Bachmann on Piers Morgan

[A'isha]

What part of "We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality" do you not understand?

I understand that you (and Rush) are doing exactly what they're fighting against.

Do you honestly think that the Slut Walk activists think that there's anything wrong with being a slut?

Do you think there's anything wrong with being a slut?

See my (edited) post above.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In other words, the victims of sexual assault should not be blamed for their own sexual behavior. Which is... another way of saying that there's nothing wrong with being a slut.

Do you honestly think that the Slut Walk activists think that there's anything wrong with being a slut? Do you think there's anything wrong with being a slut?

You're mischaracterizing what Slut Walk was about. It wasn't about the freedom to be a slut. It was a reaction against the statement that for women to be safe from rape, they should avoid dressing like a slut. They were specifically addressing the right to dress anyway they want without their attire being used to excuse or rationalize attacks.

In doing so, they may have tried to reappropriate the term "slut" but it certainly doesn't follow that the term could therefore never again be used as an insult.

Again, I challenge your assertion that the word slut must always be an insult or always not be an insult.

 

[Ziggurat]

Both the SlutWalk activists and I don't think that just because a woman has sex on her own terms more times than you deem appropriate for a young lady of upstanding morals (or even if you just assume that's what she's doing because of the way she's dressed), then whatever you do to her doesn't count as sexual assault, regardless of what she might say or do at the time, because hey, that's just the consequence of her sexual behavior.

I've never said anything in this thread about what kind of sexual conduct I deem appropriate or inappropriate, let alone sexually assaulted anyone.

And this response doesn't actually answer my question.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're mischaracterizing what Slut Walk was about. It wasn't about the freedom to be a slut. It was a reaction against the statement that for women to be safe from rape, they should avoid dressing like a slut. They were specifically addressing the right to dress anyway they want without their attire being used to excuse or rationalize attacks.

The statement which triggered the response was about attire. But the protests themselves were clearly about more than attire, and included behavior (including prostitution, in case you didn't notice), as the quote I gave above indicated.

In doing so, they may have tried to reappropriate the term "slut" but it certainly doesn't follow that the term could therefore never again be used as an insult.

Again, I challenge your assertion that the word slut must always be an insult or always not be an insult.

If they're trying to reappropriate it into something which is sometimes an insult and sometimes not an insult, when is it going to remain an insult and when will it no longer be an insult? I'd really love to know how you're going to work that one out.

 

[A'isha]

I've never said anything in this thread about what kind of sexual conduct I deem appropriate or inappropriate, let alone sexually assaulted anyone.

Then, please, tell me what you were trying to say when you said the following:

In other words, the victims of sexual assault should not be blamed for their own sexual behavior. Which is... another way of saying that there's nothing wrong with being a slut.

Because that was definitely in this thread.

And this response doesn't actually answer my question.

It does, actually. The SlutWalk protests weren't started just out of a general desire to be proud of being called a slut, but as a specific response to the kind of attitude expressed by a representative of the Toronto Police (as well as by you, as I quoted just above in this post).

 

[Ziggurat]

I understand that you (and Rush) are doing exactly what they're fighting against.

I am doing nothing of the sort. I have not called anyone a slut. I haven't even suggested that being a slut is a bad thing. The only personal attack going on in this thread is you against me. But it's strange that you still refuse to answer such a basic question: do you or do you not think it's a bad thing to be a slut? I'm really not sure where your reticence to respond to that comes from.

 

[A'isha]

The statement which triggered the response was about attire. But the protests themselves were clearly about more than attire, and included behavior (including prostitution, in case you didn't notice), as the quote I gave above indicated.

Yes. Their attitude is that sexual assault is sexual assault, and "oh, she was asking for it by the way she acted/dressed/whatever" is not an excuse for, y'know, raping someone, and the victim is in no way to blame for being ******* raped.

If they're trying to reappropriate it into something which is sometimes an insult and sometimes not an insult, when is it going to remain an insult and when will it no longer be an insult? I'd really love to know how you're going to work that one out.

Not only do they tell you when, I already quoted it in this thread.

"[W]hether dished out as a serious indictment of one's character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so we're taking it back."

If you say it as a serious indictment of one's character, or merely as a flippant insult, with the intent to wound (as Rush Limbaugh did), then it's an insult.

If you don't say it as a serious indictment of one's character, or merely as a flippant insult, with the intent to wound, then it's not an insult.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then, please, tell me what you were trying to say when you said the following:

I'm trying to state what I think Slut Walk's position is. I never said I disagreed with them about it.

It does, actually. The SlutWalk protests weren't started just out of a general desire to be proud of being called a slut, but as a specific response to the kind of attitude expressed by a representative of the Toronto Police (as well as by you, as I quoted just above in this post).

