This week marks the first anniversary of SlutWalk.

The first SlutWalk demonstration took place in Toronto, Canada, on April 3, 2011. The rally was held in response to a Toronto police officer’s statement that young women could help safeguard themselves against rape by dressing more modestly.

Feminist activist, Sonya Barnett, was incensed at his remark. She bristled at the implication that provocatively dressed women were in any way responsible for their own victimization and abuse. Barnett argued that girls should have the right to dress slutty without fear of sexual assault. Suggesting otherwise, places the blame on the female victim, and excuses the behavior of the male perpetrator.

Barnett organized a protest march to the Toronto Police Station, which she dubbed “SlutWalk.” Through it, she hoped to raise society’s collective consciousness, and to encourage girls to:

• “reclaim” the word “slut” and other such negative male-defined labels,
• exert their right to reject male-defined, patriarchal norms of female dress and behavior, and
• protest a culture that puts blame on the victims of sexual assault.

Proud to be a Slut?

Over the past year, more than 50 SlutWalks have taken place in the US, Canada, and around the world, including Australia and Britain. The events are similar to “Take Back the Night” rallies. But they differ, because addressing sexual violence is only one of their aims. SlutWalk also wants to aggressively redefine notions about woman’s sexuality.

To that end, SlutWalkers sport T-shirts and signs with slogans like, “Sluts pay Taxes,” or “I’m Proud to be a Slut.” Many protesters dress provocatively, in skimpy leather thongs, bras, skank-boots, and fishnet stockings, paint the word “slut” on their bare skin, or skate around on inline skates in lingerie. Their male supporters wear shirts that read, “I Love Sluts!” The message is that it’s misogynistic when men categorize women as sluts, but it’s empowering when women define themselves as such. Women have the right to be as slutty as they want to be.

Sexual violence is a problem that ought to concern us all. However, I fear that SlutWalks do little to improve woman’s lot. In fact, they arguably exacerbate the very problem they say they’re trying to solve.

Why SlutWalk Ideology is Bad for Women

SlutWalk ideology is bad for women. Here are five reasons why:

1. It absolves girls of risk-management responsibility:

Telling a girl to be careful about the way she dresses, where she goes, and how she behaves is about risk management, not victim blaming. Risk management is an important consideration in many areas of life. For instance, earlier this week a local hockey player left his car unlocked and key in the ignition when he jumped on the team bus for an out-of-town game. He’s lucky his car wasn’t stolen.

Had it been, his dad, a police officer, would have still brought the full force of the law to bear on the thief. The “invite” of an open car doesn’t reduce or minimize a thief’s culpability. But that doesn’t mean that leaving your car unlocked is smart. It’s not good risk management.

SlutWalk ideology puts the entire onus for sexual conduct on the guys. It teaches girls that they don’t need to manage risk. It encourages foolish behavior.  It implies that a girl can dress provocatively, go to a guy’s apartment, get drunk, get naked, pole dance, come on to him, and then accuse him of rape when he doesn’t stop at the last minute. C’mon girls. Use your brains. Yes, he may be culpable of rape, but you sure didn’t do yourself any favors by throwing your car doors open. If you’re wise, you’ll put up boundaries to safeguard yourself against the risk of unwanted sexual attention and not put yourself in risky situations.

Don’t misunderstand me. Women who are sexually abused are NOT at fault. A crime is a crime. But there are sometimes things that girls can do to lesson their vulnerability– particularly in social dating situations.

2. It equates sex with power:

SlutWalk buys into Third Wave feminist ideology that sex is power. It preaches that sex is ultimately the way a girl exerts and expresses her freedom and equality. It intimates that slutty women are powerful women. If a girl wants more power, then she’ll throw off male-defined Judeo-Christian notions about sex. Sadly, I see the carnage of this attitude in multitudes of today’s young women -even those who are Christians. Power is not the right to do what you want, nor to act in a sensual, promiscuous, immoral way. True power is “the might to do what’s right”—It’s the backbone and strength to walk in the way of the Lord.

