Slutwalk
April 1, 2011 10:01 AM Subscribe
swf as in a flash file? or safe for work? I don't want to click and be wrong :/
posted by desjardins at 10:09 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by desjardins at 10:09 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
My problem with this 'claiming the language of the oppressor' stuff is that it usually ends up validating the oppressor's views in their mind, and rarely does anything to change anybody else's.
The whole presentation here is pretty confused, and it leaves open to interpretation whether the problem is that the Toronto PD called sexual assault victims 'sluts' or that their attitude fucking sucks. It's clear to me that the organizers think the latter, but I doubt it's clear to the people they need to reach.
posted by lodurr at 10:10 AM on April 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
The whole presentation here is pretty confused, and it leaves open to interpretation whether the problem is that the Toronto PD called sexual assault victims 'sluts' or that their attitude fucking sucks. It's clear to me that the organizers think the latter, but I doubt it's clear to the people they need to reach.
posted by lodurr at 10:10 AM on April 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
Safe for work.
posted by lukemeister at 10:10 AM on April 1, 2011
posted by lukemeister at 10:10 AM on April 1, 2011
It's safe for work as long as nobody at your workplace gets hinky about 'slut' in big red letters.
posted by lodurr at 10:10 AM on April 1, 2011
posted by lodurr at 10:10 AM on April 1, 2011
I think both, desjardins.
posted by Jess the Mess at 10:10 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Jess the Mess at 10:10 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
single white female
posted by papercake at 10:11 AM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by papercake at 10:11 AM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
OMG WHAT DAY IS TODAY?!
posted by basicchannel at 10:13 AM on April 1, 2011
posted by basicchannel at 10:13 AM on April 1, 2011
A Toronto Police spokesman said, “OK then, women should avoid dressing like the characterization formerly known as 'slut' in order not to be victimized”.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:15 AM on April 1, 2011
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:15 AM on April 1, 2011
A Toronto Police spokesman didn't say said, “OK then, men should avoid dressing like the characterization formerly known as 'rich' in order not to be victimized”.
posted by fuq at 10:19 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by fuq at 10:19 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
A Toronto Police spokesman didn't say said, “OK then, men should avoid dressing like the characterization formerly known as 'rich' in order not to be victimized”.
I'm not sure if that really works as an argument ad absurdum. There are many signs and announcements in the NYC subway that warn people to be discreet with their electronic devices and other valuables, and just about every tourist guide I've ever read for any place warns the reader not to be flashy with money.
Then again, I don't suppose you often see a cop plucking some bloody-faced mugging victim off the pavement, tut-tutting "well, what did you expect with those earbuds and that haircut and all." At least, I hope not.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:26 AM on April 1, 2011
I'm not sure if that really works as an argument ad absurdum. There are many signs and announcements in the NYC subway that warn people to be discreet with their electronic devices and other valuables, and just about every tourist guide I've ever read for any place warns the reader not to be flashy with money.
Then again, I don't suppose you often see a cop plucking some bloody-faced mugging victim off the pavement, tut-tutting "well, what did you expect with those earbuds and that haircut and all." At least, I hope not.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:26 AM on April 1, 2011
it leaves open to interpretation whether the problem is that the Toronto PD called sexual assault victims 'sluts' or that their attitude fucking sucks.
Aren't those both problems?
I kind of love the idea of this. I'm not sure how much it will accomplish, in reality, because assholes will always think like assholes, but I can see it being a lot of fun for the participants and their supporters. I would do it. How often do you get to dress up like a total slut and go out and feel totally safe?
On another note, I'm getting really sick of the victim blaming mentality, in general. Some poor woman here recently died after being shoved down the stairs of the elevated by someone stealing an iphone and many people seem to think the girl from whom the iphone was stolen was at least partially to blame for the death. Or the poor guy who got beaten half to death for stepping in to shield a woman from being hit by her husband - popular consensus is he shouldn't have gotten involved. Victim blaming is like giving your blessing for the world to go to hell in a handbag, because you think you're smarter than everyone else. People should be free to whatever legal activity they choose, in whatever manner they choose, dressed in whatever clothes they choose and every other law-abiding citizen should be defending their right to do it.
posted by Jess the Mess at 10:27 AM on April 1, 2011 [17 favorites]
Aren't those both problems?
I kind of love the idea of this. I'm not sure how much it will accomplish, in reality, because assholes will always think like assholes, but I can see it being a lot of fun for the participants and their supporters. I would do it. How often do you get to dress up like a total slut and go out and feel totally safe?
