Sexist Shit that Pisses Me Off (selections)

SlutWalk: What’s the problem?

What exactly is the problem with SlutWalk? The event was reportedly initiated in response to a police officer’s comment about not dressing like a slut if you don’t want to get raped. The underlying assumption is that one’s attire—specific items or style—sends a message. And indeed it does. High heels, fishnet stockings, and a heavily made-up face are considered invitations. So if a woman is wearing ‘fuck me shoes’, she can hardly complain if someone fucks her.

But is that the message the woman is sending? A message that she’s sexually available to everyone? Maybe. Maybe not.1 Frankly, given the ambiguity, and the nature of the outcome in the case of misunderstanding, I wonder why women take the risk.

It’s much like wearing one’s gang colours in the territory of a rival gang. Of course it’s going to be provocative. Is any consequent assault legal? No. Is it deserved? No. Should it have been anticipated? Yes. So unless the intent was to make a point about the wrongness of gangs and violence, a point best made by arranging media presence for the incursion into the other gang’s territory, well, how stupid are you?

Granted, most women who dress in a sexually attractive way don’t go that far (fishnet stockings and heavy make-up), but why go any way at all? Why does a woman dress in a sexually attractive way? Why do women put on high heels, show their legs, wear bras that push up their breasts and tops that expose cleavage, redden their lips, and so on? What does she hope to attract exactly?

My first guess is that she hasn’t thought about it. She dresses in a sexually attractive way because, well, that’s what women in our society are expected to do.2 In which case she’s an idiot. Doesn’t deserve to be raped, but really, she should think about what she does.

My second guess is that she dresses in a sexually attractive way because she wants to attract offers of sex.3But then, she shouldn’t be angry when she receives such offers, either in the form of whistles and call-outs or in more direct ways. That she may respond with anger or offense suggests that she wants to attract only offers she’s likely to accept, offers only from men she’s attracted to. But, men may cry, how’s a man to know? Um, try to make eye contact. If you can’t do that, she’s not interested. If you do make eye contact, smile. If she doesn’t smile back, she’s not interested. Surely that kind of body language isn’t too subtle to grasp.

And yet, many men seem to have such an incapacity for subtlety that if you act like bait, they may simply reach out and grab you. Are they entitled to do that? No. Any unauthorized touching is a violation. Is clothing authorization? Well, sometimes. Consider uniforms.

So it would be far less ambiguous if a woman who wants sex just extended the offers herself. Why take the passive route of inviting offers from likely candidates? Why make men try to figure out whether they’re a likely candidate? Why not just let them know and go from there?

Another problem with SlutWalk is that many people may not have been aware of the police officer’s comment. So what are they to make of the event? What are they to understand is the point? (Prerequisite to deciding whether to support it or not.)

(a) “It’s okay to be a slut!” Given the ‘sluttish’ appearance that many women present during the walk, this understanding is understandable. But whether or not one wants to endorse that message depends on the definition of ‘slut’.4

(b) “We’re proud to be sluts!” Ditto.

(c) “No woman deserves to be raped, regardless of her attire!” This is probably closest to the intended message, but in this case, better to have called it a ‘Walk Against Rape’. Better, further, to advocate changes that would make rape more likely to be reported and rapists more likely to be sentenced commensurate to the injuries they’ve caused. Perhaps better still to advocate a male-only curfew.

Of course, ‘SlutWalk’ is far more provocative, far more attention-getting, than the ho-hum ‘Walk Against Rape’, but I don’t think the organizers considered the difficulty of reclaiming an insulting word. And ‘slut’ is a very difficult insult to reclaim. Harder than ‘bitch’ and ‘nigger’ (sex trumps skin color; better to be a black man than a white woman) and even those reclamation efforts haven’t been very successful. Mostly, success has been limited to conversations among women in the first case and conversations among blacks in the second. SlutWalk is not conducted in the presence of women only. So, really, did the organizers expect people in general to accept (let alone understand) their implied redefinition?

The organizers also didn’t think through the male over-dependence on visual signals. The gawkers and hecklers who typically undermine the event should have been expected. The inability of men to process any verbal messages (even those that are just a few words long) in the presence of so-called ‘fuck me’ heels should be expected.

