It would appear that, through lack of clarity, something has finally become clear: Slutwalk has lost me.
I have been following the media coverage, the blog posts, and especially, the threads on SlutwalkTO’s Facebook page, with vigour over the past month or so, since the original walk took place in Toronto on April 3rd. I think it’s safe to say that my relationship with Slutwalk has been a little bit of a feminist rollercoaster ride. One moment I feel like YEAH! WOMEN GETTING MAD. Because, hey, women should be mad. Victim blaming is one of the most insidious, abusive, and traumatic experiences a woman can go through. Not only have we been assaulted, had to come out and admit/describe the assault (terrifying in and of itself), but then we are treated as though we somehow instigated, deserved, or imagined the assault. It is sick. I have witnessed it and I have experienced it. No woman should ever be told that she must stay inside in order to ‘avoid being raped’ or that her clothing or her actions or her behaviour or her level of intoxication somehow made her deserving of sexual assault. With this in mind, I can certainly get behind Slutwalk’s message. I am glad that we have had enough, and I am glad that we’re getting pissed off.
But I think there is more to Slutwalk. I was hesitant, initially, to come out and support the event, though I wasn’t quite sure, at first, what it was that was making me feel so uncomfortable, so unwilling to jump on the Slutwalk bandwagon. While these issues seemed very feminist to me, I was hard-pressed to find anyone actually talking about feminism. I was very uncomfortable with the word ‘slut’ being used as a way to empower women, and even more uncomfortable with the assertion that organizers had taken it upon themselves to ‘reclaim’ the word. This is a word that has been used to hurt, shame, and abuse me. It is a word that has been used to hurt, shame, and abuse women everywhere. In order to silence them, control them, punish them and, of course, blame them. As a teenager (and having been less selective about my choice of social circle), I witnessed friends participate in victim-blaming, I listened as both my female and male friends and acquaintances refused to believe it when a mutual friend came out and said that she had been raped because, well ‘you know how she is’. It was traumatic then, and continues to make my blood boil even now, over 10 years later. It taught me a lesson as a young woman that has been reiterated over and over again: if you are raped, if you are abused, if you are assaulted, be prepared for no one to believe you. Be prepared for the excuses people will make for the men who have done this, be prepared to have your character come into question. Even as a teenager, I knew that when a woman says she has been raped, you believe her. You don’t blame her. I can’t say the same for my peers and clearly little has changed since those days.
I followed the progress of Slutwalk Toronto and, in particular, the threads and posts on their Facebook page, as it seemed to be the place where the most of the conversations were happening. I looked and looked for some mention of feminism, some alignment and acknowledgment that this was, indeed, a feminist issue and a feminist fight – a fight that has been being fought by women for decades. Instead what I found, over and over again was, not only a refusal to align with feminism, but often, an outright aversion to it. I saw numerous attacks on radical feminism and radical feminists and I witnessed the reinforcement of negative and untrue stereotypes about feminism (you know the ones: man-hating, misandrist, no-fun, sex-negative, etc). While I do believe the organizers had good intentions, desiring that Slutwalk be inclusive to all, it began to look a lot like the ‘funfeminist’ – NO NO WE’RE THE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE FEMINISTS. THE FUN ONES. WE’RE OK. WE LIKE PENISES AND PORN AND LOOKING SEXY kind of feminism that, in the end doesn’t successfully challenge much of anything, and simply repackages sexist imagery in ‘empowering’ wrapping paper.
I also found an almost desperate and certainly consistent erasure of gender as a primary issue in terms of sexual assault.
Having made this mistake in the past, and learned from gentle haranguing and online beration, I do not wish to erase the fact that men are indeed often victims of assault, abuse, and rape. Often they are raped and abused by other men. Sometimes they are raped and abused by other women. Domestic abuse, rape, and sexual assault is still, overwhelmingly perpetrated by men against women. The Toronto cop who recommended that women avoid ‘dressing like sluts’ in order to avoid being raped was addressing women. He was engaging in victim-blaming in a very gendered way. He was implying that a women could ‘bring on’ or encourage assault at the hands of a man by ‘dressing like a slut’. We are all in agreement on this, correct?
Not only that, but the word, ‘slut’, is gendered. Can we also agree on this?
As such, I’d like to talk about this word, ‘slut’, and its use in an event against victim-blaming, called ‘Slutwalk’.
Certainly there are reasons organizers decided to use this word. One of these reasons is that, by using the word ‘slut’, ‘it makes people take notice’,
But is that ‘the whole point of it all’? I’m afraid I would have to disagree. Vehemently. Getting attention is easy. Being a feminist is hard. That is not to say that it must, at all times, be difficult, in order to be valid. That is to say that being feminist, often, means being unpopular. Challenging dominant ideology is unpopular. If we focus too hard on trying to make people like us, on trying to make our image palatable, ‘attractive’, easy-to-digest, we do risk, I believe, the movement.
Another F Word, in the UK, wrote a piece addressing, specifically, the term ‘slut’. The author wrote that, while they supported the original sentiment to ‘reclaim the streets’ regardless of the time of day (in reference to ‘Take Back the Night‘), they did not feel comfortable with the idea that they should ‘reclaim’ the word ‘slut’. The author of the post saw, as do I, a reference to that which has infiltrated much of post-feminist discourse, in that ‘I-have-the-right-to-wear-heels-if-I-want-to’ kind of way that is often used to negate critique or criticism of anything that is described as an ‘individual choice’. This post was responded to, by Slutwalk organizers, in what I viewed as, a condescending way, saying that: ‘It seems some people still don’t want to participate because they grapple with the word ‘slut’.
Well, Slutwalk, I also ‘grapple with the word slut’. This word, as I have mentioned, has been used in a myriad of ways to hurt me. I have been called a slut for having sex, for not having sex, and for being coerced into sex. I have been called a slut by partners, by friends, and by acquaintances. I wish that this word did not hold the power it does. I wish that it had not been used to hurt and abuse me. But it has. There is no erasing that. Regardless of whether or not I decide to redefine the word. It continues to be used in this way. And so I still ‘grapple’ with the word, ‘slut’. While some may have decided to reclaim it or redefine it for their own personal empowerment, I’m afraid that this does not change my experiences.
This is not to say that attempting to change language is not a purposeful endeavour. Or that to take away the power a word has to hurt and abuse people is impossible. But rather that this is something that we must not only agree upon, as the oppressed group who has decided to reclaim the oppressive word, and that this takes time. While the argument has been made that the intent is not to force this supposed ‘reclaimation’ on others, that, rather, anyone can volunteer to be a ‘slut or an ally’, the very uncomfortable fact that Slutwalk pressures women (and men!) into accepting this word, a violent word, as part of their empowerment discourse, it not addressed. In fact it seems to go unnoticed. I may well be, in theory and in life, the ‘ally’ of a self-described ‘slut’. But I am not about to call her one.
Is ‘slut’ a choice when we are marching under the banner of ‘Slutwalk’? This language of self-empowerment and choice seems all kinds of accommodating, but when we chastise critics of the event and language for ‘grappling’ with term, I wonder if, perhaps, Slutwalk isn’t quite as accommodating as they would like to be. Informing the public at large that ‘slut is being reappropriated’ 
is certainly empowering and delightful for some women, but does not necessarily encourage solidarity. Nor do insinuations that feminists who do not wish to take on this label, are simply having not quite empowered enough to have stopped ‘grappling’ with the language.
While we’re talking about language, Slutwalk TO would seem to have rejected some particularly pertinent language. They do not, as a whole, identify as feminist, nor do they seem to take the position that gender is a primary factor in sexual assault and victim blaming. In an effort to be inclusive, I wonder if the ownness has been taken off of men? Many men seem to love the event. The Facebook page is full of men who revel in the ‘no we’re not feminists we’re humanists’ slant, who use the page as a platform to promote their I’m a good guy persona. Who are cool with feministish activism so long as they aren’t made to feel uncomfortable, the kind who prefer this version of feminism:
i.e. The kind that is very pleasant and doesn’t say much. The kind that reassures the public that feminists are just attractive, heterosexual, women who love penises and shaving their legs. Women who don’t threaten the status quo.
Using porny kinds of imagery makes the event all the more appealing to men who may feel nervous around feminism, but not so much around the sexy mudflaps girl.
Check out the image 
used for Slutwalk DC’s ‘sexy new website’:
(***Update! Slutwalk DC has removed this image. Unfortunately, now there is this.)
I’m afraid that I can’t see how the mudflaps girl presents a challenge to sexist imagery and discourse around women and female sexuality. Why, exactly, does feminism have to be ‘sexy’ in order for it to be supported? Well, the answer, of course, is so that it is palatable to men and to people who don’t much wish to challenge dominant ideology or to look at the roots of patriarchy. So that it doesn’t make anyone uncomfortable. And now a space has been created where it is not only acceptable, but progressive(!) for men to call women sluts;
where it is perfectly acceptable for men to watch porn because, hey, women 
do it too!
And where it is acceptable to objectify women because we’ve decided that objectification is actually empowering.
This palatability includes, what appears to me as, the consistent erasure of there being anything exploitative or gendered about everything from sexual assault to sex work: 
Say anything about the gendered nature of domestic abuse or sexual assault and you will be sure to get a reminder that ‘women rape men too’ and that it is correct to view everyone as ‘human’, rather than gendered, thereby removing patriarchy as a guiding force when it comes to rape and abuse.
Just like Suicide Girls and the Neo-Burlesque movement argues, Slutwalk seems to encourage the perspective that objectification is ‘ok’ so long as we are objectifying women who deviate from the norm perpetuated by mainstream media (ie. blond, thin, white, conventionally attractive). Making feminist fights palatable to men or anti-feminist women means that it is ok and, feminist even, to objectify, for example, ‘curvy girls’ and not skinny ones: 
These comments tend to be met with back pats (because being attracted to ‘curvy girls’ is progressive! You are such a forward thinking man!) and supported by arguments that ‘if you are objectifying yourself then it is ok’:
Naturally leading off of this kind of commentary, posts will inevitably draw the line between ‘good feminists’ (i.e. sluts) and ‘bad feminists’ (i.e. radicals). Ariel Levy is, in this thread, viewed as ‘shrill’ and ‘incoherant’, one would assume, because she criticizes this nonsensical and ‘post-feminist’ concept that objectifying oneself is somehow empowering.
The constant differentiating between the imaginary ‘man-hating feminist’ (radical) and the ‘sexyfun’ feminists who like to be objectified is just, well, pukey. Are we meant to turn a man into a hero because he ‘likes big butts’? What purpose does it serve in a conversation about women, sexual assault against women, and victim blaming (women) to continuously remind everyone that women are perpetrators as well? I believe that we all know that men are assaulted as well as women and it is indeed important to keep talking about this in order to disrupt the ‘men cannot be victims’ dichotomy that is so much a part of our tiny little vision of what ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ means. Conversations about male victims are important and should be had. But, as Elsie Hambrook notes in her piece: “The Facts and Politics of Intimate Partner Violence”, ‘But, What About the Men?!’ comments are rarely made in good faith. “They are rarely made in an effort to add to a meaningful discussion…These comments are more often ‘meant to grind the conversation to a halt”. It would appear that, under the circumstances I am looking at, these comments are meant to erase gender from the conversation. Hambrook adds: “It is meant to take away from the few occasions where women’s concerns are taken seriously.”
On Friday, this debate aired on The Agenda.
I couldn’t help but cringe, once again, when Jarvis brought up the ‘personal empowerment’ argument as defense of the use and attempted reclaimation of the word, ‘slut’, saying that: “For me to call myself whatever language I want, if I find it empowering, for somebody else to say that that’s not a right choice, when this is my choice. I find that problematic.” I believe that, in this short quip, Jarvis sums up much of that what has made me uncomfortable with Slutwalk from the get-go. ‘If I feel personally empowered by my personal choice, then no one else should have anything to say on the matter. It affects only me,’ is not a strong argument for feminism.
