SlutWalk: A Stroll Through White Supremacy

[RedSunRising]

I never said that you were "bourgeois", I said that you were a dour, judgemental puritan. World of difference.


Well I have plenty of plenty of nordie presbetyrian blood so yeah I am a little bit of dour puritan, however sex is something that I enjoy a lot, I have amazing orgasms, something which I think you will find a lot of women and girls who are caught in the trap of using sex to try and re-enforce self esteem that has been plundered from them dont have.

[Quail]

In the real world most porn is women-hate propaganda. Therefore should be banned...Were you or were you not arguing against it being banned?
I think you need to realise that there are better ways of dealing with issues such as the sex industry and drugs than criminalisation.

[RedSunRising]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/05/nyregion/05gay.span.jpg

Oh sorry, I forgot, it doesn't matter when men run around naked, but when women do they're all gender traitors :p

I don't find exhibitionism to be liberating, but I'm not going to personally judge women who do. Assuming that any exposition of a woman's body is inherently repressive is more indicative of your own socially conditioned assumptions about how a woman should be.

Money is something that personally disgusts me...What does the money tucked in the g-string say? Lots of upper middle class gay men treat working class gay men as if they were women, patriarchy along age and class lines very much reproduces itself in the gay scene. But nice try.

[RedSunRising]

I think you need to realise that there are better ways of dealing with issues such as the sex industry and drugs than criminalisation.

Like semtex? :)

[Tim Finnegan]

In the real world most porn is women-hate propaganda.
Oh, don't be so silly. Most pornography is misogynistic, certainly, but it's not "propaganda", any more than the average copy of Cosmo is "propaganda", and believe me, you'll find far more in the way of substantially harmful material in the section of the magazine rack labelled "Women's" than the section labelled "Men's". It's simply the product of a society in which the hegemonic ideology is misogynistic, just like pop music, Hollywood movies and bestseller fiction- none of which, despite their far greater cultural presence and far deeper cultural impact, infuriate you in quite this fashion. I can't help but wonder why.


Therefore should be banned...Were you or were you not arguing against it being banned?I'm arguing against the censorship of pornographic media involving only consenting adults by the bourgeois state, if that's what you're asking, because I'm not a social democrat with pseudo-revolutionary pretensions.


Well I have plenty of plenty of nordie presbetyrian blood so yeah I am a little bit of dour puritan, however sex is something that I enjoy a lot, I have amazing orgasms, something which I think you will find a lot of women and girls who are caught in the trap of using sex to try and re-enforce self esteem that has been plundered from them dont have.
Well, good for you, and I certainly agree that women are very commonly alienated from their sexuality by the grotesque collision of patriarchy and capitalism that we call "contemporary society". I just don't quite see how having RedSunRising rather than Ratzinger dictating what kinds of sexuality are and are not acceptable is going to improve the unenviable lot of women under patriachy

[RedSunRising]

I'm arguing against the censorship of pornographic media involving only consenting adults by the bourgeois state, if that's what you're asking, because I'm not a social democrat with pseudo-revolutionary pretensions.


Well, good for you, and I certainly agree that women are very commonly alienated from their sexuality by the grotesque collision of patriarchy and capitalism that we call "contemporary society". I just don't quite see how having RedSunRising rather than Ratzinger dictating what kinds of sexuality are and are not acceptable is going to improve the unenviable lot of women under patriachy

Do you also oppose Nazi propaganda being censored by the bourgeois state? Do you have strong views against holocaust denial being illegal in Germany?

And why do you keep bringing religion into things? Its either people are bead rattling or they are dour Calvinists with you a lot of the time it seems.

[Tim Finnegan]

Do you also oppose Nazi propaganda being censored by the bourgeois state? Do you have strong views against holocaust denial being illegal in Germany?
How about we cut a deal: I'll concede the banning of pornography, you concede the banning of piss-weak Nazi-analogies. Sound good?


And why do you keep bringing religion into things? Its either people are bead rattling or they are dour Calvinists with you a lot of the time it seems.I find that one breed of sexual puritanism is, once you dust of the ideological rationalisation, very much like the other. Once you occupy that position, the analogies suggest themselves quite naturally.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

"Perpetually in our comfort zone"? Ha...that's a good one. Sexual aggression is something all men have to deal with far more than you would think. How, you ask? Well, from other men, of course. The level of competition that comes to getting and keeping the attention and affection of women among the straight male population can get to ridiculous levels. That's why about half the fights that break out at parties are over someone looking at someone's girlfriend/interest. That's why guys who aren't successful getting with girls are pushed to the margins.

Plus, women are sexually aggressive as well. I don't know why people keep buying into stale stereotypes about the passive woman. Many women today are damn aggressive sexually when they want to be.
Yes men may be aggressive with each other I know this as I came out and started my transition after already living for about 22 years. So I have experienced life in both sets of eyes in a way. Trust me when I say that men don't seem to consciously know that they are being so sexually aggressive sometimes. I usually can't walk a few blocks to the store without being hollered at (at many times, to the point where it becomes scary and threatening.

And when you talk about getting with and keeping girls, you act like girls are possessions to be won and not humans with our hopes, feelings, dreams emotions and lives.

[the_red_pickle]

[
See, this. This is exactly the problem. Free love is about willingness, communication and treating each other as equals, not about unwanted harassment of "easy women", that's merely claiming ownership. Men who do that shit in marches will, and deserve to, get their asses kicked. Of course, most of it is just tough guy macho posturing, not things they'll do, they'll just provide a sad reminder that, yes, rape culture exists and that many people love to miss the point.
Do you think these men will admit to a woman's face that they think she's a slut when they're trying to hook it up with her? Do you think when men talk about slutwalk in that way they'll be stupid enough to do it in front of the women who will take part in it? :rolleyes: Not everyone is as dumb as that sheriff.


Step out of our comfort zone for once in our life? Really? If anyone in society, it's men who are perpetually in their comfort zone. They don't have to deal as often with the same sexual aggression that is constantly thrust upon women by horny bastards who don't understand what fuck off means and all too often don't get that no means no.

As manic_expression have already answered, sexual aggression can go both ways. For an attractive man, they come at you like flies to honey. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about...

Anyway I meant that as ACTIVISTS they should step out of their comfort zone. I'm afraid that the original point of the march will be forgotten soon enough but the images of it will remain and will fit quite nicely into our "sex postive but in a bad way" pop-cultured society.

[manic expression]

That's not really an immediately useful proposition, is it? It's more of a, how would you put it, "cheap cop-out"? Is that about right? :rolleyes:
Revolutionary socialism is very immediately useful. Care to expand on your disagreement?


And what, because this has not yet been answered to any satisfying degree, is wrong with being a "slut", that is to say, a woman who is comfortable engaging in sexual intercourse as she feels comfortable, and not within the arbitrary limits of good behaviour dictated by patriarchal society?
No, hold it right there. "Sluts" very much engage in sexual intercourse within the limits dictated by patriarchal society. You have, again, a black-and-white view of patriarchy without room for nuance. Patriarchy doesn't say "all girls must be good"...patriarchy says "let's pressure women into being promiscuous and treat them like dirt when they do". Watch MTV for about 50 seconds and tell me which of those it aligns with. "Sluts" fill a role in patriarchal society whether or not you admit it...and it's not an empowering one.


And if there is nothing wrong it, then what's wrong with making public declarations to that effect, or with expressing solidarity with those who do? (Because, let's remember, the issue isn't the right of women to have lots and lots of sex, but to have as much as sex and the kind of sex that they feel is personally necessary for their sexual and emotional satisfaction, which means that some women may be able to pursue that goal without a great worry of being declared a "slut" on a regular basis, but still wish to express solidarity with those other women facing that obstacle.)
However, they're promoting the connection between "slut" (derogatory treatment, etc.) and skimpy clothing. That's the opposite of what we should do. Skimpy clothing doesn't make you a slut...so why are these slutwalkers promoting the very idea that we need to quell?


Okay, insert the words "good" between "any" and "alternative", and we can go from there.
Yes, because marching against misogynist violence without insulting oneself is so "not good" and "nonexistent". :rolleyes:


Her use of "free love" in those cases was rather blatantly dripping with a very harsh irony, much as it seems to have escaped you; an attack on the fact that . For god's sake, she explicitly refers to one of her illustrations as "rape", which doesn't exactly suggest that she was being over-subtle about making her point.
Her irony was making the point that nothing can be truly "free love" without revolutionary change.


And Kollontai sat outside of that middle ground, well into "slut" territory, at least by the traditional reckoning being confronted here. Hell, during the revolution, she openly explained her promiscuity as being a result of the fact that she was far too busy in her work as People's Commisar for Social Welfare to bother with a romantic relationship, but still felt like it having it off now and then, which isn't, I think, the sort of "middle ground" that you're attempting to advance.
Actually, that is the middle ground I'm talking about. The simple fact that she was more involved with the Bolshevik Party than a frat party is proof enough that she was on the right track.

Of course, I'm not against promiscuity at all, but like with all things sexual, it's not always what you do but how you do it. I'm cool with girls who lay a lot (not usually my personal cup of tea but so what), so long as they keep in control of it (which includes not tolerating would-be partners who treat them with less respect than they should), stay safe and show respect for their partners. "Sluts" do none of those things. It's not a middle ground in terms of number of partners, it's middle ground in terms of being able to respect oneself while pursuing sexuality in a fulfilling manner.


