If my daughter came home one afternoon and proudly announced, “Mom, I’m a slut,” would I congratulate her and celebrate her on becoming an empowered young woman? Or would I wonder what had happened to our culture?
If the answer to the first question is no, and I suspect for most parents it is, then perhaps the movement that became known as SlutWalk and its central slogan deserves more scrutiny than it has received.
For generations, most parents have taught their children that self-respect matters. We tell them that words have meaning, that character matters, and that dignity is something to cultivate, not discard. Yet in 2011, the SlutWalk movement attempted—and succeeded—to transform one of the most degrading words in the English language into a badge of empowerment.
Can a society simultaneously encourage dignity, responsibility, and self-respect while promoting slogans built around reclaiming the word “slut”? I don’t believe it can.
Words shape culture. We tell children that language matters. We correct insults. We teach kindness and encourage respect. Yet somehow, we are expected to believe that this particular word no longer means anything at all. That requires an extraordinary suspension of common sense.
Freedom without responsibility eventually becomes self-defeating. A healthy civilization does not merely defend rights; it also cultivates virtues. However, virtues and honor have never been high on feminism’s list of priorities.
The entire SlutWalk movement traces back to one sentence uttered by a Toronto police officer during a campus safety presentation at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School in 2011. Officer Michael Sanguinetti was speaking at a crime prevention forum on sexual assault prevention. The remark, as contemporaneously reported by multiple sources, was: “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this—however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”
His remark ignited the controversy, and the backlash was immediate. The officer, who was roundly criticized, later apologized, and SlutWalk was born.
No one is responsible for someone else’s crime. A rapist is responsible for rape; a murderer is responsible for murder. No woman forfeits her dignity or her legal rights because of the clothes she wears. Rejecting victim-blaming is one principle. Celebrating the word ’slut’ is another. However, that distinction has largely disappeared from the public conversation.
The irony is that many of the same activists who reject traditional ideas about modesty simultaneously defend garments that millions of women around the world are compelled to wear. Women in Iran have been beaten, imprisoned, and even killed for refusing to comply with compulsory dress laws, and under the Taliban, Afghan women face similarly severe restrictions. Women who have escaped these societies describe compulsory veiling not as liberation but as oppression.
Yet in Western countries, questioning the symbolism of these garments is often treated as intolerant, while celebrating the identity of the “slut” is regarded as progressive.
How did we arrive here? If freedom is truly the principle, then coercion deserves condemnation whether it pushes women toward more clothing or less. Freedom cannot mean applauding one form of symbolic dress while refusing to question another.
Iceland provides a fascinating illustration of this cultural transformation. On July 25, the bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland addressed Reykjavik’s 11th annual 2026 SlutWalk (Drusluganga)—which attracts thousands of attendees every year—and Reykjavik’s mayor proudly posed in the ‘Ég er Drusla’ (I am a Slut) campaign. These are not fringe activists but some of the country’s most prominent public officials and cultural leaders.
The question is not whether women should enjoy equal rights. The question is why respectable institutions now encourage young women to identify themselves with one of the most degrading labels in our language. That is not progress; it is a profound shift in our moral vocabulary.
One of the oldest mistakes in political philosophy is to confuse liberty with virtue. Freedom has never meant that every choice deserves celebration. A free society allows offensive speech. That does not mean every insult should become a cultural ideal. A free society allows people to make wise choices and foolish ones. It allows people to smoke, but that does not make smoking a virtue. It allows people to drink to excess, but that does not make drunkenness a cultural ideal.
Why, then, should we assume that because society protects a woman’s freedom to call herself a slut, it ought to celebrate that identity—or encourage young girls to embrace it?
The great achievements of feminism were real: equal legal rights, educational and professional opportunities, and protection from discrimination. Those achievements strengthened Western civilization. But somewhere along the way, the language of dignity gave way to the language of autonomy alone. Responsibility became suspect. Modesty became oppression. Self-restraint became patriarchal. Choice became the highest virtue, regardless of what was being chosen.
That is not liberation. It is moral minimalism. A civilization cannot survive on rights alone. It also depends upon virtues. Not just autonomy but responsibility. Not just empowerment but wisdom. Not just freedom but dignity.
Freedom made the West great. But freedom was never meant to replace dignity. It was meant to make dignity possible.
Whatever Happened to Dignity?
Reykjavik Mayor Hildur Björnsdóttir wearing an “I am a slut” t-shirt.
Slutwalk campaign photo
You may also like
From Adenauer to Spahn: The Unraveling of Germany’s Christian Democratic Tradition
The CDU once sought to anchor postwar Germany in a Christian vision of human dignity and moral order. Today, its symbols remain while the convictions behind them fade.