On another note, I'm getting really sick of the victim blaming mentality, in general. Some poor woman here recently died after being shoved down the stairs of the elevated by someone stealing an iphone and many people seem to think the girl from whom the iphone was stolen was at least partially to blame for the death. Or the poor guy who got beaten half to death for stepping in to shield a woman from being hit by her husband - popular consensus is he shouldn't have gotten involved. Victim blaming is like giving your blessing for the world to go to hell in a handbag, because you think you're smarter than everyone else. People should be free to whatever legal activity they choose, in whatever manner they choose, dressed in whatever clothes they choose and every other law-abiding citizen should be defending their right to do it.
posted by Jess the Mess at 10:27 AM on April 1, 2011 [17 favorites]
Then again, I don't suppose you often see a cop plucking some bloody-faced mugging victim off the pavement, tut-tutting "well, what did you expect with those earbuds and that haircut and all." At least, I hope not.
That's not too inconceivable. I've heard of Chicago police telling a guy who got mugged that he was in the wrong neighborhood. Nevermind that he lived there.
posted by hydrophonic at 10:33 AM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
That's not too inconceivable. I've heard of Chicago police telling a guy who got mugged that he was in the wrong neighborhood. Nevermind that he lived there.
posted by hydrophonic at 10:33 AM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
I really feel weird about how we're supposed to re appropriate the term slut into being something positive. I can't turn the phrase "slut shaming." I think I've always thought of a slut as more of a woman who is willing to do anything for male attention (or vacantly being a slave to men without having enough self-respect to not be enslaved by men) and is willing to have sex she doesn't want in order to get positive male attention lavished for a temporary time, which to me seems extremely different than a woman who enjoys having sex with various partners.
I'm wrong about this, according to Wikipedia, but their definition seems to imply that sluttishness is being slovenly or dirty.
I don't know. I'm still working on nuances in my English. I guess I didn't infer what "slut" really meant correctly. I really thought it meant a woman who lets a man knowingly objectify her, abuse her, and treat her badly, and she keeps going back despite not liking it.
posted by anniecat at 10:33 AM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
I'm wrong about this, according to Wikipedia, but their definition seems to imply that sluttishness is being slovenly or dirty.
I don't know. I'm still working on nuances in my English. I guess I didn't infer what "slut" really meant correctly. I really thought it meant a woman who lets a man knowingly objectify her, abuse her, and treat her badly, and she keeps going back despite not liking it.
posted by anniecat at 10:33 AM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
"Slut" typically means a woman who's willing to have sex with men without appropriate amounts of discretion. In other words, a woman who enjoys sex as openly as men are allowed to without being questioned.
"Slut" is a good word to be reclaimed because it's easy shorthand. There's no other word that really captures "People who like to have sex." It's also somewhat entrenched at this point, with books such as "The Ethical Slut."
anniecat, I think the term you're grasping for is "attention whore," which of course has its own sexist implications.
posted by explosion at 10:43 AM on April 1, 2011
"Slut" is a good word to be reclaimed because it's easy shorthand. There's no other word that really captures "People who like to have sex." It's also somewhat entrenched at this point, with books such as "The Ethical Slut."
anniecat, I think the term you're grasping for is "attention whore," which of course has its own sexist implications.
posted by explosion at 10:43 AM on April 1, 2011
About a week ago in my city a woman walking in a suburban neighbourhood was pulled into a car and sexually assaulted by four men (this is not something that happens in my city). The police said (among other things) that women should be aware of their surrounding and avoid walking alone after dark etc.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:44 AM on April 1, 2011
posted by KokuRyu at 10:44 AM on April 1, 2011
"Some poor woman here recently died after being shoved down the stairs of the elevated by someone stealing an iphone and many people seem to think the girl from whom the iphone was stolen was at least partially to blame for the death."
"If you don't have an iPhone… You don't have an iPhone."
posted by klangklangston at 10:44 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
"If you don't have an iPhone… You don't have an iPhone."
posted by klangklangston at 10:44 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Anniecat: The problem is that it means that, but is also at its arguably most broad, "Any woman who is having sex with people or who would like to have sex with people." There's a kernel of legitimate use, but it's a pretty fucking mean slur, has all sorts of contradictory or incoherent insinuations, and is pretty much something that you shouldn't ever call someone unless they ask you to.
posted by klangklangston at 10:47 AM on April 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 10:47 AM on April 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
I agree with anniecat -- I've always felt that the definition of "slut" is much as anniecat describes -- not "woman who likes to have sex" but "woman who uses sex to gain self-esteem through male approval". Personally, although I agree with the general motivations of this group, I'd be uncomfortable going on a "slutwalk".
posted by jess at 10:51 AM on April 1, 2011
posted by jess at 10:51 AM on April 1, 2011
The police said (among other things) that women should be aware of their surrounding and avoid walking alone after dark etc.
Which is true. It's not nice that it's true, but it is true. We should not have to live in a world where it is true, but it is true.
So, because this is a very undesirable and unpleasant trueth, should agencies which are responsible for public safety not speak it?
I think it's critically important that they speak it, because it has the potential to make some people safer and make other people angry that we have to say and do things like that to make people safer.
What's also critically important is that they not lay down shaming value judgments at the same time. It is possible to explain to people how to be safe without shaming them.
That's a real problem, here. We don't seem to be able to draw a distinction between pragmatism and how we want things to work.
