SlutWalking strides Across North America

mike65

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/06/slutwalking-policeman-talk-clothing

When a police officer from Toronto went on a routine visit to Osgoode Hall Law School to advise the students on personal safety, little did he know that he would unwittingly inspire a movement that has caught fire across Canada and the US.

"You know, I think we're beating around the bush here," Michael Sanguinetti began, blandly enough, as he addressed the 10 students who turned up for the pep talk. Then he said: "I've been told I'm not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."

Fast forward three months from Sanguinetti's unfortunate remarks, and a movement that was born in riposte to his loose talk has now gone international. "SlutWalking" is attracting thousands of people to take to the streets to put an end to what they believe is a culture in which it is considered acceptable to blame the victim.

Some 2,351 people have signed up via Facebook to attend a SlutWalk through Boston on Saturday, when they will chant "Yes means yes, no means no," and "Hey hey, ho ho, patriarchy has to go."

Further SlutWalks are planned in the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

Sounds like a 9 day wonder, the sort of thing students can play with rather than a movement that'll chnage any attitudes but I thought I'd post it. I was going to post about this in AH then had a change of mind.

southsiderosie

mike65 wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/06/slutwalking-policeman-talk-clothing



Sounds like a 9 day wonder, the sort of thing students can play with rather than a movement that'll chnage any attitudes but I thought I'd post it. I was going to post about this in AH then had a change of mind.

So you think that something that was meant to kick off with 100 people in Toronto and has now spread to 61 events in eight different countries will be a flash in the pan? Interesting.

diddlybit

I think it's a great concept. It's scary to think how many people still prescribe to the idiotic notion that wearing a mini-skirt means that a girl was somehow "asking for it." It's two fingers up at them.

Faith

Newsflash to everyone who believes that the way you dressed gets you raped: It doesn't. Rapists select victims on the basis on vulnerability, not what they're wearing. Buying into rape myths does nothing to help combat rape, other than to provide the rapist with an excuse. People need to stop wasting their time judging women on what they wear, and start judging men for being rapists because no matter what, no means no.

I think this slutwalking sounds like a good idea. It's imperative to spread the message that no man or woman is EVER asking to get raped, and being raped is NEVER the fault of the victim.

Count Duckula

Appearance and dress aside, it would be nice if these walks could somehow reclaim the word "slut", eliminating it as a slur and changing societal attitudes towards women who, y'know, just like to enjoy themselves in the same way that men have been doing since the beginning of time.

mariebeth

I think this is a great idea, no one deserves to be sexually assaulted or raped, whatever their gender is, so anything proactive that is done to highlight that victims are not to blame gets my support.

TaraFoxglove

Faith wrote: »

Newsflash to everyone who believes that the way you dressed gets you raped: It doesn't. Rapists select victims on the basis on vulnerability, not what they're wearing.

Absolutely but with ONE important exception that ties into the vulnerability thing. A woman wearing high heels, especially ones she is strapped into is more at risk. Why? Nothing to do with "her asking for it", it's just for the simple reason that high heels that are strapped on, and therefore hard to remove in a hurry, are very difficult to run in, the woman can't escape as quickly, so is easier to catch.

I read an article which interviewed rapists in prison a few years ago, MANY of them mentioned something along this lines.

It's just something to think about, and it does make sense to me.

Count Duckula

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

Absolutely but with ONE important exception that ties into the vulnerability thing. A woman wearing high heels, especially ones she is strapped into is more at risk. Why? Nothing to do with "her asking for it", it's just for the simple reason that high heels that are strapped on, and therefore hard to remove in a hurry, are very difficult to run in, the woman can't escape as quickly, so is easier to catch.

I read an article which interviewed rapists in prison a few years ago, MANY of them mentioned something along this lines.

It's just something to think about, and it does make sense to me.

I don't mean to get into a great discussion about rape and rapists, but I was under the impression that the majority of rapes were conducted when a woman was drugged or otherwise lured into a situation by someone they trusted (whether that be a family friend or just a nice-looking bloke on a night out)?

