – including 4 other females – all bought it. After days of deliberations, she and the other objecting juror were worn down. Why? Having been a victim of rape herself, the process of having this thrown back in her face (i.e. that its always the victims fault) – particularly by other women (and that really hurt her) – was just too much. So the guy got off.
To me, this is a classic case where “slutwalking = you deserve it” has won out and virtually everyone, females included, believed it. Particularly harrowing for me were her accounts of being verbally attacked by the female jurors and their venom towards the girl. It shocked both of us and made us incredibly sad about where we are as a culture.
I agree with LE vs Su. I recall no anecdotes of personal activities that could reasonably be said to be describing rape. Indeed, I have been regaled with few anecdotes describing the sexual activities of the narrator. (Though, those that I have heard were mostly bizarre, reflecting perhaps the kind of chap who is prepared to discuss these matters.)
I might say that several women I have known have spoken of their own rape experiences. But none of those stories have ever recounted recent events or featured perpetrators of my acquaintance. Reflecting on all this I can say that I have been told much more about sexual experiences by women than by men. I’m not sure what that means.
I’m not sure what I would do if any of these stories concerned recent events featuring perpetrators known to me. I have never been faced with that dilemma.
LE & Katz, I believe you when you’ve never been the audience for an obvious confession of rape or other sexual coercion. What about attitudes expressed while “shooting the breeze” that might give rise to concern? maybe when you were younger, not so much now? e.g. attitudes towards girls who were known to have ‘been gangbanged’ after a big game?
I heard some men saying appalling things in groups to other men while I was waitressing as a student. Not one of the other men with them ever said anything as mild as “not cool, dude”.
The ‘gangbanging’ athletes always continued to be lionised, of course. Even though the girl always went there just with one of them, and got suddenly confronted by the rest. But she was obviously a slut, amiright? so obviously she couldn’t possibly mean it if she said no, so all those young men in town who everybody knew were fine, upstanding role models couldn’t really be rapists, right?
I do know young men who have suddenly stopped playing team sports after an incident like this in a country town. They never said why. I’m speculating that they were the only ones honest enough to not pretend that nothing wrong had ever happened. I understand why they may have felt unable to take the next step of going public though: it was very clear what the townsfolk wanted to believe and who they wanted to blame. Simply dropping out of the team led to vilification for ‘making the team look bad’. Actually whistle-blowing, let alone court testimony, would have made life in that town impossible.
Well yes, TT, I have heard expressed by male adolescents and men my acquaintance over the decades very demeaning attitudes towards individual women. I always, even as an adolescent myself, viewed such expressions as the inadequacy of those who expressed them.
I made and still make a point of not seeking the company of men habituated to expressing such thoughts.
I was a keen and good games player in my day, playing in successively lower division team competitions to past the age of 40, until decrepitude finally manifested itself in catastrophic injury. Undeservedly, perhaps, we never achieved the status of “chick magnet”. Although I was very close to some of my long-serving team mates, I never imagined sharing a woman with any of them.
Yes, that is more what I meant by conversations which give people cause for concern, I did not mean that other men would be saying outright they’d just raped someone.
Perhaps women make it their business to observe the signs more closely than men, perhaps that is part of the problem, all I know is that I have worked in workplaces where there were assaultive men, everyone knew they were assaultive, and the women knew to avoid them but NOBODY confronted them and I have been to parties where other women gave me the heads up to keep away from someone, but nobody ever told the guy to leave, and I have seen women whose husbands were notorious for shoving his hands into other women’s clothing and everyone felt sorry for her but again, nobody ever confronted the man. There is a consistent pattern here, women take responsibility, women try and keep each other safe, women are blamed and shamed and men are blithely oblivious, or can’t be bothered, or think it isn’t their business – I don’t know why, tell me, why is it?
Not prejudging the case, but if it turns out the IMF boss is a rapist I can guarantee he would have a history of similar behaviour and people around him knew, they knew, but they minimized it and laughed it off and called him the seducer.
While we’re talking about sportsmen and the women they use I remember the object lesson a few years ago when a woman pressed charges for sexual assualt by some ‘heroes’. If I remember rightly the media plastered the image of her leaving the police station thus identifying her to the wider community. Unsurprisingly she withdrew the charges. This lead to the odd doublething by some sporting fans that she should publicly apologise for lying while at the same same doing the whole nudge nudge wink wink she was up for it thing.
The lesson is clear. Go ahead with charges against some classes of a citizen and you’ll feel the heat.
Scary thing is I’ve seen (and intervened) in two case of attempted assualt. One was by a group of lads in a car who tried to convince the woman at the bus stop with me that there was a bus strike on and she should get a lift with them. She wasn’t that stupid and I told them to piss off, I had their plate number. (Quite harrowing back in the days when mobile phones were rare.) The other was when a woman was being chased through a train by some guy. She ran into the carriage and said “help I’m being chased.” A guy entered the carriage and without skipping a beat I said to the woman “Hi Liz haven’t seen you in ages how have you been?” The guy stopped in his tracks looking at both of use and realizing he was suddenly outnumbered turned on his heel and disappeared into the next carriage.
So what? Well both times it was the middle of the day, not night. It was in public transport, not in a bar. And here’s the important part. Neither of the women were ‘slutted up.’ One was dressed in fairly conservative business atire. One was a stuned in a casual (not revealing) top and jeans. Both potential attacks were poorly (but obviously) planned in terms of motive but were opportunistic. Both went unreported (which I kick myself about now.) This was back in the days of rape whistles , I think mobiles make much better rape whistles if you’re quick enough. You can call for help, take a photo of the person attacking you and worst comes to worst get some sort of video/audio of the attack.
TL:DR version Dress has nothing to do with assualt.
“Not prejudging the case, but if it turns out the IMF boss is a rapist I can guarantee he would have a history of similar behaviour and people around him knew, they knew, but they minimized it and laughed it off and called him the seducer.”
You’d be right. It was in the news the other day. He assaulted the daughter of a friend??? and the friend/mother told her daughter that it was a “one off” and not to press charges. Apparently everyone knew he was an accident waiting to happen. Female journos would not interview him alone etc etc.
Here:
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/imf-boss-to-face-new-sex-assault-complaint-20110516-1epr5.html
and here
http://www.theage.com.au/business/he-attacked-me-like-a-rutting-chimp-writer-20110517-1eq8n.html
“Although I was very close to some of my long-serving team mates, I never imagined sharing a woman with any of them.”
I want to show you something.
