From "Dignity has a place on Halloween":
I could opine to you that dressing like a slut is not in the "true spirit" of Halloween, although -- let's be honest -- it kind of is. Halloween likely will never be a holiday wherein we treat ourselves and each other with the proper respect. Although many have said provocative Halloween dress is just a fact of life on college campuses, I refuse to idly stand by.
You should know this, Starbucks Girl: You are worth so much more than to flaunt your body around like an object. Not just on Halloween, but every night. And no matter what they said in "Mean Girls," Halloween is not a holiday during which you can dress like a slut and get away with it -- it's pretty much always frowned upon by rational and sound-minded people.
So that's a friend of mine who is the opinion writer at the State News at Michigan State University. I'm interested to hear what ya'll have to think about a column such as this considering we are the "so-called feminists" that he mentions. Have at it!I know you might think this is what your boyfriend wants to see. And he probably does! What red-blooded male doesn't enjoy seeing young women parade around half-naked along Grand River Avenue? Halloween always has been a holiday during which we've attempted to satisfy our carnal pleasures. And now that most of us men have outgrown the fleeting joys of candy, we'll settle for eye candy instead.
But it doesn't have to be this way, Starbucks Girl! The only ones who can reverse this trend are you and your fellow ladies, one by one. Do you expect the majority of men to encourage you to dress modestly? No -- you and your fellow women are the ones who can do the most to reclaim and affirm your dignity.
And don't be fooled by those so-called "feminists," Starbucks Girl. Dressing up in a racy costume is not just another way to display your "feminine pride," or your "sexual freedom." You're just selling yourself out as an object, and in no way does dressing like that help to garner you any respect.
I feel for you, Starbucks Girl. I know it's not easy for women like you to find costumes that consist of more than one square foot of fabric. As I briefly walked through a Halloween store, I was hard-pressed to find any female costume that wasn't a "sexed-up" version of something innocent. So it might take some creativity from you and your peers to find a costume that shows off your brains rather than your breasts or booty.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Slut Blaming on Michigan State Campus.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16725
I feel for you...
Well, that's hard to believe.
The only ones who can reverse this trend are you and your fellow ladies, one by one.
Yes, of course. Since men are ruled by the lusty penii and therefore we must excuse them for perpetuating the objectification of female bodies. It is not their fault; it is our fault.
So it might take some creativity from you...
But how can that be, we are only women...
I thought that,too, when he wrote that OF COURSE men aren't going to discourage slutty clothing. What pisses me off is how they (according to him) like looking at slutty women and won't discourage that appearance, yet they still reserve the right to put you down or worse for looking a way they admittedly enjoy. Sort of like the jerks who like to watch strippers and pay for lap dances then talk about the women like they are trash and feel like it's perfectly acceptable to be such a hypocrite. The lookers never seem to feel that THEY are dirty for liking something or paying to see it. It's just the women who show it that get the bad rap.
One of the comments on this article takes the victim blaming to a new level, saying how its actually not "victim blaming," but rather a "theory": "The principle is simple; to the extent that women value their dignity—as reflected in their behavior and dress—men will do so."
In the context of all the comments and article its really disturbing.
If you perceive that someone else doesn't "value their dignity" then you don't have to value theirs, and its ok to assault them? Gross.
that's exactly what i thought and i couldn't think of how to put it into words. thanks!
As an MSU student I think this article is %100 accurate in saying starbucks girl is uncreative and relying only on sex to please men, and that feminism encourages women to only value their bodies. All sarcasm aside, I think it is much much sexier when a woman wears a really well thought out Halloween costume regardless of how much skin it shows. But that is just my opinion, and hopefully it doesn't sound sexist. Please.
Actually, you do sound sexist. Your opinion of what women wear for Halloween seems to be all about you.
Not to mention that feminism is about valuing the whole woman and treating her equally. There are lots of entries on this site about that.
