1. No woman’s a slut.

    Every time I see who hear the term “slut-shaming” I cringe. That noun hyphenated to that verb should be unused out of existence. Rather than enforcing the idea that they are no sluts, that slut is not an acceptable title to be used against a woman to remind her of her sexualized subordination, activists are actually maintaining the use of the word to the point that it remains culturally normalized.

    Arguing the subjectivity of the use of the word completely ignores the patriarchal context in which all women live in and the fact that this word, along with other gendered, misogynistic slurs, are not something women can collectively “reclaim” considering it’s not a term that was coined by women for women, but something used initially and continually by men for their benefit and as long as patriarchy remains intact, the concept and connotation behind the slur “slut” will also remain intact.

    Even if an individual refers to another woman as slut personally believing this slur can be positively re-stigmatized in a society embedded with rape culture and a misogynistic porn culture, that individualistic approach to undoing thousands of years of patriarchal oppression and the hateful weight carried by the slur is grossly unrealistic.

    "Slut" is not just a referral to the double-standard that, men have sex and they are socially rewarded, women have sex and their social value diminishes. It’s also about how the slur slut relies on the use of women by men to the effect of being sexually objectified, in that, in patriarchy, women exist for straight men’s visual and sexual pleasure.

    When the oppressed class starts to willingly take on the slurs of their oppressors, this action does not dismantle and destroy the views that keep the non-privileged group oppressed, it acts as a reinforcement. It’s reacted to as if women are finally realizing their place in that, we are sluts and they - men - can continue using the word as a form of hate speech, sexual harassment and sexist bullying.


  3. Some MRA/Anti-Feminist Arguments

    1. MRA/AF argues that if you accept chivalry, you want preferential treatment and believe you are superior. However, they also argue that if you REJECT chivalry, you are ungrateful and unrealistic.
    2. MRA/AF point out how much physical work men have to do in industrial, heavy labor, service fields and how this is further evidence feminists or women want preferential treatment. But when feminists fight for women to have these fields open for them, they are told they can't do it anyway.
    3. MRA/AF point out how men usually get the dangerous, combative military jobs and this goes to show how EASY women have it. But once again, when feminists fight for women to have equal opportunity in these DANGEROUS, LIFE-THREATENING fields, they are told that women should not have those options.
    4. MRA/AF point out that men are also gender stereotyped, but fail to address that these stereotypes typically work in reinforcing their privilege/working in their favor. Usually stereotyping them as being the more competent, logical, intelligent and more powerful out of all genders and/or sexes.
    5. MRA/AF points out that men are also idealized in media, but fail to analyze that these idealizations fit within male power fantasies of physical prowess/physical power, athleticism and having the ability to intimidate simply by using one's presence or body.
    6. MRA/AF point out that men are also "sexualized" in media, but fail to address that this so-called sexualization usually involves them initiating sexual encounters, flaunting their virility and potency through a barrage of media that glamorizes straight male sexuality (e.g. - music videos, ads, etc) and portrays this sexuality as something that can be used to GAIN STATUS. While women who are sexually active and overt about it LOSE cultural status.
    7. MRA/AF argue that men are more oppressed than women, while completing ignoring the fact that most countries are ran by men, most media corporations are also ran by men and most of the worlds resources are distributed and controlled by men.
    8. MRA/AF argue that the fact the world is patriarchal is EVIDENCE of women's inherent incompetence, while simultaneously ignoring how cultural conditioning to conform to gender stereotypes would make political and corporate fields less appealing to many women and also how workplace discrimination plays a role in hindering a woman's ability to be promoted into positions of power with equal pay. They also fail to assess the issue on a historical level, ignoring how centuries of being denied access to equal education is what has made the number of female inventors, philosophers, academics, etc, far less in comparison to the number of males who had the opportunity to specialize in fields of their choice and to harness their potential.
    9. MRA/AF argue that feminism is no longer necessary, while at the same time referring to male feminist allies with misogynistic and homophobic slurs meant to intimidate them out of their political and ideological views on gender equality. They are often called in MRA circles, "manginas" and "gender traitors." Women in general are subjected to hateful, gendered slurs even if they are not defending feminism. Our degraded status is the default setting our society has placed us at.
    10. MRA/AF argue that feminists think all men are naturally "dogs" or hormonal, neanderthal-like brutes but when feminists try to place emphasis on using diplomacy in place of violence, and assertion over aggression, feminists are accused of trying to "feminize" men (with the stigma that encouraging compassion, empathy and constructive verbal reasoning over physical violence is a BAD THING!!).

  4. "The fact that straight men are more interested in taking a girl’s virginity than being the first to make her orgasm says a lot."