Although I was very close to some of my long-serving team mates, I never imagined sharing a[n]
womanipod with any of them.But Casey one of France’s top something or others has said he has been friends with this man for decades and he has never seen anything like that behaviour so it can’t possibly be true! Why the woman in question would be in hospital being treated for trauma related injuries then is unclear, but obviously the young woman now coming forward with her own claims about being molested by his friend is just in it for the publicity and clearly lying. Otherwise she would have come forward at the time she was allegedly attacked by a powerful white man and she was just beginning her career which he could have easily ruined.
/Oh FFS just because you haven’t personally witnessed it (or have you, be honest now) doesn’t mean it never happened. Whole faiths are built on the “you didn’t see it, you just have to believe it” precedent.
Huh?
Unfortunately my sporting career ended long before the advent of ipods, but I imagine that I would not have hesitated to share an ipod with my team mates.
I missed that, Casey. Makes me wonder how often the terms womaniser, ladies man, seducer are just euphemisms for rapist. And someone ALWAYS knows, they do, and they protect those rapists. He’ll have a job waiting for him when he comes out of prison, assuming he survives, because even though he may be a rapist, to some he will still be a womaniser and a seducer and that is kind of cool, something to aspire to.
Unlike the original commodification – “a woman”. Yes, some commodities are more valuable than others, I would agree. That is, if I were inclined to look at a woman as a commodity. Which I do not.
My comment at 130 directly relates to 128.
“And someone ALWAYS knows, they do, and they protect those rapists. He’ll have a job waiting for him when he comes out of prison, assuming he survives, because even though he may be a rapist, to some he will still be a womaniser and a seducer and that is kind of cool, something to aspire to.”
It’s called rape culture. Another difficult term for some people.
Yeah, from now on my answer to anyone who wants to talk about women’s behaviour vis-a-vis their rape will be, “tell me what you personally intend to do to stop rapists from raping”. I don’t think I should even engage with the question (though I think the slutwalk is great) because the question is misdirection, like so much patriarchal bullshit.
And to make it clear…we will never ever be able to eradicate rape. Just as we can’t any crime. What we can do is make it socially unacceptable and that will lower occurances. Make it clear that there is never an excuse. (And to be clear it’s not just men that need to change their attitude. Women need to as well. From small acts like women whispering that someone deserved it to the extreme such as in the gang rapes a few years ago where a woman in distress run off andapproached a woman for help who then took her back to her attackers so they could start over FFS.)
Tigtog @ 121: Ive never really had any contact with the barracks style of macho sexuality that is reportedly a feature of some organised sport (and obviously is a feature at senior levels), so I cant comment.
But then again, I have handed out “men can stop rape” leaflets at a University toga party, so Im not afraid to go in hard, as it were.
I totally support Su’s point, btw: men have to take responsibility for the culture they benefit from (even if they dont fully create it themselves).
My point abovewas one which I suspect may be a common misconception among women – that men routinely spill the details to other blokes about their sexual experiences, over a few beers. They actually dont, as a general rule. Its considered somewhere between showing off, being a w*nker, and big-noting. Indeed, there’s so little behaviour like this among men that I often wonder how it became a stereotype.
Tigtog @ 84 and 106.
Thats terrible and it shouldn’t have happened. You did the right thing.
I agree with Lefty E, men in my experience don’t talk about their best consensual encounters much, and they certainly don’t talk about sexual crimes. I guess this is partly because “you can’t trust anyone nowadays” but I think also rape has always been a dirty secret men don’t share with each other.
I once had a guy tell me he “used to go poofter-bashing on Oxford St” but that’s about the worst I’ve ever heard, crime-wise. More common is jokes about sexual assault, which in my experience (of male friends) have also become extremely rare in the last 10 years. Like Katz I avoid men who make those jokes.
that was mean to say “even their best”…
su @ 116 its not that simple to just ostracise someone for a sexual assault. Most people, men and women, don’t want to believe that of someone if they know and like them.
If you do challenge someone over an alleged sexual assault (and it is an allegation if you weren’t there to witness it, no matter how much you trust the person who tells you,) then you can expect, if it is, or was a friend who is accused, then that friendship is over. Personally tho that is no great loss.
There’s a good chance of violence resulting. A very good chance.
Sometimes victims don’t want you to do anything, and its their call so you can’t question that.
I can understand cos confronting someone in public, or even public knowledge of whats happened to you can be traumatic. So even if you want to scream abuse at, or challenge people when you see them someone else might not want you to cos sooner or later people will work out while you were doing it.
The best option is to encourage them to go to the police,.
Tho they aren’t always trustworthy, and if someone has already done it and been laughed out of the station then they aren’t going to appreciate the advice.
So its not always that easy, especially if people have had a bad experience with the cops over that incident or some other one, or with the public over similar stuff (for example the attitudes reported @ 119.) And you can’t really go around making people disappear no matter how sure you are that they did what they were accused of.
Avoidance doesn’t help, silence in the face of rape culture is indistinguishable from tacit support. So am I the only one to have worked in an environment where men were known to be harassing fellow staff members and everyone kept quiet, except to quietly warn one another?
I hope this is not too far off topic but Bernard-Henri Levy (via the loon pond is at it again:
Oh dear, Bernard, there you are claiming that you don’t know what happened all the while vigorously prosecuting the case that nothing happened. I’ve got me a dossier now of creeps who start out saying they write in support of due process but just can’t stop themselves slandering the women.
“Avoidance doesn’t help, silence in the face of rape culture is indistinguishable from tacit support.”
When I said this:
“Sometimes victims don’t want you to do anything, and its their call so you can’t question that.”
It wasn’t cos I just made it up on the spot. If you reckon someone who has been raped and still hasn’t worked up the inner strength they will need to go public is tacitly supporting rape or any sexual assault then you are plain wrong.
Pressuring them to speak out against their will is just making the trauma worse and contributing to their sense of powerlessness. Its their decision, and the only thing you can do is gentle encouragement to change their mind. Not badgering or hassling them about it. Even encouraging them to go public is not an easy thing to do.
It should be in that persons hands what happens next and so they need to do it on their own terms not yours (or mine).
If someone confides in you about a sexual assault and asks you to keep it in confidence what do you do then? Call the cops or confront the perpetrator anyway, and betray that persons trust when they are at their most vulnerable?
I do appreciate what you are saying su, believe me, but its not always that easy. Even saying quietly to a perpetrator where no one else knows. “I know what you did pal and I’m watching you.” Can come back on the victim. They might be threatened (or worse) by the prick and then what? The victim has been effectively or actually assaulted again and you might never know about it.
