Monday, August 15, 2011

Sluts, Stupidity, and Cassandras

I don’t care what they say. Women who walk around in slutty clothing in order to “voice” their opinion about male sexual aggression are indeed acting out a hugely immature power trip. Your momma would’ve said “beauty is as beauty does”, ergo these are some ugly-minded girls:

Scantily clad women took to the streets of German cities on Saturday as part of a so-called “Slut Walk” aimed at challenging opinions about sexual assault.

About 1,000 participants took part in a rally in Berlin, with some 200 taking part in a parallel demonstration in Frankfurt and 350 in Munich. Walks also took place in Dortmund, Cologne and Hamburg.

The marches have become a way for women and male supporters of the cause to confront the idea that women could avoid rape and other forms of sexual violence by wearing less revealing clothing.

Mottos written on banners held aloft by participants included “The dignity of the slut is sacrosanct,” and “beautiful, sensuous and sexy — but I don’t want sex.”

The reason for the protest was underlined by co-organizer of the Hamburg walks, Anna Rinne, in comments to the German news agency dpa.

“Even when people walk half-naked through the streets, it is not their fault if violence is committed against them,” said Rinne.

Wrong. There is no dignity in slutiness. It’s sad and revealing in more ways than one, perhaps, that one could ever think it brave, but that’s faux courage at best. Dignity has gone missing, and deservedly so.

Wicked NellIf the act of strutting your stuff results in an equal reaction, a girl must take at least half the responsibility for whatever transpires as a result. And if she can’t comprehend that basic contract with life, then she needs a keeper because she’s not a mature adult.

Yeah, if any man is dumb enough to respond to this tawdry, witless provocation by actually attempting to grab the merchandise on parade, at the very least he needs an IQ test before they throw the book at him.

And before that book flies across the room in his general direction, would the grown-up in charge open the volume and show these sad sackettes — the ones propped up in their prostitute poses — the place in the book where it says “as you sow, so shall you reap”? Karma is a you-know-what, girls.

Afterwards, they can charge the offended strutter as an accessory before the fact — i.e., if some dolt grabs her, then at the very least she is his partner in crime. And the offense in which they both participate is a serious transgression against civil order. Sadistic provocation is a breach of the peace.

Call it for what it is. Strutting your stuff and daring anyone to stop you isn’t real freedom. It’s a sneaking, sadistic bully-girl game. Since no adult would behave in such a manner, we have to presume they are, indeed, merely girls. Girls without any moral gravitas, girls who just wanna have fun at others’ expense, girls who haven’t learned to play fair or to see themselves as anything other than the objects they complain endlessly that men make of them.

This is essentially decadent, and a self-indulgent waste of time. There is so much real suffering in the world — in their very own cities — that spending this much energy on slutting to prove a self-righteous point shows more than we want to see about the character of these triflin’ people. That includes the schmucks who showed up in “solidarity”, too. God bless ’em, those “men” are so desperate for women’s attention they’ll even stoop to denigrate their own honor in hopes of a pat on the head and a dog biscuit.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Today’s City Journal essay has an excellent solution to the increasing degradation: let’s clean up the culture by restigmatizing corrupted and corrupting behavior. Riffing off the old theme of New York City’s broken-windows community policing, Myron Magnet writes:
When is a flawless, gleaming, plate-glass shopwindow a broken window? Boston mayor Thomas Menino had no trouble answering the question after one look at the Nike sneaker shop’s display on his city’s upscale Newbury Street. There, above the company’s just do it slogan, were eight T-shirts bearing, in boldly graphic lettering, such messages as GET HIGH, F*** GRAVITY, and DOPE, this one accompanied by an open pill bottle with skateboards spilling out. The mayor clearly understood George Kelling and James Q. Wilson’s theory that one broken window left unrepaired in an empty building suggests that nobody is watching and nobody cares, sparking more vandalism and disorder, which in turn emboldens the violent and lawless to commit hard-core crimes. Here, the mayor saw, was cultural vandalism: Nike’s fashion statement, so to speak, was that it is trendy to take drugs. And the company was happy to turn its teen and preteen customers into walking billboards for drug use.

And so where are the parents who shell out the credit card for sleaze clothing? And why are the salespeople not complaining to their managers about having to make a living selling this vile trash? And why isn’t the whole block complaining about the “cultural vandals” who are parked like vultures in the midst of their businesses?

As City Journal points out, you have to play this carefully. The author doesn’t say you have to do that in order to avoid having vulture biz play the victim card, but that’s essentially what is required:

Menino fired off a sharp letter to the store manager, with copies to her CEO and the press, reprimanding her for her display’s assault on the young and on common sense. He urged her to remove the shirts and remarked that if Nike decided “to take more seriously the issue of drug abuse,” he could point out several successful Boston antidrug programs. With the sulky peevishness of its adolescent clientele, the company refused the mayor’s request, but a week later, at the end of June, a new display replaced the offending garb, though the DOPE shirt defiantly remained.

Menino’s letter, along with the publicity he generated by it, was exactly the right approach. He didn’t try to outlaw the offending display; the First Amendment guarantees us free speech, after all, even down to protecting the right of kids to play hyper-violent video games, the Supreme Court has just ruled. But when what is legal is also disgusting and wrong, the proper response is criticism and stigma, especially effective when the prominent-like Boston’s mayor-publicly express it.

Nike is in business to sell things. If we want to encourage a change in the direction of their sales pitch, it’s up to us to make them feel our displeasure. Letters to managers of stores who carry this line of sleaze clothing would work. Try to work up the ire your mother would have poured over your head had you come home wearing one of these items.

