Rape Crisis Scotland

Slutwalking into our own subjection?

Efforts to challenge attitudes that blame women for rape are always welcome. But is it the case that opportunities to do this are so scarce that we will welcome them at any price? The current “Slutwalk” craze is a case in point. This began in Canada following remarks made by a policeman who declared that “Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized” and has gone viral in recent weeks, with marches to protest such attitudes taking place in many cities across the globe, accompanied by assertions that it is time to “reclaim” the term “slut”.

It’s great to see such a wave of anger and enthusiasm energizing these efforts, but is the word “slut” really something we want to “reclaim”? Indeed, was it ever something we owned in the first place? It is difficult in the current climate to suggest, without risking accusations of being a killjoy, that it might be time for a little reflection. “Slut” is part of a damaging and diverse arsenal of semantic weaponry that has been used for centuries to assault women verbally – to insult and subordinate us. It is part of the soundtrack to many assaults – and to the violent imagery which characterizes and reinforces the harmful messages of contemporary pornography. Will claiming ownership of that weaponry really allow us to defuse or disarm it?

It is understandable that some women - faced with having this kind of hate filled language thrown at them on a regular basis - would want to find some way of trying to take the power out of it.  The popularity of Slutwalk and the speed with which it has spread across the world demonstrates a real (and very welcome) desire amongst (primarily) young women and men to change attitudes towards women’s sexuality, and to rape.  It’s a great shame though, that this seems to have taken the focus of ‘it’s ok to be a slut’, reassuring women that if we were raped when dressed or behaving ‘sluttily’ it’s not our fault.  Shouldn’t we be a bit more ambitious than this?  Rather than embracing a concept which has been used to control women’s sexuality for centuries, shouldn’t we be mobilizing to reject it altogether?

Let’s keep our message simple, and say it loudly and clearly - clothing doesn’t cause rape, flirting doesn’t cause rape, drinking doesn’t cause rape.  Rapists do.

Dressing up the causes of sexual violence

The row sparked last week following comments made by the Rector of a Scottish Secondary school highlights once more the need to raise awareness of the myths that lead to women being held culpable for rape – in particular, the idea that revealing dress is somehow “provocative”.

The controversy followed warnings to female pupils that by dressing in short skirts or other clothing of a skimpy nature, they would risk distracting the boys, whose rampant hormones might render them unable to concentrate. A dress code for school is one thing – integral to the regulatory framework of many schools, and applicable to every pupil, not just those who are female. However, the conflation of this idea with notions of “provocation” and “risky behaviour” is at best misguided – and at worst very damaging, in particular to women who have been sexually assaulted.

To suggest that girls and women, through the choices they exercise in the clothes they select, can influence the behaviour of the opposite gender is to assign them a degree of control which they simply do not have. Directing instructions made on this basis only to girls reinforces the myth that it is principally women who bear responsibility for sexual conduct, and for controlling the sexual impulses of men and boys. It is a fallacy and an insult to men to suggest that male sexuality is some kind of compelling animal force far more powerful than its female counterpart, and to hold this view is to absolve men, at least in part, from the responsibility for their sexual choices, leaving women no alternative other than to shoulder the blame for the rapes and sexual assaults of which they themselves are the victims.

We have to be able to make the distinction between what is appropriate dress for school or work without once more blaming women for sexual violence. The experience of rape complainers in court offers abundant evidence of the damage that these prejudicial attitudes can do.

Blaming sexual violence on “raging hormones”, “inappropriate thoughts”, or “mixed signals” and advocating caution and cover-ups on the part of women and girls as the solution removes the focus from where it really belongs – on the attitudes and behaviour of boys and the men they will become. The role of education in making positive changes in this regard is absolutely crucial. By complementing lessons on healthy relationships of the sort that currently feature in PSE classes with others that teach young men to respect women, that no one is “entitled” to sex, and that clothes are simply clothes and not some kind of coded invitation, that only yes ever means yes – but that no always means no – we can make significant and vital steps towards making this happen.

Men and boys are central to the fight against sexual violence and can be powerful communicators of the messages we need to get across in order to makes the attitudinal and culture changes necessary to eradicate it. If we are serious about ending sexual violence, we must forget about the perils of the mini-skirt, and start examining the real causes of sexual violence – and challenging the attitudes of those who commit it.