We cross- posted Jules, I hadn’t read yours at 140 when I commented, 141 was in response to a couple of commenters saying they avoid people who express contemptuous attitudes towards women. I haven’t advocated people acting over the heads of sexual assault victims and I’m sorry if that is what I seem to be saying, I’m talking about challenging general attitudes and challenging general behaviour and the examples I gave are all ones that I know personally where challenge would have been appropriate and easy, but nobody said a word.
Sorry su, I misunderstood, not you.
Its an issue I’ve had to deal with a few times over the years, and it does get my back up.
I completely agree about challenging those general attitudes. Its cost a few friendships over the years but thats a loss I can happily live with. I don’t need friends like that.
su, I don’t think lefty e, katz or I are implying we don’t challenge when we say we avoid. I’ve done my fair share of challenging, and I think a part of the reason men use a lot less of this language now than they did when I was first at university is the reduced acceptance of their behaviour, both in public generally and amongs their male peers. I think LeftyE mentioned his involvement in men against sexual assault, etc. for which he isn’t alone amongst LP hivemind men. But in my experience, the best and easiest way to tell that a man is an odious shit who you don’t need to hang out with, and who is going to be trouble if you do, is the way they talk about women.
I’m guessing that was all Katz was implying too.
“Avoidance doesn’t help, silence in the face of rape culture is indistinguishable from tacit support”
I agree.
It was disgusting how many women came out in support of Julian Asagne and said it must have been the womens fault. They must have been asking for it etc etc
Rape culture seems to know no gender boundaries.
Yes, women internalise the message that women only get raped if they do something wrong just as men internalise that message. Why wouldn’t they?
All of us have been told these myths about how rape victims wouldn’t get raped if they just didn’t do this or that or that other thing which made them a target. So when someone who seems a bit too much like themselves gets raped they look for what she did wrong for it to happen, because
they don’t want it to happen to themselvesit challenges their complacency about being safe from rape because they only do the right things.The point is to end victim-blaming, no matter who is doing it. Because it doesn’t help anybody except rapists.
Tigtog, that is a gross generalisation.
When I was twenty-one I share a house with a woman of about my own age who had been raped by a “family friend” when she was seventeen. She told me about it. She hadn’t internalised any message that she had done anything wrong.
Her message was one of trust betrayed, of disgust and of rage at a piece of human filth.
This happened in the context of there being a sexual stalker abroad in the suburb in which we lived. She, and our other, female, housemate told me the truth of what Helen said @72:
I had never before then thought of there being any restrictions on my personal safety, day or night, in Melbourne at the time, leaving aside reckless irresponsibility.
They told me of the very restrictions that Helen talks of in their personal movements that they had to consider in living their lives. They would never walk after dark except in pairs or in a group. They would always have their mind out on the possibility of a sexual assault and of a way out of it.
I learnt from them and I have seen the world from their eyes ever since.
However I had not up until that time ever internalised the message that women only get raped if they do something wrong.
You might have better written what you did as applying to some women and some men internalising the message that women only get raped if they do something wrong . Not all of them.
OK OnTheBus I will go there. SOme may have questioned the timing etc of the charges. I still think it’s simple. Assange should face up to the charges. He may have done things politically that I might approve of but that shouldn’t give him a licence to assault women. He should face the charges. If he is innocent he’ll be fine. (Of course the stats would also suggest there’s a pretty damn good chance he’ll go free anyway.)
I believe I said at the time and I repeat it now, the identification and harrassment of the alleged victims was appalling. From all corners. I had you pegged all wrong OnThe Bus. Part of me thought you were trying to troll the left wing with your comment. But giving you the benefit of the doubt I can see that you understand the whol rape culture thing and how people will defend rapists for personal or political reasons. I’m glad you can see past that.
As I said above, can we all please agree that saying “women” or “men” is a generalisation that doesn’t mean “every single woman or man”, and stop pointing it out to each other?
@ anna winter
“As I said above, can we all please agree that saying “women” or “men” is a generalisation that doesn’t mean “every single woman or man”, and stop pointing it out to each other?”
Please allow us all to discuss and learn from each other in whatever way we find ourselves exploring this.
You may have a limited scope on this whole problem, however you are not the defining voice on how others should discuss this.
thanks
Anna, the problem with that is that in the English language the terms “men” and “women” without the qualifiers that the English language gives (some/ many/ most/ alll, for example) does mean every single woman or man.
And it is at level that tigtog and others are choosing to conduct this debate. They have have, in doing so, reduced this discussion to pure abuse and an exercise of privileged and protected language and discourse.
If you have a concern about the proper conduct of this debate then you should address your concerns to those who are, according to your quite proper concerns, abusing the language of our discourse.
You might ask them, as a start, to use those useful words in the English language such as some/ many/ most/ all etc. to express their opinions.
You should also ask them to consider the universiality of their condemnation of people and the inherently sexist (not to mention racist- but I have already pointed that out) premise of their arguments before they put fingers to keyboard.
With respect, GregM, I think you’re reading insults that aren’t there. Simply looking at this thread is proof that not all men are the same, and given they’re women, I’m sure tigtog et al know that not all women are the same.
“Some men” and “men” as a general description mean different things, and using “some” or “most” would lead to its own set of arguments. In a debate, it’s valid to use whatever term you like as long as everyone knows what it means. I think if they didn’t before, they do now, so please let’s not get bogged down in discussing the obvious.
onthebus, actually I do get to decide what’s on topic. I’m pretty open to tangents, but it’s so frequent to the point of boring that every discussion of rape becomes a discussion of how not all men are like that. We get it, yeah? Have your 101 conversations elsewhere.
@ Tssk,
“But giving you the benefit of the doubt I can see that you understand the whol rape culture thing and how people will defend rapists for personal or political reasons.”
Of course they will.
There is no “sisterhood” or “brotherhood”.
There is only ever “me” when all the rest is cut away.
@GregM, if I had meant “all women” I would have wrote “all women”.
Instead, I followed established English language usage, broadly understood for many centuries, whereby [collective/plural noun, otherwise unqualified] is formally accepted as a generalisation about “many [collective/plural noun]“, not a blanket statement about “all [collective/plural noun]“.
Of course, if your high school English teacher was unable to convey this established usage to you, I have no reason to believe that I will succeed where s/he failed. However, I wager many internetz that Messrs Strunk & White and The Chicago Manual of Style, just for starters, will agree with me rather than with you.