It’s worse than sleaze, though. It’s a terminal glorification of sleaze and stupid:

A kid in a DOPE shirt should draw the sneers of passersby, and business executives should tell their Nike counterparts that their supposed edginess pollutes the culture. The top brass of the Diesel clothing chain, now running a BE STUPID ad campaign, should hear the same disapproval. Until recently, their Fifth Avenue store, which has defaced an urbane classical building with a 30-foot-high cast-stone bas-relief of an angry lout in a Mohawk haircut, proclaimed from its window: SMART MAY HAVE THE BRAINS, BUT STUPID HAS THE BALLS. The chain’s website asserts, “Smart may have the authority, but stupid has one hell of a hangover,” and “Stupid is the relentless pursuit of a regret free life.” Outfitting thugs and bar brawlers, while egging them on, is not an honorable way to make a living, nor is selling gangsta rap that glorifies lawbreaking and mistreating women, nor is hawking video games that have kids pretend to kill, maim, and rape. And parents who let their kids buy such junk merit the scorn of their neighbors.

Is this what our forefathers envisioned when they extolled the ideas of “freedom” and “liberty”? Or is this simply brainless licentiousness disguised as ‘edgy’ and palmed off on a moronic TV culture as the new best outrage?

These examples of depraved mindlessness are just a preview of things to come. It can get worse and it will unless we call a halt to it.

The observers who offer us nothing but the profundity of their observations are tiresome by now. Theodore Dalrymple made his living off the underclass, and when he retired he went on to make yet another living by pointing at them in disgust. This man is a psychiatrist. Why doesn’t he take on just a smidgen of responsibility toward those people whose underclass lives funded his education and accumulated wisdom? Perhaps it’s time for the Cassandras to do more than moan about our fate while they move someplace safer.

It doesn’t have to be a big “something” but some of their time and effort would certainly be welcome. The Baron and I were away yesterday visiting a young couple who have taken on the next generation in a profound way: they’ve brought two babies into their home in the hope of salvaging these kids who were born addicted and went through withdrawal during the first weeks of life. They obviously have some developmental delays. But this man and his wife are willing to take them on anyway, and they’re willing to invest some optimism in the babies’ futures, not to mention all the hours they’ll lose in “leisure time”.

Not all of us could or should do what this couple are doing. But surely we can do something where we live. I was talking to a neighbor recently about the problems her son’s ball team has in finding coaches or umpires for their games. Fathers who have children on the team will sometimes volunteer (at least as long as their child is participating) but the idea of volunteering for something just because you value the behavior in others has disappeared. It used to be that you could find veterans in the American Legion to do that kind of local “duty” for youngsters but we’re losing the idea of military service so there are few veterans coming along to replace the old guys. Thus kids who want to play organized ball (and in a rural area any other kind is hard to arrange) have to learn to work around an often sub-standard player because his dad is the coach; he not only gets the choicest slots, he causes the team to flounder.

Volunteerism as a duty, as the idea that one ought to give something back to the community, is behavior we need to resuscitate if our public life is ever to thrive again. There is much in our culture that needs to be rolled up and re-thought. Sleaze, stupidity as the new cool, and a culture-wide cooler-than-thou irony have become impediments to our common cause of a civil society.

If you’re not gonna do it, who will? And what is the “it” you need to do? Well, think back to the last time you complained about something in your locality. I don’t mean the stupid politicians on television. They’re not about you or where you live. I mean the last personal complaint you had, even if you only thought about it, not daring to raise your voice out loud against whatever it was you observed. What can you do about that problem? What amount of personal energy are you willing to spend, even if you fail?

Come to think of it, what should all the talking heads in London do about what happened? Especially the ones who make their living complaining about daily events? Precisely what are they doing about addressing the problems they describe? Spinning their wheels in moral outrage doesn’t count as “doing something”, except perhaps pouring gas on the fire.

Are they out there cleaning up? Are they organizing their neighbors to get involved in reclaiming the culture?

To the Theodore Dalrymples of the world: don’t tell us anything else, please. You’ve said enough already. You’ve repeated the same tale everywhichway to Sunday. Now from your font of wisdom, SHOW US WHAT TO DO IN RESPONSE. And by all means, show up to help us work out a solution. Either that, or have the moral fortitude to maintain silence so the rest of us can think.

As Magnet concluded in his essay,

Our culture isn’t something we merely consume. We also all participate in creating it.

45 comments:

Robert Marchenoir said...

It's very interesting to see this opinion defended in no uncertain terms on a counter-jihad site.

The default assumption in such circles being rather : let's fight for the right to slutiness, since Muslims are so much incensed by it.

Actually, what is stated here is plain old wisdom and common sense, but that's a rare commodity to be found these days.

Dymphna said...

M.Marchenoir -

(A guess here; I hope one of our psychiatrist readers will send an email on this Dr. Dymphna diagnosis)...

Sluttiness is probably part of a larger character disorder -- e.g., narcissism. No one could put their body on display in such an angry, taunting manner -- "it's mine, all mine" -- and still be functioning normally.

Here, I'll use the old-fashioned sense of Freudian normalcy -- someone who can work well and play well.


Or mensch --mensches are both strong AND compassionate. We're usually one or the other. That couple who has taken in the two babies: they're mensches. They're tough and loving, which is the only way they'll survive this project, no matter how it ends.

Those slut strutters aren't mensches. That's something a young woman -- if she ever *does* go thru that stage -- ought to outgrow by the time she's 16 or so. If she hasn't done so, then her comprehension of men's fragility is limited.

One time when my son was in middle school (about 14 y.o.iirc) a girl came to class dressed up for Hallowe'en as a...slut. The boys confronted her but she was angry: "it's my body & I'll do what I want". The useless school admin did NOT help her. But she left at lunch, and the behavior was never repeated.

OTOH, her close friend, all of 14 herself, seduced the field hockey coach. Dumb move on his part since he wasn't a citizen. Bye bye coach.

