Slutwalk

[G13]

To Lonely Pilgrim and jollytiddlywink: I really appreciate your positive feedback; I was very hesitant to write, as I was afraid I'd just write a pile of drivel, and the internet has enough of that already. So, thank you.

For the sake of my psychological health, I'm unable to engage with much of what mcgamer writes. That doesn't mean that I'm willfully ignoring it or that I don't disagree with it, though.

Anon, thanks for the linked article: it's the first I've read that seemed to properly explain the point of that approach. I'm still not sure what I personally think about the value of using the word slut, but I can certainly support folk wanting to thoroughly reject the "good little wife"-type model.

Large parts of the article mcgamer linked are sewer-water. I don't have the time to tear it to pieces, and I suspect it wouldn't really be worth my time and energy if I did.

Quoting mcgamer, "...non-consensual sex..." Non-consensual sex is rape.

"Man-slut" and "man-whore"? That implies that "slut" and "whore" are coded female properties, with the man- added as a necessary clarification. No thank you.

Responding to mcgamer's mention of sex, porn and art, I really don't believe that sex is something that can or has to be separated from everything else in life in its own little box. I think that something could easily be both artistic and sexual and that the degrees of those things depend on the perceiver; and I don't think there's anything wrong with the art or with me. But then, I don't think there's anything wrong with sex.

I don't think there's any real grounds for claiming that men are more visually stimulated than women, and how could any of us personally know, as we are only ourselves and not anyone else? Sure, the world of sexual visual representation is man-dominated, but it's perfectly possible that that's the case because women are believed to be not that interested in sex or aren't supposed to like it, so why would anyone create things for them? And much of the visual stuff that exists is aimed at a man-audience (not necessarily what any individual man likes, or men actually like, but the idea of what men are supposed to like), and honestly, the vast majority of it just isn't remotely appealing to the vast majority of women. Bad material, not lack of interest.

The points about clothing mostly conflict directly with things I've written already, and I see no value in repeating myself: my posts are long enough already Just: "provocative" clothing... provoking what? Perhaps it does bear repeating, though, that pragmatism just doesn't apply, as there is no correlation between rape and sexual assault and what a woman was wearing (and yes, "woman" here because discussion of clothing in rape seems to always be aimed at women, not men). Oh, and saying that rape isn't about lust but continuing to talk about "provocative" clothing is clearly contradictory.

Jollytiddlywink, I'm interested to read that rape trials in the US and Canada have those restrictions. While I believe what you write, I have to question if those restrictions are applicable everywhere or widely enforced, or how effective they are, as there seem to continue to be stories from those places where a woman is given a hard time or disadvantaged by things that would seem to be covered by those restrictions. Just off the top of my head (and yes, single anecdotes are always problematic), there was a case in the US, I believe, where the accused man pled guilty to rape, and the judge gave him a very light sentence because, according to the judge, the woman was skimpily dressed outside a nightclub and the event was more of an unfortunate misunderstanding. She said no and the accused pushed her into an alley, which the accused admitted. Broken judge.

Jollytiddlywink, I'd agree about the double standard and women being stuck between "slut" and "frigid". Partly humorously, partly entirely seriously, a woman's frigid when she won't be sexual with the man who wants her to be with him, and a slut if she appears sexual with anyone else. And possibly a slut if she appears sexual with a man who another woman wants or whose friend wants.

I don't think that men get out of the labelling that easily, though. It seems to be a really strong assumption of our society that men want sex and want to get it wherever and however they can. This just isn't true, and is really damaging to everyone. A man who doesn't appear to fit this mould can be the target of derision and have his masculinity questioned (although what masculinity is, and whether it's even important, is a whole other conversation. The point is that losing "masculinity" is deemed a very bad and shameful thing.) Some men who would prefer not having to fit this mould report having such a miserable time that they decide to change and become more "stereotypical", and report greater acceptance. In sex, many men report worries about not being good enough, not being knowledgeable enough, not being able to "perform" well enough or give a woman enough pleasure (I'm restricting my terms again, as I'm not knowledgeable about the gay men scene and interactions). That sounds miserable; and it misses the point about what sex should be: folk working together, not one person running it. It also reveals the attitude that it should be men who have more responsibility for sexual interactions.