Anna I appreciate your comment.
But how can I interpret these words, which are written without qualification:
without seeing it as being an insult to me, to my my mother who socialised me very differently in respect for women, to my father who respected my mother and, as far as he ever talked about it (for he was a man of few words), all women, to my sister who never internalised that message, to my brothers who didn’t either, and to the many friends I have made women and men, in my life to whom that message is repulsive.
Anna, this discourse has appeared many times on LP. It has always, up until now, been pursued on the premise of “men” means “all men”.
It is too late to bring your semantic qualifiers into it.
It is a filthy, sexist and dishonourable argument which condemns all men, and all decent people, with the violations of a few rotten men.
You are supporting the tarring of all of us all who repudiate that vile behaviour which is repugnant to us with the same brush and that is disgraceful.
Which is what I meant about an exercise of privileged and protected language and discourse.
Cite?
can’t we just all agree to use the qualifier “some,” and not to get our backs up with the boring “you meant all men” when someone forgets?
Doesn’t seem hard to me…
GregM it seems you have turned the argument around so now you’re the victim?
I can’t see your problem with the quoted passage – it seems quite obvious that this internalisation does happen or otherwise reasonable men and women would not blame rape victims for ‘asking for it’. That there are exceptions doesn’t disprove the point.
Has anyone in this thread accused all males of being rapists? Apart from those that seem to think rape is a natural expression of procreation (not sure if that was here or pure poison) which would seem to imply it. It’s only those who think women should be required to hide themselves away like hoarded treasures that we should feel insulted by.
Do I need to?
Review your own archives.
Tigtog, you are big, when this topic comes up on demanding proof from others when they disagree with you, without seeing any need to produce any substantiated evidence for your argument.
See above for your ridiculous argument that data, and data only, is evidence in a circumstance where you sought only one example, and one example only, and therefore not data, of that which you sought to disprove.
Then look at your disparagement of me when I provided the very evidence you sought as not being “data” and therefore worthless.
How about going to LP’s archives, to which you have ready access, to see where this has been thrashed out before and providing the links to your research?
Then we can all explore them at our liesure.
As I said to Anna “an exercise of privileged and protected language and discourse”.
GregM, you have the same access to the archives as I do. You just use the search function in the top-nav bar or on the archives page.
Cite or it didn’t happen.
P.S. My rigor is addressed always to requiring those who make the claims to substantiate them. You make claims, you support them. Which you generally don’t.
My claim about what women internalise regarding rape myths is substantiated by the UK study about attitudes towards rape victims cited by Helen upthread. Unless you can offer very good reason why common attitudes differ between the UK and Australia, which I very much doubt?
Your semantics claim about alleged common language usage, and in particular how language is used on LP, is substantiated by what exactly? Hm?
No Paul. Tigtog has not accused us all of rape. But she has explicitly accused all of us, men, (yes, you and me, and I don’t know about you, about I find that repulsive, repugnant and grossly offensive) of condoning rape on the basis, without any evidence, that:
So she has accused all men, you and me included Paul, of condoning rape on the basis that we believe that women only get raped if they do something wrong. She has provided no qualification to that slander on me and possibly you, should you, like me, repudiate her view of what we think.
Anna Winter has ridden in with a late charge to explain that when tigtog refers to men generally (or as a class) then, against tigtog’s explicit words which condemn all men, you incuded Paul, as being people who condone the rape of women, there is a semantic nuance which we must take into account , that all men generally, which is what tigtog clearly says, doesn’t mean all men generally but some unspecified subclass which Anna doesn’t deign to define. So we are not off the hook yet.
Which is why I found both tigtog’s and Anna’s comments so offensive, and an example of “an exercise of privileged and protected language and discourse”.
Still ignoring my comment #156, I see.
I think you’re getting the wrong end of the stick here, GregM. That comment about internalization is clearly intended as a “some women” type of message. It’s not unclear at all, and it’s pretty standard usage. It’s in the “just as” part that this becomes clear.
Had the comment been simply “women internalize rape” then you’d have a point, but the “just as men do” makes clear that there’s a comparison of categories going on, not a statement of general fact about the whole of either category.
e.g. “women in the Israeli army take on frontline combat roles just as men do. Why shouldn’t they?” does not mean that all women in the Israeli army are frontline soldiers.
I don’t usually comment on these topics. In this case I broadly agree with Anna’s OP. However, I would like to add that I do prefer a qualifier before women and men as well. Using those words without one raises ambiguity about what an author intends, which in turn is one of the reasons why we get these thread derails. Some, many, most, all, etc convey much more meaning than just “women” or just “men” even if an author thinks that everyone should understand the proportions that the terms “women” or “men” are supposed to refer to. The problems with generalisations obviously don’t stop with these two terms. You see it in threads where the terms “the left” or “the right” crop up, or talking about particular professions (economists), and others. The way I think about it is, if I were writing about a topic professionally, would I use the generalisation or not, and how would my readers feel about it if I did. Given that the qualifier is costless, I almost always add it.
That is a good point sg, but I think there are other examples on this and other threads where the meaning is more ambiguous than that. But perhaps I’m wrong!
GregM you seem to be the one defending the position that women have an obligation not to be provocative (based on your Indonesian experience). Tigtog on the other hand seems to be condemning the ‘violations of a few rotten men’.
I don’t ‘believe that women only get raped if they do something wrong’.
If you believe women need to avoid dress that might provoke us or take responsibility for our loss of control it’s your views, not hers that I find insulting.
I think there’s some patriarchal expression of control in the expectation that women are treasure who must be demure in public, in the condemnation of rape victims who breach these dress codes, and in the act of rape itself. This may be a little too provocative but I think there’s a continuum along these attitudes
GregM, I made the same comment at 31, hardly a “late charge”. I’m sick of pretty much every thread about rape becoming about men’s hurt feelings and offense. Some men, most men, whatever. Tigtog’s usage was standard and clear to most reasonable readers. If it wasn’t clear to you, you’ve had clarification now of what she meant.
The End.
I don’t think GregM is defending any obligations.
GregM, massive derail. It’s *society at large* who excuse or exonerate rape according to a women’s perceived dress / whoredom / location / drunkenness, and it’s *social mores* behind it. Only someone who hs hyperventilated to the point of lightheadedness would interpret Anna’s post as saying that All Men believe this (what about all the women on MSM / blog threads on this topic who have clearly imbibed the patriarchal kool-aid?)
