On February 18, 2015, the Vancouver Women’s Field Hockey League will hold a vote to determine whether players will continue to be required to play in skirts. Help us make it a choice. Please share.
On August 3, 2013, 14-year-old Hannah Smith hanged herself in her bedroom. In the weeks leading up to her death, Hannah was subjected to cruel taunts and insults about her weight and a family death on Ask.fm, a question and answer social networking site that allows anonymous participation. According to Hannah’s father, she went to Ask.fm to look for advice on the skin condition eczema. Instead, she got bullies on Ask.fm urging her to drink bleach and cut herself.
Last week, I started a series about the different ways sexism is impacting girls and women today and how feminism can be utilized to help them. This is the second post in that series. This post is about cyber misogyny.
In many ways, cyber misogyny is an old issue taken to new extremes. Sexual harassment, domestic violence, hate speech, stalking and threats have long been problems for women. However, in real space, where people’s identities are known, it is easier to identify and punish abusers. The Internet offers expanded opportunities to perpetuate harassment and abuse. At the same time, it allows abusers to avoid social and legal consequences for their actions by hiding behind anonymity. In its report “#CyberMisogyny: Using and strengthening Canadian legal responses to gendered hate and harassment online” West Coast LEAF calls the Internet “the new frontier for hate.”
The term cyber misogyny encompasses a wide range of conduct. In this post, I will discuss the five types of online violence discussed in West Coast LEAf’s report.
- Revenge porn
Revenge porn can loosely be described as the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Revenge porn is often associated with the termination of an intimate relationship and is disturbingly common. According to the US-based Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, one in ten ex-partners has threatened to expose a risqué photo of their ex. Sixty per cent of them follow through. Ninety per cent of victims are women.
It is not only teenagers who are affected by revenge porn. This year, well known celebrities including Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and Kirsten Dunst had intimate photos stolen and released publically. In Canada, the Associate Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba had nude photos taken by her husband posted online without her consent.
Revenge porn is so prevalent numerous websites exist for the sole purpose of ruining people’s lives by posting embarrassing photos or forwarding them to family members, friends and business contacts. Because of websites like these and the hundreds of thousands of daily viewers, women have lost jobs, economic opportunities and personal relationships.
Studies by Cyber Civil Rights show that 47 per cent of revenge porn victims contemplate suicide. Ninety-three per cent suffer significant emotional distress.
Sexting is the sending of sexy, nude or partially nude photos via cell phone. Recent studies show that sexting has become a fairly common practice among young people as part of their sexual exploration. In a study involving students in grades 4-11 across Canada, researchers found that eight per cent of students in grades 7-11 with access to a cell phone have sent a sext. Twenty-four per cent have received a sext. The numbers rise as students get older.
While youth seem to feel ok about sending sexual images of themselves to others, when those images are forwarded without their consent, the results can be devastating. Just under one quarter of teens who said they had sent a sext of themselves reported that the person who received the sext forwarded it to someone else. Several teen suicides have been linked to the forwarding of nude photos and the resulting harassment and abuse.
- Online sexual exploitation of children and youth
Online child sexual exploitation includes child pornography, luring, child prostitution, child sex tourism and child trafficking. The number of child sexual exploitation reports received by Cybertip.ca, a national tipline for reporting online sexual exploitation of youth, has increased from 179 reports in 2002/2003 to 7,913 reports in 2009/2010.
Cyberstalking includes monitoring email communications, sending abusive messages, sending viruses, using the victim’s online identity to send false messages to others and using online sites to collect a victim’s personal information and whereabouts.
Technology, including social networking sites and global positioning systems, facilitate stalking behaviour by making it easier for perpetrators to keep tabs on the activities and location of their targets.
These technologies also make it more difficult for victims of domestic violence to escape their abuser. Electronic communications now play a role in nine out of ten domestic violence situations.
Statistics from the U.S. Justice Department suggest that 850,000 American adults, mostly women, are targets of cyberstalking each year. A study of youth conducted by MTV found that more than half surveyed had experienced abuse through social and digital media. Seventy-six per cent felt that digital abuse was a serious problem for people their age.
- Hate speech
Messages promoting hate and glorifying violence against women proliferate on the Internet. Unfortunately, thanks to a recent amendment to the federal Human Rights Act, gender-based hate speech is no longer prohibited under Canadian federal law.