This "men want sex" thing is half of a two-way picture where "women don't desire sex", at least, not for itself, but instead exchange it is a commodity to get something else (love, a family, a dinner date...) If "women don't desire sex", then of course it follows that men have to run the show. Everyone loses: women aren't given sexual agency by society, and men have all the responsibility dumped on them. Men are ravening beasts trying to get sex any way they can, and women's value consists of the sex she has to give, which is reduced by how much she's given out before, and how easily she gives it out; men must therefore persuade or bribe women into sex.

I would never, for a second, say that All sexual relationships or interactions are like that: clearly, they are not. What I'm wanting to say is that that's how sex generally appears to be coded in our society.

[G13]

RedCelt and gender: what you describe there, I wouldn't call ardent feminism, but a very particular corner of feminism: Radical Feminism. A lot of the basic stuff many of those folk say is deeply personally offensive to me and in several different fundamental ways, so I generally don't have any time or respect for most of it. Unless you're reading for a project, may I gently suggest, step away from the radfems. Feminism != extreme ranting women. There's many very different angles out there, which might be better if you're interested in reading about feminism rather than in making yourself angry. Just off the top of my head, what I can think of which is furthest away from the radfems is Clarisse Thorn - just google the name. (NB: folk who would be unhappy reading about BDSM or non-monogamy, this would make you unhappy.) My mentioning her isn't a ringing personal endorsement, as I disagree on some points, but as I say, she's as far from the radfems as I can think of and engages well in conversation with anyone of any viewpoint who wants to talk, and as such can be a good antidote to radfemmery.

I'm sympathetic to radfem individuals who end up there as a result of persistent horrible experiences by men in their life, especially if that's perpetuated by women and society, and I won't automatically throw out everything they ever say, but I won't accept offensive bile from anyone. And they're not remotely radical in my world-view, as they simply perpetuate "men are like this" and "women are like that" ideas: what's radical about that? And, RedCelt, You're offended, as a Man? I'm offended, as a woman, because in radfem world, women are still beneath men in the pile. Men are just innately dreadful, so at a certain point, they can't be blamed, or even considered much. Women, on the other hand: if one, as a woman, enjoys sex with a man, or other things that they don't agree with, then, oh, we're Victims of the men and of our own ignorance, we're evil supporters, colluders and collaborators in this oppressive system, we're so much Worse because we have a choice, we should be better, only we choose not to take it, or we're so much of a victim that we are no longer able to. No thanks. Believe me, some of the radfem stuff is not remotely woman-friendly, either. Or at least, not this-woman-friendly.

I'm sympathetic, however, to the 70s origins. Claiming, as you mentioned, that hetero sex is necessarily oppressive and abusive is clearly bogglingly wrong. However, when I consider myself in a different society to the one I now live in, say, one in which marital rape wasn't legally or socially recognised, I believe that I would feel unable to marry; in a context where one person no longer has rights over their own body, does not have the right to consent to or not to consent to sex, then in that circumstance, sex is indeed part of the oppressive system. To me, where there is no free choice, there cannot be true consent or a true relationship of equals.

And I'm not equipped to discuss radfem ideas particularly further, as I'm not widely read on it, as I prefered not to make myself steamingly angry.

I hear you on the "including men when considering assaulted people" thing. Said so myself, too. I think I also understand about being uncomfortable with a "bah, MEN" approach, as I've experienced that uncomfortable feeling about it. To me, it's not nuanced enough. Any individual man doesn't necessarily fit the picture of what society says "a man" Is, so it's unpleasant and unhelpful to land an individual with the "bah, MEN" line. And, yes, it's both insulting and wrongly excusing to blame someone's gender for something. But. But. I believe that there must be social reasons behind the overwhelming weighting of male perpetrator, female victim, and I find that people protesting about not being fair enough to men are often not willing enough to examine this. Maybe it started out as a purely strength/power thing, but I believe there's far more than that now. If it was about power and size, then there wouldn't be stories of women who were physically able to fight a man off not bringing herself to do so, or of smaller men trying to victimise a woman. I believe it's worth asking, what is it about our society that generally puts men in the assaulting class and women in the victim class. In my assessment, this approach doesn't erase people who don't fit into the "class" they would more usually belong in, because their experiences totally fit in with this division. Men who are assaulted are often erased or not helped Because men are seen as the assaulters, men are supposed to always want sex, so how could a man possibly be assaulted? And, just to keep my impartiality, people who are assaulted by women are often more ashamed of this and not believed because women are considered nurturers, passive, how could a woman assault someone?