Rape attacks where a woman is chased and caught were in the minority I thought?

TaraFoxglove

Count Duckula wrote: »

Rape attacks where a woman is chased and caught were in the minority I thought?

Yes, absolutely, usually the rapist is known to the victim in the majority of cases.

But of the more random attacks, the potential rapist will look for signs of vulnerability and what I mentioned above is one.

Dudess

The idiocy of that attitude is insulting to men too - that a sexy outfit means a number of them can't help themselves.

And if a person is "asking for it", it isn't rape.

DebDynamite

Putting in my cynical hat on here... but I wonder would this movement have grown so quick if there wasn't the opportunity for the protesters to dress slutty. Do a lot of these ladies care about the cause or are they just using it as a fun day out and an excuse to dress provocatively. A bit like Halloween as become for many...

blackalicious

http://www.chainbear.com/drawings/786.jpg

diddlybit

Blackalicious. I heart that drawing.

Do a lot of these ladies care about the cause or are they just using it as a fun day out and an excuse to dress provocatively. A bit like Halloween as become for many...

There is a lot more to it than that, the concept is just a little more in your face, which is a good thing. How more media coverage does a normal protest get? Hardly any, and if the women were dressed normally, the concensus would be "Oh look at the feminists moaning again".

There is a whole sprectrum of issues at play here, it's not just about rape. How many women have been verbally harassed on the street, intimidated, had inappropriate sexual comments directed at them on the basis of what they are wearing? Most I would say.

Faith

TaraFoxglove wrote: »

Absolutely but with ONE important exception that ties into the vulnerability thing. A woman wearing high heels, especially ones she is strapped into is more at risk. Why? Nothing to do with "her asking for it", it's just for the simple reason that high heels that are strapped on, and therefore hard to remove in a hurry, are very difficult to run in, the woman can't escape as quickly, so is easier to catch.

I read an article which interviewed rapists in prison a few years ago, MANY of them mentioned something along this lines.

It's just something to think about, and it does make sense to me.

Sure, that's valid, but only 8% of rapes are carried out by strangers, so it becomes almost negligible as a risk factor. You could also say women in skirts are more of a target than women in trousers because they allow easier access. It's probably true, but I don't think it needs to be consciously considered .

TaraFoxglove

Faith wrote: »

You could also say women in skirts are more of a target than women in trousers because they allow easier access..

I don't think that's the same, to be fair, strapped on high shoes are very tangibly an obstacle to getting away, more-so than a skirt being easy access.

metrovelvet

Wow. A parade of provocatively dressed women. Of course its going to get a lot of attention!

Im sure the red blooded men of Boston will have a lovely day.

Count Duckula

metrovelvet wrote: »

Wow. A parade of provocatively dressed women. Of course its going to get a lot of attention!

Im sure the red blooded men of Boston will have a lovely day.

Given the reasons for the march, that comment could probably not have been more inappropriate.

IrishEyes19

Rape is rape. And sadly the ages of women/men too, that have been raped have ranged from a horrifyingly young age of 3 to in some cases 90's. So I doubt it has anything to do with how women dress. I have yet to see the majority of 3 year olds wearing slutty outfits.

Its a good idea to promote this walk. It might give courage to rape victims to come forward a lot more as well, and not be afraid that their sexual history if it was presented by a defending lawyer could use it against them.

Logical Fallacy

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im sure the red blooded men of Boston will have a lovely day.

I hope none of them have their moral proclivities sundered by all the flesh on display and suddenly finding themselves entertaining thoughts of rape.

metrovelvet

Count Duckula wrote: »

Given the reasons for the march, that comment could probably not have been more inappropriate.

Women having to use dress and their bodies to get their point across, to get heard, well I can see progress has been made.

Do you not think this actually will distract from the point?

WindSock

Men enjoying a bit of flesh on display hardly makes them potential rapists.

metrovelvet

WindSock wrote: »

Men enjoying a bit of flesh on display hardly makes them potential rapists.

That wasn't my point but thanks for sharing.

WindSock

metrovelvet wrote: »

That wasn't my point but thanks for sharing.

