It’s been pretty quiet out there in the feminist blogosphere lately, at least where I’m standing, but that may be because I am so busy doing other things I haven’t had much time for comments sections lately. I like comments sections (including our own) because, well, I like arguing. I think arguing about things often clarifies my positions for me, and strengthens my resources. That said, comment fights in the feminist blogopshere, in my experience? Are dirty. Bloody even. Right down there in the dust. That’s okay – I kind of like to use them as a rhetorical argument when someone makes some sweeping generalization about Women – you think we’re all the same? Come play in our sandbox for awhile.
What internet feminist arguments also are, though, is repetitive. There are certain strains of argument you will hear all the time. While I claim no particular superior position for myself, sometimes I think the well-worn tracks of certain arguments are, well, too rigid. They obscure some (albeit limited) common ground.
One of the worst tropes is this one, and you see it a lot in the comments sections to BeckySharper’s porn posts at Bitch:
Phenomenon X is introduced as a topic in the original post. Phenomenon X is critiqued as (a) bearing patriarchal implications or (b) being a tool of subjugation. Phenomenon X has often been rejected by the author of the post herself, though not always.
Comment #1: Right on! I would never do that!
Comment #2: From your other posts you enjoy Phenomenon Y, which is also patriarchal, so how are you not a hypocrite in refusing to enjoy Phenomenon X?
Comment #3: Why are you shaming those who enjoy Phenomenon X? Shaming is not feminist.
(A common variation on Comment #3 is: “This is why I’m not a feminist!”)
So what’s fundamentally wrong with all of these responses – I mean, aside from overly personalizing the discussion at hand? The problem is that these comments are talking about a different order of problem than what the original post is.
Pretty much everyone, it seems to me, reads feminist writing as though it were inherently prescriptive. (This is what got Dworkin in trouble, though how anyone derived rules from the inferno of Intercourse I shall never be able to understand.) Sometimes the writing is guilty of encouraging this, but just as often, it is not. Just as often, because the writer cannot help but live in the world, she knows full well that, patriarchal or not, some things we do to cope. When you are doing feminist critique you are, of course, doing it from a utopian perspective (since we don’t live post-patriarchy), you are always asking yourself, would the world look this way if the patriarchy did not exist? Most of the time, I think, the answer is no.
But that is a very different thing, critiquing and examining and talking about what it would be like to live in a post-feminist revolution world, than it is to live in this one. I, for example, wear lip gloss, mascara, long hair. I sometimes try to lose weight. I even wear heels and bras though I’m not too enamoured of either. I do all these things because by doing them certain burdens in my life are lessened. In that lessening, one could say, is a kind of enjoyment, a kind of negotiated truce because I can’t, every day, fight everything. I don’t have the time or the energy.
When I do these things, of course, it may appear to some who know my opinions that I ameither capitulating or I am an utter hypocrite. What I am doing, I say, is coping. And I actually never, ever disapprove of anyone’s individual coping strategy. Get plastic surgery? Fine with me. Wear pantyhose because the office policy requires it? Right on.
But I think we can’t kid ourselves. I think we can’t claim that coping is the same thing as being free. And that’s why I’ll keep talking about this foot on my neck even if I’m painting its nails at the same time. There’s no shame in giving in for the sake of a little peace. But there’s also no sense in denying the need for change on the grounds that someone, somewhere might misunderstand you to say they are bad people for giving in, a little, too.
Furthermore, this idea that all observations about the patriarchal import of certain practices – and practices exist socially, in the world, and not just in your personal head – are “shaming” has got to go in favour of actual reading comprehension. If someone hasn’t said that someone else ought to be ashamed of themselves for liking Phenomenon X, then there is very little grounds in the text to claim to be ashamed.
I get that we all need to be sensitive to each other’s experiences and I don’t mind extending certain general courtesies like admitting counterarguments and other perspectives to the table. What I don’t get is why the “don’t shame!” response has become a go-to one above and beyond any personal sense of defensiveness. This fear of critique is creeping into feminist discourse as a result, and I think that will be overwhelmingly bad for us – us meaning all women. It’s one thing to say that someone’s critique is flawed on its own terms, but it’s another to argue that critique ought not to be engaged in for fear that it will shame someone.