I believe that both the overall situation and all individual assaulted people would be helped if we could break down the current gender divisions and enable people to operate outside of the roles laid out for them. Out of the work that's been done, it seems that men who rape have a sense of entitlement to sex, a sense of entitlement to control over someone else and someone else's body, and little sense of the personhood of anyone they consider assaulting; far less women appear to have this sense of entitlement. I believe that it's worth asking, why.

[G13]

Macgamer, I apologise for my consistent misspelling of your name; it wasn't deliberate, and I should have paid more attention.

[macgamer]

For the sake of my psychological health, I'm unable to engage with much of what mcgamer writes. That doesn't mean that I'm willfully ignoring it or that I don't disagree with it, though.

I seem to have that effect on people using The Sinner. A more interesting question would be why this is so.

"Man-slut" and "man-whore"? That implies that "slut" and "whore" are coded female properties, with the man- added as a necessary clarification. No thank you.

That was my point: it is an injustice that these the words 'slut' and 'whore' are associated with women only.

Responding to mcgamer's mention of sex, porn and art, I really don't believe that sex is something that can or has to be separated from everything else in life in its own little box. I think that something could easily be both artistic and sexual and that the degrees of those things depend on the perceiver; and I don't think there's anything wrong with the art or with me. But then, I don't think there's anything wrong with sex.

There can and are pieces of art that represent sexuality more or less directly and these are not pornographic per se, because that is not their object. Someone might be stimulated by them, but that would be an issue for that person. Pornography has a different character because that [titilation] is its purpose. Art does not have, perhaps it should not because it does not need, a 'purpose' beyond representing beauty. There is nothing inherently 'wrong' with (heterosexual) sex. Its intrinsic purpose is a 'good'. Its moral status starts to shift when its execution deviates from its intrinsic purpose. (I generally like little neat boxes, you'll have gathered.)

I don't think there's any real grounds for claiming that men are more visually stimulated than women, and how could any of us personally know, as we are only ourselves and not anyone else? Sure, the world of sexual visual representation is man-dominated, but it's perfectly possible that that's the case because women are believed to be not that interested in sex or aren't supposed to like it, so why would anyone create things for them? And much of the visual stuff that exists is aimed at a man-audience (not necessarily what any individual man likes, or men actually like, but the idea of what men are supposed to like), and honestly, the vast majority of it just isn't remotely appealing to the vast majority of women. Bad material, not lack of interest.

I'm not a psychologist, but I'm fairly sure I remember reading about studies on comparisons between the importance of visual stimuli. So instead one could consider aspects of sexual selection. It is in the interest of males to mate with as many females as possible judging them on secondary sexual characteristics / traits for 'fitness'. Females have far fewer gametes and their resource investment is far greater than the male's. Selecting the right male is even more important. Visual traits can be deceiving, so the female will have to judge which trait is an 'honest' indicator of male fitness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_genes_hypothesis

Macgamer, I apologise for my consistent misspelling of your name; it wasn't deliberate, and I should have paid more attention.

None taken, I knew that you referring to me. Besides, 'macgamer' is only a pseudonym to which I have little strong attachment. Perhaps you should get an account, you've made some interesting and valuable contributions. The Sinner will be all the better for your participation. Welcome.

[RedCelt69]

G13, the short reply is that I believe in equality. People who call themselves feminists aren't into equality. Or they are, but they've attached themselves to the wrong grouping.

The world is full of inequalities, born purely from factors-of-birth. They include (but are in no way limited to) gender. My ideal world would have nobody banging a drum based on one of those factors-of-birth. White Pride and Feminism are two very different ideas, born from the same ideology; that the factor-of-birth that I was born with gives me something to hang my idealogical hat on to. Rather than ditching all of that and looking at what we have in common, rather than how we differ.

I view feminism the same way as I view masculinism.