I know it wasn't, I meant it as a reply to Duckula and Logical but can't multi quote on phone. I found it strange that they made those points themselves.

Teferi

WindSock wrote: »

Men enjoying a bit of flesh on display hardly makes them potential rapists.

Sadly the Rape Crisis Network of Ireland don't agree.

WindSock

Teferi wrote: »

Sadly the Rape Crisis Network of Ireland don't agree.

Seems like a counter productive move by them if that is the case.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Its a strawman to say warning against "slut-like" clothes is blaming victims

Like are "keep an eye on your belongings" signs victim blaming?

Though the protests are justified on a different matter which isn't getting any airtime - only being mentioned in a minority of the articles:

On January 24, 2011 Constable Michael Sanguinetti and another officer from the Toronto Police Service's 31 Division were speakers at a York University safety forum [7]. The school has had some problems with crime and the officers were meant to address prevention methods. Allegedly, Sanguinetti commented that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”[8]. The officer later apologized for the remark. This comment was followed by another controversial incident in the Canadian justice system involving Justice Robert Dewar. On February 2011, while presiding over a rape case, Dewar remarked that on the evening of the alleged rape "sex was in the air" and the victims' behavior and attire may have given the attacker the wrong impression (she was wearing a tube top and heels)[9] He also mentioned that the victim was wearing makeup and had been drinking. The judge found the defendant guilty yet sentenced him to two years of probation. The judge also required that the defendant write the victim a letter of apology[10]. The typical sentence for such a crime is usually at least three years in prison but since the judge felt that the defendant wasn't threatening just “insensitive to the fact (she) was not a willing participant”[11] he will serve no jail time.

Whilst justified in that sense I don't believe these walks will achieve anything. The use of the term slut and dressing up for the march makes it look like a big joke and no one's gonna take it seriously.

seenitall

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Its a strawman to say warning against "slut-like" clothes is blaming victims

Like are "keep an eye on your belongings" signs victim blaming?

Oh really? Do thiefs get away with smaller than typical sentences on the basis of victims not keeping an eye on their belongings?? I don't think so!

Talk about strawmen... :rolleyes:

Bottle_of_Smoke

seenitall wrote: »

Oh really? Do thiefs get away with smaller than typical sentences on the basis of victims not keeping an eye on their belongings?? I don't think so!

Talk about strawmen... :rolleyes:

That's irrelevant. You're spectacularly missing the point

Chinafoot

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The use of the term slut and dressing up for the march makes it look like a big joke and no one's gonna take it seriously.

Speaking for everyone now, are we? You personally might not take it seriously but then given your whole post I can't say I'm surprised. Strawman my hole.

metrovelvet

seenitall wrote: »

Oh really? Do thiefs get away with smaller than typical sentences on the basis of victims not keeping an eye on their belongings?? I don't think so!

Talk about strawmen... :rolleyes:

You car insurance wont pay out if you leave your car door open.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Chinafoot wrote: »

Speaking for everyone now, are we? You personally might not take it seriously but then given your whole post I can't say I'm surprised. Strawman my hole.

What will happen is everyone who correctly recognises a girl dressing like a slut does not justify or even mitigate rape will say its great. The people who don't will just think its a bunch of girls are dressing like sluts for attention.

seenitall

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's irrelevant. You're spectacularly missing the point

No, I'm not. Not at all, in fact, much less "spectacularly".

seenitall

metrovelvet wrote: »

You car insurance wont pay out if you leave your car door open.

Car insurance, being raped... yes, the analogy works. I stand corrected. (Not.)

Bottle_of_Smoke

seenitall wrote: »

No, I'm not. Not at all, in fact, much less "spectacularly".

All I said was that it is a strawman to say warning against slutty clothes = blaming the victim. Your reply suggested that went completely over your head.

I know a guy who lives in a pretty rough area. If he got mugged walking home from a night out it is likely one of the first things I would say is "why didn't you get a taxi?" - this is not an attempt to justify the mugger's actions I just don't think people should put themselves into dangerous situations.

seenitall

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

All I said was that it is a strawman to say warning against slutty clothes = blaming the victim. Your reply suggested that went completely over your head.

