That Girl from Derwent dwells on the value of religion this Christmas.
That Girl from Derwent has learned a few more things about prejudice since moving up North.
That Girl From Derwent reckons if you're going to be offensive, you should find a better reason.
That Girl from Derwent considers why it is that some words have wider implications than others.
However, some reading yesterday on the history of the Red Riding Hood tale has convinced me that there is something in the old folktales and stories that can certainly tell us a lot about our present society. Take, for example, Red Riding Hood. Originally, the tale was passed orally from generation to generation, and almost always ended with the girl managing to trick the wolf, by herself, and escape of her own accord. She was hardly ever eaten. She didn’t need a huntsman to save her. Contrasted to the story we are told as children, these previous tales didn’t need to rely upon a man, Little Red Riding Hood was hardly afraid of the wolf, and there was no question of the girl wanting to be in bed with the wolf (where certain writers have argued children want her to be).
The tale as we know it was adapted by Charles Perrault to warn young girls of the dangers of “wolves” in society; these wolves were seductive dandies rather than the forces of the nature in the actual woods, but none less terrifying, right? Instead of telling us about our inner psyche, as psychoanalysis may argue, I believe this tells us something significant about the culture we live in today. A culture in which women are implicated in the dangers of their lives. A culture in which dressing provocatively, in the modern equivalent of a “look at me” red cape, is enough to justify, at least in the subconscious of many, the predatory nature of the wolf.
A Canadian police officer has been in the news lately for sparking the so-called “SlutWalk” campaigns in cities across the world by suggesting women should “avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised”. Okay, so I might not quite agree with the name of the marches (one of which will be held in Trafalgar Square next month), but I strongly believe in the cause. This man’s comments, in my opinion, represent what is wrong with our culture. Yes, dressing in very little, combined with excessive amounts of alcohol and a tendency to flirt too much with the wrong guy is astonishingly stupid – but stupidity is not a crime. Rape is.
We shouldn’t be focusing so much attention on telling women to dress more conservatively, not to drink (just to know their limits – but that’s common sense) and not to, well, have fun. Instead, we should be looking at what we can do to change they way these potential abusers are thinking. Now, in the words of Hilary Beaumont, society seems to lean toward teaching ‘don’t get raped’, rather than ‘don’t rape’. A culture in which a rape case perpetrates comments about the way the victim was dressed, just makes the crime that much worse. It’s frankly worrying that most of the comments on articles about the marches are focused on deriding the appearance of the women protesting in the photos. Surely these commentators realise they are reinforcing the need for such protests?
But then, if Cinderella is anything to go by, we have a cultural history of favouring the virginal, perfect daughter model over the sexually explicit and materially aware “ugly” stepsister, whose exclusion from the family unit is indicative of the way some people see some women as “unnatural” examples of femininity.
In a photo of the march one banner reads: “my outfit is not an invitation”.
Neither was Little Red Riding Hood’s.
While I understand the sentiment of the protests and agree that women should be free to wear what they like and not live in fear, as a woman I really wish the message was more focused on why women feel the need to wear revealing clothing; I find it demeaning and feel it only encourages objectification. Of course she doesn't deserve to be raped or face assault, but there is a loss of respect involved when you're primarily selling yourself by how much skin you're showing. Also, I can't help but feel that trying to empower the word 'slut' only embeds its use towards women.
I agree with your second sentiment, but I don't think women necessarily 'feel the need' to wear suggestive clothing because of society or whatever. It's demeaning if you do it for someone else, but if you're doing it simply because you want to then I don't see the problem. I don't see why other women pity/judge women who dress like that, and I certainly don't think it in any way justifies saying that they're 'selling' themselves which is one step away from saying that they're asking to be raped.
Thanks for the response, it always helps develop my thinking. I'll be honest, I have serious qualms with the whole 'doing it for yourself' argument - how you dress is a communication to the outside world of who you are. It would only be genuinely for yourself if you'd dress identically living in isolation and seeing no one as you would in public. Do women really wear mini-skirts and cleavage-bearing tops at home by themselves? I believe that you can 'dress for yourself' in public only if that entails communicating an honest identity, which I suppose some would argue they're doing by dressing skimpily, but I'm sorry, I don't really buy it.
I would also never equate putting yourself out there - or 'selling yourself' as employers actually often put it - as asking to be raped. That's a bit of a logical leap. All I'm saying is that getting boobs, legs and bums out excessively degrades you to the status of a physical commodity to be bought up. Rape doesn't automatically follow - you could also enter a meaningful relationship or have a consensual sexual experience, for example. I just don't exactly think it does much for the self-esteem, that's all.
The Religious Right, misogynists, and feminists all share a certain puritanism. It's horrific being a moderate...you get screamed at by extremists from both sides. 
Women have a right to dress in any way they feel comfortable without getting attacked by religious fundamentalists, psychopaths or feminists, and peaceful men have a right to enjoy that.
I dress like a 'slut' when i'm out. It is for me, but through other people. I don't want to attract anyone, I'm happy in a relationship, it's just that I know I look sexy like that and knowing I look good makes me happy for a night out. And it's trends isn't it. Slut in a club = normal. Slut on campus = tasteless and totally NOT 'in'!
I guess #5 highlights my issue with backing this protest. I respect your right to do that, but I just can't support a movement that doesn't address that it's not a good status quo that women dress sexily to validate themselves.
Doesn't such a movement simply support the concept of liberty? Provided the exercise of one's liberty doesn't hurt others (dressing sexily seems not to) then where's the sin? I think your view plays into the hands of women-hating men who feel both angry and aroused at 'slut' clothing. Covering up to please anyone, whether they are politically or psychopathically motivated, is a reduction in personal liberty, isn't it?
Are setting and context ever relevant in these debates? I totally agree that a woman who *continually* dresses in a very revealing manner might have some questions to deal with in terms of her defining and validating herself as a sex object.
But at a club or fun night out? Isn't this different? Surely nightlife contexts are totally different, and are fun, sexy places where both genders dress to look hot rather than, say, intelligent? That doesn't mean that people are defining themselves by their sexiness or flesh in general...but keying in to a particular atmosphere where that becomes acceptable or desirable for a few hours. There are different codes, conventions and rules to the daytime, campus, professions or whatever it is. It must surely be OK to look and feel daring or sexy in some contexts, whereas in others you'd look like an idiot. Many women and girls temporarily inhabit a world where pretty much everyone is dressed to accentuate their physicality, including guys, and where that is the established code for the context. Anyone who spits 'slut' at that, whether a Canadian police officer or not, is a moron and no-one at all, especially people who would wish to be seen as liberal or progressive, should feel that revealing or sexy clothing is inappropriate on a night out.
It doesn't matter what the setting is. The point is that no matter what you wear or how you see yourself, you don't deserve to be raped. Pretty simple.
It's an interesting way of trying to reclaim a word, but things like that usually happen organically as the meaning changes. It's hard to see anybody using the word 'slut' without negative connotations. At the same time, I applaude those who are mocking the police officer who made the original comment and challenging the use of a horrible, gendered word. It's worth pointing out that many are doing the SlutWalks dressed in deliberately 'un-sluttish' clothing as an ironic comment; either way, it's amazing to see such a movement spring up and gain momentum so quickly.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report