In other news, Edinburgh council refuses permission for both Slutwalk and Reclaim the Night, because – you guessed it… http://www.indymediascotland.org/node/24103
Well, Helen, to be fair, Edinburgh Council is just protecting you poor little air-heads from yourselves …
It’s not like women are capable of making rational or informed decisions, after all.
Jebus. I wake up and this thread is all about GregM’s hurt feelings. Of course, that’s what matters here.
Absolutely, DI (NR). It’s our uteruses randomly wandering around our bodies that makes us that way. Once they get to the brain, there’s nae reasoning with them!
A really, really wonderful blog (particularly if you grew up or have lived in London), Another Nickel In The Machine gives an example of perhaps how far we have come: http://www.nickelinthemachine.com/2009/06/the-london-spy-a-discreet-guide-to-the-citys-pleasures/
It’s hard to believe that it’s only 40 odd years ago since that sort of offensive tripe was considered acceptable.
“We’ll hae nae women parading through the town in sexually provocative skirts,” said a representative of the Edinburgh Council. “Here in Scotland, that is man’s work.”
Adrian, that blog is fascinating and evil at the same time. The picture of the black woman looking extremely uncomfortable while the police ogle her is particularly telling, I thought.
It’s not the blog that’s ‘evil’, sg. Have a look at some of the other posts.
sg, seeing as Diahann Carroll was rather famous at the time, I suspect she’s mostly looking uncomfortable because she’s trying to keep smiling for the press pack for minute after minute. She may not have even been especially aware of the ogling, or it may quite possibly have been contrived posing of actors dressed as traditional bobbies.
As for the language derail may I recommend Derailing for Dummies?
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#asbad
Yes, I was going to add what tigtog just said. That photo has the look of a publicity shot.
Great quote Tssk. The same complaints that get trotted out each White Ribbon Day. You would think that a sense of proportion, if nothing else, would prevent people disrupting discussion about rape with an insistance that people attend to their feelings of hurt at unexceptional and inoffensive language, but that’s privilege for you.
“It is a filthy, sexist and dishonourable argument which condemns all men, and all decent people, with the violations of a few rotten men.”
This (kind of) retort, (in my experience) often (not always) emerges when one is (broadly) critical of (male) culture(s) overall. The culture (very often) frames the individual (of course), but one can (I believe) discuss the frame without (attacking) the individual. So the discussion of the frame is not personal, it’s not about (my) father, (my) sons, (my) grandads, (my) brother. But it is about what fathers, sons, grandads and brothers are.
However, challenging sexism is (also) about the individual (& the culture, the frame..phew), it is about challenging your father, your son, your grandad, your friends, your workmates and whoever…whenever the misogyny appears. It is hard work, and sometimes it can be dangerous (one gets the old self rant hate for example, or one is ostracized by male peers, and rarely, but occasionally physically attacked) but in the long term it is worth the effort….(for example) I do not want (my) (or anyones) daughter to live in fear ….
The leering and insinuating of Adrian’s “Discreet Guide” do grate on both the eye and the ear. The “Guide” was a jejune attempt to profit from the sexual revolution and the rise of youth culture.
New cultural practices legitimised many new behaviours, such as guides to “pulling chicks”. Not all of these behaviours were “progressive”, but the new freedoms that allowed them were.
Diahann Carroll, for example, probably knew exactly what she was doing for her nascent career associating herself with the fresh excitements of “Swinging London”. At about the same time as the publication of the “Discreet Guide”, Afro-American artists such as Jimi Hendrix, Howling Wolf, Muddy Waters and others, discovered that London was the place where they could break through the colour bar and be treated as artistic leaders and role models in a white society.
sorry adrian, should have said “post.” I actually bookmarked the blog for later enjoyment…
tigtog, I didn’t realize the women in those pictures were famous! I was thinking “wow! London was much more romantic then than now!” But maybe it was just as grotty and unfashionable then as it is now…
Excellent comment, Eric Sykes @185.
On a related matter, it seems that Woodstock was to blame for the rise of sexual misconduct among American priests.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10364
Of course the best way to contribute to the lessening of violent assault is to act early and support families and children ‘at risk’. To provide high quality secular education to as many people as possible. To intervene in the lives of boys when they are very young in order to assist marginalised and challenged families to parent better and more appropriately. To challenge the inappropriate and profit driven motives of advertisers and corporations who place dollars before ethical behaviour. Any arguments about how we dress and where we walk are a distraction from the very real issues of how we raise our children. We can debate and discuss the choices adults make, but its how these people are made that should be our real focus.
This is such a dispiriting post. It seems only to further prove that the female body is an object for analysis. In comparing it to an iphone it succeeds only in reducing women (again) to being defined by what she looks like and as some sort of consumer product.
The slutwalk is childish, offensive and counterproductive and an unfortunate insult to the millions of women across the globe who face far more urgent and life-threatening problems.
Can we get any more supercilious?
Most of us have the right to wear what we bloody-well like and if we exercise our right to dress like sluts then we can only expect to be treated like sluts. The apparel doth proclaim the man etc. . . I would qualify that by saying being treated like a slut does not ipso facto include violent sexual assault.
In the final analysis, men rape women because they hate them. The real problem is men’s hatred of women not what women are wearing.
I would hazard a guess that Link hasnt actually read any of the long discussion on this post and needs to go blather somewhere else.
The ability to string together paragraphs 4 and 5 logically is quite impressive…
vv. You’d be right in your guess. Who could be bothered? Especially when the topic inevitably ends up being sidelined by personal attacks on commenters whose views you don’t happen to agree with.
I’m in agreement with you there. Although the rest of your comment looks a lot like blather to me.
bhfhdg j < — My head, hitting the keyboard.
Better luck next time Anna.
Link, I was referring to your out of hand and obviously uninformed comments about what ‘slutwalk’ is about.
Rape and sexual assault is a HUGE issue for women all over the world, far more important actually to women in developing countries and war ravaged countries where rape is used as a tool of conquering armies and the subjugation of the weak. You obviously have little idea about the motivation of the movement of women organising these protests, or how in fact what the protest is about ties in with the fight for the rights of women globally. Slutwalk is about recognising that sexual assault is about power and violence not about what one wears. As the nearly 200 posts on this thread have been examining, sometimes in great detail.
What are the life threatening issues that you identify as more important than violence towards women?
