Serious post of the day - Seoul Slutwalk 2011

Reblogged from Roboseyo, 18th of July 2011

SlutWalk Seoul 2011

(possibly from here... anybody have an ORIGINAL original source?) (from here)

A police officer in Toronto said that women should protect themselves from rape by avoiding dressing like sluts. Toronto's feminist community called bullshit on victim-blaming, an all-too-prevalent attitude in assault safety discussions, and organized a response called "SlutWalk" -- a group of women dressed like "sluts" and walked through the streets of Toronto carrying signs, to raise awareness that those attitudes are really not cool, and possibly to reclaim the word "slut."

Since then, SlutWalk has spread to other cities, and it appeared in Seoul last Saturday, July 16, 2011.

I attended in solidarity, because I strongly believe that the idea needs to be introduced, championed, and spread, that it doesn't matter what a woman wears: nothing even remotely justifies sexual assault, and focusing on what a woman should do to avoid the attack implicitly acquits men (and other would-be attackers) of their responsibility to not be rapists, which is where every discourse about sexual assault should begin and end: with better education of what rape is, and what the consequences are, until the slogan "No means no" jumps to the lips of 20-year olds as quickly as other slogans, like "don't drink and drive."

The proceedings for Slutwalk Seoul started at 2pm. I joined up near Gwanghwamun at 4 - demonstrations aren't allowed in Gwanghwamun Square proper - during a welcome pause in the intermittent downpours in Seoul that day. There were speeches, some songs, a non-verbal performance, and then a march down to Deoksugung palace, in front of which there was a dance, and then a return to Gwanghwamun.

The SlutWalk crew moved on to Hongdae, where I was a little too wet and cold to catch up with them, though I met with a few of my feminist and/or supportive friends, including The Grand Narrative (from whom I found out about SlutWalk Korea) and Popular Gusts, for some burgers and drinks afterwards.


signs were carried, slogans were shouted.

At the event, there were almost as many cameras as demonstrators, and rain concerns may have caused the "costumes" or "slut" outfits to be less extreme than they might have been at other slutwalks; however, the crowd was enthusiastic, and people were generally OK with the different people who'd come - including males with cameras.

They ran out of the red ribbons which indicated a person didn't want to be photographed, so I can only publish pictures I took where no faces show... in that respect, the rain and face-obscuring umbrellas turned out to be a boon... and even if it hadn't rained, the point of going wasn't to take lots of pictures of women dressed like "sluts" anyway -- that'd kind of be missing part of the point of the event, that self- objectification for the male/appraising gaze is not the reason for the event, nor the reason women dress the way they do when they go out.


Here's a link that includes a video made by the Hankyoreh.


body-paint was used to interesting effect.

Why did I especially like this event? Two main reasons:

1. Because it was planned and promoted by Koreans for Koreans - the blog and the twitter account and the poster were all Korean only, and I think it's awesome that Korean women are speaking with their own voice.

2. Because when sexual assault comes up in Korea, even in my classes (I like bringing a lesson based on this article into my discussion classes), the discourses I've heard have overwhelmingly focused on the victim's side -- "she shouldn't wear short skirts" "she should not drink too much" "she should use the buddy system" -- what the woman did to bring her attack on -- and barely brought the attacker's side into it (things like stiffer punishments or public awareness campaigns). Overwhelmingly skewing the discourse toward the victim's responsibilities eventually results in an atmosphere of complicity and maybe even enabling, for would-be attackers, in which they figure they can get away with it, if she's drunk enough, or dressed sexy enough, because that's what they always hear when sex attacks are in the news anyway.

Blaming a rape on a short skirt is like blaming a pedestrian hit by a drunk driver for using the crosswalk. Especially in Korea, where short skirts are just about the norm.

I'm strongly of the opinion that for every time somebody says "she shouldn't dress that way" somebody should say "she has the right to dress how she likes and not be attacked for it" and "it's on the attacker's head" twice, and for every dollar spent promoting the former idea, two should be spent on the latter, and so forth. So that no sex attack ever happens again because somebody simply didn't understand, or hadn't had it impressed strongly enough upon them during that one class during high school, where the law draws the line.

