Consider this quote from Jessica Silk of Safe Slope:

“There have been reports that the women attacked were all wearing skirts,” she said. “Unfortunately this might be a common link between the women that were attacked but the message shouldn’t be that you shouldn’t wear a skirt. The message should be that, ‘Here are ways that you can protect yourself.'”

This makes absolutely no sense, because it may protect women to refrain from wearing skirts! In fact, that seems like a reasonable assumption given the information available. If you lead with the message that women have every right to wear short skirts, you’re dodging the issue. Of course they have the right, but that doesn’t mean it’s a sensible choice. All of us have the right to make imprudent choices, but that doesn’t mean we should.

BLAST: What do you think of today’s feminist movement? Have the goals of feminism changed over the years?

MARCOTTE: It’s a shame that feminism is as necessary as it ever was. You’d think that we would have beat that sexism beast by now. All kidding aside, I do think feminist goals change in response to both our setbacks and victories. Right now, feminists are refighting the contraception war, which we thought we’d put to bed decades ago. On the positive side, we’ve made good ground against domestic violence and rape, and so we can concentrate more on fighting less invasive forms of violence against women, such as street harassment.

WALSH: I grew up as a beneficiary of the Second Wave, and have always supported gender equity. I recall the split among feminists on the porn question, and the faction that went heavily into promoting raunch culture in the form of girrrrlllll power. That faction won the intra-feminist battle. Today’s sex-positive feminists are probably the most vocal group of feminists in the U.S. They have a strong stake in promiscuity, or “sluthood” as they like to call it. I have heard feminists say that the only solution to the double standard is if all women are promiscuous, leaving men no choice in the matter.

I also believe that women have made gains at the expense of men. The effects are very clear. Women comprise 57 percent of college students in this country. That means that nearly a third of women now in college will not have the opportunity to marry a man with a college education. In an era where the marriage rate is steadily declining, and marriage is occurring later, a worsening of male prospects is going to exacerbate things considerably.

If feminists want what is best for women, they would do well to address what men are experiencing. A society in which males do not thrive cannot survive for long.

BLAST: Do you believe women have achieved equality with men in 2011?

MARCOTTE: No, and that’s not a matter of “belief”, but an objective, measurable fact.

WALSH: I do believe that the goals of the Second Wave have been met, yes. In fact, many young women have achieved what can only be described as superiority. The college education enrollment I mentioned above, greater numbers of women than men in grad school, women in their 20s outearning men in the same age bracket….I think that young women are in great shape.

Our young men are not in such great shape. Our schools reward female behaviors and punish male behaviors. Christina Hoff Sommers’ The War Against Boys describes this in detail, and I definitely saw it in my own experience raising a son and a daughter. They were treated very differently in school. The self-esteem movement of the 90s, which gave every child a “participant” trophy also had negative effects. Suppressing healthy competition hurts males and rewards more nurturing behaviors. It has also increased narcissism in young people.

BLAST: What are your thoughts on casual sex and today’s ever-growing hookup culture?

MARCOTTE: The more that moralists object to women having casual sex, the more they encourage rapists to target women who do so, knowing they’re more likely to get away with targeting “slutty” women. The number one biggest thing that would work to stop rapists is to stop holding women to a double standard, where they’re somehow bad if they have sex for pleasure. It would mean juries would stop worrying about if she’s a slut, and return to worrying if he’s a rapist.

I’m also skeptical that there’s an “ever-growing” hook-up culture. People were screwing around when I was in college. I think a lot of people have a lot of sex partners in their youth, grow up some, get married, and then “forget” what they did when younger so they can start tsking at young people acting like they did. The problem here is grown adults leering at and judging young people for being young.

WALSH: I am troubled by a number of things. People are having fewer relationships, which means they’re getting less practice developing relationship skills. I hear from so many men and women who are communicating at cross purposes. The sexes have become much more separate in the last 40 years. The thing that has surprised me most about blogging is the conversation happening in the Comments. Debates rage for days sometimes. Men are trying to explain male psychology and sexuality to women, and vice versa. It is not unusual for people to be amazed by something they’re learning from the opposite sex.

I don’t think that hookup culture is going away any time soon. In fact, my sense is that it will probably intensify before it wanes. Until those who are dissatisfied step up and speak out, there will be very little support for relationship sex, delaying sex, or monogamous sex. In my own writing, I’m working at the margins, trying to help individuals navigate this very complicated sexual marketplace.

Still, there are real signs of progress. All of the research being done on hookup culture helps shed light on how few are thriving in it. Individual writers are writing memoirs about their wild and crazy 20s, when they made “poor choices”  in their dating lives. Kate Bolick’s current piece in the Atlantic addresses the role of feminism in her own behavior in relationships, and also highlights its effects on men. She is openly critical of the hookup script.