Polarizing behavior doesn't do much to convince people to take a pragmatic, non-shaming approach -- it just encourages people to dig in harder.
As for the 'assholes will always be assholes' stuff, with all due respect, that's unhelpful, unproductive bullshit: If you don't believe peoples minds can be changed, then the only point in public action is to piss on territory. Which can occasionally accomplish things, but they're usually things that have to be held onto by force, metaphorical or literal.
posted by lodurr at 10:53 AM on April 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
Which is true. It's not nice that it's true, but it is true. We should not have to live in a world where it is true, but it is true.
So, because this is a very undesirable and unpleasant trueth, should agencies which are responsible for public safety not speak it?
I think it's critically important that they speak it, because it has the potential to make some people safer and make other people angry that we have to say and do things like that to make people safer.
What's also critically important is that they not lay down shaming value judgments at the same time. It is possible to explain to people how to be safe without shaming them.
That's a real problem, here. We don't seem to be able to draw a distinction between pragmatism and how we want things to work.
Polarizing behavior doesn't do much to convince people to take a pragmatic, non-shaming approach -- it just encourages people to dig in harder.
As for the 'assholes will always be assholes' stuff, with all due respect, that's unhelpful, unproductive bullshit: If you don't believe peoples minds can be changed, then the only point in public action is to piss on territory. Which can occasionally accomplish things, but they're usually things that have to be held onto by force, metaphorical or literal.
posted by lodurr at 10:53 AM on April 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
Slut is a negative word typically used by those in power to denigrate another group of people. It's a moral and social judgment on perceived behavior. Really, if you're calling someone a slut, you're typically the one who can't keep your business to yourself.
Slut isn't a legal term. The police should never, ever be using that word, nor should they be implying that they have less of an obligation to protect those who act in (legal) ways that they dislike.
posted by mikeh at 10:54 AM on April 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Slut isn't a legal term. The police should never, ever be using that word, nor should they be implying that they have less of an obligation to protect those who act in (legal) ways that they dislike.
posted by mikeh at 10:54 AM on April 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Maybe while they're organizing to reclaim the language of the oppressors and inviting people to take part in their discussions they can promise to stop using 'deets' instead of 'details' (from their 'How') because JESUS CHRIST THAT IS ANNOYING.
posted by bhance at 10:55 AM on April 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by bhance at 10:55 AM on April 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
Reec the Deets!
posted by StickyCarpet at 11:01 AM on April 1, 2011
posted by StickyCarpet at 11:01 AM on April 1, 2011
Twisty's got a good take on it, I think.
By which I mean, you may say “patayto” and I, “patahto,” but in the end it might be more advantageous to dismantle the slut rather than claim it. “Everyone’s a slut” just doesn’t have the same oomph as “nobody’s a slut.”
posted by flex at 11:01 AM on April 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
By which I mean, you may say “patayto” and I, “patahto,” but in the end it might be more advantageous to dismantle the slut rather than claim it. “Everyone’s a slut” just doesn’t have the same oomph as “nobody’s a slut.”
posted by flex at 11:01 AM on April 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Speaking of stereotypes, this cop isn't doing much to help the "cops ≠ pigs" movement.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 11:02 AM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 11:02 AM on April 1, 2011 [2 favorites]
That's not too inconceivable. I've heard of Chicago police telling a guy who got mugged that he was in the wrong neighborhood. Nevermind that he lived there.
I've twice in different neighborhoods where I've lived in NYC been stopped by the police for looking like I didn't belong there... presumably because I'm white. "What are you doing here?" "Do you live around here?" "You're going to get mugged." Gee, thanks officer, I haven't been living here for two years or anything...
posted by Jahaza at 11:03 AM on April 1, 2011
I've twice in different neighborhoods where I've lived in NYC been stopped by the police for looking like I didn't belong there... presumably because I'm white. "What are you doing here?" "Do you live around here?" "You're going to get mugged." Gee, thanks officer, I haven't been living here for two years or anything...
posted by Jahaza at 11:03 AM on April 1, 2011
“Everyone’s a slut” just doesn’t have the same oomph as “nobody’s a slut.”
That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me.
Another way to phrase it would be to say that claiming the language of the oppressor keeps the oppressor's ideas alive, because we re-rehearse them every time we have to explain the language (or every time someone remembers what it "used to" mean).
posted by lodurr at 11:03 AM on April 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me.
Another way to phrase it would be to say that claiming the language of the oppressor keeps the oppressor's ideas alive, because we re-rehearse them every time we have to explain the language (or every time someone remembers what it "used to" mean).
posted by lodurr at 11:03 AM on April 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Slut is a negative word typically used by those in power to denigrate another group of people.
