She's baaaaack! Get out your feminist police badges, because Liz Funk is here to tell us that women who go out to bars or take advantage of drink specials are not only kinda slutty, but are almost asking to be raped. Her line of reasoning sounds remarkably similar to all of the anti-feminist responses to the rape and murder of Imette St. Guillen and other women who were last seen at bars or clubs.
To be sure, there are many feminist critiques to be made of ladies' nights. (Check out Jess's nuanced take on this from awhile back.) Rather than slut-shaming and victim-blaming, Funk could have addressed the fact that, in promoting ladies' nights and for-women-only drink specials, club owners are using women as bait to attract the "real" customers. Which is truly offensive. Echidne puts it this way:
They are the tethered goat that is used to get the tigers or the men with the money. They are part of the amenities of the place, and that may be the point Funk is trying to make. But adding that reference to a horrible murder makes her point something quite different, something to do with punishing the underage women for their irresponsible behavior.
Funk mentions Right Rides -- an organization that acknowledges being out, alone and drunk late at night is not a safe situation but never says the onus is on women to prevent their own rapes. But rather than quote the feminists who run this valuable service (or other non-blaming sources), she turns to Gary Miller, whose previous claim to fame was saying that all women who go to bars are "exchanging dignity for attention." Nice move.
The editors at Womens E-News say they stand by the piece. Click here to email them and share your thoughts on this subject.
Read more at Pandagon, Feministe, Reclusive Leftist, Pinko Feminist Hellcat, Shakespeare's Sister, Echidne and Rox Populi.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Slut-shaming and victim-blaming, "feminist"-style.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/4547
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I suppose if I admit that I used to go to bars in my single days for the express purposes of getting laid that would make me a terrible person.
This article was also reposted at Alternet, where the headline is very interesting: Sacrificing Dignity for Attention.
Sacrificing dignity? Going out to clubs.
Attention? Getting raped.
Lovely.
Tanya, yes you horrible little slut. Everyone knows women aren't supposed to want or enjoy sex.
[/sarcasm]
It's one thing to be irritated with clubs for using women as bait. It's another to blame women for having the audacity to want to go out and enjoy themselves. We can't get caught up in the very UNfeminist exercise of blaming women for living in a society that objectifies and subjugates them.
Here's an illustration that REALLY steams me.
I'm at a bar with my girlfriends. A guy, completely at random, begins talking to me (absent any invitation from me to do so) and asks if he can buy me a drink.
If I say no, and return to talking to my friends, I'm a bitch for not giving a "nice guy" a chance (who the fuck anyone knows he's nice, completely beyond me).
If I say yes, and return to talking to my friends, I'm a bitch for "taking advantage of" him even though we never entered into any agreement whereby I would talk to him as a condition of receiving said free drink, for which I made no request.
If I say yes and talk to him, but decline to give him my number/go home with him/don't call him back, I'm a bitch, again, for not giving a "nice guy" a chance AND for taking advantage of him.
If I say yes and DO sleep with him, I'm a slut and, further, I fully deserve any pregnancies and/or STDs that result from said encounter.
In other words, if a guy offers to buy me a drink, and I don't sleep with him, I am rude. If I sleep with anyone, I'm a disease-addled pregnant slut.
Thus, it's easy to see why women would want to avoid going out. But it doesn't make them "bad feminists" or bad anythings for wanting to do so. If my best friend has a birthday party at a bar, you bet you're ass I'm going. And no one, not the patriarchy, and not the matriarchy, has the right to demand that I do otherwise.
Oh god, I said "you're" instead of "your." I'm red with shame.
that is NOT what that article said at ALL. Shame on you for misrepresenting what she was trying to say.
she should have mentioned that we have to change the culture that makes being out alone and drunk so dangerous for a woman and that in no way is anyone asking to be raped. but honestly i think you are really stretching here to say she is calling people sluts.
and um, i did that tanya;)
really, katie? then please, illuminate me--what was the point of this article?
I always appreciate your comments law fair for being so logical and concise.
The above comment is just another great example. I was just having this conversation with some friends last night.
There is a 12/26 post on feministe discussing the "princess effect" and little girls, and i think this Orenstein quote she uses is great:
"It doesn’t seem to be “having it all� that’s getting to them; it’s the pressure to be it all. In telling our girls they can be anything, we have inadvertently demanded that they be everything. To everyone. All the time."
Which, in essence, includes a lot of contradiction, and you just pointed that out perfectly.
Seeing as how almost everything was a quote, i am going to say the point is how bars use women (often illegally by letting underage girls drink) for various economic ends, and how that can turn dangerous in the end.
i mean, can someone point me to a quote that makes girls who go out to bars sluts? or deserving or asking to be raped? seriously change my mind on this, i am totally willing.
katie--did you read the other blogs posting about this? i'm not trying to take the easy way out here, i just don't want to reinvent the wheel. if ann's post doesn't convince you, check out the other posts she links to. if you're still unconvinced, i'm happy to hash it out...
ok, i read her last article, it put everything more into context about how she views sexuality and perhaps feminists who embrace their own. i dont like her previous article in the least, but this one, on its own, still to me doesnt scream slut shaming and victim blaming.
Not to keep redirecting readers to other sites, but sometimes other people just have such informative points I have to share. I don't really know how to link stuff, but I'll try.
Anyway, to me, this seems to be much more about that all-too-common thing called scare tactics. "We'll just scare those women back in their rightful place - the home."
reading others now...