I will say she was the hottest Lolita I'd seen in many a year. I could feel the vibes when she walked into a room at the age of 12. So I kind of felt sorry for him. She was very wealthy, cosmopolitan,stunningly beautiful and used to doing that to men. She was French and he was a dumb jock...

As you can see, I came to this subject with some baggage, to wit: I'm very concerned about the increasingly predatory behavior of girls. It starts earlier and earlier. Unless parents get rid of the toxic TV and video games, they're going to have a hard time keeping their kids in one piece.

That's not advice parents want to hear because they hate conflict. But parenting is at least 1/3 conflict until adolescence -- when the ratio doubles..

Franklin said...

Does that equate to untermensch?

kiwiana1111 said...

Wow, recently you've been trying to give a racial slant to the riots though they were mainly white up North. (If you mean the dangers of 'Gangsta' culture, then stick to that point: culture, not melanin). Today you write an article like this. I've read Gates of Vienna most days for years, but you're slowly losing my support. I'm against racism and sexism. That is why I'm against sharia law. The point of 'Slutwalk' (and yes, I've gone on one, untermensch that I am, wearing warm clothes actually, because it's winter here in NZ), is simply that nobody should be attacked because of the way they dress or for being labelled a 'slut'. Actually here even a girl in hijab attended, she seemed to 'get' it. Who determines what 'sluttish' dressing is? The attacker! And there are plenty of attackers out there who think any woman not covered up completely deserves attack - I guess that's you and I Dymphna. You can't read the attacker's mind, so you don't know what he considers attack-worthy clothing. The clothes I find comfortable in summer, T-shirt and shorts (and I bet you do too), could certainly be considered a convenient excuse for attack by people of that mindset. It just won't do. I manage to apply the 'look but don't touch' principle when I see a nice-looking man, and men can do the same, if they simply choose to. Stop making excuses for rapists. As for your stupid hockey coach: unless she actually raped him, he just chose not to control his desires.

I'm sorry, but if we're not supporting women's rights (equal rights before the law as Robert Spencer writes), then we're not resisting islamification in any serious way.

Salome said...

Well said, Dymphna. There's a world of difference between going about with one's face and hair uncovered, or even one's arms, or dressing prettily or attractively and going about dressed to tease. If we're to make any headway against those who regard the former as 'uncovered meat', we can only do so by pointing out that the former modes of dress are not by our standards immodest, and shouldn't be by their standards either.

latté island said...

Both the slut and anti-slut factions are missing the point. The really serious assaults against women have very little to do with how they're dressed, and much to do with who is allowed to walk around free, even if they are repeat offenders from a rape culture. The "sluts" who think teasing white men will solve any problems are naive. If they were serious about keeping the streets safe for women, they'd lobby against third world immigration and parole.

Even though I'm tired of dining out on my little multicultural adventure, I'll mention that I was raped in broad daylight by a young Mexican who had a long criminal record and was coddled by Berkeley liberals. I was 50 years old and dressed in modest, casual sportswear. This sort of thing is very common, in fact I continue to be propositioned by young foreign men who loiter everywhere, and believe me, I'm even older and less slutty than I used to be. Everyone on both sides needs to stop getting distracted by frivolous issues like, do I have the right to tease young white men. I don't care about this, it's not the problem. The presence of foreign repeat offenders on our streets is the real problem.

Cyril Lucar said...

Bravo!

Slut walks are denigrating to women on so many levels. One is that there is a presumption that women are too weak and stupid to take even the slightest responsibility. With the politics of sexuality there is this idiotic assumption that only one person can be guilty when there's a sex crime. If you dress like a slut, get drunk, and walk alone down an empty street in a bad neighborhood, you're begging to be a crime victim. If I leave my car unlocked and my iPhone on the dash, it doesn't make it legal to steal it, but it does make me a moron.

When I worked as a counselor some years ago a woman told me that support group meetings for addicts weren't safe because she got raped. Shocked, I asked her what happened. She proceeded to tell me that her first time T one of the meetings she met a guy who was also there for the first time. She invites him to spend the night at her house and he climbs in her bed in the middle of the night and not too forcibly "rapes" her.

When I gently suggested that there's no place on earth that she'd be safe having unknown men stay at her house she went apoplectic, "YOU'RE SAYING IT WAS MY FAULT I WAS RAPED?"

With this kind of moral reasoning, it's no wonder to me that we can't deal with the Mohammedeans.

Cyril Lucar said...

Not that I don't sympathize with rubbing something in the face of the Islamists. And I don't mean to intimate that any woman is "asking for it" (unless she's very disturbed indeed). But there are levels of setting oneself up. Many victims of rape didnt do anything to set themselves up in any way (this is true of all crimes).

The problem with this as it relates to Muslims (who do take dress as a justification for rape) is that we're not (in the West) hammering them on all the little stuff so as to make their culture completely unwelcome. The West needs to be a very attractive place for Muslims who are sick of Islam.

We need to throw them in jail for domestic violence and jail every complicity member of their families. Same thing with child marriage, threats against Jews, etc. We ought to treat mosques like we treated the Klan. It isnt illegal to be a white supremast, but you're going to have an eye on you if you hang out with violent racists.

I ran an adolescent unit of teenage criminal drug addicts. We kept it safe by staying on those kids for all the little stuff. The big stuff rarely happened.

Tuan Jim said...

Zombie had a good deconstruction of the slutwalk recently: http://www.zombietime.com/deconstructing_slutwalk/

Lots of photos, many not really work-safe.

Reg T said...

It never ceases to amaze me how many women are crass enough to think that simply because a woman dresses in an inappropriate fashion "half" of the blame for being raped is hers. How in the name of all that is holy can a normal, well-adjusted person of any sex think such a thing? Good Christ, have you no shame?

