On the Oct. 7, the online edition of the Charlatan published a letter titled “Be careful what you wear.” It was met with vocal condemnation due to the subject matter; criticism mostly directed towards how women clothe themselves, and suggestions on how the author believed it was appropriate for them to dress.
The article was quickly removed, with a prompt apology given by the Opinions editor. I found the article to be ignorant and distasteful. But what I found more alarming than the subject of the article was the response to it. A fair amount of criticism that I viewed through online comments were focused on either attacking the personal character of the author, criticizing the Charlatan for posting the article, or accusations of the promotion of rape culture and misogyny.
University is not, and should never be, an echo chamber. For centuries, institutions of higher learning have helped facilitate the free and open discussion and debate of ideas, regardless of how right or wrong they seem. This discussion and mixing of ideas from various sources is what drives discovery and change in a multitude of academic fields. It is what provides clarity, understanding, and revision of ideas old and new.
Unfortunately, this limiting of discussion is not new at Carleton. Earlier this semester, students who criticised our Fall Orientation’s Safe Space policy regarding swearing and offensive language (admittedly, in a poor way) were unfairly branded misogynists, homophobes, and a host of other labels which effectively ended the discussion they wanted to create. In 2013, a free speech wall erected to allow open discussion was quickly torn down by another student for having controversial opinions written on it. According to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom’s 2013 Campus Freedom Index, Carleton is ranked as the worst university in Canada for university policies and practices for promoting freedom of speech.
There is certainly a difference between hate speech, which should be limited, and opinions which may be controversial or taken to be offensive. However, none of the above instances come close to being fairly labelled as hate speech. They were differing opinions that were silenced by personal attacks and an aggressive refusal to hear alternative discussion. Personal attacks should never be accepted as a legitimate counter argument, especially in an academic setting.
What should be utilized is open and sincere discussion of the idea presented—not dismissal. If anything, outright dismissal of a subject only reinforces sexist attitudes; you can tell someone they’re wrong hundreds of times, but how will they understand why they’re wrong unless you explain it in a clear, in-depth manner?
The censoring of controversial opinions only builds resentment and frustration in both parties by denying both the ability to properly get their message across. By allowing a dialogue about women’s clothing, or safe spaces, or free speech walls, people can properly voice their opinions and learn from each other. Unfortunately, until people can begin to honestly discuss controversial opinions without insulting their proponents or ignoring their arguments outright, misunderstandings and hurt feelings will continue, and our academic spaces will stagnate and fail to grow.
—Jarrod McLean
Media doesn’t need to give every idea a platform
As I see it, there are two major issues behind the letter “be careful what you wear”—the first being this letter adds to the body of evidence that there are people who think this way about women’s clothing choices, and the second being the publication of this piece in the first place.
Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions. And for the most part, this is fine—I can’t think my way to making someone I don’t like explode, no matter how much I might want it to happen. But unfairly acting on those prejudicial tendencies is wrong. If someone behaves in a disrespectful manner toward you, it’s certainly not because the way you are dressed. It’s because that person is disrespectful in nature, and the problem lies with them, not your clothes.
People such as the writer of that piece wrongly place the onus on the person who has received such a reaction, when in fact it should be on the person who was acting that way in the first place. While you may be judged unfairly based on your appearance, the fact is that they’re in the wrong, not you. No one should have to kowtow to anyone’s ideas of “respectable” or “decent” clothing.
By extension, this piece highlighted the undertones of rape culture and victim shaming that still exists within a large section of society. The writer said women can be treated badly if they are wearing “inappropriate” clothing. This is not a discussion about workplace dress codes; this is about women’s clothes in any public place. A lot of people have wrongly used the same argument to justify why a woman may have been sexually assaulted, and herein lies part of the problem. This argument promotes the idea that someone is “asking for it” when they dress a certain way.
The second issue is about the editor’s decision to publish the piece. Free speech may be important, but we no longer live in an age where we have to rely on established media channels to get our message out. We are in the age of the Internet—pretty much all one needs to get their message out is an Internet connection and a blog or social media account. If this writer was hell-bent on having his letter read, he could have used any of those means.
Even today, when journalists look for jobs, they use their pieces published by established organizations to stand out. Why? Because the fact that the organization chose to publish them means they thought the journalist’s article was worthy enough to warrant publication, whether in the arts section or the opinions section. This is why the choice to publish that piece in the first place was wrong—it sent the message that this letter was worthy enough to warrant publication. In my opinion, all the letter did was showcase an example of misogyny and limited critical thinking.
—Aishu Ravishankar
third-year journalism
Media shouldn’t hold outdated ideas on objectivity
On Oct. 7, an opinion piece titled “Be careful what you wear” was published on the online edition of the Charlatan. After the backlash it received from offended readers, the piece was taken down. It appeared to implicitly promote slut shaming, rape culture, and sexism among other things.
I plan on addressing a problem in this letter that I believe many news organizations have failed to address: the publication of ludicrous, illogical opinions that fail to further the debate of a given topic. The Charlatan made it clear that it was not their intention to promote rape culture, sexual assault, or sexism and acknowledged the mistake they made by publishing it. But, I take issue with what the Opinions Editor’s rationale behind publishing the piece, “furthering this discussion on campus by providing alternate opinions” and how the premise on which the piece was accepted under was not “bound by popular sentiment, or orthodox thinking.”
