The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Another Perspective

Feminist Foolery

By on 6.23.11 @ 6:08AM

How does labeling oneself a slut help one’s cause?

They say boys are easier to raise than girls. I can believe it. Boys generally do not wake up their father’s from their after-dinner nap to ask if they can go on a SlutWalk.

Nor do fathers of teenage boys ever have to say: “Of course you can’t go on a SlutWalk! What’s a SlutWalk?”

In the interest of clarity, a SlutWalk — the latest gambit in the increasingly raunchy women’s movement — is when college gals dress up like tramps in order to protest something no one believes anyway (at least no one who isn’t a complete Neanderthal), i.e., that suggestively dressed women deserve to be sexually harassed. 

Not surprisingly, SlutWalks are quite popular on college campuses. Especially with frat boys who get to ogle scantily clad young women sashaying round the quadrangle. But cheap exhibitionism is not its only purpose. SlutWalks are also about “raising awareness.” And what better way to raise awareness than to enlist a group of 19-year-old co-eds to prance around half-naked?

Legend has it the idea of the SlutWalk was hatched after a male Canadian police officer told a group of female students that “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” Naturally, the co-eds’ next step was to don the tattered clothing of White Trash America. Small pieces of it, anyway.

The story sounds apocryphal, especially in light of our northern neighbor’s notorious enmity toward free speech. The poor idiot would have been charged with hate speech and summarily emasculated. American cops, I am told, are taught that rapists look for victims they perceive as vulnerable, not women who dress a particular way. I suspect this particular Dudley Do-Wrong, if he indeed exists, spent too much time chasing Snidley Whiplash through the Canadian Rockies and hence developed a chronic case of brain freeze.

TODAY’S APATHETIC COLLEGE students have little taste for social issues unless they can use them as an excuse to strip down to their altogether. During the early days of the Iraq War there were any number of protests, and they all seemed to involve girls getting butt-naked. Mind you, I’m not complaining, although if my recollection is correct the good-looking girls must have had dates on those nights.

Female au natural protesting has been around since Lady Godiva rode bareback through the streets of Coventry circa 1050 A.D. But female protesters scribbling “Slut” and “Slut Pride” across their bare midriffs gives TMI a whole new meaning.

“We are going to take back the word slut!” cry the SlutWalk organizers. They are welcome to it. Of course, what they really want to do is redefine the epithet, cleansing it and its associated behavior of any tint of immorality. The real message here is that it is wrong to judge people for their wanton sexual behavior. It’s the same old moral relativism with its knickers showing. There is no right or wrong.  There are no good girls or bad girls. In my day, some girls made bad decisions which they later regretted when they got a certain letter from the health department. Good news, girls. Today there are no bad decisions. No more regrets. No worries.

To coin a phrase, we are all sluts now.

Imagine being the proud parent of a 13-year-old girl who comes across all these supposedly smart and successful college women wearing Daisy Duke cut-offs and “Proud Slut” tops.

“Daddy, can I have one of those T-shirts?”

“No.”

“But those college women are wearing them.”

“They are making an ironic political statement…or something. The whole thing is kind of muddled and confusing. Someday you’ll understand. Then you can explain it to me.”

I might also tell my daughter that, despite what the SlutWalkers preach, we are judged by what we wear (and how we talk, and how we behave, even how we chew gum) and no number of skanky protests is going to change that.  Just try showing up for a job interview dressed like Amy Winehouse or Courtney Love and see how far that gets you. I’m willing to bet my last dollar that these same SlutWalkers, when they interview job seekers or size up potential dates, judge people by what they wear. “Did you see her shoes? Oh…my…God!”

Feminists for years have been squawking about misogynistic rap lyrics that refer to women as “bitches and whores,” then turn around and proudly embrace the derogatory appellation “slut.” Just so we’re clear, that’s apparently okay. But don’t you dare call them girls.

About the Author

Christopher Orlet writes from St. Louis.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (101) |

Gary| 6.23.11 @ 6:43AM

Lowering the bar... Did you see the photograph on Drudge of the man who boarded a flight wearing women's underwear? Hey, as long as he wasn't bothering anyone, it was okay.

As they say, it was a teachable moment for anyone traveling with young children. "Yes, sweetie pie, he's crazy. What's that? Is the airline crazy, too? Yes, sweetie pie, the airline is crazy, too and, no, we can't complain about it. He has more rights than we do."

Larry| 6.23.11 @ 8:32AM

He's not crazy. It's just an alternative lifestyle. What's the matter with you. ;-)

Gary| 6.23.11 @ 8:39AM

Maybe he's onto something. No patdowns for "him."

Larry| 6.23.11 @ 8:52AM

He's the only person who's requesting a pat-down, multiple pat-downs even, just in case they miss something the first 3 times.

Ted| 6.23.11 @ 8:51AM

Another case of defining deviancy down.....

lydia | 6.23.11 @ 10:20AM

A jury gave it to the Menendez bros. Why not the rest? And Rahm Emanuel says he's going to put a stop to the girl gangs. Really? Him and the ACLU? From now on, if you don't want your kids to disobey, don't have any.
I am a 28 years old doctor, mature and beautiful.and now I am seeking a good man who can give me real love , so i got a username Andromeda2002 on--s'e'ek'c'ou'ga'r.c óm--.it is the first and best club for y'ounger women and old'er men, or older women and y'ounger men,to int'eract with each other. Maybe you wanna ch'eck 'it out or tell your friends!

CalMark| 6.23.11 @ 12:37PM

Wow, not just a doctor, but humble ("mature and beautiful") and incoherent ("28 years old" on a cougar website). And I dig all those random apostrophes, doc! Shows how smart and well-edumacated you is.

marc| 6.25.11 @ 11:18AM

It's spam.

Darin| 6.23.11 @ 6:52AM

And these women wonder why men don't respect them. Here's a hint - they're not worthy of respect.

Sheila| 6.23.11 @ 12:25PM

Amen, Darin.

CalMark| 6.23.11 @ 12:56PM

Prudish, ignorant conservatives! These college womyn (note correct feminist spelling) wouldn't "have to" do this if it wasn't for Neanderthal male "lookism."

