“Chuckdarwin,” while criticizing the Male Privilege Checklist, wrote:
24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won’t make me an object of contempt or derision.
Two words: Bill. Clinton.
Bill Clinton suffered derision for cheating on his wife while being president. Is Chuck seriously arguing this is an example of the typical male experience? Do typical men face an angry Republican party and thousands of scandal-hungry reporters?
A few books and many scholarly articles have documented the “slut” phenomenon in US high schools – two examples are Fast Girls and Slut! Growing Up Female With A Bad Reputation. If any genuine parallel to slut-bashing exists for boys, I’ve never encountered it, heard it spoken of, or read about it in any academic source. My conclusion is that “slut” represents a genuine double-standard.
(In his comments, Chuck suggested “rent-boy.” But rent-boy isn’t a male counterpart of “slut”; it’s a male counterpart of “hooker.” Not the same thing.)
Nonetheless, I wonder if I should reword #24, because it implies that the “slut” label is applied to a woman or girl based on how many people she chooses to sleep with. In real life, it’s not that simple. Research on slut-labeling in US high schools suggests that girls are labeled as sluts for reasons other than their own behavior. The girl labeled a “slut” isn’t necessarily having more sex than other girls; but she’s usually set apart from the other girls in some other way, such as less money, earlier puberty, or being a recent new arrival.
From a review of the book Fast Girls:
White presents her victims of the slut rumor as girls whose identity was chosen for them, as opposed to one they brought on themselves. “Being a slut is not a story about the body so much as all the things that have been spoken about the body” (50). She presents the “slut” as a universal character, inevitably found at all high schools. White first proves that the designated reputation of the slut is born from redundantly similar rumors and this character exists in every school. By universalizing the slut role, White depersonalizes this image and emphasizes the lack of autonomy that girls face when, through no control of their own, they are suddenly cursed with a scarlet letter of sorts. After reading this book, there can be no plausible argument that starts with, “well she must have done something to deserve it.”
In a lengthy and sometimes drifting explanation of the Jungian archetype, White presents the slut as an unconscious rendering of the fear of female sexuality. She describes teenagers in limbo, as they attempt to compromise between messages of excessive sex as bad and their raging hormones. White states that teenagers try to make sense of this contradiction by drawing lines of good and bad. “By turning one girl into the slut among them, the kids try to reassure themselves that they are on the right side of fate: they are good while she is evil… They have the right kind of desire while she has the wrong kind” (59).
I think I’ll rewrite #24 to say There is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” But I’m open to suggestions, too – let me know what you think.
(This is one of a number of posts responding to Chuck’s critique. You can use the category archive to see all posts related to the Male Privilege Checklist.)
Pingback: Step Inside Me
Pingback: Dirty Little Secret Love
Pingback: feminist blogs
A male slut is a “player” which used to have a positive connotation, but these days, according to my high school students, it’s almost as bad as a slut. There still exist a double standard, but guys who screw around aren’t as cool as they used to be.
Gay and bi males often get bashed as sluts, not matter how monogamous, or even celibate they are. I think it may relate to a power dynamic. Het men who have sex with unlimited women are considered powerful. Anyone else who does what they do encroaches on that teritory, and gets slut-shamed.
There is no real male equivalent. The closest I can think of is being labeled a virgin. Strangely, in the private school that I went to for the last 2 years of high school there were no girls who were labeled sluts, AFAIK. It was a small school – less than 130 students, grades 8 -12. I hung out with every social group and never heard anybody called a slut. And the only reason I suggest “virgin” as even close to “slut” as a derogatory and exclusionary label is that while at that school nobody believed I was a virgin. It was weird. The only thing that I can figure is that I was well-liked enough that people didn’t want to think that I was that uncool (there was a lot of sex that happened there – small school, small campus, high percentage of boarding students).
So, although I don’t really see slut & virgin as equivalent, there are certainly some parallels in terms of reflection of social status.
I think we’re getting overcomplicated… I feel the double standard is the concept that women who have sex are sluts, period, irregardless of quantity or quality, wether they were consensual (instant slut label there), wether or not they enjoyed it.
Men who have sex don’t face that same label, unless they are extreme examples of overt promiscuity or over-the-top-flaming alternative lifestyles. And even then, it’s almost like the “slut” label is coming about because they’re “different” as opposed to that they’re having sex, period.
And a hell of a lot of people that I know (Canadians and eastern Europeans) applauded Bill Clinton’s affair. The EU folks in particular couldnt’ understand what the big deal was. In my (canadian) mind, it wasn’t that he had sex, had sex while in office or had an extramarital affair, it was that he (a) seemed to lie about it under oath and (b) may have been using his position of power to get sex (unlikely, it seems Ms. Lewinsky was entirely consensual in the relationship).
So when has Clinton ever been bashed for being a slut? Did I miss something in my land of liberal bias?
For a Canadian equivalent, take a look at Belinda Stronach. Slut is about the nicest of the things I’ve heard her called, and we can’t even prove she’s had sex!
In his comments, Chuck suggested “rent-boy.” But rent-boy isn’t a male counterpart of “slut”; it’s a male counterpart of “hooker.”
It’s also a male hooker.
A random tangent: when I was taking evidence, my prof gave a great lecture about rape shield laws and “evidence of reputation”. He challenged us to prove that such evidence was anything more than slut-shaming. After 45 minutes, the best anyone had was “well, it’s just different!” He then asked if there was any reasonable equivalent of “slut” for men. We got man-whore, player, and himbo, but none of those approach the level of vilification usually inherent in slut.
i disagree with “player” as anything like an equivalent for “slut”. sure, “player” applies to men who sleep with a lot of women, and it is often construed as negative, but the reasons (IMO) are different.
“slut” is negative because there “good girls” are not “supposed” to have sex.
“player” is negative because the multiple sexual partners of men means they must have led women on just for the purpose getting sex.
i’m glad that disrespectful behavior is being judged as bad, but it’s not the same as vilifying them just for having sex.
and, while i don’t see gay culture from the inside and might therefore not be right about this, i don’t think that gay men being called “slut” is due to a perception that they’re not “supposed” to be having multiple sex partners—i’m not sure why “slut” is used for gay men, but i suspect it’s a homophobic (or internalized homophobic if gay men use the word) reaction to feminize (and thus “other”-ize) gay men. but i’d be very willing to admit i’m wrong about that one.
my conclusion: i agree with Amp that there simply is no male equivalent for “slut”.
oh…and…note that there is no equivalent for “player” for women, probably because a situation in which a woman takes advantage men purely for her own sexual gratification is presumed not to exist: either because women are assumed not to really “want” sex or because it’s supposedly almost inconceivable that there would be an emotional or reputational disadvantage to men due to having sex.
this asymetry is also telling. men can “ruin” women by having sex with them, thus an unscrupulous man can be berated with a word like “player”. but men can’t be “ruined”, so no similar word exists for women. this just reinforces the claim that there can’t be an equivalent term to “slut” for men.
There is no male equivalent of “slut” and it is unlikely that there will ever be one.