You are completely wrong. I have not called anyone a slut, I have not characterized anyone as a slut, I have not passed judgment on whether or not being a slut is bad. Hell, aside from prostitution, I haven't even touched on what the word even means (and the Slut Walk people made that inclusion themselves). Nothing about my posts even resemble what Rush or the Toronto police said.

And no, that does not answer my question. My question is a simple yes or no answer. You can elaborate on that yes or no all you want, but until you provide a yes or a no, you have not answered it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. Their attitude is that sexual assault is sexual assault, and "oh, she was asking for it by the way she acted/dressed/whatever" is not an excuse for, y'know, raping someone, and the victim is in no way to blame for being ******* raped.

I agree with that completely. But their strategy for addressing that problem goes a step beyond that statement, and includes this next bit that you quote:

Not only do they tell you when, I already quoted it in this thread.

"[W]hether dished out as a serious indictment of one's character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so we're taking it back."

That's a characterization of the current situation. But they want to change it, which means that this is NOT the situation they intend to create. So what situation do they intend to create? Joe said that the end state will retain "slut" as an insult sometimes. I'm asking when. If that's your answer, then nothing will have changed and their mission will have failed.

 

[A'isha]

Because assigning moral judgments to a woman's sexual behavior (as exemplified by the use of "slut" as a slur) is the problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because assigning moral judgments to a woman's sexual behavior (as exemplified by the use of "slut" as a slur) is the problem.

And Slut Walk wants to change that by making the term "slut" not a slur anymore. That's their reappropriation. How does this contradict what I've been saying? Because I don't see that it does.

 

[A'isha]

And Slut Walk wants to change that by making the term "slut" not a slur anymore. That's their reappropriation. How does this contradict what I've been saying? Because I don't see that it does.

And so the thread laps itself.

Because Rush used the word as a slur, the very usage they're fighting against. That's why Rush calling Fluke a slut not only doesn't help their efforts to reclaim the word, it actively hurts their efforts, since he's perpetuating the very thing they're trying to stamp out - the usage of the term "slut" as a demeaning insult.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because Rush used the word as a slur, the very usage they're fighting against.

They claim that they don't want it to be a slur.

Well, when you take offense, that makes it a slur. It's not a slur if nobody cares.

That's why Rush calling Fluke a slut not only doesn't help their efforts to reclaim the word, it actively hurts their efforts, since he's perpetuating the very thing they're trying to stamp out - the usage of the term "slut" as a demeaning insult.

If they don't make the word itself not insulting, then when, precisely, do you think it's going to be used as something other than an insult?

No, don't tell me, I think I understand. What they want to do isn't to reappropriate the word and change its definition from one that insults to one that doesn't. No, what they want to do is wall off the word, make it taboo for anyone without the right credentials to use. Which isn't really reappropriation, but something different: a sort of Balkanization of language. Which is what currently exists with the n-word: certain people are given a pass to using it, others cannot. But the word has lost none of its venom. If this is the approach they take, "slut" will lose none of its venom either, even if they can scare public figures away from uttering it publicly even while they parade it themselves.

 

[A'isha]

They claim that they don't want it to be a slur.

Well, when you take offense, that makes it a slur. It's not a slur if nobody cares.

No, the problem isn't that they "take offense" at the use of the word slut. The problem is, as has already been quoted multiple times, the intention behind the use of the word as a slur, especially how it affects the response to sexual violence against women. Look, I'll even do it again:

"We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality."

"Whether dished out as a serious indictment of one's character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound."

"Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work."

The whole point behind trying to "reclaim" the word slut is that the word itself isn't the problem, but the attitude it represents and that is behind its use as a slur, especially among the group that's supposed to be investigating and prosecuting sexual assaults. And by changing the way the word is used, they hope to change that overall attitude, which is their ultimate goal.

Because if any woman goes to the police to report a rape, and gets a response like "Well, look at the way you're dressed!", "What were you doing in that club in the first place"?, "You're on the Pill, obviously you expected this to happen," or even "I saw you with five different guys over the last five nights!", then even if the s-word never passes anyone's lips, SlutWalk has not achieved their goal.

Do you understand, Ziggurat?

If they don't make the word itself not insulting, then when, precisely, do you think it's going to be used as something other than an insult?

When people, especially law enforcement officers, stop judging women based on what they do with their own sexuality, as typified by the use of the word "slut" to insult and demean women who are deemed to be too sexually promiscuous.

No, don't tell me, I think I understand. What they want to do isn't to reappropriate the word and change its definition from one that insults to one that doesn't. No, what they want to do is wall off the word, make it taboo for anyone without the right credentials to use. Which isn't really reappropriation, but something different: a sort of Balkanization of language. Which is what currently exists with the n-word: certain people are given a pass to using it, others cannot. But the word has lost none of its venom. If this is the approach they take, "slut" will lose none of its venom either, even if they can scare public figures away from uttering it publicly even while they parade it themselves.