"Lookism" being sexual harassment, when a man looks at a womyn in a way she doesn't like. There's no standard; it's situationally dependent, different for every womyn, although a man is guilty if charged.

Lookism example: staring at almost-naked womyn at a Slut Walk. (Classy name, that.)

So, I say: You go, girls! Whoops...I mean "womyn!" Or wait...let's call these brave pioneers by the name they're fighting for: You go, sluts!

KyMouse| 6.23.11 @ 3:14PM

When I hear members of the sisterhood talking about how it's their right to parade around in next to nothing, or less, I remember what my dear old mom once answered:

"Most people over 16 look better with some clothes on."

The photos from that Breasts Not Bombs (I think that was the name) demonstration of a few years ago was a case in point. I still have nightmares about that.

And speaking of the sisterhood, I always marvel that feminists are in favor of legalizing prostitution, a vice in which sluts go after other women's husbands and frequently pass along STDs.

Gary| 6.23.11 @ 2:47PM

Amen, Darin.

Appleby| 6.23.11 @ 7:09AM

The Canadian cop was here in Toronto, home of the first Slut Walk. Unfortunately, the habit todays Generation Whine has of referring to itself with historically pejorative words that others are forbidden to repeat caught him out. Being Canadian, he has grovellingly apologized and it has done him no good.

Unfortunately for the Sluts, the Gay Pride Parade is coming up soon and they will be yesterdays news. Our new conservative major is not attending the raising of the Rainbow Flag over City Hall, nor will he be in the City at all during the prancing of Nekkid Men down Queen Street -- he is going to the cottage with his family. To the surprise of a city that elected him by a landslide, most people polled so far support his decision.

What these brats fear most is that the adults will take charge again and stop their Toddler Liberation Movement dead in its tracks. And thank God it seems to be happening, even up here in Canukistan.

Gary| 6.23.11 @ 8:49AM

My wife and I had the bad luck of exiting a store on the main drag (sorry) of Santa Cruz, CA when a gay pride parade came prancing by. It was the most disgusting display we've ever seen.

We're not homophobic because - guess what - we don't care about what consenting adults do in private. This parade had little to do with promoting the acceptance of an alternative lifestyle. That's already been instituionalized. This went into the far reaches of somewhere else. This was deviant exhibitionism of the first order.

Again, it was a teachable moment.

Larry| 6.23.11 @ 8:55AM

The same thing happened to me in NYC about 17 years ago. It was the day of the big homosexual parade. Unfortunately I'd forgotten that it was that day. I walked out of a store to find myself in the middle of a freak show of men in leather thongs, nipple rings and who know what else that I can't recall. Imagine being "proud" of that. For that matter, imagine being "proud" of what you do with your genitals. As if the whole world should care and applaud you.

I'm a proud heterosexual. Where's my parade?

Sheila| 6.23.11 @ 12:28PM

Why do you feel the need to preface your factual statement about the parade with the standard right-liberal denial ("We're not homophobic .. .")? What's wrong with disapproving of deviance and sexual debauchery? To whom do you feel the need to apologize and make excuses for a normal and natural reaction?

CalMark| 6.23.11 @ 12:59PM

About 15 years ago, George Will wrote that there is something defective and very disturbing by people who define their entire being by what they like to do in the bedroom. These are the people of whom he spoke.

P.S. I live in the SF Bay Area. Grotesque events like the ones described above are constantly going on. Yuck.

Gary| 6.23.11 @ 2:52PM

I apologize, Sheila. I won't do it again. Oops, I just did it again.

I guess I qualified our position because it pleased me to do so.

Aiken Bob| 6.23.11 @ 8:02PM

I like your comment on the adults taking charge again -- It explains why these folks act like teenagers in heat..........

Nina| 6.24.11 @ 10:43AM

Oh boy! How right you are about adults taking charge. They cry when the don't get the respect they think they deserve. Lots of college girls are jumping from bed to bed anyway, so the dress code is just showing their second career choice. "Girls Gone Wild" shows just how repectable these girls are and they want to stop being called "SLUTS"? AND this is what they march about? How sad that they can't come up with something more meaningful.

Doctor_X| 6.23.11 @ 7:15AM

and people wonder why I don't want my kids to go to college!

Pelligrino| 6.23.11 @ 8:53PM

Doctor X, good move. College is "so yesterday." (Can I be considered hip if I word it that way?)

Trade schools. Vocational schools. Online from home. Or just plain 40+ hours per week work. The old school: Learning by doing (then reading at night to supplement).

Yesterday I talked to a junior at one of America's elite schools. He is enrolled in the summer semester but already on some 3-5 day break. His two hard-hitting summer semester classes: Gangsta Films and Food Anthropology. Total bill for this with room/board/books is approx. $19,500.

The costs are absurd. Doctor X, you are focusing on the quality of what is instructed/imparted -- equally absurd. And unnecessary.

Larry| 6.23.11 @ 7:55AM

Stupid broads.

Wyrmlaf| 6.23.11 @ 12:38PM

Larry, chicks don't like to be called broads.

Stephanie| 6.23.11 @ 8:05AM

How embarrassing it must be for the parents of these girls. The ones paying for them to act out in such fashion. But then maybe not.

Trebuchet| 6.23.11 @ 8:24AM

Young men usually learn somewhere in their late 20's that "If you don't want to get beat-up in a Cowboy bar, don't go to a Cowboy bar". These young ladies need to learn "If you don't want to be treated like a slut, don't act like one".

sunglasses for sale | 6.23.11 @ 8:45AM

Being Canadian, he has grovellingly apologized and it has done him no good.

LindaF | 6.23.11 @ 8:47AM

This is an embarrassment. When, Oh God, will the ironic and pathetic protests of the 1960s end?

PJ| 6.23.11 @ 2:05PM

When these immature protesters stop reproducing.