I know a guy who lives in a pretty rough area. If he got mugged walking home from a night out it is likely one of the first things I would say is "why didn't you get a taxi?" - this is not an attempt to justify the mugger's actions I just don't think people should put themselves into dangerous situations.

Nothing in your post "went over my head", thanks though. I got your meaning loud and clear. The fact is that warning against wearing "slutty" clothes leaves the door wide open to the next step of blaming the victim if she gets raped. If you cannot see that, than we have nothing to talk about.

Again, the difference between your friend who didn't get the taxi and the rape victim who happened to have been wearing something "slutty" (:rolleyes: I'm sorry but I hate that word) is also the difference between two perpetrators, one of whose criminal actions will be judged on their own ignominy (no matter the victim's taxis, the victim's walking home or anything around or in-between), and other of whose criminal actions will sometimes be to an extent justified (and this reflected in their sentencing) because of what the victim wore. For that reason, your analogy doesn't work either.

Bottle_of_Smoke

seenitall wrote: »

Nothing in your post "went over my head", thanks though. I got your meaning loud and clear. The fact is that warning against wearing "slutty" clothes leaves the door wide open to the next step of blaming the victim if she gets raped. If you cannot see that, than we have nothing to talk about.

That is exactly my point. That is why it is a strawman. Whether it is leaving the door open or not is largely irrelevant as it in itself is not blaming the victim. It would be just as acceptable to argue "Please mind your belongings" signs leave the door wide open to the next step of blaming the victim if their wallet gets taken. In each case it would not be acceptable to apportion blame to the rape or theft victim as they did nothing wrong.

The warning against wearing slutty clothes to protect yourself (which I'm not even convinced is an effective way to protect yourself from rape) is issued out of concern for the wellbeing of potential victims. It is not done to tell girls they deserve to be raped if they dress in slutty atire.

Again, the difference between your friend who didn't get the taxi and the rape victim who happened to have been wearing something "slutty" (:rolleyes: I'm sorry but I hate that word) is also the difference between two perpetrators, one of whose criminal actions will be judged on their own ignominy (no matter the victim's taxis, the victim's walking home or anything around or in-between), and other of whose criminal actions will sometimes be to an extent justified (and this reflected in their sentencing) because of what the victim wore. For that reason, your analogy doesn't work either.

This isn't true. Defense counsels often cite that the crimes of their clients were opportunistic ie that they saw the person and on the spot decided to mug them. So the victim blamer here claim "I needed money so I couldn't help myself -He was drunk and alone. He tempted me to rob him" - The defence counsel in not so many words argue this point as if successful the perpetrator will likely get a less serious punishment than for a pre-medidated mugging.

In both of these cases the issue is that the legal system is not protected from this kind of thing. It does not mean that raising issues of concern about safety is the same as victim blaming.

iguana

metrovelvet wrote: »

You car insurance wont pay out if you leave your car door open.

Insurance isn't part of the criminal justice system. I suspect a that the car thief's defence of "but the car door was unlocked so I thought the owner wanted me to take it," won't cut too much ice with the judge/jury.

seenitall

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That is exactly my point. That is why it is a strawman. Whether it is leaving the door open or not is largely irrelevant as it in itself is not blaming the victim. It would be just as acceptable to argue "Please mind your belongings" signs leave the door wide open to the next step of blaming the victim if their wallet gets taken. In each case it would not be acceptable to apportion blame to the rape or theft victim as they did nothing wrong.

The warning against wearing slutty clothes to protect yourself (which I'm not even convinced is an effective way to protect yourself from rape) is issued out of concern for the wellbeing of potential victims. It is not done to tell girls they deserve to be raped if they dress in slutty atire.



This isn't true. Defense counsels often cite that the crimes of their clients were opportunistic ie that they saw the person and on the spot decided to mug them. So the victim blamer here claim "I needed money so I couldn't help myself -He was drunk and alone. He tempted me to rob him" - The defence counsel in not so many words argue this point as if successful the perpetrator will likely get a less serious punishment than for a pre-medidated mugging.

