I fully understand that the use of the word slut has been used throughout the ages to put women down, to shame them about their sexuality, to embarrass them for being sexual creatures. I’m not denying this. After reading Marcotte’s definition, though, I wanted her to admit that the degradation of another via the word slut is an offense that can be committed by both genders.
Feminists are loathe to admit that offenses against women can be and have been co-opted by the fairer sex to commit similar offenses against men – a prime perpetrator being The National Organization for Women (NOW). Take NOW’s and other women’s group’s lobbying efforts in 2009 to block surplus money aimed at reviving the construction industry, because the money was designated for, in their words, “testosterone-laden shovel-ready” jobs. Never mind that 80 percent of the 5.7 million jobs lost during the first 18 months of the recession were held by men, outrage still ensued. If, according to Hanna Rosin’s recent piece “The End of Men” in The Atlantic, women have become the majority of the workforce for the first time in U.S. history and most managers are now women, if women dominate 13 of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most over the next decade, if women have surpassed men in college and master’s degrees, shouldn’t women be worrying about, or at least considering the implications of, the decline of men in today’s economy instead of kicking them when they’re down? As women become more dominant and ascendant in a postindustrial job market it appears they’ve started to behave, ironically, like the type of person so anathema to the women’s movement: the domineering bully who turns a blind eye to gender inequity and struggle. This is a step in the wrong direction, both for its hypocrisy and for the well-being of our society. Even though Christina Hoff Summers dismisses Rosin’s assertions in “Oh, Come On, Men Aren’t Finished,” she warns that “[men’s] fate is our fate—this is no zero-sum competition.”I digress.
I also understand that the word slut is used less by women to shame men, but it does happen, and more than we might initially think, just in slight variations but nonetheless in palpable ways. It is also used more as a same-sex shame tactic (women shaming other women) by women than it is by men (men don’t shame other men for the number of their sexual partners nearly as much, although articles like the Marie Claire piece What’s With All the Male Sluts by Peter Birkenhead, in which he upbraids “BroHos,” are starting to appear). Perhaps also a woman who is called a slut (whether by a man or woman) internalizes it more than a man would. But that’s our problem, not theirs.
Finally, I understand that the double standard exists and persists: Women who have a lot of sexual partners are sluts, whores; men who do the same are considered studs. More and more, though, I believe women are becoming as condemnatory and discriminating as men when it comes to a person’s sexual behavior. I was not being disingenuous when I said that my friends and I have sat around and complained plenty of times about certain men we deemed to be male whores or sluts, felt disgust at their sexual habits and, consequently, would think twice about considering them as a partner because of their level of promiscuity. I have the same gag reflex toward Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino’s sexual exploits as I do Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi’s. Isn’t that the apex of sexual freedom – women being able to judge men as much as men have judged women? If we can have sex like men do, we can judge them, too, doggonit! (Conversely, do women not shame and tease men who are virgins or have only had a few partners?)
The main frustration of Marcotte and other sex-positive feminists is that the word slut is used to make women feel guilty about being sexual. My argument, although difficult to make in 140 characters or less even when you’re tweeting multiple times, is that women shame men, too, when it comes to sex. Maybe we don’t use the exact term “slut” as often; maybe we use variations of this word, though, to accomplish a similar guilt-tripping agenda. Do we not shame men for their sexuality when we say, “All men are pigs! All men are dogs! All men think with their dicks first!”? Do we not shame them by calling them bastards for screwing a girl and never calling her again – painting ourselves as innocent, passive victims in the process – as if a man’s responsibility lies in pleasing a woman’s ego?
Furthermore, if in fact men do think with their dicks first, that it is part of their biology to “spread their seed” or look at a woman’s cleavage or have persistent sexual thoughts throughout the day, is it then fair for us to curb and shame their natural impulses? In certain ways, yes, of course, or there would be total anarchy (case in point: A Occupy Baltimore community pamphlet that encouraged women who have been sexually assaulted to report to the “security committee” as opposed to the police). But let’s then remember that we have asked men to compromise their sexuality on a daily basis as part of a societal contract. Consider Thomas Matlack’s piece Is Male Lust Turning Us Inside Out?, in which he writes: “But what is the connection between male goodness and male lust? It seems, to be good you have to control your lust into a very narrowly defined box. It’s a test that most men fail miserably, often with catastrophic results … As a young adult, I used to joke with my friends, perhaps in twisted despair, about how we felt the need to hide our feelings of lust, while we were actually most similar to baboons whose sexual patterns are far from monogamous. Is the male lust instinct some legacy of animal nature that threatens to bring down civilization? Or is it just something we, collectively, are too afraid to look at directly and, thereby, we give it way more power than it deserves?”
Or consider Saumya Arya Haas’ description of the male dilemma in her recent Good Men Project article Blind Rage: Not Every Man is Evil: “They are a collection of individuals who are struggling to find a way to be human despite limiting social structures.”
Marcotte’s disbelief that my opinions could be actually genuine was frustrating. How can we engage in discourse if we don’t believe the conviction of each other’s opinions? It seems there is an unwillingness in some parts of the feminist community to at least consider other viewpoints, from women no less. Men gave up that fight years ago, when they realized a contrasting male perspective would be summarily dismissed as more agitprop by the patriarchy.
Finally, though, Marcotte jumped in, if only for a brief moment, to ask a respectful, productive question, before returning to her sardonic rhetoric:
@NeelySteinberg But really, why is it so important to be able to judge people for being sexually active? What does it buy you?
@AmandaMarcotte - great question. the kind of respectful tweets that should happen.
@AmandaMarcotte – i see your point. it can be, though, about considering how it affects society at large. cont…
@NeelySteinberg I disagree strongly that you’re being “respectful”. Playing dumb disrespects everyone involved.