At any rate it seems to me that in all cases here we need to be clear, in these conversations, what we’re talking about. Are we talking prescriptive, in the world feminism? Because people do need that too, and I certainly agree that when we are talking in this way it is pointless to focus on trivialities like lipstick. But when we’re talking revolutionary utopianism – and any kind of social change needs a utopia, or as MLK Jr. put it, a dream – it’s perfectly fair to be upfront and honest about the ways in which certain practices reinforce and replicate social hierarchies.
That said, I apologize if this post has shamed any commenters in our number.
Wait! Pilgrim Soul, are you shaming me for making others feel shamed even when I wasn’t actually shaming anyone and even specifically said that they shouldn’t feel shamed?
But for serious…I think that women are shamed so often–in ways big and small–on so many issues that many of us develop a defensive reflex and immediately feel liked we’re deliberately being shamed as soon as a hot-button topic is even mentioned.
Doesn’t even matter what the argument is, or how rationally or non-judgmentally it’s presented. Just the fact that you’ve introduced it produces a kneejerk chorus of “OMG QUIT SHAMING ME!”
In that sense, our occasional inability to engage sensibly with one another on some issues is another toxic byproduct of the Patriarchy.
I don’t think the “right on!” comment is irrelevent. Sure, sometimes threads get too echo-chambery, but seeing that other people have the same experience is useful and important. Also, it doesn’t seem useful to completely divorce the personal from the academic. If Feminist1 says “high heels are tools of the patriarchy,” and Feminist2 says, “Yes and therefore I do not wear them,” maybe Feminist3 thinks, “I don’t have to wear them either.”
It seems to me that the “quit shaming!” reflex is tied to a tendency to seek outside approval of one’s own decisions and actions.
Having been subjected to countless lectures, handouts, and lists about male vs. female communication styles I discovered I have a ‘masculine communication style’ because I enjoy debate rather than doing the ladylike thing which is to focus on finding agreement and accord between all group members. “Quit shaming!” also strikes me as a way of trying to avoid a conversation that seems bound to end in disagreement.
“It seems to me that the “quit shaming!” reflex is tied to a tendency to seek outside approval of one’s own decisions and actions.”
I agree. I always see it as a sign of insecurity, in the same way that people who are insecure about their drinking see it as a commentary on them when I choose not to drink. It always seems really strongly to me that the people who protest the most over “shaming” are the people who feel themselves that their behavior is something to be ashamed of and want to defend themselves against a charge that isn’t really there.
There are people who genuinely enjoy all those little mechanisms for coping/surviving/thriving within the patriarchy. Whether it’s putting on lipstick or shaving off all your pubic hair, you will be able to find women who do these things because they feel like they “have” to and women who do them because they genuinely enjoy doing them. But women who enjoy doing these may also have a variety of motivations. Maybe some women enjoy putting on lipstick for the pure pleasure of lipstick and left alone on a desert island they would put on lipstick every day. But I would guess that more women “enjoy” these things because they place them in a position of greater comfort and power within the patriarchy. When I women says she loves putting on lipstick (or shaving her pubic hair) most of the time I think she is saying, “I love conforming to society’s ideas about what is feminine and what is sexually attractive because I find that I have greater social value and power when I do so.” I’m certainly not judging because almost all of us do this to some degree just as PilgrimSoul described.
When did “shaming” someone for engaging in or endorsing unacceptable conduct become verboten? Certainly there is still conduct (excessive drinking? promiscuity?) out there that is worthy of being “shamed.”
@JennyK: I think you hit the nail on the head. There’s a big difference between “I love wearing lipstick/heels” and “I love the response I get from wearing lipstick/heels, so I do it.” I just hope that women recognize and acknowledge that difference.
And yes, there’s nothing inherently wrong with making those compromises. We have to pick our battles or we’ll just go nuts. I’m willing to wear makeup if it allows me to save my energy so that instead of fighting the makeup battle I can fight the “Don’t harrass me in the street” battle.
@thatguy: When you say “conduct (excessive drinking? promiscuity?) out there that is worthy of being “shamed.” I sure hope you would apply the shaming in equal measure to men and women.
Because 99.9% of the time, that is not the case with shaming.
