Of late, I’ve heard much about this idea of “reclaiming” words. Most often the idea of reclaiming is connected to negative and derogatory words. The goal is to remove the power to degrade from words that get used as verbal weapons. The latest word reclamation project that’s come to my attention is “slut.”
At first blush, I can’t imagine anyone wanting to claim this word, let alone reclaim it. Slut is whipped out frequently to identify women who show lots of skin or appear (note: not necessarily are) promiscuous. It’s also used (unimaginatively) by talk show hosts to attack opponents. So imagine my surprise when I learned today about SlutWalks.
Blame It On Canada
It all started in Canada. A Toronto police officer commented to students at York University that if women wanted to avoid rape, they shouldn’t dress like “sluts.” In the ensuing uproar, SlutWalks were born. As I understand the movement, groups of women and men gather together wearing everything from bustiers to jeans. They then march and rally to call attention to the oft-repeated argument that women are somehow “asking for it” if they dress “slutty.” One sign at the Toronto SlutWalk stated, “Don’t tell us how to dress. Tell men not to rape.”
Here’s the problem: why focus on reclaiming a word that will never have a positive connotation?
Whenever I see a campaign that’s based on the idea of “we’ll change people’s perceptions of a negative concept,” I wonder why advocates handicap themselves from the beginning. People think what they think when someone says the word slut. So why anchor a much-needed campaign for change with the weight of a word that doesn’t help your cause?
The Contradiction
Rebecca Traister captures what I also see as one of the biggest stumbling blocks to SlutWalks and, by connection, reclaiming the word slut:
To object to these ugly characterizations is right and righteous. But to do so while dressed in what look like sexy stewardess Halloween costumes seems less like victory than capitulation (linguistic and sartorial) to what society already expects of its young women. Scantily clad marching seems weirdly blind to the race, class and body-image issues that usually (rightly) obsess young feminists and seems inhospitable to scads of women who, for various reasons, might not feel it logical or comfortable to express their revulsion at victim-blaming by donning bustiers. So while the mission of SlutWalks is crucial, the package is confusing and leaves young feminists open to the very kinds of attacks they are battling.
If, as women, we say we don’t want to be judged by our clothing, be it a mini skirt or a potato sack, why has attire become such a noticeable part of this movement? Putting one’s body on display for a cause isn’t new (Lady Godiva, anyone?), but the effectiveness of such efforts seems questionable. In large part it’s because the focus becomes less about the what one is advocating for and more about just how much skin one is showing.
Fighting the Wrong Battle
Blaming the victim has been a part of our culture for a long time, and it won’t go away overnight. Advocates are definitely needed to provide a counter voice to the problem, but part of me wonders if proponents of SlutWalks and reclaiming the word are fighting the wrong battle. Yes, SlutWalks make for “sexy,” attention-grabbing headlines, but does this approach leave out the very people it’s trying to help?
Harsah Walia makes the argument that “…the term disproportionately impacts women of colour and poor women to reinforce their status as inherently dirty and second-class, and hence more rape-able.” She goes on to note that the women most likely to be marginalized and in need of help were not necessarily comfortable marching.
Perhaps my misgivings are misplaced, but I struggle to see how putting “slut” front and center changes the balance. As long as we’re giving voice to them, words have power. I’m not sure that the current flowing through this particular word can ever be changed from negative to positive.