@NeelySteinberg I said your statements defy common sense, making you either daft or disingenuous.
@NeelySteinberg Incorrect use of the term “ad hominem”. If I’d said, “You’re wrong because you look funny”, that’s ad hominem.
@AmandaMarcotte - – it doesn’t have to be looks based. you’re not arguing the point. you’re simply calling me daft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
@NeelySteinberg If you say something really stupid and claim to mean it sincerely, expect people to draw conclusions.
@AmandaMarcotte - ur opinion that i’ve said something stupid. others would surely agree w/me, but i guess by ur logic, they’re stupid too.
@NeelySteinberg You’re reversing cause and effect. I assumed you’re daft because you claim to be impervious to common sense.
@AmandaMarcotte - consider this article: http://tinyurl.com/
At this point I asked Marcotte to consider articles written by Kay Hymowitz and Amy Wax, whose various commentaries on the decline of social and sexual mores (and the attendant consequences) have long stuck with me. I didn’t expect an immediate response – the Hymowitz piece is many pages – but I hoped she might reply that she would read them. I was mistaken. In her final tweets, she continued with her rant about the quality (or, in her eyes, the lack thereof) of my comments. She also accused me of being disgustingly judgmental of people who are sexually active and of floating a red herring (which made me laugh because that’s exactly what she did from the get-go).
@NeelySteinberg You said, in essence, the dumb things you say are not disingenuous, so I concluded that you are being daft.
@NeelySteinberg If I say, “I believe women are equal to men,” it’s not ad hominem to conclude that I’m a feminist.
@AmandaMarcotte - have i called u any names or been sarcastic toward u during this twitter debate? ur emotions r getting the better of you.
@NeelySteinberg You have been disingenuous, floated a red herring, and been disgustingly judgmental towards sexually active people.
@AmandaMarcotte -disgustingly judgmental??? i’m simply asking questions & trying to talk through it. guess that’s too difficult for twitter.
NeelySteinberg
@AmandaMarcotte - so you’re not being disingenuous when you make the argument that Roiphe must not be against calling little boys “fags”?
@NeelySteinberg When called on it, you played dumb, and when called on that, you screamed “ad hominem” as if that meant anything.
@AmandaMarcotte when did i play dumb? i just answered ur questions and sent u articles to consider. will u consider what these ladies say?
Marcotte’s question – “Why is it so important to judge people for being sexually active?” – was a legitimate query and one I hoped we could discuss like two rational human beings. The truth is I am conflicted about my answer. The real irony here is that I don’t actually like the word slut and try my hardest not to use it, although I fully admit to doing so occasionally – and being grossed out and sometimes saddened by certain people’s sexual activity (men, too, for the love of God!). But the feminists are right: How do you quantify the word slut? Does it mean you’ve had 10 partners? 15? 20? I don’t want people to shame me for what I do behind closed doors, so I shouldn’t be in a position to shame others.
There are uses in society, however, for shaming, and I recognize that. Take Dr. Joyce Brother’s article Shame May Not Be So Bad Afterall, in which she bears this out: “Rather than cut our wiring for shame—an impossible feat—we need to distinguish between shame that is useful and that which is destructive … Certain types of shame can be beneficial … In the past, we may have allowed ourselves to be burdened too much by shame. Today, it’s lack of shame that appears to be the burden. Maybe it’s time to invite the useful aspects of shame back into our culture.”
Or consider what Wax writes about: Sexual freedom has been a mixed blessing for the well-heeled and has most certainly negatively affected economically disadvantaged peoples; as a result, the rest of society pays (quite literally, in various ways). In her exact words: “First, the decades-old demise of clear standards following the sexual revolution, at worst a mixed blessing for the well-off, has hit the less privileged hard … Second, marital and sexual behavior depend more on mores than money. Restraint and social norms, rather than economic circumstances, best account for class differences … Poor relief and welfare policy, whether strict or lenient, can’t rescue disintegrating families … Wise behavior can secure economic well-being. Men and women who stick together, stay out of trouble, and work steadily are rarely poor, and their children surmount poverty as well. Public money and policy gimmicks are no substitute for good conduct.”
It’s amazing how a 30-minute back-and-forth on Twitter inspired all of the aforementioned thoughts. Despite Marcotte’s assaults on my opinions, I’m glad I engaged with her. Even if she didn’t want to listen, maybe others will.
Shall we all begin a respectful debate? 140 characters minimum!
Pages: 1 2
About Neely Steinberg
Ms. Steinberg needs to look up the term “internalized misogyny.” I understand she was upset by Marcotte not taking her seriously, but honestly… Steinberg missed the point. And she’s a slut shamer (constantly referring to a sexual life filled with multiple partners as “disgusting”). She even used the word “man-whore”, saying it was just as bad as calling a woman “slut.” Well, you disproved your own point there, Ms. Steinberg. Because the default of a “whore” is a woman, so you feel like you need to qualify the term to make it masculine. Calling a man a whore is just another way of saying, “What’s the worst way I can insult a man? I know! I’ll call him by a term that is traditional feminine in its implications.”
To quote Jessica Valenti:
“What’s the worst possible thing you can call a woman? Don’t hold back, now. You’re probably thinking of words like slut, whore, bitch, cunt (I told you not to hold back!), skank. Okay, now, what are the worst things you can call a guy? Fag, girl, bitch, pussy. I’ve even heard the term “mangina.” Notice anything? The worst thing you can call a girl is a girl. The worst thing you can call a guy is a girl. Being a woman is the ultimate insult. Now tell me that’s not royally fucked up.”
From one feminist to a self-professed other, let’s keep doing our research, Ms. Steinberg.