Pilgrim Soul, I really appreciate this post, especially in regards to people reading “shaming” into a critique. However, I think where things get blurry re: coping strategies is when women find the patriarchally-informed things they do to be actually pleasurable. Especially in the comments on Becky’s posts at Bitch, where people feel like they have to defend their sexual desires/behaviors, even though they weren’t actually being attacked. I think that we (well, I, at least), want to be seen to be consistent in our beliefs and actions across all areas of our lives. To someone who identifies as a feminist, saying that I wear pantyhose to work and I don’t like it, but it’s a coping strategy and it makes my life easier is very different from saying that I actually enjoy wearing pantyhose. Or facials, or anal sex. Grudging adherence to patriarchal norms is one thing, but when something we actually like is being critiqued, there’s a reflexive attempt to make it feminist, so we can continue to be universally consistent.
As feminists, we really want to be able to separate our preferences and desires from the influence of the patriarchy. This is, sadly, not possible, and I think that most of the time we realize this. But I can understand wanting to shut your ears to a feminist critique of your favorite pastime or sex act; it’s distressing and exhausting to consider the ways in which you have been unknowingly influenced by the Big P. I don’t think that willful ignorance is right (in fact, I think that when we want to close our eyes and ears is exactly when we should be keeping them wide open), but it is understandable.
@Becky – “There’s a big difference between “I love wearing lipstick/heels” and “I love the response I get from wearing lipstick/heels, so I do it.” I just hope that women recognize and acknowledge that difference.”
This is not to say that you can’t genuinely enjoy things that are patriarchal. I mean, I genuinely enjoy the feeling of my legs being smooth after I shave. But I also enjoy not getting grossed-out stares if I wear a skirt, and I recognize that shaving my legs wouldn’t even occur to me if not for sexism. The same with bras — I’m just way more comfortably, physically, with one one. But my physical preferences don’t (and shouldn’t) stop me from doing the critique.
@Unpossible: Very well put. And I think the “distressing and exhausting” you mention goes double when it comes to talking about sex, because sex is so private and intimate and already so laden with shame in our culture that it’s really difficult for people to talk about critically without wanting to just shut down.
@baraqiel: I feel the same way about having smooth legs, painted toenails, etc. But I also know that the reason I enjoy these things is that I’ve been culturally conditioned to think of them as beautiful or sexy. If I lived in a different part of the world, I might have been conditioned to have an entirely different standard of beauty.
I don’t think it’s possible to separate the intrinsic pleasure of lipstick from the pleasure of patriarchy-approval. We’re too highly conditioned. It’s impossible to know any of us would still prefer shaving, make-up, heels, etc were we brought up in a vacuum.
@Becky – I agree. Actually, the one that I wonder about most is bras, because I know a lot of ladies (like myself) that find it a lot harder to move around without some support. I really wonder whether or not bras would have been invented in a world without sexism.
@baraqiel: I don’t mind going braless just to walk around, but I can’t imagine doing anything more high-impact (like running or jumping) without a bra. It would be uncomfortable to be bouncy (and I have small breasts, so I can only imagine it would be more so for bustier women). Then again, there are cultures where women just stride around topless with their boobs dangling, so maybe if you’re from one of those cultures, you just get used to the bounce.
Becky– As a man, I can only imagine how some of the conduct I’ve engaged in would be viewed if I were a woman. Probably not too flattering. But am I any better off because I was able to indulge myself without the fear of being shamed? Sometimes societal structures are good things.
Is the goal of feminism simply to allow women to behave like men? I’d urge feminists to aim higher.
@thatguy, a goal of some feminisms is to allow women and men to behave without being coerced by societal gender norms. “Men” is not a normative signpost that women are aiming for. And “feminism” isn’t a monolith.
@BeckySharper: “And yes, there’s nothing inherently wrong with making those compromises. We have to pick our battles or we’ll just go nuts.” Yes, that.
People seem to want rules. These things are good, so I’ll do them. Those things are bad, so I’ll avoid them. And if I do a bad thing, maybe I can forgive myself for it, or maybe it makes me a bad person. And then you come along and say “there’s nothing inherently wrong” and people’s brains start to hurt.
@JennyK: Yes, that, all that, exactly that.
Thatguy, as the saying goes: if equality is your goal, your standards are too low.
@thatguy: I’m going to let Barbara Ehrenreich speak for me here:
Of all the nasty outcomes predicted for women’s liberation… none was more alarming, from a feminist point of view, than the suggestion that women would eventually become just like men.
@ thatguy: “am I any better off because I was able to indulge myself without the fear of being shamed? Sometimes societal structures are good things.”