Ah, yes, that's why Stalin shut down the Zhenotdel in 1930, because sexism was officially over in the USSR. Of course, when right-wing Americans say that in reference to women's programs, we know that they're lying, but Stalin, well, would he lie to you? :rolleyes:
Advancements in women's rights continued onward from that point. Just as on example, the first female fighter pilots made their debut in Soviet aircraft in WWII...no other country saw such a military contribution of women. Sexism wasn't "over" (as class struggle continues in socialist society), and Stalin did roll back advances in some respects, but regardless of all of that so-called "Stalinism" has done more for women than any other ideology you can name.


Yes, because if there's one "wave" of feminism that's a rock-solid, fully homogenous coalition of hardened ideologues, it's the Third Wave. :rolleyes:
"No True Scots-feminist".


A cheese sandwich is overwhelming bread, but is that to say that it is a 100% bread-based object? Or would that be, as I strongly suspect, a particularly silly example of over-reduction?
I don't get your allusion. The sandwich depends upon the presence of bread, otherwise it's a few pieces of cheese. Today's feminism doesn't depend on revolutionary sentiment, and more than often directly rebukes revolutionary politics in favor of "THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE" as Barack Obama rips open his shirt.

I'm not really concerning myself with anything else than the majority of rhetoric coming out of feminism right now. It's not much I agree with, so why should I care if I fit the label or not? My goal isn't to surgically seek out exceptions to the rule in order to resuscitate a label that's painted itself into a corner.


Ah, yes, I forgot language was immutable. It's obvious, really, given that Beowulf is written in flawless contemporary British English, but, well, we all make mistakes.
My argument is that feminism today isn't so much less bourgeois in character and substance than it was then.


My point was that they are the most famous example of the combination of a project of women's liberation with a project of worker's liberation, in opposition to the subjugation of women's issues to a non-feminist organisation, as dictated by both yourself and the official Communist Parties of the day
My point is that they didn't even consider themselves feminist...which is exactly the position I've taken. Anyway, it seems they're an example for non-revolutionary feminists just as Paul Robeson is an example for non-revolutionary Black intellectuals. Actual politics are left aside, while their legacy is claimed by people who would rather hand out "privilege lists" than engage in solidarity with all those oppressed by capitalism.


As I do. Whatever point you think that you're making, you're not doing.
Huh. So if someone says "you don't sound feminist", do you not care? They're basically telling you that you don't sound bourgeois, right? That's how I see it.

[manic expression]

Yes men may be aggressive with each other I know this as I came out and started my transition after already living for about 22 years. So I have experienced life in both sets of eyes in a way. Trust me when I say that men don't seem to consciously know that they are being so sexually aggressive sometimes. I usually can't walk a few blocks to the store without being hollered at (at many times, to the point where it becomes scary and threatening.
The times I've been hit on by gay dudes were a bit enlightening as it must be a taste of what women go through with unwanted attention from straight males. Still, I don't think it's ever going to change much in and of itself...but we can change the manner in which it's done, make it more respectful and stop it from being menacing. (That's why I never understood the feminist hysteria over PUA...it's basically teaching men how to go up to a woman he finds attractive and have a conversation with her instead of whistling or catcalling.)

The sad part is that there is a real pressure on guys to be aggressive. We grow up watching the most aggressive, disrespectful jerks have the most fun with the most girls. We're told "Losers make excuses, winners go home and fuck the prom queen." The effect it has on the mentality of a straight male cannot be underestimated, especially when your self-worth revolves around it. Of course men are going to be aggressive...if you don't then some other, more aggressive guy is likely going to fuck up your game and take that girl home.


And when you talk about getting with and keeping girls, you act like girls are possessions to be won and not humans with our hopes, feelings, dreams emotions and lives.
I said getting and keeping the attention and affection of girls, not getting and keeping the girl herself. But anyway, it's a figure of speech, mostly. Also, attraction generally goes in stages...first it's physical, then it involves someone's character and so on and so forth. If it's just random hook-ups than hopes and dreams probably aren't going to matter that much IMO.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

The times I've been hit on by gay dudes were a bit enlightening as it must be a taste of what women go through with unwanted attention from straight males. Still, I don't think it's ever going to change much in and of itself...but we can change the manner in which it's done, make it more respectful and stop it from being menacing. (That's why I never understood the feminist hysteria over PUA...it's basically teaching men how to go up to a woman he finds attractive and have a conversation with her instead of whistling or catcalling.)

The sad part is that there is a real pressure on guys to be aggressive. We grow up watching the most aggressive, disrespectful jerks have the most fun with the most girls. We're told "Losers make excuses, winners go home and fuck the prom queen." The effect it has on the mentality of a straight male cannot be underestimated, especially when your self-worth revolves around it. Of course men are going to be aggressive...if you don't then some other, more aggressive guy is likely going to fuck up your game and take that girl home.
I can't stand it when men refer to that as "game" it sounds kind of wrong to me. But I see your point even though it lacks a certain amount of perspective. The difference is that occasionally getting hit on is very different from not being able to go anywhere alone with out being aggressively hit on to the point where you no longer feel safe.

[Queercommie Girl]

The sad part is that there is a real pressure on guys to be aggressive. We grow up watching the most aggressive, disrespectful jerks have the most fun with the most girls. We're told "Losers make excuses, winners go home and fuck the prom queen." The effect it has on the mentality of a straight male cannot be underestimated, especially when your self-worth revolves around it. Of course men are going to be aggressive...if you don't then some other, more aggressive guy is likely going to fuck up your game and take that girl home.


Which is unfair to men as well if you think about it. I mean what if the dude is just too fucking "lazy" or tired to go around chasing girls all the time? Fuck, under capitalism people have no fucking rest. Need to slave away for the boss at work, and more efforts are required elsewhere in life too.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

About reclaiming terms, one of my favorite musical artists is named *****.

[RedSunRising]

About reclaiming terms, one of my favorite musical artists is named *****.

I dont mind being called a *****, it implies self assertion and aggression while as slut and bimbo mean the opposite.

[Tim Finnegan]

Revolutionary socialism is very immediately useful. Care to expand on your disagreement?
Because bellowing buzz-words from the political fringe does absolutely nothing to address the very real problems faced by contemporary women. Unless, of course, you think that forming a revolutionary Toronto Soviet was a viable response to the police chief's comments...?


No, hold it right there. "Sluts" very much engage in sexual intercourse within the limits dictated by patriarchal society. You have, again, a black-and-white view of patriarchy without room for nuance. Patriarchy doesn't say "all girls must be good"...patriarchy says "let's pressure women into being promiscuous and treat them like dirt when they do". Watch MTV for about 50 seconds and tell me which of those it aligns with. "Sluts" fill a role in patriarchal society whether or not you admit it...and it's not an empowering one.I didn't say "within the limits dictated by patriarchal society", I said within the limits of good behaviour dictated by patriarchal society". "Sluts" are, of course, "bad girls", in contrast to the prudent, non-promiscuity "good girls" who make up the other half of the Madonna/Whore dichotomy. What you're observing is that the contradictory demands of this dichotomy are unusually heightened at this time, which is entirely true, but isn't actually a challenge to anything I've said. If anything, it's an argument against your non-confrontational attitude towards the contemporary fact of Madonna/Whore, because it reflects the inability of women to prosper within such a construction, and therefore the necessity of challenging its logic.


However, they're promoting the connection between "slut" (derogatory treatment, etc.) and skimpy clothing. That's the opposite of what we should do. Skimpy clothing doesn't make you a slut...so why are these slutwalkers promoting the very idea that we need to quell?Well, firstly, you're focusing on only a limited part of the participants, which presumes a homogeneity which was not in fact the case. A variety of individuals and groups participate/d in these walks, and express/ed themselves in a variety of ways.
Secondly, I believe that you are indulging in a rather lazy interpretation of this particular segment, focusing only, as far as I can tell, as a limited aspect of their expression. The proclamations of "sluttiness" and the skimpy clothing went hand in hand with the communication- explicit, in the form of signs and chants, and implicit, in the simple form of participation of that march- of demands for respect and declarations of self-respect that challenge the traditional stereotype of slut. They were at the one time fulfilling a (hyperbolic) stereotype of "slutty" appearance and identification, while at the same time repudiating the ideological content of the concept of "slut", a contradiction which renders the entire concept of "slut" absurd, and therefore untenable- presumably why those pseudo-anti-sexists so keen to maintain the traditional concept of "slut" are forced into these wilful misinterpretations.


Yes, because marching against misogynist violence without insulting oneself is so "not good" and "nonexistent". :rolleyes:Who's insulting themselves, exactly? As I elaborate above, the entire appropriation of "slut" is one intended to bring about its conceptual self-destruction, which is hardly a textbook definition of "self-denigration".

And, yeah, they have those marches too. I imagine that many of the same people are involved, at least if my own acquaintance with several such people is any guide. Is a little bit of headline-grabbing gimmickry really so toxic for you?