It reads something kind of like this: "Sorry my body's not beautiful. Ha ha ha. -From an unsexy slut"

SlutWalk has, predictably, been controversial in many places where it's occurred, and I'd like to touch on a few of those controversies.

1. Maybe SlutWalk makes sense in Canada, where it was invented, but it's not culturally appropriate for Korea.

A journalist asked me if I thought this was an appropriate kind of demonstration for Korean culture, which (by asking it of a foreigner) turned into a kind of loaded question, given that the event was planned by Koreans: I think Korean women should be free to express themselves however they want. Cultural appropriacy doesn't come into it when a. people raised in this culture made the choice to express themselves this way, b. cultures change all the time, and c. some cultures systematically suppress women's rights, and ignore women's voices.

Deoksugung gate. Note the boys dressed as sluts.

2. Isn't this a pretty shocking and outrageous way of starting discussion about this issue?

Maybe it is... but sometimes controversy gets people talking in a way that doesn't happen when one minds their p's and q's, and sometimes something a little brash is needed to capture public attention. A hundred women walking past city hall in lingerie counts as such.

And especially in women's issues, where part of the problem is that women are programmed that being loud, and demanding their rights is unladylike, imprudent, or not "demure" the way a good filial daughter and dutiful wife should be, I'm all for women getting angry, and loud, until middle-aged, male middle-managers feel ashamed to say "well I think women's rights have come far enough in Korea because women have taken over every entry-level position in my district office, and I can't find a single man at the entry-level to promote into division manager," and until women feel empowered enough to confront them on actually believing Korea's come far enough when Korea's Gender Empowerment Measure was woefully low in the last year it was measured (61st of 109 in 2009 - shockingly low when compared to its very HIGH Human development index (26th in the world).)  (for the record, yes, Korea does better when you include women's access to quality healthcare and education here)

Sometimes a vanguard comes along with a pretty strident message, and acts as the shock troops for an important idea. After they've put the idea out there, it becomes OK to talk about it, where before people just changed the subject. Once it becomes OK to talk about it, very smart, less brazen voices (hopefully) appear to present the idea in a way that is palatable to those who feel accused and attacked by the stridency of the vanguard. Over time, idea enters the mainstream. I'm OK with that process taking place. I'm OK with there being a noisy vanguard for important ideas. I'm OK with some screeching about important ideas, especially because marginalized populations are marginalized because people don't listen to them: clearing their throat and raising their hand and saying please hasn't worked.

I liked this boy's sign.




3. But isn't it true that women who dress that way are dressing that way because they want men to look at them? Why would a woman dress like that if she wasn't looking for sex?

Hmm. Something I've learned: despite how I like to think the world is aligned, it's not always about men.

There are any number of reasons a woman might dress up nicely/sexy (and let's not forget that what's sexy to one person may be absolutely modest to another):

1. To pick up other women
2. To impress other women
3. To make their friends jealous
4. To make their boyfriends jealous
5. To display status
6. For their own damn selves
7. To feel more confident
8. To enjoy being admired by other women
9. To enjoy being admired (and only admired) by men
10. To balance feeling bad by looking good
11. To show off those bitchin' new heels she just bought, the sixteen pounds she finally lost, the hairstyle she's been waiting to try, or the great (name accessory) she got as a gift
12. To live out a Sex And The City, or similar, fantasy she has
13. Because of a bet she won or lost
14. Because going out and flirting with boys or girls helps her forget something that's bothering her
15. Because most women dress that way at the place where she's going
16. Because she was raised to believe looks were the only important thing
17. Because she was taught that sexual attractiveness is the best way for women to gain power over men
18. Because she grew up in a culture where people judge women who don't dress up and look good as "lazy" (I've had a man say that in class)
19. To attract the attention of men, because she wants to talk to men
20. Because she likes getting free drinks when she goes out (jeez. I'd dress in a tube top and high heeled boots if it meant I drank for free every Friday night. Wouldn't you?)
21. To turn on the boyfriend/boyfriend prospect who came out with her that night
22. To advertise she's looking to make whoopie with some guy she meets that night

That's twenty-two I thought of just now, and I'm not even a woman, and only one of them invites a proposition from a stranger who was ogling her across the room.

