Purity balls, SlutWalks, and Racially Privileged Thinking
So, yesterday, I read this tumblr post about feminism in YA lit (h/t to 
goddess_of_ice for sharing the post). The whole post was interesting, but I particularly liked the beginning where the author of the blog post discussed Jessica Valenti’s The Purity Myth. She explained that Valenti did an excellent job of describing how the myth of sexual purity was harmful to people, but that Valenti failed at addressing the inherent privilege of the purity myth in general:
"Anyone else not fitting that description is considered “sullied” and “dirty” and so free game for sexual harassment and rape. While Valenti acknowledges that there needs to be a huge shift in perceptions, her ideas are generally focused on tackling the myth, not the problem that anyone who is not a SWASP female apparently has no valour [sic]." (Value?)
The blogger here makes an excellent point. Virginity is still seen as a commodity, something that provides additional value to the good at hand--a presumably nubile female available for marriage, sexual pleasure, and breeding. But that commodity is ONLY useful when the goods themselves are valued. Poor women, women of different gender identity, sexual orientation, or sexual identity, and women of other races are not seen as inherently as valuable as a straight, white, middle class women. (And, since we're on the topic, overweight women and women with disabilities are also 'devalued' as it were.) Obviously, the concept of purity itself is flawed, because it treats all women as objects that can be measured and valued for their worth to a man, but the additional trouble comes in when one realizes that virginity does not 'add' value; its absence decreases value. Much like other so-called neutral identifiers (race, ableness, heterosexuality, etc), it becomes important and visible only in its lack.
Our society, especially those who buy into the purity myth, still believes in the Madonna/Magdalene concept for both men and women. Women get to either be virgins or whores and men are expected to respectfully court and marry virgins and have sex with whores. This concept is FUNDAMENTAL to the purity myth, otherwise, why would it exist? What makes a woman pure? Virginity. If virgins are pure, then what are women who are not virgins? Impure. The only exception to this is the woman who gives herself to one man, and only within the sacred, ritual covenant of marriage. Rules have sprung up that control her body and her sexuality and only by following those rules can she stay pure and worthy. Of course, having rules requires consequences for transgressions. Without those, there is no reason to have rules, and without rules, the ruler loses power over the rulee. So we have women who transgressed against the men who were in charge of the rules of her body (her father and her future husband), they have lost their purity and worth, and since the crime was sexual in origin, so is the punishment. She is now a whore, a vehicle for men's sexual pleasures.
More than anything else, this view shows just how little a woman is worth--she exists for sex. That is the only thing that separates the Madonna from the Magdalene, after all: how much sex she is having and with whom. The virgin goes on to be married and her reward is sex with one man. The whore goes also goes on, and her punishment is sex with many. Either way she goes, the woman is still valued and judged by the act of sex she engages in. Men are also having sex in this instance, but it doesn't matter. Sexual needs are expected in a man, and, besides, he gets to be judged by other criteria*. Technically, it is a man who makes a whore, but he is absolved of all blame and shame because he was simply following his nature (or worse yet, seduced!) and it is up to the woman to keep herself pure--with Daddy's help, of course.
Which isn't creepy at all, really, but I digress.
Anyway, this view is primarily reserved for straight white women of a specific economic station. Why? Because, again, virginity is the expected norm, and only its lack matters. Picture two identical women. If one of them has sex, the other woman doesn't suddenly increase her value. No, the first woman loses hers. The second is valued the same amount she was yesterday and the day before; it is only her relative value that increases. Put her with another virgin and she goes back to being worth exactly the same as her peer.
Not every woman starts out on that same pedestal of worth and value. Poor women, women of other races and ethnicities, and queer women are not equal in the eyes of society as their straight, white, middle class sister. Thus, for them, being a virgin or not doesn't matter. It does not increase their 'worth' because virginity cannot add, only subtract. These women aren't in the running to become the wives and mothers and winners of the game. They can be virgins, but they will never be Madonnas. And since women exist for sex of one stripe or another, the only 'option' left to them is to become a whore--at least in the eyes of the people who cling to this outdated view of worth and society.
Face it. If you consider someone's virginity as a sacred quality that confers some kind of purity to them, you are basically saying that worth can be determined by purely physical attributes. You are assigning a commercial price tag to someone and adjusting it for wear and tear, saying that some people are just worth less than others: they're the wrong make or model, wrong color, wrong size, or are an item that has been used and returned. And that is bullshit. Spin it all you like, but that's the bottom line.
Deal with it.
