"SlutWalk" Coming to Australia

136 posts in this topic

 

At the end of everything, I'm still really not sure what these women are trying to say.

 

This is similar to bear-baiting, where a dumb animal is led by the nose and made to perform all kinds of unnatural acts, like dancing and jumping on command. Bear-baiting is seen as cruel to bears and has been outlawed in many countries.

What she wants is called 'cock-baiting', where dumb males are led by the nose and made to perform all kinds of unnatural acts for a man, like dancing and jumping on command. Clearly, cock-baiting is not seen as cruel.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Apparently so. Use of vibes is on the rise.

 

- have you ever stopped to ask yourself why?...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know maybe I'm ever the optimist. I know it is a very sensitive issue, but I think the one thing that is being over looked is that it was a lecture on how individuals could lower the chances of being raped. Not a lecture on the evils of rape, which are surely clear. I think it might be a valid point if you have a predator actively seeking a target then he might be more likely to have his attention drawn to someone who is dressed in a overtly sexual manner. I'm not saying she is asking for it, or is any way responsible for her being raped if it does occur, that in my mind is silly. I also hate the idea that men's brains shut down and we turn into animals who can't be held responsible for our actions the moment we see a sexy woman, this is ridiculous. I think/hope that it was more a misguided or ill thought out comment, not intended to place blame on women, simply to make the point I made above. Wether or not you feel it is valid or not is a different matter.

 

The problem I have with the whole thing being blown up into the slutwalks and complete indignant outrage is that it took away from a really good opportunity for an open discussion. In my mind the real issue is being trivialized by all the hoopla. It's great that women are willing to stand up for their right to wear the clothes they want and express themselves the way they want, we do after all live in a society which values these rights. However when we talk about rape and sexual harassment the big battle is to actually have the crimes reported in the first place. Apparently only 6% of incidences in Canada are actually reported, apparently victims when asked why they didn't report the crime 64% cited fear and shame, 44% cited concern about the attitude of police and courts.

 

So in my mind I don't think the officers advice was too remiss, it is more the wording he used that was wrong. I think it could have been used as a good way to open a dialogue of why the use of that term was wrong and how it belongs to an ideology that belongs in the past. I don't really think the slut walks really address the problem at all, in fact in my mind it diverts people from the actual real issues by sensationalizing the whole thing.

 

 

In one study, women gave the following reasons for not reporting incidents of sexual assault:

 

• belief that the police could do nothing about it (50% of women gave this reason);

 

• concern about the attitude of both police and the courts toward sexual assault (44%);

 

• fear of another assault by the offender (33%);

 

• fear and shame (64%).

 

(Solicitor General of Canada, "Canadian Urban Victimization Survey," Bulletin 4: Female Victims of Crime. Ottawa, 1985.)

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. What a kafuffle! A lot of “mixed messages” in this one.

 

Is the walk about “sluts on parade” or is it about women walking with pride, because “they wear, what they wear with confidence”? Or is it about healthy sex lives?

 

Whilst I wholeheartedly support the “Protest Walk”, I don’t believe using the term “slut” is completely appropriate. Using that word confuses people’s perception of what the entire campaign is about; encourages negativity and incites bad thinking by the moronic men who still possess an IQ of an ape or those that have not been raised with any morality (we have many of them in Australia).

 

Why not call it “The Walk of Individuality”; “Feminine Walk”, “Wear with Pride and Walk with Us”, etc. etc. etc. (lousy names, I know), but you get my point.

 

We are dealing with four very different issues here and I don’t believe all of them fit together in this campaign:

 

1) Women’s choice in clothing & appearance

2) Having a healthy sex life

3) The term “slut”

4) Rape or assault incited by what is worn by a woman

 

A women certainly has the right to confidently wear what she “wants” and what she “feels” good in. She can flaunt as little or as much as she sees fit. BUT she ALSO needs to accept “responsibility” for that. And by choosing provocative clothing, she should NOT feel threatened by the other sex BUT we don’t live in a world where men don’t think with their dicks. They do and we just need to accept it.