In a state of nature, there are only mild penalties to the offspring of a man who plays around excessively. The offspring of a woman who has “too many” partners, on the other hand, die unless the mother can levy on the labor of other women. The caveman who has a bunch of kids might have to bust his hump providing for their mothers during the one or two year period when the mothers are relatively helpless and require assistance. The cavewoman who can’t pin down a specific male and shame him into supporting her during pregnancy and infancy is comparatively SOL. Her kids likely won’t die, because (childless) grandma and aunt Ogg will kick in – but grandma and aunt Ogg aren’t real pleased about it. It seems likely that the roots of “slut” go back to this period, when women had a strong personal interest in limiting the sexual activity of their peers and kin.
The issues are no longer quite so life and death, but there is still female self-interest in other women having responsible breeding practices, and male interest in ensuring a steady supply of second-class sexual partners who can be coerced or browbeaten into sexual access, and so there is still linguistic shaping of the sexual environment.
Um, what is the male interest in ensuring a steady supply of second class sexual partners? It doesn’t add up: women bio programmed to be sexual within a certain relational framework- unless you’re a second class sexual partner? Men bio-programmed to screw around- but where and why does the relationship framework come in? It appears we are a species that raises young with two parents for women, and a species with a single dominant stud male for men. How can both of these things be true? If the first is true, then why are men “allowed” to be sluts? If the second is true, why aren’t women allowed to be impregnanted by whomever and raise their young in harems, like orangutangs or mares or whales?
Just a reminder: in hunter /gatherer societies, gatherers (women- pregnant and nursing as well) work and support themselves and others, and are even theorized to be responsible for most of the calories consumed. Source? An article I read about 15 years ago in Discover magazine. About as valid as any souce on the “just so” fables of why men can be sluts with impunity. You know why men can be sluts with impunity? Because they have most of the power. EVERYBODY dreams of sexual variety once in a while, while only a few are allowed to indulge. There is no need to seek complicated bio- evolutionary theories here.
And I can’t believe that no one here knows that the male equivalent of “slut” is “fag”. It’s not exactly the same thing, but it is as dreaded a stigma for a young male as “slut” is for a girl. I like to think that these labels aren’t a strong as they once were, but I’m not holding my breath.
Um, what is the male interest in ensuring a steady supply of second class sexual partners?
Access to consequence-free sex.
t appears we are a species that raises young with two parents for women, and a species with a single dominant stud male for men. How can both of these things be true?
I don’t know. The sentence doesn’t parse for me.
And I can’t believe that no one here knows that the male equivalent of “slut” is “fag”.
“Fag” (as previously used – what the kids say today, I have no idea) is basically about shaming and humiliating males who don’t conform to the gender identity the community is pushing. It doesn’t have much to do with pressuring males to configure their sexual identity (ironically enough) – it’s a hierarchy-enforcing thing. I don’t think it’s the same as “slut” at all.
Elena
Your idea of hunter-gatherers is completely false. There is no evidence that men were the hunters – of the stone age burials found several has been of great hunter women and mothers buried with spears, arrows and other hunter tools and men buried with baskets et.c. The traditional stone age gender roles were an invention of nineteenth century scientists. You are however right in the fact that about 90% of all food came from gathering.
And to further my OT rambling I just had to share the results of a recent survey with you Alas readers:
1000 young swedish men and women, 18-21 years old, got to answer a question on whether pornography should be completely forbidden and 67% of women and 45% of the men agreed mostly or completely.
We are getting there!
And I can’t believe that no one here knows that the male equivalent of “slut” is “fag”.
I could swear I just pointed that out.
Slut-shaming that works on women and gay men is about power, and who has it. Men already have a significalt amount of power, but slut-shaming is an add-on in terns of how to control women, and men who don’t follow the rules about who you have sex with.
Gay men certainly get slut-shamed. Its so strong a practice that het society constantly tries to tie in homosexuality with pedaresty, so you get the ‘homosexuals are uncontrolably sexual, and are disgusting sluts’ and the added menace of the idea that they might rape a child.
But recall that the 10% of the food that came from hunting was an important 10%, because it was protein and fat. You don’t get a lot of protein and fat out of the ground, and they’re important for pregnant and nursing women.
B is quite correct that we really don’t know about the specific gender roles. There’s no reason to think that women wouldn’t have hunted. Perhaps there were gendered differences in the hunting methods or social arrangements (and surely that varied from place to place) but I can’t conceive that the harsh conditions of the time would have permitted enough material surplus for irrational gender restrictions. It IS probable that a gravid or nursing woman would not hunt, other than chucking rocks at any squirrels coming through camp or maybe in a less dangerous support role like beater, because it wouldn’t be practical. Thus the need of those women for help from other people; at the one time they really need a high-meat diet, they can’t effectively do for themselves.
Those 19th century ethnologists labored under a crushing handicap: they had what appeared to be “stone age” people around to look at, and so they drew a lot of conclusions about earlier times from that data. Problem is, the climate has changed, much for the better, since the real stone age – and they didn’t really get that. (People today don’t get it either.) It’s a lot easier to live these days, and when it’s easy to live, your society can afford to indulge itself in a lot of crap that would have doomed the group to extinction in the olden times. That crap probably wasn’t around back then; the patriarch who grunted “woman no hunt! woman stay home and make baskets” starved.
Thus the need of those women for help from other people; at the one time they really need a high-meat diet, they can’t effectively do for themselves.
At the risk of opening a whole new can of (protein-ful) worms… High protein diet does not equal high meat diet. There are plenty of other forms of protein. Also, there are an awful lot of people in the world, perhaps even a majority, who never get a high protein diet.
And they ate lots of nuts – my teacher once told us of a dig she had been on on the isle of Gotland where the layer of hazelnut-shells were meters thick. Besides, even a woman nine months pregnant can fish..
Oh, isn’t one of the theories being bandied about that most meat was gotten by trapping? You can do trapping when you’re gravid or nursing, can’t you?
The anthropologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy posits a model that accounts for female promiscuity that is the precise opposite of Robert’s – according to Hrdy, female promiscuity can be adaptive in subsistence-level societies because it wins a woman the allegiance of several males, or at the very least defuses any potential hostility towards her and her offspring. In spite of the quaint attempts to fit Ward and June Cleaver into a prehistoric context, having five guys around who won’t kill your kid because there’s an outside chance it might be his, and who will swoop down with the occasional gift, might be better than having one guy who’ll stick around consistently.
Robert, there’s compelling evidence that prehistoric people hunted in groups (including women and children), where they’d drive large game off of cliffs or overpower large game by sheer numbers. Also, men who were out hunting and/or fucking around all of the time were not good bets for partners–if a man was there solely to provide food and protection, you’d get very little if he was out creeping all the time. Prehistoric societies were hard, and the women were not exactly helpless Victorian shrinking violets.
You’re assuming that the family unit in prehistoric cultures was consistently nuclear and that the values were the same as the ones in Western culture in the 19th-21st centuries. Quite a lot of the theory you present is based in the values of *this* culture and *this* time period.
