Sexist Advertising of Halloween Ball

Lawliet · 23-10-2012 12:27AM

carlowboy wrote: »

They don't specifically refer to women in the ad though?

Here's something you might find interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Urizen wrote: »

The only one that's mentioned girls is the OP. Neither the poster nor the SU have. Assumptions have been made, and I feel they are innacurate. I never thought that this category applied only to women. If I show up in full bondage gear, as a man, am I not dressed sluttily?

I checked 3 online dictionaries and 2 print, and not one defined 'slut' as applying only to women. It's a genderless term these days, or it should be.

The word slut has never been genderless, it was always a word used to refer to women, initially to dirty, unkept women, then later it became a word to describe promiscuous women. Even 'these days' it's not common for men to be called sluts, and it's certainly never a word that's seriously applied to them. And I think everyone realizes that.

Edit: All those articles Cavehill Red posted use phrases like "man slut" and 'slutty things for dudes because if we don't clarify we're talking about men you'll assume we're talking about women which is what the word usually refers to'
I rest my case.

jill_valentine · 23-10-2012 12:29AM

Urizen wrote: »

This is untrue, look it up.

...

A woman prostitute.

A dirty, slovenly woman.

By the end of the 15th century the sense “a woman given to immoral or improper conduct” had come into use, and it is the only meaning in use today.

A woman who sleeps with many men.

A woman considered sexually promiscuous.

An immoral woman

A woman who has many casual sexual partners.

An insulting word for a woman whose sexual behavior is considered immoral

A promiscuous woman; especially : prostitute

Slut hasn't been genderless since Chaucer's day.

I've heard it qualified as "man slut", but I've never heard anybody refer to a man as a slut without the understanding of a gendered charge for humorous effect. Don't play dumb, I don't believe for one second that you believe otherwise - if you use the word "slut", in isolation, nobody in your company will think you could mean a male or a female equally.

Urizen · 23-10-2012 12:32AM

Lawliet wrote: »

The word slut has never been genderless, it was always a word used to refer to women, initially to dirty, unkept women, then later it became a word to describe promiscuous women. Even 'these days' it's not common for men to be called sluts, and it's certainly never a word that's seriously applied to them. And I think everyone realizes that.

That initial definition, as it happens, hails from 1402. Think it's time we accepted the update.

I have always used that word, myself, for both men and women (admittedly, almost always in jest). The only ones that I have seen keeping it on in the original, archaic definition are those who either don't know enough to know better, or those who want to fight over it.

As any of the dictionary definitions posted will show you, the term is applied to both sexes. Yes, more so women, I won't argue that. But it's not a female only term.

And if you still claim that there's no male equivalent, then I demand one, on behalf of all men. Otherwise it's just being sexist that we don't get one too :P

Jill_Valentine, I recognise those fragments, and I know they aren't the full definitions. I have both the OED and Penguin in front of me.

Moreover, if you don't want to say it's genderless now, let's stop arguing semantics about the whole thing and MAKE IT GENDERLESS.

Cavehill Red · 23-10-2012 12:38AM

Lawliet wrote: »

those articles Cavehill Red posted use phrases like "man slut" and 'slutty things for dudes because if we don't clarify we're talking about men you'll assume we're talking about women which is what the word usually refers to'
I rest my case.

With legal skillz like that, for your own sake don't ever set foot anywhere near a courtroom!
If I say the word 'shoe' do we assume that it always refers to women's footwear unless otherwise specified? No, we do not. We recognise that men, children, horses and quite a few inanimate objects also wear shoes and context defines the meaning.
Similarly here. Female sluts were not specified. Neither were male sluts. Therefore slutty activity is being encouraged by the DCU Ents team among everyone. And hurrah for that. I'd have thought the innate equity of it all would please you.

AH_David · 23-10-2012 12:50AM

jill_valentine:

you are also implying that being a slut or sleeping with many partners is a bad thing.
I would have thought that in this modern age we would be more accepting of a promiscuous lifestyle.

jill_valentine · 23-10-2012 12:57AM

AH_David wrote: »

jill_valentine:

you are also implying that being a slut or sleeping with many partners is a bad thing.
I would have thought that in this modern age we would be more accepting of a promiscuous lifestyle.