Not necessarily; I've heard it used out of jealously a number of times towards people in positions of greater power or prestige to "take them down a notch". Girls in my high school and middle school used to talk about other girls that way all the time. It's a terrible, offensive, judgemental term used to belittle women but I don't think it's necessarily tied to power.
posted by Hoopo at 11:07 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Not necessarily; I've heard it used out of jealously a number of times towards people in positions of greater power or prestige to "take them down a notch". Girls in my high school and middle school used to talk about other girls that way all the time. It's a terrible, offensive, judgemental term used to belittle women but I don't think it's necessarily tied to power.
posted by Hoopo at 11:07 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think that's a really good point, lodurr, and one that I've heard before regarding the reappropriation of "nigger." I think "slut" ends up in that more loaded zone, as opposed to "cunt," which has a lot more descriptive utility (though since I hang out with women from different milieus and generations, it's sometimes jarring to hear how "cunt" gets used casually).
posted by klangklangston at 11:08 AM on April 1, 2011
posted by klangklangston at 11:08 AM on April 1, 2011
Also, it's a fine line sometimes between blaming the victim and trying to provide the tools to help people protect themselves. "You're going to get mugged if you walk around listening to your damn iPod at 3 a.m., yuppie," versus, pay attention to your surroundings, especially walking alone at night. "Don't dress like a slut if you don't want to get sexually assaulted," versus, try not to draw attention to yourself when walking alone at night. The officer's (inexcusable and offensive) choice of language may have unfortunately obscured what could be a kernel of good advice. It's worth remembering that for better or worse, cops aren't really in the business of thinking about the root causes of crimes, and whether they stem from systemic racism or misogyny or what. They tend to be focused on trying to prevent specific instances.
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 11:12 AM on April 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by dixiecupdrinking at 11:12 AM on April 1, 2011 [4 favorites]
when I watch a lot of british films, I find i have to watch myself to keep from saying 'cunt' in public.
I think you're right about 'cunt', but mostly because it doesn't have a broadly accepted use that's attached to the attributed morality of a person's behavior (except where it's roughly an amplification of 'dick', as in the more Americanized usage of 'don't be such a cunt', and there it's not usually sexual mores but other behaviors).
I've argued before and will continue to that Americans valorize dickishness. So to hold someone to be morally suspect in the way that's implied by the American usages of "cunt" as a pejorative is not nearly as bad as calling them a slut, for most people.
posted by lodurr at 11:16 AM on April 1, 2011
I think you're right about 'cunt', but mostly because it doesn't have a broadly accepted use that's attached to the attributed morality of a person's behavior (except where it's roughly an amplification of 'dick', as in the more Americanized usage of 'don't be such a cunt', and there it's not usually sexual mores but other behaviors).
I've argued before and will continue to that Americans valorize dickishness. So to hold someone to be morally suspect in the way that's implied by the American usages of "cunt" as a pejorative is not nearly as bad as calling them a slut, for most people.
posted by lodurr at 11:16 AM on April 1, 2011
As for the 'assholes will always be assholes' stuff, with all due respect, that's unhelpful, unproductive bullshit: If you don't believe peoples minds can be changed, then the only point in public action is to piss on territory. Which can occasionally accomplish things, but they're usually things that have to be held onto by force, metaphorical or literal.
Forgive me if I find it hard to believe the local neighborhood creep is going to learn to genuinely care about women from one afternoon of women demonstrating in their hot pants. Maybe his mind could be changed through years and years of therapy, but even then, I have my doubts.
What I do think can be accomplished, however, is coming together and influencing other women to show they won't cow to meeting the police halfway in their standards of dress and behavior in order to be protected under the law. Perhaps that is pissing on territory. If so, it's definitely territory that needs to be pissed on.
posted by Jess the Mess at 11:24 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Forgive me if I find it hard to believe the local neighborhood creep is going to learn to genuinely care about women from one afternoon of women demonstrating in their hot pants. Maybe his mind could be changed through years and years of therapy, but even then, I have my doubts.
What I do think can be accomplished, however, is coming together and influencing other women to show they won't cow to meeting the police halfway in their standards of dress and behavior in order to be protected under the law. Perhaps that is pissing on territory. If so, it's definitely territory that needs to be pissed on.
posted by Jess the Mess at 11:24 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
The police said (among other things) that women should be aware of their surrounding and avoid walking alone after dark etc.
Which is true. It's not nice that it's true, but it is true. We should not have to live in a world where it is true, but it is true.
We would also like to live in the world where safety guidelines are not interpreted as rules that, if followed exactly correctly, will prevent one from being raped. Unfortunately, that's also the world we live in, and many (law enforcement, rapists, courts, the public) are very quick to blame the victim if the rules aren't followed perfectly.
posted by almostmanda at 11:30 AM on April 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
Which is true. It's not nice that it's true, but it is true. We should not have to live in a world where it is true, but it is true.
We would also like to live in the world where safety guidelines are not interpreted as rules that, if followed exactly correctly, will prevent one from being raped. Unfortunately, that's also the world we live in, and many (law enforcement, rapists, courts, the public) are very quick to blame the victim if the rules aren't followed perfectly.
posted by almostmanda at 11:30 AM on April 1, 2011 [6 favorites]
Forgive me if I find it hard to believe the local neighborhood creep is going to learn to genuinely care about women from...