In medevil times, a woman with a child or children out of wedlock was not considered a lost cause; she was still quite marriageable (hell, she was desireable as it was established that she was fertile and could produce children to help support and sustain the family). In some indigenous American nations, men did not give a fig about how many partners a woman had, as people regarded the entire community’s children as “theirs.” The Na people of China also couldn’t care less about a woman’s sexual habits/partners, as it is a woman’s brother(s) who serve as the male role model/caretaker of her children. Her sexual partners are barely acknowledged, if at all. A similar family/kinship system also exists among some of the indigenous societies in South America.
WRT Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky–I’ve seen Lewinsky villified as a slut and a bimbo, while Bill Clinton is exalted as a true risk taking leader and alpha-male. I mean, please. A quick blow job does not make one a stud.
um, he’s probably regarded as a leader, a risk taker, and an alpha male because he was, you know, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and (for 4 years) the single most powerful person on the planet. I don’t think it had much to do with the blow job.
I would postulate that the source of slut shaming may come from an imbalance between men and women when it comes to ensuring that they have passed on their genes. Women, by conceiving a child the old fashioned way, have a guarantee that their genetics are passed on. Men don’t have that kind of certainty so the only way to up their odds of passing on their genes is to a) control those that have the certainty and b) have sex with multiple partners.
Slut shaming helps both causes. It is part of controlling women by serving as a warning, that virtue has a value and protecting it is in the woman’s best interests. This can be lumped into a number of other fun activities ranging from paying a premium for a virgin to locking up women or forcing them to cover up in public all the way to genital mutilation and honor killing. Social and physical activities designed to control or negate women’s sexuality.
Slut shaming helps with men’s desire for multiple sex partners by, as Robert suggested, creating a pool of women who have less incentive to protect their virginity and are willing/easily coerced partners. Good women, right women cleave only to their husband, but sluts are good for a quick fling and who cares if they have a kid.
um, he’s probably regarded as a leader, a risk taker, and an alpha male because he was, you know, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and (for 4 years) the single most powerful person on the planet. I don’t think it had much to do with the blow job.
Um, no. He was praised for being that in articles that said fucking around dangerously and fucking around, period were traits “known” to leaders and risk-takers, real alpha-male types.
Back to revisions of the male-privelege checklist – I’d say keep 24 as is, and add:
um – as someone who spent all of her virginal high school years being called a slut, and the time when I was actually having sex being referred to as the Ice Queen, I’d like to say that slut shaming has not one fig to do with sex.
When I was being called a slut, it was because I refused to buy into the whole teenage girl body myth. When other girls would talk about how little they ate, or how fat they were, I didn’t join in. When asked about how I felt about dieting, I simply said that my body was strong and capable, and I wasn’t going to do anything to mess with that. This, apparently, made me a slut.
Of course, after I was having sex, I started buying into the whole “must be perfect”thing, thanks to an abusive boyfriend or two, and became obsessively modest because I was ashamed of my unperfect body. This, apparently, meant that I wasn’t sexual – even though I was having ALOT of sex with ALOT of people.
There is no male equivalent for (insult to women) “slut”, but I don’t think there is a female equivalent for (insult to men) “wanker”´, either.
Magikmama also points out that slut shaming has nothing to do with sex, I disagree — the insult does not need to be only applied to women who actually have sex with many partners for it to be about sex. In other words, calling someone a slut is an insult because it implies that the insulted person is a (sexually) loose woman, a slut. It seems that she was disliked because she didn’t conform to gender norms, and thus, the conformists called her what they thought was the most shameful thing for a woman to be.
(Not intending to hijack this, with “men have it worse”, but I do think men are more often called “fags” for not conforming, whereas women who don’t conform are usually insulted in different manners, such as implying that they’ll scare all the men away etc.)
Huh, I suppose those are moderation-sensitive words I used…
A discussion about insults and auto-moderation = bad combo.
I am about as far from Hilary Clinton’s Biggest Fan as a person can be. However, I invite anyone who really thinks Bill was picked on too much for his infidelity to visualize what the reaction would have been if Hilary had been caught running around with somebody not her husband– particularly somebody much younger.
A man who sleeps around in this culture has a certain leeway, especially if he’s powerful. People tend to invoke the Kissinger Defense, claiming that these guys just give off tons of pheromones and it’s not their fault if women cluster around them in droves. A woman in the same position would not only be considered deficient morally, her behavior would reflect badly on her spouse and his inability to keep her under control.
Robert responds to my position that “fag” is eqiuvalent to “slut” with this statement:
“Fag” (as previously used – what the kids say today, I have no idea) is basically about shaming and humiliating males who don’t conform to the gender identity the community is pushing. It doesn’t have much to do with pressuring males to configure their sexual identity (ironically enough) – it’s a hierarchy-enforcing thing. I don’t think it’s the same as “slut” at all.
And supports my position with his denial.
And he subscribed to the contorted logic of those who are fond of regarding human males as stallions who spread their seed around, and human females as mute swans who breed for life. At least animals don’t care about the female’s sexual history. I believe I can truthfully say there is no slut shaming in nature.
Elena, my argument is that “fag” is used to enforce hierarchy and dominance, and “slut” is used to coerce particular patterns of sexual behavior. That’s two different things. I don’t think that’s your position.
I agree with Josh Jasper’s, “Slut-shaming that works on women and gay men is about power, and who has it.”
Coming at the words slut and fag from the view of the patriarchal men that dominate language and everything else, both could be read as insults based on the same “You get fucked by men, therefore you are fucked” mentality.
I think of how the homophobic men I’ve heard in my life always seemed to say things like how there’s no way they’d ever take a dick up their ass when speaking of how disgusting they thought gay sex was. Not a one of them ever said they’d never put their dick up another person’s ass, and many were okay haranguing their girlfriends until they agreed to anal sex, it’s just that they would never be put in the ‘dominated’ place, the women’s place, by taking a dick up the ass.
You see these are two different things and I (and Elena, I suppose) see the coercing of particular sexual behaviors as the most common hierarchy and dominance enforcing social mechanism.
If the purpose of slut-shaming is to justify one’s own sexual urges/behaviors, then a male equivalent to the slut does exist: the random rapist lurking in the dark alley, waiting to sodomize young Christian virgins. This archetype sets up the belief that the most atrocious sexual act possible for a man is raping a stranger in a deserted place. Men can then justify all other sexual practices, even coercive or violent ones, because they aren’t like the “rapists in the alley”*. However, while the “slut” label is applied freely to any woman with any sexual history (or even no sexual history), the “rapist” label seldom sticks to an indivdual man; after all, he met her in a bar, she’d had sex with him before, she was wearing a short skirt, he was her husband, she agreed to go back to his house, etc. He’s just a nice guy who was succumbed to the inherent temptations of the female body. The patriarchy is crafty that way: the female model of sexual deviance is used to harm and subjugate women, and the male model of sexual deviance is also used to harm and subjugate women.
*I understand that many rapes are committed by men who hide in deserted places waiting for solitary women. I’m not trying to deny or minimize the real harm they cause women. I’m only criticizing the rape apologists who claim that being grabbed by a stranger in an alley is the only “real rape”.