I understand that what you’re saying is that we’ve got to teach those crazy kids morals somehow or society will fall apart, but I don’t think shame is the way to go. To shame someone is to say that they are a bad person, rather than focus on bad actions. I don’t think it’s a very convincing approach in terms of getting someone to change their behavior for the long term, and it may make the behavior worse.
I would say that feminists are aiming for a world with less shame because so much of it is directed at women.
I think there is a deeper tension than just the reflexive desire not to be critiqued in the insight that (say) putting on lipstick is pleasurable. There is no outside the patriarchy, and I only have access to my desires within it. If I deny myself lipstick I am denying myself a kind of pleasure, and unless there is an attendant increase in some other kind of pleasure (like not having to worry about/buy lipstick) or power, it’s hard to argue against embracing it, not only as a coping strategy, but as a source of pleasure. Is feminism asking us to trade our pleasures for power? Or to redefine what is pleasurable to coincide with what empowers us? If so it almost seems like a kind of religion, like vegetarianism or something.
I have no point, just questions.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kevin Adkisson and Love, H Style. Love, H Style said: Tips on Arguing About Feminism on the Internet: Revolutions vs …: … online passwords and banking numbers. ci.. http://bit.ly/imErX [...]
But also, doing what the patriarchy wants us to DOES bring us power as well as pleasure, at least in limited and local ways. And that’s hard to say to women too — or is that just the “coping mechanism” argument? I
I think there is behavior that deserves shame. But our society usually reserves most shaming for behaviors that do not harm others. For instance, sexual violence, coercion, etc. is not shamed nearly as much as “promiscuity.” Our priorities are totally backwards. How one treats hir sex partners is much more important than how many sex partners zie has.
Aha, JD, you’ve hit it right on the head. To the extent that feminism is a world view that encompasses all human behavior, makes critiques of that behavior and mandates changes in that behavior, it *is* a kind of religion-it’s a moral philosophy. So yes, I’d say we are arguing to redefine what constitutes pleasure, beauty, power, freedom…all of it’s up for discussion.
@Thatguy & pedimd: I’m a big believer in shaming. I don’t think we do it enough in our society. There are acts people do that should put them outside of anything but the most basic social intercourse, at least for a time. For instance, some people I know were very upset that Michael Vick is back in the NFL after serving only a 2 year sentence for dog-fighting. The man did his time, so legally he’s back to even. But if the people around him believe that he’s not remorseful and that he is morally flawed, why should they admit him back into their society? I don’t agree that the shaming necessarily has to be addressed to the whole person; you can make it clear that you don’t want to be around him because he did x. And really, acting in a morally flawed way does create a morally flawed person.
This, though, is a different kind of shaming from what the people who respond to BeckyS’s “Bitch” columns are talking about. Those people are upset that their actions are being seen as outside the norm, and maybe also as inconsistent with their own self-images. That explains the vehemence of their reactions to columns that really aren’t, as PS says, prescriptive, but descriptive.
The dynamic I’ve frequently observed is 1) blogger writes impassioned but moderately restrained rant against patriarchal practice X, 2) within five comments “X is patriarchal and oppressive” has morphed into someone saying something like “I look at women who do X and think less of them” or “X is low-class” or “don’t they know X doesn’t even look attractive?”, and 3) some other people in the comments start taking the blogger’s point personally.
I think that every point you’ve raised is valid, but it seems to me that too often these type of posts end up creating an environment in which shaming behaviors and attacks on other women are fostered. Not on purpose, I don’t think at all, but simply because it’s more fun to be cute and snarky than even-handed and supportive.
But, as a woman who engages in patriarchal practice X, it’s tough to read one of those comment threads and not feel devalued and shamed, and your judgement and agency questioned, and it hurts, because you go to a feminist site looking for encouragement and support, and instead you get…more judgement, more unsolicited advice, and more messages that you are Not Adequate.
Right on! I would never shame another woman’s personal coping strategy!
(sorry. couldn’t resist.)
Psyche – while I certainly don’t want to claim that what you describe NEVER happens – assholes know no creed, etc – I think that it happens far less often than reputed. I’m also less interested in rescuing individual commenters from being unfairly maligned as “judgers” or what have you than I am about thoughtful posts getting buried in an avalanche of “your qualified analysis could be read as shaming and is therefore not useful.”
