jump to navigation

On The “Sexual Double Standard” and Slut-Shaming December 9, 2012

Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, PIV, pop culture, rape.
Tags: , , ,
comments closed

this will make sense in a minute hopefully?  i wanted to talk a bit about “slut shaming” and what has been framed as the “sexual double standard” since long before any of us was born — i think i first heard of it in the context of first-wave feminists who noticed that prostituted women were being singled out for oppressive state controls like mandatory screenings for venereal disease while male johns werent.  while i think the “double standard” concept was initially useful because it drew attention to a misogynistic phenomenon, so that we could isolate, identify and examine something that was really happening in real life, the concept itself is thinly (or not at all)-disguised equality-rhetoric isnt it?  it means that, assuming we are all the same, or “all things being equal” there should be one standard that applies universally.

the problem with identifying sex-based “double standards” however is that there are actual, meaningful sex-based differences between women and men — the “assuming we are all the same” part poses a problem for radical feminists, who understand that men do not equal women and women do not equal men.  for us, once we have identified the relevant issues as being reproductively-based, or having literally to do with “sex” (either biological sex or sexual intercourse, which implicates biological sex-based difference) an analysis based on the sexual double standard is a nonstarter.  radical feminists can and must do better, and our analyses do in fact shed meaningful light on issues affecting women as a sexual class, including social patriarchal structures and mechanisms which are designed by men to benefit themselves and support male power at womens expense.

in the case of the so-called sexual double standard of oppressive state controls being placed on prostituted women but not on male johns, the problem is not that its a double standard (which is an unhelpful liberal, rather than a feminist, concept), but that its actually a patriarchal reversal — policy and practice has assumed that prostituted women were largely infecting men, when the truth is that its the male johns who are infecting prostituted women, and not so much the other way around.

furthermore, a truth-based policy and practice would also have to acknowledge that, as a general matter, male johns are becoming infected themselves primarily through engaging in penetrative sex with other men (and intravenous drug use) — again, due to biological differences between women and men which make it relatively difficult for women to infect men with disease, as a general matter, men are not becoming infected by women, prostituted or not.  men are also known to engage in risky sexual and other behavior more than women are, which complicates the matter — what that “social” difference does not do, however, is make women more likely to infect men with sexually transmitted disease.  ruminate about “nature versus nurture” on that difference all you like, but for our purposes its largely irrelevant.

to clarify, whats “unfair” about the historical treatment of prostituted women is not that they are treated differently than men — the “double standard.”  no.  in reality, these policies and practices are “unfair” because they are objectively damaging to women and are misogynistic and patriarchal, designed to benefit men at womens expense (and in the case of the reversal, its an inversion of reality, to boot).

savvy?  now, for any of you who are still awake, i will attempt to draw a parallel between slut-shaming and the chest-burster scene from alien.

regarding “slut-shaming”.  slut-shaming, apparently, refers to the “sexual double standard” whereby women who engage in (primarily) intercourse with men are cast in a negative light, while males who engage in (primarily) intercourse with women arent.  yes?  so dismissing the equality-framework of the double-standard as inadequate on its face (we are talking about intercourse, where there are in fact meaningful sex-based differences between women and men) we must go deeper.  what is really going on here, when women who fuck men “consensually” are regarded as “more promiscuous, less intelligent, less mentally healthy, less competent, and more risky” than are the men they are fucking?

first, its obvious that this is a male-centric viewpoint — everything is, and will continue to be, unless and until women develop our own female-centric discourse, and create language and concepts and definitions that center female reality, and that address and communicate what *we* mean when we say what we say.  interestingly, when viewing the world through mens eyes, the reasoning behind “slut-shaming” instantly snaps into focus doesnt it?  to wit, considering that men know that intercourse is harmful to women, including the risks of disease and pregnancy; and understanding that female-specific reproductive harm is central and critical to male political and interpersonal power; and considering that intercourse-as-sex is therefore the very foundation of patriarchy itself — men tend to view women who “have sex” in a negative light because no sane, healthy, competent etc. person would voluntarily engage in it, considering the risks.  get it?

