advertiser censored Walk Toronto

believe09 · May 7, 2011

BOSTON (Reuters) The dress code is casual, but the message is serious: no matter what you are wearing, no one invites sexual assault.

Thousands of marchers are expected on Saturday in Boston for "Slutwalk" the provocative name for a movement begun after a Toronto policeman suggested in January that women could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like a "*advertiser censored*."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110506/us_nm/us_sexualassault_protest

And, here is some spin from the Toronto Police Department regarding the comment by the officer:

In Toronto, the police department said its consistent message is that the victim is never to blame.
Comments made by one officer "did not and do not reflect the service as a whole," said spokeswoman Constable Wendy Drummond.

Sailor Bug · May 7, 2011

As far as I'm concerned this label is the same sick thinking society has blindly accepted to label woman and girls for years.

I don't condone the title for this walk.
It's so vulgar and just another form of abuse!!
It is absolutely not acceptable.
I personally feel it may very well cause added psychological trauma to some of the victims participating.

Why can't they continue to call this walk "Take back the night" ?? I've participated in several of these...I would not participate now with the new title.

Anything for headlines and to get people talking but really do we want it called *advertiser censored* Walk?

By perpetuating this vulgar term you are putting yourself on the same level as the officer
who made the comment
jmo

believe09 · May 7, 2011

I have participated in several Take Back the Night walks as well-I cant decide how I feel about the title of the Walk. It is attention grabbing, which will rivet people looking at the headlines.

JBean · May 7, 2011

I was listening to an interview of one of the organizers and they kept referring to it as a powerful word. They are taking back the word that has been used to shame them, making it their own and spinning it.

Sailor Bug · May 7, 2011

JBean said:
I was listening to an interview of one of the organizers and they kept referring to it as a powerful word. They are taking back the word that has been used to shame them, making it their own and spinning it.

I'm not sure what they are "spinning" but it will not change the accepted defination of the word. Regardless of how they try to transform it, the negative connotations will forever remain.

For an (extreme) example this would be akin to:
Germany taking back the nazi label and reinserting it as a descripive of the German people. Two negatives do not equal a positive.

JBean · May 7, 2011

Sailor Bug said:
I'm not sure what they are "spinning" but it will not change the accepted defination of the word. Regardless of how they try to transform it, the negative connotations will forever remain.

For an (extreme) example this would be akin to:
Germany taking back the nazi label and reinserting it as a descripive of the German people. Two negatives do not equal a positive.

I think part of it is that a *advertiser censored* is generally a promiscuous woman. Their point is in part that it is no one's business if they give their sex to whomever they choose, but it does not leave them open to sexual attack.
They are taking back and owning the word, but are saying whatever we are, we do not deserve to be sexually violated.
It has cause people like you and I to start dialogue and bring attention to a very serious issue.
I get it.

>>
Historically, the term *advertiser censored* has carried a predominantly negative connotation. Aimed at those who are sexually promiscuous, be it for work or pleasure, it has primarily been women who have suffered under the burden of this label. And whether dished out as a serious indictment of ones character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so were taking it back. *advertiser censored* is being re-appropriated.
We are tired of being oppressed by *advertiser censored*-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result. Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work. No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault<<
http://www.slutwalktoronto.com/

Charlie09 · May 7, 2011

What happened to personal responsibility on both sides?

OrdinaryLife · May 7, 2011

Charlie09 said:
What happened to personal responsibility on both sides?

Not quite sure I understand your question. Are you debating the women part vs the men and what lack of definition could be described to them? Curious....

Quiche · May 7, 2011

I think the title is powerful-- it aptly underscores the absurdity of that type of warped thinking/labeling. It's a shameful way to view women and this bold title's purpose is to shame the men/women who recognize themselves.

I think it's a good thing. :rocker:

Charlie09 · May 7, 2011

OrdinaryLife said:
Not quite sure I understand your question. Are you debating the women part vs the men and what lack of definition could be described to them? Curious....