Her irony was making the point that nothing can be truly "free love" without revolutionary change.Yes, this is the case. However, that is not the entirety of her thought on the subject, nor was this one little snippet the entirety of her writing. Here, she specifically addresses the role of economic class in perpetuating patriarchy, rather than simply making some generalisation about the necessity of some Party-defined prudence. After all, why does she specifically make reference to situations in which a distinction of class exists, and so in which a stark power differential is found, if not pursuing a very specific line of argument? Her comments do not rule out the potential of healthy promiscuity in contemporary society, they merely observe the inability to full free love as a social condition outside of a communist society.


Actually, that is the middle ground I'm talking about. The simple fact that she was more involved with the Bolshevik Party than a frat party is proof enough that she was on the right track.

...

Of course, I'm not against promiscuity at all, but like with all things sexual, it's not always what you do but how you do it. I'm cool with girls who lay a lot (not usually my personal cup of tea but so what), so long as they keep in control of it (which includes not tolerating would-be partners who treat them with less respect than they should), stay safe and show respect for their partners. "Sluts" do none of those things. It's not a middle ground in terms of number of partners, it's middle ground in terms of being able to respect oneself while pursuing sexuality in a fulfilling manner.It seems to me that you're using an idiosyncratic definition of "slut", although, rather embarrassingly, not one which actually sheds its sexist content. On what grounds is this distinction between "slutiness" and mere promiscuity, made, exactly, and on what grounds are you arguing it to be conventional?

Frankly, it sounds to me like you're just shifting the goal-posts in such a manner as to allow you to proclaim "slut!" with impunity, while still giving (what you imagine to be) the outward appearance of enlightenment.


Advancements in women's rights continued onward from that point. Just as on example, the first female fighter pilots made their debut in Soviet aircraft in WWII...no other country saw such a military contribution of women. Sexism wasn't "over" (as class struggle continues in socialist society), and Stalin did roll back advances in some respects, but regardless of all of that so-called "Stalinism" has done more for women than any other ideology you can name.Well, you're tangential Stalin-apologism aside, my point was that subjugating women's struggles to a male-dominated and, to be frank, patriarchal organisation- need I detail Stalin's cheerful tolerance of the serial rapist Beria?-tends not to offer fertile ground for the self-organisation of women to combat sexism on their own terms.


"No True Scots-feminist".In what sense? "No true Scotsmen" would imply that I'm suggesting some sublime orthodox from which such-and-such individual or group was departing and thereby invalidating their identification as "feminists", while I am suggesting quite the opposite, that "Third Wave" feminism is in essence a heterogeneous cluster with no "true".

That's the second times you've mis-used that expression. You should probably stop trying.


I don't get your allusion. The sandwich depends upon the presence of bread, otherwise it's a few pieces of cheese. Today's feminism doesn't depend on revolutionary sentiment, and more than often directly rebukes revolutionary politics in favor of "THIS IS WHAT A FEMINIST LOOKS LIKE" as Barack Obama rips open his shirt.

...

I'm not really concerning myself with anything else than the majority of rhetoric coming out of feminism right now. It's not much I agree with, so why should I care if I fit the label or not? My goal isn't to surgically seek out exceptions to the rule in order to resuscitate a label that's painted itself into a corner.My point was that inferring from the majority a universality is to indulge in mathematical illiteracy. Just as a cheese sandwich is mostly but not entirely bread, so contemporary feminism is mostly but not entirely bourgeois, and anybody claiming otherwise is going to look as foolish as somebody demanding the waiter take back their well-filled sandwich with something between the slices. These exceptions cannot be ignored simply because you've taken an infantile dislike to a particular cluster of letters.


My argument is that feminism today isn't so much less bourgeois in character and substance than it was then.

...

My point is that they didn't even consider themselves feminist...which is exactly the position I've taken.Your argument is one of anachronistic semantics, not of substance. Luxemburg, Kollontai, and so forth also considered themselves "social democrats", at least at one point, but we not apply that label to them today. Language is mutable, so to take century-old writing at face value, without taking into account the shifting interpretation of labels and of political identifiers, is to indulge in an untenable intellectual laziness.


Anyway, it seems they're an example for non-revolutionary feminists just as Paul Robeson is an example for non-revolutionary Black intellectuals. Actual politics are left aside, while their legacy is claimed by people who would rather hand out "privilege lists" than engage in solidarity with all those oppressed by capitalism.I honestly don't know what you think this adds to the debate, given that it's really nothing more than a petty jab at some imagined liberal foe.


Huh. So if someone says "you don't sound feminist", do you not care? They're basically telling you that you don't sound bourgeois, right? That's how I see it.Whether or not I care would be determined by the substance of the criticism. I'm not so keen to avoid engaging with critics that I feel the need to keep a basket of semantic dodges by my side.


I dont mind being called a *****, it implies self assertion and aggression while as slut and bimbo mean the opposite.
"Slut" doesn't imply a sexual self-assertiveness? I thought that was the entire reason that being a "slut" was stigmatised under patriarchy. :confused: It seems to me that there's more potential variety in interpretation for some of these words than you allow...

[Jimmie Higgins]

SocialistWorker.Org has had a series of letters debating the Slutwalks and this one makes a pretty good argument about why these protests are NOT about reclaiming the word "slut".

In Defense of Slutwalk (http://socialistworker.org/2011/05/26/in-defense-of-slutwalk)


The point the organizers are making (and also the marchers Helen mentions who are deliberately dressing like prostitutes) is that "sluts" or not, sex workers or not, whatever we wear, however much we like and have sex, women do NOT deserve to be raped and it is NOT the victim's fault....
No, the SlutWalks are about the fact that being labeled a "slut" means that a certain chunk of the population thinks it's okay to harass, degrade and rape you. Even if you enjoy labeling yourself a "slut" within the confines of your relationships or your scene, it's REALLY, REALLY not enjoyable at all when a sexually aggressive man decides on that label for you.

SlutWalk participants are protesting the on-the-ground reality of how "slut" gets experienced: As in, "You wanted it, you slut. Your clothes/shoes/breast size/drinking habits mean that you're asking for it. And you've had sex before and enjoyed it, which means you're a slut who will give it up to anyone. That can't really be considered rape."

The police explicitly agree with this logic, as the students of York University found out. That is what victims experience from the police, in court, and throughout mainstream culture, and that is worth protesting.The above letter also quotes one of the organizers of a Chicago Slutwalk:

Slutwalk Chicago (http://www.slutwalkchicago.org/1/post/2011/05/about-being-an-ally-privilege-marginalization-naming-and-slutwalks-place-in-feminist-activism.html)


As an anti-racist white cisgendered (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender) feminist activist, I've been reading the legitimate criticisms from folks of the SlutWalk movement as an exclusive movement that privileges certain experiences over others and have been thinking a lot about what it means to be an ally, to make sure our event is a comfortable space for as many folks as possible, and how not to perpetuate the oppressive structures that have often characterized white-led feminist movements in the past.
...
As mentioned in our previous blog entry on the word 'slut,', we as organizers have jettisoned the idea of reclaiming 'slut' as an organizing goal as it is simply too problematic for so many people (I personally find it a goal that doesn't work for me, though it may work for some others on the organizing team) - as some of the thoughtful criticisms have mentioned, reclamation is rooted in certain experiences and certain privileges (being comfortable enough to apply that word to yourself without fear of reprisal or violence, for instance). Instead, I see the contentious name of our event - SlutWalk - as a name that both joins us to work being done by other organizers (including the original Toronto organizers) and gets at the heart of how sexual double standards and rape culture are connected (for instance, how perceived sexual availability is used to invalidate allegations of sexual assault). Going forward we may or may not keep the name, but since it's on our permit and our event's only ten days away I feel as though interrogating the name and examining its implications is a useful thing to do in the meantime.
I dont mind being called a *****, it implies self assertion and aggression while as slut and bimbo mean the opposite.Do you mind that for women to be assertive or aggressive there's a slur but for men there's just "assertion" and "aggressiveness"?

I know many people don't mind "*****" and most of my female friends use this word often and loosely, but again "reclaiming" IMO is a failed strategy. By maintaining a concept of a separate category for aggressive or bossy women, the traditional use of the word implies that assertive women are a deviation from the norm. When used for men, "*****" means being weak and feminine, so there's really no way around the inherent sexist use of the word in this society.

It's so widely used that (like the n-word among many black people in the US) you kind have to pick your battles. I don't think radicals should be "word police" but I don't think we should support "reclaiming" words as a political tactic either.

[Tim Finnegan]

On "word reclamation", I think that a lot of it comes down to the ideological content of the word. When words act to de-legitimise a given identity, then reclaiming the word can be an effective word of publicly asserting legitimise- the successful reclamation of "queer" being the classic example- but if they simply invoke certain social hierarchies in order to provide a verbal or rhetorical cudgel, as in the case of the n-word, there's obviously less ground for a general reclamation. Words like "*****" and "slut" are tricky in that they are generally used as such a cudgel, but at the same time the cudgel isn't simply an attack on women, but an attack on women who adopt (or are percieved to adopt, or sometimes just plain old arbitrarily declared to have adopted) a certain kind of behaviour, which gives them an additional de-legitimising function. My best guess is that there is some value in attempting to de-fang those words, which may take the form of a temporary, situational reclamation- these SlutWalks being a debatable example- but I don't think that they have any particular long-term viability, as "queer" does. "*****" and "slut" can be appropriated for their rhetorical weight, but given that this weight relies on the terms having very particular connotations in the common usage- unlike "queer", which fills a much more sophisticated terminological role- so there's limited mileage on them.