 

I was at the infamous Melbourne Cup Horse Race in 2009; where all the women looked stunning with their low cut dresses and spanking brand new shoes and hats and I conducted a survey with the men there, asking them what they thought about the women’s appearances and all the trouble they had gone to, to look good. They all said the same thing ...”Fuck the hats and shoes; we just wanna see what’s under all of that”. I have also asked the same question in night clubs and in offices. Sorry ladies, but I got the same response from the fellas. Men find women tantalising. They wanna feel their flesh.

 

The world is motivated by sex. And you can blame the media for that. Sex sells. But absolutely, in no way, should this encourage rape or assault.

 

So let me ask the question, “WHY do women dress provocatively, anyway?” “What’s their motivation to do so?” To show the world, they have a healthy sex life? I don’t think so. They do it because they are either “wanting” to be noticed by a bloke or they are “insecure” and need that extra bit of external attention to feel good within themselves. Sexy, confident women don’t need to show a lot of flesh.

 

Having a healthy sex life and enjoying sex, is FABULOUS but it’s also private. I know many women who have a healthy sex life but choose to dress “tastefully”. There is NOTHING more appealing or sexy to a man, than a women who is well groomed, has clean shoes, sports a lingering fragrance, wears a smart dress hinting the contours of her body and above all, walks with confidence. Innuendo is everything. It’s really not necessary to show a lot of flesh to advertise that you enjoy sex.

 

Do women really need to show the world, that they enjoy sex?

 

And now for the term “slut”

 

(slŭt) A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous; A woman prostitute.

 

Wearing provocative clothing; shouldn’t automatically indicate that a woman is a “slut”. How can one tell, whether a woman is promiscuous, with the amount of clothing she wears? I once worked with a female CEO, who was indeed a proudly boasting promiscuous woman, but her clothing, in and out of the workplace, certainly didn’t indicate that.

 

Using this term in this campaign, is just ridiculous. Get rid of it!

 

By all means, women should be proud of their attributes and assets as a female, but commonsense should always prevail when you’re in the public eye.

Moderation is everything.

 

Ladies, wear what you want; but PLEASE don’t get upset if you get the attention you “unconsciously” asked for.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I also have no problem with a bunch of people running around reclaiming the word slut as a positive word to describe someone with a healthy sexual attitude

why try and 'reclaim' words? Are there some other words that could be reclaimed? Perhaps paedophile could be used to describe someone that is keen on having children?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

why try and 'reclaim' words? Are there some other words that could be reclaimed? Perhaps paedophile could be used to describe someone that is keen on having children?

 

I'm starting a campaign to reclaim the word 'gay'.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A women certainly has the right to confidently wear what she “wants” ..

 

 

 

A women certainly has the right to confidently wear what she “wants” ..

 

A well made argument let down by your poor grasp of singular and plural noun forms.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooops! Very very embarrassing indeed. Written on the fly.

Should have spell checked before I posted. Silly me.

Thanks for that.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to point out that there is a bit of a difference between carrying out a "Slut Walk", in the "progressive" parts of London or New York, Toronto, or Sydney. But quite another to try having one in the immigrant part of Lyon, or Paris, or Malmo, Sweden, or Birmingham, not to mention, Teheran, Cairo, or Baghdad.

 

"A woman has the right to confidently wear what she wants": while I 100% agree with this statement as an ideal, as someone who believes in personal liberty, in reality, I do not think it would work in most of the world, and thus, it is a bit of an illusion. It will work in Europe, the U.S., Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, not to mention most of Latin America, and most of Africa and Asia, but it definitely will not work in Muslim countries, and anyone who thinks that a "Slut Walk" would work in an Arab country really is delusional. And that includes the "Muslim communites" in places like France and the UK.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JohnPB,

 

I don't see where they have an obligation to do this kind of Walk in a place that has a radically different set of (oppressive) cultural boundaries for women, when the aim of the SlutWalk is entirely focused on more modern attitudes within a modern context?