How is it sexist to say one thing is sexier than another? I fail to make the connection between "I think it is much much sexier when a woman wears a really well thought out Halloween costume regardless of how much skin it shows" and sexism. I can see how reference to showing skin is objectifying and possibly suggestive of me as a man trying to control a woman's body but that was not the intent behind it.
Aside from the post sounding sexist, I feel my opinion about what is sexier should be about me. There was no judgment made about women, or suggestion to all women to behave in a certain way, or even control in what I said, just a preference in the level of care put into Halloween costumes and what it shows about you as a person. If my post was "I think it is much much sexier when a woman wears a really well thought out Halloween costume," would that still be sexist? And how? Not that I disagree I just don't get it. I mean I hope my post was not as ignorant as the article...
Travis, your statement about what you find sexy in a Halloween costume wasn't sexist, but this
"As an MSU student I think this article is %100 accurate in saying starbucks girl is uncreative and relying only on sex to please men, and that feminism encourages women to only value their bodies."
is sexist. And partially incorrect.
Feminism does not encourage women to only value their bodies, it teaches women to value their bodies AND minds. To value their thoughts and beliefs and opinions as well as their sexuality. One does not preclude the other, and feminists in general believe that women should be able to express their sexuality or show their bodies without men assuming that they only want sex and completely ignoring the fact that they are also human beings with brains and interests that may not include impressing men or "relying on sex" to please men. The opinion that the starbucks girl is relying on sex to please men is what the author is projecting onto the scantily-dressed woman. Did he ask her? No. He just assumes that's what women who dress skimpy want, to please men sexually. Which is sexist, and based on the idea that women only exist to please men sexually, which leads to the whole forgetting-that-women-are-individuals-with-minds thing. I hope that clears things up.
I was being sarcastic, because he said those anti-feminist things in the article. I even said all sarcasm aside in the post.
I graduated from MSU in 2008, and remember the flack a guy got when he wrote into the paper to say that women should dress more modestly to avoid becoming victims to sexual assault (after there had been a couple of assaults on campus).
Not only is it victim-blaming to say that women are objectifying themselves, but do they seriously think that the young woman dressing up as a "one night stand" (and a girl on my floor did do this one year) doesn't know what she's doing? Am I really expected to believe that she's going to expect guys to talk to her about possible exit strategies from Afghanistan rather than her costume that night?
I was thinking about getting the Starbucks Girl costume....it's probably the least skanky looking one and that apron covers you up! LOL
"So it might take some creativity from you and your peers to find a costume that shows off your brains rather than your breasts or booty."
Honestly, anything I wear is going to show off my body, and not my brains.
Those are what tests and conversations are for. :)
I like this times a million. =D
There are plenty of feminists, some even here on this site, who do feel that expressing their sexuality in male-defined ways is a feminist act.
Me, I prefer to express my sexuality lolling on the couch in flannel pyjama bottoms and a baggy sweater.
It never ceases to amaze me how much sheer misandry some men will put up with and perpetuate because it's easier than actually working on themselves.
I refuse to idly stand by.
Too bad he has no right to tell women what they can and cannot wear. Oops...he's going to anyway.
it's pretty much always frowned upon by rational and sound-minded people.
Yes. Because of course YOU define what's "rational" and "sound-minded."
What red-blooded male doesn't enjoy seeing young women parade around half-naked along Grand River Avenue?
Um...well...ones who aren't attracted to women, for starters...
And now that most of us men have outgrown the fleeting joys of candy, we'll settle for eye candy instead.
Cute attempt at a pun. Too bad you had to reference women-as-food, to be consumed, in order to make it work. Oh, you say that that's only what OTHER guys think? Not you? I guess that makes you not a red-blooded male then.
But it doesn't have to be this way, Starbucks Girl! The only ones who can reverse this trend are you and your fellow ladies, one by one.
The word "ladies" in this context doesn't sound like it's affirming the dignity of women. It sounds condescending. Patronizing.