I have no problem with promiscuity, absolutely none. I'm all for it. More of it, I say. Lashings of it for all, and I mean that sincerely.

I have a problem with the particular charge of the word "slut", however, and the unequal attitude towards sexual promiscuity that's built into it. I'm sorry, trying to pretend that word isn't gendered with a straight face - or for our purposes, isn't intended to be gendered by DCUSU - it an intellectually dishonest attempt to win semantic points. And the accessories used to represent female costumes on the DCUSU website don't really have your back on that one, I'm afraid.

leddpipe · 23-10-2012 01:05AM

as if girls need encouragement to dress like sluts for Halloween!

AH_David · 23-10-2012 01:18AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

I have no problem with promiscuity, absolutely none. I'm all for it. More of it, I say. Lashings of it for all, and I mean that sincerely.

If you don't have a problem with promiscuity what's the issue? Do you honestly think putting the word 'slut' on a poster or having a 'Sluttiest Costume Contest' is going to pressure girls into wearing a more slutty costume than they're comfortable with.
Most people don't even read these things, all they do when they see the poster is check the date and the price.

Ruen · 23-10-2012 01:40AM

nua domhan wrote: »

It's only degrading if you let it be degrading.

Ahhh so the victim of degradation is actually at fault, if they just accepted it there wouldn't be a problem.

Mech1 · 23-10-2012 01:54AM

GET OVER IT, 2013 BECONS.Miss Valentine.

nua domhan · 23-10-2012 01:58AM

Ruen wrote: »

Ahhh so the victim of degradation is actually at fault, if they just accepted it there wouldn't be a problem.

no, you've missed the point entirely, it's not about acceptance of other peoples values but being confident in your own. The same way as the slutwalk takes away any degradation of the word by empowerment is the same way Rosa Parks refused to be discriminated by giving up her seat. They didn't let someone else's ideas impose on them.

Some people will always have their prejudices, whether it's thinking that a girl dressed provocatively is easy or one in a cardigan is frigid (which i think is a worse word than slut). It's judging people by their appearance is wrong.

In fact, your belief that anyone dressed provocatively is degrading themselves is belittling their choice to behave as they want to.

the_syco · 23-10-2012 01:59AM

Hawnshand Redemption wrote: »

Using the word "sluttiest" in a poster will encourage the lads to come in the hope of seeing a girl in a "slutty" outfit.

Having a prize for the "sluttiest" costume will encourage girls (who'd come to the ball anyway) to come dressed pleasing on the eye.

Ruen · 23-10-2012 03:03AM

nua domhan wrote: »

no, you've missed the point entirely, it's not about acceptance of other peoples values but being confident in your own. The same way as the slutwalk takes away any degradation of the word by empowerment is the same way Rosa Parks refused to be discriminated by giving up her seat. They didn't let someone else's ideas impose on them.

Some people will always have their prejudices, whether it's thinking that a girl dressed provocatively is easy or one in a cardigan is frigid (which i think is a worse word than slut). It's judging people by their appearance is wrong.

In fact, your belief that anyone dressed provocatively is degrading themselves is belittling their choice to behave as they want to.

That is not my belief.

It's inappropriate for the staff who run the SU on our behalves to start evaluating the female students and determining who is a slut when not everyone might enjoy such an honour being bestowed on them.

Cavehill Red · 23-10-2012 03:23AM

the_syco wrote: »

Using the word "sluttiest" in a poster will encourage the lads to come in the hope of seeing a girl in a "slutty" outfit.

Or encourage girls to come in the hope of seeing a lad in a 'slutty' outfit.

the_syco wrote: »

Having a prize for the "sluttiest" costume will encourage girls (who'd come to the ball anyway) to come dressed pleasing on the eye.

Or encourage fellas to come dressed pleasing to (hetero) girls' eyes.

Why are you being so sexist?

Depp · 23-10-2012 03:29AM

get a grip...its a light hearted and effective attempt to publicise an event...and it'l more than likely work wonders...no need to go all martyr on it... horrendous overreaction

Ruen · 23-10-2012 03:51AM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Or encourage girls to come in the hope of seeing a lad in a 'slutty' outfit.