so sane person.  no human person.  no man.

you see, there is not a man in the entire world, if the risks of intercourse applied to men, who would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER choose to engage in it for pleasures sake.  never, ever, ever, ever, ever would a man voluntarily place himself in harms way like that, and that includes the most submissive, masochistic and self-hating man.  NO man would EVER do this.  so if the question is, “why do men treat women who voluntarily engage in intercourse as if those women are retarded, damaged, or crazy?” the answer, im sorry to say, is “because thats what they think you are.”

historical note: nymphomania.  this is not abstract theorizing mkay.  men have long thought that women who desired intercourse with men were crazy, as in mentally ill.  because no sane person would voluntarily engage in it, considering the risks.  note that historically and today, this diagnosis applies only to women, although that history (and, uh, present) has been obscured of late with bullshit equality rhetoric: wiki now redirects to “hypersexuality” despite the female-specific context and connotations of nymphomania.

its not difficult to see how and in what context “slut shaming” makes perfect sense, actually.  note that *i* am not saying that women who voluntarily engage in intercourse are retarded, insane, or particularly damaged.  i know better, and that its more akin to making a deal with the devil, where men are the devil.

interestingly, and very much related, this is what men appear to think of pregnancy:  (remakes of) the chestbursting-alien scene from alien!  i couldnt find the real one, but these will do.

which is even more reason for men to think women are LITERALLY RETARDED, literally insane, to voluntarily place themselves at risk by having intercourse with men.  it also demonstrates what they think of people who are insane, when sane = man = human.  as in, no sane person.  no human person.  no man.  listening to men tell it, they seem to think pregnancy and aliens are very much related.

and while *i* accept that some women might desire pregnancy under some conditions, men seem to think that NO sane person would EVER voluntarily submit to it under ANY conditions, although they are assuming the continuation of patriarchy including patriarchal medicine and how it is deliberately used to support male power and to harm and damage pregnant, birthing and mothering women.  of course they are.

tl;dr.  slut shaming: its what men really think of women who voluntarily have sex with men, because men know that intercourse is damaging to women.  also,  the sexual “double standard” cannot be applied to radical analyses of policies and practices implicating “sex” and sex-based difference.  in the context of “slut shaming”, a double-standard analysis is unhelpful liberal equality-rhetoric, nothing more.

Moron Slutwalk October 2, 2011

Posted by FCM in feminisms, liberal dickwads, logic, PIV, politics, pop culture, rape.
Tags: ,
comments closed

when i first sat down to create this graphic, my intent was to show why liberal men and self-identified feminist men seem so interested in slutwalk: why are they participating at all, whats in it for them?  clearly, they are participating because their own male privilege and power is being challenged (this is why they get involved in most things…also note their rage when their participation is itself questioned) but in the case of slutwalk i think its very clear where this challenge is coming from.  this is liberal mens entitlement to womens bodies being challenged by more “conservative” mens ideas about women and “sex.”  namely, that conservative men think women in general shouldnt dress like sluts and whores for men in general, because under conservative sexual politics womens sexuality is confined to their reproductive servitide to one man at a time within the context of marriage.

conservative mens own use of prostitutes of course needs some examining here, but the one thing they always say when they get caught is that they have “sinned.”  isnt it?  they are flawed and faulty human beings who have run afoul of their own values.  not that theres anything wrong with their values (according to themselves) just that they couldnt (chose not to) personally adhere to them, when using prostituted “common women” for sex.  well looky there, ive examined it!  that was easier than i thought.  and that now-infamous toronto police officer who advised women to stop dressing like sluts if they wanted to stop men raping them was an expression of conservative sexual mores, that threatened liberal mens entitlement to have girls and women dressing as slutty as fucking possible, for liberal mens pleasure.  this was a clash of liberal mens and conservative mens respective brands of rape-culture.  this is what liberal men are protesting, when they get involved in slutwalk.  mystery solved.