There will always be some people you will never reach. Not all 'assholes' are those people.
As for the 'demonstrating in their hotpants' bit, you're talking to the wrong person.
posted by lodurr at 11:38 AM on April 1, 2011
There will always be some people you will never reach. Not all 'assholes' are those people.
As for the 'demonstrating in their hotpants' bit, you're talking to the wrong person.
posted by lodurr at 11:38 AM on April 1, 2011
We would also like to live in the world where safety guidelines are not interpreted as rules that, if followed exactly correctly, will prevent one from being raped.
Absolutely. And I'll be among the first to argue that's due to moralism more than anything else.
Stuff that we say is backed up with a lot of crap & baggage, and we don't even have a chance of making shit better until we get rid of some of it.
posted by lodurr at 11:39 AM on April 1, 2011
Absolutely. And I'll be among the first to argue that's due to moralism more than anything else.
Stuff that we say is backed up with a lot of crap & baggage, and we don't even have a chance of making shit better until we get rid of some of it.
posted by lodurr at 11:39 AM on April 1, 2011
And maybe somewhere their exists people who aren't aware of these safety precautions, but for most people, this clucking and head-shaking is just patronizing. I live in the city and do my best to be cautious and aware of my surroundings, but sometimes shit happens. Sometimes you're a little drunk, dressed for a night out and the neighborhood's a little sparse on cabs or you're out of money and there are no buses so you end up walking a few blocks. It happens. If someone gets mugged or raped in those few blocks, it's not in any way, shape or form their fault. Period. No one needs to tell them what they should have done instead. Never mind the fact that most rapes happen under totally different, much more familiar circumstances.
posted by Jess the Mess at 11:40 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Jess the Mess at 11:40 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm afraid that as long as there are people who disapprove of other people's sexual-behavior, there will be people who use the word "slut" for people (usually women) whose sexual behavior they disapprove of.
posted by straight at 11:45 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by straight at 11:45 AM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think the important thing that's happening here is that women are refusing to internalize the message, "Avoid life. Live in fear (it makes things easier for us)."
posted by Jess the Mess at 11:45 AM on April 1, 2011 [8 favorites]
posted by Jess the Mess at 11:45 AM on April 1, 2011 [8 favorites]
Counterphobic behavior is not always a good indicator that someone is not internalizing the fear.
posted by lodurr at 11:48 AM on April 1, 2011
posted by lodurr at 11:48 AM on April 1, 2011
I've twice in different neighborhoods where I've lived in NYC been stopped by the police for looking like I didn't belong there
They thing you are buying drugs.
posted by Ad hominem at 12:05 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
They thing you are buying drugs.
posted by Ad hominem at 12:05 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
This is really important. Fearful behaviour and shame both aid victimization.
Also, it's been a horrid winter so, yay dressing up.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:06 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Also, it's been a horrid winter so, yay dressing up.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:06 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Anniecat: The problem is that it means that, but is also at its arguably most broad, "Any woman who is having sex with people or who would like to have sex with people."
I totally get that, but I get a sense that there is a cultural shift for my/our generation. It seems like the woman who has hangups about sex or is not enjoying sex is more likely to be maligned ("frigid" or "prude") and not being desirable to men is far worse. Though, being continually "used" by a man exclusively for sex when you yourself desire more (so I'm not talking about the woman who is able to have casual sex and enjoy it without needing more) than just sex means you're a fool for not treating yourself well.
So, I think I've gotten the sense, primarily from how assholes and jerks call women sluts, that a slut is a woman who is being used and disposed.
I'm kind of thinking attempting to reappropriate slut isn't a good idea because guys like those assholes at Yale will argue they aren't being misogynistic when they clearly are using the term to refer to women they think they're entitled to demean and objectify through deceit (assuming women aren't being told that the guy wants to have sex with them so he can report back how many "pies" and "gullets" they've scored). I
On a side note, I'm pretty angry that incidents like those at Yale and USC are taking place, and while I wish I could believe that these kinds of incidents represent a tiny slice of sexual culture in college, I think it's probably not. Then you have assholes like the Toronto PD who are narcissists who plainly don't belong in modern society.
All of those guys could be sociopaths or reformable assholes, but women should not be subjected to that kind of disrespect on campus or anywhere else. Yet none of them think it's wrong to be shitty excuses for human beings.
I see the argument that slut is like the n-word (and no, people who are not black should not say it), and the way men use "slut" is very different than how women mean to redefine it. The women seem to want to say, "So what if I'm a slut?" and that seems to make it seem like the person saying it judgmentally should not use the term judgmentally--that the person who is using the word is somehow depicting the facts accurately when they really aren't. Enjoying sex doesn't make you a slut. Not benefiting from having sex but doing it anyway and coming away the loser (I think girls often say "Giving it away for free"? which I thought mean you were having sex to get affection and not getting what you want out of it) is not the kind of situation women should find themselves in.