Of course, as the letter which Jimmy quotes mentions, the issue of reclamation was always very much secondary, so just file that under "my two cents".

[Queercommie Girl]

It is an excuse for white women to dress trashy and hold up signs, pretending to be fighting for their rights. Their "right" to fuck whoever they want. Give me a break.

Honest question. Have you any respect for yourself?


Wait a minute. So if women "dress sexy", show their bodies and fuck whoever they want it must be "trashy" and "disrespectful", but if men do the same then it's a valid expression of masculinity and "macho-ness". Care to explain why there is a double standard here?



These slurs should not be reclaimed and should be despised by all self-respecting Leftists. Remember, we actually want a world where these slurs (racial and sexual alike) and their degrading meanings no longer have a place. That is the goal and not some bullshit 'reclamation'. "Movements" like SlutWalk are a distraction and its not surprising to see the organizations who completely support this garbage. This is only testament to the degeneracy of the West.

So do you oppose LGBT people reclaiming the word "queer" as well? After all, the word "queer" was also originally a discriminatory remark.

[black magick hustla]

I dont mind being called a *****, it implies self assertion and aggression while as slut and bimbo mean the opposite.

fuckckkkkk i discovered who you are had an epiphan

[RedSunRising]

fuckckkkkk i discovered who you are had an epiphan

BNbExvU42q4

[Spawn of Stalin]

Spill it, maldoror. Can't just be all cryptic and shit.

[Tenka]

So do you oppose LGBT people reclaiming the word "queer" as well? After all, the word "queer" was also originally a discriminatory remark.

I know you weren't addressing me, but "queer" just means weird, and I never appreciated the appropriation of the term by Homosexuals and transgendered people to refer to themselves. I think "word reclamation" in general is stupid. Homosexuality and non-conformity with assigned genders or sexes isn't queer (regardless of what the heteronormative majority may believe).

[Tim Finnegan]

I know you weren't addressing me, but "queer" just means weird, and I never appreciated the appropriation of the term by Homosexuals and transgendered people to refer to themselves. I think "word reclamation" in general is stupid. Homosexuality and non-conformity with assigned genders or sexes isn't queer (regardless of what the heteronormative majority may believe).
"Queer" was well established as a euphemism for non-normative sexual and gender identities long before it was appropriated, and entirely distinct from its original meaning- one which has generally been retained only in certain regional dialects- so I don't really see what you're getting at here. Let's remember, "gay" and "lesbian" were the product of exactly the same sort of re-appropriation, they've just become so widely used that we don't even think about it.

Frankly, it sounds like you're confusing contemporary language politics with anachronistic semantics.

[agnixie]

"Queer" was well established as a euphemism for non-normative sexual and gender identities long before it was appropriated, and entirely distinct from its original meaning- one which has generally been retained only in certain regional dialects- so I don't really see what you're getting at here. Let's remember, "gay" and "lesbian" were the product of exactly the same sort of re-appropriation, they've just become so widely used that we don't even think about it.

Frankly, it sounds like you're confusing contemporary language politics with anachronistic semantics.

It's like how people have no idea that gay meant homosexual in London and NYC slang by the turn of the century.

[manic expression]

Because bellowing buzz-words from the political fringe does absolutely nothing to address the very real problems faced by contemporary women. Unless, of course, you think that forming a revolutionary Toronto Soviet was a viable response to the police chief's comments...?
Really, calling yourself a slut from the fringe of the political fringe does so much more?


I didn't say "within the limits dictated by patriarchal society", I said within the limits of good behaviour dictated by patriarchal society". "Sluts" are, of course, "bad girls", in contrast to the prudent, non-promiscuity "good girls" who make up the other half of the Madonna/Whore dichotomy. What you're observing is that the contradictory demands of this dichotomy are unusually heightened at this time, which is entirely true, but isn't actually a challenge to anything I've said. If anything, it's an argument against your non-confrontational attitude towards the contemporary fact of Madonna/Whore, because it reflects the inability of women to prosper within such a construction, and therefore the necessity of challenging its logic.You don't challenge a dichotomy by standing firmly on one side of it and spurning the other. You reinforce it that way.


Well, firstly, you're focusing on only a limited part of the participants, which presumes a homogeneity which was not in fact the case. A variety of individuals and groups participate/d in these walks, and express/ed themselves in a variety of ways.
Secondly, I believe that you are indulging in a rather lazy interpretation of this particular segment, focusing only, as far as I can tell, as a limited aspect of their expression. The proclamations of "sluttiness" and the skimpy clothing went hand in hand with the communication- explicit, in the form of signs and chants, and implicit, in the simple form of participation of that march- of demands for respect and declarations of self-respect that challenge the traditional stereotype of slut. They were at the one time fulfilling a (hyperbolic) stereotype of "slutty" appearance and identification, while at the same time repudiating the ideological content of the concept of "slut", a contradiction which renders the entire concept of "slut" absurd, and therefore untenable- presumably why those pseudo-anti-sexists so keen to maintain the traditional concept of "slut" are forced into these wilful misinterpretations.It's not a lazy interpretation, I'm trying to look at it from the perspective that potential allies of women's liberation will. I could convince myself of all manner of feminist theory and jargon, but at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with how most people are going to view these sorts of efforts. If you want to tell yourself that the absurdity of it all is actually the effectiveness of the campaign, go for it, but then again absurdity looks a lot like absurdity. That's what's being passed over in favor of tying blindfolds of "radical feminist" rhetoric around our eyes and pretending something is something that it most likely isn't.


Who's insulting themselves, exactly? As I elaborate above, the entire appropriation of "slut" is one intended to bring about its conceptual self-destruction, which is hardly a textbook definition of "self-denigration".I understand the intent, but I haven't seen a single valid argument to even vaguely suggest that it will be the case. Trying to get more and more women to call themselves "sluts" is supposed to make the term go away? Does that mean if we get more men to call themselves "nerds" no one's going to get picked on in middle school?


And, yeah, they have those marches too. I imagine that many of the same people are involved, at least if my own acquaintance with several such people is any guide. Is a little bit of headline-grabbing gimmickry really so toxic for you?I try not to let the headlines be my litmus test for such things.


Yes, this is the case. However, that is not the entirety of her thought on the subject, nor was this one little snippet the entirety of her writing. Here, she specifically addresses the role of economic class in perpetuating patriarchy, rather than simply making some generalisation about the necessity of some Party-defined prudence. After all, why does she specifically make reference to situations in which a distinction of class exists, and so in which a stark power differential is found, if not pursuing a very specific line of argument? Her comments do not rule out the potential of healthy promiscuity in contemporary society, they merely observe the inability to full free love as a social condition outside of a communist society.I agree, and it should serve to remind us of our goal.


It seems to me that you're using an idiosyncratic definition of "slut", although, rather embarrassingly, not one which actually sheds its sexist content. On what grounds is this distinction between "slutiness" and mere promiscuity, made, exactly, and on what grounds are you arguing it to be conventional?

Frankly, it sounds to me like you're just shifting the goal-posts in such a manner as to allow you to proclaim "slut!" with impunity, while still giving (what you imagine to be) the outward appearance of enlightenment.What I wrote:

Of course, I'm not against promiscuity at all, but like with all things sexual, it's not always what you do but how you do it. I'm cool with girls who lay a lot (not usually my personal cup of tea but so what), so long as they keep in control of it (which includes not tolerating would-be partners who treat them with less respect than they should), stay safe and show respect for their partners. "Sluts" do none of those things. It's not a middle ground in terms of number of partners, it's middle ground in terms of being able to respect oneself while pursuing sexuality in a fulfilling manner.

I say it very clearly..."sluts" are not in control, they're used, abused and passed around. Promiscuity itself is something I'm fine with, but misogyny (whether it comes from males or the females themselves) is quite a different matter. If a girl lays a lot, you won't hear any complaints from me, so long as she keeps it safe and respectful to herself and her partners.


Well, you're tangential Stalin-apologism aside, my point was that subjugating women's struggles to a male-dominated and, to be frank, patriarchal organisation- need I detail Stalin's cheerful tolerance of the serial rapist Beria?-tends not to offer fertile ground for the self-organisation of women to combat sexism on their own terms.Of course there was fertile ground for women to organize themselves and combat sexism. The Soviet Union saw literally dozens of women's organizations, associations and the like, who all engaged in important struggles that had a profound effect on the society around them.

Bringing up the hear-say surrounding Beria does absolutely nothing to nullify the immense gains made by women in the Soviet Union.


In what sense? "No true Scotsmen" would imply that I'm suggesting some sublime orthodox from which such-and-such individual or group was departing and thereby invalidating their identification as "feminists", while I am suggesting quite the opposite, that "Third Wave" feminism is in essence a heterogeneous cluster with no "true".