I understand that women come to feminist discourse looking for encouragement and support. JD sort of seems to join you here in saying there may be a role for feminism in encouraging women to seek out their pleasures regardless of what kind of patriarchal import they have. I understand this argument to be one about, to oversimplify, feminist exhaustion, which is a very real problem. We sometimes scoff at people who say they aren’t feminists because they “don’t want to be angry all the time,” but OTOH, it can be very difficult to not be angry all the time once you start learning about how the patriarchy operates. And then you log on to the internet and here’s a post about yet another place the patriarchy is? And it happens to be your place? That is, indeed, completely exhausting, and I can understand the impulse to want feminism to be something else.
I guess what I would say to that sort of thing is that while I recognize that support and encouragement are important, I think that they shouldn’t have a huge place in feminist discourse. I mean, there are obvious reasons why they shouldn’t; we’ve been talking about this in the murky context of sex-positivity in sort of opaque terms, but should say WoC offer support and encouragement to white feminists when white feminists are (however inadvertently) reinforcing white supremacy? Obviously not.
Obvs some of the problem here is that people on the internet are all over the map in terms of their level of understanding and commitment to feminist discourse.
“Our priorities are totally backwards. How one treats hir sex partners is much more important than how many sex partners zie has.”
Thank you, SarahMC, although I would add that unless the person in question is *my* partner, and we have some agreement that infinite other partners is not okay, it doesn’t matter AT ALL how many sex partners a person has. And what the eff, in a discussion among feminists, that nobody else said “hey thatguy, there’s nothing inherently shameful in women fucking as many people as they want?” I get that this kind of “shaming” is off-topic to the OP, but people did address him so I don’t get why they didn’t address the misogyny in his promiscuity-is-shameful bullshit.
@Joan: I personally told him that if he’s going to get on the “drinking and promiscuity can be shameful” bandwagon, he’d better make damn sure he’s criticizing men for it too, and in equal measure.
It wasn’t clear to me that he was specifically saying that *women* should be shamed, as he didn’t use any gender-specific pronouns. Hence my warning.
But your point is valid–I can’t remember any time in the history of humanity when a man was shamed for promiscuity the way a woman was.
As you point out, PS, there are (at least) 2 kinds of discussion happening on feminist sites. There’s higher-level analysis of phenomena in the world of patriarchy and the ways in which those phenomena play out and affect both women and men. That is a more abstract kind of discussion. Then there’s the personal “this is what happened to me/what I do/what I believe” discussion, which I think are more typical of pop culture magazines like “Bitch”.
There’s a place for both. Many of us live in a community that doesn’t support feminist activity or belief, so seeking out support from those who do is key to making change happen in those places. It’s very hard to do it alone. And feminism is a real-life activity as well as a moral/political philosophy, so sometimes we want to talk out what we’re doing and thinking as we try to put our beliefs into practice.
When the two cross, though, it can be frustrating for everyone. Taking a theoretical discussion personally misses the point; trying to create abstraction where someone is simply asking for help is insensitive.
I think this site is a combination of both. It would be unfortunate if the post writers had to preface every post with “this is theoretical” or “this is personal”, and I’m not sure it would solve the problem anyhow. But on sites like “Bitch”, the responders would do well to take a breath before hitting the send key and thinking about what the intent of the writer was. Folks, it’s not always about you, special snowflake though you are.
Goodness, I’m just full of lectures this week. Maybe it’s because I didn’t get to give a sermon last weekend at Rosh Hashanah services.
@ mischiefmanager: “I don’t agree that the shaming necessarily has to be addressed to the whole person; you can make it clear that you don’t want to be around him because he did x.” In an ideal world this would always be true, but in the actual world (and the internet world) I think “shame” is used to blame the whole person.
“And really, acting in a morally flawed way does create a morally flawed person.” This kind of reasoning sounds good when we apply to really heinous crimes, but it sounds less good when we apply it to things like “being promiscuous,” or “having too many children.”
I’m having a problem with the blanket “shame is good” argument when clearly shame frequently isn’t good, particularly in areas that feminists care a lot about.
My point was that neither gender should be glorifying in their sexual promiscuity, or any excess for that matter. I obviously recognize that there is, unfortunately, a double standard and that men are not held accountable on this issue the way women are. But is the goal to eliminate the “shame” that women face? Or should it be to create the same sense of shame for men who do the same thing?