[Senethro]

For the sake of my psychological health, I'm unable to engage with much of what mcgamer writes. That doesn't mean that I'm willfully ignoring it or that I don't disagree with it, though.

I seem to have that effect on people using The Sinner. A more interesting question would be why this is so.

Because your views are odious and offensive in the same way I found my grandfather's occasional lazy racism offensive. In a way they're even worse as your homophobia in particular claims to stem from misused reason instead of ignorant hatred, which while deplorable is at least something that is comprehensible.

I'm not a psychologist, but I'm fairly sure I remember reading about studies on comparisons between the importance of visual stimuli. So instead one could consider aspects of sexual selection. It is in the interest of males to mate with as many females as possible judging them on secondary sexual characteristics / traits for 'fitness'. Females have far fewer gametes and their resource investment is far greater than the male's. Selecting the right male is even more important. Visual traits can be deceiving, so the female will have to judge which trait is an 'honest' indicator of male fitness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_genes_hypothesis

Don't do this. EvoPsych is a terrible justification for most things, including ethics and trying to make a case for women to dress modestly to avoid arousing savage passions in the breasts of men. (which was doubly odd as it was in the same paragraph as you acknowledge that many serial rapists exhibit pathological behaviour not apparently linked with lust)

I view feminism the same way as I view masculinism.

jesus christ i really wish i wasn't going all thought police here but it is acceptable for a historically and currently underprivileged group to have more fervent and loud advocacy. Compare: White pride groups having a distinctly sinister edge while ethnic minority advocacies do not.

[RedCelt69]

I view feminism the same way as I view masculinism.

it is acceptable for a historically and currently underprivileged group to have more fervent and loud advocacy.

I don't disagree. If you think otherwise, then you have misunderstood the point that I am making.

[Senethro]

Then I must have misunderstood the point you were making as it looked like you were equating feminism, which still has plenty of valid and valuable criticism to make, with a bunch of "concerned" men worried about the erosion of their privilege.

[RedCelt69]

Listen to me, I'm the same as you > listen to me, I'm different to you.

[Senethro]

Listen to me, I've benefitted from a centuries old culture favouring my birth characteristics, but really I'm just the same as you!

You have to acknowledge the problem or you're part of the problem. Thatcher didn't make us post-feminist any more than Obama has made us post-racial.

G13, the short reply is that I believe in equality. People who call themselves feminists aren't into equality. Or they are, but they've attached themselves to the wrong grouping.

Look at this guy telling the feminists what they believe and how they're believing it wrong.

[RedCelt69]

Not too great at the old thinking thing, are you?

[G13]

To macgamer, for clearly implying that there Is something wrong with non-hetero sex: your homophobia is offensive. And your justifying it from the bible makes it no less homophobia and no less offensive. And I'm not having a discussion about etymology with you; the brief answer is, words can and do change from their origins, and mean what people - individuals and society groups - believe they mean. Keep your homophobia far away from us.

[G13]

RedCelt, I stared at my screen for a while, and then I laughed. Feminism like White Pride? Heavens. Whatever next.

(And then I thought, hey, I'm white, I'm in a position to laugh... I'm not going to step on anyone's reality here, but maybe somebody non-white would find that really offensive.)

A basic knowledge of anything to do with group identity suggests that the two have very different mechanisms, as one is a group of people with the power in society, and the other is not.

You know when someone suggests that the picture you have of something appears to be based on a really extreme messed-up corner of it? Might be a good idea to consider if they could be right.

Honestly, the descriptions of feminism you give fit an objectionable, tiny corner of "feminism", which the vast majority of other feminists range from being uncomfortable with to denying that it has anything remotely to do with feminism at all. "Women are best!"or "women should be in charge!" -type things are, emphatically, Not feminism. (They're part of a small number of folk's version of feminism, but it's not what feminism Is.) Apart from the extremists' corner, feminists are extremely pissed off at the whole factors-from-birth thing mattering. It's called "feminism" not because it's the "yay women" movement, but because when it started, women were severely disadvantaged compared to men, so to consider issues relating to gender without that weighting, women's views and experiences have to deliberately be given time and space in order to be heard.