I have not read all the comments in this thread as carefully as I might, so I apologize if what I write indicates that I have missed something that someone has already said, but I am particularly interested in this issue because one of the exercises I often use in class when we start to talk about gender and sexuality is to ask my students to write a dictionary definition of the word “slut.” What’s interesting is how hard a time my students inevitably have. They often start out in one of two different places; either it’s a very vague “loose woman” sort of defintion or the just slightly more specific “woman who sleeps with too many people” sort of definition. What gives my students difficulty is my then asking them to define “too many” and to define the circumstances under which any given number becomes “too many.” For example, this past semester my students insisted that a woman who’d only had sex with two men could be a slut, even though they also at the same time agreed that a woman who was serially monogamous was not necessarily a slut. Then the discussion moved to the question of whether or not “a slut” could be defined as a woman who simply lacked all self-respect, and so on and so on. The students themselves were surprised at how difficult this seemingly simple task was for them. Some other thoughts:
1. Slut shaming is fundamentally a moralistic and essentializing shaming because it is, ultimately, not about a particular form of sexual behavior, but rather the fact of a woman’s sexual being. In patriarchy, female sexuality is, by definition, “sluttish”—available to all men when and where we want it, etc.—and its sluttishness is only ameliorated/neutralized to the degree that any given woman regulates her sexuality according to patriarchal norms. This is why I don’t think there is a corresponding to term that applies to men in the same way. I will talk about “slut” vs. “fag” in a moment, but the point I want to make here is that there is, with the exception of gay male sexuality, no aspect of male sexuality that falls under the essentializing blanket condmentation and disgust—in broad cultural terms—that are applied to female sexuality.
2. “Slut” vs. “fag”: It seems to me that this comparison is accurate when “fag” is applied either to men who are gay or bisexual or to straight men when the purpose is to imply not simply that they don’t meet cultural standards of masculinity, but rather that they are, secretly, gay. I don’t think that “fag” when used by straight men to shame other straight men because of the non-sexual ways they don’t “measure up”—for example, not wanting to fight, not being so into sports (to pick a couple from when I was a kid)—carries the same kind of sexual essentializing that slut does.
I’m not so sure that last point was clear, so let me say it this way: I think that “fag” corresponds to “slut” only when it is used to refer in some specific way to homosexual sex, which is as “negatively essentialized” (an awkard term that I hope you will allow me) under patriarchy as female sexuality is.
With regards to the proposed edit to the Male Privilige Checklist, I think that “If I have sex with a lot of people…” might be changed to “If I am perceived as having had sex with a lot of people…” or “If I am perceived as being a slut…” because you’re right: Whether or not actual sexual actions have occured often has very little to do with the labeling of a person as a slut.
Then, I suggest either an addendum or a whole new item on the list that would read something to the effect of “I may be perceived as a slut based on my race, my or my family’s socioeconomic status, the clothes I choose to wear, the shape and condition of my body, my marital status, my political opinions, whether the one perceiving me finds me “sexy,” and my past history of sexual activity, consensual or not.”
I hope that this comment was helpful to you, and if not, I hope I have not offended or bothered you in any way.
I think the closest I’ve heard to the word “slut” is “manwhore” which isn’t that much better. “Whore” still has the female connotation of being a degraded sexual object, and a female one at that. There doesn’t really exist a male equivalent for it, simply because the words “slut” and “whore” have the interesting connotations of “degraded sexual object”, which isn’t something people normally think of when they think of men. It all goes back to the Madonna/whore complex. Those two common words categorize women as being dirty things, like something you’d find in a gutter. It questions the very humanity of women.
When you apply it to men, you get a slightly different effect, though one that is in some ways similar to the one you get with women. This comes from using the term ‘whore’. The fact that there is a need to put the word “man” in front of it says that being a whore isn’t something that men normally are; it’s the property of women. Hence, by associating the man with female sexuality, the man becomes “less manly” in a way. He is indirectly being called a woman. However, it does have an interesting side effect- the whole dehumanising aspect of the word does carry over, somewhat, to the male.
i really enjoy this list and think it’s a useful tool, but here (as others have pointed out) male is constantly used to mean straight male. most of these male priviliges don’t apply to actual or perceived queer men.
Samantha, that has been my experience also. I think that for a man to be the enveloping partner in penetrative sex is an act of rejection (however small) of the patriarchy. It is a movement away from a paradigm of sex as active/passive (subject/object) and towards a paradigm of sex as collaborative.
Pingback: Official Shrub.com Blog » Blog Archive » Think women have achieved equality? Think again.
I use ‘Slut Dog’ to describe guys that act that way. I feel sorry for the woman that act that way, but I just can’t stand the men. Player or Stud are far to nice a set of words to describe these humanoid rodents.
Women used to be degraded about sexual promescuity, these days it seems they are proud of it. Either way, yes, slut is generally a bad term, and as a one time bearer of that name, a very hurtful one. Promiscuity (including consentual sex) is proven to create many negative results, including STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and psychological issues. So society is ‘shaming’ women towards safer behavior. Women who keep themselves safe by abstaining are rewarded socially.
For men it is the opposite. They are rewarded by society for having strings of unattached sex, which is proven to be dangerous (see reasons above), and shamed for abstinance, which is safer. Ask any man who is a virgin, the label ‘virgin’ cuts just as deep as the label ‘slut’ for a girl. There really is no difference in insult effectiveness. So a man who tries to keep himself safe both psychologically and physically is shamed socially.
This does not need to be a contest. These labels society puts on people feels just as damaging for both men and women. We need, however, to look at the overall social implications of these labels. Why are there labels? Some could say that it is men’s way of controlling women, or one could see it as a social perogitive that sees women as more worthy of safekeeping and men disposiable. Either way the names sting the same.
Maybe a better question is why does our culture promote rampant sexuality in forms that hurts us all, then demonizes it? Sex is not a Holy Grail, nor the Devil incarnate, and in the long scheme of things should not be the focus of our purpose here on this earth.
The Biscuit Queen: Maybe a better question is why does our culture promote rampant sexuality in forms that hurts us all, then demonizes it?
Very good question.
For anyone willing to buy an idea, there will be someone willing to sell it. Sex without consequence is a fantasy that’s very compelling, that’s why it’s promoted. The reality is that sex has destructive as well as productive consequences, consequences that can affect us for generations. That’s why others wish to keep guidelines in place.
Neither men nor women are regarded as virtuous for betraying their spouses, except by the very immature, and the immature do not speak for society in general. Anyone who publicly claims infidelity is acceptable hasn’t got a prayer of being voted into public office.
I beleive the difference in the way men and women are socially shamed for such behavior is because a woman is ultimately the only one responsible for what happens to her body. A child conceived through infidelity is not the responsibility of her husband, neither is it the responsibility of the man she cheated with, it’s hers, so the lion’s share of disapproval is hers.
I agree that the origins to the slut mentality was likely at a time when paternity could not be proven, and there was no welfare. Young girls who were impregnated out of wedlock had no recourse, it made sense to discourage the behavior.