Slutwalk does, in many ways, resemble the same kind of privileged, individualist, ‘anything goes so long as it’s my choice‘ feminism which argues that prostitution is simply a choice like any other (or ‘work’ like any other kind of work), that objectification can be empowering as long as we are choosing to objectify ourselves, and that hey, if heels and breast implants make me feel great then everyone else needs to accept this as some kind of feminist act, because I say it is.
Reclaiming ‘slut’ is not only unnecessary as, I don’t believe we need a term for ‘people who enjoy consensual sex’, but, in removing the gendered aspect of ‘slut’ from the definition (they have not decided to reclaim/redefine the term to mean ‘women who enjoy consensual sex’ though I am not sure that this would be much better as, of course, I would prefer to believe that all women* enjoy consensual sex….) it makes the ‘reclaimation’ of this word an impossibility. It is men or, at very least, a male-dominated, sexist, patriarchal culture which has used the word ‘slut’ to silence and shame women. This means that, were we all to agree that we wanted to ‘take back’ this word (which, to be clear, we have not) it would need to be a gender-specific reclaimation. Men have not been abused and shamed and attacked with this word. Women have.
I absolutely believe that we must work to end rape culture and victim blaming. As Slutwalk makes very clear, no one is asking to be raped. No one deserves to be raped. This message is important. It is, in fact, imperative. Taking gender out of the equation, focusing on individual empowerment (ie. the ‘whatever makes me feel good should go unchallenged’ argument) and, stating (not suggesting, but stating) that ‘ The term ‘Slut’ is being re appropriated: A person who enjoys consensual sex.’ doesn’t make sense to me. It seems to leave out some very important information. For example, the word ‘women’, or ‘feminism’.
Slutwalk co-founder, Sonya JF Barnett, wrote in her blog post entitled: “Being a Slut and Getting Pissed Off” that she would “label [herself] a ‘slut’ before a ‘feminist”; embracing ‘slut’ because she enjoys sex, but rejecting ‘feminist’ because of the “reputation of ‘man-hating, hairy-legged, birkenstock-wearing’ descriptions that appeared around the term”. Ok….So why not have a feminist walk? Why walk for a term that, clearly, while some want to ‘reclaim’, many others feel triggered and shamed by. ‘Slut’ is not a word that we invented, that was taken away from us. ‘Feminism’, on the other hand, means something. It is a word and movement that women created and it is a word that patriarchy works very hard to take away from us. Why not work to keep it? Why not, instead of perpetuating the stereotypes, proudly call ourselves ‘feminist’? We already have a word that describes women who support consensual sex, equality, and the end of patriarchal oppression. Why are we comfortable to call one another, and allow men to call us ‘sluts’, but then reject ‘feminism’? Could it have something to do with the fact that men and mainstream culture are much more likely to accept and support us if we label ourselves sluts and parade around in bras? Whereas if we actually, as Gail Dines points out on The Agenda, ‘put the focus on men’, name men as the primary perpetrators of sexual assault against women, name patriarchy as the foundation of rape culture and victim blaming, and then name feminism as the movement which works to combat this, well, some men probably aren’t going to like us anymore. It is possible that, were we to do this, some men, men who do not wish for this kind of thing to be pointed out (excluding male feminists and allies, who are arm in arm with us, pointing these things out themselves), will not want to come on our walk with us. They may not want to photograph us, they may not want to come onto our Facebook pages and yell: “I love feminists!’ as much as they like to yell: ‘I love sluts!’.
But in terms of saying what we mean, addressing the roots and foundations of sexual assault and victim blaming, and challenging the system, I think that what we may be talking about is, in fact, feminism. I think that what we may, in fact, be, are feminists. Not sluts. Feminists.
Rejecting the word feminist but embracing the word slut sounds, to me, a lot like we’ve all drank the systematic kool-aid. I feel a little bit like all those patriarchal powers-that-be are snickering, witnessing the success of their hard work, having scared women away from labeling themselves feminist and instead taking on the oppressive language used to keep us down, to insult us, to objectify us, and to rape us. Hoping that they’ll stop. That maybe they’ll like us, respect us, and join us, so long as we don’t make them feel too uncomfortable. So long as we look sexy while we march.
F Word Collective member, Ellie, pointed me to this amazing spoken word piece by Julian Curry. I think we can certainly draw some parallels here.
*** For further discussion and some alternate perspectives on Slutwalk, please check out The F Word’s podcast, featuring an interview with Slutwalk Vancouver organizers, Katie Raso and Katie Nordgren. This interview is followed by a collective discussion among hosts Nicole Deagan, Laura Wood, and Meghan Murphy about some of the more controversial issues that have come up around Slutwalk. Podcast can be found at rabble.ca http://rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/f-word/2011/05/whats-name-slutwalks-feminism
*regarding the statement that “I would prefer to believe that all women enjoy consensual sex”, I would like to make very clear that what I meant, and what I should have conveyed more clearly, was that “I would prefer to believe that all women who enjoy/desire/have sex, enjoy consensual sex”. i.e. Let’s just work with the assumption that women do not ‘enjoy’ non-consensual sex. This statement was, in no way, meant to imply that all women enjoy/desire/have sex and, in no way, was meant to advocate for compulsory sexuality or erase asexual women. I make very clear, in my work (even within this post) and thought, (as well as in the comments section, though this issue has continued to be brought up and so I do feel the need to address it and clarify) that I reject compulsory sexuality and the idea that all people are sexually active or have arbitrary sexual desire. This was an error in language and clarity, not an error in thought or theory.