However, even that is sort of annoying. How else, as a heterosexual female, do you learn about your own sexuality and feelings and emotions unless you make sex mistakes and discover that there are men who will treat you and your body and your personhood disposably and without integrity?
The only thing to do is to stop wasting energy on reappropriating slut and start coming up with ways to promote not being a dick. It could be as simple as passing out flyers. Something like "10 Ways Not to Be A Dick to Women," or "Why Not Explicitly Asking a Woman if You Can Have Casual Sex with Her is Deceitful" and just plaster it on campuses. Or a quiz in GQ: "Are You an Asshole and Sorry Excuse for a Person? Take this quiz and find out." Or maybe a pamphlet for women on "Casual Sex is Sex Without Commitment: Why You Seriously Can't Expect More and How You Can Keep it From Meaning More and Just Concentrate on Having Fun" or "How to Enjoy Sex and Keep Yourself from Wanting More" or "What to Do if the Nice Guy You Slept with Treats You Badly the Next Morning" or "He's a Deceitful Prick: When the Guy You Slept with Spreads Lies About You" or "How to Know if You're Being Used when You Thought He Would Make a Good Boyfriend." I think maybe those things might be better at improving the way the culture treats women.
So, to conclude, sluts don't exist and I don't like those stories about USC and Yale. I hope the women start rioting there because it's not okay that that stuff continues to happen.
posted by anniecat at 12:36 PM on April 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
I totally get that, but I get a sense that there is a cultural shift for my/our generation. It seems like the woman who has hangups about sex or is not enjoying sex is more likely to be maligned ("frigid" or "prude") and not being desirable to men is far worse. Though, being continually "used" by a man exclusively for sex when you yourself desire more (so I'm not talking about the woman who is able to have casual sex and enjoy it without needing more) than just sex means you're a fool for not treating yourself well.
So, I think I've gotten the sense, primarily from how assholes and jerks call women sluts, that a slut is a woman who is being used and disposed.
I'm kind of thinking attempting to reappropriate slut isn't a good idea because guys like those assholes at Yale will argue they aren't being misogynistic when they clearly are using the term to refer to women they think they're entitled to demean and objectify through deceit (assuming women aren't being told that the guy wants to have sex with them so he can report back how many "pies" and "gullets" they've scored). I
On a side note, I'm pretty angry that incidents like those at Yale and USC are taking place, and while I wish I could believe that these kinds of incidents represent a tiny slice of sexual culture in college, I think it's probably not. Then you have assholes like the Toronto PD who are narcissists who plainly don't belong in modern society.
All of those guys could be sociopaths or reformable assholes, but women should not be subjected to that kind of disrespect on campus or anywhere else. Yet none of them think it's wrong to be shitty excuses for human beings.
I see the argument that slut is like the n-word (and no, people who are not black should not say it), and the way men use "slut" is very different than how women mean to redefine it. The women seem to want to say, "So what if I'm a slut?" and that seems to make it seem like the person saying it judgmentally should not use the term judgmentally--that the person who is using the word is somehow depicting the facts accurately when they really aren't. Enjoying sex doesn't make you a slut. Not benefiting from having sex but doing it anyway and coming away the loser (I think girls often say "Giving it away for free"? which I thought mean you were having sex to get affection and not getting what you want out of it) is not the kind of situation women should find themselves in.
However, even that is sort of annoying. How else, as a heterosexual female, do you learn about your own sexuality and feelings and emotions unless you make sex mistakes and discover that there are men who will treat you and your body and your personhood disposably and without integrity?
The only thing to do is to stop wasting energy on reappropriating slut and start coming up with ways to promote not being a dick. It could be as simple as passing out flyers. Something like "10 Ways Not to Be A Dick to Women," or "Why Not Explicitly Asking a Woman if You Can Have Casual Sex with Her is Deceitful" and just plaster it on campuses. Or a quiz in GQ: "Are You an Asshole and Sorry Excuse for a Person? Take this quiz and find out." Or maybe a pamphlet for women on "Casual Sex is Sex Without Commitment: Why You Seriously Can't Expect More and How You Can Keep it From Meaning More and Just Concentrate on Having Fun" or "How to Enjoy Sex and Keep Yourself from Wanting More" or "What to Do if the Nice Guy You Slept with Treats You Badly the Next Morning" or "He's a Deceitful Prick: When the Guy You Slept with Spreads Lies About You" or "How to Know if You're Being Used when You Thought He Would Make a Good Boyfriend." I think maybe those things might be better at improving the way the culture treats women.