In both of these cases the issue is that the legal system is not protected from this kind of thing. It does not mean that raising issues of concern about safety is the same as victim blaming.

Ugh... and that is exactly MY point. Of course that leaving the door open to victim blaming in that manner is not "largely irrelevant". It is hugely relevant just because of the difference between the attitudes in treating the victim of theft who didn't heed the warning sign "Mind your belongings" and the "sluttily" dressed rape victim; some strawman! :mad:

The fact that YOU think that it wouldn't be acceptable to blame the rape victim any more than the theft victim in these cases doesn't make the problem of these attitudes go away. But that "slutWalk" may just help highlight the issue, and if you disagree, I'm sure you are not the only one, but for my part I agree with it wholeheartedly and I do think that attitudes change, little by little, generation by generation, by people seeing people taking action and doing something to generate awareness. I'm sure that plenty of "red-blooded men" were not entirely unhappy to see women take off their bras and burn them in the 60's, but that is really "largely irrelevant" - the symbolism of the action is what stays in history, not what happened in the bedrooms that night.

I wasn't aware of the difference in law proceedings and sentencing between opportunistic and pre-meditated mugging, but come on, it is hardly victim-blaming, is it? It is about what happens or doesn't happen inside the criminal's head, as opposed to judging the severity of the crime on what the victim wore.

Dudess

Attributing rape - even just partially - to the clothing the woman chose to put on herself is of course victim-blaming. If that isn't, what on earth is? Can't see anything in the least bit strawman about it. The logic you're using is: the more attractive/sexy a woman looks, the more "rapeable" she is. Rape isn't about sexual attraction, it's about exerting power on a vulnerable person. I know what you're saying: that a woman walking into a deserted area at night and wearing hot pants and a boob tube is putting herself in a risky position, but if some bastard rapes her, then he is completely at fault. And it's not as if that's the only scenario a woman can be raped under - probably one of the rarer ones.

Count Duckula

seenitall wrote: »

women take off their bras and burn them in the 60's

I don't mean to drag this off-topic, but that never actually happened.

LegacyUser

At the risk of being unpopular, I subscribe to that policeman's sentiments.

If you were a *rapist shopping for a victim and you had a choice of a sensibly dressed book worm type in a coffee shop or a drunk girl with her t*** hanging up and the obligatory belt/ skirt, which one would you chose?

If that same policeman had been giving a health and safety talk to neo-Nazis and he'd said 'you are more likely to get beat up if you walk down South Central with a swastika tattooed across your head, would those same Neo-Nazis take to the streets? Well actually, they might. But not out of 'genuine' indignation at the policeman's words.










(*Not the lesser spotted down-a-dark-alley rapist. Think more the far more common weekend rohypnol type rapist.)

seenitall

Count Duckula wrote: »

I don't mean to drag this off-topic, but that never actually happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcS3QevoG0g

seenitall

popularitycontest wrote: »

At the risk of being unpopular, I subscribe to that policeman's sentiments.

Your (and his) view are far from being unpopular (as you can see on this thread), so I wouldn't worry about that.

Morag

The rapist will choose the more scantily clad person because they know idiots and arseholes will blame her as they can't get their head around the fact that a man can be messed up enough to want rape someone with out the person provoking them.

So guess what, the idiots and arseholes need to learn that a boob tube and a mini skirt does not equal consent, and any man who finds his passions so inflamed by a what a women is wear that he is compelled to rape someone has something seriously wrong with him.

It doesn't matter what women wear, real men don't rape.

metrovelvet

Dudess wrote: »

Attributing rape - even just partially - to the clothing the woman chose to put on herself is of course victim-blaming. If that isn't, what on earth is? Can't see anything in the least bit strawman about it. The logic you're using is: the more attractive/sexy a woman looks, the more "rapeable" she is. Rape isn't about sexual attraction, it's about exerting power on a vulnerable person. I know what you're saying: that a woman walking into a deserted area at night and wearing hot pants and a boob tube is putting herself in a risky position, but if some bastard rapes her, then he is completely at fault. And it's not as if that's the only scenario a woman can be raped under - probably one of the rarer ones.

