Hi all,
What do you all reckon to the Go Topless and Slutwalk parades that have recently been appearing in America and in some other countries?
I have been reading the comments on the Go Topless march in Asheville on YouTube as well as some of the Slutwalks held in various cities and I'm apalled by some of the horrible crude, sexist and misogynistic attitudes towards the women who take part in these marches. I feel sick to think that in this day and age there are still people out there who believe that women who dress in skimpy outfits in public are "asking for it".
I am a firm believer that a woman ought to have the right to dress however she wants, or to go topless or nude in public without being assaulted. Where I live, the laws actually permit women to be nude in public because the 'wilful exposure' laws only pertain to the exposition of genitals (as we all know a woman's is internal unless she is an 'outie') - this is what the Boondall Police told me when I organised the World Naked Bike Ride there in 2009. Men and boys are culturally allowed to go topless in public in most places and people think nothing of it, but outside of the beach if a girl or a woman was to do it she is seen as 'easy meat' or a 'slut'. This has got to stop!
Rape and other sexual assaults are never a justifiable thing in my opinion, and from what I've been led to believe feminism is about having respect and equality for women, not superior rights to men. Women who hate men are NOT feminists, but misandrists and they are to be pitied in my honest opinion just like some hardcore GBLT people who want superior rights like having special public toilets and change rooms.
Anyway, that's my take. What do others reckon?
Replies
- CO
Curt, or CowboySep 25, 2011I have no issue with topless parades, but slutwalk ?
No thanks !!
The very name conjurs immediate images that are less than anything we'd want to be associated.
Nudism is ( partially for some ) about liberty, not libertine !ReactReply - A
ASep 26, 2011The slutwalk is mainly about women's right to dress as they please, so not really related to sluts. I am in favour of gender equality, so women should be allowed be top-free when men also are. Also think anyone should have the right to be dressed or undressed without being harassed because of that.
ReactReply - GE
Gerry-4Sep 26, 2011Unless I'm mistaken, the "slutwalk" is a protest that stemmed from a policeman telling young university students that if they wanted to avoid being sexually harassed and assaulted, they shouldn't dress like sluts. The officer has since been reprimanded, but the women want it known that no matter how they dress, or undress, it is never an invitation to would-be assaulters.
In that spirit, I fully support the slutwalk. To call it anything else would diminish the significance of what happened.
Of course, I also support "Go Topless Day" for entirely different reasons.ReactReply - SO
SoupieSep 26, 2011The slutwalk began in Toronto. On January 24, 2011 Constable Michael Sanguinetti spoke on crime prevention at aYork Universitysafety forum[size= 11px; line-height: 10px].[/size] He said: "women should avoid dressing likeslutsin order not to be victimized." Co-founders Sonya Barnett and Heather Jarvis decided to use the wordslutin their response. They observe that historically, "slut" has had negative connotations, and that their goal is to redeem the term. They write that women "are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result." They continue: "Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work."ReactReply - GEGerry-4Sep 26, 2011[quote]The word redeem in this context means to recover it to it's original and positive connotation. When has the word slut had a positive connotation? So, how can one recover (redeem) it? That makes no sense.[/quote] Many other words have seen their meanings change over time. Just because it had a negative connotation in OUR lifetime doesn't mean it didn't once have a very different meaning. Check the links provided by Soupie and we find, among other things, this:Another early meaning was"kitchen maid or drudge"(c. 1450), a meaning retained as late as the 18th century, when hard knots of dough found in bread were referred to as"slut's pennies."A notable example of this use is Samuel Pepys's diary description of his servant girl as"an admirable slut"who"pleases us mightily, doing more service than both the others and deserves wages better." Indeed, if the language had evolved differently, we'd be hiring sluts instead of maids! English has been around for hundreds of years. I once heard someone reading the Lord's Prayer in Old English. I didn't understand a thing. It sounded very much like a foreign language. Later, someone read the same thing in Middle English. This time, I could understand just enough to make out what the person was saying. By the time Shakespeare came around, Modern English was in vogue. If a language could vary to that extent, then the meaning of words could vary as well. Indeed, it's said that the word "nudist" was used disparagingly by those who weren't nudists to describe and criticise us. Eventually, we more or less turned the tables on them by adopting the word as our own.ReactReply
- GEGerry-4Sep 26, 2011[quote]Ok, then what was the positive connotation to the word? Should it be considered socially acceptable to live a life like Snookie from the Jersey Shore? Should a life of prostitution be considered a respectable career path despite all of the evidence that it is destructive?[/quote] Sorry, Bruce; I was still polishing my post when you asked this. Go back two posts and you should have your answer. As for Jersey Shore, I have neither satellite nor cable, so I'll have to research that and get back to you. Finally, not all sluts are prostitutes. Indeed, some prostitutes may not even be sluts.ReactReply
- GA
gabareSep 26, 2011topfree protest are long overdue but in alot of cities it is legal but most women are probably afraid to do it and i wouldn't blame them because all the nuts out there, we as society have to many hangup. as for the slutwalk never heard of that.