That is a direct echo of all the muslim animals who claim women dressed without a burka are "fresh meat" who deserve to be raped. You sicken me. Yes, my generation was raised to dress modestly, and I agree that "slutty" attire is distasteful. But to assign blame for being raped to such dress if so disgusting I can barely stand to read such tripe.

Malcolm Smith said...

Put it this way. A man walks into a sleazy bar at night. He is wearing a $1,000 suit with a diamond tie-pin. He flashes a huge roll of banknotes when he buys his drink. Then he walks out into the night. Is it asking to be mugged?
A woman walks into the same sleazy bar at night dresses like a slut. She wriggles her hips, flashes her eyes, and walks into the night. Is she asking to be raped?
Yes. We know a man should be able to flaunt his wealth anytime he likes and not risk attack. And a woman should be able to walk around naked and risk nothing worse than chillblains. But we live in an imperfect world. There is a subsection of humanity which believes that the weak and the vulnerable are their natural prey. We owe it to ourselves not to allow ourselves to become their victims.

Bella said...

I have been reading this blog for a little less than a month now and have been very impressed, even bought a mug to show my support. That is till now. As a woman, even though not a slut I am offended at the sexism in this post. Women should have the right to wear what they want without being verbally or physically attacked by men, and I believe that was the point of the slut walk. Any man who thinks otherwise should take a closer look at himself. To think that these women or any women bring rape upon themselves is downright stupid. I was attacked twice and both times dressed big winter clothes. Anyone who is slightly interested in the topic knows already that rape is not about sex, but power and violence.

Sagunto said...

Thnx Dymphna for this article. I recognize your point of view in my own gut feeling about a related matter. I was asked to provide subtitles for the following street report from Holland: Chantal, star reporter from POW news in Utrecht

After having watched the clip, I declined the job. These were my considerations that correspond with @Robert Marchenoir's:

*** I'll say upfront that I won't translate this piece, because I don't find the message all that informative: Muslims hurling abuse at blond bomb. We all know they do that routinely.

It's sadly funny to watch, but beyond that..

Moreover - and I know this was not the intention of the honourable madam learning (on the job) the fine art of street-interviewing - I don't particularly like the setting of her representing Western values vs. these run of the mill Moroccan scumbags. That is oftentimes the idea one gets from mainstream politicians over here: our "freedom" as in; gay marriage; sexual liberation; and so on, against those "few radical Muslims" who are fanatically opposed to it. Furthermore, it is most certainly the way all practising anti-Western Muslims want to frame the picture: hedonistic West vs sharia law.

My humble contribution is the answer to this question:

[from the Danish site]
Blue Shirt Guy: "Of course you are, just look at you, what are you [...]?" (some foreign insult or word for unclean I guess)"

The foreign insult, uttered by the Blue Shirt Guy, is: "sharia".

That's the picture: "Democracy", represented by upper and lower cleavage, versus sharia, represented by these moderate Muslims.

Not my cup of tea. Sorry. ***

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

NorseAlchemist said...

I'm going to have to side with Kiwiana and Latte Island on this.

Is this what the founding father's envisioned? Not sure, but it's what they fought for. The right to pursue our happiness, to have our lives and our liberty.

What makes a slut, what defines her (or him as the case may be)? Society does. According to Muslims, having blonde hair enough to make you a slut. That's it. Color of one's hair. That's why Scandinavian women have to dye their hair. Doesn't matter what they wear. Western women show off their ankles, their legs, and that's enough for them to be labeled a slut and considered open targets for attack.

Rape is about power, or so they say. I agree, mostly because I think everything in life is about power. The fact is thought, that this Slutwalk is a good thing. Should we be ashamed of our bodies? Christians claim they are the creations of their infallible creator, yet they seem to constantly complain about how horrid his creation is and how it must be hidden away. Muslims take it even farther. Perhaps it is because I am a Heathen, but I don't see the point. I am as I was made, by whatever Gods or Natural forces. So was everyone else. There is no need to feel shame at our selves or at the forms of others.

So, do we want to give in to those like the Muslims, who use the way a woman dresses or simply looks as an excuse to attack her? Or do we want to stand for her right not to be attacked period. Because once we get on the whole "modesty" train, eventually we get to the lowest common denominator for what people find modest, and then every woman is wearing a burka. Doubt me? They're already doing it in the schools, where The Muslim dietary laws are being enforced in places like England and Norway, either by the schools or the citizens, whose children fear being attacked for bringing ham and cheese on a sandwhich.

So before you condemn the "slut" remember you say you fight for freedom from tyranny, especially Islamic tyranny. Pat those women on the back for daring the "cultural enriches" to attack them by declaring their freedoms, do not condemn them 'cause you don't like their clothes or attitudes towards themselves. If it is a "mental illness" to take pride in one's body, then may we all come to be so sick.

jaded said...

amen kiwiana1111, if this is the way they think of women at this site then i will find another sight to support. blaming the dress of a woman for rape is the EXACT mentality of the islamist.

poor men can't be expected to control their behavior when the evil women show bare skin. women must be shamed into covering up....right out of the koran

this is one supporter you just lost for good

Miki said...

Well, I diasagree. Look at our world - in Africa your head may end up on a pole just because you're from another tribe. In the Arab world women are being punished for showing their hair and other body parts. In non-muslim Asia there is such a pressure for uniformization that everyone has the same clothes and haircuts as their billion neighbors. So my question is - where on earth can women, who are not ashamed of their bodies (hurray!)live in peace?

You know the story about how it happened that muslim women have to cover up, right? Someone came up to muhammad and said that his daughters are being raped and abused. And it is precisely muhammad's logic that made him reply: "Than cover up the women".