Tags: Post feminism, Rape, sexual assault, sluts, Slutwalk, the 3rd wave, victim-blaming
Tweet
Interesting and considered analysis, Meghan. I am not too sure about the whole concept either, but couldn’t put my finger on why. So I started writing about it and what started as a couple of paragraphs turned into an essay. Some of our points are similar, some are not. Have a little look if you have time? Best wishes, Tabitha.
http://tabithatalkstrash.tumblr.com/post/5499349213/slutwalk
Women complain about how unfair it is that men are called studs when they sleep around, yet women get called sluts for the exact same behavior. It’s actually not a double standard though, because both scenarios are pretty different in terms of circumstances and consequences. I can think of at least four crucial differences:
First, sleeping around is easier for women. Regardless of how you feel about promiscuity, we can all agree that a guy who manages to rack up a lot of sexual partners has to have some skills. It’s challenging for men to rack up partners, even for men with low standards. A man needs social intelligence, interpersonal skills, persistence, thick skin, and plain old dumb luck. For women, though, a vagina and a pulse is often enough. Whenever an accomplishment requires absolutely no challenge, no one respects it. It’s just viewed as a lack of self-discipline. People respect those who accomplish challenging feats, while they consider those who overindulge in easily obtained feats as weak, untrustworthy or flawed.
Second, women have potential to do more harm by sleeping around than men do. Say a man sleeps around with a bunch of different women. He’s definitely doing harm to these women if he pretends to be monogamous while sleeping around. He may cause them emotional pain by his promiscuity. He may cause unwanted pregnancy. He may spread VD. When women sleep around, however, they can cause not only all these same ill effects but one additional crucial ill effect: the risk of unknown parentage.
If one guy sleeps around with five women, each of whom is monogamous to him, and they all get pregnant, it’s a safe bet as to who the father is. If you reverse genders and have one woman who sleeps around with five men who are monogamous to her, and she gets pregnant, the father could be any of the five men. And if one of those men is tricked into raising a baby that isn’t his, he’s investing time, money, estate and property to provide for a child that isn’t carrying his DNA into the next generations, a costly mistake from an evolutionary standpoint.
Our two basic primal drives are to survive and to reproduce, and promiscuous women traditionally make it hard for a man to know for sure whether he is truly reproducing or is secretly raising another man’s child. Men stand a lot more to lose from promiscuous women than the other way around. And it’s no picnic for the child to not know who his real father is either. And it’s a mess for the women carrying on the deception as well. Or just look at any random episode of the Maury show if you don’t believe me.
Since the DNA test and the birth control pill didn’t exist until recently, there were no reliable ways to prevent pregnancy or prove parentage for most of human history. For this reason society developed a vested interest in preventing promiscuity among women, and society accomplished this by creating the slut stigma. And even though the creation of birth control and DNA tests have made this less of a risk than the past, longstanding traditions and customs are not easy for society to break so the slut stigma remains.
Third, men have evolutionary reasons to be programmed to sleep around more. A lot of women roll their eyes when they hear that men are “hard-wired” to sleep around. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes total sense. If the two primal drives of humans are to survive and to reproduce, nothing leads to maximum reproduction like one man sleeping with multiple women. If one women sleeps with many men in a nine month period, she can only get pregnant just once. Nine months of rampant promiscuity would give the same result as nine months of highly sexed monogamy: one pregnancy. Now if one man sleeps with many women during a nine month period, you can get many pregnancies during that period. The more women he sleeps with, the more possible pregnancies.
So from an evolutionary standpoint, there are concrete advantages to men being promiscuous compared to women being promiscuous. This doesn’t mean that women have evolved to be strictly monogamous. Women have evolved to be somewhat promiscuous too, something men badly underestimate. However they haven’t evolved to be as rampantly promiscuous as men.
Fourth, promiscuity poses more risk to women than to men. A woman has more to lose from choosing bad sex partners than a man does. She’s the one who gets stuck with going through a pregnancy and taking care of a baby alone if she chooses a deadbeat. For this reason, promiscuous women throughout history have historically been viewed as being a vastly more irresponsible risk takers than promiscuous men, who rightly or wrongly could always run away from the consequences of unwanted pregnancies easier than women could.
These four reasons explain why the longstanding tradition came about of men being rewarded for multiple partners while women get socially punished for similar promiscuity. Of course all this is gradually changing, but we’re up against millenia of evolutionary and cultural conditioning here, so don’t expect any dramatic overnight reversals.
Understand that I’m just explaining why the double standard came into existence and not condoning or condemning it. This is not an attempt to pass judgment or be self-righteous in any way. It’s just an explanation of why the two conditions are treated differently.
There is room for Slutwalk critiques but this is the most intellectually dishonest critique of Slutwalk I have read thus far. You cherry picked Facebook comments and deliberately mischaracterized a quote by one of the SlutWalk founders to make it seem as if the organizers don’t identify as feminists.
What Sonya ACTUALLY said:
“I learned and realized a lot about myself in those weeks leading up to the big event. I hadn’t used the term ‘feminist’ to describe myself since University, and even then I only did it, albeit occasionally, because of the few feminist teachings I garnered there {I was so concentrated on my design program, I didn’t notice much else}. I retreated from the word over the years, due to its reputation of ‘man-hating, hairy-legged, birkenstock-wearing’ descriptions that appeared around the term. I certainly didn’t fit that bill.
Over the years, I had pretty much all but forgotten the term. Maybe it was just that I decided to become interested in concerns that never used it. But despite me being a strong-willed woman, who loves all things related to sexual confidence and sexuality in general, it was rare that I came across the word ‘feminist’.”
Many women don’t identify as feminists for a long time. This begs the question – so what? She’s quite clearly not disparaging the word feminist, but writing about why she avoided the feminist label in the past. If you’re going to criticize something, be HONEST.
Hi Yasmeen,
I know, as do all the readers of this piece, exactly what Sonya wrote.
I have not, in any way, mischaracterized what she wrote. My argument, in terms of her blog post, is that Sonya, as many women do, have felt the pressure to reject the term ‘feminist’ because of negative and untrue stereotypes and pressure from the backlash. I suggest that because of this, we should work to ‘reclaim’ or claim our own, the term feminism, rather than retreating from it.