The conversation will continue, and will only get stronger. Perhaps in time like-minded people will find a way to meet up across the casual sex divide on campus. For now, though, the SMP is highly dysfunctional, and it’s not producing enough of the relationships that ultimately build a productive society.

BLAST: What do you think are the biggest challenges facing men and women in today’s dating/relationship world?

MARCOTTE: Sexism. The more we act like gender roles instead of people, the harder it is for us to truly relate to each other in a meaningful way.

WALSH: The Sexual Revolution dramatically changed the way men and women date and form relationships. The Women’s Movement and the Pill served to lift all restraints on female sexuality. It was strongly argued that the sexual double standard oppressed women, which was true. If extreme promiscuity rendered women “unfit” for marriage in the eyes of males, they had to be very selective in their choice of sexual partners if they wished to marry.

Feminism set out on a course to eradicate the sexual double standard, and women began to have a lot more no-strings sex. When colleges abandoned in loco parentis in the 90s, kids began having even more casual sex, which ultimately produced today’s hookup culture. What’s very clear, however, is that the sexual double standard has not disappeared as expected. Men continue to have strong opinions about promiscuity as a proxy for future infidelity in relationships. The “reeducation” experiment is a failure.

In addition, women are strongly influenced by social proof. They tend to be attracted to men that lots of other women find attractive as well. It’s been said that male sexuality is described by one man’s being attracted to four different women, while female sexuality shows four women all being attracted to the same man. In an era of expectations for casual sex among men, the power among a few lucky men quickly consolidates. I’ve estimated that 20 percent of the men on college campuses get 80 percent of the sex, mostly via the 20 percent of college women that engage regularly in no-strings sex.

What all this means is that the vast majority of men and women are dissatisfied with their sex and relationship experiences. The hookup script dominates, but doesn’t work for most people. Any sense of dating in the traditional sense is dead. Most college women never go on a single date in four years.

1 2

About The Author

Neely Steinberg is a Blast correspondent. Follow her on Twitter @NeelySteinberg She answers your dating/relationship questions in her Blast video advice column MP4 Love.

15 Responses

  1. Anonymous

    You’re aware that based on the data we have about sexual violence and women victims that MOST women who are sexually assaulted are a) assaulted by someone they know, b) assaulted in the home, and c) wearing something like sweatpants, pajamas or daily hanging-out clothes, right?

    In other words, if someone earnestly wanted to give women advice to try and help avoid rape based only on what they chose to wear, the sound advice would be to stop wearing comfortable clothes we hang out in at home. However, since studies also often find perpetrators of rape don’t even remember what their victims were wearing, even that would be problematic since we know what women wear most often makes no difference in preventing assault. And this, really, is the crux of the problem with what the officer in Toronto said — and some of what you yourself are saying or supporting — which was the impetus for SlutWalks from the start. Not only was he victim-blaming, he was giving advice that supported rape stereotypes, not rape realities. His advice was biased but also not even remotely helpful.

    There is nothing prudent about telling women they can prevent rape by watching their hemlines, and suggesting if they don’t, their assailants are somehow less responsible for choosing to rape them.

    You can find all of this information and more just by spending a little time with data at the DOJ or by speaking with people who know anything at all about the realities of sexual violence for both victims and perpetrators.

    Reply
    • Neely Steinberg

      If the news reports are saying that the criminal is attacking women in short skirts, it’s common sense and good judgement to be mindful about what you’re wearing. The fact of the matter is, in this scenario, the NYPD has said that the attacker is going after women in short skirts. Even if one of the victims happened to not be wearing a shirt skirt, but the rest were, then I’m going with the odds. I’m not saying it’s the ONLY way to stay safe. You seem to be missing the point. It’s simply one suggestion of a way to protect yourself.

      Thanks for your feedback!
      Neely

      Reply
      • Anonymous

        I think the fact the NYPD seem to have recognized they erred here is sound reason for anyone supporting how they originally responded to figure they are probably erring, too.

      • Anonymous

        Also, where would this end? What if an attacker was only attacking blondes? Should blondes not leave their homes or dye their hair a different color? Would you?

        The biggest common denominator here wasn’t wearing short skirts. It was being women, women who, like everyone else, should have the right to a quality of life which includes being able to dress how they choose without being in any way blamed for assault, or given the message that how they dress is why they were or may be assaulted, rather than the truth, which is that someone willingly chose to assault them, and that person is who has the most power to prevent assault. That person is the sound person to give the responsibility for assault and preventing assault to. Giving women the message that their clothing choices are the real issue is just one more thing that keeps the most attention from being focused where it really needs to be in terms of prevention: on perpetrators, not victims.