but what this graphic also revealed, i think, is that slutwalk cannot possibly challenge “rape culture” because it happens in the friction and overlap where 2 rape cultures collide.  the existence of rape culture in itself didnt precipitate the need for slutwalk: the 2 brands of rape culture being incompatible with one another and creating friction and overlap at one point is what created this “emergency.”  and protesting this emergency (of 2 brands of rape culture being incompatible with one another somewhat on some issues but not creating enough static to undermine either one of them) is what gave rise to this.  men creating conflict between and amongst themselves, as to the proper use of womens bodies within patriarchy and within a male-centric PIV-as-sex paradigm that colonizes and kills women for mens pleasure, and increases male power and increases womens submission to men.  warring factions of slaveowning men, disagreeing somewhat on the proper use of their sexual slaves, would not be an inaccurate description of whats happening here.

the message here is not that theres anything wrong with rape culture as such: the message seems to be that liberal mens brand of rape culture is better than the alternative brand, but is that really true?  conservative women dont seem to think so: they seem to think that theirs is better, or at least that there is no escaping rape culture so its better to be the property of one man than all men.  so theres even some disagreement amongst the sexual slaves as to whats the better deal under this inherently oppressive regime.  a feminist analysis of course would reveal that all brands of rape culture are still rape culture.

there is friction and overlap here, but its all very much within the context of rape culture, and it all very much supports (and comprises) rape culture as such.  on the ground, i have no doubt that this would all seem very confusing for women who are fucking sick and tired of all of it, of knowing men are salivating when we walk by and that its because we are on the menu, and the dinner bell is always ringing.  this happens no matter how or even whether we are dressed.  the cognitive dissonance here must be paralyzing, and this is in fact what we see: this post entitled “post slutwalk anxiety” reveals quite a lot.  second-wave feminists not being welcome (gee i wonder why?); issues of “consent” being brought up, which is rape-culture language and benefits men and causes extreme anxiety in women, even in the context of this allegedly empowering exercise; and the issue of there being severe consequences to resistance, and the fact of any resistance to rape culture at all being incompatible with womens real lives, no matter how liberally they identify and how deeply they are involved and invested in liberal politics.  there is a reason this is happening in the context of slutwalk.  it doesnt mean what they are being told it means, and what they want desperately for it to mean.  it doesnt mean that.  but clearly, its not meaningless.  slutwalk — and mens participation in it — just mean something else entirely.

and it *is* stunning, the complexity and the audacity do have that effect.  but it doesnt have to be paralyzing.  it doesnt have to be this way.  some “feminism” does actually make sense.  and we will be there, supporting them, when women have an a-ha moment and realize what all of this means (and what it doesnt).  and this does happen.  radical feminists have always performed this function — to support women and womens interests as a sexual class around the world, no matter what — and we always will.

Dood-Centric Problem-Solving: Framing the Issues May 22, 2011

Posted by FCM in feminisms, health, liberal dickwads, meta, PIV, politics, pop culture, porn, rape.
Tags: , ,
comments closed

engaging fun-fems and other dood-centric politickers in “debate” feels like joining a conversation thats nearing its end.  doesnt it?  where its too late to change the outcome, and the trains of thought are not only on rails, but are already nearing the station.  everyones minds are made up already, because the issues were framed by men long ago, ensuring that any “discussion” on whatever issue has a predictable result, or where the outcome could be one of several known outcomes only, and never anything else.  this strategy probably has a name, although i dont know what it is.  putting it simply, men know that “framing the issue” is half the battle (or more than half) and i think its time we realize it too.