  5. "

    Sexual pleasure for women is a political construction, too. Women’s sexuality as well as men’s has been forged within the dominant/submissive model, as an artifice to appease and service the sexuality constructed in and for men. Whereas boys and men have been encouraged to direct all feeling into the objectification of another and are rewarded with “pleasure” for dominance, women have learned their sexual feelings in a situation of subordination. Girls are trained through sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and early sexual encounters with boys and men in a sexual role that is reactive and submissive. We learn our sexual feelings as we learn other emotions, in male-dominant families and in situations in which we lack power, surrounded by images of women as objects in advertising and films.

    [… ]

    Because women’s sexuality develops in this context of sexual terrorism, we can eroticize our fear, our terrified bonding. All sexual arousal and release is not necessarily positive. Women can experience orgasms while being sexually abused in childhood, in rape, or in prostitution. Our language has only words like pleasure and enjoyment to describe sexual feelings, no words to describe those feelings that are sexual but that we do not like, feelings that come from experience, dreams, or fantasies about degradation or rape and cause distress despite arousal.


    Sheila Jeffreys, “How Orgasm Politics Has Hijacked the Women’s Movement,” 1996 (via o00o0oo)

    (Source: mikroblogolas, via seebster)


  7. thelazysolipsist:

    Slut-shaming isn’t a real thing. You aren’t being shamed for having sex; you’re being shamed for being a woman who isn’t doing what a certain group of men want.

    Prude-shaming isn’t a real thing. You aren’t being shamed for not having sex; you’re being shamed for being a woman who isn’t doing what a certain group of men want.

    Please can we stop perpetuating the idea that this is simply about cultural perceptions of sex, when really it’s about men — men — hating women and trying to control our bodies?

    Please can we stop claiming the term ‘slut’ as if it’s some kind of tremendous act of defiance? The power of that word is not in the word itself, but rather the hegemony behind it, and to claim that the answer is simply to normalise certain behaviours associated with it is incredibly dangerous.

    Men, as a class, agree that they should control women. They don’t necessarily agree on how they should control women. There are groups of men with different beliefs and interests — different ideas of how women should be. Some men think that women should be constrained within marriage; others that women should be free from monogamy and sexually available to them at all times (hence pornography and prostitution). Most think, whether consciously or not, that women should constantly attend to their personal whims, which are often incongruous with their political beliefs anyway.

    It’s not revolutionary to rebel against one faction of patriarchy and not the others. It’s just choosing which you consider to be the lesser evil; which suits your own desires more. Taking on the label of ‘slut’ and sleeping around near-indiscriminately is just kicking one side in the bollocks and then running to the other. It doesn’t change how people see female sexuality because it isn’t female sexuality. It’s women trying to get as much out of exploitative male sexuality as they possibly can.

    Sexual liberation in our current society isn’t female liberation. The answer to male dominance over us isn’t to simply fuck more. All us fucking more does is allow men to fuck more. It doesn’t stop men seeing women as objects. It doesn’t convince men of every woman’s right to autonomy. It doesn’t require men to see a woman’s sexuality as being her own rather than something for their pleasure. It demands nothing of them. The movement towards ‘sexual liberation’ is simply a movement to unite men against us, encouraging them to reject marriage for some hideous form of free love, where our availability to them is absolute.

    There is nothing feminist about sleeping with men if you don’t demand respect for all women from those men. Basing your sexual behaviour on the misogynous ideals of one group of men isn’t demanding that respect, and you can point at the other group and their opposing misogynous ideals all you like, but it doesn’t change that.

    We don’t need to reclaim the term ‘slut’ and the behaviours associated with it, because we don’t need to pander to the wants of any group of men. We don’t need to reclaim any words which belong to the language of a civilisation that we intend to destroy. We don’t need words that measure how much sex you have, even if they have positive connotations, because how much sex you have shouldn’t be important. It’s only important because men want to control the amount of sex that women have, whether to only have sex within marriage or to have sex with multiple men on camera for thousands of other men to enjoy.

    ‘Prude’ is one man’s rule. ‘Slut’ is just another’s. Self-respect can be both being naked and covering yourself from head to toe. But it certainly isn’t following any rules other than your own.

    Bolded for emphasis.


  8. "For nineteenth-century Americans, lady and hussy were polar
    opposites, the best and worst of womanhood and the presence
    or absence of cosmetics marked the divide. Reddened cheeks and darkened eyelids were signs of female vice, and the “painted woman” provoked disgust and censure from the virtuous. But by the 1930s, lady and hussy had become “types” and “moods”(Peiss, 1998, p. 3)."

    Jeffreys, Sheila. Beauty & Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West. (p. 110)