Please clarify what it is I have been dishonest about? The quotes were both directly from the post, I think I am clear and honest about what the author is saying, as well as what I am arguing. Sonya does not say that she identifies as feminist…Am I wrong about this? Please show me where she does. I may well have missed something. I
I don’t argue that none of the Slutwalk organizers are feminist. I have said over and over again that many of those involved in the Vancouver event are, indeed, feminist. My argument is focused around much of the discourse that was surrounding Slutwalk when I wrote the piece, much of which was either anti-feminist or simply lacking in a solid feminist foundation.
Also, this note is copied, in part, from Jessica Valenti’s Tumblr….So in terms of intellectual dishonesty I might argue that this is plagiarism? Seeing as you have not credited her?
By “intellectually dishonest”, I think she means “thorough and well-researched”. They’re getting mad because your criticism is so reasonable, to the point, and unarguably feminist.
“Intellectually dishonest” what does that even mean Yasmeen? Are you just copying Valentis post in here, can’t you express yourself in your own words? Where is Meghans article dishonest anyways? She is writing a critique on Sonyas statement. She doesn’t make anything up, she doesn’t lie, as you are clearly able to see when you read the two pieces together. I think the issue isn’t that Meghan made up things, coz it’s ridiculous, the issue is that she is disagreeing with it and is very verbal about it.
We are appalled by the SlutWalk! marches and are convinced they are a misguided, knee-jerk reaction which effectively belittles women and rape victims (both female and male), and trivialises the word slut for shock value in a misguided attempt at empowerment, rather than addressing the real meaning of the word – of which has been used to oppress and harm women (by both men and women) for centuries. Lastly, SlutWalk! tends to revel in the sexualisation of women and society, avoiding the real issue that women are not simply objects of visual and physical gratification – but human beings to be respected, physically, socially and emotionally.
Whilst not everyone shares our exact views, I will link to those (that for various reasons) oppose the SlutWalk! movement for objectivity and to show that really, this isn’t the way forward for a future that has no rape.
I definitely see your point about the use of the word “slut” as a derogatory gendered term, and it definitely does only apply to women – we can see that by the use of the new term “man-slut” which I have only ever heard being used as a joke rather than a serious insult. I’ve scoured my brain for any examples of teenage idiolect that suppress men in terms of having sex with lots of women, for example, and I can’t think of any though there’s a whole range of derogatory terms for “women who enjoy consensual sex”.
However, I can also see how using the term “Slutwalk” would reinforce the message, because it represents individual, assertive women (rather than the typical gender stereotype of passiveness/conformity), by drawing attention. I think that was the gist of your article.
To conclude, I’m still not sure of my own views on the subject, but it’s definitely given me a lot to reflect on. That man’s poem at the end was brilliant as well.
Thanks very much, very thought-provoking.
I just noticed XtinaS’s comment, and as you can see, Tina, I agree entirely. Also, in my earlier comment I meant “teenage sociolect” rather than “teenage idiolect”. Sorry!
Thanks for a thoughtful piece discussing the issues involved around “slutwalk” . As a man, I’m stunned by the attempt to lower feminism into a squabble over a dumb idea. Yes, a Toronto cop is an idiot for implying that women asked to be assaulted if dressed like “sluts”. Yes, it’s never right to blame the victim.
But the role of saying no while dressing maybe it’s yes has not been addressed in the coverage by feminist media. It’s easy to blame men as the instigators. But some women don’t want to dress like nuns, some women want to celebrate their beauty, sexuality and happiness. This doesn’t mean these women are asking for sex all the time, but it does support multi-billion dollar industries. Fashion, cosmetics, magazines, films, books, jewellery and more, this is serious money folks.
If women just want issues to be yes or no, there would be no courting, no interest, no mystery, no politics, no feminism.
We’d all just sign a contract to agree to reproduce only if our respective lawyers have written it with the ultimate ten thousand page disclaimer against all disappointments, embarrassments, mistakes, misunderstood performance, amateur efforts or lack of perfection.
If you think I’m sexist, so what?
Disclaimer- Women never make any mistakes and are perfect in every word, thought and deed.KMA
“But the role of saying no while dressing maybe it’s yes has not been addressed in the coverage by feminist media.”
This is not something that is supposed to be addressed by feminist media. A woman’s manner of dressing does not mean “maybe yes”. It says nothing about her sexual availability.
“It’s easy to blame men as the instigators.”
Yes, it is, because they are. Rapists are the only ones responsible for rape. If you sexually harass or assault a woman, it is because you choose to instigate that action. Women do not hypnotize you into these things.
The rest of your comment doesn’t even make sense.
I identify as a feminist, I guess somewhere between radical and liberal. I am definitely against the porn industry, although not against porn as a concept (writing gay erotica was a hobby of mine for a while), against sex work, etc. But I think it’s problematic to dismiss everyone who refuses to identify as a feminist as being afraid to scare off men or something. I mean, if that’s what they actually say, sure — I was rolling my eyes pretty hard at the “hairy-legged dyke” comments.
But the sad truth is that feminism as a movement has such a checkered history that for a lot of women — queer women, poor women, trans women, and especially women of color — “feminist” is just as hateful and triggering to hear as “slut” is. It’s asking women to embrace a term that has been used to exclude them and deny their womanhood. All women are at risk of sexual assault, and of being blamed for their own assaults, but the risk is even greater for women who also belong to other oppressed groups. So I think if you’re having an event about sexual assault and victim-blaming, it’s not a bad thing to say that those who don’t identify with the term “feminist” are welcome to participate.
I do think it would be awesome if “feminist” could be fully reclaimed — not that it should be nonthreatening to those who don’t want women to be fully equal, of course, but if it were made clear that in 2011, feminism supports women regardless of race, class, sexuality, and cis/trans status, and does its best to understand the intersections between those issues and not try to force all of them into one narrative. But in the meantime, I think the best we can do is acknowledge that it’s okay to be uncomfortable with the way things stand, and not try to bully people into accepting a movement that hasn’t in all cases fully accepted them.