 3. It teaches girls it’s cool to be crass

I gotta admit I had a hard time writing this post. Though the post called for it, I don’t like using the word “slut.” I think it’s crass, crude, and inappropriate.  Since when is being ill-mannered and potty-mouthed a mark of personal empowerment? SlutWalk would have us believe it is. A Huffington Post writer sarcastically entitled her response to the movement: “Dear Feminists, Will You Also Be Marching in N***erWalk? Because I Won’t.”  It’s NOT cool to be crass. It does nothing to elevate women or womanhood.

4. It casts men as oppressors

If you get the diagnosis wrong, you’ll get the treatment wrong.

SlutWalk blames the problem of sexual abuse on patriarchy. It buys into the feminist mindset that throughout history men have been on a misogynistic power trip, and part of a massive subversive patriarchal plot to oppress women. Men are bad. Women are good. Get rid of male privilege and you’ll get rid of the problem.

Well guess what?  Women can be bad too. Female to male domestic violence is statistically just as prevalent as male to female. And the feminist argument that women act this way because of the patriarchal system is simply not true.

Yes, due to the mechanics of male-female plumbing, women are raped more than men. Rape is a horrible wrong. But at its core, the problem isn’t maleness or men. It’s sin. Some men are oppressors.  But many are decent, honorable guys who’ll throw themselves on a sword to protect the ones they love. It’s high time we stopped swallowing the lie that the male sex is responsible for all the world’s ills.

5.  It encourages sexual permissiveness

SlutWalk wants girls to stop feeling shame. A girl should be able to act trashy without feeling trashy about the way she acts. A Slutwalk Organizer explains:

“The event is in protest of a culture that we think is too permissive when it comes to rape and sexual assault,” said Siobhan Connors, 20, of Lynn, Massachusetts, another Boston organizer. “It’s to bring awareness to the shame and degradation women still face for expressing their sexuality … essentially for behaving in a healthy and sexual way.”

Okay, let me get this straight. SlutWalk thinks that we live in a culture that’s too permissive with regards to men forcing women to have sex. But it also thinks that it’s healthy for women to be sexually permissive. Whoa. Now there’s some fancy mental gymnastics! How–pray tell–does the idea that it’s healthy for women to sleep around outside of marrige detract guys from pressuring, coercing, or forcing them to do so? Surely, if it’s healthy for girls to sleep around, then it logically follows that it’s healthy for guys to expect girls to engage in that type of behavior. It fosters the mentality, “Of course you want it! All girls want it!  It’s good for you!”

Sexual violence is a horrific sin. But SlutWalk isn’t helping matters any. Sadly, I think it’s just shooting women in the foot. It’s creating a mindset and culture that exacerbates the very problem it says it wants to solve.

Related posts:

1. Girls Gone Skank
2. Boobquake

Is It Becoming or Unbecoming?

Kosmio is the descriptive form of the Greek noun kosmos (to put in order, trim, adorn, or decorate), which is related to our English word cosmos—the universe. The Greeks regarded the universe to be an ordered, integrated, harmonious whole. Kosmos is the opposite of chaos. So when Paul told women that their adornment should be kosmio, he meant that like the universe, all the parts should be harmoniously arranged with the other parts. It should be “becoming”—that is, appropriate or fitting. Given the context, I believe Paul was implying that our adornment ought to be becoming on a number of different levels.

First and foremost, your clothing ought to be becoming, fitting to, and consistent with your character as a child of God. But it also ought to be becoming to your body type, becoming to your femininity, becoming to your husband, becoming to the other clothes you are wearing, and becoming to the occasion and place you intend to wear it. There’s a tremendous amount of guidance in that small word, becoming. It challenges you to evaluate your clothes, shoes, purses, makeup, and hair from multiple angles as part of the harmonious, integrated whole of your life—to line up the seen with the unseen and the temporal with the eternal. It challenges you to bring a cosmic perspective to bear on your everyday decisions.