And how exactly in your very subjective opinion, does a woman qualify as ‘dressing like a slut’? Do you have some criteria which allows you to determine when we are dressed like ‘sluts’ so that you may then treat us as ‘sluts’? And when, if you think that when dressed as ‘sluts’ you can treat us a ‘sluts’ ie loose women, do you think this treatment goes too far and becomes rape?
You seem confused, and so I assumed you had not in fact read the discussion on this thread at all.
“Most of us have the right to wear what we bloody-well like and if we exercise our right to dress like sluts then we can only expect to be treated like sluts. The apparel doth proclaim the man etc. . . I would qualify that by saying being treated like a slut does not ipso facto include violent sexual assault. ”
Are you for real?
I’m with Link. From here on I’m going to go around Sydney dressed as a Pharaoh and I damn well expect everyone to bow at my feet, at least that is when they aren’t throwing rose petals at my feet and when they aren’t feeding me dates.
Back ontopic, I’m not going to repeat myself. Go back over the thread and see numourous accounts of the majority of rape not being related to clothing.
Yes tssk, from now on I’m getting around in a red pair of speedos and at least most of the media will treat me like the new messiah.
“I would qualify that by saying being treated like a slut does not ipso facto include violent sexual assault.”
I’m eager to learn the circumstances under which appropriate treatment does include violent sexual assault.
I apologise for my subjective opinion I find it pretty impossible to have anything other, being as I am, yes Casey– for real. What is your point?
I don’t think women in the Ivory Coast (say) would be overly impressed that western women are expending huge amounts of energy marching to demand their right to wear whatever they want. I agree women should be allowed to wear whatever they want. *Duh* ( I can’t believe I’m writing this).
I find the word ‘slut’ deeply offensive. What I consider slutty attire and what you consider slutty attire would obviously differ but as I abhor the term, it wouldn’t be one I’d use as a descriptor, but I would argue that what one wears advertises to a certain extent what one is. Doesn’t it?
If I go up the street in g-string, fishnet stockings, suspender belt, pushup bra and high heels and sod all else should I be surprised by the attention I attract? I am not asking to be violently attacked but if I draw a lot of lewd and hostile looks, from men and women alike, am I not in some way responsible?
My main objection to this latest brilliant idea to promote justice for women is its appalling name which I think plays right into the pecadillos of those who they seek to inform and transform.
“…violent sexual assault.”
What other kind is there?
But Link, you appear to be unaware of the fact that a Canadian judge opined about the allegedly dangerous effects of dressing like a “slut”.
Let us draw out the salient features of this opinion:
1. The judge believes he knows how a slut dresses.
2. The judge believes that others agree with him about how a slut dresses.
3. The judge believes that men who are wont to assault women agree with him about how a slut dresses.
4. The judge believes that these would-be assailants are driven to do so by “slutty” attire.
5. The judge believes that were women not to wear slutty attire, they would be less likely to be assaulted.
6. The judge believes that it is the responsibility of women to choose their attire with security in mind.
7. The judge believes that he is talking sense and that right-thinking people agree with him.
Here’s the thing Link. The judge is incorrect in all of those presumptions.
SlutWalking lampoons idiocy. What can be wrong with that?
As I said:
In the final analysis, men rape women because they hate them. The real problem is men’s hatred of women not what women are wearing.
Katz: Justice Robert Dewar wouldn’t be the first white, male, judge to blame the victim. Indeed victim blaming especially where the victim is a woman and the crime is a sexual attack, is, as you and I know pretty much institutionalised.
Adrian I used the term ‘violent’ as there are possibly still extant some small corners of the globe that think rape is an act of sex, not an act of violence.
Bad grammar on my part with:
“I would qualify that by saying being treated like a slut does not ipso facto include violent sexual assault.”
Should read maybe does not ipso fact entail, violent sexual assault. Or should not incite or something.
I agree with the sentiments behind the idea of slut walk, I don’t agree with the choice of name and I don’t agree that it is, as far as justice for women go, up there as a big issue.
It’s a very old word Anna, and I don’t think it’s going to be reclaimed and turned into anything other than it’s implied meaning. “a slovenly or promiscuous woman”.
This kind of protest is likely to have disproportionate appeal for young, white, college educated women who don’t have to worry about the state taking their children away, or getting fired, or ostracized by their communities if they publicly flirt with the label of “slut.”
In other words a privileged few.
Again, I don’t see how this is doing anything for the cause of (say) systematic rape as weapon of war.
Gotcha, Link. Because nobody could possibly march in SlutWalk AND be involved in activism against rape as a weapon of war. One march that will last for a couple of hours is totally going to prevent those marchers working for any other social justice cause forever and ever and ever.
Yep. For sure.
Does it have to, in order for it to be a worthwhile activity?
Yeah. Right. TT that’s exactly what I said.
Link:
“I agree with the sentiments behind the idea of slut walk, I don’t agree with the choice of name and I don’t agree that it is, as far as justice for women go, up there as a big issue.”
That is debatable. But the argument that nothing should be done about Issue X until the more important Issue Y has been solved is fallacious. Taken to its logical extent, this argues that nothing should be done about anything until everyone agrees about what is the most important issue and then that is addressed.
I think the sub-text is important here. The whole concept of a SlutWalk causes judges to be more reflective in their use of language. This may be a small ambition but it is achievable. And with practice such tactics can be mobilised in support of other causes.
@Link, I fully admit to resorting to the rhetorical device of reductio ad absurdum. I find it often illuminates unacknowledged assumptions.
More seriously, what Katz just said.
“But the argument that nothing should be done about Issue X until the more important Issue Y has been solved is fallacious.”
Indeed. And there are other problems here too. For example, the idea that we can ascertain clearly in all circumstances what the most important issue for any particular group to try to act to address is in all circumstances and at all times. This is a matter of decision for those doing activism, not a matter for those on the sidelines. Decisions about responsibility and where to direct resources aren’t easy: importance isn’t a given.
My support for these Slutwalk events is based on the idea that so long as these sort of assumptions about how one dresses and what that means are being held onto and publicly voiced by authority figures then rapists have grounds to believe their own rationalisations. One of the effects of offering ‘advice’ along the lines of not dressing in a particular way, and doing so publicly, is that you’re actually telling predators that there are conditions under which they might be able to get away with it, or at least that there is a publicly accepted line of argument that might help them to feel less responsible.
Katz, unpalatable as it may seem to many, I think the biggest problem (that the world faces) is men’s (NOT ALL MEN’S) emotional attitudes towards women. If the internet has taught us anything it is that the punitive hatred of women is pandemic and very deeply entrenched.