The idea of feminists being into "factors-of-birth" as a hatstand for ideology is just funny. Um, trans feminists and Transfeminists (clearly no love for factors of birth There); Queerfeminists (gender is a social construct! down with the gender binary!)...

Feminism isn't just to benefit women. It's to benefit everyone, including men, by not restricting people to where their gender lands them. In our society women are more disadvantaged by that, as things coded "female" and "feminine" are generally inferior, but men lose out too, as I rambled a bit about above. For most feminists, feminism is for everyone, and for everyone's benefit.

Seriously, go and discover some of the many other angles of feminism, or at least stop believing that you know about anything other than the radfems and calling that "feminism", because it makes you sound silly.

[Senethro]

Right back atcha.

Do you want to even try to think how a man making a statement that feminists do not believe in equality or that if they do, they shouldn't call themselves feminists might be a bad thing?

[G13]

Senethro: yes *grin*

Gah, I can't resist... Not-feminist man to feminists: You don't know what feminism is, and Your Doin It Rong!!

(amused snark caused by frequency of event rather than individual - *puts back on reasonableness hat*)

[RedCelt69]

Well, it was an observation and a rhetorical question. The "right back atcha" wasn't a good comeback, as it emphasised my observation. But hey ho.

Do you want to even try to think how a man making a statement that feminists do not believe in equality or that if they do, they shouldn't call themselves feminists might be a bad thing?

OK. Let me see, now. As a man, there are certain views that I, as a man, am not allowed to hold or share? And it doesn't even entertain you as a possibility that your view is a sexist one? As a human being, I hold all sorts of views... I shouldn't have to ditch certain ones because of a factor-of-birth.

If you think otherwise, then you are a sexist. Or stupid. Take your pick.

In all of the difficulties imagined in entertaining an alternative universe, I can (to the best of my abilities) say that I would hold these exact same views if my chromosomal pairings had left me as a female rather than a male. I am, after all, looking for true and pure equality, regardless of factors-of-birth.

I can hold all sorts of views about feminism. Just as I can hold all sorts of views about Christianity. You don't need to be a member of the belief system in order to analyse it, criticise it, or point out mistakes in their thinking.

Feminism fights for the rights of women. On this, my belief system is in perfect alignment with them. However (and it's a big "however") there is no semblance of any kind of interest in the rights of men. None. Zero. Nada. For that reason, I reject feminism and everyone who calls themselves a feminist.

"Yeah, of course I care about your rights. But... y'know... do you care about my rights? No? Not even a little? Oh. Then you can fuck right off." is the summary of my position.

I'll stick with humanism, as it covers all factors-of-birth.

[RedCelt69]

You don't know what feminism is, and Your Doin It Rong!!

I didn't say that feminists don't know what feminism is. I didn't say that they're doing it wrong.

Otherwise, excellent point well made.

[jollytiddlywink]

Once again you have picked certain sentences that I wrote and used them to say what you want them to. Note that I said:

However, this [women's appearence] should have no bearing in the judgement of a man in the case of rape.

No, I read all of what you wrote. Indeed, as I noted in my post, I quoted what you said "word for word" and all of a sudden you didn't agree with yourself any more. The fact that you managed to make two contradictory arguments in one paragraph, namely that 1. women must dress modestly to avoid provoking rape and 2. what women are wearing should be irrelevant when judging a rapist, suggests an inability to follow a simple line of thought from start to finish, not that I have twisted your words. What you wrote is there for everyone to see, and you quoting only the last bit of what you wrote is not going to muddle anyone's memory. Indeed, I'm not the only person to have picked up on it. G13 called it to your attention, too.

Oh, and saying that rape isn't about lust but continuing to talk about "provocative" clothing is clearly contradictory.

that was a bit catty even by your standards, but I love you too JTW.

Surprise, surprise, people get a bit snippy when they are treated as less-than.