Peter| 6.23.11 @ 8:49AM

Recently I left my front door wide open, unlocked all my windows, drew all the curtains, piled my widescreen TV and sound system in the front room and laid a trail of $100 bills from our local methadone clinic leading to my house. To my surprise and utter amazement I was robbed. They cleaned me out! When I reported this to the police local Area Commander had the audacity to suggest that I somehow contributed to the crime. The lousy rightwing facist running dog of a neocon said I was an idiot!!! I am so angry I am going to organise a series of protest marches in cities worldwide; I think I'll call them Idiot Walks. Could you please use the resources of your organisation to help achieve this laudable aim. Thanking you in anticipation, Yours sincerely Peter Williamson, Sydney, Australia

Mutch Moore| 6.23.11 @ 1:54PM

Peter: your parody takes the Slut's "don't blame the victim" position to the extreme which is a good thing. Magnify a flaw to identify it. Thanks for your excellent and funny post - and from another hemisphere no less!

Redstateboy| 6.23.11 @ 8:51AM

ah..... another fine moment for Liber-ulism - Slut Walks. Is there any further debate on Liber-ulism being a "Mental Disorder"?

You can't pass a job interview because you insist it is your..... "Right" to have your face pierced here and there.. Tatoos on your neck, arms and everywhere else and dress like someone who lives on the street and then you're indignant?!!?

That! Is a Mental Disorder.

Mutch Moore| 6.23.11 @ 2:19PM

Amen!

Larry| 6.23.11 @ 8:57AM

What's next? Bitch walks? Excuse me... biotch (politically correct) walks.

George S| 6.23.11 @ 9:11AM

I don't recall these exhibitions when I was a kid. Maybe because the girls my age -- and their opposite sex parents -- were with me in church on Sunday mornings.

Pelligrino| 6.23.11 @ 9:03PM

George S., good for you. You've pointed out the obvious.

I bet many readers here just glanced past your short comment and only half understood.

Fathers. Fatherhood. Real men who stay faithful to their first and only wife. Real men who are the leaders in the home. They provide. They work hard. They love. And they show that love by firm discipline in the home with the children. These fathers don't back down.

Yes -- there is no way around it -- it starts with Dad. And the good Dad understands that he and the family need to be in God's House, learning, praising, worshiping, and aiding others.

Then the young men and young women who come out of that home go on to become the upright bedrock of our society.

Thank you, George S.

mejamom| 6.23.11 @ 9:16AM

This is the first I've heard of these events. It seems so contradictory. It doesn't sound like something that will last long.

PolishKnight| 6.23.11 @ 9:25AM

Here's the thinking behind these protests: Recently, a very attractive young woman sued her uptight wall street employer because they said that she was dressed too provocatively for work. She screeched that she was entitled to wear whatever she liked.

I've heard several stories about teases who think it's fun to dress and even speak provocatively or flirtatiously, and then when a man responds and says something risque she'll button up, throw on a petticoat, and run to the HR office and cry: "There's a brute out there making me feel uncomfortable! Talk to him!"

One gal did this to an in-law of mine and after he was punished, she switched back and giggled and I quote: "I have the right to do whatever I like! YOU don't!"

On the flip side, I have heard several women gripe in workplace cafeterias that men aren't "real" anymore namely they don't ask out women in the workplace and have plastic ready to take out and buy dates for her. For some reason, the petticoat she's wearing along with the sullen expression she's had all day hasn't inspired men to change the situation.

Stage2 of the protests is that after Gloria Allred or some other attorney gets the campus administration to allow women to dress as they like, they then will get those hooting frat boys expelled from school. They'll then sit around in their dorm rooms griping to NYT reporters that "real" men aren't throwing beer parties at their frat anymore for them to engage in underage drinking and it's ALL men's fault.

CalMark| 6.23.11 @ 1:47PM

Nobody teaches "cause and effect" anymore: people might trace bad results back to stupid liberal ideas. Can't have that.

Feminist womyn agitate for ideology that emasculates men. The feminists also want "real" men who haven't been emasculated. Hm.

Large numbers of Gen-X womyn are reaching their 40s never having been married. A womyn needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, of course, yet these dedicated feminists are NOT happy about being 40 without a husband.

It's all the men's fault, of course. According to the Gen-X womyn, Gen-X men weren't good enough to marry.

And now the scoundrels are marrying younger women! Wicked, selfish (marrying someone who can safely bear children is NOT legitimate), and not "age appropriate." Gen-X men should only marry Gen-X womyn, now 40ish and infertile, who rejected them, often brutally, for decades.

So opined a never-married, middle-aged Gen-X "relationship expert." Supply your own punch line.

PolishKnight| 6.23.11 @ 4:25PM

The main problem boils down to this: Women are taught to not like men and who can blame them? They live in an age of hyper chivalry where they are oppressed victims for any possible gripe they might have even of their own creation. They are lauded as heroes making"history" doing things men have done for centuries. If a woman fireman saves a baby from a burning building, the newspapers scream about it for months. On the other hand, if she is a housewife and looks after her kids, she's also lauded as making a "sacrifice" for her children but if a man was to ask a woman to support him in the same role, most women would call him a bum.

At best, most of them don't hate men directly but rather view men as disposable, second class citizens who exist to please them. This viewpoint is not only directed towards men but also towards those they perceive in the working class. My wife regularly observes women abusing store clerks. So perhaps it's not directed at men personally but rather a side effect of the world-owes-women-everything-they-want lifestyle.

After all, isn't that what the word "feminism" literally means? Of course, they claim it means "equality" but are then quick to define "equality" as really meaning "fairness" and "fairness" as they should get everything either as victims of sexism or beneficiaries of it.

Who wants to marry THAT?

Apparently, a lot of conservative men did based upon statistics where married women tend to vote more leftward than their husbands but that gap is closing. It's also useful to keep in mind that the left doesn't mind the destruction of the family and vilification of men, including minority men, because unwed mothers and their offspring are almost guaranteed democrat voters. However... statistically, the GenX career women are not only unlikely to marry but also to have children so that's another way for the Democrats to slowly sap away at conservative numbers since these women tend to come from conservative homes. The Democrats, to their credit, are experts are recruiting bodies over to their cause.