Contrary to some, I there I think there is something inherently “shameful” in excess–whether it be drinking, eating, drugging or screwing. Perhaps it’s an issue of semantics since the word “shame” has such negative connotations and brings up images of Hyster Prynne–but some sort of social opprobrium is appropriate for certain behavior-whether engaged in by men or women. I’d settle for not glamorizing such behavior.
@thatguy: “But is the goal to eliminate the “shame” that women face? Or should it be to create the same sense of shame for men who do the same thing?”
It’s a moot question, really. Only women are actively shamed for having multiple sexual partners.
I’d rather just eliminate that shame for women than try to extend it to men. But if you think shame is worthwhile, then just be sure you buck the centuries-old trend and apply it equally to both sexes.
@BeckySharper thanks for responding. My point is a different one – well, one part is semi-related, in that I personally rarely see the word “promiscuous” even applied to male sexual behavior in the first place, so to a large extent that word *is* sexed as a female descriptor. And it’s a problem that women are pathologized for it and men are not.
My larger point, however, is that it’s not thatguy’s or anyone else’s business to judge what sexual “excess” is for anyone else, let alone to deem it shameful.
Thatguy, if you think “excess” is bad, then feel free to refrain from excessively doing anything. You’ve no right to try to shame – or build a shame movement towards – anyone else for shit that’s not harming somebody and is nobody else’s business.
Tons of sexual partners – again, minding SarahMC’s point of how people treat *each other* – is not an ethical issue. For men or women.
And I would argue further that shaming “promiscuity” IS oppressive, in that it’s meant to encourage hetero-monogamy, which has been and widely remains harmful to females. If you’re looking for something to righteously get to indulge your penchant for shame about, thatguy, there’s your best candidate.
I’d like to actually address the post, though – I agree with all of it, and thanks for writing it.
Critiquing and questioning coping mechanisms – or even purposeful collusions! – in regard to male supremacy is taking a look at a system in which we all are affected as women, and isn’t about shaming individuals. If anything, it’s about shaming something that is shameful – male supremacy!
Arguing for the value of shaming individuals who do things you personally wouldn’t but are none of your business and not harming anybody – that’s actually – surprise! – a broad scale feature of male supremacy itself. *That* is the stick I have up my ass about thatguy’s b.s.
“You’ve no right to try to shame – or build a shame movement towards – anyone else for shit that’s not harming somebody and is nobody else’s business. ”
Where you and I differ is that I think some individual, irresponsible, behavior IS harmful to me as well as society as a whole. I do not think that adultery should be outlawed, but I still recongize that a married person who cheats on their spouse–even with a consensual partner–is hurting other people. As a result, I think the people involvecd in this conduct should be “shamed” by the rest of us for lack of a better word.
Even promiscuity among singles is unhealthy for society as a whole and should be shamed to some extent. I am not some crazy, celibate, abstinence advocate, but neither do I think the Sex and the City women or Jenna Jamison should be serving as role models for young women. The whole “chic to be slutty” movement I see among young women is disturbing and is a product of a lack of shame. Again, I am not arguing that this shame should only exist for women.
thatguy: that’s it, you’re now thatasshole, who is here to mansplain us into exhaustion.
ETA: It’s your promiscuity/slut-shaming attitude I’m referring to here. I don’t think anyone in this thread is arguing that behaviour that is actually harmful to others oughtn’t to be shamed.
Pilgrim Soul – thank you.
@thatguy: Why did you have to go and do that?
I would like to know what, exactly, you think is “unhealthy for society” about adults of any age and gender having all the consensual sex they want.
(PSoul, if I’m just feeding the troll, please feel free to delete this comment or tell me to stop)
Yeah, Unhealthy, I’m not gonna delete, but I don’t see how thatguy is going to answer that question productively. I’m expecting a google search will be hastily undertaken and we will be presented the results as proof positive of the underlying prejudice. Don’t bother boring us this way, thatguy.
Oh for fuck’s sake, thatguy….go police your own goddamn sexual behavior and quit worrying about the rest of us.
Really, we don’t need your manly help, I promise.
Haha @ “Unhealthy,” PSoul.
Obviously cheating on a partner is harmful to that partner, and that sort of behavior should be discouraged.
Who said Jenna Jamison or the SATC women should be role models? I’m pretty sure most of us would agree that the “chic to be slutty” trend is uncool. We might disapprove for different reasons than you though.
