Okay, so 'SlutWalk' is a march where participants protest against explaining or excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman's appearance. This march is mainly done by young women, where some dress in ordinary clothing and others dress provocatively, like "sluts." Women do this to combat the myth of the "slut" and the myth that suggests, "she was asking for it."
The rallies began when Constable Michael Sanguinetti, a Toronto Police officer, suggested that to remain safe, "women should avoid dressing like sluts"--(protect and serve, right?)
When I found out a police officer said this I was so shocked. I, personally, think this is such an empowering form of activism because of the message. I am interested in what you guys think, though. Do you think dressing up is empowering or takes away from the message? ect.
Here are some more pictures of the SlutWalk Chicago that you should check out on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/saumacus/5800330948/in/photostream/
Also, keep in mind...this happened last spring and women all over the world (in India even!) have organized these marches in protest. It is phenomenal how fast the movement has spread.
Also, if you click on the pictures they get bigger!
ReplyDeleteGAH! Technology!
ReplyDeleteI really like that Sara posted this. I've heard of it too but the background story that I'm familiar with is that it centers around an Italian woman who was raped but, due to her skinny jeans, her attacker was let off. The judge's claim was two-fold. First, similar to the policeman in Sara's version, her attire that evening meant that she was "asking for it". But secondly, he ruled that it would not have been possible to get jeans that tight off unless the action was consensual. Regardless of which, if either, of these stories is true, I think it's a noble cause and definitely love that these women are reclaiming the word "slut" because I do believe that it can be an empowering term if reconstructed.
ReplyDeleteIt reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who said that, in her GLBTQ group they use the word "faggot" in order to reclaim this term for their own community. In these settings, the word is not degrading because they are working to remove the derogatory connotation. However, their group recognizes that in the larger community this word is still offensive to many people. My understanding is that they have regained the word as their own and now the task is to help the larger community understand the realities behind this word.
Arguably, this march does the same thing. These women have regained the term for their own and now seek to help the larger community reach their same understanding. Regardless though, it is empowering in and of itself to have redefined this term for their group. I wanted to highlight one final thought though. While looking through the photos from the slideshow Sara sighted I found the image below:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/saumacus/5799845141/
On the right, her shirt says "Slut is a patriarchal construction" which I felt abstractly connects with Butler and her general argument. But I was curious to hear other people's thoughts. Are all stereotypical terms social constructions? Are all stereotypical terms patriarchal constructions? My belief is that, like racism, patriarchy is institutional because it is that deeply integrated/accepted as norm in society. Do you agree with that? And if it is true, then are all social constructions also patriarchal constructions? Just curious what everyone else is thinking.
I think the slut walks are great in the sense that they demonstrate solidarity among women and instigate dialogue in reference to how women's bodies are frequently the place where we begin conversations about women. However, I'm not sure women can "re-claim" the term slut, and personally I don't think the term has any redeeming value. Even if it is simply a construction, patriarchal or otherwise, it carries a connotation that cannot be willed away. I do obviously believe women have the right to where whatever they want and not be harassed in any form what-so-ever. I fear, however, that the "slut-walks" garner attention from the media simply because women are dressed provocatively. I do see the value in trying to use the image of the slut to instigate a different conversation, one that reveals the stupidity in blaming clothing for extreme violence against women. However, I think that the depiction of women as sluts cannot help but perpetuate the exploitation of women's bodies--even if in this instance it is for a better cause. In watching Hanna's post, which discusses the depiction of women in the media, I'm reminded of the insidious way the media shapes the perception of women. I feel pessimistic that the conversation surrounding the slut-walks will be the lasting impression that is left. It seems much more likely that the images of the walk will simply join the deluge of images of the sexualized female form. I am much more interested in causes that seek to confront the over-sexualization of women. And in some sense, the slut-walks come across as a battle that's somewhat circumscribed by patriarchy--that is, women fighting for the right to participate in their own exploitation without encountering violence. I know this is somewhat controversial and would have to involve a conversation about what it means to participate in your own exploitation...but maybe that's a more meaningful conversation in the long run than the one regarding women's ability to wear whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth-I agree entirely. I feel that, though the protest is admirable, by accepting the term slut these women are only perpetuating the patriarchal cycle we've been following in class. Women are drawing attention to their bodies as a defining characteristic(which could arguably be detrimental in the long run).
ReplyDelete