Sadly, it is not uncommon for outspoken feminists to be threatened with rape and murder for their online presence. In 2007, well-known blogger and software developer Kathy Sierra shut down her blog and cancelled public appearances after she was subjected to threats of rape and strangulation and her personal information, including her address and social security number, were leaked. This year, feminist blogger Anita Sarkeesian cancelled an appearance at Utah State University after an email threatened the deadliest school shooting in American history.
In 2006, a study showed that individuals writing under female names received twenty-five times more sexually threatening and malicious comments than those writing under male names.
Unfortunately, cyber misogyny in its many forms is too often trivialized by the public. Many consider online bullying an inconvenience that should simply be ignored. Others respond that “boys will be boys,” especially on the Internet. This leaves women with a stark choice: tolerate the abuse or opt out of life online.
So what can we do, as feminists, to protect women and girls from the serious repercussions of cyber misogyny? According to West Coast LEAF, the varied nature of cyber misogyny means that there is no quick fix, and a wide range of strategies will be required. Three such strategies are information gathering, law reform and public education.
- Information gathering
In order to create effective solutions, we need to fully understand the problem. West Coast LEAF recommends the government create a new office housed within the federal Ministry on the Status of Women to conduct research, facilitate dialogue and make recommendations to government about appropriate legal responses to cyber misogyny.
- Law reform
A major contributor to the prevalence of cyber misogyny is that on the Internet, lawlessness reigns. Holding harassers and hatemongers legally accountable for their actions is one way to educate the public and send a strong message that these behaviours will not be tolerated.
On December 9, 2014, Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, became law. This legislation makes it a criminal offence to knowingly publish, distribute, transmit, sell, make available or advertise intimate images. The Bill also provides courts the authority to order the seizure of intimate images and to order the custodian of the computer system on which the image is made available to delete the material. Only time will tell, but one major impediment to the effectiveness of this legislation is that it only applies to Canadian servers.
Unfortunately, in addition to these important cyberbullying provisions, the Bill also includes broad law enforcement provisions which have raised significant privacy concerns and are likely unconstitutional.
While the cyberbullying provisions of Bill C-13 are a step in the right direction, they are not enough. As we’ve seen in the areas of domestic violence and sexual assault, criminal law is often not an effective means of addressing violence against women. Criminal convictions are rare and often come at a significant personal cost to the victim. As such, we should be exploring other legal options that are more victim-friendly.
As an example, provincial governments could enact legislation creating a “cyberbullying” tort which would allow victims to sue for cyberbullying. This way, victims could receive monetary compensation for the harms experienced.
Provincial governments could also follow Nova Scotia’s lead and amend Education Acts to create a legislated duty on principals, vice-principals and teachers to take disciplinary action in cases of harassment and abuse, whether it occurs on or off school property, when such behaviour has a negative impact on students’ ability to feel safe and learn at school.
The federal government should also reinstate the hate speech provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act repealed in June.
Another way to promote a culture of respect, acceptance and ethical behaviour in schools is to make sure that human rights and non-discrimination are an essential part of the school curricula throughout a child’s education. Education about good “digital citizenship” is also crucial.
Jessica Logan, an Ohio high school senior, ended her life after her ex-boyfriend forwarded a nude photo of her to everyone at her school. For months Jessica was cruelly harassed by the other girls at her school who called her a slut and a whore. Her mother found her hanging in her closet on July 3, 2008.
Jessica Logan, Hannah Smith, Hope Witsell, Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, and others ended their lives because of the effects of cyber misogyny. It is time we took this issue seriously. In case you needed another reason why we still need feminism, this is it.
I recently attended a talk by the Right Honourable Kim Campbell, Canada’s first and only woman Prime Minister. The talk was called, “Women’s Voices: What difference do they make?” It was about women’s unique life experiences and the consequences of ignoring women’s perspectives in politics, business and media.
I had never heard Campbell speak before, so I was eager to attend. I was disappointed to see that few Vancouverites felt the same way. Despite Vancouver’s population of over 600,000 people, the auditorium at Simon Fraser University’s Harbour Centre was only half full. To be fair, the event was not effectively promoted. Nonetheless, I was dismayed to see poor attendance for a talk about the importance of women’s voices.
But I digress.