Moving along, after giving some thought to the purity myth's inherent privilege, I started thinking about SlutWalks. On the one hand, I think they are good things in and of themselves--in theory**. I have no problems with women taking a stand to get the message out that what they wear does not give someone the right to rape, assault, harass, or bother them. On the whole, I am very pro-SlutWalk, because it is a message that should be heard and understood, and if it takes walking around in fishnets and a bra to pass it on, then, dammit, sign me up and pass me the micro-mini.
But I think of it as a good thing in the way that Valenti's book about the flaws of the purity myth is a good thing; it brings attention to the problem, but it doesn't question much beyond the basic premise. Now, let's be clear, I haven't done much research beyond the basic premise, but I would not be at all surprised to see that the majority of people taking part in them are white (Majority but not all, just as the majority but not all participants in purity balls are white). In fact, I'm guessing that most of these people are white, straight, and middle class. Probably well-educated, too. Actually, I'm kind of banking on it. Because my hypothesis is that white women are more likely to be judged to be sexually available because of the way that they're dressed; or, rather, queer, poor, and/or women of color are likely to be judged as sexually available regardless of the way they are dressed.
Our 'baseline' woman (because I'm getting tired of writing out white, straight, and middle class) is going to be subject to harassment and catcalls, and in danger of being attacked, assaulted, and raped. Let's be perfectly clear on that point. No matter what other identifiers are added to her, she is still a woman, and therefore still comes out second-best in the gender power dynamic. We call that sexism, folks. It exists.
But it's not as simple as man-woman. Race, class, sexual identity and orientation all play a factor. Even in a system as inherently unequal as our own, some people are more equal than others. We call that privilege. And, yep, it exists, too. But our baseline woman escapes a lot of the sexual threat that our non-baseline women are subjected to. As I discussed with the purity balls, virginity (or, at least, purity) is assumed and only when it is found lacking does her worth take a tumble, leaving her open for the objectification of men. So between a white woman in a business suit, a black woman in a business suit, a 'queer-presenting' woman in a business suite, or a poor white woman dressed like a chav***, the white woman in a business suit is going to escape more of the sexism, because the others are considered already more sexually available by virtue of being black, queer, or poor. Put that white woman into something skimpy or revealing, and suddenly that protective screen of invisibility is gone. She is not assumed to be sexually available for anyone who wants her.
Am I saying, then, that women shouldn't wear that kind of clothing? Obviously not! What I am saying is that I believe that SlutWalks got their start by women who become sexually noticeable (and therefore, subject to harassment and assault) when they put on a specific kind of clothing. Their protest is limited to 'my clothing does not make me an object. The number of people you assume I have sex with does not make me an object.' What SlutWalks do not take into account are the women who are sexually noticeable no matter what they wear. SlutWalks are inherently privileged because they assume that the 'she had it coming' argument is limited only to clothing, that otherwise all women are viewed equally.
So, yes. I believe that SlutWalks are important, because I do believe it is the right of every woman to wear what she pleased and not have to worry about it. At the same time, I would like the people who take part in them to acknowledge that 'sluthood' is a title bestowed upon many women who are not in short or revealing clothing. It's given to maids who don't speak English and can't report their harassment. To young black women in jeans and tee shirts who are simply walking down the street. To waitresses getting their asses pinched, and queer women who are told they only need a 'real man.' To women who have their khimars and niqābs and burqas removed by someone against their will. To every woman of every color, shape, size, enthnicity, religion, physical ability, and place of the sexuality and identity spectrum at some time or another to humiliate, intimidate, or demean them.
My SlutWalk wouldn't be a SlutWalk. It would be a WomanWalk, maybe even a PersonWalk. People would dress however they pleased and hold up signs saying that who they are isn't something that can conveniently be ignored and dismissed in order to give someone else pleasure. That they're people and that no one has a right to hurt them, assault them, or insult them just because they don't fit into the tiny boxes that society has deemed worthy of acceptance and protection.
________
*Most of those criteria are also harmful with their ideas of objective masculinity, but that is a blog post for another time.
**Opinions are split whether the SlutWalks are helpful or harmful to that cause, but, again, blog post for another time. After I do a hell of a lot more research.
***Lauren is usually well covered up, especially in the orange jumpsuit, but her hair, makeup, and accent still allow people to assume she is sexually available.
_____________________________
[Moving over to Dreamwidth. Catch me over there as booksomewench. This entry cross-posted to both sites. Feel free to comment here or there.]
EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not accusing of men in general of having this viewpoint. I am specifying that this is the belief underpinning the purity mythos. If you have any questions of where I am drawing that line, feel free to ask. But this is not an indictment against men, but of a mindset.