That's the second times you've mis-used that expression. You should probably stop trying.It means you're trying to define "feminism" the way you want feminism to be, not the way it actually is. It means that every time I bring up a feminist thinker you don't like...it's "oh well it's a diverse movement". It means, perhaps most importantly, that you're not taking any accountability for the wrong-headed rhetoric that comes out of feminism.

So if it's as heterogeneous as you say, then perhaps we can come up with useful labels. It's either a movement or it isn't, you can't have it both ways.


My point was that inferring from the majority a universality is to indulge in mathematical illiteracy. Just as a cheese sandwich is mostly but not entirely bread, so contemporary feminism is mostly but not entirely bourgeois, and anybody claiming otherwise is going to look as foolish as somebody demanding the waiter take back their well-filled sandwich with something between the slices. These exceptions cannot be ignored simply because you've taken an infantile dislike to a particular cluster of letters.And if bread in your allusion is counterrevolutionary, I suppose we should be eating straight cheese, no?


Your argument is one of anachronistic semantics, not of substance. Luxemburg, Kollontai, and so forth also considered themselves "social democrats", at least at one point, but we not apply that label to them today. Language is mutable, so to take century-old writing at face value, without taking into account the shifting interpretation of labels and of political identifiers, is to indulge in an untenable intellectual laziness.That's false equivalency. "Social democrat" went from being someone who promoted working-class revolution to someone who gleefully sent proletarians to the death machine of WWI in a span of a few years. "Feminism" doesn't match up to that one bit.


I honestly don't know what you think this adds to the debate, given that it's really nothing more than a petty jab at some imagined liberal foe.You don't find that to be a common trend? I'm not saying you're doing that, but I am making the connection to bourgeois "radicals", whose presence in feminist circles is one of the reasons I made the initial comment in the first place.


Whether or not I care would be determined by the substance of the criticism. I'm not so keen to avoid engaging with critics that I feel the need to keep a basket of semantic dodges by my side.It's not a dodge, it's plain fact. If I don't sound like a feminist, it's not a very grave concern of mine due to what the overwhelming majority of feminism sounds like.


"Slut" doesn't imply a sexual self-assertiveness? I thought that was the entire reason that being a "slut" was stigmatised under patriarchy. :confused: It seems to me that there's more potential variety in interpretation for some of these words than you allow...Of course there's immense room for interpretation, which is one of the reasons I don't find the war of language appropriation to be a very productive one. Anyway, plenty of women are sexually self-assertive and "slut" isn't commonly applied to them.

[manic expression]

"Queer" was well established as a euphemism for non-normative sexual and gender identities long before it was appropriated, and entirely distinct from its original meaning- one which has generally been retained only in certain regional dialects- so I don't really see what you're getting at here. Let's remember, "gay" and "lesbian" were the product of exactly the same sort of re-appropriation, they've just become so widely used that we don't even think about it.
Let's also remember that "gay" in particular was chosen for self-identification not only because it signified non-normative sexual identities but also because it held positive connotations. "To be gay" meant "to be happy". When we compare that to this effort, the difference is as clear as day.

[agnixie]

Let's also remember that "gay" in particular was chosen for self-identification not only because it signified non-normative sexual identities but also because it held positive connotations. "To be gay" meant "to be happy". When we compare that to this effort, the difference is as clear as day.

This is a complete myth. Gay was initially associated to homosexuality because it had, since the 16th century, a secondary meaning implying libertine or loose morals - a gay woman was a prostitute, a gay man was a libertine. By the enf of the 19th century, the meaning had expanded to gay hustlers, to the point of increasingly eclipsing the rest of said second meaning. By the time of ww1, gay clearly meant or implied homosexuality in british cabaret and english queer literature of the period, far before any conscious effort - hell, predating the gay rights movement in most countries. The idea that it was adopted for its connotations of happy comes from a virulently homophobic pamphlet written in the 1980s, or people who don't realize that gay as happy had been antiquated for a while at this point in english.

[manic expression]

I feel pretty, oh so pretty...
I feel pretty, and witty, and gaaaaaaaaaaay!

From "West Side Story", 1961

And then of course, there's...
Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp With Eva and Adolf at Berchtesgaden

From "The Producers", 1968

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Let's also remember that "gay" in particular was chosen for self-identification not only because it signified non-normative sexual identities but also because it held positive connotations. "To be gay" meant "to be happy". When we compare that to this effort, the difference is as clear as day.
Queer is a much broader term than Gay. From my perspective (the perspective of a bisexual transwoman who is fine with saying "fuck you" to the patriarchal standards over womanhood) the term queer fits me while gay doesn't.

Plus I'm not gay as in "happy" but I am queer as in "fuck you"

[RedSunRising]

Queer is a much broader term than Gay. From my perspective (the perspective of a bisexual transwoman who is fine with saying "fuck you" to the patriarchal standards over womanhood) the term queer fits me while gay doesn't.


Are you implying that manic is applying patriarchal standards?

Infact it is this slut walk nonsense that is applying patriarchal standards, only celebrating them as somehow empowering.

[manic expression]

Queer is a much broader term than Gay. From my perspective (the perspective of a bisexual transwoman who is fine with saying "fuck you" to the patriarchal standards over womanhood) the term queer fits me while gay doesn't.

Plus I'm not gay as in "happy" but I am queer as in "fuck you"
Haha ok that's cool with me. But just so we're clear I'm not saying you have to use "gay", I'm just pointing out some of the things taken into account when "gay" was chosen for self-identification.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Are you implying that manic is applying patriarchal standards?

Infact it is this slut walk nonsense that is applying patriarchal standards, only celebrating them as somehow empowering.
I was implying no such thing. And there is nothing patriarchal about embracing a sex positive outlook.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Haha ok that's cool with me. But just so we're clear I'm not saying you have to use "gay", I'm just pointing out some of the things taken into account when "gay" was chosen for self-identification.
I self identify as queer, and I happen to also identify as a slut.

[RedSunRising]

And there is nothing patriarchal about embracing a sex positive outlook.

And what exactly is a sex positive outlook when its at home?

The use of the term "sex positive" implies that revolutionary and radical feminists are "sex negative" which is wrong. Its a cheap and nasty male slur on women and girls who question patriarchy's rules.

[Agapi]

And what exactly is a sex positive outlook when its at home?

The use of the term "sex positive" implies that revolutionary and radical feminists are "sex negative" which is wrong. Its a cheap and nasty male slur on women and girls who question patriarchy's rules.

"Sex-positive radical feminism" isn't a contradiction (even if it might not mean a whole lot).

[RedSunRising]

"Sex-positive radical feminism" isn't a contradiction (even if it might not mean a whole lot).

The point is the term implies that actual feminism as opposed to trendy third wave waffling is "sex negative" is a lie.

[manic expression]

I self identify as queer, and I happen to also identify as a slut.
Right. Well the thing is I stand in support of your sexuality...and I wouldn't say anything critical about it outside of the left. That being said, I don't see the wisdom in embracing the latter term. If you ask me, it's a negative term, it holds connotations of misogyny and it reinforces the dichotomy that we need to get rid of.

[RedSunRising]

Right. Well the thing is I stand in support of your sexuality...and I wouldn't say anything critical about it outside of the left. That being said, I don't see the wisdom in embracing the latter term. If you ask me, it's a negative term, it holds connotations of misogyny and it reinforces the dichotomy that we need to get rid of.

It also implies conforming to a twisted patriarchal view of female sexuality, conforming to which a decadent late capitalism puts forward as liberating.

[Agapi]

The point is the term implies that actual feminism as opposed to trendy third wave waffling is "sex negative" is a lie.

"Actual feminism", hahaha. Why would anybody ever continue a debate with you?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Right. Well the thing is I stand in support of your sexuality...and I wouldn't say anything critical about it outside of the left. That being said, I don't see the wisdom in embracing the latter term. If you ask me, it's a negative term, it holds connotations of misogyny and it reinforces the dichotomy that we need to get rid of.
If I am as sexually open as I want to be but maintain the right of self determination over how I express that am I still holding connotations of misogyny? Or am I a free woman?

[Agapi]

If I am as sexually open as I want to be but maintain the right of self determination over how I express that am I still holding connotations of misogyny? Or am I a free woman?

Absolutely misogynistic! Similarly, when I call myself a dyke, it can only ever be because I hate myself and all other lesbians. I'm learning lots of valuable lessons about identity in this thread, thanks y'all.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Absolutely misogynistic! Similarly, when I call myself a dyke, it can only ever be because I hate myself and all other lesbians. I'm learning lots of valuable lessons about identity in this thread, thanks y'all.
:confused::confused::confused:
I don't get it...

My ex identifies as a dyke but I'm half dyke, half straight grrrrrl.

[manic expression]

If I am as sexually open as I want to be but maintain the right of self determination over how I express that am I still holding connotations of misogyny? Or am I a free woman?
So in order to be "as sexually open as you want to be but maintain the right of self determination over how you express that you are"...you have to call yourself a slut? Out of all the words in the languages of mankind, you have some unquenchable desire to use that one? You still haven't explained to us why you think that term is so important.