Bottom line: This is the single most important issue for conservatives. Instead, they spend most of their time fretting about preserving the GW tax cuts and federal funding of abortion. Whatever the merits of those causes, they are trivial compared to this issue that is getting absolutely no attention from most conservatives. McCain showed zero concern for the rights of fathers in family court. Conservatives have voted to effectively criminalize men dating foreign women (A foreign bride is less likely to be harmed by her husband than a foreign child adopted by an American woman.) What's the point of worrying about gay marriage when millions of unwed mothers can enjoy the same benefits of marriage, support from a man, via so-called child-support? It's also rather funny that conservatives fret about abortion rights when most women are now freaking out over the prospect that they may not have children at all and may wake up at the age of 40 childless.

To their credit, they've moved past the point in the acceptance cycle from "denial" to "panic."

CalMark| 6.23.11 @ 6:11PM

Gen-X womyn didn't consider Gen-X men "good enough to marry" for two reasons, both the fault of feminism:

1. Male products of feminist upbringing are such sissies that few women, even ball-busting feminists, want to marry one.
2. The "real" men who manage to exist despite the culture of emasculation very sensibly want nothing to do with angry, hateful feminists.

Observation: Lots of feminists, the kind who have hate-seizures about conservatism, masquerade as "middle of the road" to chase conservative men. So, even "enlightened" women prefer "real" men, as opposed to "in touch with their feminine side" wimps. Nature trumps propaganda.

PolishKnight| 6.24.11 @ 9:34AM

Something to keep in mind, CalMark, is that the main feminist organization, NOW, has fewer than 50,000 members out of the general population. This is their dirty little secret.

Young women, or as lesbian college professors call them: fresh meat, hit the college campuses and briefly engage in feminist man-hating liberation even saying, as many told me over beer, that they didn't "need to get married". They confessed to me that they viewed marriage as an entitlement because they think young men need women for sex and that she can write her own ticket. That was back in the late 80's though.

Now we're in the middle of a cultural revolution without even knowing it: Young girls hitting college now plainly encounter a shortage of the traditional men they crave out of the gate. On the other hand, so many of them are messed up that many eligible bachelors may feel that there's a shortage as well. So many of them are pierced all over the face with tattoos, smoke, and have all kinds of mental disorders (half are probably from broken homes after all.)

In other words, it's a real mess out there and nearly all conservatives are totally clueless about it or unwilling to address the primary core problem: Women can't be paid equal to men and still expect men to provide for them.

Feminism was another Marxist social experiment that forced employers and universities to admit women and give them a lot of money. What has society gotten out of it?

SF_Exile| 6.24.11 @ 2:18PM

I see the "male products of feminist upbringing" almost every day on public transpo here in SF. They are the saddest looking Baby Hueys I
have ever seen. Most of them seem to be in their late 20s and early 30s and they all have that glazed-eye expression on their faces from spending way too much time hunched over their iPhones.
And they look soft - both mentally and physically. These are not like the boys I grew up with who were skilled at typically male pursuits like hunting and fishing and in many cases were members of the local chapter of the Future Farmers of America.

Case in point: it's Pride Weekend here in the City and the local press is tripping over themselves to show just how "normal" all the folks are who will
be participating in the festivities. In fact the Chronicle has an article on the front page
bottom of the fold about how gay families are thriving in rural communities. The
accompanying photo shows the lesbian couple and their children (female) of this blended family.
The glaring oddity: one teenage boy amongst them. The minute my husband read the caption
and looked at the picture he only had one thing to say: "That poor bastard. He's screwed."

And my husband would know. His mother came out of the closet when he turned 12 or 13. Not exactly the best age at which to deal with that issue when adolescence is tough enough.
That young boy is never going to learn those 'real skills' he needs. All the things that young girls really need from their future husbands and fathers. Any male influence that child may have will be undermined by the feminist shriekings of his 'mothers'.

CalMark| 6.24.11 @ 2:45PM

I also live in the SF Bay Area, and you are absolutely right. Soft, sloppy sissies abound.
Seeing them makes me think, "You need two years in the Army--make a man out of you." The kids are worse--scruffy, scuzzy skateboard dudes who will become who-knows-what in a few years.

Your husband's thoughts are identical to mine.

Manhood as an institution is dead in California.

Pelligrino| 6.24.11 @ 6:07PM

CalMark, I am not in disagrement, but...2 years in the Army? Uh, oh. I mean, the Army is now overly sissified in every way.

I am not sure exactly where those effeminate males should go, perhaps Border Patrol? Crop working/farming in Oklahoma, Nebraska, or Texas? Ranch-hand training schools? The Peace Corps???

There is a "critical mass" issue in today's military. It is not the "Be All You Can Be" school-of-life-serious-rigors it should be.

I don't want to be contrarian...but the military really cannot fix in a 20 or 21 year old all the incredible damage done in the years prior. It cannot. [The military has a real job to do -- it is not a "finishing school."] The junior military leaders have so much on their plates already -- they are given enough lousy recruits and told to "deal with it."

CalMark| 6.24.11 @ 7:24PM

All that would be needed to restore the warrior mentality is a) for senior officers to stop giving in to feminists, gays, and other leftist lunatics, and b) start backing junior officers when some snotty kid needs to be hung out to dry. Unfortunately, the senior officers have all sold out to the Left for their careers. Bye-bye, warrior mentality.

But it's still possible to reverse. Among George W. Bush's most egregious sins, he didn't clean out the feminists and sell-outs the Clinton machine had put in charge of the military. You're right--that gives us a wussified military where fat, sloppy sissy-boys feel right at home.

Someone could still do the housecleaning that Bush didn't. It would be a lot harder now, after two decades of sissified uniformed "leaders." But you can't give up.

Katharine| 6.23.11 @ 3:33PM

Too true, Peter!

Petronius| 6.23.11 @ 9:53AM

I'm waiting for the first parents to get locked up for preventing their daughter from indulging in this behavior. The rock stations will be playing Only the Good Die Young every hour, and the tort lawyers are holding pow wows about how to use this as a vehicle to finish off the family as a social institution. Now that the DoD has banned traditional Manhood, the next thing is for all adolescent teen hellions to be given what they've always wanted, no behavioral limits. A jury gave it to the Menendez bros. Why not the rest? And Rahm Emanuel says he's going to put a stop to the girl gangs. Really? Him and the ACLU? From now on, if you don't want your kids to disobey, don't have any.