EDIT 2: I am also not arguing that minority women do not hear the 'dressed like that' excuse to. That blame crosses all boundaries. However, for minority women, it is often one of MULTIPLE reasons she is seen as being sexually available, instead of the sole reason.
goddess_of_ice for sharing the post). The whole post was interesting, but I particularly liked the beginning where the author of the blog post discussed Jessica Valenti’s The Purity Myth. She explained that Valenti did an excellent job of describing how the myth of sexual purity was harmful to people, but that Valenti failed at addressing the inherent privilege of the purity myth in general:
"Anyone else not fitting that description is considered “sullied” and “dirty” and so free game for sexual harassment and rape. While Valenti acknowledges that there needs to be a huge shift in perceptions, her ideas are generally focused on tackling the myth, not the problem that anyone who is not a SWASP female apparently has no valour [sic]." (Value?)
The blogger here makes an excellent point. Virginity is still seen as a commodity, something that provides additional value to the good at hand--a presumably nubile female available for marriage, sexual pleasure, and breeding. But that commodity is ONLY useful when the goods themselves are valued. Poor women, women of different gender identity, sexual orientation, or sexual identity, and women of other races are not seen as inherently as valuable as a straight, white, middle class women. (And, since we're on the topic, overweight women and women with disabilities are also 'devalued' as it were.) Obviously, the concept of purity itself is flawed, because it treats all women as objects that can be measured and valued for their worth to a man, but the additional trouble comes in when one realizes that virginity does not 'add' value; its absence decreases value. Much like other so-called neutral identifiers (race, ableness, heterosexuality, etc), it becomes important and visible only in its lack.
Our society, especially those who buy into the purity myth, still believes in the Madonna/Magdalene concept for both men and women. Women get to either be virgins or whores and men are expected to respectfully court and marry virgins and have sex with whores. This concept is FUNDAMENTAL to the purity myth, otherwise, why would it exist? What makes a woman pure? Virginity. If virgins are pure, then what are women who are not virgins? Impure. The only exception to this is the woman who gives herself to one man, and only within the sacred, ritual covenant of marriage. Rules have sprung up that control her body and her sexuality and only by following those rules can she stay pure and worthy. Of course, having rules requires consequences for transgressions. Without those, there is no reason to have rules, and without rules, the ruler loses power over the rulee. So we have women who transgressed against the men who were in charge of the rules of her body (her father and her future husband), they have lost their purity and worth, and since the crime was sexual in origin, so is the punishment. She is now a whore, a vehicle for men's sexual pleasures.
More than anything else, this view shows just how little a woman is worth--she exists for sex. That is the only thing that separates the Madonna from the Magdalene, after all: how much sex she is having and with whom. The virgin goes on to be married and her reward is sex with one man. The whore goes also goes on, and her punishment is sex with many. Either way she goes, the woman is still valued and judged by the act of sex she engages in. Men are also having sex in this instance, but it doesn't matter. Sexual needs are expected in a man, and, besides, he gets to be judged by other criteria*. Technically, it is a man who makes a whore, but he is absolved of all blame and shame because he was simply following his nature (or worse yet, seduced!) and it is up to the woman to keep herself pure--with Daddy's help, of course.
Which isn't creepy at all, really, but I digress.
Anyway, this view is primarily reserved for straight white women of a specific economic station. Why? Because, again, virginity is the expected norm, and only its lack matters. Picture two identical women. If one of them has sex, the other woman doesn't suddenly increase her value. No, the first woman loses hers. The second is valued the same amount she was yesterday and the day before; it is only her relative value that increases. Put her with another virgin and she goes back to being worth exactly the same as her peer.
Not every woman starts out on that same pedestal of worth and value. Poor women, women of other races and ethnicities, and queer women are not equal in the eyes of society as their straight, white, middle class sister. Thus, for them, being a virgin or not doesn't matter. It does not increase their 'worth' because virginity cannot add, only subtract. These women aren't in the running to become the wives and mothers and winners of the game. They can be virgins, but they will never be Madonnas. And since women exist for sex of one stripe or another, the only 'option' left to them is to become a whore--at least in the eyes of the people who cling to this outdated view of worth and society.
Face it. If you consider someone's virginity as a sacred quality that confers some kind of purity to them, you are basically saying that worth can be determined by purely physical attributes. You are assigning a commercial price tag to someone and adjusting it for wear and tear, saying that some people are just worth less than others: they're the wrong make or model, wrong color, wrong size, or are an item that has been used and returned. And that is bullshit. Spin it all you like, but that's the bottom line.
Deal with it.
Moving along, after giving some thought to the purity myth's inherent privilege, I started thinking about SlutWalks. On the one hand, I think they are good things in and of themselves--in theory**. I have no problems with women taking a stand to get the message out that what they wear does not give someone the right to rape, assault, harass, or bother them. On the whole, I am very pro-SlutWalk, because it is a message that should be heard and understood, and if it takes walking around in fishnets and a bra to pass it on, then, dammit, sign me up and pass me the micro-mini.