The Jason Arday Case: Identity Over Integrity
The Jason Arday affair suggests that Britain's academic establishment became so eager to celebrate an emblematic success story that it neglected the ordinary standards of verification expected of every scholar.
Homer in an Age of Revisionism
Homer’s epics are foundational to Western civilization. Their reinterpretation should enrich our understanding of the classical tradition, not distort its historical and cultural legacy.
If my daughter came home one afternoon and proudly announced, “Mom, I’m a slut,” would I congratulate her and celebrate her on becoming an empowered young woman? Or would I wonder what had happened to our culture?
If the answer to the first question is no, and I suspect for most parents it is, then perhaps the movement that became known as SlutWalk and its central slogan deserves more scrutiny than it has received.
For generations, most parents have taught their children that self-respect matters. We tell them that words have meaning, that character matters, and that dignity is something to cultivate, not discard. Yet in 2011, the SlutWalk movement attempted—and succeeded—to transform one of the most degrading words in the English language into a badge of empowerment.
Can a society simultaneously encourage dignity, responsibility, and self-respect while promoting slogans built around reclaiming the word “slut”? I don’t believe it can.
Words shape culture. We tell children that language matters. We correct insults. We teach kindness and encourage respect. Yet somehow, we are expected to believe that this particular word no longer means anything at all. That requires an extraordinary suspension of common sense.
Freedom without responsibility eventually becomes self-defeating. A healthy civilization does not merely defend rights; it also cultivates virtues. However, virtues and honor have never been high on feminism’s list of priorities.
The entire SlutWalk movement traces back to one sentence uttered by a Toronto police officer during a campus safety presentation at York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School in 2011. Officer Michael Sanguinetti was speaking at a crime prevention forum on sexual assault prevention. The remark, as contemporaneously reported by multiple sources, was: “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this—however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”
His remark ignited the controversy, and the backlash was immediate. The officer, who was roundly criticized, later apologized, and SlutWalk was born.
No one is responsible for someone else’s crime. A rapist is responsible for rape; a murderer is responsible for murder. No woman forfeits her dignity or her legal rights because of the clothes she wears. Rejecting victim-blaming is one principle. Celebrating the word ’slut’ is another. However, that distinction has largely disappeared from the public conversation.
The irony is that many of the same activists who reject traditional ideas about modesty simultaneously defend garments that millions of women around the world are compelled to wear. Women in Iran have been beaten, imprisoned, and even killed for refusing to comply with compulsory dress laws, and under the Taliban, Afghan women face similarly severe restrictions. Women who have escaped these societies describe compulsory veiling not as liberation but as oppression.
Yet in Western countries, questioning the symbolism of these garments is often treated as intolerant, while celebrating the identity of the “slut” is regarded as progressive.
How did we arrive here? If freedom is truly the principle, then coercion deserves condemnation whether it pushes women toward more clothing or less. Freedom cannot mean applauding one form of symbolic dress while refusing to question another.
Iceland provides a fascinating illustration of this cultural transformation. On July 25, the bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland addressed Reykjavik’s 11th annual 2026 SlutWalk (Drusluganga)—which attracts thousands of attendees every year—and Reykjavik’s mayor proudly posed in the ‘Ég er Drusla’ (I am a Slut) campaign. These are not fringe activists but some of the country’s most prominent public officials and cultural leaders.
The question is not whether women should enjoy equal rights. The question is why respectable institutions now encourage young women to identify themselves with one of the most degrading labels in our language. That is not progress; it is a profound shift in our moral vocabulary.
One of the oldest mistakes in political philosophy is to confuse liberty with virtue. Freedom has never meant that every choice deserves celebration. A free society allows offensive speech. That does not mean every insult should become a cultural ideal. A free society allows people to make wise choices and foolish ones. It allows people to smoke, but that does not make smoking a virtue. It allows people to drink to excess, but that does not make drunkenness a cultural ideal.
Why, then, should we assume that because society protects a woman’s freedom to call herself a slut, it ought to celebrate that identity—or encourage young girls to embrace it?
The great achievements of feminism were real: equal legal rights, educational and professional opportunities, and protection from discrimination. Those achievements strengthened Western civilization. But somewhere along the way, the language of dignity gave way to the language of autonomy alone. Responsibility became suspect. Modesty became oppression. Self-restraint became patriarchal. Choice became the highest virtue, regardless of what was being chosen.
That is not liberation. It is moral minimalism. A civilization cannot survive on rights alone. It also depends upon virtues. Not just autonomy but responsibility. Not just empowerment but wisdom. Not just freedom but dignity.
Freedom made the West great. But freedom was never meant to replace dignity. It was meant to make dignity possible.
Our community starts with you
READ NEXT
From Adenauer to Spahn: The Unraveling of Germany’s Christian Democratic Tradition
The Jason Arday Case: Identity Over Integrity
Homer in an Age of Revisionism