A SlutWalk protest in Toronto. Photo by Anton Bielousov [CC-BY-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons
Alexander Suarez/Staff Writer
Reactionary movements are often in danger of missing the mark. In responding so adamantly, the founders and followers tend to lack careful thinking as to what problems they themselves might create.
On April 3, many students joined together at the University to partake in the popular movement that has been spreading throughout many states: SlutWalk.
Many participants, including the founders, consider these walks to be socially significant events in terms of bringing attention to what is known as “victim-blaming” in sexual assault cases. For example, in a 2011 gang rape case in Cleveland, Texas, the defense attorney blamed the victim for being seductive, like the spider is to the fly.
At first, the SlutWalk’s intentions don’t seem like a harmful thing at all.
The SlutWalk movement carries its desired goal by having the people march around a certain location bearing the name “slut.” The purpose in doing this is to communicate that just because someone dresses provocatively, this does not give another person the permission to sexually assault them. If someone wishes to have sexual relations with a woman, this person must receive consent from her before advancing. No excuses!
Certainly, I think SlutWalk does a fair job in communicating this message to its observers as well as their positive intentions. They also undoubtedly succeed in drawing attention to the cause. However, I have come to wonder who exactly the SlutWalk movement is trying to persuade.
Some might suggest that public officials, who may have an affinity to blame rape victims, are the ones the movement is meant to persuade and not the rapists themselves. Nevertheless, I think for the most part, what the officials will be persuaded about is to be careful with the language that they use.
The reason being, I think, is that the SlutWalk is communicating another message in their method. That is, that women should be able to wear anything they want whenever and wherever they want, no matter how promiscuous they might look. And even though she may be dressed in her panties and bra, a woman is not to be blamed, should it happen.
I agree that such a woman should not be raped nor deserves to be raped, as no one does. But just because I agree that the rapist is a criminal and should be punished by the law, I must say that this sort of reactionary thinking about women has some serious flaws. It can potentially lead women to think that they hold no responsibility at all in protecting themselves against criminals as well as potential criminals.
For example, you can be warned not to go walking late at night in a back alley somewhere because you might get robbed, but you still do it and get robbed. Did you deserve to get robbed? Of course not, but you could have possibly prevented it, although not for certain.
To say that a woman who dresses very provocatively doesn’t in some way put herself more at risk to some sick man who intends to assault her is to deny the real dangers of the world we live in and the dark conditions of the human heart. Not only that, but it denies the fact that some women’s clothing are explicitly intended to make them look more physically attractive and, ultimately, sexually attractive.
Remember, I am not saying that a woman should be raped. Instead, I am pointing out that there are sick men waiting to pounce on the first woman that catches their attention. It is not a matter of should or shouldn’t but what sadly is.
Rape should not be performed; it is without a doubt immoral. However, rape still happens, and that is what the SlutWalk movement fails to adequately address.
alex.suarez@fiusm.com
Sources:
1. “Students gather to walk for a cause,” via FIUSM.com
2. “Defense Attorney Blames 11-Year-Old Rape Victim Because That’s His Job,” via Slate
About Post Author