[Agapi]

So in order to be "as sexually open as you want to be but maintain the right of self determination over how you express that you are"...you have to call yourself a slut? Out of all the words in the languages of mankind, you have some unquenchable desire to use that one? You still haven't explained to us why you think that term is so important.

Claiming a slur and redefining it in a positive way strips the word of much of its power. It's an reflection of coming to grips with discrimination and moving forward with your identity.

I am a slut. I am a dyke. So fucking what? These words do not reduce me.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

So in order to be "as sexually open as you want to be but maintain the right of self determination over how you express that you are"...you have to call yourself a slut? Out of all the words in the languages of mankind, you have some unquenchable desire to use that one? You still haven't explained to us why you think that term is so important.
Maybe I like how it sounds as well. What's it to you?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Claiming a slur and redefining it in a positive way strips the word of much of its power. It's an reflection of coming to grips with discrimination and moving forward with your identity.

I am a slut. I am a dyke. So fucking what? These words do not reduce me.
Well said!:thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:

[28350]

women's liberation basically means women should be free to make their own choices (eg. dressing as they please) but the issue is more complicated than that, because of institutionalized sexism. there is nothing wrong with being sexual, but women are definitely pressured into being sexually commodified

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

women's liberation basically means women should be free to make their own choices (eg. dressing as they please) but the issue is more complicated than that, because of institutionalized sexism. there is nothing wrong with being sexual, but women are definitely pressured into being sexually commodified
That's why women should sexually have the right to self determination. While I should be free to open my legs to anyone I choose, I don't like the idea of another woman being pressured into sexual acts that she doesn't want to do.

[manic expression]

Claiming a slur and redefining it in a positive way strips the word of much of its power. It's an reflection of coming to grips with discrimination and moving forward with your identity.
How'd that work out for n*gger? Racism any kinder or gentler since that word got "reclaimed"?


I am a slut. I am a dyke. So fucking what? These words do not reduce me.
Yeah, right, it's all about you...who cares about women who are reduced by those words? You got yours, pay them no mind.


Maybe I like how it sounds as well. What's it to you?
I know you're capable of something more substantive than that. "Cause I feel like it" isn't an argument or an explanation, it's a waste of time.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I know you're capable of something more substantive than that. "Cause I feel like it" isn't an argument or an explanation, it's a waste of time.
You think I owe a fucking explaination, ese?

[RedSunRising]

That's why women should sexually have the right to self determination. While I should be free to open my legs to anyone I choose, I don't like the idea of another woman being pressured into sexual acts that she doesn't want to do.

Spoken like a true blue Ron Paul fan.

The wonderful world of the abstract freedom of "liberal" patriarchy...The glorious freedom to become so confused about who you are that you are willing to please guys who couldnt care less who are you just to boost the fragile ego, the freedom to beaten, raped, and sold an image of who you should that supposed to be "powerful" when its anything but...Such wonderful freedom.

[Agapi]

Yeah, right, it's all about you...who cares about women who are reduced by those words? You got yours, pay them no mind.

Nobody deserves to be called something they don't wish to be called. What's wrong with you? You ask how we've managed to cope with the word, and then glibly imply we don't care about women who still struggle with it when we give you our answers? You can fuck right off.


The wonderful world of the abstract freedom of "liberal" patriarchy...The glorious freedom to become so confused about who you are that you are willing to please guys who couldnt care less who are you just to boost the fragile ego, the freedom to beaten, raped, and sold an image of who you should that supposed to be "powerful" when its anything but...Such wonderful freedom.

You too. What the fuck is this?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Spoken like a true blue Ron Paul fan.

The wonderful world of the abstract freedom of "liberal" patriarchy...The glorious freedom to become so confused about who you are that you are willing to please guys who couldnt care less who are you just to boost the fragile ego, the freedom to beaten, raped, and sold an image of who you should that supposed to be "powerful" when its anything but...Such wonderful freedom.
I get it I don't listen up to my ideals in my personal life.

[manic expression]

You think I owe a fucking explaination, ese?
If anyone wants to know why feminism has done absolutely nothing worth talking about in decades, here's your answer.

Oh, and pro-aviso...Spanish words don't make your arguments mejor, juey. But while we're at it...... Para ser un revolucionario es para explicar...cuando lo entiendes, dime.

[RedSunRising]

I get it I don't listen up to my ideals in my personal life.

I wasnt refering to you personally I was refering to situation of so many women and girls under "liberal patriarchy" of the type you seem happy here to endorse.

[manic expression]

Nobody deserves to be called something they don't wish to be called. What's wrong with you? You ask how we've managed to cope with the word, and then glibly imply we don't care about women who still struggle with it when we give you our answers? You can fuck right off.
Re-read your post. You talked about your own comfort with the word, neglecting how it affects women who don't happen to be you. If it doesn't bother you, great, but women's liberation is bigger than that.

[Tim Finnegan]

*crypto-patriarchal waffle*
Because, really, I'm done arguing with Red Presbyterians.

[Agapi]

Re-read your post. You talked about your own comfort with the word, neglecting how it affects women who don't happen to be you. If it doesn't bother you, great, but women's liberation is bigger than that.

All you asked was why the term was important to us, prat. I'm not going to speak for another woman who has had a different experience than me, but I can say that a woman who is shamed by the word slut still necessarily believes in its mythology.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

If anyone wants to know why feminism has done absolutely nothing worth talking about in decades, here's your answer.
Who said I was trying to accomplish anything?

[manic expression]

All you asked was why the term was important to us, prat. I'm not going to speak for another woman who has had a different experience than me, but I can say that a woman who is shamed by the word slut still necessarily believes in its mythology.
Right. Individual answers aren't going to cut it. Liberation is bigger than your comfort level.


Who said I was trying to accomplish anything?
"Ese" doesn't mean "I want to accomplish things"? Huh. Maybe we should reclaim the word.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

"Ese" doesn't mean "I want to accomplish things"? Maybe we should reclaim the word.
I didn't say it did...

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Right. Individual answers aren't going to cut it. Liberation is bigger than your comfort level.
Right, there needs to be some condecending big answer right? Because us little people have to be talked down to by glorious revolutionaries.

[RedSunRising]

Because, really, I'm done arguing with Red Presbyterians.

Actually I tend towards Stoicism or try to. And politically my influences are Asian.

Why do you keep refering to types of Christianity Tim?

[Agapi]

Right. Individual answers aren't going to cut it. Liberation is bigger than your comfort level.

I obviously agree with SlutWalk's collective answer on the matter, so I see this strange tactic as a tacit admission of defeat.

[manic expression]

I didn't say it did...
Yeah, but reclaiming the word will make racism go away! Come on, let's do it because Ese!


Right, there needs to be some condecending big answer right? Because us little people have to be talked down to by glorious revolutionaries.
You're the one who refuses to talk to "little people" with those elitist things like explanations. But anyway, yes, big problems demand big answers. It's been that way since there were first big problems.


I obviously agree with SlutWalk's collective answer on the matter, so I see this strange tactic as a tacit admission of defeat.
It's a generalization of an individualistic approach. It's even borderline-lifestylist.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Yeah, but reclaiming the word will make racism go away! Come on, let's do it because Ese!
What evz

[Tim Finnegan]

Actually I tend towards Stoicism or try to. And politically my influences are Asian.

Why do you keep refering to types of Christianity Tim?
Because dour puritans of one stripe can't help but remind me of dour puritans of another.

[manic expression]

Because dour puritans of one stripe can't help but remind me of dour puritans of another.
So people who are on record as saying they're fine with women having as much sex as they want so long as they use proper protection when necessary and don't tolerate disrespect...remind of you dour puritans? :confused:


What evz
You should've just said this from the beginning.

[Tim Finnegan]

So people who are on record as saying they're fine with women having as much sex as they want so long as they use proper protection when necessary and don't tolerate disrespect...remind of you dour puritans? :confused:
You're a literal-minded one, aren't you?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

You're the one who refuses to talk to "little people" with those elitist things like explanations. But anyway, yes, big problems demand big answers. It's been that way since there were first big problems.
Why because I don't feel I need to explain myself to anyone for my being how I am and defining myself as I choose? Also you are the one who is being condecending telling me how I'm being counterproductive towards my own liberation.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

You should've just said this from the beginning.
Someone needs to put up a picture of Antonio Banderas in the legend of Zorro with a caption saying "Why I am having so much fun"

[manic expression]

Why because I don't feel I need to explain myself to anyone for my being how I am and defining myself as I choose? Also you are the one who is being condecending telling me how I'm being counterproductive towards my own liberation.
Way to miss the whole point. I never demanded you explain to me you being who you are. Never. I stated very clearly that I fully support your sexuality and would never say an even halfway critical word about it outside of the left. But if you don't want to tell us why you call yourself a "slut", why you think it's a positive label...then don't expect anyone to call a "slutwalk" some sort of step forward for the women's liberation struggle.

And again...it's not just "your own liberation". We're all in this together. The sooner everyone here recognizes that elementary revolutionary principle the better.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Way to miss the whole point. I never demanded you explain to me you being who you are. Never. I stated very clearly that I fully support your sexuality and would never say an even halfway critical word about it outside of the left. But if you don't want to tell us why you call yourself a "slut", why you think it's a positive label...then don't expect anyone to call a "slutwalk" some sort of step forward for the women's liberation struggle.

