This is a blog for the community of Sociology 98/198, "Violence, Violation, and Vulnerability: From Visible to Invisible," in the Department of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, Spring 2010.
Wow! Thank you Aaron, for posting this great flick. I think this is the new chick flick, documentaries covering protests of pro-women's sexuality. For chicks with all kinds of actual bodies, all ages, all races. I see this protest as claiming new "teritory" back from the male gendered state and into the hands of empowered people.
At the begging of this piece, the slutty-dressing twosome, both carrying signs, while dancing, and whirling, people named Sierra Harris and Maggie Ivicyckle, (not sure what Maggie's, or how to spell hir last name?) -people announce that they are "proud to be sluts" and this demonstration are showing what it means to define for ourselves, what is our territory. When Brown says that the male gendered state "entails both a general claim to territory" and to "describe and run the territory", the territory is exactly women's bodies, and style mode and choice of dress, or else risk state sanctified violence by rape.
These 2,000 protesting people are claiming the right of women to be safe in their bodies, even if they are dressing in a manner perceived and "described" by the police officer targeted here as "inciting" rape. By reclaiming the concept of "slut" these people are doing what Wendy Brown calls for in her piece, "Finding the Man in the State", they are seizing a point of view for themselves, and not allowing the "point of viewlessness" that Brown says is the place of women within the male gendered state.
These two women and everyone in this slutty march here in Toronto are exactly undoing what Brown calls "the masculinism of the state" as it "refers to those features of the state that signify, enact, sustain, and represent masculine power as a form of dominance." The police officer who asserted this dominance when he said, "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." They are not waiting for the state to condescend to allow them where and how certain pro-sexual attire may be worn, if one expects to not be violated. Here, these women are asserting their bodies to be their territory, and that territory could be located anywhere their bodies go. In the past, one such place that a person who may be known as a "man" may go and see people known as "women" in slutty attire was commonly known as a brothel or a peep show, and so forth. Here, on the streets of Toronto, people of all sexual persuasions and identities and with all kinds of embodiment, demand that type/style of dress is not an excuse for rape but a free choice that must be free to be without the condescension of men in the state to give permission to or not. I think the close ups on the women's breasts was a great way to eradicate the male-type-of-homologies that are usually displayed in the porn-flicks, and other compartments of the state that are masculine approved. Here breasts and how to dress them, have become a new thought, in the commons. It is possibly a revolutionary thought, and not just a typical discussion about favorite dishes, that is, recipes discussed by nice folks, and not just those in bridge clubs, or bars, or other casual gatherings where people talking about favorite cooking methods.
I found that dress slutty and rape are not related. According to Women's Centre for Change Penang.
Myth: Girls who wear sexy clothes or flirt with men provoke rape.
Reality: Rapists choose their victims for their vulnerability and accessibility, without regard to physical appearance or behavior. The only person to blame for rape is the rapist. Children, elderly women, and women who dress modestly or who are in tudung (wearing head scarves) have been raped. Rape is not related to the way a girl dresses or the way she acts. This is a myth that excuses the rapist’s behavior by blaming the victim. Assuming that women provoke attacks by their dress or behavior is victim-blaming. No person, regardless of his or her behaviour, ‘deserves’ to be raped.
Elise, excellent discussion of politics of the body. Your insight in viewing the body as territory is amazing. Brilliant.
Jinna, great work incorporating the quote from the Women's Centre for Change. How would you link this quotation to the Toronto police officer's comment that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized"? What is the relationship between the state and the myth you cite?
I will be the devil's advocate in this thread (in other words, the conservative eunuch!) but it occurs to be that as justified as the response was to what the officer said, and as worthy as it is to claim (or for some women, re-claim) our bodies as territories (kudos Elise), I cannot help but wonder how far Judith Butler would have gone if she had started off her career dressed in see-through tights and a thong. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm not even defending the societal norms in place as righteous, but it goes without saying that we are all dressed in "uniforms" the moment we step out of our house, that for us to be public animals we enter a symbolic agreement with all others.
To defend my body's sovereignty, my right not to be attacked, comes coupled with my obligation to make sure that I do not get attacked. This latter part of the equation is entirely left out of the womens' response in Toronto, and I find it inexcusable on their behalf.
In my mind, it is equivalent to marching for the right to sit on a public toilet seat without running the risk of contracting a disease. Sure I have the right to do so, but am I not also aware of the fact that I could actually get an infection?
One last thing. If we are serious about engaging in a conversation about the masculinity of the State, of the Society, of Culture and all forms of systemic male-dominance, then, it is important to also realize that from the point of view of the dominating industries, i.e. education, media and religion, all points of view concerning the female body and womanhood are produced by men and the right to sluttiness is not a deviation from the norm but a re-affirmation of how we are taught we should see our bodies and use them for.
There are certain apparels --or lack of-- that contain strong political connotations: the burqa, traditional costumes, even nudity. There is nothing political in sluttiness as there is nothing political in our choices of contemporary, western fashion. Even though we dress in order to make a statement about our class, our sexuality, our cultural background etc, we are all, in essence, aimless fashionistas and nothing more other than that. We create an identity for ourselves, than that serves us to be recognized. There is nothing inherently reactionary about how people dress, it only causes reactions, and we already know what sort of reactions we will trigger by choosing how we dress.
To me, a conscious human body should be first and foremost a vehicle of one's agency and intentionality, rather than a mirage, a duplicate or a statement of one's identihood. And to this end, it is important to realize how our body interacts and interfaces with the society in which it is situated in, in order that we may achieve the optimized impact we want to have in the world and on people.
I think the argument behind the slut cause is potentially a solid one, but it is being carried out in a very uncritical, self-defeating way.