I agree! And thank you for pointing all this out. That said, I tend to think that it wasn’t for any of those reasons that Barnett shied away from ‘feminist’ and was more comfortable leaning towards ‘slut’…The thing about the Slutwalk is that the anti-feminist sentiments I reference here seemed to be coming largely from white women of privilege. The fact that these women would feel more comfortable calling themselves ‘slut’ is not suprising. They have a lot less to lose.
A bit more on the ‘slut’ word and WOC / privilege here: http://icylattelady.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/slutwalk-is-not-my-movement/
http://crunkfeministcollective.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/slutwalks-v-ho-strolls/#comment-3042?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
White women in the West have definitely benefited from feminism more than any other group and there are many ways in which feminism has failed to be inclusive to, or even address the issues and realities of women of colour and other marginalized groups. And why would you want to align yourself with a group who you feel abandoned by? I just don’t think this is what many of those Slutwalk supporters are getting at. These are white women, with privilege, who are rejecting ‘feminism’ in favour of ‘slut’. To me this reeks of privilege. But am open to alternate opinions on this.
Thanks for your comments, Sarah. True and true.
Hi,
I want to draw your attention about how poorly this can be misconstrued, and by misconstrued I mean an excuse for masochinists to demean women. Look at the comments section.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/cold-day-for-a-slutwalk/comments-fn7x8me2-1226064640135
I’m late to read this post (first time on the site, somehow!), but add me to the list of people who find that it says virtually everything I’ve been thinking about the idea of ‘reclaiming’ that tired word. This will be the first post I’ll share if anyone bothers me about Slutwalk. Many of the comments have further echoed my thoughts, particularly Laura Jo’s and holly’s. It seems difficult to get a critical word in even on some feminist sites. The “It’s Raising Awareness, so quit your criticism” and capitalisempowered “I choose my choice” remarks are certainly popular conversation-stoppers.
As others have written, I understand why the original organizers would want to attempt to backfire the officer’s words. ‘Slutwalk’ is clearly marketable, memorable, and headline-grabbing. But as the walks spread, the majority of the localized significance is lost behind the word itself–and there’s no way to guarantee that all participants and spectators are aware of the original context. This is further complicated by the fact that individuals attending are going to superimpose their own ideas regardless of organizers’ attempts to make Slutwalk a protest against victim-blaming and violence against women, not a movement to embrace whatever flavor of sexuality. There is a fundamental problem with ‘Slutwalk’ as named, represented, and popularly talked about, despite whatever good intentions are behind it. They aren’t exactly the same things, but I’ll be sticking with Stop Street Harassment, Reclaim the Night, etc.
I’d also like to recommend another post by a WOC (in addition to seconding SlutWalks v. Ho Strolls, which was mentioned in a comment): Tamura A. Lomax’s “Slutwalk: a Black Feminist Comment on Media, Messages and Meaning”. These critiques raise some issues that those of us with white privilege may be oblivious to, but that we of course need to grapple with in order to be useful allies.
Again, thanks for such a detailed post and that great spoken word piece.
This post completely blew me away. This is the absolute best-articulated post I have ever read on this subject. Thank you for the thorough take-down.
“‘Feminism’, on the other hand, means something. It is a word and movement that women created and it is a word that patriarchy works very hard to take away from us.”
I just wanted to comment that the part about us women having created the word is wrong. Some excerpts from the introduction of Margaret Walters’ Feminism – A Very Short Introduction:
“‘I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is’, the writer Rebecca West remarked, sardonically, in 1913. ‘I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.’ [...] Interestingly, the earliest examples of the word in the Oxford English Dictionary carried negative meanings.”
“While women in other countries have had different experiences and definitions, in England, right up until the 1960s at least, the word ‘feminist’ was usually pejorative. Very few women, however deeply engaged in fighting for women’s rights, would have described themselves as ‘feminists’. When women began to organize again in the 1960s and 1970s, the movement called itself Women’s Liberation (borrowing the term from black, Third World, and student movements).”
So, if the idea is we shouldn’t call ourselves ‘sluts’ because that’s a word created by men to hurt us, well, we shouldn’t use ‘feminists’ either.
I completely agree with this and I’m glad you wrote it! I got into a debate with one of my friends a few weeks ago about this walk and the use of the term “slut.” Now, I don’t use the term ‘slut’ as gendered. In my mind most of the sluts I know are men. But, I know most people don’t use it that way and I know that’s not how the word originated. I find it so sad that feminism has become a bad word. I really feel like the male-dominated culture won that round, somehow managed to convince women that objectifying themselves for men was somehow empowering. I think women should be able to wear whatever they want and never be threatened because of it, but I also think women should really sit back and think about why they do the things they do to begin with. And there needs to be more focus on changing the minds of the culture at large. I don’t see this walk doing that. So many men are enjoying the walk and commenting on it because of the objectification. Many of these guys don’t care about equality, just seeing more boob! This is not the answer.
I’d like to thank you all for an interesting discussion. I bumped into this forum to search for enlightening , educated discourse and not the usual mysogynistic folksy “common sense” “blame those broads” talk about “sluts” that the other “mainstream” forums talk about. It’s “common sense” because it’s so engrained in the culture so it’s difficult to knock it off but not impossible.
As for “being slaves” to the “male gaze,” men will do the same thing by competing with other men in sports or “showing their abs” to “become slaves” to the “female gaze.” It’s called as one poster pointed out, “courting.” I think this is one big reason feminism has taken a back seat in many eyes – that along with the Reagan/Bush “Rush Limbaugh”-influenced conservative years, discussion of sexuality and relationships with men in the feminism movement was ver boten. Not all women want to hide their sexuality or how they dress when they want to dress. Why should I have to wear a turtleneck in 100 degree weather? That’s not an issue of wanting to express just my sexuality but also that I should have the freedom to do so considering men can go around in the same weather topless.