Consider that even Gwen Jacobs’ action to make it legal for women to be shirtless wasn’t immune to sexualization, despite the clearly non-sexual nature of her action; men (BOOBS!) hooted, men (BOOBS!) called out, and the media, no doubt reflecting a decision made by a man (BOOBS!), or perhaps a thoughtless woman, continues to use the sexualized “topless” instead of “shirtless” when reporting about the issue (BOOBS!). Imagine the response had Jacobs gone shirtless while also wearing short shorts exposing half buttocks. It would have been, to understate, a mixed message.

And that is, essentially, the problem with SlutWalk. High heels, exposed legs, pushed-up breasts, and a made-up faces sends a message that one is sexually available (which is why it’s appalling to me that it has become convention for women to wear heels and make-up in public every day all day) (those who accept that convention accept the view that women should be, or at least should seem to be, sexually available every day all day).5 And if it doesn’t send a message that you’re sexually available, what message does it send? That you’re sexually attractive? Back to what are you hoping to attract?(And why are you trying to attract that when you’re at work, working?)

(d) “Women have a right to tease!” That seems to be the message SlutWalk conveys, given the likelihood that women who present themselves as sexually attractive aren’t actually trying to be sexually attractive to everyone or, at least, aren’t sexually available to everyone. And that’s a message that many women would not endorse. Especially those who know about the provocation defence.6

There’s nothing wrong with extending invitations to sex. Doing so in public in such a non-specific way—that’s the problem. Especially given men’s inability to pick up on subtle cues and/or their refusal to understand the difference between yes and no, let alone yes and maybe. Maybe when men can handle a sexually charged atmosphere without assaulting … Maybe when other men penalize, one way or another, those who can’t handle a sexually charged atmosphere without assaulting …

In the meantime, we’re living in an occupied country, a country occupied by morally-underdeveloped people with power who think women are just walking receptacles for their dicks. So women who make themselves generally available, or present themselves as being generally available, are, simply, putting themselves at great risk (and, yes, in a way, getting what they asked for): some STDs are fatal; others are incurable; most have painful symptoms. And pregnancy has a life-long price tag.7

__________

1 Given that the values and norms are different for men than for women and given that we are neither accustomed nor socialized to giving (or requesting) explicit consent for sex, it’s essential to be clear about the signals of ‘implied consent’. It’s also almost impossible: the signals, ranging from mere presence to attire to a gesture to a look, are ambiguous and variably sent/received—some men assume mere presence in their apartment means ‘yes’, some do not; some women intend a certain outfit to mean ‘yes’, some do not. Even on the few occasions when consent may be given or withheld explicitly, men may understand ‘no’ to mean ‘yes’. And indeed, given the socialization discussed earlier, a woman maymean ‘yes’ when she says ‘no’. As Margaret Jane Radin puts it (in “The Pragmatist and the Feminist”), ‘Just say no’ as the standard for determining whether rape has occurred is both under- and over-inclusive. It is under-inclusive because women who haven’t found their voices mean ‘no’ and are unable to say it; and it is over-inclusive because, like it or not, the way sexuality has been constituted in a culture of male dominance, the male understanding that ‘no’ means ‘yes’ was often, and may still sometimes be, correct.

However, as Susan Estrich points out (in “Rape”), “the ‘no means yes’ philosophy … affords sexual enjoyment to those women who desire it but will not say so — at the cost of violating the integrity of all those women who say ‘no’ and mean it”. This is the minefield when ‘group membership’ is ‘mandatory’ (when females are considered a group — women): if there is no room for individual subjectivity, serious errors will be made.

2 There’s a difference between attractive and sexually attractive. At least, there should be. Perhaps because men dominate art and advertising, the two have been equivocated. (No doubt because everything is sexual for them.) (Which may be to say, everything is about dominance for them.)