What does SlutWalk really want to do?

http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/about/how

Our plan was to call foul on the comment made by a representative of our Toronto Police and speak to the bigger picture of common, persistent and documented victim-blaming within Police Services, the justice system and social spheres around us. We planned to demand accountability, not apologies. We wanted to make sure that the issue was kept fresh in people’s minds, which is why we aimed at April 3rd for the Walk date.

Leading up to our rally, we had contacted Toronto Police Services asking for public accountability and a commitment to do better. We asked for the Toronto Chief of Police, Bill Blair, to respond to us. He never did. In some communication with the Toronto Police we sent the following 3 requests (before our SlutWalk on April 3rd, 2011), but sadly they didn’t respond to a single one of them.

1. Restructure police training and education (training for staff and outreach education for community) within the next 2 years to include non-discriminatory language, increased understanding of experiences of marginalization and oppression, and practices and protocols that support victims and survivors of sexual assault.

- include education about blaming ideas and actions and how to not engage in victim-blaming and slut-shaming for both police and outreach communities
- enforce respectful and non-discriminatory training environments where oppressive jokes, ideas and behaviours are challenged.

2. Using existing third party reviews and recommendations of police training/education for police,

- create a feasible timeline for recommendations to be put into place
- have a third party organization monitor and manage the implementation of these recommendations in a timely fashion.
Partner with third party agencies/initiatives in the next 12 months and have them come in and evaluate current police training & education and outreach programs and work toward offering recommendations for these to be improved where necessary.

- similar to the work Jane Doe, Beverly Bain and the Sexual Assault Steering Committee did in 2006
- support transparency with recommendations that may be offered and with efforts that will be taken towards implementing constructive changes towards better non-discriminatory training and education of officers.

3. Increased outreach and educational programs for the public in the next 2 years around sexual assault and informed consent, focusing on ‘rape myths’ and stereotypes (around perceived understandings of how assault/rape happens).

- develop a Toronto Police PSA campaign against victim-blaming and supporting the survivors of sexual assault in accessing protective services
- increased outreach programs in high schools and on university and college campuses around problematic blaming ideas and language, how to get consent, and what constitutes sexual assault (for example, consent cannot be given under the influence)
- utilizing existing initiatives and programs, incorporating and tailoring their materials towards the community/group in question, e.g. The White Ribbon Campaign for groups geared toward men.

http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/about/why

We are a movement demanding that our voices be heard. We are here to call foul on our Police Force and demand change. We want Toronto Police Services to take serious steps to regain our trust. We want to feel that we will be respected and protected should we ever need them, but more importantly be certain that those charged with our safety have a true understanding of what it is to be a survivor of sexual assault — slut or otherwise.

We are tired of speeches filled with lip service and the apologies that accompany them. What we want is meaningful dialogue and we are doing something about it: WE ARE COMING TOGETHER. Not only as women, but as people from all gender expressions and orientations, all walks of life, levels of employment and education, all races, ages, abilities, and backgrounds, from all points of this city and elsewhere.

We are asking you to join us for SlutWalk, to make a unified statement about sexual assault and victims’ rights and to demand respect for all. Whether a fellow slut or simply an ally, you don’t have to wear your sexual proclivities on your sleeve, we just ask that you come. Any gender-identification, any age. Singles, couples, parents, sisters, brothers, children, friends.

Or, in other words,

 

[Ziggurat]

When people, especially law enforcement officers, stop judging women based on what they do with their own sexuality, as typified by the use of the word "slut" to insult and demean women who are deemed to be too sexually promiscuous.

Sounds a lot like they want people to accept that it's OK to be a slut. And hey, I'm not saying it isn't. They certainly aren't trying to stop people from using the word, and they use it themselves to characterize some of their members in the very passage you quote. And they are explicitly calling for tolerance of promiscuous sexual behavior. So how can the word continue to be used if it isn't to be used insultingly? I'm afraid that the only logical answer is for the word to stop being an insult.

But it's strange that you still won't actually say whether you think it's a bad thing to be a slut. It's a simple yes or no question. Why the avoidance?

 

[A'isha]

But it's strange that you still won't actually say whether you think it's a bad thing to be a slut. It's a simple yes or no question. Why the avoidance?

Why do you care so much? Why is that even relevant?

EDIT: Okay, fine.

A. Yes, I think it's a bad thing to be a slut. Engaging in promiscuous sexual behavior is not only dangerous, it shows a distinct lack of self-respect. I'd never do such a thing, and even if I did I doubt I'd ever want to call myself a slut. SlutWalk's efforts notwithstanding, there's just way too much baggage attached to that word to ever make me feel comfortable with it. However, I also think that using the word "slut" as a slur to demean and insult women, as Rush Limbaugh did, is completely unacceptable, and I am fully behind SlutWalk's efforts to eradicate the sentiment behind the use of that slur, as well as their efforts to ensure that the victims of sexual violence, regardless of whether they or anyone else thinks they're "sluts", are not blamed for what happened to them.