I will never agree with this logic. Just like I will not agree with calling women who show off their bodies "sluts" I think its rude, disrespectful and shows some kind of contempt for the body which is most apparent in islam but in a much more subtle way also present in other Middle Eastern religions.

And as a man - please don't treat us like animals, who don't have a choice but just have to jump to the nearest pair of long legs and copulate, just because the lady is wearing a miniskirt.

Sagunto said...

This is rapidly turning into a matter of "holier than thou", and for once I tend to agree with @Latté (well partly at least) that pro or anti-sluttiness isn't the main issue, nor was it i.m.h.o. portrayed that way by Dymphna. I regret to see how the moral equivalence game played by some is in itself a sign of moral indignation taking precedence over rational debate, and I must say that I find it quite revealing and appalling, to be honest, the eagerness of some commenters to equate Dymphna's statements with those of Muslim men.

Some comments are more worthwhile to challenge:

NorseAlchemist -

wrote:

"Is this what the founding father's envisioned? Not sure, but it's what they fought for. The right to pursue our happiness, to have our lives and our liberty."

Actually no, this is not what the founding fathers fought for. It is testimony to the cultural victory of progressive Millean liberalism, advocating (J. S. Mill) permanent "experiments in life-style" as an integral part of the "Religion of Humanity", i.e. the zealous (and religious) attack on traditional Western society, and the means for the desired transition from liberalism to communism.

Latté -

I agree with you that sluttish garb an sich is but a surface problem (yet bad enough in and of itself), but in my assessment of the underlying issue, I must point out to you that the problem with progressivism as a political religion, is exactly this: the devaluation of the term "rights" (as in "human rights", "minority rights", etc.). Parading sluttiness as a "right" is a prime example in this regard. Shouting "rights" when one actually means privileges. And another problem with these "rights" is that they are always demanded from the State, giving it more and more power of ever increasing spheres of our lives. I don't like nor accept that premise. It is part of the steady degradation of freedom.

"Where are the parents?", some ask. My guess is that too many of them have stepped aside, or couldn't help but to make place, for the omnipresent nanny state. The progressivist State apparatus has been enabled to create a massive cultural "bystander-effect", by sapping people's own initiative under the promise of caring for the collective well being of the nation. Parents leaving their kids to the mercy of the state, effectively means that they leave their kids to the street and all of the street-"culture" that goes with it. I see a parallel here with the remarks by the English historian about "gangsta-culture" spreading among Anglo-Saxon Aboriginals.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Observer said...

Actually these women are wearing the dress men want them to wear.

While men are wearing the dress men want to wear.

When a woman is wearing g-string on the beach its exactly what men want her to wear. Its not about her physical comfort.

When a man is wearing shorts on the beach, its about his physical comfort and not about what women want.

I don't see a difference between wearing a burka or wearing a g-string. In both cases, it is something men want women to wear.

Miki said...

I think that's too much of a generalization, observer. Women generally wear what they want to wear. Some wear G-strings, some wear one piece swimming suits and some would rather sunbathe topless and others still prefer to stay fully clothed. I have met all these cases and it's all ok. What in the world makes you think women are so dependent on men when choosing what to wear?


Is it really so strange, that a woman might want to feel sexy on the beach or on a street and wear whatever she wants, while not giving her consent to being raped?

Dymphna said...

In a perfect world, Slut Struts would be a harmless preoccupation for those so inclined. In the real world, such behaviors entail unintended consequences. These consequences may fall on others who had nothing to do with the Struts, but they end up paying the cost.

Degraded behavior, whether demonstrations for the "right" to strut your stuff, or -- as I mentioned in the next example -- the "right" to wear T-shirts glorifying your stupidity -- causes real world harm to others, whether that harm takes place where you can see it or not.

The new moral self-righteousness, which usually involves some kind of deviant behavior, degrades the public sphere in which we all live. And that trivializing of liberty has a ripple effect, just as the broken window community policy demonstrated.

Since everyone else must also live in a public sphere (which includes some strange dudes) it behooves us to take their weaknesses and strengths into account.

Which is why I won't walk down a dark street in a crime-ridden neighborhood, even though it's public property and I have every "right" to do so.

Similarly, I ought to be able to park my car anywhere without having thieves perceive my car as their opportunity to steal everything in or on it. However... in the real world prudence dictates taking care both where I park, and that I lock my car. Especially since the auto insurance ppl will ask if my car was locked when I left it.

IOW, insurance actuaries base *their* "behaviors" (whether to pay me or not) on my own previous behaviors (was I prudent -- in their eyes -- or not). I can argue with them about my right to leave the car unlocked but my rhetoric re "rights" won't get my car back or a replacement.

The response to imprudent behavior is often unfortuante pushback. Or, as the moral theologians used to say, the first duty of an owner is to act like an owner.

It is fascinating to observe the energy in all this the moral outrage directed at the IDEA re the wisdom of prudent behavior. Sure, women can dress/act any way they want. But what they can't do is change others' perceptions about what they intend. Mind-reading is a common form of invasion, one I see often on our comment section.

Per Peter Drucker "communication is the act of the recipient"; thus you're free to insist that you're sending a particular message via your strut stroll. However. in a similar freedom, observers have the right to see an entirely opposite significance than you intended.

There is nothing you can do about the basic freedom of other people's perceptions. I suppose you could tell them repeatedly their perceptions are wrong, but your denial of what they perceive won't change their minds.

The next time you have a loud party at your house, on your PRIVATE property, and the police show up as the result of others' complaints, trying telling the officers your neighbors are wrong and it is your RIGHT to play your music at any level you like.

Strut strolls are ultimately safe actions (unless they take place in a Muslim neighborhood). Women who participate are sure of not being laughed at to their faces. We live in a degraded society where normal responses are not permitted, so on-lookers are careful not to show their thoughts. But you should hear what they tell one another about your behavior.