Or encourage fellas to come dressed pleasing to (hetero) girls' eyes.

Why are you being so sexist?

Most people don't actually perceive every single thing as gender neutral like you seem to.
The sluttiest costume prize is for women. Your rigid gender neutral view of everything is what precludes you from understanding the difference between a man and a woman being called a slut, you won't understand it but most people know the difference.

Cavehill Red · 23-10-2012 04:03AM

Ruen wrote: »

Most people don't actually perceive every single thing as gender neutral like you seem to.
The sluttiest costume prize is for women.

The rigid mindset is yours. YOU are the one superimposing and dictating limitations to what the poster's text means that it doesn't actually say. The last sentence above is factually incorrect and demonstrably wrong.
Let me cut to the chase here - which gender's underwear is depicted on the poster?

Konata · 23-10-2012 07:56AM

Mech1 wrote: »

GET OVER IT, 2013 BECONS.Miss Valentine.

Caps lock is unnecessary. Please only post constructive responses.

allygatore · 23-10-2012 08:08AM

I'm an International student and a girl, and I'm not so shocked about the world slutty.
In my country, we also organise party with the sluttiest costume and even if I think this word is more sexist in my own language, I have never been shocked and I know I will never participate in that kind of elections. That is sure that you will never be elected if you are not dressed in a very special way, so I don't think you have a risk to go if you don't wanna be elected, just dress up in a funny way.
My country is mostly more sexist than yours, we don't have an equality officer or a LGBT society, maybe that's why I'm not so shocked.

Nanaki · 23-10-2012 08:52AM

Does anyone else remember the night there were strippers in the old bar a few years ago? It was probably the busiest night they had all year.

Ashashi · 23-10-2012 10:17AM

I would be very careful accusing the SU of being sexist. They are very much not that and DCU is an equal opportunities college. If you want to hamper your sister's education over your own opinion, then I fear for your sister.

Tree · 23-10-2012 11:03AM

Why be careful of accusing them of being sexist when they clearly are? Whether they or a sub-group organise this, they still condone it.

I think coercing young people into dressing like sluts is inappropriate. How people dress should be up to themselves, and not influenced by society/SU etc. Whether people want to cover themselves head to toe or wear dental floss and cotton buds is up to them. Sluttiest costume is clearly aimed at women, (I doubt you can find me record of any male winning this prize), and gives the message to young people that you should be slutty to fit in and gain admiration.

It seems to be primarilly males who are supporting this prize, and they are not a part of society that is regularly objectified and judged on appearance. I have spoken to many women who feel this prize is degrading and inappropriate.

What's the worst that happens if this prize is taken away? The males on the judging panel no longer have a legitimate excuse to ogle? Some women will come dressed in a fashion that is "pleasing on the eye" regardless, so the creeps who want to stare will still do so.

py2006 · 23-10-2012 12:41PM

Get a grip.

The only way there would be a case for argument here is if the ad said that if you are female you must come dressed as a slut.

Those who want to dress slutty will, those who don't will come as whatever they choose.

allygatore · 23-10-2012 02:21PM

DCU SU just said on Facebook in a comment it was a mistake : "DCU SU Huge apologies! Complete typo on my part (Emer MarComms) - It's actually "SEXIEST". That's what is printed on all the posters etc - just the web copy was wrong. So sorry for offense caused."

polkabunny · 23-10-2012 02:28PM

As a girl in a computing course, the only issue I take with this entire thread is the statement by OP.

Hawnshand Redemption wrote: »

At a period in time where sexuality is finally starting to progress, I find this incredibly regressive and profoundly inapropriate. Girls are afraid to do computer and engineering courses and this doesn't help if the college has this attitude.

I would like to call on OP not to wax lyrical about sexism in advertising, and then say something so blatantly idiotic.