I do not think this ever had anything to do with married couples, since the law stated that a man was responsible for any children born into his household, and often was held accountable for the behavior of his wife as well. One of those -treat women like children and make men have to bear more than their fair share of responsibility, a double edged sword.
Bq, earlier you mentioned several reasons why rampant sexual behavior is hazardous to a society, but asked why women were villified while men were glorified.
First, men are not glorified for cheating on their wives. There is a ‘rebel’ charm to men who defy convention and get away with it that attracts fanboys (and some fangirls) but their opinions carry no weight in society’s representative forums.
Second, I think this has everything to do with married or monogamous couples. Infidelity by either half of an unmarried couple is equally destructive, but it’s largely between them, it’s hardly society’s business. When a married woman conceives a child by another man all kinds of questions have to be asked – questions no one wants to have to answer. Questions about parental obligation, husband’s rights, natural rights, marital rights, divorce options, custody, abortion, orphanages, child support, fetal civil rights. Destructive, divisive, expensive, they scar everyone who touches them.
I agree that the origins to the slut mentality was likely at a time when paternity could not be proven, and there was no welfare.
I would argue that stigmatizing promiscuity is much more appropriate now that we do have welfare programs than when we didn’t. Welfare allows women to externalize part of the cost of single motherhood, which reduces the disincentive to engage in risky sex and make bad reproductive decisions. Stigmatization could potentially serve to restore some of that disincentive and encourage more responsible behavior.
And conveniently imposing no costs on men. Business as usual.
I don’t really understand what you mean, mythago. Unhealthy sexual conduct imposes a very high cost on men, on women, on our children, on all of society.
This is a great post about one of my ‘pet’ subjects!
Brandon Berg – ‘promiscuity’ is a very subjective term. Stigmatising – whatever it is – is not the way to go!
And :Welfare allows women to externalize part of the cost of single motherhood, which reduces the disincentive to engage in risky sex and make bad reproductive decisions.
Are you serious?! Yes, let’s encourage so-called responsible behavior by reducing a family’s access to health, education and social inclusion. Good grief Brandon Berg!
Would not safe sex education be a better option?
SJ xx
Hi SJ
Subsidizing her behavior without question and without comment is tactic approval of her behavior. Accepting a government subsidy a valid alternative to a father’s presence is tacit approval of his behavior. Is that the way you want to go?
BB is not suggesting we cut anyone off. I believe his concern (and I agree with it) is that we must be clear that providing funds to protect children from mismanagment at the hands of absent, immature or unprepared parents should not be misconstrued as acceptance of their high-risk actions. There must be a cost when society picks up your tab for you or you invite everyone to rely on society instead of themselves. Do you believe any society could support that?
Exactly, providing funds for single parent households (usually women single parent households), and stimatising that parent for her poor reproductive choices, while the man who wants nothing to do with that child (and more than likely protested the use of condoms because really why should he have to worry about those things when it is just so much more simple for the woman to worry about birth control and the side effects) and is not, from my viewpoint, exposed to any stigmatas about his role in this. I don’t have an answer for the social ills but I do know that placing blame isn’t exactly going to help. A good example is the shame that many people try to place on fat people for their size. I don’t know a single fat person who lost weight due to that shame. I think there are better options, but I don’t know of any that won’t cost the same or more in the long run.
“Sleaze”, “skeeve” and “pussy hound” sound like derogatory male synonyms for slut to me…
Twain;
its not the same at all. the implication of the terms you mention is dishonesty and a lack of ethics, along with misdirected priorities. A slut is on the other hand is worthless, probably stupid and likely suffering from low-self esteem or a full blown mental disorder. The difference is that men are expected to pursue sex for its own sake; the ‘pussy hound’ just does so in manner which suggests poor taste. The slut, on the other hand, is seen as irrational for making the same decisions.
Additionally, the skeeve or whatever is stigmatized because of failure, not because of what he’s trying to do. A skeeve is just a playa who can’t get any but still tries all the time. If he was successful, he’d be lauded as all manly and everything.
Totally not the same thing.
Actually, it gets worse. “Manwhore,” as I just discussed with a friend, is a guy who will sleep with anyone, even ugly and unattractive women.
So even the closest equivalent to “slut” is more about insulting women than about insulting men.
You shouldn’t be surprised by this. Women have children, men don’t. A woman’s life is turned on it’s head by a pregnancy, a man’s life isn’t necessarily affected at all. Of course women are going to be pressured more than men to refrain from trivial sexual relationships and berated more than men when they don’t.
If you want to change public perception, change the conditions that bring it about or you’ll be fighting the same fight over and over and over again. Make the consequences of a pregnancy equal for men and the condemnation will become gender-neutral all by itself.
CJ;
I’m not so sure. There are socially enforced consequences for men for fathering a child. At the very least, they are legally responsible for child support; not even steven, but something.
But instead of evening things out, the double standard with regard to sex means that some men resent being ‘punished’ for ‘what comes naturally’ and are mad at women whove ‘tricked’ them in to becoming fathers. This attitude only really makes sense in a world where the slut exists without a male equivalent.
That’s because there is no equivalent crime that men can commit against women. Some acts and the consequences of those acts are not mirrored exactly between men and women. There are some things a man can do to a woman that a woman cannot do to a man, and vice versa, so some double standards are natural.
In my understanding, the word slut doesn’t accurately apply to a woman who is merely sexually active, it applies to a woman who is having, or has had concurrent sexual relationships with multiple partners. When a woman engages only in monogamous relationships, even if it were a long string of short-term relationships, and always refrains from sex with anyone outside of her current relationship, the term is used less often, or never used.
The difference in it’s applicability to men and women lies in the fact that of the two people involved in a hetersexual family, the mother is the only one that will never be confused about whose child she’s carrying. If she has had many partners it’s possible she might not know who the father is, but it would clearly be ‘hers’, and would always satisfy her desire for having a child of her own. Maybe this fact makes it hard for women to understand that a man’s perspective is different.
The man has to take it on faith that if she tells him the child is his, that it is his. For a woman known to be loyally monogamous, that is easy, and a husband is expected to trust his wife in this respect. For a woman known to freely have sex with other men even while in a supposed ‘exclusive’ relationship, especially if she is known to do it behind their backs, how can he ever be sure? It’s possible that she herself would not know for certain whether he is or isn’t the father, and is merely telling him he is in order to maintain the relationship.
The prospect of unwittingly raising someone else’s child, believing it’s your own, is an experience that women are unlikely to ever have. It’s hard to imagine a set of circumstances where an unscrupulous husband might switch babies on his wife, so that one day a random blood test tells her ‘I’m sorry, your child isn’t your child’ but imagine the devastation you might experience if that were to happen. Since the consequences are slanted against the man, society’s condemnation in this case is slanted against the woman.
There are acts that are worse for men to commit than women, too. A woman can rape a man, but it isn’t taken nearly as seriously by society.
CJ;
Thanks an argument, but I’d disagree that “slut” is usually or only applied in that way. Its also worth noting that only in specific cultural arrangements, (usually disadvantagous to women and situations in which property and status are patrilinally inheritable) that the problem you describe is a major one.