At the moment, they're still free to do that.

NorseAlchemist said...

What is the difference between a woman wearing a gstring and a woman wearing a burka, if both garments are what the men of that area desire the women to wear?

Simple: The woman in the gstring doesn't face beatings, mutilation, rape, and death, by not wearing the gstring. She wears (or does not wear) the g-string by her own choice. The woman in the burka, however, faces all those things and doesn't have the choice in what she wears.

To say that the outrage and defense of this "Strut" is directed at the idea of wisdom and prudent behavior is not entirely accurate. Rather, it is the outrage at a legislation of morality that many do not agree with. What the outrage against the "Strut" strikes me as coming from a place of overbearing morality, and shame at the human form. To say that a woman is responsible for her rape because of her clothing, because she wears a g-string or a miniskirt or what have you, is no different than saying a woman is responsible for her rape because she has blonde hair, or showed her ankles, or managed to be just little to svelte in her curves or was simple of a certain race. Rape is about power, power of one person over another. Even women who wear burkas are raped. It isn't the clothes that make the victim, and railing against a certain style of dress and those who advocate it does nothing to prevent rape.

Want to stop a woman getting raped? don't rail at those who wear thongs or miniskirts or what have you. Give her martial arts training, give her weapons, and put the ever loving fear into those that would attack others, not of society coming after them, but of their potential victim having sharper claws than they do.

Robert Marchenoir said...

There is no such thing as women's rights. Men have rights, yes (and that includes women). But women ?

Give me one valid reason why women should have rights. And be sure to define them as well.

Miki said...

Norse Alchemist - I totally agree

Dymphna- what you seem to be saying is that cause and effect takes place. If a woman wears a miniskirt then the effect will be negative opinions about her in peoples' heads.
Up to this point I agree.

"But you should hear what they tell one another about your behavior." No way. In our culture you have the right to care less what others think. And you surely have the right not to be attacked. And as I see it this is what the event is about.

You say: "However. in a similar freedom, observers have the right to see an entirely opposite significance than you intended." True. But not to act on it. And that's the point.

NorseAlchemist said...

@Robert. Women have rights, same as everyone else. They are human. So if you're awkwardly trying to say Human rights with no distinction between men and women fine. Otherwise, there is no room for Misogyny here. If you feel that women are not but chattel to be used and bartered with no rights of their own, go to the Muslim lands and convert, you will find many that share your views.

kiwiana1111 said...

OK Dymphna, I bet a few of your summer wardrobe numbers reveal a lot more skin than some people find acceptable. So by your own definition, you're then 'asking for' sexual attack, hm?

Latte is right, and this was indeed an essential point of slut-walk speeches I heard: most rapes are nothing to do with a woman's attire. But courts can be be hardened against the victim, blaming her for various reasons, and then a culture of victim-blaming and giving rapists permission for various excuses develops. And that does fee a pro-rape culture.

Dymphna, just answer this question: how can you be sure that anything you wear, even if you consider it 'modest', is not considered 'sluttish' by some idiot? And, in court, by the jury and judge? 'Ah well, Mrs D was wearing a T-shirt, showing her arms and shorts showing her legs, so she was partly to blame for the sex attack!'. If you no longer dress like that because of age, think back a decade or so.

retch said...

Those girls on their slut walks seem to understand perfectly well what clothes make girls look like sluts. If it quacks like a slut...

Dymphna said...

I seem to have hit a nerve here. Interesting.

When so many women attack a proposition so hard, their defensiveness bespeaks a heretofore unaddressed anger. Offhand, I'd say the post served as an opportunity to unload some heavy baggage. Glad I could be of assistance...

I live surrounded by the sounds of victim-celebration, not victim-blaming. One writer calls it our standard default:"underdogma". As long as one can feel aggrieved then moral righteousness is assured.

The point of my post was the second part, the City Journal essay about celebrating stupidity. It's akin to celebrating the uglification of our cities via promoting graffiti, which used to be a criminal act. Now it's chic.

And slut used to be considered ugly, but now it's edgy and chic and, what's more it's freedom, got that?

I never said that people were free to act on what they thought; I said you can't change their minds. I said, in several different ways, that there were consequences, not just for criminal acts but for careless ones as well. I urged responsiveness in place of reactivity.

However, y'all go right ahead & make claims about whatever it is you think I said.

So far, no one has demonstrated that this was a smart or courageous or morally important thing to do, or that it climbed over any boundary to a previously unclaimed freedom.

I'll stick with the thesis of that City Journal essay I cited, and to the two people in my post who made the choice to spend their leisure time improving the lives of two babies...

The slut struts seem as pointless as those "Take Back the Night" candlelight demos, or Facebook petitions to China protesting their lack of free speech. Light a candle, sign online, show up to strut... all easy, feel-good moments. Do any of them change the core problems? Yet everyone who attends or signs or struts is sure something important happened.

Well, we'll have to wait to see what good outcomes are generated by the strutting. Maybe there'll be some great changes and I'm just not seeing them.

Pls check back and let me know.

babs said...

It has been extremely hot here in NY. I wear flip flops, shorts and a tank top to the grocery. Should I stop doing that? Should I don a burka to leave the house?
I think the point of the slut walk was where do you draw the line?
While this may seem provocative, many more examples could be proffered from the other side.
We are not meat, we are women.

Michael Servetus said...

Love it and agree wholeheartedly with such wholesome thinking. As I have expressed in prior posts I believe this sort of moral issue is related to the general acceptance of Islam. The same way people have been beaten down into moral submission or indifference about everything they care about and hold dear for the sake of liberal progress so have they been emotionally traumatized universally into a sort of moral atrophy. I have often referred to the issue of sexualit specifically homosexuality but this is also serves as an example.