And don't be fooled by those so-called "feminists," Starbucks Girl. Dressing up in a racy costume is not just another way to display your "feminine pride," or your "sexual freedom."
This one might actually be on the point, depending on how he means it. If he's trying to say that anyone who says wearing a racy costume is a way to display feminine pride is a "feminist" (as in probably not actually a feminist) then he's probably on the mark. While feminists certainly won't object to sexy clothing or attempt to infringe on the autonomy of the woman who made the choice to wear it, they also certainly won't encourage women to wear these Halloween costumes. Because that would also be...you know...messing with autonomy.
I'm just gonna go with that interpretation, because otherwise this article is just a big pile of yuck.
Is anyone else put off the fact he keeps referring to her as "Starbucks Girl" like it's her name. Granted, he probably doesn't know her name but it sounds objectifying.
yeah that part was so annoying. How about referring to her as a woman, since she is in college and likely over the age of 18?
So on one end of the continuum of "female dignity" we have the notion that we have to cover ourselves so that we don't reveal too much, gulp, flesh. On the other end of the continuum, we have the other notion that we should flaunt our "goods" because that's just what us girls are inclined to do, and it is after all, our greatest "asset".
I think BOTH notions are rooted in the same sexist, patriarchal bullshit idea that a woman's worth lies in her sexuality. Enough already. I'm tired of feeling ashamed when the neck line of my shirt drops too low, or my jeans are too tight, thus revealing my hips, etc. And I am equally tired of going shopping for my daughter just to find that most of the clothing has been sexualized "DIVA" style. Giving this much attention to the female body is humiliating and we shouldn't have to endure such ridicule. I'm sick of it. I don't like the idea that my dignity lies between my legs, nor do I like the idea that I am the muse for men and the pin up board for sexuality.
Throughout history, men have been recognized for their intelligence, artistic merit, and heroism, and finally women have started to share in this recognition as well; this is why it saddens me to see that in this day and age, today, we see so much attention and controversy revolving around women's bodies and appearance. And I could be wrong, but it seems even more so than yesterday. Why?
On top of his slut-blaming goodness, this guy's concept of "history" is apparently goes back maybe ten or twenty years.
Happy Samhain, everyone. I'm off to honor the beloved dead.
Wow, this guy is a complete asshat. The whole article is so condescending and paternalistic.
Dude, who the hell are you to tell "Starbucks girl" that she's "too pretty" to dress a certain way? Are you completely oblivious to the fact that in you oh-so-generous appeal to women to stop sexualizing themselves, you have reduced them to sex objects anyway? What, if "Starbucks girl" was ugly, dressing in a slutty Halloween costume would be a good idea, because that's the only way she could attract someone?
Seriously, mind your own business, pal.
Yeah I'm not entirely sure why I said that, I knew it was sexist and opposing the first thing I wrote...it made more sense after first reading the article but my reasoning has escaped me. Something to do with all men not thinking in unison, but now I'm not sure.
Wow.
So men, naturally, will objectify women. Oh, come on, it's funny, and its natural, that's what guys do. But you must remain vigilant, and safeguard not only your dignity, but also theirs, by dressing in an appropriate manner (let me tell you how), so you do not degrade yourself and lower those red-blooded boys' morals by making them disrespect you(because lack of respect is inherent in man's sexual attraction to a woman).
What I am really curious about is whether anyone has written in to the newspaper to address this article. Or does everyone at Michigan State agree? Truly, I should add it to the list of my NEVER VISIT places.
Co-signed. And note that respect is not something one human being accords another because it is the right thing to do, it is something you must EARN by behaving as a man sees fit. Therefore if he decides you're a dirty slut, he can treat you however he wants and it's your fault (and he's still a nice guy because after all, he respects women who DESERVE it). Funny how that works out. And as the "getting catcalled while sick, makeupless and wearing sweats" phenomenon shows us, if a man wants to see and treat you as a sexual object, he will do so. It actually has nothing to do with your attire. "You're MAKING me do X misogynist thing" is the typical sexist excuse to avoid taking responsibility for their own thoughts, actions and behaviors.