Campbell is a Conservative and so it won’t surprise you that I didn’t agree with everything said at the talk. It did, however, give me a lot to think about.
Let’s start with where Campbell and I agree. The thesis of the talk was that women’s perspectives are vital. Vital to the creation of good public policy. Vital to public discourse. And vital to the success of modern businesses and organizations.
To illustrate the point, the organizer of the talk, Informed Opinions, discussed a little experiment. Informed Opinions trains women experts to share their ideas through media commentary. Curious to know what differences women’s voices make in terms of focus and content, they created a word cloud from the first 100 published opinion pieces written by their workshop participants. They then compared this word cloud to the most prominent words generated by a similar sampling of op-eds written by male experts.
The clouds contained many similar words, including Canadian, government, health, political, public and work. However, a number of other phrases appeared prominently only in women-penned pieces. Tellingly, these included abuse, assault, benefit, care, children, equality, families, girls, help, justice, services, sexual, support, treatment, violence and women.
In many ways, Campbell’s experience as a woman member of parliament mirrored that experiment. In her talk, Campbell told anecdotes of times she educated an awkwardly silent room of male colleagues about issues such as contraception and sexual assault. Issues that are very prominent in women’s lives, but admittedly were not well understood or considered particularly important by some of her male colleagues.
Given the complex social, economic and environmental challenges we face, it simply does not make sense to make public policy based on the experiences of only half the population. On this point, I wholeheartedly agree with Campbell.
But public policy is not where women’s contribution ends. Research shows that women also play a large role in driving economic growth. In her talk, Campbell referred to various studies that prove women’s positive influence on business.
Let’s look at some facts.
Research suggests that to succeed, businesses should start by promoting women.
As investors, women come out better on almost every count. They are less likely to hold a losing investment for too long. They are less likely to wait for too long to sell a winner. And they are less likely to put too much money into a single investment or to buy a reputedly hot stock without doing sufficient research.
Women also excel as leaders. New studies have found that female managers outshine their male counterparts in almost every measure. Forty-eight per cent of all US firms are owned or controlled by women. Compared to all firms, women-owned firms have triple the growth rate, twice the rate of job creation and are more likely to stay in business. McKinsey & Company found that international companies with more women on their corporate boards far outperformed the average company in return on equity and other measures. Operating profit was also 56 per cent higher.
How can these results be explained? A recent article from Scientific American provides some insight.
In that article, entitled, “How Diversity Makes Us Smarter,” Katherine Phillips discusses decades of research from organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers that demonstrates that being around people who are different makes us more creative, more diligent and harder-working.
Phillips notes that people who are different from one another in race, gender and other dimensions bring unique information and experiences to bear on the task at hand. Diversity promotes hard work and creativity by encouraging the consideration of alternatives. Her conclusion? We need diversity- in teams, organizations and society as a whole- if we are to change, grow and innovate.
So far, Campbell and I are on the same page.
My disagreement comes with what to do about the inadequate representation of women’s voices.
Despite the fact that women constitute roughly half the population and workforce, and more than 60 per cent of university grads, women’s voices continue to be inadequately represented in media, politics and business.
In Canada’s most influential print, broadcast and online new media, male voices outnumber female voices by a factor of four to one.
In Federal politics, only 17% of Conservative Members of Parliament are women. The percentages for the NDP and Liberals are 38% and 25% respectively. BC has the highest rate of women MLAs in Canada at 36%. The other provinces and territories range from 10% (Northwest Territories) to 35% (Ontario).
Status of Women Canada reports that in 2012, women held only ten per cent of seats on Canadian boards. They held only 16 per cent of board seats on FP500 companies. And, on 40 per cent of FP500 boards, women held zero seats.
So what do we do about this serious underrepresentation?
Campbell suggests that women are often shy of power, that we see it as a bad thing and not as a potential to do great good. She suggests that women need to step up and grab power.
This to me, sounds a lot like “lean in,” the message to women from Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating officer of Facebook. In her book, appropriately titled “Lean In,” Sandberg suggests that women unintentionally hold themselves back in their careers rather than pursuing their career goals with gusto.
Step up, lean in, whatever you want to call it, is a philosophy that puts the onus on women for their inadequate representation in positions of power rather than the institutions and corporate structures that were made by men and continue to be run by them. It is a philosophy that calls out women for “opting out” of their careers rather than their employers for refusing to foster flexible, supportive environments that are more likely to keep women employees.