for example, in discussions about rape, the issue has been framed in terms of “consent.”  where womens right to bodily autonomy is exactly as important (no more!  and allegedly no less) as any landowners right to keep unwanted persons off their lawns, or any property owners right to leave their property unattended without someone stealing it.  thats right laydees — the issue of rape was once a property issue, where men raping us was a violation against mens property: us!  and…it still is.  only now *we* own the property i mean we own us.  yes we do, shut up. 

of course, men cant even be made to deliver on the promise they made, giving women property rights in our own bodies.  as pathetic and inadequate as that promise was in the first place, men (including law enforcement) cannot and will not let us have whats ours, and stay off our fucking lawns, as it were.  enter SlutWalk.  even fun-fems and (other) nonfeminists can clearly see the hypocrisy here, where men give us “rights” to bodily autonomy which they summarily shit on, disregard and ignore.  and these nonfeminist women are verily pissed about it.  which is…good, i guess?  female anger regarding mens treatment of us is a thing of beauty, it really is, and i appreciate it, always.  i do.

thing is…the promise was shit to begin with.  the SlutWalkers are marching for crumbs, promised to us by the men they depend on, and believe in, and have hope for.  but these women are making two giant mistakes: first, they are accepting mens framing of the rape issue as an issue of consent, and (therefore) a property issue.  and they seem to think that if they call attention to the hypocrisy, something will drastically change.  it wont, as long as womens collective and individual rights to our pussies are no more important than men keeping other men (and others i suppose) off their fucking lawns.  (i was going to say “our lawns” but how many women even own a fucking lawn, or any land, or any property at all?  nothing is a property issue for women, not really.  and especially not the problem of raping female-bodied persons, with penises.  hello!)

the key to understanding dood-centric problem solving is understanding this: they begin with the premise that the “problem” with many things is women complaining about it, causing noise pollution and irritation to men.  mens solution, therefore, is simple: get women to stop complaining about it, and the “problem” (of women complaining about it) goes away.  problem solved!  we can see this strategy at work everywhere, once we see it for what it is.  women have been complaining about PIV for centuries, and have been suffering it for millenia: it hurts (or it doesnt feel that good, compared to how dangerous it is); it causes disease, it causes unwanted pregnancy, its coerced and forced etc etc.  those are the reasons we are complaining about it: those are the problems with PIV, for us.

the problem for men is that they have to listen to women bitch, and we are constantly threatening to take away their sexxxay.  you know, by saying no, and for prosecuting men for rape, and stuff, and things.  so…if they can get women to like PIV, and rape, and male violence, to want it, to need it, to resign themselves to it completely, the problem (of women complaining about all of these things, which we have been doing for a long time) goes away.  for men.

the “problem” of women complaining about PIV is therefore solved by PIV-positive rhetoric.  its all in the way you look at it!  its not really or inherently problematic, not really.  the solution to the “problem” of women complaining about mens sexual violence against us, is acceptance of BDSM, and increasingly violent “sexual” encounters being framed as “adventurous” and progressive (progressively more violent).  women complaining about rape requires a double-barrelled approach (cause its a big one!  we bitch about this one a lot): destroying women who do complain about it…and normalizing porn, which doesnt even pass the consent-test men have drawn up for it (ie. it normalizes men sticking their dicks into women under dubious circumstances, often with extreme violence, and features obviously painful PIV-centric encounters in which no consent-negotiation is visible to the viewer and the circumstances do not imply it).

but we cannot let the men who are doing this to us, frame the issues to benefit themselves.  clearly, we cannot win, if we dive into a debate thats nearing its end, with the issues already framed to our detriment, and therefore all possible outcomes already known, and designed to benefit men, and not us.  we have to frame the issues, at the very least when discussing them amongst ourselves, and describe the problems as they really are, for us.  the problems with PIV, rape, and sexual violence perpetrated on us by men are that we are dying, and being made sick, and are forced into poverty and denied our humanity in concrete ways every fucking day of our lives, by men, to benefit themselves.  thats the problem with it, for us.  we are complaining about it because it hurts.