Of course at the bottom line its not about how she is dressed, and its not her fault because she is looking available, but if rape convictions are all about witnesses and the issue of consent, you dont want to leave room for interpretability do you? You dont want to put reasonable doubt in a jury's mind right?

Hot pants, a lot of alcohol and attending a frat party= bad combo. If I had a a daughter I would hope she would be smart about these things. The world is not pink and fluffy and in the land of perfect ideals. Boston, the city of BC, BU and Harvard, lots of college kids getting PC sensitivity training, the rest of the world aint like that.

LittleBook

DebDynamite wrote: »

Do a lot of these ladies care about the cause or are they just using it as a fun day out and an excuse to dress provocatively. A bit like Halloween as become for many...

Faith wrote: »

Rapists select victims on the basis on vulnerability, not what they're wearing.

blackalicious wrote: »

http://www.chainbear.com/drawings/786.jpg

Sweet jebus, I just read the New York Times article which led to that drawing.

Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town

Of the 11-year-old victim of an alleged gang-rape:

Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.

Of some of the 18 young men arrested in connection with the assault:

The case has rocked this East Texas community to its core and left many residents in the working-class neighborhood where the attack took place with unanswered questions. Among them is, if the allegations are proved, how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?

“It’s just destroyed our community,” said Sheila Harrison, 48, a hospital worker who says she knows several of the defendants. “These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.”

seenitall

metrovelvet wrote: »

Of course at the bottom line its not about how she is dressed, and its not her fault because she is looking available, but if rape convictions are all about witnesses and the issue of consent, you dont want to leave room for interpretability do you? You dont want to put reasonable doubt in a jury's mind right?

Eh? The issue is that any doubt in a jury's mind based on what the victim was wearing is NOT reasonable, it is based on prejudice ("short skirt = asking for a seeing-to").

Faith

popularitycontest wrote: »

At the risk of being unpopular, I subscribe to that policeman's sentiments.

If you were a *rapist shopping for a victim and you had a choice of a sensibly dressed book worm type in a coffee shop or a drunk girl with her t*** hanging up and the obligatory belt/ skirt, which one would you chose?

If that same policeman had been giving a health and safety talk to neo-Nazis and he'd said 'you are more likely to get beat up if you walk down South Central with a swastika tattooed across your head, would those same Neo-Nazis take to the streets? Well actually, they might. But not out of 'genuine' indignation at the policeman's words.

(*Not the lesser spotted down-a-dark-alley rapist. Think more the far more common weekend rohypnol type rapist.)

What you're missing is that the key in your example is still vulnerability. The drunk woman is more vulnerable. Who would a rapist choose - a woman in a coffee shop, sober as a judge, surrounded by other sober people, dressed "with her t*** hanging up and the obligatory belt/ skirt" or a "sensibly dressed book worm type" drunk girl? He will go for the vulnerable one every time, regardless of what she's wearing. Being out of control of your senses increases your vulnerability. If a rapist is trying to choose between two women, both of whom are drunk, one of whom is scantily clad but is standing tall, looking supremely confident and is surrounded by friends, the other who's dressed like a nun but looks like she's weak, has no confidence and no obvious friends near by - who will he go for? Again, he'll choose the vulnerable one, regardless of how she's dressed. He'll choose the one who won't fight back as much, the one who's less likely to scream and shout.

LegacyUser

Faith wrote: »

...What you're missing is that the key in your example is still vulnerability...

Accept your point 100%. It's just profiling, is my point.

Count Duckula

seenitall wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcS3QevoG0g

That was the 70s

Morag

Funny how we dont' teach about consent, and we dont' teach don't take advantage
but we do keep harping on to people don't make yourself a victim.

Rape victims don't choose to be raped and the myth that they do in some way adds to their misery and makes pressing charges and getting convictions harder then it should be.