      • Neely Steinberg

        I think you’re building a strawman argument. The facts as they were presented to us were about what the women were wearing at the time of attack. You can choose to accept those facts or ignore them.

        Of course we have the right to a quality of life which includes being able to dress how we choose, but that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to the realities of certain situations in the name of “well, this is the way it should be in an ideal world.”

        It’s not taking attention away. I’d argue that attention was taken away the second women started complaining about the officer’s comments. Frankly, I think the guy was just trying to be helpful.

        But to answer your question, though: If it was reported that a man was attacking only blonde women in a certain area, and I happened to be blonde, you can be sure I wouldn’t be walking in that area until he was caught.

      • S

        The wording itself leads very much into an understanding that victim blaming is right beneath the surface. Looking at your own quite where you say how “lucky” you were considering what you wore – but it’s not about what you wear. When I was raped, it never crossed my mind that something I wore was the cause, and it still doesn’t and never will. I wasn’t the cause of my rape – he was. If it were about my dress, or how I talk, or the color of my eyes – then it somehow falls on me. And it never does, nor should it fall to the one that was raped.

        I also think the thoughts above on hair color make it understandable how it could be anything. It it were women of a certain race or religion that seemed to fit, would it be okay to tell people of that religion or race to just not leave their house at night? They’re all women, so women shouldn’t go out?

      • Neely Steinberg

        It’s not about blaming anyone. In the case of Park Slope, it’s about considering the facts of a case. The NYPD was simply making a statement based on the facts of the case. If a man is systematically attacking women wearing short skirts, does the public not have a right to know? Have we gotten so PC that the police will no longer be able to mention facts like this because they are afraid to offend? I guess so.

        I see your points, but I do think you’re taking things too far, going from Point A to Point Z. You say that because I think it prudent to simply consider what you’re wearing in an area where a maniac on the loose is attacking women wearing short skirts, I should also then think that women shouldn’t leave their homes ever. Nonsense! The police need to present their evidence based on case facts, and people can choose to ignore it or consider it. But at least they give us the option of knowing. Granted, the way the cop phrased his statements was a bit obnoxious, but I truly believe it came from a place of wanting to keep women safe. I don’t believe his advice was malicious in any way or an excuse for a power trip.

        According to Wikipedia:

        “In 2008, Amanda Marcotte published her first book, entitled It’s a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.[37] Jill Filipovic of AlterNet described the book as a “how-to manual for feminist-minded women to take on a sexist society and have a good laugh along the way.”[38]In August 2007, Marcotte posted an image of the chosen book cover on her blog; the image “was a retro-Hollywood pulp cover of a gorilla carrying a scantily clad woman.”[39] The image immediately came under fire for perpetuating racisttropes, and, consequently, Marcotte and Seal Press changed the cover image.[39]
        When the book was finally released, it again set off controversy in the feminist blogosphere for use of images that many saw as racist.[40][41] To illustrate the volume, the publishers used images taken from the 1950s Joe Maneely comic,Lorna, the Jungle Girl,[42] which was chosen for its retro comic art look. The illustrations used included stereotypical images of “savage” black Africans being beaten up by a white, blonde, superhero, described as “racist cartoons of ‘natives’ in a jungle setting.”[38]Marcotte subsequently issued an apology, adding that a second printing of It’s A Jungle Out There will not contain illustrations.[43]”

        Is Marcotte a racist because she chose those images? Of course not! She simply wanted to make a point and had no idea people would take it in that direction. I think it’s a similar situation in Park Slope. The cops were presented the facts of the case, and simply wanted to protect women based on that evidence.

        Your argument is black and white, based on absolutes. Mine is greyer, because life isn’t always ideal.

  2. S

    If the officer wanted to warn women about the rapes – then you talk about how it can be safer walking at night if you walk with someone else. If you absolutely need to go somewhere alone, you can carry pepper spray or hold keys between your fingers. Some of the “back to basics” ideas used in self defense classes. Or that if in an emergency, you need to yell something such as “fire” rather than “help” as statistically proven more people are willing to help when it’s not “help” that is yelled. Not go around telling women about how to dress – because that absolutely does lay the blame with the women here and not with the rapist.

    I also fail to see how comparing through a different lens the same ideas is walking from one side of the alphabet to the other. Not to mention:
    “I would be remiss, however, if I didn’t mention the fact that I remember many nights walking home late from the bars in outfits that, to be sure, revealed some skin. Part of me feels a bit uncomfortable, hypocritical even, espousing calls for good judgment when the mistakes of my youth burn brightly in my memory. But the truth is I was lucky. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dispensing advice based on the filtered wisdom one gains with age.”