I like the word Paul chose. It has enormous implications. Kosmio means that a Christian woman’s “look” ought to be consistently put together, inside and out. This challenges those who put an undue emphasis on external appearance as well as those who neglect their personal appearance. It’s a corrective to women who dress extravagantly. It’s a corrective to those who dress seductively. But it’s also a corrective to those who think that “holy” means frumpy, ugly, unfeminine, and out of style. Becoming indicates that running around in baggy jeans and T-shirts all the time is just as inappropriate as being obsessed with stylish clothing. It means that a woman’s appearance ought to be put together nicely. It ought to be pleasant and attractive—on the inside and the outside.

Is It Decent or Indecent?

The second word, aidous, is based on the Greek term for shame and disgrace. The word is a blend of modesty and humility. When I think about a word picture that personifies this concept, I think of approaching God with eyes that are downcast.

It involves a sense of deficiency, inferiority, or unworthiness. It suggests shame, but also a corresponding sense of reverence and honor toward rightful authority. It’s the opposite of insolence, imprudence, disrespect, or audacity. Downcast eyes are the opposite of defiant eyes.

So does dressing with your eyes downcast mean that you are self-conscious? No. It means that your clothing tells the truth about the gospel. Your clothing shows the world that Jesus covers your shame and makes you decent. Your clothes cover your nakedness as the clothing of Christ covers your sin.

Dressing “with eyes downcast” means that you choose clothes that are decent in His eyes . . . not clothes that are provocative, seductive, and that honor nakedness. When you dress decently, you recognize that God ordained clothes to cover, and not draw attention to, your naked skin. You cover up out of respect for Him, the gospel, your Christian brothers—and out of respect for who He made you to be. Decency means you agree with the Lord about the true purpose of clothing and set aside your self-interest to dress in a way that exalts Christ.

So in that dressing room trying on that skirt, take time to sit, bend, and stretch in front of that mirror, and ask yourself, Is this skirt decent? Does it do what it should do? Does it properly cover me up? Does it showcase my underlying nakedness—or exalt the gospel of Christ?

Is It Moderate or Excessive?

The final thing to ask yourself about clothing is whether it is moderate or excessive. Paul uses the Greek word sophrosunes. It means “of a sound mind; curbing one’s desires and impulses, self-controlled, temperate.” The word indicates that our adornment should be reasonable and not crazy. We ought to rein in our impulses and avoid extremes in fashion, hairstyles, and makeup. We also ought to avoid spending crazy amounts of money or stuffing our closets full of crazy quantities of clothing. We ought to govern our wardrobe choices with a sense of moderation, simplicity, and self-control. If the outfit is crazy extreme, crazy expensive, or if it’s crazy for you to be buying another one, then you ought to pass it up.

Understanding the purpose of clothing and asking yourself the three questions, Is it becoming? Is it decent? and Is it moderate? will help you figure out how to dress. And don’t forget to include your “Helper” in the process. The Holy Spirit is an invaluable source of assistance when it comes to figuring out whether or not your appearance glorifies God. If your heart is right and you seek His guidance, He will be your personal wardrobe consultant and teach you what and what not to wear.

© Moody Publishers. Adapted from Girls Gone Wise in a World Gone Wild, pp. 103-108.

Related posts:

1. Wise vs. Wild Contrast #7: Appearance
2. Book Blog 7: The Naked Truth about Clothes
3. Wear the Pants MAN-ifesto

1. Read the seventh point of contrast between a Wild and a Wise Thing (Pages 93-108)
2. Download and complete the Chapter Questions for Personal Reflection
3. Post your comments on the Blog

• What does it mean to dress “as a prostitute?”
• How might the concept that clothing is meant to display deep and profound spiritual truths about the gospel change the way a woman dresses?
• Refer to the second paragraph on page 102. Which pitfalls about the practical question of what and what not to wear have tripped you up?
• In what way do the principles that a woman’s clothing ought to be  “becoming, decent and moderate” challenge you?

