Image via Wikipedia
Though I suspect I support their aims, I'm not entirely sure what the 'SlutWalk' is all about.
It started with a comment by a senior Canadian police officer telling girls, basically, that if they didn't want to get in trouble they shouldn't dress as sluts. It was clumsily expressed, but, I think, well intentioned - and accurate (if misdirected). Whether it accords with your ideals or not the reality is that he's right - many men will act on what they perceive to be an open invitation. It's not right, but for now it is what it is.
What is this about though? Is it about being seen as sluts or being objectified by men? Is it about being told what can - or should - do or don't? Is it about the right for women to be dress however they like without being subjected to offensive labels? Is it a protest against the casual misogyny and sexism that means that women are almost always judged differently to men? Is it about how some men seem to believe that any women dressed as a 'slut' is asking for it? Or does it go deeper than any of that?
Well, yes, fair points all, but my confusion is not uncommon I think because the mode of protest blurs the message. Dressing as a 'slut' makes for good copy, but what is it really saying?
Some things should be a given in society. Though most are enshrined in law and observed generally by 'civilised' society bigotry and sexism, not to mention casual disdain, are daily realities. Sure, everyone should be treated equally. Sure, you should be able to express yourself in any way you like as long as it's within the law. And absolutely, everyone has the right to be treated with decency and respect until such time as that right is abused.
Who disagrees with those sentiments? In obvious terms not many these days. Society has changed radically I think since WW2 in it's recognition and acceptance of difference. Now as ever there are the fringe elements who are congenitally bigoted, but they are fewer than ever before and are generally treated with the disdain they deserve. More pervasive is the casual and underlying bigotry of those who might start a sentence with "I'm not racist/sexist/bigot..." and end it with a condemnation which is just that. Most of these people are ordinary folk - they believe in equality, but sometimes overlook its application.
It takes a lot of education and not a little wisdom to overcome those simple and usually denied prejudices. That's a process of generations - we have improved, and will continue to improve more, but we're a long way from achieving a truly accepting society, if we ever do. The SlutWalk at least highlights the gap.
Still, something does not sit completely right with me. People have and always will make assessments on people based on what they see. A large part of that is dress. Ideally we should move beyond negative judgements on character just because a pretty girl wears fishnet stockings with a short skirt. But is it unreasonable to think that she is more liberal - for want of a more apt (and inoffensive) term - than the woman dressed top to toe in conservative garb? No it's not. We're human beings, not robots.
We err when we leap from that assessment and begin to adversely judge her character on that basis, as so many men - and women - do. It's fine to question her dress sense perhaps, or the wisdom of wearing such an outfit when it's freezing outside. We may even disapprove - I know I do when I see a 12 year old girl in lipstick, make-up and high heels. Experience will likely give us some kind of pointer to her personality - we are how we dress. Attraction starts with the visual - we find something to like, or not. We may be drawn to or repelled by someone on that basis, that's our freedom of choice. It's human nature. Yet ultimately how someone dresses and chooses to express herself should be irrelevant to our judgement of her character. It certainly doesn't mean that she's gagging for it as so many seem to think.
Part of my confusion in this protest is whether women are defending their rights to be 'sluts' if they choose to be. Not the label so much as the right to act as they choose without being derided for it. That's fair enough to, and one of the biggest double standards in society.
I'm a bloke and by a lot of measurements could be described as a slut, not for how I dress, but what I do. It doesn't happen of course because a man who hops from bed to bed is generally seen as virile and manly, and occasionally admired by other men for his bedroom feats. In masculine society an active sex life seems only to affirm manliness.
You don't need to tell me that it's different with women. That's unfair, but there is a lot of history and gender politics behind it.
Men and women are defined in large part by their relationship relative to the other. We are built differently to start; have different but complementary biological purposes; our personalities, perceptions and behaviours are, whether it be nature or nurture, are clearly defined as different. There are exceptions as there are with everything, but these distinctions remain overwhelmingly relevant today. Furthermore they work - it is that difference that draws us together I think.
In that male/female dichotomy generally the male is seen as the assertive partner and the female more passive (spare me your angry emails, I'm just reporting the facts). Being dominant the man is seen as the hunter, the initiator, and even in these days of feminism many of the cultural mores underpinning that remain current. (I argue the toss about this in reference to sexual equality when I almost always the person who has to make the move, am consistently expected to pay for dinner, and am generally applauded for being gentlemanly).
Society's apple cart gets upset occasionally when those roles are challenged, or even reversed. A woman who asks out men is often seen as being 'pushy'. A woman who takes as much pleasure out of sex as a man is seen as 'easy'. A woman who challenges the masculine status quo is seen as being bossy, at best, and occasionally as a 'dyke', or as needing a 'good root'. Why? Because they step across the sexual lines long since drawn. Because they challenge our expectations, defy the feminine principle we have been brought up to accept as not just true, but as right.
This is what I think the SlutWalk should be really about, and in that way it transcends the narrow sexual nature of this protest. It's really about the freedom of expression and behaviour; the right to break free from restrictive societal expectations without being judged and vilified for it; to act as as an individual, not as a stereotype. That's true of everyone, regardless of sex, colour or religion.
The longer I live the more convinced I am that people should be seen as individuals, not as representatives of some demographic or another, much less labels. It's lazy, incorrect, and unfair.