And again...it's not just "your own liberation". We're all in this together. The sooner everyone here recognizes that elementary revolutionary principle the better.
Well I am part of that whole. So it is my liberation too. I just approach "liberating" myself differently.

[manic expression]

Well I am part of that whole. So it is my liberation too. I just approach "liberating" myself differently.
As in you approach liberating yourself in an individual manner...which doesn't do much for said whole. For all your preoccupation with language, you keep saying "me" when you should be saying "us".

[black magick hustla]

Actually I tend towards Stoicism or try to.
i think if we met irl there we would self annihilate into photons

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

As in you approach liberating yourself in an individual manner...which doesn't do much for said whole. For all your preoccupation with language, you keep saying "me" when you should be saying "us".
Okay you're right, I am too individualistic.

[Eastside Revolt]

I think when I posted this I was feeling a little trigger happy with the "copy and paste". Though I am glad to see the discussion that has come out of it.

My personal feeling is that we can't expect too much from such a clearly lowest common denominator demo. "Take back the Night" as something that rejects all that makes up our patriarchal society, is far more inspiring!

[Tim Finnegan]

"Take back the Night" as something that rejects all that makes up our patriarchal society, is far more inspiring!
I didn't realise that "Take Back the Night" was an anti-capitalist demo.

[Eastside Revolt]

I didn't realise that "Take Back the Night" was an anti-capitalist demo.

On page 30:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jdyCpdUnQdoC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=the+subversion+of+politics+autonomia&source=bl&ots=8Gbn8tiklD&sig=pFqARi5n1dUHXvUZLILUBpWWdW0&hl=en&ei=TSHsTZmZM-jgiAKQktDgCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20subversion%20of%20politics%20autonomia&f=false

[Tim Finnegan]

On page 30:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jdyCpdUnQdoC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=the+subversion+of+politics+autonomia&source=bl&ots=8Gbn8tiklD&sig=pFqARi5n1dUHXvUZLILUBpWWdW0&hl=en&ei=TSHsTZmZM-jgiAKQktDgCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20subversion%20of%20politics%20autonomia&f=false
If I'm reading this right (and I'm afraid that the above link isn't working for me, so I'm going by another version), you're referencing the associations between the early "Reclaim the Night" marches in Italy and the countries communist and proto-autonomist movements. But what does that have to do with anything? :confused:

Edit: But this bit caught my eye:

Their initial orientation was revolutionary, often Marxist, although as their deliberations deepened their analysis, many became increasingly critical of LC, the PCI and the Left's acceptance of middle-class norms and values-- especially the split between public and private domains of life.
Because that sounds very much like the sort of criticisms I would aim at the sexual politics of the more conservative posters in this thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif

[Queercommie Girl]

I know you weren't addressing me, but "queer" just means weird, and I never appreciated the appropriation of the term by Homosexuals and transgendered people to refer to themselves. I think "word reclamation" in general is stupid. Homosexuality and non-conformity with assigned genders or sexes isn't queer (regardless of what the heteronormative majority may believe).

What you should realise is that words do not have "intrinsic meanings" in some kind of quasi-metaphysical sense. The meanings of words are whatever we socially assign to them. "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet". So no word can ever be "intrinsically" negative or offensive.

Having said this, personally being an utilitarian and a pragmatist, I don't really care about this reclamation business one way or another. I mainly just care about the concrete situation on the ground, and regarding the topic of this thread my main concern is the double standard some people seem to employ - that if men are sexually open then it's a positive thing, but if women are sexually open then it's a sign of the lack of "self-respect". I don't particularly care about the term "slut" one way or another.

[The_Outernationalist]

Slutwalk? couldn't they have chosen a better name? you can't really reclaim the word "slut" anymore than you can reclaim the word "nigger" or "faggot"...they're just bad terms that were created to oppress, and anyone who tries to put a positive spin on them is doing a great disservice to people who really don't like these terms and what they have and will always represent, no matter how many street parties disguised as protests are held.

This is more identity politics that will alienate everyone else for the 0.5% of leftists who would support something with the offensive name of slutwalk so as to look revolutionary and cool

[The_Outernationalist]

Actually, no. You're talking rubbish. If I want to wear clothes that make me feel good, regardless of whether or not you consider them to be "slutty," I have the right to wear them without other people judging me.

Freedom to wear without having to be subjected to sexual violence? yes

Freedom to wear without judgement? now that's just BS

[The_Outernationalist]

I've been what some would call a working girl and I see it as quite relevant.

If you've only been called, and you don't know for certain that you're a "working girl" , then you are most definitely not a working girl.

Most people who are working class usually have a good degree of class conciousness, seeing as it's rubbed in our faces on a daily basis by those higher up

[Tim Finnegan]

Slutwalk? couldn't they have chosen a better name? you can't really reclaim the word "slut" anymore than you can reclaim the word "nigger" or "faggot"...
http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbu965JOwW1qbrntno1_500.jpg

Context, Jimmy, context.


If you've only been called, and you don't know for certain that you're a "working girl" , then you are most definitely not a working girl.
Dear Lord, you're a literal-minded little thing, aren't you? :rolleyes:

[The_Outernationalist]

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbu965JOwW1qbrntno1_500.jpg

Context, Jimmy, context.


Just because they use the word faggot, doesn't mean I agree or even remotely support them in their attempt to perpetuate a hateful word.



Dear Lord, you're a literal-minded little thing, aren't you? :rolleyes:

I'm not trying to start any e-drama on a forum. go bother someone else.

[agnixie]

If you've only been called, and you don't know for certain that you're a "working girl" , then you are most definitely not a working girl.

Most people who are working class usually have a good degree of class conciousness, seeing as it's rubbed in our faces on a daily basis by those higher up

You're utterly clueless as to a) the meaning of working girl and b) you're very stupidly literalist. Also I suspect you have a tendency to assume your experiences to be universal or to fetishize a subset of the working class you identify with.


I'm not trying to start any e-drama on a forum. go bother someone else.
Too late. You started it the moment you barged in.


Just because they use the word faggot, doesn't mean I agree or even remotely support them in their attempt to perpetuate a hateful word.

I'm going to bet that you're a straight male, and possibly not black either, although I'm ready to be wrong on the latter.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbu965JOwW1qbrntno1_500.jpg

Context, Jimmy, context.


Ah the good old third ward by the summerfest grounds. I remember that. The weather kinda sucked that day.

[Agapi]

Slutwalk? couldn't they have chosen a better name? you can't really reclaim the word "slut" anymore than you can reclaim the word "nigger" or "faggot"...they're just bad terms that were created to oppress, and anyone who tries to put a positive spin on them is doing a great disservice to people who really don't like these terms and what they have and will always represent

Let me ask you something. Do you dislike the appropriation of the term "queer" as well?

[Tim Finnegan]

Just because they use the word faggot, doesn't mean I agree or even remotely support them in their attempt to perpetuate a hateful word.
Are you actually queer? That would be a fairly necessary prerequisite for expecting queer people to pay you any heed on the matter- rather like beign female is a fairly necessary prerequisite for expecting women to care what you think about the word "slut".


I'm not trying to start any e-drama on a forum. go bother someone else.That's "e-drama"? I didn't think of it as anything more than a slightly snide remark... :confused:


Ah the good old third ward by the summerfest grounds. I remember that. The weather kinda sucked that day.
Ha, seriously? I just remember seeing that on a blog somewhere and thinking "good for them". Small world, eh? :laugh:

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Ha, seriously? I just remember seeing that on a blog somewhere and thinking "good for them". Small world, eh? :laugh:
Yeah I am from Milwaukee.

[Tim Finnegan]

On the issue of "word reclamation", would it be reasonable to observe what we all seem to have forgotten so far, which is that the word "anarchist", that is to say, the self-declared political identity of around half the posters of this forum, is itself the example of such a term? The term was originally a purely pejorative one, and is very often still used in such a sense- as when the media vomits forth hysterical reports of "anarchist thugs"- and yet it is still the label of choice among a great many libertarian socialists, and doesn't show any particular sign of changing.

Something to think about, maybe.

[the_red_pickle]

I've changed my mind about these slut walks... i think they should hold these protests and make them spread to as many places as much as possible. But my change of mind isn't from suddenly thinking that we need to raise awareness so that women won't get raped while dressed up "slutty" because imo, everyone who's not a complete idiot already knows that women do not get raped for this reason. But i have come around about it, because women should be able to dress anyway they want and not get harassed or be judged on the way they look, even if they are dressed topless or half naked. Not only men should not think that these women are loose but they should not also judge on how they look. I've been seeing a trail of comments by sexist pigs on other sites, making fun of the women taking part in these slutwalks for being obese, old, or not looking good... and whether they'd hit "it" or not. Thanks to those men I'm reminded how necessary these walks are... even if they don't change these types of men, or society, it's a way to express one's self, make your message be heard.