I’d disagree that “slut” is usually or only applied in that way
Language is after all somewhat fluid, and any accusation might be used without cause just to be mean, but the origin of the term remains the same; hostility towards women who violate the monogamy of relationships. Intruding sexually on a relationship provokes the most primitive forms of jealousy and hostility in both men and women, therefore engenders the worst kinds of slurs.
I still feel it’s different for men and women for natural reasons. Men who are cuckolded don’t want to slur the guy who did it, they want to beat the hell out of him. Women are more inclined to socially destroy women who interfere with their relationships, and won’t use slurs as much against men because men just don’t care about it as much.
Its also worth noting that only in specific cultural arrangements, (usually disadvantagous to women and situations in which property and status are patrilinally inheritable) that the problem you describe is a major one.
Could you elaborate?
Pingback: Spinster: It’s an attitude » The Male Privilege Checklist
Pingback: grep|grrl » La checklist des privilèges masculins
Pingback: Putting Men Between a Rock and a Hard Place « Tiny Cat Pants
I’ve really enjoyed reading these comments and discussions.
On the one hand, i’m starting to feel that we ought by now to be able to use our collective imaginations to create words for ‘promiscuous’ males in order to even things out a little, but then again, do any women here really want to see the other half of the population being subjected to the same derogatory labelling that has been so readily applied to many of us over the last few hundreds/ thousands of years?
Fortunately much of the sexual stereotyping and prejudice towards women is changing fast, for the better- (I know we still have a long way to go). But language can and does also change fast. Is it a good or bad sign that we are failing to find more words to single out the sexually ‘deviant’ (a questionable concept in itself if you ask me….).
Then again, it frustrates me when I see two different friends (one male, one female) with comparable sexual lifestyles being percieved very differently among our peers. No prizes for guessing who is called a whore/ slut, and who was the ‘player’ – a word I’ve so far only heard used with a tone of admiration.
I would also add something regarding divorce. Due to women usually having to give up their careers, or change careers so their male partner can keep their current career, women either stay home or take on part time jobs. If divorce comes up (which in the US is very likely being that it is at 50%), they always say how much did the wife “take” from her ex. Yes, she did not personally make the money, but as a couple and family his job was work – which brought in money, and hers was taking care of the kids and household – which brings in no income, but, in fact saves money from hiring a babysitter or day-care. Men also have to make less sacrifices for their kids – especially when divorced, considering the fact that is usually a single mom with the kids and only weekends with dad.
Otherwise I love the others you have come up with and agree with each. Hope my posts makes sense and it is a very deep intertwining complication and I tried just to touch on it.
Clinton’s approval rating rose noticeably after his cheating was discovered. I’d hardly call that an example of contempt or derision.
When i was 14 (5 years ago ) i was called a frigid slut, in my experience people insult you because they want to hurt your feelings, not to decribe you or what they think you’ve done.
Also i’d disagree with CJ about the origin of the word itself , with the word originally meaning untidy, dirty, etc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slut
I would just like to contend that you can call men whores and sluts too. In my understanding slut and whore doesn’t only apply to female identified persons. Also labeling people based on how many partners they have is immaterial.
Men also have to make less sacrifices for their kids – especially when divorced, considering the fact that is usually a single mom with the kids and only weekends with dad.
That only holds as long as the divorced dad tries to get anything more than the crumbs of custody offered by the mother and/or the courts. As long as he is content with the paltry offer its all good but if he tries to get more time with them (yeah the nerve of dad trying to be in his child’s life right?) all hell proceeds to break loose, and its not always his fault.
Danny, I have no doubt that individual men have been screwed over in divorce proceedings in exactly the way you describe — as individual women have been screwed over, as well.
What I’m wondering is, do you have any non-anecdotal evidence to show that what you describe is a widespread pattern in our court system?
Well, anecdexpertly speaking (which is to say that it’s anecdotal information provided to me by multiple experienced experts in the field of divorce law)… You can roughly look at judicial bias w/r/t gender and also societal conformation.
There are judges who are judges who are fair and unbiased, and those judges are probably in the majority. (neutral on both axes)
There are also a fair number of judges who are supportive of the standard patriarchal model in which men earn $$ and women take care of kids, IOW they are biased towards social conformation. Those judges are often biased against male custody, though it’s not as if they aren’t also biased against women in other respects. IOW, they aren’t necessarily “anti-male” judges overall, though they may in fact be “anti-male-custody” judges; of those judges, some are biased against men and some are biased against women.
There are very few judges who are biased against social conformation. Again, this doesn’t mean that there are no pro-male-biased judges in this category. However, arguably the judges in this category are more likely to be biased against men.
So the claim that men are more likely to be denied custody is probably accurate. That does not mean that the court system is necessarily biased against men. It just means that a pro-male-biased judge is more likely to also be a pro-conformity judge, so even if the judge is pro-man the resulting bias is likely to manifest itself in some way other than child custody going to the father (which is not a patriarchal act.)
I never said that it was a widespread issue, just that it does happen (and I have to wonder if that reply was a polite rewording of simply yelling bullsh!t at the top of you lungs).
http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.htm
Found this on quick googling of “child custody stats”. Take note of the “The State of Fatherhood” section. While this may not be definitive (most of the figures have citiations next to them) it does show that there are definitly obstacles between a child and their dad.
At my school, guys who are perceived as promiscuous are labeled as either “desperate,” “creepers,” “players,” or “man-sluts” depending on their social status and personality. Its no badge of honor to get acquire any of those names, and though calling someone a man-slut carries obvious sexist implications that the default “slut” is a woman, it does seem like the double standard is declining.
Why isn’t “virgin shaming” a male counterpart to “slut bashing”? (Women are shamed for having too many sex partners; men are shamed for having too few.)
Don’t forget “dog” and “gigalo” when it comes to shaming men who have lots of sex.
And as ballgame says I would very much agree with virgin shaming for boys/men may be a counterpart fo slut shaming for girls/women.
When it comes to sex the gender roles state that girls/women are not supposed to have a lot of sex because it ruins their purity while on the other hand boys/men are supposed to have lots of sex because it is a direct measure of one’s manhood. When a girl/woman breaks her role she is considered to be dirty whereas a boy/man that breaks his role is considered to be a failure (and if you throw in the heteronormity his sexual orientation may come under question). The way it stands men are supposed to have lots of sex in order to get experience in order to guide women who are not supposed to be experienced.
ballgame, Danny, et al:
Trust me here when I say that girls/women are virgin shamed too. Plenty. Often right along with being slut shamed. Damned if (they think) you do; damned if (they think) you don’t.
I believe you, Ruth. But as other commenters have noted, I think there are instances when men are ‘slut shamed’ as well. AFAICT, though, it appears that ‘slut shaming’ is a much bigger issue for women — I’d be hard pressed to dig up a feminist post that complained of being ‘virgin shamed’ — while ‘virgin shaming’ is a much bigger issue for men.
I’m not saying the symmetry is exact here. I’m just saying that the notion that only women are subjected to shaming based on their purported sexual behavior is false.
Whilst it may be interesting for the purposes of comparison, nobody can seriously claim there is a hetrosex male equivalent of slut, that’s absurd.