LarryK| 6.23.11 @ 10:22AM

Have you seen some of the women doing this protest.

They don't make poles long enough for me to touch them.

Flies put down paper on them before they land.

Ewwww!

Larry| 6.23.11 @ 11:02AM

LOL

Gary| 6.23.11 @ 2:55PM

LarryK,

That was really funny.

skedaddle| 6.23.11 @ 11:16PM

SlutWalk KC has a Facebook page and it's not pretty. Four girls and 1 guy (don't know what's up with him). Most men would pay two of the girls to keep themselves covered. They want donations and want to know if anyone has a printer. They're so stupid they don't even have printers?! Pathetic!

Stan Redmond| 6.23.11 @ 11:02AM

But can they cook and clean???

Paul from SA| 6.23.11 @ 11:46AM

Thank you feminists.

They teach boys to be irresponsible and to disrespect women.

They teach women to be promiscuous and to compete for the worst men.

It's rare to find a woman who can cook. Clean? Where?

Girls are too busy primping, trying to look for good for men. Thongs. Big, fake boobs. Surgery. Swollen lips. Manicured pubic. Oral sex training and competition.

In the olden days, boys did not harm girls, not because of fear of the law. We feared her father. Where are the fathers who protect their daughters?

Thank you feminists.

Doctor Right| 6.23.11 @ 11:57AM

Liberals always seek whatever path they think will leave them devoid of any responsibility whatsoever.

The Femi-Nazis, being good little liberals, are no different.

To that end, the "What? So I was asking for it?!?!" response that these idiotic "slut-walkers" issue when challenged is a gross over-simplification that serves it's purpose - alleviating feminist women from ANY responsibility for their actions.

My personal response to this challenge would be the following:

"Listen, sweetheart...No, you didn't SK to be raped...But if you're stupid enough to dress and act provocatively in a public place that may be frequented by predatory men whose impulse control is dulled by alcohol, then YES - you most definitely bear some responsibility for what happened to you. Ignorance of one's circumstances is no excuse."

The feminist movement, on life-support since the late 70's, was officially declared dead in 1998 when so-called feminists rose-up en masse to defend the Rapist-in-Chief and viscerally attack his female detractors provided he keep sacrosanct their "right" to murder their unborn children.

No wonder the democrats have no problems attracting new recruits...liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid, and stupidity abounds on most college campuses.

Mutch Moore| 6.23.11 @ 7:57PM

Doctor you're so right (as in correct). Great analogy and analysis!

Pelligrino| 6.24.11 @ 12:38AM

Dr. Right, you are correct and I agree with most of what you post above. However, nothing died in 1998 with the Clinton fiasco. The women's lib movement is still chugging right along. It is a big reason we'll have to fight big government every step of the way to eliminate government and crushing govt. regulations. Leviathan is the home of the feminist women; it is their fiefdom. Academia as well. Just visit a business or law school near you.

Wayne | 6.23.11 @ 12:11PM

A slutwalk is a lesbian recruiting exhibition, nothing more.

Rick Z| 6.23.11 @ 5:12PM

A slutwalk is a lesbian recruiting exhibition, nothing more.

very perceptive observation --

Mutch Moore| 6.23.11 @ 7:58PM

Brevity being "the soul of wit," you nailed it in less than 10 words.

cicero| 6.23.11 @ 12:36PM

Campus pasttimes: drinking binges and slutwalks. How nice. I can recall the times when you were expelled if you were caught with alcohol, or were drunk on campus. Now, since the students represent income, rather than young people to be educated, the colleges go to great lengths to keep everybody in school. As a result, the curriculum has been so watered down, that no one has to spend any time studying in order to get passing grades. Taht leaves the bored little darlings all the time in the world to engage in drinking binges and slut walks.
I suggest that we do away with all forms of government student loans. If someone wants to go to college, they will pay for it the old fashioned way - work for the cost of tuition and books. It will mean that about one/half of the so called schools of higher learning will close; the ones that remain open will pay reasonable wages to professors who actually teach more than 2 hours per weeek; and the students will so value their education that they will insist on r eal classes, and actually study for them.

Pelligrino| 6.24.11 @ 12:44AM

cicero, here! here! You are correct. I recent study by a team of East Coast academics stated that undergrad university students -- many of them -- depending on academic focus are only doing between 1-2 hours of homework per night. None on one of the weekend days.

High school was much tougher than that.

I have no idea why states don't enforce the under age drinking age laws. 21 or older right? At a four-year institution of learning, how many are 21 or older? For most of the school year less than 1/4 of the student body.

These diplomas mean zilch.

Franco| 6.23.11 @ 12:47PM

The "Slutwalking" thing is simply the latest permutation of the 60's "f-----g for peace".

Sad, really.

Joe D.| 6.23.11 @ 1:08PM

I'm sorry, Chris, but isn't that the dress code everyday on college campuses? The dress code bar is so low these days I would not know the difference of Slutwak vs not. The meaning of the word slut has been lost.

Joe D.| 6.23.11 @ 1:11PM

What did it for me happen about 5 years ago. You remember when the US women won the cup. The one who score the goal took off her shirt and there was more uproar of those who complain the the woman. I no longer suppore US womens soccer. because of the no punishment. She new what she was doing and did not care.

Bill| 6.23.11 @ 2:56PM

Brandi Chastain, and she's a celebrity to this day.

Bill| 6.23.11 @ 1:36PM

The truth behind all this is that the Canadian policeman was talking complete sense. If a woman doesn't want to be victimized, she shouldn't dress as if she is trying to generate or exploit men's lust.

Certainly there are many other dress choices for young men; it's not as if women are being oppressed by being advised to dress modestly in order to avoid being overwhelmed by mens' sexuality.

Gary| 6.23.11 @ 1:50PM

It's great to know these females have their priorities in order!

Tax All Liberals| 6.23.11 @ 2:12PM

I am all for slut walks .... they should do it every day ... er ... wait, some of them already do.

Achmed Hassan al Waaazup| 6.23.11 @ 2:24PM

Have no fear my infidel friends. In the fullness of Islamic time, the ways of Allah (praise his name) will prevail -even here in the land of the heathens.