Those judges who are not asleep, may think twice about using the word ‘slut’ but it won’t change the way they think until they and men at large (NOT ALL MEN) are confronted with why they treat half the population with such violence and contempt.
A few privileged college kids brandishing about an unsavoury word and claiming they are taking the word back, isn’t really tackling the cause of the issue.
I agree it is a start. (another one)
Fags, homos queers and poofs have all been reclaimed, why not slut?
Geez Louise are you all slipping into your dotage? Im going not dressed as a slut but dressed as I always dress as a round and now 40 year old woman, in pants and a comfy shirt. I think the point of this action is to embolden and empower people to turn tables on voices of authority and patriarchy in a humorous and loud way. So effin what if its small and noisy, if it makes women feel better about being bold and assertive why come down on it? The point that women are assaulted without dressing like ‘sluts’ is surely part of the bloody point! As AW and many have pointed out clothes aren’t the issue, violence and power are. Until the way we look is taken OFF the agenda by any means possible I think a variety of forms of protest are legitimate and to be supported. What would you naysayers suggest? We shut up and stay home?
can we go back to arguing with GregM about the use of the word “some”?
just my 2c.
While GregM’s comments look like a derailment, I think it’s fair to say that any semantic argument that supposedly exposes some truth (eg all vs some men are rapists or not) completely misses the reality. Rape is an expression of masculine power. The nature of this power is violence and in rape it directed along sexual lines.
We can debate the nature, origin or validity of say sexual or cultural aspects of rape but this risks ignoring the much broader problem of male violence. That violence is predominantly a male problem is easily shown by it’s practice and who it affects. Violence is embedded into the male psyche and yet at the same time, the extent to which our (patriarchal) culture hides the nature of violence can be seen in the term “violent sexual assault”. As someone upthread rightly questioned, the language of a “violent sexual assault” is redundant since sexual assault is by nature violent, but adding the property of violence to “sexual assault” serves to mask the violence inherit to rape.
Until all men address the problem of violence then discussions about rape risk ignoring a fundamental aspect to it. Just as it is impossible to imagine a non-violent war (and how many human beings have been killed in wars) it is also impossible to imagine a non-violent rape.
It is for this reason that I think it is fair to say violence is a problem for all men and until the problem is addressed, then the extension of violence into the domain of gender will remain both as a threat and an actuality.
@202
I agree, the use of the term “slut” is completely counterproductive. As an aside, when the right were trying to justify the use of the term “bitch” to describe the PM they tried to neutralise it by pointing out that JWH had been called a bastard. Aside from the fact that it’s true, i.e JWH is a bastard, I wondered why they thought that only a man could be born a bastard, then I though, “ah, but they are ignorant bastards”.
I disagree that the use of Slut is counterproductive. If you go back to the original comment, which was that you shouldn’t dress like a ‘slut’, whatever that means, if you don’t want to be attacked. So heaps of women wearing the ordinary every day clothing they were wearing when assaulted really shows that statement to be a lie.
Link, you are completely ignoring the phenomenon of reclamation. As well as most of what everyone else has said. Like VV I’m a mumsy middle-aged woman who will greatly enjoy reclaiming “slut” on Sunday with my darling daughter. Also, WTF with the “Don’t protest or write about anything in your world, because, Ivory coast!” while most of the population of our capital cities spends untold millions on football. Really. Don’t.
@ Helen
” while most of the population of our capital cities spends untold millions on football.”
Ummm try again.
Most?
Small quibble, tigtog, about reductio ad absurdum – it’s more a kind of mathematical proof than a rhetorical device.
I hate the word slut, I think it’s one of the shittiest words in English, but in this case it’s used excellently. Slutwalking is a big fat “fuck you” to all the idiots who think women should shut up and wear burka, and sooo much better as an idea than Reclaim the Night. It’s brilliant. I don’t think we’ll see “slut” reclaimed in our lifetimes, but seeing it used in this way is excellent nonetheless.
“In the final analysis, men rape women because they hate them. The real problem is men’s hatred of women not what women are wearing.”
I find this deeply offensive. Go and tell this to all the men raped in prison day in day out all around the world.
@DI (nr): it’s both!
@sg, exactly. The reaction to a bunch of women refusing to be shamed by the word is quite extraordinary.
@Jacques de Molay,
those men who are raped (in prison and outside too) tend to be abused as ‘sluts’, ‘bitches’ and ‘pussies’ while it is occurring. I don’t agree with Link’s take on a lot of issues in this thread, but I think sie’s correct that hatred of women is still there in the mix in the rapists’ minds.
“I agree, the use of the term “slut” is completely counterproductive.”
Counterproductive to what end or goal?
The protesters and their movement have achieved enormous publicity oxygen by means of this label.
One can protest all one likes to zero effect if no one takes any notice. The whole point of protesting is to get the world to take notice. Worldwide, probably fewer than 10,000 have actually protested. That is bang for your buck.
Granted, the term does divide opinion. But the term itself is problematic. It’s very use has become a matter of discussion and debate. This too has to be a good thing.
Somewhere, Gandhi is nodding his head appreciatively.
Looking at how various writers have described the use of rape to attempt to control dissident populations, men and women alike, in the Middle East, you would have to say that establishing and maintaining dominance through the exercise of violent control is, as feminists have long asserted, the main function of rape.
I didn’t ever get around to asking the basis for her opinion but I recall Skepticlawyer mentioning that there was increasing evidence that rape really was connected to desire and I think that may in part have been as a result of considering prison populations, but there the establishing of a hierarchy of dominance is as, if not more important as it is on the outside.
I forgot to add that I suspect that many people who believe dress is a causative factor also believe that rape is driven by desire (some of the earlier comments demonstrate this I think), they individualize the problem of rape, seeing it at worst as pathology rather than as a tool of dominant groups, convincing them otherwise means convincing them that there really is a set of interlinking hierarchies of dominance that are maintained through violence. Kind of difficult, specially if they (we) are benefitting from one of those hierarchies. Sorry for the segue into 101.
As has so often been pointed out, rape is more about power than it is about sex — power and control — of women, by men.
So it’s fascinating to see **certain** men contributing to this thread by trying to control the language that women can use to speak about rape.
Earlier in the thread:
“Don’t say ‘men’! Say ‘some men’! I’m offended!”
“Don’t say ‘slut’! It’s a terrible word! I’m offended!”
I mean, it’s bad enough that **certain** women won’t just STFU about this problem of rape, so let’s try and control their language.