[agnixie]

I've changed my mind about these slut walks... i think they should hold these protests and make them spread to as many places as much as possible. But my change of mind isn't from suddenly thinking that we need to raise awareness so that women won't get raped while dressed up "slutty" because imo, everyone who's not a complete idiot already knows that women do not get raped for this reason. But i have come around about it, because women should be able to dress anyway they want and not get harassed or be judged on the way they look, even if they are dressed topless or half naked. Not only men should not think that these women are loose but they should not also judge on how they look. I've been seeing a trail of comments by sexist pigs on other sites, making fun of the women taking part in these slutwalks for being obese, old, or not looking good... and whether they'd hit "it" or not. Thanks to those men I'm reminded how necessary these walks are... even if they don't change these types of men, or society, it's a way to express one's self, make your message be heard.

As an interesting factoid: Ontario decency laws were amended a few years ago to allow women to go topless after some people complained that they explicitly allowed men to be so.

[Agnapostate]

According to SlutWalk’s website, the event is slated to be reproduced in Argentina sometime this year. It’s the country I was born and raised in, among Spanish, Guaraní and Portuguese speakers – and I can assure you that the word “slut” is not used by anyone there. This is not what we need. I do not want white English-speaking Global North women telling Spanish-speaking Global South women to “reclaim” a word that is foreign to our own vocabulary.

Argentina is a predominantly white country. While the inhabitants do possess Indian and African admixture, as is typical of populations in Latin America (and America as a whole, in fact), historically low indigenous population numbers were further depleted by extermination and ethnic cleansing campaigns that were undertaken, so that ethnic lineage is a relatively minor component of Argentine genomic background. In the nineteenth century, the goal of ruling governments was to demographically "purify" the country, which they continued excessively populated by Indians and Africans, with European immigration, and massive waves of Spanish and Italian immigrants came.

[Coach Trotsky]

So, does the need for workers' revolution and socialism as the prerequisite for genuine women's liberation ever come up at these "slut walks"?

If so, please tell me who is boldly raising this among the women participating in the events?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

So, does the need for workers' revolution and socialism as the prerequisite for genuine women's liberation ever come up at these "slut walks"?

If so, please tell me who is boldly raising this among the women participating in the events?
do organizers who actually manage to acomplish anything in these areas amongst the unions discuss that?

[the_red_pickle]

As an interesting factoid: Ontario decency laws were amended a few years ago to allow women to go topless after some people complained that they explicitly allowed men to be so.

I'd rather ban the men going topless actually.... but that's just me.

[La Comédie Noire]

whiteknighting wont get you laid in your activist circle if that is what some people here are looking for imho tried it when i was young and stupid and it failed

what is with the american left and race based guilt tripping. kudos for swag and the black man in his avatar and his username. do you call people cats irl and tell white people about the hood. i bet you use 90s hip hop slang that nobody uses anymore. race baiting guiltripping is a sign of the weakness of our class. i once told a black nationalist prof in a humanities class about how this whole thing he has of guiltripping white suburbanites wont work against me and the whole POC crowd iin the class laughed because they knew that shit is true

I've noticed whenever Women's Liberation or queer politics are brought up someone almost without fail will try to shut it down with "but, white privilege." I think a lot of males (a lot of white males strangely) use concern about race issues to mask their own sexual conservatism.

[Coach Trotsky]

do organizers who actually manage to acomplish anything in these areas amongst the unions discuss that?

Ironically, if organized workers' leaders don't think and discuss things in such terms and actually fight for workers' revolution and socialism, and instead only think of what they can "accomplish" within the boundaries of capitalism, guess what we get? THE STATUS QUO TODAY, THE BARBARIC FUTURE OF TOMORROW.

[Olentzero]

But i have come around about it, because women should be able to dress anyway they want and not get harassed or be judged on the way they look, even if they are dressed topless or half naked. Not only men should not think that these women are loose but they should not also judge on how they look.Bingo. You get it. Rep for you from me! :D

[¿Que?]

So, does the need for workers' revolution and socialism as the prerequisite for genuine women's liberation ever come up at these "slut walks"?

If so, please tell me who is boldly raising this among the women participating in the events?
This is a rather strong point. I actually marched at the slutwalk in my city, and I was surprised that the message was more radical than I expected, with some serious critiques on rape culture, pornography, prostitution etc.

However, I did get a chance to meet the organizers, and I was talking to one of their boyfriend's and I swear to god, he was telling me he was a teacher, and that they should privatize the school system.

So, I think we can all agree that the biggest criticism that can be lobbed at these things is their willful lack of acceptance of class politics. It's bourgeois feminism, through and through.

[Ilyich]

I do not think this is white supremacist. Still, it breeds the question: Can certain forms of oppression and exploitation be tolerated to combat other forms? I would have to say no for the case of racism, but it depends for other forms.

[Queercommie Girl]

So, does the need for workers' revolution and socialism as the prerequisite for genuine women's liberation ever come up at these "slut walks"?

If so, please tell me who is boldly raising this among the women participating in the events?

No it's not a "pure working class" event, but then anyone but ultra-leftists would see the need to intervene and participate in demonstrations, events and movements that are relatively progressive but not systematically socialist.

Most forms of trade unionism in the West don't explicitly mention "worker's revolution" either, doesn't mean socialists don't participate in them.

[Queercommie Girl]

I do not think this is white supremacist. Still, it breeds the question: Can certain forms of oppression and exploitation be tolerated to combat other forms? I would have to say no for the case of racism, but it depends for other forms.

What "oppression/exploitation" is involved in SlutWalk? I can understand the criticism that it's not radical enough (in the revolutionary sense), but it's ridiculous to think that it is somehow racist or discriminatory in nature. In fact, it's largely queer-friendly AFAIK.

[Quail]

Freedom to wear without having to be subjected to sexual violence? yes

Freedom to wear without judgement? now that's just BS
So what kind of clothes would it be okay to judge me for wearing? :confused:

Being judged and called a "slut" with all its connotations for dressing in a certain way is not acceptable under any circumstances.

[Aurora]

So, I think we can all agree that the biggest criticism that can be lobbed at these things is their willful lack of acceptance of class politics. It's bourgeois feminism, through and through.
Im not sure i'd call it bourgeois feminism to be honest, the slutwalks seem to be about getting recognition of the problem rather than pushing any view of why it happens and how to combat it. In that way it seems pretty open for radical ideas to develop around and through them. Obviously it's not class orientated and that's a problem but it's not thoroughly infused with bourgeois ideology either.

[Tenka]

Being judged and called a "slut" with all its connotations for dressing in a certain way is not acceptable under any circumstances.

Yeah it would be pretty ridiculous for someone to walk up to someone else and call them something because of what they're wearing; but people generally do judge strangers to a degree based on their perceived implications of what that person is wearing, and there's nothing wrong with the latter in general. But whores don't dress in any particular way, ergo such a judgement of anyone based on their clothes says far more about the judge (taking the cop's case as an example: their personal, sexist perceptions of women).

[Queercommie Girl]

Im not sure i'd call it bourgeois feminism to be honest, the slutwalks seem to be about getting recognition of the problem rather than pushing any view of why it happens and how to combat it. In that way it seems pretty open for radical ideas to develop around and through them. Obviously it's not class orientated and that's a problem but it's not thoroughly infused with bourgeois ideology either.

Yes I agree, in fact I think Slutwalk is generally more radical than mainstream bourgeois feminism, given for instance how queer-friendly it seems to be.

[¿Que?]

Im not sure i'd call it bourgeois feminism to be honest, the slutwalks seem to be about getting recognition of the problem rather than pushing any view of why it happens and how to combat it. In that way it seems pretty open for radical ideas to develop around and through them. Obviously it's not class orientated and that's a problem but it's not thoroughly infused with bourgeois ideology either.
Well, I was operating under the assumption that what makes it bourgeois feminism was the lack of class politics, but maybe not. In any case , at this event (that is, the one organized in my area, which I should note, as I was told, was pretty grass roots), there seemed to be some pretty reactionary elements closely associated with the organizers. So there was that too and besides, that was my impression anyway. Someone telling me they want to totally privatize education I find quite reactionary, tbh.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well, I was operating under the assumption that what makes it bourgeois feminism was the lack of class politics, but maybe not. In any case , at this event (that is, the one organized in my area, which I should note, as I was told, was pretty grass roots), there seemed to be some pretty reactionary elements closely associated with the organizers. So there was that too and besides, that was my impression anyway. Someone telling me they want to totally privatize education I find quite reactionary, tbh.
On the other hand, there was a left-wing presence in other events- the Glasgow SlutWalk was, I believe, partially organised by people associated with the Free Hetherington student occupation. It is, as you say, a very grassroots movement, so it's hard to assume any general political tendencies.

[¿Que?]

On the other hand, there was a left-wing presence in other events- the Glasgow SlutWalk was, I believe, partially organised by people associated with the Free Hetherington student occupation. It is, as you say, a very grassroots movement, so it's hard to assume any general political tendencies.
Well sure, I saw plenty of ISO people there, so there definitely was a leftist presence. I'm not exactly sure what organizational contribution they made, but they were there in full force. It's whatever, I mean, there were all sorts of people and ideologies. I guess that's a good thing.

[Olentzero]

Well sure, I saw plenty of ISO people thereI note you're from the South. Whereabouts was this particular SlutWalk? We've been trying to organize in the South for years, and hearing about a decent ISO presence down there is good news indeed.