It is also refreshing to read something different yet entirely appropriate and related in a more subtle way.

I think it is important to show this side of your personalities and moral taste not only for diversion but as a display of a foundation which is the root of your counter jihad position, to show it is not only a counter jihad but something much bigger and deeper and mainstream. Something which distinguishes it from liberal counter-jihadism which is for the purpose of keeping the Bacchanal going at all costs.

NorseAlchemist said...

"When so many women attack a proposition so hard, their defensiveness bespeaks a heretofore unaddressed anger."

Well Dymphana, is that supposed to mean what I think it means? Do tell, what is this unaddressed anger, hmm? It it the anger of women who see yet another force out there telling them that they should be ashamed of their bodies? That they must "dress modestly, lest they invite evil into the world?" Is it the anger of women who see someone telling them that because "they dress like a slut" (a rather vague term as addressed before, since showing ankles can be considered slutty, or showing eyes, or having blonde hair...) they are responsible for the attacks on women? I just want to be clear on what you're saying. Also, you seem to ignore the men protesting your moral guardianship of modesty. Or are we not worthy of notice as we are simply perverts?

You've said that no one has demonstrated that this was a smart or courageous or morally important thing to do? I see plenty of courage here. This happened all over the world, right? Including cities with higher Muslim populations? Your own site is filled with the "enrichment" Muslim men show to western women who dress "slutty." Morally important? Certainly strikes me as Morally important to stand up to people and tell them they do not have the right to try and dictate what we wear or when, which I take as a personal liberty on the same order as freedom of speech. Clothes make a statement, they stood for being free to make that statement. And it is always smart to stand courageously for freedom.

@retch: If it walks like a slut, and quacks like a slut, must be a slut, right? Well then according to many people, unless your mother/sister/girlfriend/wife is dressed in a burka, she is a slut. Think about that. Every woman in your family or that you know, is a slut. And by your own words, and another's standards, you must accept this. Protest and invalidate your argument.

NorseAlchemist said...

@babs, you need not wear the burka and give up your shorts and tanktops. In my experience, modesty comes from a single place in this world. Shame. Those who call and scream for modesty are those who pretend their call is "wise, or moral, or holy." It is what the Muslims do, it is what the moral guardians do, it is what Christians do. But the truth is, it comes not from a desire to be holy, but a feeling of shame. Ever since their Adam and Eve, they have been ashamed of their bodies. They have hidden them, and called it holy and wise. I do not agree, for I share a far older view given to me by my ancestors. It is our bodies that are holy. We were grafted by divine gods and goddesses, or simple forces and laws of nature, but regardless we are perfect in form and being. It is our bodies that are holy, and we should feel no shame for them. Do not be made to feel shame because someone says "it makes you a slut." That is what this "slut walk" is about. It is about glorifying the body, taking back sexuality, and saying that being a sexually aware and liberated person who is not ashamed of who they are, how they look, or what they feel, is not a bad thing that should be hidden away and covered up or demonized.

@Michael, you say this moral issue is related to the acceptance of Islam? Really. It strikes me that you are calling for everyone to be brought into moral submission with what you think is moral. If anything, i would gather that this "slut walk" is amoral. "Universally traumatized into moral atrophy." Funny, i don't feel traumatized into Moral Atrophy. I feel more like liberated into Moral Clarity, expanding beyond the simplistic black and white thinking of your moral ways, or those of Islam, which dictate that certain things are evil just because an unknowable god says they are. There is more than one morality in this world, and I don't see how those that embrace sexuality are any worse than those that shame it and say it must be hide away at all costs lest women invite rape and men not be able to control themselves. We might be animals, but we're better animals than you give us credit for.

Still, I suppose the nature of this article and its authoress by the title. "Sluts, Stupidity, and Cassandra." It says it all. The "sluts" are "Stupid" and she is the Cassandra, whose true visions are ignored until the devastation (rape) occurs, when all will see how wise and prophetic she is.

Well, if she is Cassandra, then let me be Beowulf, to "slay" the monsters that lie in the dark, bringing fear and shame to this world, with the sword of truth and shield reason.

retch said...

@NorseAlchemist, believe me - I think there's never an excuse for raping anybody. If it asks me for it, it's not a rape; don't worry, I'd notice. My point, which you went out of your way to miss, was: those ladies acting like sluts are propagating their own definite ideas about sluttism—not ours. Which makes them ridiculous; to me.

You New said...

My impression is that I just read an article about the socially-backed degradation of society. A cry for moral decency. Where then is the spot that is so upsetting some of you? Does Dymphna call for the implementation of sharia law or the removal of any rights?

Are some of you guys saying that Dymphna should cease and desist in her call out against sleeze-pushing? Because that reminds you of repression?

On what basis must we to comply in silence regarding the commercial mass promotion of crudity?

If anyone thinks that a counter-jihad, or anything else for that matter will function well in an immoral society, you might want to drop your feminist/libertarian dogma long enough to think about it.

And if you think you are liberal and free and you have to go march in your underwear to prove it, sorry, you are not at peace.

Jewish Odysseus said...

"“Even when people walk half-naked through the streets, it is not their fault if violence is committed against them,” said Rinne.

Wrong."

No, RIGHT. When a person engages in a lawful behavior, and another person commits an unlawful behavior against them in response, then the 2d person is at fault. Period.

All else is confusion and moral relativism.

"Well, we have to consider the CULTURAL BACKGROUND of these poor misguided social enrichers." NO, it is the responsibility of every human being to control their own base impulses, be they to rape or steal or kill, and any argument that detaches the individual from his own personal responsibility for what he does with his own body to any other person is a backward-thinking and objectively pro-shariah argument.

Franklin said...