**Certain** men, having lost the social power to control women through what women do with their own bodies and with what women choose to adorn their own bodies, nevertheless seek to draw a line in the sand by demanding control of what utterances are permissible to emerge from women’s bodies.
To me, it all looks like different aspects of the same phenomenon — an atavistic urge to control women.
It bemuses me greatly to see so many men shocked and offended by the use of the word slut. I think Mercurius is onto something here. Why do you want to control the way women choose to describe themselves in a specific context?
Jacques men raping other men is a whole other issue with regard to how men view humanity in general. I guess if you want to express your rage and demonstrate your supremacy with your dick then it’s any port in a storm. Why you would want to express your rage with your dick though, to me boggles belief.
Su I’m all for big fat fuck you’s and the temporary satisfaction they can bring. But in my experience an antagonistic approach has rarely won me an argument and has mostly been met with more antagonism.
I guess it’s true that a male dominated media is titillated and attracted to the whole idea of slutwalk which is why they’ve given it the column space, but I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the onlookers were of the Uncle Pervy type who have conveniently managed to miss the point entirely and are primarily there to gawk.
Jacques, I think prison rape probably also involves a lot of hate. Sexualizing hate is a powerful thing. But even without the hate, it’s still an expression of dominance and explicitly presented that way.
Fine, I’m not shocked and offended by the word slut, and I would really appreciate it if it or a word like it could be reclaimed as a positive and empowering way of describing women who enjoy having casual sex. There is, after all, currently no such word. The reason I hate it is the casual way so many men and women use it to demean a woman who is, in my opinion, doing nothing wrong.
http://randomette.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-slut-in-slutwalk-is-important.html?spref=tw
Er Link, your second paragraph should be addressed to sg. I understand how you could have confused us, seeing as our views on everything are identical and we are constantly agreeing with each other, LOL.
haha su, but surely we both agree on the temporary satisfaction of big fat fuck yous!?
(Sometimes) (Some) people (men and women) seem to me to react to the word “slut” and miss the next bit…”walk”. My partner did that last night, having come across the term “slut” as such a negative it took a good long time for her to notice the “walk” and then grapple with the politics of “slutwalk”. Once grappled, then understood, if still slightly uneasy. Reminds me (once again) of the church going national secretary of the Australian Labor Party teling me that surely the term “Queer” in the name “Queer Film Festival” would be deeply offensive to homosexuals and wouldn’t we be better not to use it for fear of this offense? That was in 2002.
sg, I wasn’t actually referring to you. I’m referring to people like link who wrote:
“Most of us have the right to wear what we bloody-well like and if we exercise our right to dress like sluts then we can only expect to be treated like sluts. The apparel doth proclaim the man etc. . . I would qualify that by saying being treated like a slut does not ipso facto include violent sexual assault. ”
This is a paragraph filled with contradiction. It begs so many questions. What is a slut? Why is it bad to be a slut? When you treat someone like a slut, how do you treat them? I’m glad it doesn’t include ‘violent sexual assault. But, does it include shunning, shaming etc?
You might also want to ponder on the ways the first sentence in the quoted paragraph contradicts the rest of the paragraph.
And you know link there’s this little thing called cultural difference. Holding a Slutwalk (and I’m really enjoying writing the word) in the Ivory Coast would, I imagine, be a completely cuturally inappropriate way to counter sexual assault. In Australia, it plays pretty well.
It’s true Eric Sykes that ‘slut’ might follow the trajectory of ‘queer’. I’m looking forward to the Sluts’ Film Festival.
Well, we should at this point then, Fine, note The Slits and what fantastic band they actually were (rip Ari).
RIP Ari and Polystyrene from X-Ray Spex. Two wonderful women. I bet they’d go slutwalking.
Indeed.
One of their naked dancers once rubbed her boobies on me actually. Amazingly, I was able to resist sexually assaulting her.
Give that man a cookie!
Seriously, FDB, you must have been the envy of quite a few people that night./OT
Well, I’m envious of you FDB.
FDB, you may have an action against her for sexual assault.
True Katz, I might.
Most likely, the only reason I didn’t sexually assault her was that her clever inversion of the paradigm momentarily confused me, rather than my own right-on(!) sexual ethics vis-a-vis raping people.
@sg, yes we can. And a couple of “up yours” on the side, in honour of Polystyrene.
“Most likely, the only reason I didn’t sexually assault her was that her clever inversion of the paradigm momentarily confused me, rather than my own right-on(!) sexual ethics vis-a-vis raping people.”
Will you be joining us on the Slutwalk FDB?
I would Casey, only I’m out of Melbourne on a fishing weekender for the date in question.
that’s great that we are all embracing the word slut now. Because I am quite [proudly] slow. And I would like to be able to reclaim retarded without falling foul of this site’s moderators.
For me, I’m not so much embracing it as refusing to be ashamed by it. As for the word “retarded”, I don’t apologise for including it in the mod filter. If you use it to accurately describe a clinical condition, or as a scientific term for processes that slow down, the comment will be approved. It’s only because it’s so often used unthinkingly as a slur that it’s red-flagged.
Thanks for the reply tigtog. And yes, I agree that refusing to be ashamed by it is probably a better way of expressing it, than to ‘embrace’ it. As for the word retarded, I disagree with the approach, it frustrates me – but ‘your blog your rules’, and since discussions about moderation are decidedly off topic, I’ll just leave it at that and apologise for the intrusion. cheers.
Lively thread folks.
Curious how many posters, regardless of perspective, unquestioningly assume the stability/usefulness of the category ‘slutty’ dress, behavior.
Even (especially?) reflective intellectuals are tethered to prejudices of shared class, aesthetics, values.
No Graeme, even an intellectual can be aware of what the world thinks a “slut” dresses/acts like.
As Charlie Chaplin demonstrated, play-acting at being a Nazi does not make one a Nazi.
As the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence demonstrated, play-acting at being a nun does not make one a nun.
Both of these parodies was memorable because of the way both undermined what Nazis and nuns were supposed to think about themselves.
“Even (especially?) reflective intellectuals are tethered to prejudices of shared class, aesthetics, values.”
I’m not sure it’s especially ‘prejudiced’ to want to define a word, and it’s a value-laden word. What it denotes might be difficult to agree upon precisely, but what it connotes is decidedly negative in most peoples’ usage.
There’s no escaping it. That’s the whole point of the protest to me: it’s saying “even if you reckon I’m a slut, for whatever reason, guess what? You still can’t rape me”.