I mean women owe it to ourselves to be smart about where we go, and and what we do not relying on something silly like putting power into the word *advertiser censored* to make men think. We should be thinking about our own actions.

Quiche · May 7, 2011

Charlie09 said:
I mean women owe it to ourselves to be smart about where we go, and and what we do not relying on something silly like putting power into the word *advertiser censored* to make men think. We should be thinking about our own actions.

The whole point is that it's not about a woman's actions, her dress, the look she gave-- rape is a violent crime that is NEVER invited. No one is a "*advertiser censored*" btw, only your perception of one. MO

Charlie09 · May 7, 2011

Quiche said:
The whole point is that it's not about a woman's actions, her dress, the look she gave-- rape is a violent crime that is NEVER invited. No one is a "*advertiser censored*" btw, only your perception of one. MO

Pedestrians don't ask to be hit by cars either, but if they step off the curb without being responsible for looking for oncoming traffic - they get squished.

Quiche · May 7, 2011

Charlie09 said:
Pedestrians don't ask to be hit by cars either, but if they step off the curb without being responsible for looking for oncoming traffic - they get squished.

Huh? One is an accident, the other a violent crime, I don't see the comparison. I know exactly where your post is coming from, however, and it makes me wish there was a SlutWalk in my region, I'd go in a heartbeat. mo

Charlie09 · May 7, 2011

Quiche said:
Huh? One is an accident, the other a violent crime, I don't see the comparison. I know exactly where your post is coming from, however, and it makes me wish there was a SlutWalk in my region, I'd go in a heartbeat. mo

that's great - nothing was meant personally.

I just think women owe it to themselves to take their safety and value as women more seriously.

Quiche · May 7, 2011

Charlie09 said:
that's great - nothing was meant personally.

I just think women owe it to themselves to take their safety and value as women more seriously.

Did you see the woman's statement who was raped wearing jeans and a sweatshirt? The crime is not about being sexually provocative, it really isn't-- and just because a woman is a modest dresser, believe me, she isn't immune to being horribly violated. Please know that. jmo

Charlie09 · May 7, 2011

Quiche said:
Did you see the woman's statement who was raped wearing jeans and a sweatshirt? The crime is not about being sexually provocative, it really isn't-- and just because you are a modest dresser, believe me, you aren't immune to being horribly violated. Please know that. jmo

So then the whole idea is kind of silly isn't it? It's not really about how your dressed, so why make it about that? We can't control every person we come into contact with, but there is much we can control, and there is much to be valued about being a woman.

Quiche · May 7, 2011

I think it's about women dressing as they are to highlight to inappropriateness of labeling a rape victim a *advertiser censored*. I think it has some merit, there are many backward thinking brutes walking around. mo

wfgodot · May 7, 2011

Charlie09 said:
So then the whole idea is kind of silly isn't it? It's not really about how your dressed, so why make it about that? We can't control every person we come into contact with, but there is much we can control, and there is much to be valued about being a woman.

There is something we can modify - attitudes - when an LE officer makes a statement which in effect blames the victim of a violent crime. As for "much to be valued about being a woman," you treat them as second class citizens hoping for pats on the head and encouragement that, if they can't be men, well, they can still make themselves useful by dressing demurely so as not to become the target of male violence.

believe09 · May 7, 2011

Well I am glad we have the thread-clearly there is still much to talk about. And here I thought the word and the idea was antiquated. Silly me.

reportertype · May 7, 2011

Sorry, I'll dress however I want to. The onus is on the CRIMINAL rapist here, not any woman. I don't care what you're wearing.

No one says, well, if you hadn't forgotten to buy milk earlier, you'd never have walked in on that robbery and been shot.

No one should EVER EVER say well, if you hadn't x, y or z, you wouldn't have been raped. Period.

*advertiser censored* Walk Toronto

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Retired WS Administrator

Active Member

Retired WS Administrator

Former Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Dogs are awesome!

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics

advertiser censored Walk Toronto