So, to conclude, sluts don't exist and I don't like those stories about USC and Yale. I hope the women start rioting there because it's not okay that that stuff continues to happen.
posted by anniecat at 12:36 PM on April 1, 2011 [3 favorites]
Crap, I'm sorry if my comments aren't clear. I got really worked up. I'm mad about the Yale and USC thing and it seems like those guys have the same disease this Toronto PD has. I'm sick of this stuff. I would feel better if instead of a walk, women would start toilet paper-ing (because burning them down would be wrong) frat and Toronto PD's houses or something. This whole "I will calmly show you how angry this makes me"...makes me feel a bit disempowered even if it is the high road.
posted by anniecat at 12:46 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by anniecat at 12:46 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
Toilet paper is quite flammable.
posted by clarknova at 12:55 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by clarknova at 12:55 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'm of two--no, wait, somewhere between two and seven--different minds on reclaiming offensive terms.
In this case, though, I approve. I interpret it less as "Hooray, we're all sluts," and more as sending a message that shaming won't work and that the police don't get a pass on protecting anyone, even if they do happen to be certain types or classes of people they want to vilify. So I see it more as saying that the victim blaming excuse is irrelevant, and we're not even going to entertain a discussion about it.
So I choose to see this as a way of saying, "Nope. Victim blaming is just off the table. Move on and do your job."
posted by ernielundquist at 1:09 PM on April 1, 2011
In this case, though, I approve. I interpret it less as "Hooray, we're all sluts," and more as sending a message that shaming won't work and that the police don't get a pass on protecting anyone, even if they do happen to be certain types or classes of people they want to vilify. So I see it more as saying that the victim blaming excuse is irrelevant, and we're not even going to entertain a discussion about it.
So I choose to see this as a way of saying, "Nope. Victim blaming is just off the table. Move on and do your job."
posted by ernielundquist at 1:09 PM on April 1, 2011
Anniecat, I think that's the right attitude. I'd add stuff like "Sex With Someone Who Doesn't Really Want You is Pathetic." "Real Sex = Enthusiastic Consent." "If She's Too Drunk To Participate You'd Be Better Off Jackin' Off."
posted by straight at 1:18 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by straight at 1:18 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
I'd add stuff like "Sex With Someone Who Doesn't Really Want You is Pathetic."
Well, I don't want to judge a woman or man for choosing to have sex with someone who just wants casual sex so long as she/he is aware of what's going on and wants casual sex too or decides they are better off having sex because it's pleasurable and good for them. It's the thinking having desperate sex will change the other person's mind or cause the person to fall in love with them---- that I think might require help from therapists if the person is truly stuck and miserable. I have to admit, I'm not the kind of woman who was able to achieve the ability to have casual sex (and it wasn't even an option for me because I was raised to stay away from men until I got into my early twenties and fell in love and couldn't help it), but some say they can and if they know how to handle that and want to enjoy themselves, I'm not going to judge their sexual choices. And it might be part of learning how to be less vulnerable, so I think so long as a person isn't trying to trick someone into bed by being ambiguous about their motivation (I see AskMe questions sometimes like "How do I get this woman/man to agree to a casual sex relationship?" and I think anything but being explicit about what you want, especially when your aim is to get what you want and you wish you could just use the other person's body without being explicit about that being the sole motivation, then you're getting deceitful. And being deceitful is not okay. But if both parties are okay with a casual thing, then I'm not going to claim that two consenting adults aware of the situation that they're pathetic, because they aren't. Getting tricked is sad. Being the person who tricks someone is pathetic.
posted by anniecat at 1:46 PM on April 1, 2011
Well, I don't want to judge a woman or man for choosing to have sex with someone who just wants casual sex so long as she/he is aware of what's going on and wants casual sex too or decides they are better off having sex because it's pleasurable and good for them. It's the thinking having desperate sex will change the other person's mind or cause the person to fall in love with them---- that I think might require help from therapists if the person is truly stuck and miserable. I have to admit, I'm not the kind of woman who was able to achieve the ability to have casual sex (and it wasn't even an option for me because I was raised to stay away from men until I got into my early twenties and fell in love and couldn't help it), but some say they can and if they know how to handle that and want to enjoy themselves, I'm not going to judge their sexual choices. And it might be part of learning how to be less vulnerable, so I think so long as a person isn't trying to trick someone into bed by being ambiguous about their motivation (I see AskMe questions sometimes like "How do I get this woman/man to agree to a casual sex relationship?" and I think anything but being explicit about what you want, especially when your aim is to get what you want and you wish you could just use the other person's body without being explicit about that being the sole motivation, then you're getting deceitful. And being deceitful is not okay. But if both parties are okay with a casual thing, then I'm not going to claim that two consenting adults aware of the situation that they're pathetic, because they aren't. Getting tricked is sad. Being the person who tricks someone is pathetic.
posted by anniecat at 1:46 PM on April 1, 2011
"want you" is ambiguous, I guess. I was thinking more of issues of consent than of love.
posted by straight at 2:16 PM on April 1, 2011
posted by straight at 2:16 PM on April 1, 2011
I think it is well worth pointing out that rapists don't just go after women who are scantily dressed. It may be physically more of a challenge to rape someone who is more fully dressed, but it happens. What are the Toronto PD going to say of children who are victims? I don't know that demonstration focusing on the word 'slut' covers the territory. I think women dressed all kinds of ways need to show up.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 2:21 PM on April 1, 2011
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 2:21 PM on April 1, 2011
On the one hand, I didn't really interpret this as re-appropriating the term "slut" so much as using it ironically to reveal the underlying absurdity of the term. Kind of like over-performing a stereotype to highlight how nonsensical and biased its premises are. Basically like saying, "Oh? You think a woman dressing that way in public is subtly inviting harassment? I'll show you slutty. I'll parade around the streets in skimpy clothes (because if your premise is true, then dressing extra slutty must mean I'm practically screaming "rape me!") until you feel so embarrassed that you'll have to take back what you said."
