Slutwalk Congo

We the modern people, in order to feel like our lives of commute-work-consume-sleep are more meaningful, would like to rage in our cages against things that are non-issues.

Brave modern people will do this in order to make ourselves feel like we are not just mundane unexceptional people, but brave crusaders for something of great meaning, like the poignant sayings of Hallmark cards or the bittersweet emotional crash of a good pop chorus. We want to feel alive.

Naturally, we aren’t rebelling against anything important. We don’t want to break the cages; just rattle them. And that’s permitted. Anything is permitted except that which will break the cage. Conveniently, others have told us what to think in this regard, and what is ignorant, and we don’t want to be that.

As a result, there’s only one way to go: down. We want to introduce more divisions, fracture more relationships, and demand more rights in an absolute context so there’s no reasoning with us, just conflicting needs and no resolution in sight.

While we do this, industry and government chortle on like the good parasites they are, laughing that a few hundred million to academia, hollywood and the record industry bought them such a neurotic and thus obedient population:

SlutWalk started, of course, with poor Michael Sanguinetti, the Toronto cop who now goes down in the annals of feminist history (“Daddy, tell me again how you ended up in the Ms. Magazine Hall of Shame?”) because he suggested that women could avoid being raped if they stopped “dressing like sluts.”

Faster than you could tweet “wearing this dress doesn’t mean yes,” a movement was born, with young women, some dressed in lace bustiers, tight skirts and fishnets, taking to the streets, first in Toronto, and now all over the United States and in the U.K., loudly protesting this blame-the-victim attitude.

Their stated goal – apart from having a whacking good time, which is also what street level activism is about – was to reclaim the word “slut” for themselves. – The Globe and Mail

Was this an unintentional list of 1990s cliches?

  • Reclaim. The ultimate non-act: redefine a word, and then use guilt to make other people obey. It’s effective except soon forgotten because words revert to their original meanings. A slut is a girl of low value. How do we know she has low value? She gives it away to anyone. That means if you are so dumb as to be her boyfriend or marry her, you’ve purchased cheap goods at an expensive price. It also means she’s dumb as rocks or mentally broken. Sane intelligent people are selective; idiots and the insane are random.
  • Slacktivism. Glad to hear it’s a “whacking good time” from this mediocre writer. Translation: it’s a good chance to be dramatic and to tell other people how important you are. You weren’t like the other lazy slobs, watching TV and eating donuts; you were at a Slut Walk reforming society. Except that people have been doing stuff like this for forty years, and now we have more rapes, not fewer.
  • Protesting. If life doesn’t do what you want, shout at it. Make some signs. Demand more laws. Don’t go to the cause, which might require you to actually restructure your modern life. Do something convenient instead: change nothing, continue stupid behaviors and tolerance of destructive people, but demand more rights and token kowtowing.
  • The risqué. Except it isn’t risqué because you’re building on years of similar things. Sex sells and this society is never going to really condemn you for showing more skin, except for a few old church ladies, of course. What it will do is use your bad behavior to justify more bad behavior.
  • Be a victim. Whatever you do, don’t admit that going off into dark corners with guys you just met after beer #13 is the kind of behavior that is guaranteed to eventually cause problems. No, you should be able to do whatever you want: anything, anywhere, anytime. If something bad happens to you, it’s someone else’s fault.

I have a better suggestion: let’s put you all on planes, take you out of your comfortable first world rattling cages, and fly you to the Democratic Republic of Congo:

At least 400,000 women were raped in Democratic Republic of Congo over a 12-month period in 2006 and 2007, according to an American Journal of Public Health study that shows the problem of sexual assault is not confined to the restive east.

The study, based on a 2007 nationwide survey of 3,436 women between the ages of 15 and 49, estimates that more than 1.7 million Congolese women have been raped in their lifetime and at least 3 million more have been raped by an intimate partner. – SFG

It’s very well and easy to leave your first-world apartment (secured for you by others who did not have a sense of victimhood), walk down your heavily policed streets, and like a trust fund brat yell and scream at the people who protect you (cops) while demanding irrational and absolute “rights” that you have not earned.

Cages rattle. When you tire of that, you can turn to the other people in cages and tell them how smart and unique, innovative and defiant, brave and bold, reclaimy and whacking good time-y, and savvy, you are. They will then rattle their cages in sympathy and throw feces at the zookeeper. But soon they will tire also and hey, when is dinner? If someone did not bring it to us, we would starve.

If the Slutwalkers(tm) are really as good as their word, they won’t object to a thing I’ve said. In fact, all we’ll hear is the sound of 10,000 iPhones being whipped out of brassieres so they can be used to book flights to the Congo. The army of the righteous will leave their cages, and descend into nature’s fury, and they’ll make it all clean and morally right for the rest of us.

Right?

21 Comments

  1. T Roach says:

    Lovely suggestion. Congo it is!

  2. alice says:

    I am pretty sure that the incidence of rape is going down. I tried to find a good, recent link but the best I could do is this: http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/report-us-rape-rate-is-going-down

    1. EnemyOfTheState says:

      But some ethnicities commit rape more frequently, and end up on the sex offender list. Many of them are dangerous animals.

  3. Ouroborus says:

    Great article. Ever since the sexual revolutions of the past 50+ years have transformed sex and relations into a commodity, relations between men and women have obviously deteriorated. Divorce rates and the number of children being born with unknown fathers are just a few indicators of this decay.

    I would like to see more articles concentrating on relationships and modernity’s influence on them.

    1. Vance says:

      Yeah but I mean come on, this decay was a small price to pay. I mean, we got Lady Gaga and Ellen out of the deal, right?!

      1. Ouroborus says:

        Ha! Silly me. What was I thinking? Too long has the musical genius of “Lady GaGa” been ignored. We should build marble statues to her greatness.

        1. Vance says:

          …and Miley Cyrus. Oh, and “Bratz.”

  4. Marcus says:

    We have already planned a Slutwalk in Tehran next year. The details are in our facebook page and you can follow us @slutwalktehran.

    While we will NOT be including any of the native Iranian women in the protest, due to the inevitable reprisals by the antiquated patriarchy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, what we will instead have is a huge crowd of Slutwalk Veterans from Toronto, LA, Boston, London, Brisbane swoop down on Azadi Square at 2000 hrs (local time) in Tehran on April 2 and RECLAIM the word.

    Join us. Be there. Reclaim.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Slutwalk-Teheran-2012/190799127632817

    “I’ll wear a sports bra or I’ll wear niqab
    But I don’t care for your shish kebab!”

  5. crow says:

    Ah. This article was just begging for a bit of humor.
    When things become this dire, humor is almost the only option left.
    The leftist mindset, as most of us will have noticed, is completely devoid of an ability to make any fun, especially of itself.
    Humor seems to be a survival trait. Jettison it at your peril!

  6. Artemis says:

    Whilst I don’t entirely disagree with this article, I would like you Brett Stevens to a) suggest what these women on the slut-walk, or anyone else, can do to help other women in the Congo and all other countries where this mass oppression is held, other than signing Amnesty International petitions and the likes and b) tell me exactly what is wrong with trying to make a realistically possible change and getting people to no longer blame the victim for being raped?

    ”Whatever you do, don’t admit that going off into dark corners with guys you just met after beer #13 is the kind of behavior that is guaranteed to eventually cause problems. No, you should be able to do whatever you want: anything, anywhere, anytime. If something bad happens to you, it’s someone else’s fault.”

    You’ve completely ignored the principle here- what causes rape is the rapist! Yes, in practice you should take care of yourself because the world is a dangerous place but it’s not YOU who made the world a dangerous place, it’s the rapist, the person who commits the crime is the root of the problem, you have just stumbled into it’s path- that doesn’t mean they can do what they want with you! If you get so drunk as to be taken advantage of, you are guilty of that sin- YOU ARE NOT GUILTY OF SOMEONE ELSE RAPING YOU. Would you also blame the children who take candy and lifts home from strangers for their being molested?

    Finally, if you really don’t think that slutwalks are effective or right, tell me what you think men and women should do to solve the problem of blaming the victim for being sexually assaulted- cos that happens to men, women and children. So tell me how you would solve this problem other than writing a condescending article.

    1. If you get so drunk as to be taken advantage of, you are guilty of that sin- YOU ARE NOT GUILTY OF SOMEONE ELSE RAPING YOU.

      If you get drunk and pass out in the tundra, and a lion eats you, that lion is guilty.

      Morality is fantasy. Human rules that we voluntarily comply with, or don’t — and most who violate them don’t get caught.

      Morality has been with us for centuries, and failed.

      Instead, I think we should try practicality. Don’t you agree?

      That way, fewer women get raped. How could you oppose that?

      1. Artemis says:

        Notable absence of reply to the other issues I raised but anyway…..

        I’m not arguing against practicality, I’m arguing against holding someone responsible for being raped because they were not practical enough. Why do you suggest that practicality and morality are mutually exclusive?
        The difference between a man and a lion is a man can empathise with another human being, or at least should empathise, and thus knows what’s right and wrong. Unless you’re suggesting that morality doesn’t exist/is meaningless and thus there is no such thing as right or wrong when it comes to violent sexual assault? And is your premise that because morality has failed, the attacker is exonerated? Seriously, you’re shifting the goalposts here and being extremely vague as well.

        But regarding practicality: 9/10 rapes that occur is when the victim knows the attacker. Thus, being selected because of how you were dressed one night does not apply, they singled you out for another reason, usually cos they thought you were weak and vulnerable and they could get away with it. The majority of male rape is perpetrated by men who are heterosexual and have only been involved with women. Thus rape is an act of domination, not lust, something which you suggested yourself when you used the situation in the Congo as an example. I suggest you also look at the rape camps in Eastern Europe in the 90s and the rape of Naanking in the 30s for further examples.

        Furthermore, other than the fact that the fewer the clothes the easier to remove them, show me any empirical evidence proving that the clothing a woman is wearing is a deciding factor in whether a man rapes her or not.

        Again, I’d appreciate it if you answered the issues I raised in my first post…..

        1. crow says:

          Answers don’t seem to be what you are seeking.
          They are easily given, but to what purpose?
          Holding a single viewpoint invariably leads to the belief that one’s particular viewpoint is the only one there is.
          This is rarely, if ever, true.

          1. Holding a single viewpoint invariably leads to the belief that one’s particular viewpoint is the only one there is.
            This is rarely, if ever, true.

            A cousin of this idea informed my escape from the mental prison of universalism.

            As a nihilist, I was able to see that there is no inherent human order to the universe. It is all a matter of choice: do I choose to shoot myself in the head? Then I will die. Do I choose to live in a mud hut? etc.

            The brilliant of nature is that it is consistent and logical, and we can choose what type of society we want.

            A society of whores, both in bed and in suits, or a society of whole beings?

        2. I’m not arguing against practicality, I’m arguing against holding someone responsible for being raped because they were not practical enough.

          See if this way helps make sense of this division: to hold someone responsible, one must reject practicality in favor of morality.

          Morality says “This is wrong, and you did it wrong according to this universal standard.”

          Practicality says “If you put your hand in the fire, you will get burned.”

          The difference between a man and a lion is a man can empathise with another human being, or at least should empathise, and thus knows what’s right and wrong.

          I disagree entirely with the assertion that lions cannot empathize. Clearly they can, and love, as can all animal species.

          Further, I disagree that empathy is the only root of an absolute moral/ethical standard. Empathy is misleading. You can have empathy for someone and it can cause you to not stop them from committing heinous acts.

          I have empathy for condemned men facing the gallows. Rationally, I recognize that most societies kill killers as a way of saying we do not tolerate their actions. And if our society hung rapists?

          Thus, being selected because of how you were dressed one night does not apply, they singled you out for another reason, usually cos they thought you were weak and vulnerable and they could get away with it.

          Dressing like a slut also signals weak and vulnerable, because it offers something before it is earned.

  7. CallistoRising says:

    I’m with Roissy and his disciples on this one. It’s not a woman’s fault if she’s dressed slutty and gets raped, just like it’s not my fault if I walk into a bear-infested woods smeared in honey and salmon and get eaten (i.e. it still isn’t technically my fault, but I can hardly be surprised when I’m being devoured).

    It’s the same logic as being generally vigilant when going through rough areas late at night due to the higher risk of being mugged, beaten, stabbed and yes, raped. Not dressing slutty is one of many examples of the aforementioned vigilance/precaution. It’s only because these women have some kinda victim card that they think it means they can take less responsibility.

    I mean come on, it’s not like us on the right are going to start defending the rabid raping proles because they’re victims of socio-economic circumstance or something.

  8. chris says:

    Question: Should men who rape be held accountable for that rape?
    Answer: Yes.

    Question: Should everyone else in society, who aren’t responsible for the rape, be expected to pay the costs of restructuring society in a way to lessen the risk of rape (that is, make it harder for rapists to perpetuate their crimes), even though the costs imposed upon the rest of us in order to restructure society in this way are much, much, much greater than the costs that would be imposed on ‘sluts’ to achieve the same lessening in the risk of rape (that is, don’t go down dark alleys, while drunk, with strange men in the middle of the night when no one is around to help you.)?
    Answer: No.

    And before anyone claims I’m a mysogynistic pig let me get this clear, I think violent rapists should be hung, but I also think that I should not be expected to bear the costs of someone else’s behaviour, especially when those costs can be more easily and efficiently mediated by those who instigated the behaviour in the first place.

    If women wanna be sluts, fine go ahead, but don’t expect me, or others like me, to sacrifice ourselves in defence of you being a slut. I should not pay the costs of your behaviour, you should.

  9. chris says:

    Fuck, there is an error in my post above.

    “restructure society in this way are much, much, much less”

    should be

    “restructure society in this way are much, much, much greater”

  10. crow says:

    See what emotions make you do :)
    Them wimmin’ll getcher goin’ every time.

  11. Bloodstar says:

    I hate to break it to some of you, but violent rapists and criminals aren’t going to be reasoned with, they aren’t going to stop raping people, so it is really irrelevant to the point at hand that they are the ones responsible for the act (which is implied and as far as I can see, no one at any angle of this whole dialogue surrounding Slutwalk, including Sanguinetti, has denied).

    1. EnemyOfTheState says:

      Well said. For molesters the death penalty is not unreasonable. There’s enough proof that they can’t be cured.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.418 seconds