I think there’s room for “all” types of feminists. Just like there are liberal or progressive or conservative Democrats, there can be a rainbow of feminists. Isn’t that what the feminists in the 60′s fought for – equal privileges and freedom for women?
Anyway, thanks for an interesting discussion.
Did a feminist tell you to wear a turtleneck in 100 degree weather?
Hello from the father of a three-year old girl. I have just recently begun walking the path toward understanding radical feminism (guided primarily by the blog “I Blame the Patriarchy”), and I found this article to be timely and well-written.
I’ve shared it with friends of mine and will continue to do so.
I am a feminist who has been shamed with the word “slut” since early childhood. This is my story, and this is the first time I’ve told more than the bare bones publicly. It’s going to be somewhat long, but I’m going to tell it with some detail so you understand where I am coming from, why I feel the way I do about the word “slut”, and why I support the SlutWalk 100%. It’s so damn important to me.
I vividly remember the first time I was called a slut. It was on the schoolbus, in a strange town, when I was in the 4th grade. The boy knew nothing about me, only that I was the “new girl” in school. I had, along with my little brother, been sent to live in another state with an aunt and uncle after I told on my stepfather for molesting me. We were sent away while the church, rather than turning him in, gave him “pastoral counseling”. (Needless to say, this did not work.)
When I got off the school bus and asked my aunt, “What does slut mean?”, she slapped me across the face.
Since then, I have heard the word “slut” used to describe me many, many, many times.
When we returned home, my stepfather immediately tried to molest me again. He cried and begged me not to tell. He blamed it on my mother, said she wouldn’t have sex with him. I told. I was again slapped in the face, allegedly because I was “hysterical”. Damn right I was hysterical, but he’s the one that needed to be slapped. Thankfully, at this point she finally left him. Though nothing was said, I knew she blamed me; she thought I had seduced her husband. Years later I read in her diary that she hated him for making her hate me. I received no counseling, acknowledgement or compassion – it was never spoken of again.
I thought of myself as a slut, and thought that word meant I was bad, dirty, damaged and worthless. Searching for positive attention and love, I became quite promiscuous and was “taken advantage of” (raped) by a string of men in their 20s.
At age 14 I was talked into “running away”, along with my 15 year old stepsister, by two men, both aged 28. We were held captive and raped almost daily for three months. It took me decades to realize that this was kidnapping and rape, not something I brought upon myself for running away. One of the men was “gentle” with me (did not physically force or verbally abuse me, though it was still rape.) The other was my stepsister’s “boyfriend”. I witnessed him beat her many times, once with a broken broomstick. When he decided he wanted to rape me, I decided it was better to be raped than to be beaten and raped, so I did not physically fight him.
This man was a horrible monster. He raped me many times, violently, and often whispered the word “slut” to me as he did it. He told me I deserved what was happening, and literally said the words, “I could kill you right now. No one will care, no one wants you, and no one loves you, because you are a slut.” I remember these words vividly.
Eventually he tired of me and I was set free (physically, though not spiritually), but not before he prostituted me on one occasion – and laughed while he watched. Before he let me go, he threatened me with a knife, telling me he would find me and kill me if I told anyone where he was going. He took my stepsister with him and dropped me off in a neighborhood where I used to live. While there I stayed for a week in an abandoned shed, relying on old friends (also in their early teens) to feed me. After that first week, they found *another* man in his mid-20s who was willing to “let” me stay with him. Of *course* he would let me sleep in the bed while he slept on the floor. Of *course* he wouldn’t touch me.
Right. He ended up in the bed with me and I let him. I was a slut, right? What right did I have to say no? The next day we were standing in the street, talking with some of his friends, and he put his arms around me. I was stunned. I couldn’t believe he was publicly showing me what I thought was affection. Do you see how beaten down I was by the abuse, and by that word? Do you see how I came to believe it, how I was taught to devalue myself? As I write this, the tears are rolling down my face in sympathy for the child I was, and in sympathy and solidarity for every child that has been abused and then let down and abandoned by the people that should love and protect her.
There is so much more to tell. How, after I returned home, I spent two weeks in a mental hospital. How the doctor asked me why I didn’t try to escape from the kidnappers. (seriously?? I’d told him we were locked inside, no escape was possible.) How I was pulled from the hospital because my mother and (new) stepfather did not want to participate in family counseling. My emotionally abusive marriage. So much more. So many details of my childhood that I’ve skipped over. They would break your heart. They still break mine. I could write a novel but this will already be long enough.
I left my marriage at age 29 and finally got therapy. Over the years the nightmares and flashbacks lessened, I became happier, I developed strong, loving, friendships with men and women. I was free. I blossomed. Sometimes I had sex. I had it when I wanted to have it; no force or pressure involved. If someone tried to apply any pressure at all, they were out the door, immediately. Sometimes I had it with someone I was dating, sometimes it was casual, with a friend; two people doing something together rather than one doing something *to* the other. Respecting each other and reaching for physical joy. I liked it. I enjoyed it. I loved my orgasmic body and I loved their bodies. I loved the playful, sweet touching and skin on skin. Sex and love that I voluntarily and enthusiastically give was and is wonderful. But still, in the eyes of some, doing something that brings me joy, doing the very same thing they are doing, makes me a slut, and means that I should be ashamed. Because of this, I am *still* not a survivor. I am still a victim.
My body is MINE. I will not allow society to degrade me for taking it back from them. I am not public property. I will not allow society to call me worthless and dirty for having been abused in the past, or for having natural desires and enjoying sex now. I will NOT allow them to hurt me with that word any longer. I’m not going to let them use that word as an excuse to terrorize and harm me, and I’m not going to let them do it to anyone else, either. For me, that word symbolizes the whole dirty, filthy, heart-and-soul breaking mess, and I am stealing it away from them. They cannot have me, and they cannot have that word. They gave it to me, and now it is mine. I will use it against them, i will eviscerate and deflate it.