3 Maybe part of her smiles to think of herself as a slut. She’s a bad girl, she’s dangerous, she’s taking risks, she’s a wild girl for once in her life. But that’s exactly what they want. Sexual access. No-strings-attached sex. We fell for that in the 60s too. Free love, sure, we’re not prudes, we’re okay with our bodies, we’re okay with sex, we’re ‘with it’. But they never took us seriously. They never considered us part of the movement. Behind our backs, they’d snicker and say the best position for a woman is prone (Stokely Carmichael). (Read your history, learn about our past.)

4 See “What’s Wrong with Being a Slut?”.

5 Of course there’s the possibility that if/when women forego the heels, bared legs, accentuated breasts and butts, and make-up, men will consider a little ankle to be an open invitation. Which just means the issue isn’t attire at all. It’s being female. In a patriarchy. (Which still means SlutWalk is off-target.)

6 See “The Provocation Defence”.

7 I hear the objections already: ‘No, wearing high heels and make-up doesn’t mean I’m sexually available! That’s the point!’ (And around and around we go.) Then why do you wear high heels and make-up? Seriously, think about it: high heels make the leg more shapely, attracting the male gaze, which follows your legs up … ; make-up makes your face younger, hence more sexually attractive; lipstick attracts the male gaze to your lips, your mouth … If you just want to be attractive, then what you do to your body wouldn’t be sexualized: you’d wear funky gold glittered hiking boots, you’d paint an iridescent rainbow across your face, you’d do a hundred other aesthetically interesting things …

***

The Futility of Teaching Business Ethics

or Why Our World Will End

There are a few reasons why teaching ethics to business students is an exercise in futility.

1. The profit motive trumps everything. As long as this is the case, there’s no point in teaching students the intricacies of determining right and wrong. Whether something is morally acceptable or not is simply irrelevant to them. It might come into play when two options yield the same profit, but how often does that happen? And even so, other concerns are likely to be tie-breakers.

But is this the case? Doesthe profit motive trump everything? Yes, according to their economics, marketing, and even human resources professors: profit is the bottom line. It’s primary. It’s the raison d’être of business. Good thing. Because business students enrol in business because they want to make a lot of money. I have yet to meet someone who’s enrolled in business to make the world a better place. (Wait a minute. Don’t shareholders matter? Doesn’t what they want trump everything? In theory, yes. In practice, no. Most don’t cast their vote. And anyway most shareholders also want to make a lot of money. As much as possible, in fact. I have yet to meet someone who becomes a shareholder, who invests, to make the world a better place.)

2. Ethics is for girls. (Apparently.) And business is dominated by boys. It’s mom who teaches us right from wrong; she’s the moral compass. And anything mom does is to be held in contempt as soon as a boy hits twelve. In order to become a man, it’s necessary. To hold in contempt all things female. Ethics presumes caring, and real men don’t care. (Qualification: they don’t care about others. They care about profit, their own place in the scheme of things, and because their sons are extensions of themselves, they care about them, theirplace in the scheme of things, but caring about strangers? Strangers are other; the other is the competition.) Ethics is something for priests to worry about and we all know priests aren’t real men. They’re celibate for god’s sake. So, men avoid ethics—it’s effeminate to be concerned about right and wrong.

3. Ethics is a grey area. It’s complicated. There are often no clear-cut answers. Ironically, there’s seldom a right and wrong answer to questions of right and wrong. Men prefer black and white. They gravitate toward the quantitative, the ill-(but sexually aptly-)named ‘hard sciences’ of engineering and chemistry, rather than the ‘soft sciences’ of psychology and sociology. They say such fields are not as legitimate, but really they’re just harder to navigate because the reasoning and the evidence are ‘stronger’ and ‘weaker’ rather than ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. (Which is why, when men do get involved with ethics, they prefer moral legalism, the approach that equates right and wrong with legal and illegal, which is black and white.)

So actually, there’s just one reason why teaching business ethics to business students is an exercise in futility: business is dominated by men (point 2), and the masculist mode is quantitative (points 1 and 3). This explains, or is supported by, their obsession with size. Girth which in a woman would be considered disgusting is carried by men as if it increases their legitimacy, their authority: they thrust out their gut just as they thrust out their chest. It brings to mind animals that inflate themselves to achieve greater size (the balloonfish can actually double its size). Simply put, for men, the bigger, the better. I think this is because the male mind is more primitive, and at a very primitive level, the contest for survival is won by the bigger animal. (Actually, that’s not true even at that level: small creatures with toxic stings and the capacity to remain hidden often survive. But unfortunately, men have evolved enough to create a system in which it is true.) (And anyway, even as they don’t win, they’ll take the rest of us down.)