But more importantly, in my view, it is a philosophy that distracts us from the real question we should all be asking. It’s not a question of how we force businesses to accept women or their unique tendency to bear children. Nor is it a question of how to force women to work harder or longer. The question is, given what we know about women’s profound impact on the success of various entities, how can organizations justify their exclusion?
At a time when innovation is recognized as a key competitive advantage, the increase in a group’s intelligence attributed to the inclusion of women should be sufficient incentive for organizations in all sectors to work harder at soliciting female participation.
In my view, given what we know about women’s contribution to public policy, science and business, it is simply negligent for public and private institutions to refuse to reform the structures that push women out. Organizations should be asking themselves what they can do to make themselves more attractive to women, so they can reap the benefits of keeping us.
The refusal to change may well be the death knell for the stubborn “old boys’ clubs” of the world that will fail to take advantage of the exceptional investment, communication and leadership skills of women and thus fail to remain competitive.
In the meantime, our leaders should stop asking women to take personal responsibility for systemic failings. Our ambition (or lack thereof) is not the problem.
In March 2011, Harper’s Conservatives became the first government in the history of the Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament. That historic moment came about after Harper’s then minority government refused to disclose sufficient information about the cost of several big-ticket items such as the law-and-order agenda, corporate tax cuts and the plan to buy stealth combat jets.
The Conservatives now seem to be angling for a second contempt order, this time from the courts. In 2012, Cabinet overhauled the Interim Federal Health Program. With the changes, the government ended the more than 50 year tradition of funding comprehensive health insurance coverage for refugee claimants and others who have come to Canada seeking protection.
The effect of these changes was to deny funding for life-saving medications such as insulin and cardiac drugs to impoverished refugee claimants from war-torn countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. It was to deny funding for basic pre-natal, obstetrical and paediatric care to women and children seeking the protection of Canada from “Designated Countries of Origin” such as Mexico and Hungary. It was to deny funding for any medical care whatsoever to individuals seeking refuge in Canada who are only entitled to a Pre-removal Risk Assessment.
Refugee organizations brought a constitutional challenge to these changes claiming, among other things, that they amounted to “cruel and unusual treatment.” The Federal Court agreed, in a decision released in July 2014.
The Court concluded that the government intentionally set out to make the lives of admittedly poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals even more difficult in an effort to force those who have sought the protection of Canada to leave more quickly and to deter others from coming here.
The Court was particularly, but not exclusively, concerned with the effect of the changes on children who have been brought to Canada by their parents. Like the young child with a fever and cough who was unable to get a chest x-ray to rule out pneumonia. Or the asthmatic 8 year old who began coughing and wheezing more severely because his mother could no longer afford asthma medications. Or a young child infected at birth with HIV, who without medical treatment would be effectively condemned to an early death.
The Court concluded that the 2012 modifications to the Interim Federal Health Program “potentially jeopardize the health, the safety and indeed the very lives, of these innocent and vulnerable children in a manner that shocks the conscience and outrages our standards of decency.”
The Court gave the government four months to reinstate the coverage in place before 2012. The government, not surprisingly, has appealed the decision. However, in the meantime, its request for more time to abide by the Court’s order was denied. The deadline for compliance was November 4, 2014.
November 4, 2014 has come and gone and while the government says it has complied with the Court’s decision, experts say this is blatantly false. Professor Jennifer Bond notes that while certain refugee claimants have had their coverage restored, others have not. Many claimants still will not be covered for drugs or supplemental health benefits.
“The government is still being punitive, they’re being selective and the court told them to reinstate all benefits,” said Peter Showler, co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. Showler said it is likely their lawyers will file a contempt motion, asking the court to order full compliance.
We heard in December 2012 from whistleblower Edgar Smith that the legislative branch of the Department of Justice was approving legislation even if it had a “combined likelihood of five per cent or less” of being upheld by the courts. But now the Conservatives have taken one step beyond passing likely unconstitutional legislation. They are now breaching an explicit court order.
If there was any doubt in our minds before, there should be none now. Harper’s Conservatives believe themselves to be above the law.
