![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It's different for a girl
Jun. 19th, 2011 11:03 amBy now, everyone who lives under a moderately well-situated rock has heard about Anthony Weiner's flashing-via-Twitter scandal. Unsurprisingly, lots of people who agree with his political positions are defending his behavior on the grounds that 1) Republicans do it too and 2) it's a private matter. So far, so expected. But some of his supporters have found a new line of defense that I just have to comment on-- they're saying he's being slut-shamed because our society is so puritanical and sex-negative. I think this is a huge mistake because it stretches the meaning of "slut-shaming" so far beyond its original use as to make it less meaningful and less useful as tool of sociopolitical critique. Slut-shaming does not mean just disapproving of or criticizing someone's sexual behavior. It is a lot harsher and a lot more complicated than than that.
Slut-shaming happens to women and to everyone who gets perceived as a woman. It happens to some of us more often than others, but it does happen to us all sooner or later. Whether it happens to men or people perceived as men based on their presumed sexual behaviors with other people perceived as men, I leave up to those with direct experience. But slut-shaming doesn't happen to men based on their actual or presumed behavior toward women. The whole point of slut-shaming is to put someone on the wrong side-- the woman's side-- of the sexual double standard. The concept is built around the idea that a woman (or possibly a person taking a perceived feminine role in relation to a supposedly masculine man?) is losing something or getting soiled because of some presumably sex-related thing in a way that can't happen to a man as long as he doesn't start acting like a woman. A person who is accepted as a man can certainly go beyond what society dictates as the boundaries of politeness, morality, and good taste without going beyond the boundaries of heteronormative masculinity. He can certainly be ridiculed, mocked, treated as dangerous, called predatory and sleazy and creepy, and punished in a huge variety of ways for behavior deemed inappropriate. But that's not the same thing as being shamed as a slut.
Here's what slut-shaming of a politician looks like: Trigger warning for misogyny, racism, and threats of violence. The link goes to a discussion at Shakesville about a political ad that uses misogynist and racist imagery to slut-shame California Congressional candidate Janice Hahn for having purely professional contact with men who are presumed to be particularly predatory. White progressive men have criticized the ad for it's racist bullhorns-- this thing goes far beyond dogwhistles-- but don't seem to notice, or maybe just don't care, that it's also misogynist, perhaps because using sex-related smears against a woman whose politics one doesn't like is just such an acceptable thing. Sure, Republicans are saying nasty things about Weiner, but not at that level. Among other things, notice that what Hahn is being slut-shamed for wasn't actually sexual in the first place. The mere hint of femaleness is enough for the ad's designer to make the leap from "crime-reduction policy decision that I disagree with" to "SLUT!!@1!@1!!" Men with similar records get torn apart for being "soft" on gangs and crime (which is often code for not being racist enough), but how often do they get portrayed as performing sexually for gang-affiliated women? It's not the same at all.
Slut-shaming happens to women and to everyone who gets perceived as a woman. It happens to some of us more often than others, but it does happen to us all sooner or later. Whether it happens to men or people perceived as men based on their presumed sexual behaviors with other people perceived as men, I leave up to those with direct experience. But slut-shaming doesn't happen to men based on their actual or presumed behavior toward women. The whole point of slut-shaming is to put someone on the wrong side-- the woman's side-- of the sexual double standard. The concept is built around the idea that a woman (or possibly a person taking a perceived feminine role in relation to a supposedly masculine man?) is losing something or getting soiled because of some presumably sex-related thing in a way that can't happen to a man as long as he doesn't start acting like a woman. A person who is accepted as a man can certainly go beyond what society dictates as the boundaries of politeness, morality, and good taste without going beyond the boundaries of heteronormative masculinity. He can certainly be ridiculed, mocked, treated as dangerous, called predatory and sleazy and creepy, and punished in a huge variety of ways for behavior deemed inappropriate. But that's not the same thing as being shamed as a slut.
Here's what slut-shaming of a politician looks like: Trigger warning for misogyny, racism, and threats of violence. The link goes to a discussion at Shakesville about a political ad that uses misogynist and racist imagery to slut-shame California Congressional candidate Janice Hahn for having purely professional contact with men who are presumed to be particularly predatory. White progressive men have criticized the ad for it's racist bullhorns-- this thing goes far beyond dogwhistles-- but don't seem to notice, or maybe just don't care, that it's also misogynist, perhaps because using sex-related smears against a woman whose politics one doesn't like is just such an acceptable thing. Sure, Republicans are saying nasty things about Weiner, but not at that level. Among other things, notice that what Hahn is being slut-shamed for wasn't actually sexual in the first place. The mere hint of femaleness is enough for the ad's designer to make the leap from "crime-reduction policy decision that I disagree with" to "SLUT!!@1!@1!!" Men with similar records get torn apart for being "soft" on gangs and crime (which is often code for not being racist enough), but how often do they get portrayed as performing sexually for gang-affiliated women? It's not the same at all.