But on the other hand, if this is indeed a re-appropriation of the term "slut", then I feel like it has the potential to go horribly wrong. It just reminds me of how the term "bitch", often used as an offensive pejorative for women who are considered overly assertive, is often re-appropriated to have positive connotations. In theory, this would have been a good thing since it would have undermined the very misogynistic practice of calling assertive/"masculine" women bitches as a way of forcing them back into a submissive role. However, in practice the positive use of "bitch" is, in my opinion, totally misguided: now we have (among other commodified pejoratives) sparkly pink cell phone cases with the word "bitch" encrusted in rhinestones and this is supposed to be "empowering" but really it just serves as an excuse to treat people like dirt and then defend it with "I'm an empowered woman, I don't let people trample on me! I trample on them!". I can see something similar happening with the term "slut", with women feeling pressured to dress or act "slutty" in order to show how enlightened and unafraid they are. (The inverse message then would be "if you don't flaunt your stuff all the time, then you're clearly being cowed by the patriarchy.") And of course, someone will have the idea to sell skin-tight women's t-shirts with the word "SLUT" in sparkly letters over the chest.
posted by adso at 2:44 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
But on the other hand, if this is indeed a re-appropriation of the term "slut", then I feel like it has the potential to go horribly wrong. It just reminds me of how the term "bitch", often used as an offensive pejorative for women who are considered overly assertive, is often re-appropriated to have positive connotations. In theory, this would have been a good thing since it would have undermined the very misogynistic practice of calling assertive/"masculine" women bitches as a way of forcing them back into a submissive role. However, in practice the positive use of "bitch" is, in my opinion, totally misguided: now we have (among other commodified pejoratives) sparkly pink cell phone cases with the word "bitch" encrusted in rhinestones and this is supposed to be "empowering" but really it just serves as an excuse to treat people like dirt and then defend it with "I'm an empowered woman, I don't let people trample on me! I trample on them!". I can see something similar happening with the term "slut", with women feeling pressured to dress or act "slutty" in order to show how enlightened and unafraid they are. (The inverse message then would be "if you don't flaunt your stuff all the time, then you're clearly being cowed by the patriarchy.") And of course, someone will have the idea to sell skin-tight women's t-shirts with the word "SLUT" in sparkly letters over the chest.
posted by adso at 2:44 PM on April 1, 2011 [1 favorite]
@ adso, I think those t-shirts are available, along with 'Porn Star" and some others. Personally, you would have to be the Ayatollah Kohmeini to think I looked remotely 'slutty', I still get a certain amount of street hassle. A lot of it is sexual harassment. I am no Spring chicken. I am really of an age where I should be exempt and immune, but I guess not.
As far as having to show everything, that is as much an oppression as having to hide everything, just takes a different form. It might be worse if the pressure is towards showing everything.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 3:10 PM on April 1, 2011
As far as having to show everything, that is as much an oppression as having to hide everything, just takes a different form. It might be worse if the pressure is towards showing everything.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 3:10 PM on April 1, 2011
I have a friend who was raped a few years ago and TPS (Toronto Police Services, not the Toronto PD) were both unhelpful and uninterested in investigating it. I'm all for pressuring them to shape up their act.
It's shameful as well because Toronto has an internationally-famous criminal unit specifically dedicated to catching paedophiles and producers of child pornography, and many (though not all) of the resources and techniques they use could be applied to solve more sexual assault cases.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 1:52 AM on April 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
It's shameful as well because Toronto has an internationally-famous criminal unit specifically dedicated to catching paedophiles and producers of child pornography, and many (though not all) of the resources and techniques they use could be applied to solve more sexual assault cases.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 1:52 AM on April 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
If you ask a few men I know, a slut is a woman who has sex with somebody that isn't you
posted by tehloki at 3:14 PM on April 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by tehloki at 3:14 PM on April 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
Heh. From the pics, it looks like women "avoided dressing like sluts" mostly because it's still cold as metal bras in Canada.
posted by klangklangston at 1:18 PM on April 4, 2011
posted by klangklangston at 1:18 PM on April 4, 2011
« Older You know, if one paints someone's portrait, one... | Cooking with Google Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ricochet biscuit at 10:04 AM on April 1, 2011