Also, I don't take offense at the "slutty" part of the poster. It isn't forcing people to dress sluttishly and go. But then again, I'm a girl in a computing course, I'm clearly just afraid of everything to do with college because of this :rolleyes:

drogtastic · 23-10-2012 02:41PM

I remember a couple of great hallowe'en parties in DCU back in my time there. Some extremely sexy females lorded it up with very riskee gear. I thought it was fantastic. Maybe the killjoys who take offense to everything should head to the library and read germaine greer while the rest of the planet is enjoying our short time here?
just a thought

Urizen · 23-10-2012 03:04PM

allygatore wrote: »

DCU SU just said on Facebook in a comment it was a mistake : "DCU SU Huge apologies! Complete typo on my part (Emer MarComms) - It's actually "SEXIEST". That's what is printed on all the posters etc - just the web copy was wrong. So sorry for offense caused."

Should it need to be pointed out that Emer is also, in fact, a woman? And it was an honest mistake anyway?

So maybe, just maybe, saying that the 'all-male' SU was being sexist was wrong, inappropriate and, actually, sexist? Goes both ways ya know.

Cavehill Red · 23-10-2012 03:18PM

Urizen wrote: »

Should it need to be pointed out that Emer is also, in fact, a woman? And it was an honest mistake anyway?

So maybe, just maybe, saying that the 'all-male' SU was being sexist was wrong, inappropriate and, actually, sexist? Goes both ways ya know.

Not to mention that the scanty undies on the poster are ... men's.

lithiumoxide · 23-10-2012 03:22PM

Urizen wrote: »

Should it need to be pointed out that Emer is also, in fact, a woman?

Women can be sexist too, y'know.

Hawnshand Redemption · 23-10-2012 03:26PM

dukedalton wrote: »

In any case, in my experience of these things, most girls choose to play up to occasion and come wearing revealing paraphernalia. All part of the fun.

it may be fun for you, but in reality for the rest of us it is just degrading

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Her area of interest is first world problems, I assume?

I won't dignify this comment with a proper response

stmol32 wrote: »

You should forbid her from attending DCU.

My sister is a independant woman, she can do what she likes

Urizen wrote: »

Huh. So Sarah Flanagan, our Science & Health Convenor, and Lorna Finnegan , our Clubs Officer, are both men now? News to everyone except you apparently, I'm sure they'll be most surprised of all.

If this is the case and they were aware of this castasrophe then they should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this to happen. Last time I checked we weren't in the 40s and this isn't mad men, this kind of atttitude is sexist at best and damging womens human rights at worst

I was going to be polite, but I'll be blunt; it's Hallowe'en. Have a bloody sense of humour about it, they mean no offense and you damn well know it.

insulting someone and then adding "no offense" does not make the insult go away

There's no point in arguing, you've clearly made up your mind on the matter. But in my opinion, it's looking for discrimination that simply isn't there.

this is just untrue

AH_David wrote: »

the design of our posters is mostly dealt with by Emer, the Communications and Marketing officer, who is as her name might imply, a woman.

Sexism is virtually none existent in DCU

this does not appear to be the case. This person should also be ashamed

Ashashi wrote: »

I would be very careful accusing the SU of being sexist. They are very much not that and DCU is an equal opportunities college. If you want to hamper your sister's education over your own opinion, then I fear for your sister.

is that some kind of threat?

allygatore wrote: »

DCU SU just said on Facebook in a comment it was a mistake : "DCU SU Huge apologies! Complete typo on my part (Emer MarComms) - It's actually "SEXIEST". That's what is printed on all the posters etc - just the web copy was wrong. So sorry for offense caused."

this is good to here, but i still feel the sentiment behind it is wrong

polkabunny wrote: »

As a girl in a computing course, the only issue I take with this entire thread is the statement by OP.

I would like to call on OP not to wax lyrical about sexism in advertising, and then say something so blatantly idiotic.

how is what i have said untrue? I have a friend who does CA and she has complained that she can't work in the labs because of all the guys who bother her for no other reason then she's a girl. this kind of attitude does nothing to help the problem

Urizen wrote: »

And it was an honest mistake anyway

glad to see you admit it was a mistake

the amount of ignorent people in this thread shocks and apalls me. i can't believe in this day and age that these attitudes are still so prevelent.
I thought bringing this topic to peoples attention would help deal with the issue, not showcase peoples ignorence and spark debates about dictionary definitions of words. I also can't help but notice that the majority the people defending it are male, writing the whole thing off as a bit of crack, but it isnt. we need to put a stop to this sort of thing.

Sexist Advertising of Halloween Ball

Comments