I mow my lawn in my speedoes...no one every accuses me of "slutischnesh"...and my mammeries are worth noting (age 66).

Lawrence said...

The wrong-headed effort to elevate the importance of and enhance the power of independent minded women in society is doing so by making womanhood into some for of gutter trash?

Keeping women of the pedestal of beauty by placing them on a pedestal of trash?

They want to force society to respect them, by demeaning and disrespecting themselves.

This is nuts.

Lawrence said...

I will say she was the hottest Lolita I'd seen in many a year. I could feel the vibes when she walked into a room at the age of 12. So I kind of felt sorry for him. She was very wealthy, cosmopolitan,stunningly beautiful and used to doing that to men. She was French and he was a dumb jock...

So it wasn't really about self actualization, so much as it was about power.

She found she had a power over other people, especially weak-minded men, and used it.

Not to different from any other form of manipulation people use to control other people. Attractive men manipulate weak-minded women in similar manner.

But what is really happening with the Slut Walks is strong-minded women manipulating weak-minded women to make some kind of strange ideological point.

xxxx said...

They can wear whatever they want. They are entitled not to be raped or molested because of that. This is obvious and I'll defend this right until the end.

Everybody who writes in Gates of Vienna agrees with that so this is out of the question.

But I also have rights: freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
I can think and say of them whatever I want.

These slutwalks are not aimed to decrease the number of rapes: the future rapists don't care about their future victims say and would laugh at such a parade.

These slutwalks are about shaming normal people, not rapists. So they can dress as sluts and normal people are supposed to applaud this so they are not labelled as rapists or mysoginists (or blaming the victim).

In short, they demand the right to express whatever they want (using dress or words) but they deny the same right to others.

To the hell with that, I have
the freedom of expression to say that these parades are disgusting and show spoiled women trying to get attention.

So a guy making a speech in a place says something inappropiate and there is women going naked from Washington to New Delhi.

I will always defend a victim of sexual assault or a woman oppressed by a patriarchal system such as Muslim.

But I won't defend these attention whores, who flaunt their promiscuity. I wouldn't do the same with men so I don't think women must have more rights than men. I believe in equality.

Here in Gates of Vienna, we are worried by the Muslim invasion. But Islam is only filling a void. Our society is in decline. And one of the causes of this decline is not to use stigma. Read the following link that explains it better than I could:

http://bit.ly/r9Wljg

And don't forget to see the pictures and the good analysis here

http://zombietime.com/deconstructing_slutwalk/

Lawrence said...

... "They can wear whatever they want."

Not exactly. There are decency laws in place in any culture that dictate minimum attire. Including on many public beaches that require a certain decorum in bathing suites.

If these "girls" where strutting through the public square for any other purpose someone would be checking into their business if not having them escorted out of the public view.

But, somehow, having a parade or demonstration about it makes this public offense okay.

Franklin said...

Please speak in simple sentences...I know not what you say...keemosabe!

Painlord2k said...

The slutwalks are a reaction against the comment of some law enforcer that "it is not smart to dress and walk like a slut in some places of the city, because you will attract unwanted and dangerous people".

This is as rational as to say: "do not enter in a lion den unarmed and alone."
It is stupid common sense.

The reaction to common sense is simply a children tantrum. The slutwalkers never went in some really dangerous place to assert their right. They asserted their rights where it was safe for them to do so.

Around 10 centuries ago, in the Mongol empire, it was said that a virgin could walk naked from a side of the empire to the other with a plate of silver full of pearls on his head. This is because the penalty for attacking her would be too fearsome to dare to think to do so. There would not be excuses if it happened. The Mongol Empire would send one army of horsemen and exterminate the miscreants.

When the Diesel use the "SMART MAY HAVE THE BRAINS, BUT STUPID HAS THE BALLS" they are simply recognizing that this society have emasculated the smart and empowered the stupid. Until a few decades ago, there was not this divorce from balls and brain. This is a side effect of our totalitarian democracies.

Dymphna said...

@ xxxx--


Your link to Magnet's essay in City Journal re the need to restigmatize behavior was the same one I used in my post. Here is how I introduced it, above (sans the links embedded there):

Today’s City Journal essay has an excellent solution to the increasing degradation: let’s clean up the culture by restigmatizing corrupted and corrupting behavior. Riffing off the old theme of New York City’s broken-windows community policing, Myron Magnet writes:

Whilst I appreciate your cogent defnse, it is dispiriting to see you shortlink to an essay I used as the foundation of my essay.

I think what may happen in such cases is that readers become involved in the comments and lose sight of the original work. Sigh.

It's okay. I may recycle that essay from City Journal, and the older one which he riffs on, to talk about the recent meltdown in Britain. That theme Magnet referred to, the "broken windows" philosophy of community policing is linked closely with Wm Bratton's leadership in cleaning up NYC...and making NYC's police accountable.

Now Bratton has been invited by Cameron to "assist" the Met Police and they're no happier than the NYPD was back then.

Actually, Cameron tried to get him appointed to head London's police. Fat chance. No crummy Yank is going to tell *us* how to do it...which is probably better anyway. Too many ways to sabotage that decision politically.

And maybe his reputation as an emminence grise ought to be sufficient to be of assistance. Or maybe the London police want to continue hunkering down in their fortresses.

The head of Scotland Yard says they need a European, not a (gag) Yank. Hmm...Father Brown, maybe?

Franklin said...

"his" head..."her" head? If a morphedite...I'd give way for sure!

Franklin said...

What is interesting are men who are "sluts"! Ever run into one of those?

Jacksonst71 said...

The author of this blog piece fails to note the screaming irony of this, an anti Islamic blog failing to note that women still get attacked in countries where they are forbidden to "strut their stuff". I.E, Islamic ones.