What really interests me about the slut phenomenon in regards to men, is the premise that underlies it.
If merely having sex with men despoils and degrades women, that would seem to suggest that men are inherently a toxic pile. That is a view of oneself that is hard to bear, so of course, women have to be pressganged into bearing some of that burden. By doing so, it distances it from men and makes it bearable.
So why don’t men dealing in this kind of view dismantle it at source?
Whilst it may be interesting for the purposes of comparison, nobody can seriously claim there is a hetrosex male equivalent of slut, that’s absurd.
Perhaps but the scales are tipping these days. People are acknowleging that it is wrong to call sexually active women sluts but dog, letch(er), and the classic pervert are still mostly used towards men.
If merely having sex with men despoils and degrades women, that would seem to suggest that men are inherently a toxic pile.
That strikes at the heart of the way male sexuality is treated. Its dirty and disgusting. That’s why when a woman has sex she is regarded as dirty because the man (assuming hetero) she had sex with is inherently dirty and some of it got on her during sex.
That strikes at the heart of the way male sexuality is treated. Its dirty and disgusting. That’s why when a woman has sex she is regarded as dirty because the man (assuming hetero) she had sex with is inherently dirty and some of it got on her during sex.
Exactly, the question I’m asking is what are men going to do about it?
If men reject and dismantle this mis-use of their sexuality-in order to discover a truthful and in fact, more liberated view of themselves and their sexuality- they remove the need to offload this intolerable view of themselves on to others, in order to make the intolerable, tolerable.
I’m saying the underlying engine for slut shaming seems to be this degraded view of male sexuality, so what are men going to do to reclaim an authetic sexuality of their own making?
While I think it’s valuable to ask questions about the role that negative views of male heterosexuality play in the dynamic of slut-shaming, and I think B. Adu’s asking what men are going to do about that is right on point, it’s important not to leave out the part of slut-shaming that is about controlling women’s sexuality (and I’m not saying B. Adu did leave it out) because it is women’s sexuality. In other words, it’s not, it can’t be, just about men “discover[ing] a truthful and in fact, more liberated view of themselves and their sexuality,” though that is a crucial and often overlooked part of any discussion of slut-shaming; it also has to be about stepping back from, taking responsibility for, holding ourselves accountable for, the degree to which slut-shaming is a naked expression of male sexual–dare I use the word, given how the thread discussing Clarisse’s third post got sidetracked because of it? I think I have no choice; I can’t think of another word that fits: of male sexual privilege.
Richard, would it invalidate your hypothesis (that slut-shaming is about men controlling the sexuality of women) if it turned out that, today, women were more likely to slut-shame other women than men were? If not, why not? If so, what is the evidence that you use which indicates that men are more likely (presumably, significantly more likely) to slut-shame women than other women are?
Also, do you see the virgin-shaming of men as an aspect of female privilege? If not, why not?
Of course, Richard can answer for himself, much more capably than I can.
But BG, I notice you put words into Richard’s mouth (or keyboard). Richard didn’t say that slut-shaming is “about men controlling the sexuality of women”; he used the passive voice, and you added the bit about “men.”
When I read Richard’s post, I assumed he meant that society or patriarchy use slut-shaming to control the sexuality of women (and girls). Not “men.” (Yes, he did mention men elsewhere in the same paragraph, but not in a way that made it honest or fair for you to insert it into his thought the way you did.)
The trouble with anti-feminist posters — even very well-meaning, polite and smart ones, like you — is that you tend to bring up the same arguments again and again and again, regardless of the topic. It’s a fill-in-the-blank response; for any thread, you can say “Also, do you see the _________ of men as an aspect of female privilege? If not, why not?,” and as long as you’ve filled in the blank with something that could sort of be said to be relevant to the conversation, you can claim to be on-topic.
But your topic isn’t slut-shaming; it’s not even virgin-shaming. Your topic is the same old “women are privileged too!” claim you and other anti-feminists have brought up a thousand times before.
As it happens, Richard has already answered the question, on a thread that I strongly suspect you’ve read. As Richard has made abundantly clear, he doesn’t define privilege the way you do. To quote one of Richard’s many comments on that other thread:
You use “privilege” to mean “any time one sex has a disadvantage that the other sex doesn’t experience, the other sex is privileged.” That’s simply not how Richard is defining the word.
If you want to have a good-faith discussion of the matter, take it to a thread where it’s on-topic, and be responsive to what Richard has already said, rather than just dusting off your same old fill-in-the-blank critique.
(However, as Richard expressed many times on the other thread, he is pressed for time and not especially interested in having that discussion. So although you can respond to him, he is not obligated to respond to you in turn. As I’m sure you know, of course.)
That’s preposterous, Amp. Let’s look at Richard’s quote:
The plain English implication is that slut-shaming is about men controlling women’s sexuality, a naked expression of “male sexual privilege.”
Well, I categorically and emphatically disagree. My interpretation was neither dishonest nor unfair. Now, it might have been wrong … it’s possible — with a certain amount of rhetorical strain — to believe that Richard thinks men should take responsibility for something that both men AND women do. But I think that assertion raises a whole host of questions in itself, and I don’t think it’s the first interpretation of Richard’s paragraph that the majority of ordinary readers would walk away with upon reading it.
With all due respect, Amp, I do not read every Alas post, nor have I memorized the occasionally arcane aspects of the political philosophy of every blogger here. (Just distinguishing myca, mythago, and mandolin isn’t always automatic, frankly.) I believe I have read the thread you’re alluding to, but I didn’t freakin’ memorize it.
OK, thanks for extracting that. Richard doesn’t want to debate the gynocentric presumption that gender privilege is a one-way street. So I can expect that he won’t be responding to my second question about virgin-shaming being a female privilege. Fair enough.
Regardless of whether Richard wants to answer my second question, there was nothing off-topic about it in the context of this thread, given that others have discussed the implications of the various terms for dissing males. However, in deference to your mandate, I won’t pursue that question here. I would still be curious about Richard’s answers to my first set of questions, though, should he care to respond.
And, FTR, it is inaccurate and offensive to label me an “anti-feminist,” and I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop. I’m pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-equal pay for equal work, and have hired more women than men as a manager in a technical field. I don’t accept the notion that gynocentrists are entitled to a monopoly on the word. If you feel compelled to ‘qualify’ me in some manner, “dissident feminist” or “feminist critic” would be acceptably neutral terms to me. (If you don’t like my referring to you as a “gynocentric feminist,” BTW, I’m more than willing to entertain other neutral suggestions.)
My grandfather hired a Jew once.
Okay, I admit that was non-responsive. Without getting into any of your actual argument, Ballgame, my snark was actually just intended to point out that “I’ve hired women” is probably not a useful feminist credit in and of itself. ;-)
Oh, and a quick guide:
Mythago’s the lawyer who doesn’t post here much anymore (alas!)
Myca’s in law school, so soon he’ll be indistinguishable from Mythago (bah dum ching). He’s the philosophy major and unitarian who makes posts that say “you can comment here if you believe everyone should be equal” and who is always very concerned about being fair.