Wow! Thank you Aaron, for posting this great flick. I think this is the new chick flick, documentaries covering protests of pro-women's sexuality. For chicks with all kinds of actual bodies, all ages, all races. I see this protest as claiming new "teritory" back from the male gendered state and into the hands of empowered people.
ReplyDeleteAt the begging of this piece, the slutty-dressing twosome, both carrying signs, while dancing, and whirling, people named Sierra Harris and Maggie Ivicyckle, (not sure what Maggie's, or how to spell hir last name?) -people announce that they are "proud to be sluts" and this demonstration are showing what it means to define for ourselves, what is our territory. When Brown says that the male gendered state "entails both a general claim to territory" and to "describe and run the territory", the territory is exactly women's bodies, and style mode and choice of dress, or else risk state sanctified violence by rape.
These 2,000 protesting people are claiming the right of women to be safe in their bodies, even if they are dressing in a manner perceived and "described" by the police officer targeted here as "inciting" rape. By reclaiming the concept of "slut" these people are doing what Wendy Brown calls for in her piece, "Finding the Man in the State", they are seizing a point of view for themselves, and not allowing the "point of viewlessness" that Brown says is the place of women within the male gendered state.
These two women and everyone in this slutty march here in Toronto are exactly undoing what Brown calls "the masculinism of the state" as it "refers to those features of the state that signify, enact, sustain, and represent masculine power as a form of dominance." The police officer who asserted this dominance when he said, "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." They are not waiting for the state to condescend to allow them where and how certain pro-sexual attire may be worn, if one expects to not be violated. Here, these women are asserting their bodies to be their territory, and that territory could be located anywhere their bodies go. In the past, one such place that a person who may be known as a "man" may go and see people known as "women" in slutty attire was commonly known as a brothel or a peep show, and so forth. Here, on the streets of Toronto, people of all sexual persuasions and identities and with all kinds of embodiment, demand that type/style of dress is not an excuse for rape but a free choice that must be free to be without the condescension of men in the state to give permission to or not. I think the close ups on the women's breasts was a great way to eradicate the male-type-of-homologies that are usually displayed in the porn-flicks, and other compartments of the state that are masculine approved. Here breasts and how to dress them, have become a new thought, in the commons. It is possibly a revolutionary thought, and not just a typical discussion about favorite dishes, that is, recipes discussed by nice folks, and not just those in bridge clubs, or bars, or other casual gatherings where people talking about favorite cooking methods.
I found that dress slutty and rape are not related. According to Women's Centre for Change Penang.
ReplyDeleteMyth: Girls who wear sexy clothes or flirt with men provoke rape.
Reality: Rapists choose their victims for their vulnerability and accessibility, without regard to physical appearance or behavior. The only person to blame for rape is the rapist. Children, elderly women, and women who dress modestly or who are in tudung (wearing head scarves) have been raped. Rape is not related to the way a girl dresses or the way she acts. This is a myth that excuses the rapist’s behavior by blaming the victim. Assuming that women provoke attacks by their dress or behavior is victim-blaming. No person, regardless of his or her behaviour, ‘deserves’ to be raped.
Elise, excellent discussion of politics of the body. Your insight in viewing the body as territory is amazing. Brilliant.
ReplyDeleteJinna, great work incorporating the quote from the Women's Centre for Change. How would you link this quotation to the Toronto police officer's comment that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized"? What is the relationship between the state and the myth you cite?
I will be the devil's advocate in this thread (in other words, the conservative eunuch!) but it occurs to be that as justified as the response was to what the officer said, and as worthy as it is to claim (or for some women, re-claim) our bodies as territories (kudos Elise), I cannot help but wonder how far Judith Butler would have gone if she had started off her career dressed in see-through tights and a thong.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it's not possible, I'm not even defending the societal norms in place as righteous, but it goes without saying that we are all dressed in "uniforms" the moment we step out of our house, that for us to be public animals we enter a symbolic agreement with all others.
To defend my body's sovereignty, my right not to be attacked, comes coupled with my obligation to make sure that I do not get attacked. This latter part of the equation is entirely left out of the womens' response in Toronto, and I find it inexcusable on their behalf.
In my mind, it is equivalent to marching for the right to sit on a public toilet seat without running the risk of contracting a disease. Sure I have the right to do so, but am I not also aware of the fact that I could actually get an infection?
One last thing. If we are serious about engaging in a conversation about the masculinity of the State, of the Society, of Culture and all forms of systemic male-dominance, then, it is important to also realize that from the point of view of the dominating industries, i.e. education, media and religion, all points of view concerning the female body and womanhood are produced by men and the right to sluttiness is not a deviation from the norm but a re-affirmation of how we are taught we should see our bodies and use them for.
There are certain apparels --or lack of-- that contain strong political connotations: the burqa, traditional costumes, even nudity. There is nothing political in sluttiness as there is nothing political in our choices of contemporary, western fashion. Even though we dress in order to make a statement about our class, our sexuality, our cultural background etc, we are all, in essence, aimless fashionistas and nothing more other than that. We create an identity for ourselves, than that serves us to be recognized. There is nothing inherently reactionary about how people dress, it only causes reactions, and we already know what sort of reactions we will trigger by choosing how we dress.
To me, a conscious human body should be first and foremost a vehicle of one's agency and intentionality, rather than a mirage, a duplicate or a statement of one's identihood. And to this end, it is important to realize how our body interacts and interfaces with the society in which it is situated in, in order that we may achieve the optimized impact we want to have in the world and on people.
I think the argument behind the slut cause is potentially a solid one, but it is being carried out in a very uncritical, self-defeating way.