B. No, I think there's nothing wrong whatsoever with being a slut. In the words of Tata Young, "people think it's intimidating when a girl is cool with her sexuality", and if you have a problem with it, that's your problem, not mine, and you should just shut up and deal. I also have no problem with anyone wanting to call themselves a slut for whatever reason - why should I care how people want to refer to themselves? However, I also think that using the word "slut" as a slur to demean and insult women, as Rush Limbaugh did, is completely unacceptable, and I am fully behind SlutWalk's efforts to eradicate the sentiment behind the use of that slur, as well as their efforts to ensure that the victims of sexual violence, regardless of whether they or anyone else thinks they're "sluts", are not blamed for what happened to them.


Pick the answer you like best, A or B. I don't care which. Then we can proceed with the conversation from there.

 

[johnny karate]

Note that you needed to call a thing gay in order for it to be an insult. It is no longer much of an insult when used for a person. Reappropriation worked.

Yes, reappropriation worked. But despite how badly you want it to be, it's not an absolute. Your goal-post shift aside, the term "gay" can still be used derogatorily based oncontext.

I think that their explicit position is that there is nothing wrong with being an actual slut with loose sexual morals.

There explicit position is that they shouldn't be victimized based on someone else's standard of loose sexual morals.

Yes, they are.
"We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result. Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work."

They're saying that there's nothing wrong with actually being a slut, and they're saying that pretty damned explicitly.

No, they are not saying that. At all. Their statement is about opposition to violence, not a celebration of sexual behavior.

Do you agree or disagree with them?

Yes, I agree with their position, which is that no woman deserves to be raped regardless of her sexual behavior.

Where do you come down on that issue?

In other words, the victims of sexual assault should not be blamed for their own sexual behavior. Which is... another way of saying that there's nothing wrong with being a slut.

Actually, disregard that last question. It seems I have my answer.

By the way, the 1950s called. They want their attitude towards female sexuality back.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why do you care so much? Why is that even relevant?

Because it has direct bearing on my argument about what position one should take depending on their beliefs.

EDIT: Okay, fine.

Clearly it's not fine. You haven't provided an answer. You've provided two mutually contradictory answers, and I have no way of knowing which is the truth.

Pick the answer you like best, A or B. I don't care which.

I don't care which either, so long as you're honest. One can act consistently with either answer. But not with both. That is my point. It's not my place to pick for you. If you insist on never telling me, well, I can't force you to. I can only note that it's odd that you won't say, and wonder why.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, reappropriation worked. But despite how badly you want it to be, it's not an absolute. Your goal-post shift aside, the term "gay" can still be used derogatorily based oncontext.

And the only context presented here where it's still derogatory is for things. Not people. Is that the desired end state for "slut"? That it will be insulting for things but not people? Or do you have something else in mind? Because I don't know what you intend.

There explicit position is that they shouldn't be victimized based on someone else's standard of loose sexual morals.

Does that mean that people should be victimized based on their own standard of loose sexual morals? Does it mean that people shouldn't have sexual morals? Your explanation doesn't actually explain.

No, they are not saying that. At all. Their statement is about opposition to violence, not a celebration of sexual behavior.

I never said anything about celebrating sexual behavior.

Yes, I agree with their position, which is that no woman deserves to be raped regardless of her sexual behavior.

Where do you come down on that issue?

I agree with that part of their position. But that is not the full extent of their position, and in particular that position does not dictate the particular tactics they have adopted. No, that choice comes from something more than this statement.

By the way, the 1950s called. They want their attitude towards female sexuality back.

Strange, but I haven't actually expressed an attitude towards female sexuality. But you've been too busy constructing straw men to notice.

 

[A'isha]

Because it has direct bearing on my argument about what position one should take depending on their beliefs.

How would your argument be different for the two answers I gave you? Why would it be different, depending on whether I believe one thing, or another thing?

Or, more bluntly, what possible bearing does my belief about whether being a slut is good or bad have on a) the unacceptability of Rush's statements about Sandra Fluke, b) SlutWalk's efforts to "take back" the word slut, and c) SlutWalk's efforts to ensure "that those charged with our safety have a true understanding of what it is to be a survivor of sexual assault — slut or otherwise"?

I don't care which either, so long as you're honest. One can act consistently with either answer. But not with both. That is my point. It's not my place to pick for you. If you insist on never telling me, well, I can't force you to. I can only note that it's odd that you won't say, and wonder why.

I don't like being pressed to answer irrelevant questions.