I wasn't catching every word, but the point of the event wasn't man-hating, as far as I could tell. I had an interesting conversation with a journalist about it, and the fact is, this is a really complex issue with a lot of variables...

1. There are any number of ways women can dress and behave, for any number of reasons (see above)
2. There are any number of ways that dress and behavior can be interpreted by the (usually male) observer (though too many automatically assume reason 22, and act accordingly)
3. There are any number of ways a male can act on their interpretation of a woman's dress and behavior
4. There are any number of ways that male's behavior can be interpreted by the woman he approaches

And clearly some things are out of line from the start, but there are others - certain types of compliments, certain types of eye (or not-eye) contact, and other kinds of movement and attention, that can be easily misinterpreted, on either side, at numerous points in the interaction... and it's unfortunate that the amount of alcohol flowing increases the chance signals will be misread.

But in the end, it'd be great if responsibility for those misreadings and misunderstandings were blamed equally on the dudes thinking with their one-eyed trouser-snakes (that's penises, y'all), as on the ladies who supposedly "brought it on themselves." And until responsibility for those misreadings and misunderstandings is shared by both sides, and moreover, until it is recognized that men are capable of better than acting on every sexual urge that comes along, and thus share more responsibility, women have a reason to hold slutwalks, and whatever other demonstrations bring these issues back to the forefront, where people have to be confronted by them**, and think about them, and hear ideas they don't necessarily agree with, that might force them to change some of their ideas.

And that's the point of SlutWalk, to me.





**I'm lucky, as a man, because for me, these issues are things that I can touch on from time to time, read about at my leisure, and comment on when it suits me. It's not something that confronts me every time I dress up to go out, or get leered at in a bar; it's not something that casts a bit of suspicion and even fear on every night out, or every up-and-down I get from a stranger. I'm lucky to be able to approach the topic so academically, because I've never in my life felt like I'm three, or two, or even one decision from being raped. And the fact I haven't, and many males in these conversations haven't, means (I think) that some of us wildly misjudge what's at stake for others taking part in the conversation, because they, or someone they love, was. Because I'm not confronted by these issues every Friday night, I'm still learning about them. Somewhere stewing in me is a post, or maybe a series, about why these discussions get so fraught, and dramatic, and (frankly) ugly, when people go beyond preaching to the choir... but for now, suffice it to say I know I'm in a lucky spot, to be approaching the topic so casually. That bears on everything I write about it.



Comment moderation is on. I don't like deleting comments, but I also don't like trolls, flames, misogyny, misanthropy (that'd be man-hating) and general disrespectfulness of either the host (me), women, men, or other commenters.

And by the way: If you're about to go into the comments and say that "Yes, well, it's still true that women should be careful etc. etc."

To save you some time, I know. I never said otherwise. Everybody in the presence of strangers should use their smarts. Public awareness campaigns can help people who don't understand their choices, or who wrongly think their justifications are enough, but they won't stop pure predators. I know that, and I'm not saying parents and teachers should stop teaching would-be victims to get reckless... I AM saying that message should be a distant second to "Don't sexually assault people" in emphasis, but right now I don't think it is.

 

The only thing I disagreed with in Roboseyo's post was his list of reasons why women may dress 'like sluts' sometimes - number six, "for their own damn selves" should have been number one (so not really disagreeing). As to my own opinion, I think that this is a great idea. And, it has to be said, it seems like it was done pretty well in Seoul without being too strident which unfortunately often seems to be an excuse for media to write protests and shock-value campaigns off as overreaction, which can make it more difficult to get taken seriously by the people that it actually targets. It was also great to see so much male support in what Roboseyo rightly points out is a country with a terrible record for gender equality. Anyway, that's the serious post for the day. Might have a crack at translating some song lyrics later.

North Korea - famine, family and feuds

[P.S. If you are short on time, skip to the last paragraph. The first two are more or less just my ramblings.]