Such rationale is based on a false balance which according to Washington Post Columnist Katrina vanden Heuvel is “giving weight to unsupported or even discredited claims for the sake of appearing impartial.” An example that’s close to the issue at hand occurred last March on the CBC Radio One show Q with Jian Ghomeshi during a debate on the show about rape culture. Many listeners blasted the show on social media for having Heather MacDonald participate in the debate since she merely rejected the notion that rape culture exists at all and blamed binge drinking for sexual assault against women. Such opinions should not be espoused as we know that rape culture exists.
This letter should have never been allowed on the Charlatan website because we already know that slut-shaming is bad, and such facts shouldn’t be up for debate. If a news organization wants to facilitate constructive debate on these issues they should choose debate topics that actually progress the issue e.g. “What should universities do to address rape culture on their campuses?” In an article titled “Think Again: 10 Years of False Equivalence and Still Going Strong,” columnist Eric Alterman writes that the issue of false balance stems from the mainstream news’ “outdated commitment to the ideal of objectivity.”
As Alterman points out, people with vested interests will exploit the news media’s commitment to objectivity to “invent facts, subvert scientific study, and replace reality with ideology.” As long as our publications frequently allow them to be heard, people with ridiculous opinions will publish. Rather than succumb to blind objectivity, the news media should strive to be fair and balanced and give airtime only to opinions that have a firm basis in fact. If a news organization chooses to only publish opinion pieces that are factual, the right to freedom of speech won’t disappear, because everyone has the right to say what they want in public via their own newspaper, blog, YouTube channel, etc.
All serious news organizations on the other hand claim to have certain standards of journalism that they uphold and the same standards should be applied to opinion pieces. Just like how a news article must be factual to be considered credible, an opinion piece must be grounded in logic in order to be published. Every contributor must adhere to those standards or try their luck at bringing their ignorance somewhere else.
Overall, news organizations must understand the difference between freedom of speech and hate speech. Hate speech has the sole intention of targeting a group of people to justify someone’s own deluded view, and has no place in a respectable newspaper. There’s nothing wrong with a controversial opinion in itself, but stupidity shouldn’t be tolerated.
—Peter Russell
second-year journalism
My appearance has nothing to do with who I am
The beauty of a woman should not be found in the clothes she wears. No, the beauty of a woman should be found in her thoughts and actions. Or, the beauty of a woman could be found in whatever she wants it to be found in.
As a human being, the type of clothing I wear has zero correlation to the amount of respect I should be given. While we’re at it, let me point out that no matter what a woman is wearing, it does not welcome you to label it as “provocative,” “appropriate,” or anything else, for that matter.
The argument addressed in the letter titled “Be careful about what you wear” was that if women dress provocatively then they should expect nothing less than demeaning responses from others, particularly, other men. The author gives an example of a woman dressed “inappropriately” at the gym while the men around her stare as she works out. When she finally calls them out, what does our author do? He immediately condemns her and blames her for the men that were looking at her. Her only “fault”? What she chose to wear.
Furthermore, he goes on to say that we are all taught to associate certain characteristics with specific things. To break it down, what the author is doing here is slut-shaming a woman at the gym, and essentially any woman that is dressed contrary to his definition of “appropriate.” He is saying that the associations we make based on appearances perpetuate the “demeaning” responses that provocative dressing attracts. This kind of mentality screams misogyny.
The letter broadly states that a woman dresses solely for the attention of men. Is it so difficult to believe that a woman might actually dress for herself? Yes, news flash, not everything is about you. Maybe she dresses for herself, or maybe she doesn’t—it’s none of your business! A woman’s clothing is not an invitation for you to stare at her, label her or touch her.
But wait, the author does not have a problem with women dressing provocatively, apparently. He makes it clear in the following quote: “Please do not misconstrue me, my offence is not with women. Rather, I find great offence with the expectation bestowed on individuals to respect those who choose to dress in this manner.” He has a problem with the people expected to respect women who dress this way.
Again, the author refuses to acknowledge the fact that every individual should be guaranteed a degree of respect regardless of what they wear. He reiterates this by saying how preposterous it is to even consider respecting a woman who is dressed less than appropriately. Imagine such a thing!
Furthermore, the idea that a woman’s clothing can somehow increase or decrease the amount of respect she should be given is ridiculous, not to mention incredibly dangerous. A woman’s worth as a human being is not defined by the clothing that she wears. This kind of “she asked for it” mentality is a foundation of rape culture. It is the reason people think it is okay to be sexually violent toward women. Yes, that includes “catcalling.”
It is the reason victim-blaming exists under the guise that somehow if she were wearing a longer sleeved shirt, or something more “modest,” she wouldn’t have been raped. Yeah, totally (note the sarcasm, please).
Three sexual assault cases and a safe space policy scandal later, this letter is just the icing on the cake. I cannot begin to stress how toxic these kinds of opinions are in the context of safe spaces at Carleton and beyond. In addition, the distribution and publishing of pieces like this in the name of freedom of speech by the Charlatan achieves nothing more than propagating of misogynistic views and a disregard for safe spaces at Carleton.
