So what is the global slutwalk temper tantrum really about? One respected man judged women in a minor gathering. Note that the officer who made the comments isn’t high ranking; when the feminists howled he was reprimanded and forced to attend “further training”. He didn’t even judge them in an overt way. The context of his statement acknowledged that there was such a thing as a slut, and that it isn’t a good thing to be one.There are too many good points to comment on and I don't have time to read the interesting discussion and post my own points (160+ comments right now), so I suggest you do.
I have been trying to come up with good signs that could throw these ideas back at the sluts in a way that can't be objected to, but is still counter to their goals enough to raise some eyebrows. I could never be in an anti-slut-march (I'd probably loose my job), but it would be fun to imagine a group of young men, standing in mock support chanting and holding signs and see how the slut marchers react. In the spirit of the Yale Chanters, but trying to be less juvenile, more politically accurate.
"We Love [Insert City] Sluts"
[There is no way that this could be construed as offensive: You call yourselves sluts, we love you.]
One Step Further:
"We Love Sluts, But We Marry Ladies."
This one could be a discussion point - which is more sends a stronger message? Which would be seen as more offensive to feminists?
1: "No Means No. Yes Means Slut."
2: "No Means No. Slut Means Yes."
I think #2 is more offensive since it implies the very thing the sluts are saying i.e. sluttiness is inviting rape so I couldn't carry such a sign. #1 again, cannot be argued against, because "Sluttiness" is supposedly a positive, strong, trait.
No comments:
Post a Comment