***

The APA is so Fucked Up

Why Are Some People Transgender? an APA pamphlet asks.1

Their answer? “Many experts believe that biological factors such as genetic influences and prenatal hormone levels, early experiences, and experiences later in adolescence or adulthood may all contribute to the development of transgender identities.”

Um, no. People are transgender because they are intelligent and thoughtful enough to realize that gendered behaviours are typically constraining and that feminine behaviours in particular are subordinating. And so, they reject them; they refuse to conform to the gender expectations aligned to their sex.

How Does Someone Know They Are Transgender? the pamphlet then asks.

Their answer? “They may have vague feelings of “not fitting in” with people of their assigned sex or specific wishes to be something other than their assigned sex. Others become aware of their transgender identities or begin to explore and experience gender-nonconforming attitudes and behaviors during adolescence or much later in life.”

Again, no. I know I’m a writer because when I write, I actually realize that that’s what I’m doing when I do it. Similarly, when I refuse to wear make-up and high heels, I know I’m doing it. I’m that aware. And I know it’s transgressive. I’m also that aware. I know what the gender expectations are in our society, so I know when I’m refusing to meet them. That’s how I know I’m transgender.

One doesn’t “become aware” of one’s gender identity. One creates it. One chooses it. Unlike sex,2sexual orientation, height, skin colour, eye colour … gender is not a biological given. It’s an arbitrary collection of preferences that our culture says should you should adopt: the so-called feminine collection is supposed to be adopted by female people, and the so-called masculine collection is supposed to be adopted by male people. Do you always do what you’re supposed to do?

__________

1 “What Does It Mean to Be Transgender?” from “Answers to Your Questions About Transgender People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression” American Psychological Association 2011. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/transgender

2 Which is why it’s particularly disturbing that professional psychologists believe that “Sex is assigned at birth …” No, sex is recognized at birth (or before, if a conclusive ultrasound is obtained). Typically by external genitalia.

***

“And son? Take care of your mom while I’m gone.”

Excuse me? I don’t need a child to take care of me. I know, he might reply, I’m just trying to — trying to what? Teach him to be a man? Teach him that grown women need looking after? And that he, as the one with the penis, is just the person to do it?

For six months while we’re pregnant — if we get pregnant — we’re vulnerable, yeah. And while we have kids, okay, yeah, if we’re attacked, one of us should protect, hide, get the kids to safety. We could both fight, but the kids need one of us alive. Though of course who does what need not be determined by sex. If I’m closer to the gun and you’re closer to the kids — be reasonable! But otherwise — that is, for the other 594 months of our lives …

So whatever it is you think you’re trying to teach the boy, it’s at my expense. He grows up to think — hell, already at thirteen, he thinks he’s more capable, more competent than me. Than a thirty-five-year-old — woman. And since everything tells him to, he generalizes: he comes to think he’s more capable, more competent, than allwomen. And the patriarchy lives on.

It’s interesting that when there are two boys in the family, it’s the older one who’s told “Look after your mom and your sisters and your younger brother.” Then, age is the critical factor. But when there are boys and girls, sex trumps age.

Which is why I love Sarah Connor (Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles). Even when her son is sixteen, she’sthe one protecting, looking after, him. And why not? She’s twice his age. And he’s no less ‘a man’ for it — John still manages to be capable, competent, interesting, sexy-in-progress. True, they’ve added the ‘He’s more important, she’s more dispensable’ factor, perhaps because without that, male viewers would consider John emasculated by her protection. But still.

(“Tell me again why are the boys in here and the girls are in there?” “’Cause one of the boys is still wanted for murder and one of the girls is harder than nuclear nails.” “And the other one’s a cyborg.”)

***

(free download of the complete collection at pegtittle.com)