Five Problems with the Slutwalk Marches

[Language Alert:  I use the Sl** word in this post to address the phenomenon of thousands of women walking in Sl**Walk Marches]

This week marks the first anniversary of SlutWalk.

The first SlutWalk demonstration took place in Toronto, Canada, on April 3, 2011. The rally was held in response to a Toronto police officer's statement that young women could help safeguard themselves against rape by dressing more modestly. 

Feminist activist, Sonya Barnett, was incensed at his remark. She bristled at the implication that provocatively dressed women were in any way responsible for their own victimization and abuse. Barnett argued that girls should have the right to dress slutty without fear of sexual assault. Suggesting otherwise, places the blame on the female victim, and excuses the behavior of the male perpetrator. 

Barnett organized a protest march to the Toronto Police Station, which she dubbed "SlutWalk." Through it, she hoped to raise society's collective consciousness, and to encourage girls to:

• "reclaim" the word "slut" and other such negative male-defined labels,
• exert their right to reject male-defined, patriarchal norms of female dress and behavior, and
• protest a culture that puts blame on the victims of sexual assault.

Proud to be a Slut?

Over the past year, more than 50 SlutWalks have taken place in the US, Canada, and around the world, including Australia and Britain. The events are similar to "Take Back the Night" rallies. But they differ, because addressing sexual violence is only one of their aims. SlutWalk also wants to aggressively redefine notions about woman's sexuality.  Continue at Marry Kassian

When People Look Like Satan

God made humans to reflect his image and advance the display of his glory over the created world (Genesis 1:26–28). But Adam failed in this commission. 

Rather than have dominion over the serpent he succumbed to its craftiness. As Greg Beale explains, "Instead of wanting to be near God to reflect him, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden (Genesis 3:8 [so also 3:10])" (NTBT, 359).

Sin brought chaos and disorder. Things got all messed up. In fact, things became so backwards that Adam could be seen as actually suppressing the image of God to reflect the image of the serpent, like a back-story to Romans 1:18–25.

Adam was the first human idolator who became something he was not supposed to become, looking more like the snake than he did his Creator. Beale explains how:

"Idol worship" should be defined as revering anything other than God. At the least, Adam's allegiance had shifted from God to himself and probably to Satan, since he came to resemble the serpent's character in some ways.

[He Lied]
The serpent was a liar (Genesis 3:4) and a deceiver (Genesis 3:1, 13). Likewise Adam, when asked by God, "Have you eaten from the tree of the which I commanded you not to eat?" (Genesis 3:11), does not answer forthrightly. Adam replies, "The woman whom you gave me to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate" (Genesis 3:12). Adam was deceptively blaming Eve for his sin, which shifted accountability from him to his wife, in contrast to the biblical testimony that Adam, not Eve, was accountable for the fall (e.g., see Romans 5:12–19).

[He Didn't Trust God's Word]

In addition, Adam, like the serpent, did not trust the word of God (with respect to Adam, see Genesis 2:16–17; 3:6; with respect to the serpent, Genesis 3:1, 4–5). Adam's shift from trusting God to trusting the serpent meant that he no longer reflected God's image but rather the serpent's image. . . .  Continue at  Jonathan Parnell