“You Know Who the Sluts Are”: A Qualitative Analysis of the “SlutWalk”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2011, third-wave feminist activists initiated the “SlutWalk”, a protest march drawing attention to victim blaming and rape myths. The word “slut” has evolved within the context of a discourse of power and, by reaffirming categories of “good” and “bad” women, been used to justify sexual assault. The current study used three focus groups (men only, n= 2; women only, n= 7; mixed, n= 6 [3 men/3 women]) to explore Canadian undergraduate students’ views on the meaning and use of the term “slut”, and to gauge whether participants saw the “SlutWalk” as a valuable form of feminist political action. Data were examined using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Results indicated that the term “slut” was perceived as negative; more applicable to women than to men; and based on having an “inappropriate” appearance and/or engaging in sex-related behaviour perceived to be “inappropriate”. The underlying message of the “SlutWalk” was sanctioned by discussants. However, support for the event itself was minimal suggesting that, contrary to opinions expressed by some academics, participants did not regard the “SlutWalk” as embodying a politics of re-signification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".