 

Why is this held to the measure of a "one size fits all" global solution, when it has a more specific place where it entirely fits?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just wondering where that "modern context" is, when young women in Oslo are told not to wear short skirts, because in effect, it will draw "the wrong kind of attention" (read: Muslim immigrants don't like it). Or women in the "modern context" in Paris and Lyon, who are not even Muslim, donning a hijab (Islamic head covering) to just walk around their own cities, for fear of being singled out. Or news reporters like the South African one, in Cairo, mass assaulted, because she appeared too western and not sufficiently Islamic. That "modern context" might be a bit smaller than you think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me clothes are costuming. I have friends who are self described Goths, skaters, Preps, hippies etc... each group is trying to communicate something by the way they chose to dress. On occasion I go to concerts/clubs where you dress for the event. But I'm not naive or an idiot... Of course how you're dressed is an attempt to communicate something to the outside world.

No one thinks anyone deserves to be assaulted... but there is an attempt to mask the provocateur. Take gang colors for example... I would never walk through a crips dominated neighborhood with any red on. So I think the lesson would be as a rational human being to not put yourself in a situation that might invite bad behavior. Of course the super majority of men would not do anything to any woman even if she was walking the streets naked. Will a woman dressed like a street hooker invite some interesting stares and comments... of course.

 

But the point of this protest is in fact maligning the majority of men... who would never do anything remotely criminal. The fact is the miniscule percentage of men who might assault a woman, could care less about their protests or the LAW.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So a 12-year-old boy in Cambridgeshire, England, has worn a skirt to school to protest about not being allowed to wear shorts in warm weather. Quo vadis the discussion?

 

Amazing, you would have thought he would have looked silly for pushing his point to extremes, but in the end he wandered round in a skirt, and the school management were the laughing stock, not him.

 

 

But the point of this protest is in fact maligning the majority of men.

 

Nonsense. If you protest against an attitude some men have, you're not claiming or implying all men have that attitude.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point of view is similar to what iain described above. This is a sensitive subject and I'm trying to be careful not to offend anyone.

 

I think we all agree there are sick persons that can be inclined to do something which hopefully is already illegal and heavily punished in the given country (sadly that is not the case in every country).

 

I don't see it as such a stretch to imagine that seeing a woman that intentionally dresses to advertise she is sexual etc.* can increase the likelihood that this kind of sick person goes and commits an illegal act. This appears to make sense to many of us but who knows if it is indeed correct - this is the kind of assumption that can and should be investigated statistically. If such a link has been considered likely to exist (statistics), as long as it is communicated properly I would think it would be outright negligent for this NOT to be mentioned!

 

The women have the right to dress how they want without fear and that right is likely already reflected in the laws (theory), but possibly not trivial to enforce (practice). So I would suggest that the women also have the RIGHT to have accurate information about the current reality. In terms of not living in fear for dressing how they want, that would be great and I hope society moves toward that, I'm just not sure the best way forward is to encourage more women to dress without fear *right now*... Going from the assumption that the statistical link suggested really exists, by encouraging more women to do that right now we could be providing more visible targets that motivate more offenders to act (I say this as though there is the upside of catching more offenders, I don't think it would ethical to advise women to act as bait and if the link exists this may amount to that).

 

This is not excusing the offender - the "blame" should rest only on him, and in particular anyone in a position of authority should not make a bad situation worse by even hinting that the victim was to blame (and I would say that includes not giving more lenient penalties to offenders depending on how the victim was dressed). Unfortunately I'm pretty sure there are offenders out there, regardless of whether they use this fake "excuse" or not.

 

I mean, if most muggings occur at night, it would be pretty silly to not make that information available just because people should be able to go outside at night without fear. Yes, they should be able to, but if there are more muggings at night then I would say that by definition it isn't as safe as during the day and this information should be mentioned!

 

Ivo.

 

* I'm going from the words of the organizers of the walk here. I find this slightly confusing, being sexual is something nearly universal of the population. If anything I would expect persons that aren't sexual to need to put in the effort to advertise as such, but that is a bit besides the point.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I apologize for the much belated reply.

