
Photo via Facebook from, I think, the Vancouver Sun.
Hugo Schwyzer says in support of the recent "slut walk" protest in Toronto. The emphasis is his but I heartily endorse it.
There are so many things that trouble me about the obsession with regulating women’s bodies. But as a man, I am particularly exasperated at the assumption that lies beneath the insistence on modesty: the myth that men cannot control themselves. As feminists often point out, the real “man-haters” are those who promote modest dress for women out of the belief that men lack self-control. There is nothing more contemptuous than the suggestion that those of us with penises and Y chromosomes are prisoners of our biology, liable to rape or commit infidelity at the first sign of cleavage. The myth of male weakness sells us woefully, heartbreakingly short.
...
SlutWalkers believe in men’s capacity to do two things at once: be aroused by what we see while honoring the humanity of the woman whose body attracts our eye. The most pernicious of all lies about men is that because of our make-up, lust and empathy can’t coexist within us. If you want kind and compassionate men who will respect women’s boundaries, the myth suggests, those women will have to conceal the parts of themselves that will turn men bestial and irresponsible.
We present women with a brutal binary: hide your sexuality and be respected; show your sexuality and be slut-shamed, harassed, or worse. But if ever there were a false dichotomy, rooted in ignorance about male identity, male biology, and male potential, this is it. While none of us want to live in a culture where women are compelled to display those parts of themselves they’d like to keep private, none of us should settle for living in a society where women are compelled to conceal those parts of themselves they’d occasionally like to display.
Source: Hugo Schwyzer
And I'd just add that the man-hating, slut-shaming meme isn't even about protecting women from all men (as a few feminists and most anti-feminists believe.) Because research from the anecdotal to the latitudinal suggests that only a very small number of men commit the vast majority of sexual assaults. So the message in the photo, to tell men not to rape, isn't a hopeless pie-in-the-sky recommendation: it's actually quite specific. And, I might add, a very much more-solid policy recommendation that telling all women to remain cloistered in the vestments of nuns, lest all men assault them.
Image suggestion via reader DA




Ugh, there are so many things
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Fri, 2011-04-08 21:44.Ugh, there are so many things wrong with this picture.
Firstly, men are told not to rape. Innocent men have been murdered due to just an accusation of rape. Female rape is a crime that spurs more emotional hysteria than even homicide.
Do people sometime say that a woman deserved being raped? Yes. But people will also say that so-and-so deserved a vicious beating. That's how callous, self-righteous people respond to the misfortunes of people they don't like. To single out rape when it's one of the most taboo of acts is just politicking.
The reason why people attack sluts is only incidentally about controlling women's bodies. The reason that men and, especially, women attack slutiness is that female modesty forces men to participate as "useful" members of society. If women are taught to keep sex scarce, then men will think of female sexuality as valuable and something to work for. Society can use this sexual economy to manipulate men into striving towards being a "real man" worthy of intimacy. If women were sluts and men allowed bisexuality, then men would be sexually satisfied all the time and could not be controlled through lust.
Thus the burka. Men living in a society where sexuality is so tightly controlled are easily convince that suicide bombing is worth it just for the 72 virgins.
<em>Yes, nicely put, tu
Submitted by figleaf on Sat, 2011-04-09 00:47.<em>Yes, nicely put, tu quoque. I'm not positive this showed up in the first wave of, er, second-wave feminism but this seems like the most horrible kind of objectification there is. Traditional society wants to use women not as people but as *things* to control men. They don't care about women at all. Which is yet another reason I think feminism and men have in common -- men don't want to be controlled like that, feminists sure as heck don't want to be used for that. And, especially, except for that we'd all have a waaaay lower anxiety/aggression/freakout about sex of any sort.
I mean, even the prohibition on homosexuality, of course, is all about keeping men from, well, going their own way for sex. Same with prohibitions on "promiscuity" which is about keeping men *or* women from going their own way for reasons other than control.
What's really horrible, and again what I think feminists and MRAs could work productively on if they'd just trust each other for a bit, is that so many men *rise to the bait!* Which hurts both men and women, women and men. Men and men, and women and women too.
%#!%!#
Thanks!
fl
female modesty forces men to
Submitted by uzza (not verified) on Fri, 2011-04-08 22:29.female modesty forces men to participate as "useful" members of society.
IOW, men have to be forced; IOW, the OP is spot on; and,
and the only way men can force themselves to value women is to attack women?wtf? How about this--women are not sluts, and grownups cannot be controlled by lust.
Exactly! As far as
Submitted by figleaf on Sat, 2011-04-09 00:52.Exactly! As far as traditional society (a.k.a. Patriarchy) is concerned just being sensible about sex would be like deciding dollar bills are just paper or diamonds are just rocks. A catastrophe only because they're all marketed as valuable beyond what they actually *are.* So sex, which is great, and paper, which is great, and diamonds, which is a really useful abrasive, are discounted for their real purposes and fetishised (at least in the old-fashioned "marxist" sense) for their exchange value. "Sluts" therefore are as abhorrent to society as printing money with a laser printer: it "debases the currency."
Much hilarity does not ensue.
Thanks, Uzza.
fl