And when Sharia prevails, we will round up all of your sluts and put them in harems where they will produce holy warriors. So have no fear -the burka and Sharia will prevail.

JimH| 6.23.11 @ 2:57PM

The reason for the slutwalk ( and the term is ironic) is to press home the point that no matter how provacativley a woman is dressed no man has a right to force himself on her. The justification that she was ‘asking for it’ because of how she was dressed is never valid. The standard of dress is different but the principle the same in those parts of the world where a womon not covered up by a burka is a whore trying to provoke men. You may disagree with this manner of expression, but that is the point being made.

Bill| 6.23.11 @ 3:06PM

True, but this is America. Americans are known worldwide for responding to things as those things portray themselves on the fact of it. Look like a slut, get treated like one. We are a simple folk; that's why the world holds us in contempt while it expects us to rescue them from the consequences of their nuanced way of life.

Katharine| 6.23.11 @ 3:41PM

Jim H wrote: "no matter how provacativley a woman is dressed no man has a right to force himself on her."
But Jim, as the author noted, who does not believe this already? Only complete Neanderthals! Sorry, but Slutwalks appear to be a bunch of silly adolescent girls using something no one protests as an excuse for exhibitionism.

PolishKnight| 6.23.11 @ 4:45PM

JimH, nobody ever said such a thing. Nobody ever claimed that, in westernized countries at least, that men had a "right" to attack provocatively dressed women.

The argument was simply that women who dressed provocatively might be increasing the risk of such men attacking them. But there's another hidden agenda to the feminist protest:

These same women think it's perfectly fine, even desirable, for men to be out-of-control when it comes to sexily dressed women getting men to ask them out and buy them things. Let's try this analogy: If a dealer in Vegas encourages the waitress to give a player more drinks to gamble more loosely and lose money, he probably also shouldn't be surprised if that same player maybe goes out and drives drunk and kills someone.

If these women really wanted to "protest", how about them refusing to take freebies from men attracted to them sexually?

Hehehehe. That would be like liberal refusing to buy blood diamonds. That didn't last too long.

JimH| 6.23.11 @ 5:11PM

We can question the judgement that let to it. I have a teenaged daughter myself and would not be thrilled by seeing here in one. But as to what Katherine said above, here is the origin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk

Mutch Moore| 6.24.11 @ 1:11AM

Say whatever you will about Muslims, however, they sure have their women in check and their homosexuals chasened. Men are men in Islam. Women are beaten obedient slaves. Queers, far from any parading, cower in disciplined taciturnity.

Ironically, liberals and their policies have enabled Muslim cultural incursion into Europe and, to a lesser extent, here in the U.S.

Liberals, lesbians and other proud, in-your-face, SlutWalkers need not fret over being being oppressed by anyone "thumping" a Bible. Their real oppressors will be toting a Koran. And it is by THEIR OWN loony liberal doing. Sweet!...at this point, reading of these so called SlutWalkers, part of me is cheering on the Muslims, welcoming them with open arms to fix America.

Pat| 6.23.11 @ 3:35PM

Each time some self-appointed women’s movement spokes-nazis demand more freedom for women, it’s another resounding victory for male freedom. And constant pyrrhic victories are the current hallmark of the feminist movement. Why? Because women are now complaining that today’s males simply aren’t the responsible, mature men they used to be. Instead, the complaint is men remain little boys well into adulthood, avoid commitment, avoid marriage and starting families, avoid assuming traditional male responsibility – in short, Men are Pigs. More freedom for men wasn’t the goal of the feminist movement, but somehow it became the reality.

It was never intended to be that way. Once upon a time in the 60’s, women claimed men enjoyed all the freedoms they lacked, they didn’t want less freedom for men, just more freedom for themselves. But in the normal “unintended consequences’ paradigm, it didn’t work out that way. Today, in America, women outnumber men by a significant margin in colleges and universities, women often have higher paying jobs than their boyfriends due to a better education, experience less unemployment for those who wish to work, earn more disposable income and can remain unmarried well into their late 30’s while enjoying a life enhanced by good salaries and independent career paths. Sounds idyllic right, so why are women complaining?

Because, along the way, the men in their usual piggish fashion saw the clear advantage for themselves in the female’s New World Order. Being the “bread winner” is no longer an exclusive male duty. There is no need to marry in order to enjoy frequent sex – often with many different partners and without the previous eras’ prudish social stigma. Kids can be put off until well into their thirties, a startling social change compared to the Greatest Generation’s experience where most men were married with children by their mid-twenties. And, what’s worse, men currently in their thirties with stable, well-paying jobs and good educations can easily pick and choose among the many attractive - and younger - females when they feel the urge to finally settle down.

Conversely, women loudly maintained men weren’t actually necessary, there are always sperm banks available, but it turns out they didn’t really mean that. More and more frequently, women get that all important college degree, find a good job within the “knowledge economy”, enjoy life with travel and leisure activities and then one day wake up to decide they really do want those two adorable children with a white picket fence mortgage in the burbs’. But they also want a suitable husband to share it with - only now in their thirties, successful and with good careers, they find those “ideal” marriage prospects are slim and rapidly getting slimmer. They want husbands around their own age, with their level of education, and hopefully earning higher salaries than they do. But instead they’re finding once or twice divorced men with children from a previous marriage or those perennially never married “losers” who for various good reasons aren’t suitable marriage partners. Biological clocks ticking madly away can be a real downer, but also a driving imperative.

The new gender reality doesn’t seem very fair after all that hard work the feminists put in, but men aren’t complaining. Maybe that age old lament is true after all, men really are pigs.

PolishKnight| 6.23.11 @ 5:05PM

For starters, the feminists didn't really put in "hard work". Even at college campuses that are comprised mostly of women, they still demand "affirmative action" in favor of women. When women are unable to become successful and have tons of free spending money, they can go on welfare. The welfare state combined with affirmative action has essentially giving women a guaranteed income. Calling that "hard work" is kind of like Marie Antoinette griping about a bread shortage making her eat cake.