Although there are many good and bad things about teaching in South Korea, I think that one of the most interesting aspects of teaching at a middle-school in particular is to see how students of this particular generation view North Korea. Although it's not something I bring up in regular classes (most of my students wouldn't be able to express themselves anyway), it is something that I have discussed with my higher level conversation classes, as it often comes up in essays they submit to various English ability competitions. The view that comes forth is often pro-reunification, although many don't seem to know much about, or perhaps relate to, the Korean War, how it started and the politics around it, beyond "Kim Jong Il wants to kill us all". But there seems to be a generally positive attitude towards the North, and even though no-one agrees on how it is run (obviously - "history is [will be] written by the winners" anybody?), everyone sees it as the other half of the country and North Koreans as still essentially just other Koreans. Although most know about the part that Park Chung-Hee played in the industrialisation of South Korea and can recognise how it fits in to the comfortable lifestyles they live today (in fact, this was what one of them wrote an essay about once), the fact that life in South Korea during the 1960's - early 1980's was arguably worse and more restrictive than life in the North is not something commonly known. Perhaps the familiarity with both of these important parts of Korean history is generational - after all, many of these students' parents would have been born or grown up under Park Chung-Hee that could now see the payoff for all their effort, and similiarly there would be many grandparents who would have been born or grown up during the Korean War - but probably not that many now that were old enough to live through it as an adult and vividly remember everything that happened that are actually willing to talk about it to their families. Not exactly Happy Story Time, right? And after all, these kids are only 13 - 15 years old, so even being able to discuss what they can, in English, is pretty amazing.

What I find interesting is that the stuff I'm hearing now from these students is really not that much more in depth than the opinions I heard from university students in Seoul when I was studying at Ewha. Keeping in mind that Ewha is Korea's top women's university and ranked in the top 5, and pretty much everyone in Seoul seems to at least be able to communicate in English, this was a bit worrying, as the opinions were also completely the other way. At the time I was there in 2006, North Korea was testing nuclear missiles over the East Sea, so naturally there was a lot of worry that Seoul was the next target. Out of interest, I asked around about what my fellow (Korean) students thought of North Korea and I was fairly shocked to hear a pretty generalised "North Korea is evil, they want to kill us, we should kill them first" or "North Korea doesn't deserve our help and reunification will never be possible" or just plain indifference. Ok, sure, the threat of nuclear annihilation was probably a bit influential here. So I asked some of my class mates from my North Korean Literature and Education class what they thought of the country and the people. Not much difference. What about the famines and starvation? Don't you feel pity for the regular people? Nope. Out of about 30 people that I asked, only about four people responded positively, saying that they believed that reunification was possible or that the South should continue to send food aid to the North.

Anyway, so opinions vary. I can't help but wonder however if this generation's vague benevolence to the North has something to do with it's imminence to collapse and the South's clear upperhand in the situation. In 2006, even though the South was still obviously a stronger economic power and had the backing of the Bush administration in the case of military action, food aid was still being sent in fairly regular supply and the Kaesong Industrial Complex, run collaboratively by DPRK and a private South Korean company was thriving. Recently, with the decline of Kim Jong-Il's health and the preparation for the succession of his son Kim Jong-Un, military scuffles are becoming more common, food aid has been reduced and a general air of tension has been on the rise. As well as the sinking of the Cheonan battleship (after which Pyongyang pulled out of the KIC), and the shelling of Yeongpyong island, North Korea recently took great offence to the revelation that certain divisions of the RoK army were using pictures of the North's 'Royal Family' for target practice and severed further ties. All the usual faff and huff. However, a new and very telling development is the effect this has had in North Korea, but this time not just on the people, but also the military which until previously has been pretty well insulated from the effects of food and foreign aid shortages, taking longer to be affected during the famines in the 1990's (apparently North Korea actually requested that food aid be stopped in 2002 but luckily loopholes were found). Anyway, read this article from the ABC and watch the video. It says everything that you need to know. What do you think? Do you think reunification might be something we see sooner rather than later over, say, the next five to ten years? And if so, do you think it'll be reunification from internal collapse, or will the DPRK try to go out guns blazing?