Anonymong

Just in case people had forgotten I thought I’d just remind you that the London Slut walk is tomorrow. For organisational reasons it’s the week after most of the others, which is rather handy as some of the press has already reacted and that means we can look at what they said about the other walks, and gasp in amazement as the point goes way over their heads. Just for a change we can find some idiocy over Comment is Free.

After wittering on about various misinterpretations of the what the Slut Walk is about Deborah Orr finally does admit that:

“Canadian policeman Michael Sanguinetti’s SlutWalk-inspiring advice that: “Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised.” No one should be saying any of this.”

But then just a handful of lines later back tracks to what looks very much like a “dress that way and you’re asking for it” cunningly disguised as the analogy of leaving your door unlocked being an invitation to burglars. This of course rather neglects the fact that when burglars are having their wrists slapped the fact that a door may have been unlocked isn’t normally used in court as a mitigating factor:
“Your Honour whilst my client did enter the house and steal numerous items, the occupant had left their door open so clearly had no respect for their property and were asking for it all to be taken”

Equally worrying in an article that is discussing protests against attitudes to rape and assault is this rather nasty metaphor:

“Uniforms, for example, are an explicit signal. If I were to don an orange fleece and stand in Sainsbury’s, I wouldn’t be surprised if people asked me where to find the hankies.”
…
“Ah, glamour models. What is difficult is that it is women who tend to do sex work, and sex workers have adopted clothing styles designed to signal this very specific type of availability. When women wear similar clothing in a private and personal capacity, it pains them when it is presumed to be a sex-work signal, or at least a reference to a sex-work signal.”

Except of course the walk isn’t about women being asked if they fancy a shag (the equivalent of being asked for hankies), it’s about women being assaulted. So unless I’m very much misreading things Ms Orr seems to be suggesting that assaulting Sex workers is fine, as they’re advertising they want to be assaulted. Otherwise surely here example should have been:
“If I were to don an orange fleece and stand in Sainsbury’s, I wouldn’t be surprised if people held me at knife point and demanded the daily takings”

As seems to be the common problem for the “don’t dress like a slut” camp, Ms Orr doesn’t seem to be able to grasp that even if we accept* her argument that dressing a certain way is to be “thought of as sexually available”, doesn’t remove the rather important matter of consent. Nor does it make for any sort of mitigating factor for the criminals who Ms Orr seems keen to excuse. Would the fact that your wore a Rangers shirt in a Celtic area be presented in court as a mitigating factor for your being beaten up? I’d suggest to Ms Orr that most women are aware of the risks they may or may not be taken and have made an informed decision as to how to dress dependent on where they going. But what isn’t acceptable, and what the walk is (I believe) about is that if that risk assessment goes wrong they should not get blamed for causing/encouraging the attackers behaviour, and the attacker get a lighter sentence on the grounds of their victims attire.
“Well you honour obviously if they hadn’t looked so Asian/Gay/Goth/Slutty/Jewish…”

What is so difficult to grasp about this terribly simple concept, that “the victim isn’t to blame for the attackers” behaviour is an utter mystery to me. But as it seems to cause problems of understanding for some people, there remains a need for demonstrations like tomorrows walk.

See you there?

* Which I don’t but that’s a different debate

Bookmark to: