Guest Post: SlutWalk—A Smokescreen of Lies, Misinformation and Those Old Myths About Males.

You might remember from my take on SlutWalk that I had a bit of an altercation with a male friend about what the event was all about. Well, I still think he’s misconstrued the whole concept, but in the interest of letting everyone have their say, here’s “An Interview with Voltron: Defender of Males Everywhere.” Obviously, said “Defender of Males Everywhere” would prefer to remain nameless. After the guest post below, you can begin to see why…

“SlutWalks are what you get when graduate students in feminist studies run out of things to do. In fact, they’re flogging a dead mare. The attitude that rape victims bring it on themselves has largely (though not entirely) disappeared from mainstream society”—Margaret Wente.

What do you mean by SlutWalk been a smokescreen? A smokescreen to what?

To the man or woman who’s not familiar with the different brands of feminism that exist—this would seem preposterous, but I’ve read their literature—there’s a damn lot of it.

This Walk is nothing more than an attempt to refuel these old feminist myths about their unfair treatment in a male dominated society, ie. patriarchy.

It’s an attempt to repackage the feminist mould with something more contemporary, but at its core it’s filled with man-hating myths and lies: that men have it better.

You see, this brand of feminism is a dying ideology: it’s dying because there is no evidence to support their ideology.  Their claims of being victims in a male dominated patriarchy are simply unfounded, and thus this brand of feminism is in its final stages of death: it’s almost completely extinguished. Its only real existence now is in cyberspace because in can’t survive in present day reality. And cyberspace is where it should stay. The only thing that’s keeping it alive is the bogus and false statistics they just love to quote, but more on that later.

It’s really hard to define what these women believe about men and society. But I hope the following helps you readers who are unfamiliar with this fable:

“… It implies a system in which the father or a male member who is considered as the head of the family, controls all economic and property resources, makes all the major decisions of the family and thereby maintains ongoing control over all members of the family and those related to it. Very clearly, this system establishes male dominance and control over women in society, in general, and particularly so within the family. The ‘unequal power relationship’ between men and women, accrues power to men in an important institution of society. Thus, it is important to see patriarchy as both an ideology of women’s subordination and control, and, a concept of struggle against the same. In this context, one would also like to analyse the often asked question: ‘Do women have no power at all?’ It has been seen that women are not totally powerless or totally deprived of rights, influence and resources, but that they are subservient to male control. Men have laid down the acceptable social norms for women—the role models for women in society. Women are thus made unwitting partners in the perpetuation of the patriarchal system, in different ways: ‘gender indoctrination’ (i.e. role‑stereotyping of men and women), denial of education and knowledge of their own history, dividing women from one another, by defining norms of behaviour, i.e. respectability and deviance according to their sexual activities, by discriminating women in access, and/or control over economic resources and political power, etc.” (Gerda Lerner, 1986)

Christina Hoff Sommers opposes this definition of our modern day society. In her book Who Stole Feminism, she exposes the pseudo-statistic victimology feminists employ to buttress their claim. These include a number of influential hoaxes, meticulously tracking the way they have been mindlessly repeated by the media until it has become part of received truth, when they are nothing more then blatant lies.

You see, no one checks to see if these statistics actually exist or are true—men have fallen asleep at the wheel—and just nod in agreement with their brutal lies. How ironic is it that a group of women who are experts in women’s studies and research have exposed their own fellow feminist for the lies they propagate. Where are the men?

Some such lies are as follows, all of which can be found in Who Stole Feminism:

  • Super Bowl commercials that proclaim wife beating increases 40% during the game, which is utterly baseless.
  • The commercial warned men to stay calm while watching the game, however there are no such statistical studies to prove that they don’t.
  • 150,000 American women die each year from anorexia, more than three times the number of car crash fatalities for the entire population.
  • Spousal abuse of pregnant wives is responsible for more birth defects than all other causes combined. This study does not exist.

Did not anyone stop to verify these claims?

Once you read Christina Hoff Sommers’ book, you’ll never buy into statistical scare tactics again. It is through the use of this inflated, flawed and imaginary data—all to promote radical feminism’s self perpetuating agenda—that the feminist movement stays alive: by pissing girls off it produces the victim mentality in women through this false science.

So tell me: what do these radical feminist believe makes the male mind tick?

I have complied a list of feminist quotes detailing what they believe about the male mind:

  • “All sex, even consensual sex between married couples, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman”—Catherine MacKinnon.
  • “All men are rapists and that’s all they are”—Marilyn French, author of The Women’s Room.
  • “[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear [emphasis added]”—Susan Brownmiller, author of Against Our Will: Men, Women & Rape.
  • “Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership”—Andrea Dworkin, feminist activist and author.
  • “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies”—Dworkin.
  • “Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks”—Dworkin.
  • “One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible [emphasis added]—Dworkin.
  • “And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference”—Susan Griffin, author of Rape: The All-American Crime.
  • When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticising her own oppression…”—Sheila Jeffreys, feminist activist.
  • “I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire”—Robin Morgan, editor of Ms. magazine.
  • “Under law, rape is a sex crime that is not regarded as a crime when it looks like sex. The law, speaking generally, defines rape as intercourse with force or coercion and without consent. Like sexuality under male supremacy, this definition assumes the sadomasochistic definition of sex: intercourse with force or coercion can be or become consensual”—MacKinnon.
  • “Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike… [T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it”—MacKinnon.
  • “In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent”—MacKinnon.
  • “[R]ape represents an extreme behaviour, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behaviour within the culture”—Professor Mary Koss, feminist scholar.
  • “I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them”—Morgan.
  • Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women [emphasis added]—Barbara Findlen, author of Listen Up: Voices from the Next Feminist Generation,
  • “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women… We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women.  Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men”—The Declaration of Feminism.
  • “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage”—Sheila Cronan, author.

Why is everyone confused about the message behind SlutWalk?

Because is based on a twisted interpretation of what the police officer said.

It’s all based on insinuations, misinterpretations and a message that serves no pragmatic purpose whatsoever: “We’re sluts and we’re proud of it”.

Now, once you understand that these women who were sitting in the police officers’ class have this deplorable view of men, it’s obvious they’re not hearing what everyone else is hearing. They see and hear the world through this filter. The quotes above are the filter they hear and see through.

I’ve spoken to non-feminist women about the incident in question. I asked them simply, “do you believe the police officer implied women deserve to be raped by dressing like a slut?” and I got the same reply: “No!” My, my, how the world appears without your feminist glasses on.

What are they trying to accomplish?

What I’m about to tell you is the very heart of why no one understands what SlutWalk is really about: they’re trying to do two things at once, by trying to blend the hidden agenda which is to refuel the feminist movement and ideology while trying to recruit new members to the feminist world view: women are victims of a rape culture which men support.

The modern feminist movement has never enjoyed the allegiance of a majority.

People are catching on to them. Women are enjoying their lives without them. This frightens them as they became irrelevant to modern day society. Irrelevent because all the democratic freedoms men have women have as well.

What did the police officer say and how did these women get it so wrong?

What the police officer said and what they heard are two different things.

If there’s a victim in all this, it’s the police officer. Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth!

You have a street cop, who obviously has street lingo and “talks street”, speaking to university students.

In his class we have these feminists who believe they heard the police officer say, “women who dress slutty are just asking to get raped,” as if he condones such behaviour.

These feminists want us all to believe that the police officer has no sympathy or feelings towards women who are rape victims. In fact, they want us all to believe that the police officer won’t even consider it an investigation if the victim dresses slutty.

The sad thing is that these women have completely hijacked the story and thrown so much mud into it and spin that the truth seems all but lost.

But this is not how the story unfolded and it’s not what the police officer said and it’s not what he was implying.

But let’s look at the evidence: we have a police officer who devotes his life to his community. He is part of an educational outreach program to teach people how to PREVENT THEMSELVES FROM BECOMING A VICTIM!

The police officer’s job is to inform us about the realities of our society. The reality is that whether you like it or not, there are sick sick people out there with no conscience or control of their sexual appetites. They are predators. Criminologists have studied these people to understand what makes them tick and what causes them to choose their prey.  They look at hundreds and hundreds of cases to pick up reoccurring patterns and trends. The criminologist then takes this information and turns it into an educational program for the community.

What’s the bottom line?

I don’t think these ladies understand that there are sociopaths out there. Brutal, unfeeling predators. They’re protesting about their rights to wear what ever they want in retaliation to what the police officer said—they seem to have missed the point of the whole lesson. It was about the realities of our world, our society: a shark gets the scent of blood and it goes into a frenzy; a sexual predator sees flesh and he sets his sights on you. These are what the studies show. This is what the police officer is warning you about. The problem is that he said it in street talk—because he’s a street cop.

Why is SlutWalk so out of touch with reality?

What makes this movement so dangerous is the complete and utter denial of our social realities. I don’t like the message they’re conveying to women and men: a denial of the criminal aspect of our society. They preach “wear whatever you want, whenever you want”. (You should be allowed to, no one disputes this. But I should be able to go to the ATM and not get robbed. I shouldn’t have to lock my car or house door due to the risk of theft. I’m not asking to get robbed.) But I understand the real world is not a nice place. It’s all about prevention; flying under the radar.

How can you get it so wrong?

Now what?

SlutWalk may have reinvigorated the feminist world view that we live in a rape culture… for about a week.

They may do a slutwalk yearly, who knows? But I think men and women are going to question them about it. The only reason they got so much attention is because no one stopped to think about the story they were spinning and what they were doing behind the scenes. But now they are and it’s coming out: people are questioning the motives of these women. And other women at that, which is refreshing.

SlutWalk was never about rape: it was about reinvigorating feminism with their scare tactics and false statistics to promote a picture of the world were they are victims and men sit with their arms folded upholding the rapists’ rights.

The good news is that its gone. The police can get on with their work without these ideological distractions that interfere with them preventing the public from being victims of crime by teaching them tried and true tactics that work because they’re based on reality.

Another thing I’m looking forward to when the distractions are all gone is the joining of forces. As long as we are divided in these gender wars, our strength to politically protest things that really affect us—fairness in the workplace, victims of crime protected and criminals punished, opportunities for education, etc.—will be weakened. Governments just love these separatist groups—both male and female—because their influence to affect policy is considerably weakened. We are divided in a war that doesn’t exist—that’s a shame.

Recommended Reading and YouTube Watching.

—Voltron.

[The Globe & Mail] Embrace Your Inner Slut? Um, Maybe Not.

[The Early Bird Catches the Worm] Ain’t Nothin’ Gonna Break My Slutty Stride.

[The Early Bird Catches the Worm] SlutWalk.

14 thoughts on “Guest Post: SlutWalk—A Smokescreen of Lies, Misinformation and Those Old Myths About Males.

  1. While I thank you for your contribution to The Early Bird Catches the Worm in the interests of letting everyone have their say, I don’t agree with your statements one bit and, as I wrote in the intro, I can understand why you wouldn’t want your real name being attached to such a vitriolic account of what comes across as male supremacy.
    Firstly, I’d like to say that I found your repeated references to “them” and “they”, without first establishing who “them”/“they” are (radical feminists? SlutWalkers? Women in general?), extremely offensive. These kinds of allusions wouldn’t be tolerated if you were referring to members of a race other than Caucasian, so why are they tolerated in reference to women?
    You mention that feminist’s “claims of being victims in a male dominated patriarchy are simply unfounded”. Unequal pay, rape, child brides, female genital mutilation and domestic violence are just some of the issues women have to deal with in the “male dominated patriarchy”, whether they’re feminists or not.
    One thing I will agree with you on, though—or at least, see some of the truth in—is your claim that “this brand of feminism” only exists in cyberspace. While the SlutWalk proves that, as one of the speakers said on the day of the Melbourne event (http://earlybirdcatchestheworm.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/aint-nothin-gonna-break-my-slutwalk-stride/) , third-wave feminism is alive and well away from the internet, it continues to thrive there. My blog would attest to that and, as a friend brought to my attention, without my—a feminist who can only see her side of the story and doesn’t want to listen to “truth”, according to you—“man-hating” platform, you wouldn’t have been able to get your message across to my audience, however small it may be.
    I have a real problem with the quotes you used to bolster your argument, though. If you actually did your research, you would realise that Marilyn French’s The Women’s Room, from which you took the “all men are rapists and that’s all they are” line, is a work of fiction, so therefore it doesn’t pack the punch you thought it would.
    Also, these quotes are primarily from the ’70s and ’80s: thirty and forty years ago. That was when second-wave feminism was still in full force, which was more about equality in marriage, family and the workplace, and reproductive rights. The SlutWalk stemmed from third-wave feminism, which is what we are embroiled in now. It’s about extending First World feminist triumphs to Second and Third World women, sexualisation of women and girls in the media, race, and—still—equal pay and representation in the workplace, and reproductive rights (who would have thought access to abortions and contraception would be regressing in this day and age?). So, not really relevant to the SlutWalk, in my opinion.
    My final problem with the quotes you used—and a major mistake on your part—is that at least two of them are misattributed! “All sex, even consensual sex between married couples, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman”, which you attributed to Catharine MacKinnon, was never said by her (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp)! Also, Andrea Dworkin’s apparent “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalised expression of contempt for women’s bodies” quote, was said by a fictional feminist, Corrine Drawfkin, in a novel (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin)!
    You espouse that “no one checks to see if these statistics actually exist or are true—men have fallen asleep at the wheel—and just nod in agreement with their brutal lies. How ironic is it that a group of women who are experts in women’s studies and research have exposed their own fellow feminist for the lies they propagate. Where are the men?” Apparently, the man who wrote this “fell asleep at the wheel” when it comes to “research” and fact checking. How ironic, indeed.
    You write that the SlutWalk has a “hidden agenda which is to refuel the feminist movement”. This is not a hidden agenda at all. As I mentioned above, in one of the keynote speeches, it is said that the SlutWalk is a beginning of a new feminist movement. While I disagree that it is, in fact, a “new movement”, it has no doubt “refueled the feminist movement” and got people talking.
    You said, “the only reason they got so much attention is because no one stopped to think about the story they were spinning and what they were doing behind the scenes”. (How would you know what they were doing behind the scenes? Were you part of the planning committee?) Actually, the reason it DID get so much attention is BECAUSE people stopped to think about it. Not all feminists agree with it, if YOU stopped to read some of the CURRENT literature on feminism in relation to the event. But, because I don’t agree with those notions, here are but two fabulous links as to why we do need SlutWalks, or some other kind of activism to stop rape and victim-blaming (http://melindatankardreist.com/2011/03/100-years-of-international-women’s-day-let’s-end-the-tyranny-of-sexual-violence/, http://melindatankardreist.com/2010/01/775/). (FYI, these articles were written when the SlutWalk was just a twinkle in the organisers’ eyes, just in case you were going to assert—yet again—that women have been blinded by the event.) You state the obvious when you write, “the modern feminist movement has never enjoyed the allegiance of a majority”. Um, duh! This is why SlutWalks and other rallies exist: we need them. If you’re so quick to condemn SlutWalk, maybe you could come up with some constructive ideas as to how to combat the very-real issues of victim-blaming and slut-shaming.
    The “interview with Voltron” idea was a nifty one, but I think you severely undercut your argument when you asked questions to yourself but nary answered them. For example, “What did the police officer say and how did these women get it so wrong?” Yet you never actually tell us what the police officer said, just your interpretation of it.
    On that, you defend him by saying that he’s a “street cop” who talks “street lingo”. If he’s so street-savvy, then he would know the offense implied in equating the way rape victims dress to the reason for their attack. Not so street-smart after all!
    If not dressing like a “slut” is the way to prevent yourself from “being victimised”, how do you explain rape that occurs within marriage, or the rape of young children or the elderly? Is a five- or eight-five-year-old “asking for it” when they’re dressed in a tracksuit or pyjamas?
    You write that feminists “want us all to believe that the police officer won’t even consider it an investigation if the victim dresses slutty.” We want you to believe it because it’s true! I read that legislation is being pushed through to prevent the clothes the victim was wearing and their state of inebriation during the attack being used as evidence AGAINST the victim in court. Google it.
    Towards the end of the article, it seems like you genuinely mean well and are only interested in the prevention of rape. We all are. But urging women to “PREVENT THEMSELVES FROM BECOMING A VICTIM” is the wrong attitude. We should be focusing on PREVENTING RAPISTS FROM RAPING! There are activists going out to Ivy League schools in the U.S. to speak to their privileged male students about differentiating between “yes” and “no”/unconsciousness. There has been a spate of privileged men involved in sex crimes and issues of consent of recent. Just look at Australia’s football leagues to see the same thing happening here. As I have written again and again: THERE IS NOTHING A WOMAN CAN DO TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM RAPING HER. The onus is on the rapist. If you don’t believe this, I’ll make reference to my wife/child/senior citizen point above.
    Finally, you write over and over again in your piece that feminists love “bogus” statistics and studies and that they shouldn’t be believed. So what are we to believe when you write that “the studies show” that “a sexual predator sees flesh and sets his sights on you”? If we’re to believe what you’ve spent the whole article banging on about, both your contention and the feminists’ aren’t to be believed. Or, are you trying to say that we should believe your reference to said “studies” (and what studies might they be?) and, by default, the feminists’ studies? OR, we should believe your references but not the others’ because you’re a man and they’re just feminists? ’Cause that’s kinda what it sounds like to me…

  2. Pingback: On the (Rest of the) Net. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm

  3. Pingback: On the (Rest of the) Net. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm

  4. Pingback: On the (Rest of the) Net. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm

  5. Pingback: Beauty VS. Brains*. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm

  6. Pingback: On the (Rest of the) Net. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm

  7. Pingback: On the (Rest of the) Net. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm

  8. Pingback: Why is Feminism Still a Dirty Word? « The Early Bird Catches the Worm

  9. Pingback: On the (Rest of the) Net. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm

  10. Pingback: UPDATED: Why is Feminism Still a Dirty Word? « The Early Bird Catches the Worm

  11. Pingback: 12 Posts of Christmas: Why is Feminism Still a Dirty Word? « The Early Bird Catches the Worm

  12. Pingback: friday feminaust ~ Scarlett Harris | feminaust ~ for australian feminism

  13. Pingback: In the News: Hugo Schwyzer’s Ousting from the Feminist Community. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s