Related posts:

1. Girls Gone Wise Video Book Blog
2. Book Blog 3: Are you a Wily Coyote?
3. Book Blog Intro: A Tale of a Girl Gone Wild

The highlight of the afternoon was the famous “Burn Your Bra” Freedom Trash Can. With elaborate ceremony and shouts of joy, the protesters threw away what they identified as male-promoted “instruments of torture”–high-heeled shoes, corsets, girdles, padded bras, stockings, false eyelashes, curlers, and copies of Playboy, Cosmopolitan, and Ladies Home Journal. They shouted “Freedom for Women!” and “No More Miss America” and hung a banner from the balcony reading “Women’s Liberation.”

The display marked the cultural launch of feminism—the philosophy that women have the right to define their own existence. Feminists argued that women had been wrongly defined by men as housewives and/or sex objects. They reasoned that women would find happiness, wholeness, and self-respect when they had the freedom to define themselves. And culture promptly set about giving them the power and right to do so.

Fast forward to 2010.

Last week, Miss USA released the official contestant photos of  51 pageant hopefuls. The look? Lacy black lingerie, fishnets, smudged kohl eyeliner, knee-high boots, stilettos, voluptuous cleavage, and naked flesh, the like of which have traditionally been associated with prostitutes and porn stars, not beauty queens.  The photo shoot, entitled “Waking up in Vegas,” featured steamy, seductive Playboy-like poses on a large bed and other bedroom furniture.

Rima Fakih made history as the first Arab-American to win the pageant. Besides being crowned Miss USA, she also has the dubious distinction of procuring top honors in a pole dancing competition. What’s even more startling than her lewd behavior, is that this behavior is supported by women. It’s women who uphold the right of Fakih and other contestants to break the “princess, good-girl” stereotype. According to female organizers, princess is passé – but the woman who exerts her sexual power is smart, sophisticated, and worthy of a Miss USA title.

What was once considered exploitative is now considered empowering.

How did this happen? The feminists of the past protested against the sexual objectification of women. Thus, it would appear that modern women have rejected the tenets of feminism. Ironically, however, quite the opposite is true. The raunch culture of today is due to the fact that young women have so thoroughly embraced feminist thought.

Feminism taught the new generation that:

1. Men have historically deprived women of power and freedom
2. Women need to reclaim their power and freedom
3. Women exert power and freedom by rejecting the restrictive, male-defined roles and boundaries of Judeo-Christianity
4. Women have the right to define their own behavior
5. Women have the right to define what womanhood is all about

The daughters of the feminist generation were raised on these ideas. They embraced them and took them to heart. Since sex is power, what better way for women to exert their power than through sexuality? They concluded that Girl Power is best expressed by throwing off all boundaries and becoming brazenly sexual. The Spice Girls, The Sex & the City stars, and celebrities such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan all modeled the idea that empowerment equals the right to be raunchy. The idea quickly caught on.

Joe Francis, the Hugh Hefner of Gen X and founder of the Girls Gone Wild porn video series, capitalized on the trend. Accompanied by his camera crews, Francis visited beaches, nightclubs, and parties across America seeking “everyday” college-age women who would flash their breasts, make out with each other, and be sexually lewd on camera in exchange for GGW-emblazoned T-shirts or hats. Francis raked in as much as forty million dollars a year from the sale of these videos. When asked why he thought thousands of young women were so eager to exhibit themselves for his cameras, so willing to objectify themselves in exchange for trucker hats and tank tops, Francis simply said: “It’s empowering. It’s freedom.”

This generation thinks that raunch equals power and freedom. Newsweek has dubbed this, “The Girls Gone Wild Effect.” Nowadays, raunchy sexuality has become the prevalent expression of a woman’s freedom and power.

Joe Francis sees the Girl-Gone-Wild phenomenon as the ultimate expression of feminism. Muzi Mei, the Carrie Bradshaw of Beijing who became a superstar by blogging about her sexual conquests, agrees. She told a reporter, “I express my freedom through sex. It’s my life, and I can do what I want.”