I’m not going to lay back and think of England; I’m going to march in that Slut Walk and I’m going to throw that word right back in their fucking faces. By marching I’m telling them that, call me what you will, my spirit is impervious to it now; I will not accept your judgment, and I will not give you the right to control me, my sexuality, or my sisters. I will not allow you to threaten us with rape in order to keep our thinking, lives, and sexual activity in line with what you think is proper. What’s the definition of a slut? Anything they choose, but you can bet damn well that its a woman. And then we’re fair game. Call one of us a slut, you call all of us sluts, and I will not stand for it any longer. I will take that word from them and I will rob it of its power.
Am I angry? Damn right, I’m angry. I *should* be angry, we should all be furious! I am not a slut, because no woman is a slut. I’ve realized that, and I will march in this walk as a great big “fuck you” to anyone who dares think that of any one of us.
I agree with your point regarding reclamation and how a lot of the focus is involved in pandering to the majority (which appears to be anti-feminist)
Makes me wonder if perhaps the event started out as a way to show the police officer that regardless of what we choose to wear, we are still women and it does not give you a right to gawk, hoot, or rape us … well, at least, i thought that was it …
but it appears that it has become more about attempting to remove the stigma of the word without actually doing anything other then materializing a number ‘sluts’ … what is the strategy anyway?
the meaning of the word IS changing. young girls prefer to be called a slut rather than a bitch. is this better? I don’t know. when I was at highschool, if they started calling you a slut, you could forget it. not one boy would ask you to go out. this has changed, I think. I even found a brand of t-shirts using the word slut, and not in the negative way: http://slutshirt.spreadshirt.com/ is it better? I don’t know. but it IS changing.
> Just like Suicide Girls and the Neo-Burlesque movement argues, Slutwalk seems to encourage the perspective that objectification is ‘ok’ so long as we are objectifying women who deviate from the norm perpetuated by mainstream media (ie. blond, thin, white, conventionally attractive). Making feminist fights palatable to men or anti-feminist women means that it is ok and, feminist even, to objectify, for example, ‘curvy girls’ and not skinny ones:”
I don’t think these types of events and things are saying “it’s okay to objectify women as long as they’re not supermodels”. I’ve been getting involved with the neo-burlesque scene, and I feel like a big part of the appeal of it is to be able to say “Hey, look what I got. Check it out, aren’t I awesome. Now don’t think you can touch this. Because you can’t. ‘Cause it’s all mine. Aren’t I so awesome for letting you see this? You’re welcome!”
It doesn’t matter what your body’s shaped like, what matters is owning what you got and showing it off, without the expectation that it means anyone who wants it can come take it.
you put up a video featuring feminists supporting abortion rights, feminists talking about making change, queer feminists, and male feminists—of a variety of ages and shapes—and describe their feminism as “The kind that reassures the public that feminists are just attractive, heterosexual, women who love penises and shaving their legs. Women who don’t threaten the status quo.”
Oi. Because they have flippy hair? Because they joke about liking makeup? Because they happen not to be wearing flannel? I think you need to check your facts and cut your femmephobia.
Sincerely,
a flannel-wearing-dyke who appreciates her short-skirted femme feminist and her old-dude feminist comrades alike.
Dear Kate,
Uh, no…I put it up as something that represents a very individualistic version of feminism which doesn’t aim to change the status quo. Something that takes the gender factor out and replaces it with the term ‘humanist’ (‘I don’t think it has anything to do with female or male’???). The stereotypes you put forth here around what a feminist should look like are completely ridiculous. Flannel? Give me a break. I wear makeup, I wear dresses (sometimes), I have lovely lady hair. Femmephobic? There ain’t no such thing. Let’s stick to language that has actual meaning, just for the sake of clarity.
I think you’re completely missing the point here. This isn’t about flannel shirts or makeup.
Thank you for saying what has been in my brain in a way I couldn’t get out. See, that sentence isn’t even clear, so I hope you can understand what I’m trying to say.
I was reading about Slutwalk the first time and was gung-ho all for it until I got to the part where the organizers wanted people to chant “We’re here, we’re sluts.” But I’m not a slut. I would never chant that. If I want to wear a short skirt because I like them, I have to call myself a slut? I do not sleep around. And then reading more about it, it didn’t seem like it was really about what they said it was about.
The self-objectification thing bugs the hell out of me. I am not anti-men and I am not anti-sex and I am not anti-hair removal. I am anti-objectification.. I might be anti-Birkenstocks. I am not a slut. I am a feminist.
Another thing i hate: the term “slut-shaming”. Slut is never going to be a positive word and it shouldn’t ever be one. It’s an ugly word. And the only times it’s used for a man, it’s used as “man-slut”. That should be telling that it’s always implied to be a female. I will never call myself slut.
But then, I loved Female Chauvinist Pigs. :]
PS – Out of respect, I can’t not point out a typo: “Sluwalk does, in many ways,”
Thanks for the typo point out m.b!
Dear Meghan,
Your article is spot-on. I had the exact difficulty when first hearing about slutwalk, so I talked to my sister about it but we just could not come to terms with particularly the name. A really important aspect however is, as you rightly asserted, the whole choice argument. This particular instant also illustrates that today one (rather critical, radical feminist) feels obligated to cheer such in many ways problematic developments within ‘feminism’ like the slutwalks in order not to be dismissed as prudish and misandrist &ct.
Thanks again, I really enjoyed reading.
Lippstick feminism is the kind of feminism a drunken fratboy would invent.
Also, really great article. Would’ve liked to see you get more deeply into the individualistic “I do what I want” sort of feminism, which to me seems more like a cop-out from an argument than an actual argument.
I’d also like to mention “Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism” by Natasha Walter and Nina Power’s “The Onedimensional Woman”. I loved “Female Chauvinist Pigs”, and recommend these for anyone who agrees. If you can’t find them, or the time to read ‘em, Judith Orr makes a great summary here: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=656&issue=127.
Thanks Apfel. I’ve written a little more about “mychoice!” feminism here: http://www.feminisms.org/1898/the-trouble-with-choosing-your-choice/