I’m the girl science fiction writer who wishes you’d pick a synonym for gynocentric, not because I want something more neutral, but because I can’t take that word at all seriously. Do you measure gynocentrism with these?
Ballgame:
Oh, heck, this topic is way too old to worry about on-topicness much (it’s my thread, so I can do that).
I won’t argue about what RJN intended; that seems fruitless.
I will say, however, that in my opinion, it’s more accurate to say that slut-shaming is a method by which society controls female sexuality, than to say it’s a method by which men control female sexuality.
Sorry about the “which I suspect you’ve read”; I didn’t mean by that to imply that you were being dishonest, but I can see that it reads that way. I thought it likely that you had read it because I thought there were trackbacks to that thread from your blog, not because I think you read every “Alas” post.
I understand that anti-feminists would rather that people not talk about or name anti-feminism, just as homophobes would like to strike the word “homophobia” from polite discourse, and racists say “stop playing the race card!” whenever someone brings up racism.
I don’t think I want to go along with that. As a feminist, it’s not in my political interest to try to cover up anti-feminism, or refuse to call anti-feminists what they are.
I don’t find this a persuasive argument.
Except for the last claim, these are all claims that Christina Hoff Sommers can make (and has made), when she objects to being identified as an anti-feminist. Would you disagree with those who identify Sommers as an anti-feminist?
The anti-gay activist David Blankenhorn consistently claims to be a democrat; he says he voted for Obama, he claims to hold many Democratic positions, etc etc. He also says he’s in favor of gay rights, other than marriage. So he objects to being called a conservative anti-gay activist. But although he may actually be pro-choice, pro-union, pro-environment, etc.., that’s not the subject he makes speeches and NYT op-eds about. In those venues, he talks either about apolitical issues (like thrift) or about why he thinks marriage equality is a bad idea, or why divorce is horrible. And I think it’s fair for people to judge him by what he says in those speeches and op-eds — which are the bits that really matter, in terms of what impact he has — rather than judging him by the private opinions he claims to hold yet somehow isn’t actually speaking out on.
I don’t think it’s unfair of me to judge you based on what you actually do. And what you actually do, the overwhelming majority of the time you talk about feminism and feminists, is to argue exactly like an anti-feminist.
I didn’t claim a monopoly on anything. You can call yourself whatever you want. What you’re not entitled to, however, is having me buy it. (You can call yourself a pumpkin too, if you like, but it doesn’t mean you’d make a good pie.)
I think that’s a bad idea, because it would serve the anti-feminist goal of leaving anti-feminism unnamed.
I’ve already given you my arguments for why I think the term is inaccurate, and you weren’t persuaded. That’s good enough for me. I don’t agree that I am gynocentric, but otoh I don’t see anything wrong with being gynocentric either. Feel free to call me good-looking and well-groomed, as well, if you like.
Oy! Ballgame, I am not going to answer your hypothetical question about what it would mean if women were found to slut-shame more than men, except to say that in my more than 20 years of experience as a teacher, whenever the issue came up, in whatever form, it has always been the men, overwhelmingly the men, who engage in slut-shaming. Doesn’t mean that women don’t do it too; doesn’t mean that there aren’t women in my classes who are thinking it; but it’s the men who inevitably have something to say about it, who engage in it, openly, with relish, and who try to shout down anyone who has a different opinion. Granted this is anecdotal evidence, but I think 20 years worth of anecdotes is not irrelevant to a discussion like this.
I am not inclined to get into a discussion of what it means when women slut-shame because I am not interested in where that debate might lead. For me, even when women slut-shame, it’s about controlling women’s sexuality in terms that serve men’s and not women’s interests, and that’s pretty much all I am interested in saying at this point.
Regarding male virgin-shaming: I think this is a crucially important issue to talk about, but I am not interested in discussing it in terms that get into the ridiculous and tired debate about male versus female privilege. That debate impoverishes the discussion such that the discussion itself becomes useless. Go read a book by Rosalind Miles called Love, Sex, Death and the Making of the Male. (Sorry don’t have time to look up the link.) It’s one of the best books I have ever read about masculinity, the formation of manhood, etc. from a point of view that gets at male subjectivity and subjective experience of these things, and Miles does this as a woman, from a feminist point of view.
Oh, and by the way, thanks, Amp, for your initial response to Ballgame. Saved me a lot of time, even though I think he’s right that my initial post did frame slut-shaming as something that men do.
I would accept woman-centered as an alternative to gynocentric. It’s still silly sounding, but less so.
I will be interested to see if it works for Ballgame and why or why not.
it is inaccurate and offensive to label me an “anti-feminist,” and I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop.
Ditto, “gynocentric”. Try thinking of a term that has the dignity and power of phallo- for female genitals, then add, ‘centric’.
Woman-centered? I don’t think you’ll get away with that.
You know, he almost had a good point. Just like sometimes, the patriarchy hurts men too… some parts of the patriarchy are perpetuated by groups of women.
And then he went completely off the rails.
B.Adu
Gynocentric and woman-centred mean exactly the same thing. The ‘gyn’ element is from Greek ‘gyne’ and just means ‘woman’. It has nothing to do with Latin ‘vagina’ (‘sheath’), and it has no necessary connection with with female genitals. In other words ‘gynocentric’ is not the natural counterpart of ‘phallocentric’.
Tom wrote:
Regarding gynocentric: Perhaps someone here remembers better than I do, but didn’t Mary Daly coin the term–or wasn’t the term coined–to describe her work? And wasn’t it intended to be a response to the concept phallocentric? More to the point, though, it does seem to me that gynocentric/gynocentrism has a history within feminism, and it’s worth pointing out that BG is appropriating the term in a way that denies/falsifies that history. (Which is not to say he is doing this on purpose; I am not making an accusation here.)
Richard
As a person quite ignorant of the history of the term gynocentrism within feminism, I should be interested in knowing what it is understood to entail and how BG’s use of the term differs from its normal acceptation.
Tom: google Mary Daly, gynocentrism, gyn/ecology and then be prepared to Wade through some pretty dense writing.
Richard
OK, I’ve checked her out online as far as I could. She has, so far as I can make out, developed a kind of feminist metaphysics, with women as ontological essence (Yay!), men as discursive representation (Boo!). But though such a view is gynocentric by Ballgame’s definition, I don’t see that Daly limits the gynocentric to those who take such a philosophy seriously – and I can’t see that Ballgame has, even unwittingly, highjacked a term with a highly specific ‘Dalyean’ acceptation in feminist discourse.
Tom,
I’d say you need to read a lot more radical feminism, then. Ballgame’s definition of gynocentric, as far as I can tell, is neither as intellectually rigorous nor as developed philosophically as the one used to describe Daly’s work and the work of feminists like her. But I am not really all that interested in pursuing this discussion further. First, I have not read Daly and others like her in a long time, and so I am not really equipped for it; and, second, I don’t want to indulge the whole discussion of male vs. female privilege, which is where such discussions seem inevitably to end up on this blog when he and people who agree with him are involved. (I don’t know if that describes you or not.)