Feministe is the site. Sorry it just blanked out there. They use statistics about in-home crime, which debunks the whole "women are at risk until they go home" idea.
ok, i am going to have to agree with echidne. i want a response from her before i decide. because she COULD have been trying to make a certain point about bars/clubs using women as a commodity however, bringing in murder was a mistake bc it does give the idea that "this is what happens if you are stupid and drink to excess" without addressing what feministe does by giving real statistics. also, quoting gary was a bad move as well. but, while i still dont see blatant slut shaming, i do agree that it could be there, but i need to see if she enumerates. either way, it was a bad choice in wording when she could have been focused on something legitimate.
See now THIS is offensive. But I will say this in Funk's defense: she didn't invent the idea of women as bait and men as the real customers. That's the prevailing attitude among bar and club owners. And it's outdated and stupid. You'd think that market forces would level the playing field, but apparently bar owners aren't after female dollars.
I used to have a few VIP cards that entitled me to skip the line and get free drinks, and no I never felt morally compromised as a result. I'm a self-determined individual, and going to a bar is what I wanted to do. If some one wanted to make that easier for me, all the power to that person and to me.
Ooh, ooh, the sleazy bar owner defense:
lol, Bourbs. Does that mean we should bring in our W2s to prove we make less? Seems only fair to me. I certainly wouldn't want to unfairly ask a poorer man to buy my drinks.
yeah, i never felt particularly bad taking advantage of free/reduced price drinks. do you think she is indicating that as feminists we shouldnt take part? perhaps inference is totally lost on me here.
The underlying problem, apart from the dubious hypotheses that were torn asunder by Jill, is that I don't know whether that was some sort of journalistic expose or whether it was an opinion piece. Certainly one doesn't quote at length from a loaded, discredited opinion piece in the opening paragraphs if one's doing any sort of objective analysis.
The underlying problem, of course, is that there is a trade of dignity for attention, but only insofar as a huge chunk of modern advertising (eating at Taco Bell is equivalent to dating Carmen Electra, in a current example) is the same thing.
i dont like her previous article in the least, but this one, on its own, still to me doesnt scream slut shaming and victim blaming.
She approvingly quoted a guy who took the position that clubs were cheap brothels for the benefit of men and that women were stupid sluts for going to them.
What's more, she thought the guy's piece was "feminist in a sexist, pejorative kind of way."
I don't blame you for being confused about her point, though, since she is, too.
Please tell me that "Feminist in a sexist, pejorative kind of way" is a misquote or a Colbert-style satire.
BTW, Alternet has changed the title of the article to "How Bars Exploit Underage Women as Commodities."
OK I feel like inviting some slut shaming here.
I always took advantage of my femaleness and let guys buy me drinks. Sometimes I would buy them the drinks. Then you can have playful arguments about who pays. Hell, I had lots of booty call relationships too. The guy knew what he was and I made no bones about it. As long as you are up front and honest about it, nobody gets exploited. But I guess all these people want women to feel ashamed for going to bars and ashamed for liking sex. You know, if there wasn't so much rampant slut-shaming, I bet there would be a lot more women willing to go to bars and have no-strings sex. The slut-shaming ultimately bites men in the ass too. Maybe that's why they need to use cheap drinks to lure women to the bar in the first place. Because the women don't want to be seen as sluts looking for empty sex. What is wrong with empty pointless sex?
I don't agree that more women would necessarily be out having tons more casual sex if society were less critical of women's expression of sexuality and desire. I think the availability of GOOD sex would be far more enticing than the shame-free availability of sex, period. I have been almost impervious to "slut shaming" in my adulthood, have had lots of - to use your term, Tanya - empty, pointless sex, and I have still been driven into involuntary celibacy at various times because of what a crapshoot casual sex is. I've had initial intense attractions to people who I didn't fuck right off the bat, and who, after knowing them for a few short weeks, I realized would have been really lame in the sack. (And by "realize," I mean I've had a feeling and then had it confirmed by discussions with said people about sex.)
It angers me when people suggest or outright claim that women bring it on themselves when they get raped under the influence. I got raped by someone I was brand-newly dating after getting high with him years ago. It never occurred to me to go to the police, because of my own internalized guilt about it, and it also never occurred to me to stop getting high. I quit drugs later for other reasons, and even as a now-sober person, I resent it when women are expected to not drink or get high as a consequence of just being female - it's dangerous for us, doncha know. That guy didn't rape me because I was high. And the problem of sexual assault does not disappear for women who don't drink at all or get high.
It feels weird to me to talk about good sex and rape in the same post, but on the other hand both things have been factors in the same life, mine, and I would hope that good sex gets to be a factor again in the lives of others who've been sexually assaulted.
ha ha ha
A concerned guy read my post, followed me to my blog and sent me an email letting me know that my behaviour is acceptable but that I should be concerned for my safety. I am surprised he didn't ask for my phone number too. Men are so predictable. That made my morning! Boy, feminists have a long way to go and a lot of work to do.
Please tell me that "Feminist in a sexist, pejorative kind of way" is a misquote or a Colbert-style satire.
I wish.
hahahaha tanya. well its good to know that indeed, your behavior is acceptable. cause i am sure you were really worried.
Can I just comment on Funk in general?
She's 18 and has no right trying to discuss bar life, since she cannot be a part of it as it is!
I'm not sure what is so wrong with the article--it's just saying that bar owners' practice of getting women drunk to lure men may be dangerous for women because they're, you know, really drunk. That's not execusing a rapist. I'm not saying the article is good or anything, it just doesn't deserve all this ire.
I haven't read anything else Funk has written, but it seems that commenters are outraged at things she has written in the past, and are reading something into her writing that isn't there.
Check out more commentary on this thread and think some more. This article stands alone but her previous one prompted this response from all the staffers here and foreshadowed an unsisterly misogyny.
The biggest thing wrong with the article is the idea that most rapes happen because women were drinking. The fact is most women get raped in their own homes by people they know and trust. These articles perpetrate silly and meaningless stereotypes about rape and about women.