ReactReply - GEGerry-4Sep 26, 2011[quote]No problem, Gerry-I do the same thing. I saw it...did you get the paragraph fromhere? If so, when you read that etymology paragraph in full, it still indicates that the term is derogatory toward women.[/quote] No, I got it fromhere. There is no doubt the word is currently derogatory towards women. Emphasis on the word "is;" present tense. in the past, it could have both a derogatory and a non-derogatory meaning. The non-derogatory one has fallen into disuse. EDIT -- Actually, to be more precise, there is also one with sexual connotation and one without. It used to be used to describe hags. When, in these modern times, have we ever thought of hags as sluts? Usually, when we see the word slut, it is not a hag that comes to mind. In French, a "séraphin" in Europe would be a cherub, an angel-like creature. In Canada, a "séraphin" is a man full of avarice and greed. This is because one of French Canada's most famous novels, "Un homme et son péché," is about a man named Séraphin Poudrier, a man whose greed knew no bounds. This is but one way meaning can change depending on context and other circumstances.ReactReply
- SOSoupieSep 26, 2011
It just exposes the double standard. A man who has many sexual partners is a "stud", and it's not considered pejorative. But from certain moral, archaic, and misogynist perspectives, a woman who enjoys many sexual partners is abnormal, a slut, a jezebel.
I don't know anything about the Jersey Shore, but why judge the women and not the men for their actions?ReactReply - SOSoupieSep 26, 2011
It appears to me that women may finally be allowed to own their own sexuality with or without your approval. And perhaps the antediluvian concepts of repressing, condemning and controlling woman is finally seeing its end.
ReactReply - GEGerry-4Sep 26, 2011[quote][quote][/quote] But we are getting away from the point that the slutwalk appears to have an agenda that diminishes women to sexual devices-as opposed to beautiful and valuable human beings. It is part of a 100 year tradition of progressive society trying to redefine common decency.[/quote] I guess I don't see it that way at all. These women are simply saying that whether they are dressed like sluts or not -- indeed, whether they ARE sluts or not -- they have the right to walk the streets without fear of harassment or worse. Try as I may, I just don't see how that can be anything but desirable. Wouldn't we, as men, want the same for ourselves? (By the way, there must be some women with opinions on this out there. Join in the conversation!)ReactReply
- SOSoupieSep 26, 2011
We as men, do have that right ourselves. Isn't it ironic that there are men comfortable defining what is "decent" for a woman or what she can do with her body. I've always maintained that if men bore children, abortion would be more than legal, it would be popular.
ReactReply - DE
DesertRatSep 26, 2011If you want to start a movement to gain respect for your agenda, it's best not to turn off most of your potential supporters by using language that is almost guaranteed to alienate them. In the comedy world there is a saying that if you have to explain a joke, it's not funny. I believe that a similar rule would apply here. If you have to explain the concept, it loses its pizzazz. Basically I believe that the organizers of this event shot themselves in the foot by using terms that are distasteful to the majority of the people. It does not matter what a word used to mean. What matters is what people hear and understand today.
ReactReply - SOSoupieSep 26, 2011
Actually, the first walk in Toronto was a roaring success that attracted a lot of participants. Everyone understood the point. And the mainstream media was on board to make the point very clear.
ReactReply