The rest of your argument is also rubbish... calling your demand that women dress modestly 'an appeal to pragmatism', for example. I am rather surprised you understand the concept, since you're normally so busy insisting on absolutes of good and evil, or art/porn dichotomies. Then you say that "you can see... on a certain level" that masturbation is worse than rape, although you take care to tiptoe around Aquinas on this one. This would seem to be the first time you aren't familiar with his work back-to-front. I'll be charitable and chalk it up to coincidence. Surely you didn't skipp that passage just because he wasn't busily condemning the gays?
And yes, there is a lot of ire. I think that rape and bigotry ought to be met with a bit of ire, don't you? Or should the down-trodden and abused be 'pragmatic' about it all, hide away quietly and not demand equal protections?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13456306


And as for your suit just improving your appearance (please note that it isn't 'appearence'), but the clothes of women being provocative, get off your high horse/hypocrite soapbox, and recognise that any suit, tight-fitting or not, is intended to emphasise male secondary sex characteristics, like broad shoulders and an inverted triangle torso, in much the same way as some women's clothes are intended to highlight a narrow waist/broad hips or cleavage. Just because you're not willing to recognise this doesn't make it any less true. And what you insist on calling 'dapper', lots of people would call 'sexy'. And this is not an art/porn divide (which does not, in any case, exist... this is just you and your absolutes again). It is a divide between your outlook and reality.

============================
G13
I take your point that men don't get out of the sexual labelling as easily as I made out. Your point about masculinity and sexual desire being bound up rings true in my experience. And, as for the gay male scene, there's a kind of distorted heteronormative mirror in operation, whereby some outside observers (a gay man's parents, for example), will ask which role he takes during sex, hoping to hear that he tops, on the presumption that he is thus higher up the masculine pecking order, because, if he isn't going to be shagging a woman, at least he's still doing the shagging, not being shagged. So removing women from the equation entirely still leaves issues of masculinity in the mix.
As far as my own observations of straight male masculinity go, it seems to be a very fragile object, made all the more fragile by the fact that so few men are willing to publicly discuss any issues they have with it.
I also agree with you in that I, too, see nothing wrong with sex, provided everyone involved has consented and is having fun. Biblically speaking, neither of those seems to be important. On a separate note, macgamer considers most sex to fall onto a scale between wrong and *Go to hell, do not pass 'Go', do not collect 200 quid, etc*

And yes, I also agree that engaging with macgamer can be bad for your mental well-being.

As for the rules in the US and Canada, if I understand the situation properly, women can be questioned on past sexual history if they were or were formerly in a relationship with the accused rapist, so the protections against cross-examination of the victim are patchy.

============================
Redcelt: I'm a feminist (if that's a label that a gay man can apply to himself), not because I'm in favour of burning bras or blaming men, but because equality for women is not yet here, and it damn well ought to be. I promise you that I am in favour of equality, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
I still don't follow your claim to be pro-equality but anti-feminist. I haven't met anyone who told me they were a feminist who wanted to ignore men's rights, any more than gay rights campaigners want to lock up all the straights in huge camps, where they will not be allowed to wear pink triangles.

[RedCelt69]

I still don't follow your claim to be pro-equality but anti-feminist. I haven't met anyone who told me they were a feminist who wanted to ignore men's rights, any more than gay rights campaigners want to lock up all the straights in huge camps, where they will not be allowed to wear pink triangles.

Perhaps, in all my years on this planet, I've encountered more reasons to despise feminism than you have. Humanism also covers the rights of LBGT. But then again, if the gay rights campaign groups (that you're familiar with) don't dismiss heterosexuals as wholeheartedly as the feminists and feminist groups (I've encountered) dismiss men... you won't see a problem with those groups.

[RedCelt69]

There are many years (and many speakers) to choose from, but Kat Banyard is the current vox populi for feminism. So have a look at this.

Kat Banyard - HARDtalk

Each time she mentions the terrible time that women are having in situations such as pornography, keep in mind that the subject isn't gender-neutral. There are lots of male prostitutes that Kat Banyard has zero concern for. She paints pornography as being the objectification of women, when (apart from a select genre) men are also featured in pornography. Some women also enjoy pornography and use it as a part of foreplay - in both homo and hetero relationships. She mentions stag nights and how women are viewed. So hen nights don't feature male strippers?

Each and every time people like Kat Banyard voice their concern for the treatment of women, it is a justifiable concern that needs mentioning (apart from the pornography thing, and her obsession with that is exactly that). If she doesn't completely ignore men who are suffering the exact same problems as women (even if they are in the minority), then her voice is worth nothing.