“Don’t bother boring us this way, thatguy.”
That’s exactly it. Joan, this is why I didn’t bother responding even though it was obvious where this conversation would go from thatguy’s first comment. The arguments used by antifeminists are, by and large, SO boring and SO unoriginal that it’s just not worth the effort to refute them a lot of the time, especially on a site like this where almost everyone commenting knows what’s up (although I admit to being guilty of trying anyway sometimes, but I just came off a long stint of refuting antifeminist arguments at The Sexist and frankly I’m bored out of my mind with them). I don’t think there’s anyone reading this that might read thatguy’s comments and think, “Oh, maybe there is something to this shaming women for having sex business, after all!” and thatguy himself is clearly not going to be convinced.
That, I think, is the reason you were noting a lack of opposition, not from any sense of agreement with thatguy.
@baraquiel – I appreciate what you’re saying, and sorry my first comment was – dare I say it – shaming towards anyone who hadn’t told thatguy off. (Sorry I couldn’t resist.) Seriously though, I think I did sound unnecessarily accusatory. What I was reacting to wasn’t just people ignoring him though – a couple people had seemed to just say “if women should be shamed for promiscuity, so should men.” Which, were I a longer-time reader here, and not just-woken-up at the time, I might have understood as containing the idea “which means nobody should be shamed for it.”
Lord the off-topic-ness, but – also on the Jenna Jameson/SATC weird reference:
I don’t know JJ personally but I’ve seen her in lots of interviews and as a person on the planet, I think you’d be hard pressed to find her as any kind of asshole. So I don’t know why people feel so free to throw her name around as “example of bad-person-ness.”
She has benefitted from and promoted pornography (or more succinctly, branding herself, before anyone else in that business really did on that scale). I find pornography to be largely woman-hating, both in production and depiction, and I have issues with it on those grounds. I don’t see why JJ herself though is more of a colluder than – well, me, you, anyone else who isn’t a separatist. I definitely don’t like men, of all people, thinking *they* have the right to look down their noses at her.
SATC was created by a man and has quite a lot of misogyny in it as well. And yet what thatguy was critiquing in it was the sex the female characters were having.
For both porn (which by the way, Jenna Jameson is not porn, she is a person) and a dumb ass sexist TV show, the problem with it is “slutty chic?” Not the woman-hating, or the woman-exploiting, or the messages of same. It’s that any of the women in it are getting laid.
I know, waste of time belaboring the point. I felt compelled, sorry.
Joan, you are the bomb. I am almost *ashamed* of how inferior my response is to yours. You have said it perfectly.
Well said, Joan.
Although I feel compelled to point out that SATC was produced by Darren Star, but the entire writer’s room was composed of single women, with the exception of one gay man. And, of course, it was based on the work of Candace Bushnell, who is is one of womanity’s most undermine-y frenemies. I’d put her out of the sisterhood entirely if I could.
This post encapsulates well a number of fallacies used in the interwebs (and else where for that matter). Feminist or otherwise.
Arguements about a point or points that aren’t mentioned in the original post, and not even give the person’s (in this case woman’s) argument charity in the understanding (the straw person).
There is the either/or option despite there being other options available (the false dilemma).
For example, Either you are not feminist because you are shaming someone, or you are so recant what you said (this is the double banger of the false dilemma and straw person fallacies).
Then there’s the tu quoque – disregarding the argument because of writer is accused of some hypocrisy thus the original argument is rejected without looking at the merits.
As PSoul suggested there are assholes no matter where you go, regardless of basic comprehension and things like the rule of charity these types of fallacies (and many others for that matter) are bound to continue.
And it helps to find spaces that are into things like the principle of charity, and understanding the context in which find ourselves.
Thanks, Sarah.
Becky – I didn’t know most of the writers were women on that show. I did know it was based on Candace Bushnell’s work, but haven’t read her (yay ignorance!) and didn’t know if her work was just that misogynist or if TV had perverted it a lot.
Also for honesty’s sake I will admit that when I first saw the show a few years back (I think I first caught it a couple of seasons in), I was moved by some of the storylines and writing.
And even though it bugged and still bugs the hell out of me, I Netflixed the movie. Some petty part of me sometimes enjoys watching or reading stuff that makes me go “holy shit that’s horrible!”