    I wonder how you can honestly say what you’ve said here isn’t about blaming anyone. You’re talking about “good judgment calls” and “mistakes” and being “lucky” that in the outfits you’d worn home from a bar you weren’t raped. So the women that were victims and are survivors of rape and sexual assault were so because of “mistakes” and “bad judgment calls.” It’s NOT about the choices those women made, it’s about choices that were made FOR them. I don’t quite understand how you can go from saying that what someone wears if never an excuse for rape or sexual assault then have a “but I think back to what I used to wear and consider myself lucky.”

    Reply
    • Neely Steinberg

      I consider myself lucky that I have not been assaulted period. I consider myself even luckier that I have not been assaulted given the fact that I have walked the streets of Boston late at night, drunk, while wearing stilettos and skimpy outfits. I’m not blaming myself; I’m simply recognizing that I put myself in dangerous situations, because the world is not a perfect place, and walking home at 3:00am in sky-high heels and little dresses while inebriated is probably not the safest idea. Sure, women can be attacked wearing anything (sweats, etc.), but I can’t help but think that a woman stands out even more when wearing skimpy attire – after all, that’s what skimpy attire is designed to do. I believe women should be able to walk down the street naked and not have one finger laid on them, but you can’t apply that logic when dealing with criminals. You can’t reason with a criminal. Also, consider this article: http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/do-skimpy-outfits-make-men-objectify-women-2585077/;_ylt=AhjYlZOh6KpQXLg_yreWjA37hKU5

      I agree, though, that there are plenty of other ways for women to protect themselves – the strategies you outline above are all good ones and I’m sure tactics that NYPD has espoused before, many times over.

      Would a woman be better served by packing a pair of sneakers (to swap with her 4-inch stilettos) in her bag if she knows she has to go through an area late at night, in which attacks have been rampant? Yes. I’d say sneakers would be a safe choice, so she has a better chance of getting away if attacked. Should she have to think of that? Of course not. But does it make sense to consider it? Probably. The onus shouldn’t fall on women, because it’s NEVER their fault if/when attacked, but the world isn’t perfect, and until we can eradicate every single criminal, it may just have to, sadly, be our responsibility.

      Reply
  3. L. Byron

    Great idea Neely, to place both replies side by side: Marcotte comes across as a lazy, blinkered sloganeer, without an original thought in her head. Susan Walsh, on the other hand, is thoughtful, intelligent, alert, informed & compassionate, & the future of male/female debate. I know who’d get my vote.

    Reply
  4. Susan Walsh

    If we could view parallel universes, one in which the police share information about what victims are wearing, and one in which all tips related to women’s appearance are censored, I wonder what we might see. It’s certainly highly plausible that with suppression of key information about the attacker’s triggers, more women would fall victim to assault.

    Would the rad fems here be willing to change their position if that could be proved? I am certain they would not. They are wedded to a political ideology that actually serves to make women unsafe in cases like this. Fortunately, as is clear from the article, many women were practicing safe measures, including not walking at night at all, much less in short skirts. If women want to adopt the SlutWalk argument for themselves, that is their right, even if it’s extremely unwise.

    What is necessary, however, is that women like Neely Steinberg write pieces like this one in an effort to get important safety information out to women that counters this very imprudent campaign.

    Neely, I appreciated what you said about how you might broach this with a future daughter. As the mother of a 22 year-old, I can assure you that I would be doing everything possible to elicit promises from her that kept her off the streets as bait for this rapist.

    I cannot imagine any mother adopting the feminist position here. It’s truly unthinkable.

    Reply
  5. Jane

    By attacking women who dress in revealing ways, this guy does a great job of setting women up to be blamed. And our society is great at doing just that. The police are great at it too. If the rapist liked to attack women who wore green parkas, would we be as quick to blame a green-parka-wearing victim as we would be to blame a revealingly-clothed victim? No, because the parka-wearing victim would have been exhibiting culturally acceptable levels of female modesty at the time of the attack. Many of us are kind of ok with immodest women being physically punished (through rape) for violating gender ideals. The police should try to emphasize other common features of the attacks. What were the times of day/night? Were the women alone? What else do the victims have in common other than the fact that they’re WOMEN? To me, that’s what really matters. There’s a man on the loose who insists on attacking only women. Not men, women. What the police should be emphasizing is that women should walk in groups because there’s a woman-hating rapist on the loose and he is taking away womens’ ability to be in public without fearing for their physical safety.

    Reply

Leave a Reply