It’s almost Sexy Costume Day! I mean, Halloween. My wife and I love Halloween because it gives us an excuse to pull out our glue gun and have a craft day. We usually make our costumes, but a few weeks ago we went to one of those pop-up Halloween shops to get some inspiration. I guess it had been a while since we’ve been in one, because we were pretty surprised by what we saw. For one, there was not one woman’s costume in the entire store that was not “sexy”. Even costumes that you would think should not be sexy, were sexy. Like sexy potato head, sexy minion, sexy Bert and Ernie and sexy hamburger. Seriously, there was a sexy hamburger.
Don’t worry, I’m not going to use this is an excuse to post photos of scantily clad women dressed as sexy scrabble. I thought I’d let some dudes demonstrate instead.
But these costumes are for adult women with agency, so no harm right? I’m not going to answer that just yet. I want to first tell you about our second observation in the Halloween store, this one in the kids’ section.
In this store, there were little girl costumes and little boy costumes. But despite the fact that between the ages of 4 and 6, little girl bodies and little boy bodies are pretty much the same, the costumes were very different. The little girl costumes looked like miniature versions of sexy _______ (fill in the blank).
You’ve probably read about the mom in Victoria who took her 4-year-old daughter shopping for a Halloween costume at Value Village. The little girl wanted to be a firefighter. Her mother found a cute firefighting costume in the boys’ section. It had an axe, a fire hat and a red jacket.
She then found the equivalent costume in the girls’ section. It had a skin-tight black shiny dress and a fascinator in the place of a fire hat. The police officer costume was equally appalling. The little girl version was a dress with a short skirt. In real life, policewomen have not had to wear skirts as part of their uniform since 1990.[i] And this was a change women really fought for.
“What those costumes tell me is that the boys can wear the real thing. They can be a real firefighter. The girls, on the other hand can’t. They can dress up pretty and pretend to be a firefighter, but they could never aspire to be the real thing.”[ii]
This should be especially concerning when you consider that firefighting remains very male dominated and has traditionally been a hostile workplace for women. In 2006, allegations of severe sexual harassment were made by women firefighters from Richmond, BC. The alleged incidents included hard-core pornography being displayed in their presence, human feces being put in a woman’s boots and pants, a condom with the word “cunt” written on it being placed in a woman’s locker and water pressure being turned off as a woman battled a fire. [iii]
Fortunately for the mother in this story, Value Village heard her complaints and decided to take down these gender specific costumes.
But not all shops are so progressive. If the store I went to was any indication, there are sexy toddler costumes being sold all over Canada.
I don’t think it is difficult to understand why sexualizing a 4-year-old is problematic. For one, it’s pedophilic. But more than that, it can have a very significant impact on how girls and women see themselves.
In the documentary Miss Representation (which I highly encourage anyone with Netflix to watch), author Jean Kilbourne talks about the message these sexualized images send to young girls.
“Girls get the message from very early on that what’s most important is how they look, that their value, their worth, depends on that. And boys get the message that this is what’s important about girls….So, no matter what else a woman does, no matter what else her achievements, their value still depends on how they look.”[iv]
The documentary goes on to discuss how this sexualisation leads girls to self-objectify which has disastrous consequences.
“The American Psychological Association has found in recent years that self-objectification has become a national epidemic, a national problem. The more women and girls self-objectify, the more likely they are to be depressed, to have eating disorders. They have lower confidence. They have lower ambition. They have lower cognitive functioning. They have lower GPAs.” [v]
In Canada, women are not well represented in leadership positions. Only 17% of Conservative Members of Parliament are women. The percentages for the NDP and Liberals are 38% and 25% respectively. BC has the highest rate of women MLAs in Canada at 36%. The other provinces and territories range from 10% (Northwest Territories) to 35% (Ontario).[vi]
Could there be a connection? Dr. Caroline Heldman, a professor of political science, says yes. Women who are high self-objectifiers have lower political efficacy. Political efficacy is the idea that your voice matters in politics and that you can bring about political change. As she sees it, if we have a whole generation of young people being raised with the message that the objectification of women is normal, we have a whole generation of women who are less likely to run for office and less likely to vote.