But I think of it as a good thing in the way that Valenti's book about the flaws of the purity myth is a good thing; it brings attention to the problem, but it doesn't question much beyond the basic premise. Now, let's be clear, I haven't done much research beyond the basic premise, but I would not be at all surprised to see that the majority of people taking part in them are white (Majority but not all, just as the majority but not all participants in purity balls are white). In fact, I'm guessing that most of these people are white, straight, and middle class. Probably well-educated, too. Actually, I'm kind of banking on it. Because my hypothesis is that white women are more likely to be judged to be sexually available because of the way that they're dressed; or, rather, queer, poor, and/or women of color are likely to be judged as sexually available regardless of the way they are dressed.
Our 'baseline' woman (because I'm getting tired of writing out white, straight, and middle class) is going to be subject to harassment and catcalls, and in danger of being attacked, assaulted, and raped. Let's be perfectly clear on that point. No matter what other identifiers are added to her, she is still a woman, and therefore still comes out second-best in the gender power dynamic. We call that sexism, folks. It exists.
But it's not as simple as man-woman. Race, class, sexual identity and orientation all play a factor. Even in a system as inherently unequal as our own, some people are more equal than others. We call that privilege. And, yep, it exists, too. But our baseline woman escapes a lot of the sexual threat that our non-baseline women are subjected to. As I discussed with the purity balls, virginity (or, at least, purity) is assumed and only when it is found lacking does her worth take a tumble, leaving her open for the objectification of men. So between a white woman in a business suit, a black woman in a business suit, a 'queer-presenting' woman in a business suite, or a poor white woman dressed like a chav***, the white woman in a business suit is going to escape more of the sexism, because the others are considered already more sexually available by virtue of being black, queer, or poor. Put that white woman into something skimpy or revealing, and suddenly that protective screen of invisibility is gone. She is not assumed to be sexually available for anyone who wants her.
Am I saying, then, that women shouldn't wear that kind of clothing? Obviously not! What I am saying is that I believe that SlutWalks got their start by women who become sexually noticeable (and therefore, subject to harassment and assault) when they put on a specific kind of clothing. Their protest is limited to 'my clothing does not make me an object. The number of people you assume I have sex with does not make me an object.' What SlutWalks do not take into account are the women who are sexually noticeable no matter what they wear. SlutWalks are inherently privileged because they assume that the 'she had it coming' argument is limited only to clothing, that otherwise all women are viewed equally.
So, yes. I believe that SlutWalks are important, because I do believe it is the right of every woman to wear what she pleased and not have to worry about it. At the same time, I would like the people who take part in them to acknowledge that 'sluthood' is a title bestowed upon many women who are not in short or revealing clothing. It's given to maids who don't speak English and can't report their harassment. To young black women in jeans and tee shirts who are simply walking down the street. To waitresses getting their asses pinched, and queer women who are told they only need a 'real man.' To women who have their khimars and niqābs and burqas removed by someone against their will. To every woman of every color, shape, size, enthnicity, religion, physical ability, and place of the sexuality and identity spectrum at some time or another to humiliate, intimidate, or demean them.
My SlutWalk wouldn't be a SlutWalk. It would be a WomanWalk, maybe even a PersonWalk. People would dress however they pleased and hold up signs saying that who they are isn't something that can conveniently be ignored and dismissed in order to give someone else pleasure. That they're people and that no one has a right to hurt them, assault them, or insult them just because they don't fit into the tiny boxes that society has deemed worthy of acceptance and protection.
________
*Most of those criteria are also harmful with their ideas of objective masculinity, but that is a blog post for another time.
**Opinions are split whether the SlutWalks are helpful or harmful to that cause, but, again, blog post for another time. After I do a hell of a lot more research.
***Lauren is usually well covered up, especially in the orange jumpsuit, but her hair, makeup, and accent still allow people to assume she is sexually available.
_____________________________
[Moving over to Dreamwidth. Catch me over there as booksomewench. This entry cross-posted to both sites. Feel free to comment here or there.]
EDIT: Just to be clear, I am not accusing of men in general of having this viewpoint. I am specifying that this is the belief underpinning the purity mythos. If you have any questions of where I am drawing that line, feel free to ask. But this is not an indictment against men, but of a mindset.
EDIT 2: I am also not arguing that minority women do not hear the 'dressed like that' excuse to. That blame crosses all boundaries. However, for minority women, it is often one of MULTIPLE reasons she is seen as being sexually available, instead of the sole reason.