Men learned to make lemonaide. Many of them, including myself, wanted to have families but found the gimme-gimme-gimme attitude of most career feminists unacceptable. They basically demanded that men "share" housework and other chores but "her" income was hers. Get it? In addition, if anything goes wrong in the marriage, such women have a divorce lawyer on speed dial who will demand that she get custody and support and he get stuck with the bill for her "sacrifices" (quitting when it suited her to take time off. If he did so, he's just a bum.)

That said, there are a lot of men out there who are pigs and they are produced by the slacker culture the feminists helped create and unwed mothers raised.

Pat| 6.23.11 @ 6:20PM

P. Knight, I had no intention of passing judgment on today’s younger men relative to marriage or assuming responsibility. Cultures change over the centuries and we don’t get to vote on what they change into. As early as 1920, our own culture was undergoing a profound change relative to the societal roles of men and women. By that time in our history, men had tamed the frontier, killed off the animal predators and forced any resentful native populations onto reservations. Physically protecting the few and precious pioneer women was less and less a cultural imperative because there were fewer and fewer actual threats which could endanger them and far more women living throughout our former frontier lands.

Our exaggerated and overly protective frontier culture became more like Europe, we greatly admired the Europeans for their older, civilized culture and yearned to be urban sophisticates just like them - and no longer the rugged, mountain man, gunfighter types. Women gradually discarded their poke bonnets and ankle length skirts to assume their new societal roles as “equals”.

We couldn’t stop this cultural change, most Americans didn’t even realize it was occurring. So young men today can certainly and without guilt enjoy a new and different lifestyle, one that is far less burdened with responsibility at an early age. There are no inherent rights or wrongs to male culture, it is what it is. And women, while asserting their new cultural freedoms, will, at times, unconsciously revert to the “need for protection” mindset their female ancestors formerly entertained. Our lives today are staid, physically protected to a greater degree than in any past era – in short, boring – so, naturally, men enjoy viewing violent professional sports and video game pretend wars, while women read historical romance novels featuring hairy chested men of action. The good ole days weren’t nearly as action packed or romantic as we now imagine they were, but that doesn’t matter to our changing cultural norms either.

In the end, many of these feminist protests are simply a ploy to grab male attention and unconsciously satisfy a visceral need for male protection by calling a focused attention to themselves through outrageous words and actions. But, perversely, today’s young males harbor no great urge to act all “protective” toward young females – let the gals buy a big dog if they feel the need for protection, they can certainly afford one.

Slacker| 6.23.11 @ 7:30PM

Agree. I would add young males aren’t likely to find slut walks all that titillating. Nothing new here. We have been living in the age of feminism for our entire lives. Yawn.

Mutch Moore| 6.24.11 @ 3:44PM

If the SlutWalker's intent is to provocatively or satirically "titillate" then what will they have accomplished if it worked? Remember, a horny guy NEVER commits sexual assault or rape. Sexual gratification in not a component, according to the feminists. Sexual assault or rape is ALWAYS motivated only by power and control over the victim.

PolishKnight| 6.24.11 @ 9:23AM

Pat, I'm unsure about the point you're trying to make here. Are you trying to say it was "natural" social evolution for women to become more equal and only subconsciously revert to craving men as protectors and providers?

I'm observing that little has really changed except the appearance of the landscape. Replace wild Indians, er, Native Americans with inner city youths and a log cabin with a fragile roof with a suburban condo and a 30 year payment plan: Women need men ever before in their traditional role and they never really were liberated. Feminism is about replacing individual men with a Marxist and hyper chivalrous state via welfare and affirmative action on the former and child-support on the latter.

Of COURSE the feminist slut walks are a play for attention. That's all the feminists do to get "equality": Cry to Sir Lancelot to rescue the damsel in disdress from the dragon that she went home with last night. Feminism has never been about equality but rather a paradoxical form of hyper chivalry that regards women as victims of their own protection.

Regarding buying their own dog: I remember during the early 2000's feminists sneering that single women were so smart for buying their own home and getting in on the real estate wealth generation engine. Howz that working out for them now?

Pat| 6.24.11 @ 4:02PM

P. Knight: Societies don’t evolve in that meaning of the term, but that’s just my opinion. Rather, cultures change in repeating cycles, affected by their outside environment, both economic and physical. The frontier environment conditions prevalent here from the landings at Plymouth rock through the Alaskan gold rushes created the various over-protective forces which influenced our American culture for many generations. But cultures don’t change on a specific date in history, they change slowly over many generations - cultural rules and norms can survive well beyond the point where the environment changed and the reasons for former cultural norms are no longer valid. But, eventually, I believe, those outside forces validating cultural norms will have run their course and a new culture with its own norms and rules emerges.

Relative to cycles, the upper and middle classes among the French at the time of their revolution weren’t all that different from America today. Women then were more independent than in 1890 America, morality was looser, frequent sexual adventures among married and unmarried women was common and accepted, if carried on discretely. If our current culture has finally reached or surpassed, in those respects, French culture of the 1790’s, then it probably can’t be termed evolution, maybe just termed cultural change. My point was that cultures can’t be judged right or wrong, just different and whether or not appropriate to their time in history.

But certain gender motivations survive these cultural cycles with a greater or lesser intensity. Men are protectors, women are the protected – basic biological reasons exist for these inherent gender roles and which survive through all cultural change. Today, a woman doesn’t need a man close by to protect her, although it was men exclusively who provided our relatively safe societies of today, allowing women to dispense with an individual male’s protection, at least in their minds. But, biologically, women still remain vulnerable during pregnancy and seek protection. How many months into her pregnancy before a woman thoroughly realizes she won’t impress anyone competing in the 100 yard dash? What undeniable truths are reinforced during that pregnancy period?

In specific terms, I think women can’t relinquish their unconscious desire to be protected and this desire manifests itself in all the demonstrations, large and small, women constantly employ to attract the attention of and thus the protection of men. If American men are responding differently toward women today than in 1850, so what and how long will this current cycle last?

Renaissance Nerd | 6.24.11 @ 1:37AM

I think you're wrong about the intentions of the 2nd/3rd wave feminist movements. I reckon they were always male chauvinism in drag.