So after 18 years of being told by advertising, films, television shows, pop-up Halloween stores, you name it, that our value as women lies in our bodies, how free is our choice to buy a sexy adult Halloween costume? Are we dressing as sexy a Girl Guide because we would feel awesome and empowered in that costume? Or have we been conditioned by marketing and social pressure? To be honest, these are very complicated questions that I do not have an answer to (Philosophy 101 was my only B in undergrad).
But here is something I can answer. Is it possible to enjoy Halloween in a socially conscious way? The answer to that question is YES! Here are my Do’s and Don’ts for selecting a totally awesome, feminist Halloween costume.
#1 Do celebrate women heroes
There are so many women heroes in history, literature and modern day who have made a difference, fought the system, broken the glass ceiling, bent gender norms and kicked some serious ass. Why not celebrate one of them? There’s Katniss, Hermione, the Paper Bag Princess, Amelia Earhart and Rosie the Riveter, just to name a few.
#2 Do not appropriate someone else’s culture
I’ll admit, it took me an embarrassingly long time to understand that this is a problem. When I was a kid I once dressed up as Tiger Lily from Peter Pan. Another year, I wore my mother’s burqa from her days living in Saudi Arabia. It really didn’t occur to me that dressing up as someone else’s culture would be offensive. The way I reasoned it, I would not be offended if someone dressed up as a lumberjack or fur trader to represent a Canadian. Well, as I’ve learned, that is because this is not a proper analogy. “There are no pervasive stereotypes for whites on the same level that allow for them to be caricatured as a Halloween costume.” [vii] And Canadians are not a marginalized group.
Students from Ohio University have launched a campaign to make revelers think twice before reducing a culture to a caricature. The message: We’re a culture, not a costume.[viii] When we dress up as another culture, we reduce sacred and culturally significant attire. We perpetuate inaccurate, stereotypical and often offensive portrayals of someone else’s heritage. We temporarily “play” an exotic other without experiencing any of the daily discrimination faced by them, like dressing up as a “sexy squaw” while being completely unaware of the horrific rates of sexual violence Aboriginal women face.[ix]
#3 Do not dress as a famous oppressor
This seems so obvious, but every year people dress in horrible costumes that glamorize violence and violations of human and civil rights. In 2005, Prince Harry dressed up for a costume party with a swastika on his arm. This year, men have been reported dressing up as Ray Rice, the football player who punched his then-fiancé in an elevator. This is incredibly disrespectful to women who have been victims of domestic violence. And there are a lot of us. One half of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence.[x] Dressing up as an oppressor trivializes real discrimination, persecution and violence. It can also re-victimize survivors.
#4 Do not dress as a member of a marginalized group
I think most people know that it is not ok for a white person to don blackface. Yet people dress as other marginalized groups all the time: Indian, hobo, illegal immigrant. This is what one Aboriginal woman had to say about people dressing as a Native person:
“But you don’t understand what it feels like to be me. I am a Native person. You are (most likely) a white person. You walk through life everyday never having the fear of someone misrepresenting your people and your culture. You don’t have to worry about the vast majority of your people living in poverty, struggling with alcoholism, domestic violence, hunger, and unemployment caused by 500+ years of colonialism and federal policies aimed at erasing your existence. You don’t walk thought life everyday feeling invisible, because the only images the public sees of you are fictionalized stereotypes that don’t represent who you are at all. You don’t know what it is like to care about something so deeply and know at your core that it’s so wrong and have others in positions of power dismiss you like you’re some sort of over-sensitive freak.”[xi]
#5 Do highlight your talents
Halloween is an opportunity to get creative and think outside the box. It is also an opportunity to make a statement. A few Halloweens ago my wife and I went as Mrs. and Mrs. Potato Head. Not only was the costume a political statement about gay marriage, it had super awesome Velcro facial features that we could swap around all night.
#6 Do not denigrate women who choose a sexy costume
Some women find demonstrating their sexuality really empowering when they can do it safely and without pressure or judgment. Halloween is, for some women, one of the only days of the year that they feel comfortable really having their sexuality on display.[xii] That is great. These women do not deserve judgment. “Slut shaming” is a different side of the same sexist coin. Instead of assigning women value for being sexy, it strips women of value for being too sexy.[xiii] But ultimately, it is still determining a woman’s value based on her appearance. That is not ok.
Bottom line, have a great time this Halloween, but don’t do it at someone else’s expense. Halloween is not an excuse to leave your feminism at the door.