It’s the ultimate irony that the foundational beliefs of feminism have contributed to the increased sexual objectification and pornographication of women. Society’s thorough acceptance of feminist precepts is one of the reasons why behavior that was seen as destructive in 1968 is celebrated as desirable in 2010. When Miss America 1968 appeared in an evening gown and swimwear at the bequest of men, feminism identified her as “exploited.” But when Miss USA 2010 appears in fishnet stockings in sexy bedroom porn, and boldly rejects social convention by entering a pole dancing competition—and does so of her own choice, self-determination and exerting her right to freedom—she embraces and lives out feminism’s core tenets. Given a feminist belief system, culture has no choice but to identify her brash, immoral behavior as“empowered.”

Feminism didn’t provide the answer for woman’s happiness, wholeness, and self-identity. It’s just led us further away from the truth. Girls, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…. I think the time is ripe for a new movement—a seismic holy quake of counter-cultural men and women who dare to take God at his word, those who have the courage to stand against the popular tide, and believe and delight in God’s plan for male and female. A revolution of women embracing God’s design is the needed antidote to counter the self-deterministic feminist mindset that unwittingly justifies the Miss USA type of madness.

Related posts:

1. Girls Gone Skank

Outraged by this statement, Jennifer McCreight, a 22-year-old student at Purdue University in Indiana, invited women to collectively bare their breast cleavage today–April 27. She claimed that this would scientifically test the cleric’s theory. McCreight, who calls herself “a liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted atheist feminist,” mockingly encouraged women to “embrace the supposed supernatural power of their breasts” by dressing immodestly.  “With the power of our scandalous bodies combined, we should surely produce an earthquake.”

With the help of Facebook and Twitter, word of the event, dubbed “Boobquake,” travelled like wildfire across the internet, and within 24 hours had recruited tens of thousands of supporters and garnished international media attention. But as the morning of the event dawned, and women around the world began to bare their cleavage, a strong earthquake measuring 6.9 on the Richter scale struck southeast of Taiwan.

The earth averages more than a million earthquakes each year. Only about 135 reach the magnitude of the one in Taiwan this morning.  The phenomenon of the earthquake coinciding with the Boobquake event could be interpreted either way. The Islamic cleric will no doubt use it as proof that that the seductive behavior of females leads to natural disasters, and that Allah has endorsed the cleric as his spokesman. The cleric will insist that the Islamic law enforcing the Hijab be strictly enforced– that females be forced to cover all parts of their body except hands and face, or be subject to punishment of up to seventy lashes or sixty days imprisonment—or even worse.

On the other end of the spectrum, a scantily clad McCreight predictably brushed off the earthquake as statistically insignificant. Following the disaster she wrote, “If we get many of a similar magnitude in the next 24 hours, then we might start worshipping the power of immodesty.” In any case, since McCreight is an atheist, she denies that God has anything to do with earthquakes, and since she is a feminist, she maintains that women have the right to do whatever they want–even if it does cause a disaster.  Women have the right to make the rules. They can dress immodestly and be as seductive and promiscuous as they want – it’s their own business. She said,“If men ogle, that’s the fault of the men, not me for dressing how I like. If I want to a show a little cleavage or joke about my boobs, that’s my prerogative.”

The whole discussion leaves me shaking my head. On the one hand, you have an Islamic male suggesting that immodest women are to blame for natural disasters and for causing men to sin.  On the other, you have a feminist female suggesting that there are no natural consequences of women dressing immodestly and seductively—men are the ones with the problem. The former supports the oppression of women, while the latter supports woman’s unbridled right to be immodest, or even immoral if she so pleases.

It never ceases to amaze me that the assault on the biblical pattern for womanhood comes from multiple angles, and must be fought on many fronts. We must combat the idea that it’s man’s prerogative to define womanhood—that women are somehow inferior, and can be demeaned, degraded, assaulted, or abused.  We must also combat the idea that it’s woman’s prerogative to define womanhood—that men are somehow inferior—that men are the oppressors and women are above reproach. Furthermore, we must combat the idea of an egalitarian gender-neutral or gender-fluid type of existence.  None of these conform to the biblical pattern.

Boobquake is the foolishness of an arrogant man compounded by the foolishness of an arrogant woman.. and the foolishness of all who follow their lead. According to the Bible,  it’s God’s prerogative—not man’s and not woman’s – to define who we are and how we ought to live.

No related posts.