Bill| 6.23.11 @ 4:48PM

You put your finger on a very important point when you astutely point out that, with regard to certain feminist goals, "women didn't really mean it."

Unfortunately, the fact that women often take positions they don't really mean, is a very old stereotype.

BackToBasics| 6.23.11 @ 5:26PM

I've posted this 2 times today. It fits when it comes to feminist ideology:

Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.
Proverbs 22:28

For there shall be no reward to the evil man: the candle of the wicked shall be put out.

My son, fear the Lord, and the king: and meddle not with them that are GIVEN TO CHANGE.

For their calamity shall rise suddenly, and who knows the ruin of them both?
Proverbs: 24:20-22

Feminism sure has brought about change and along with some other leftist ideas, it will continue to bring about a national calamity.

Kerch| 6.25.11 @ 4:22PM

HA! At one time (about 19th century), "calamity" was a term used for STDs.

POST American| 6.23.11 @ 11:50PM

---'Feminism' took off, really, after WW1.

It was conceived largely by London moneyed
'social engineering' Fabian elites. Think the
Rothchild-Milner set up Bertrand Russell sort.

Far from 'independence' for women, it really
amounted to doubling the labor force, doubling
the tax base, and destroying traditional family,
genuine culture and religion.

The 'famously first' flapper --Nancy Cunard,
daughter of the Cunard fortune, left home at
22, had a hysterechtomy, started a jazz poetry
magazine and, after about a decade and a half,
was tossed aside and died in poverty and obscutity
in a Paris free clinic.

Tells us everything about the aims and reality
of 'liberation' viz a viz gender, biology, sex
and dope.

Further, jazz itself, which was so relentlessly
pushed, along with cocaine, pot and bootleg
liquour ----had been around much longer.

It was really nothing more than the salon
music of whorehouses ---speeded up and
polished. Brahms was playing such music
in moonlighting gigs in Hamburg brothels.

What we call and rever as 'the REAL' soul
music 'blues' came from this ---and was even
harmonically influenced, almost certainly 'introduced' through such highly educated guides' as W C Handy, by Richard Wagner's 'Tristan and Isolde'.

In short, it was ALLLLLLL set up to 'work' on
you, to, over time, DESTROY you and yours.

-----------KEY info never mentioned.

Mutch Moore| 6.24.11 @ 1:36AM

The SlutWalker's underlying premise fly in the face of well known lesbian/feminist dogma declaring that sexual assault and rape are NEVER about any sexual gratification in the first place! Instead, sexual assault and rape are ALWAYS about control and power over the victim. Therefore, the entire SlutWalk demonstration would appear an exercise in feckless inanity and not in allegiance at all with N.O.W. doctrine.

Renaissance Nerd | 6.24.11 @ 1:40AM

I notice the Slutwalkers have to travel in herds. Herd animals gather to protect themselves from predators, so that only a few of them get picked off at the periphery. Is that what they're doing? Trying to get rid of the sick and feeble among them? Doesn't seem very liberal to me...

Charles Martel| 6.24.11 @ 1:46AM

Should make for an interesting parade.

+++

weddingdresses | 6.24.11 @ 2:04AM

The SlutWalker's underlying premise fly in the face of well known lesbian/feminist dogma declaring that sexual assault and rape are NEVER about any sexual gratification in the first place! Instead, sexual assault and rape are ALWAYS about control and power over the victim. Therefore, the entire SlutWalk demonstration would appear an exercise in feckless inanity and not in allegiance at all with N.O.W. doctrine.

Genial Gibber| 6.24.11 @ 2:37PM

weddingdresses: I don't get your point here. How does this correlate to the SlutWalkers demo?

wodiej| 6.24.11 @ 6:48AM

Where are the adults?

pdevlin| 6.24.11 @ 12:12PM

I am not sure of the exact connection, but it seems to me, the more radical feminism (not talking about equal pay etc.) has been pushed, the more women seem to be objectified.

peter| 6.26.11 @ 10:12PM

Recently I left my front door wide open, unlocked all my windows, drew all the curtains, piled my widescreen TV and sound system in the front room and laid a trail of $100 bills from our local methadone clinic leading to my house. To my surprise and utter amazement I was robbed. They cleaned me out! When I reported this to the police, the local Area Commander had the audacity to suggest that I somehow contributed to the crime. The lousy rightwing facist running dog of a neocon. He said I was an idiot!!! I am so angry I am going to organise a series of protest marches in cities worldwide; I think I'll call them Idiot Walks. Could you please use the resources of your organisation to help achieve this laudable aim. Thanking you in anticipation, Yours sincerely Peter Williamson, Sydney, Australia

lisseursGHD | 6.26.11 @ 11:59PM

Bienvenue chez notre ghd france,ghd lisseurs professionnels fourlisseur en ligne où vous offre des stylers ghd variés, fers à lisser de bonne qualité et à prix fous-économisez jusqu'à 54%! Commandez maintenant.

Adult toys | 7.4.11 @ 1:23AM

boyfriend wants to have sex with his girlfriend,but ashamed of his small organ...decided to bring girlfriend in dark place,open his ziper and put penis in GF's hand...GF:no thanks ,i don't smoke!

More Articles by Christopher Orlet

More Articles From Another Perspective

The Other Gosnells

May 22, 2013 | Jordan Gonzalez

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

May 21, 2013 | Lars Walker

Stifle This, Mr. President

May 16, 2013 | Ray V. Hartwell, III

The Scheme to Make America Fat

May 10, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

The Plantation President

May 7, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/23/feminist-foolery

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|111 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|66 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|58 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|18 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|11 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|12 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|26 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

Muslims Murder British Soldier in London

Ross Kaminsky | 2:00PM

Anthony Weiner’s Campaign Video

Patrick Ryan | 1:33PM

Congressional Democrat Outraged Over IRS Scandal

Kaylin Bugos | 12:57PM

Immigration Bill Clears Key Committee

Jordan Gonzalez | 11:56AM

Nixonian

Yogi Love | 11:54AM

Moore, OK by Steve Breen

Patrick Ryan | 11:50AM

He’s Just Not That Into You

Ross Kaminsky | 11:34AM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.