This article has been imported from our web archive. As a result, it may contain formatting errors, broken links or images, or other inconsistencies from the original publication.
We have a duty to the common good
By Dorothy Cummings McLean
May 25, 2011
Dorothy Cummings McLean
A Toronto police officer was giving a presentation on personal safety when he made the remark, “I’ve been told not I’m not supposed to say this — however, women should avoid dressing like (promiscuous women) in order not to be victimized.”
He used an expression that I’m not sure my editor will pass, and it certainly didn’t pass muster with his audience. They made such a fuss that thousands of women across the world have attempted to shame him — not rapists, but him — by marching through the streets holding signs saying “I’m a (promiscuous woman).”
The signs are sometimes accompanied by sexually provocative costumes and assertions that women should be able to wear whatever we want without any negative consequences whatsoever. These marches have been dubbed (Promiscuous Woman) Walk by their own organizers. Toronto had the first.
I was invited to “(Promiscuous Woman) Walk Edinburgh,” and I spent hours thinking about it. I agree with the organizers that no woman deserves to be raped for what she wears or any other reason whatsoever. On the other hand, I disagree that is what the police officer was saying. Anyone who asserts that he said women who dress like (promiscuous women) are to blame if they are raped is lying. Moreover, I find the idea of marching through the streets holding a sign saying “I’m a (promiscuous woman)” distasteful.
He used an expression that I’m not sure my editor will pass, and it certainly didn’t pass muster with his audience. They made such a fuss that thousands of women across the world have attempted to shame him — not rapists, but him — by marching through the streets holding signs saying “I’m a (promiscuous woman).”
The signs are sometimes accompanied by sexually provocative costumes and assertions that women should be able to wear whatever we want without any negative consequences whatsoever. These marches have been dubbed (Promiscuous Woman) Walk by their own organizers. Toronto had the first.
I was invited to “(Promiscuous Woman) Walk Edinburgh,” and I spent hours thinking about it. I agree with the organizers that no woman deserves to be raped for what she wears or any other reason whatsoever. On the other hand, I disagree that is what the police officer was saying. Anyone who asserts that he said women who dress like (promiscuous women) are to blame if they are raped is lying. Moreover, I find the idea of marching through the streets holding a sign saying “I’m a (promiscuous woman)” distasteful.
The arrival of (Promiscuous Woman) Walk in Britain coincides with news of a government report on the sexualization of children. Thus, instead of nodding devoutly at women’s right to dress scantily and shout about being (promiscuous women), some pundits have dared to argue that women must take responsibility for the way we act and dress in public. Listening to Elizabeth Head of (Promiscuous Woman) Walk London refuse to admit on BBC Radio that provocative dress provokes was both amusing and frustrating.
The mental illness of our age is privileging the will over the intellect. What we want is given precedence over that which actually is. Women might wish we could wear whatever we want without ever attracting negative attention or judgments, but we can’t. Sadly, anyone who says so risks the ire of the Will Over the Intellect brigade. The Toronto cop was actually suspended.
But appearing out of doors is a public act. We might wish everyone to think our clothes are appropriate, attractive and modest, but we cannot prevent people from thinking our clothes are, in fact, inappropriate, revolting and unchaste or threatening. Like it or not, clothes send messages, and none of us are invisible. There are community standards, and we have a duty to the common good.
I do not have the right to wear whatever I want. I do not, for example, have the right to wear my cute green Hibernians Football Club t-shirt in my local Edinburgh pub. If I showed up wearing it, I would be asked to leave. This is because in Edinburgh, no stranger to the violent soccer-sectarianism that is Scotland’s shame, football shirts and scarves can be provocative. Wearing a Hibernians, Hearts, Celtics or Rangers shirt or scarf in the wrong place at the wrong time can be the flint that sparks a violent conflagration. This may sound insane to sports-loving yet peaceful Canada, but this is how urban life is in Scotland. Bottom line: I don’t wear my Hibernians shirt to pubs.
The problem with wearing provocative clothing is that it provokes, and all the wishing in the world isn’t going to change that. Until clothes are banned outright, men are going to stare at scantily clad women, and some of them are going to make crude remarks, and many will think that scantily clad women are consciously trying to provoke sexual attention. They will not understand that the women are trying to communicate “I’m fashionable and fun,” and the women will not understand that some men read the message “I’m promiscuous.”
As St. Paul wrote, we have a responsibility not to scandalize each other. I am reminded of a priest at a pro-life demonstration who explained why he had ceased to wear clericals. He said it was for the sake of the pro-choice demonstrators; he hoped to stop them from indulging in blasphemy when they saw him. He wasn’t concerned for himself; he was concerned for them.
And as much as I am concerned for women’s freedoms, I am also concerned for men. I respect men, and I respect men’s sexuality. Whenever I pass a strip joint, its crude neon temptations, I don’t feel badly for women — I feel badly for men. It is hard for men to maintain a healthy sexuality in this porn-drenched culture. Why march for the right to deny that fact? And why celebrate promiscuity? It’s not fashionable or fun — it’s a terrible social evil.
(Cummings McLean is a Canadian writer and author of Seraphic Singles.)
The mental illness of our age is privileging the will over the intellect. What we want is given precedence over that which actually is. Women might wish we could wear whatever we want without ever attracting negative attention or judgments, but we can’t. Sadly, anyone who says so risks the ire of the Will Over the Intellect brigade. The Toronto cop was actually suspended.
But appearing out of doors is a public act. We might wish everyone to think our clothes are appropriate, attractive and modest, but we cannot prevent people from thinking our clothes are, in fact, inappropriate, revolting and unchaste or threatening. Like it or not, clothes send messages, and none of us are invisible. There are community standards, and we have a duty to the common good.
I do not have the right to wear whatever I want. I do not, for example, have the right to wear my cute green Hibernians Football Club t-shirt in my local Edinburgh pub. If I showed up wearing it, I would be asked to leave. This is because in Edinburgh, no stranger to the violent soccer-sectarianism that is Scotland’s shame, football shirts and scarves can be provocative. Wearing a Hibernians, Hearts, Celtics or Rangers shirt or scarf in the wrong place at the wrong time can be the flint that sparks a violent conflagration. This may sound insane to sports-loving yet peaceful Canada, but this is how urban life is in Scotland. Bottom line: I don’t wear my Hibernians shirt to pubs.
The problem with wearing provocative clothing is that it provokes, and all the wishing in the world isn’t going to change that. Until clothes are banned outright, men are going to stare at scantily clad women, and some of them are going to make crude remarks, and many will think that scantily clad women are consciously trying to provoke sexual attention. They will not understand that the women are trying to communicate “I’m fashionable and fun,” and the women will not understand that some men read the message “I’m promiscuous.”
As St. Paul wrote, we have a responsibility not to scandalize each other. I am reminded of a priest at a pro-life demonstration who explained why he had ceased to wear clericals. He said it was for the sake of the pro-choice demonstrators; he hoped to stop them from indulging in blasphemy when they saw him. He wasn’t concerned for himself; he was concerned for them.
And as much as I am concerned for women’s freedoms, I am also concerned for men. I respect men, and I respect men’s sexuality. Whenever I pass a strip joint, its crude neon temptations, I don’t feel badly for women — I feel badly for men. It is hard for men to maintain a healthy sexuality in this porn-drenched culture. Why march for the right to deny that fact? And why celebrate promiscuity? It’s not fashionable or fun — it’s a terrible social evil.
(Cummings McLean is a Canadian writer and author of Seraphic Singles.)
Dorothy Cummings McLean