And there will always be someone out there who will take it upon themselves to determine that you look like a slut. When it's not Halloween, it's women flaunting their shameless flesh in shorts and tank tops in spring and summer weather. If you wear jeans, you're showing off your ass. If you wear a turtleneck, it might not show any skin, but look at the way it clings to your breasts! High heels? Only sluts trying to show off their legs for men wear those!
check out the comment thread attached to the article. it's definitely getting a response.
http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2009/10/dignity_has_place_on_halloween
"(because lack of respect is inherent in man's sexual attraction to a woman)."
Great point, that seems to be assumed by the author and the other men commenting on the article. Why does a man's sexual attraction to a woman have to be disrespectful? What are some ways people have experienced sexual attraction in a respectful manner?
I think some of the people who "slut it up" on Halloween may be hoping for another person to see them in a different light (i.e. sexy) and strike up a conversation. There are a lot of ways to act on sexual attraction in a positive, respectful way, that does not objectify. And the decision to act that way should have nothing to do with what the woman is wearing.
Halloween always has been a holiday during which we've attempted to satisfy our carnal pleasures. ... you and your fellow women are the ones who can do the most to reclaim and affirm your dignity.
So for guys, Halloween is a holiday where they get to cut loose, but gals must always be Dignified. Even on holidays. Because the slightest little slip and you are doooomed!
...
Oh, and this is a total FAIL:
now that most of us men have outgrown the fleeting joys of candy
Really? Most men don't enjoy candy? Crikeys! Did he get transported here from 1670 or something?!
etakhael, "feminist", and troubled (people who commented on the article comment thread) are the only one's who seem to see the deeper issue of what this article is talking about and yet the minute they open their mouths they're dismissed as being "radical feminists".
keep on truckin' people!
Do you expect the majority of men to encourage you to dress modestly?
I dunno, I'm just one of those silly wimmenfolk. You're a man, why don't you place your expectation on "the majority of men" not to objectify women?
You could start a campaign! Blistering editorials about the chumps who wreck costume contests by voting for the girl in the "Sexy Snow White" costume over the girl in the handmade Edward Scissorhands costume! Guys banding together to sew awesometastic non-infantilized costumes on commission! A "Don't pressure your girlfriend into dressing sexy for you on Halloween" poster series! Hand out "Would you dress as Stacy's Mom's Poolboy for her? So why do you think she should be a Playboy bunny for you?" flyers!
Oh wait. That would be too difficult. Back to scolding the silly wimminfolk, then.
The Michigan State author is speaking of a social contract between men and women that men have never honored and never will honor; and therefore, it makes no sense for women to change their behavior one iota.
The social contract is the promise that men will "respect" and treat women "well", in exchange for certain social behaviors on the part of women, i.e., dressing modestly, submissiveness, etc.
This contract is a scam. Why? Because the contract has too many covert loopholes.
For on thing, choice doesn't matter in the contract. Plenty of men will not make a distinction between a woman who chooses not to fulfill this social obligation and a woman who cannot. And how could they? The whole premise of this absurdity is to make an assumption about the value of another person based her exterior to the exclusion of any and all other information.
Another loophole is the world we live in. See the thing is that communities, people, are different. So what if a woman is from a different community with a different social contract? You'd think it would matter, right? Under this contract, could men logically understand that the woman is still worthy of respect because she's abiding by the rules of her community? I wish it were true, but there are simply too many instances where men have proven unwilling to do so.
When you consider women as a class, men as a class have NEVER kept up their end of the bargain on this. The contract is a scam, has always been a scam and will always be a scam.
Women should wear what they want, I dress in a spandex unitard on Halloween because I'm kind of a tease what's this "modesty" crap any way? Stay out of peoples face it's no ones business but the person doing it this is telling other people what to think pure and simple.