 

 

I am just wondering where that "modern context" is, when young women in Oslo are told not to wear short skirts, because in effect, it will draw "the wrong kind of attention" (read: Muslim immigrants don't like it). Or women in the "modern context" in Paris and Lyon, who are not even Muslim, donning a hijab (Islamic head covering) to just walk around their own cities, for fear of being singled out. Or news reporters like the South African one, in Cairo, mass assaulted, because she appeared too western and not sufficiently Islamic. That "modern context" might be a bit smaller than you think.

 

What you are citing are exceptions which are hardly the rule for the life women lead in either Norway or France, which would indeed be far more modern than that.

 

This project is, in fact, not aimed at the spectre of Islamism overtaking Europe. If there is such a thing, it surely is a whole other kettle of fish. It is aimed at the weaker but still prevailing traces of sexism (or victim-blaming, or whatever) in modern, Western societies.

 

It's kind of silly to pretend that

 

a) women in Western democracies have not made the strides in equality that distinguish their lives from those of women in Baghdad, even with those darn Muslim immigrants being around. THAT is the modern context.

B) any further strides within Western democratic societies are not to be addressed there, but in Baghdad. Or must be universally applicable immediately in either place. Or else be entirely invalid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, not to take away from your argument, but Baghdad used to be pretty western. Till '03 that is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is NOTHING more appealing or sexy to a man, than a women who is well groomed, has clean shoes, sports a lingering fragrance, wears a smart dress hinting the contours of her body and above all, walks with confidence.

That's quite a generalisation you're making there. That may apply to the men you personally want to attract and to whose desires you're consciously appealing by dressing in such a way, but to apply it to the male half of the population as a whole is rather presumptious. And sexist, to a certain degree.

 

 

To me clothes are costuming. I have friends who are self described Goths, skaters, Preps, hippies etc... each group is trying to communicate something by the way they chose to dress.

 

It's not so much costuming as trying to cover up their individual insecurities by presenting a united front to the society at large. Dressing to a certain image is to a large extent social pressure. You just - more or less - choose which social group you allow to pressure you to their image.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi "Rimini". Just a couple of comments on your post:

 

"This project is, in fact, not aimed at the spectre of Islamism overtaking Europe. If there is such a thing, it surely is a whole other kettle of fish. It is aimed at the weaker but still prevailing traces of sexism (or victim-blaming, or whatever) in modern, Western societies."

 

My comment: I never said Islamism would "overtake" Europe. What I mentioned was subtle ways it is having an influence in Europe (France just banned the burka, is one example).

 

Islamism "if there is such a thing". <- yes, there is such a thing.

 

"It surely is another kettle of fish": well, maybe in the "good", upscale parts of Paris and London. Far less so in "certain" arrondissements of Paris, and certain outlying areas of London, and all of cities like Birmingham.

 

"It [i assume you mean the "slut walk" and its "in-your-face" feminism] is aimed at the weaker but still prevailling traces of sexism... in modern, western societies".

 

My comment: Wow. Congrats. Sexism has been stomped out in western Europe, up to "a few traces". Impressive! You can tell Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Berlusconi about that one. I also think that the crusade to stamp out sexism might look a tad bit different to the French, who pride themselves - evidently - on their, um, "robust" notion of seduction, from, let's say the definition of sexism that a feminist in Denmark or London might have. i.e. culture has a huge impact on how successful your crusade to stamp out the "last traces" of sexism will be. Ever been to southern Italy? Rural Spain? I hear Turkey wants to join the EU now...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi "JohnPB",

 

fine. Twist what I say. I'm not going to remain in this discussion if you insist on making my argument something that it is not. I certainly didn't say that sexism has been stomped out in the entirety of Europe in all of its forms. Compared to the places you had mentioned, it is on quite a different level, though. Even if there are some areas and some people who drop below the average standard. Comparing apples and oranges.

 

The "if there is such a thing" was aimed at the whole concept of islamism taking over Europe, not at Islamism on its own.

 

I never said that I am a supporter of this project. I merely meant to defend it from the somewhat ridiculous assertation that it was ever meant for muslim countries and the fact that it wouldn't work there has any relevance, at all. It's not meant for those countries. In some of those countries women may not even drive or leave the house on their own. The comparison is ridiculous. Why would you even bring it up?

 

Kato,

thank you for the correction. I guess Teheran would have been a better example.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now