History of Feminism
Related: About this forumStart calling out the term 'slut-shaming'
Misogyny is misogyny. Use the right words.
Calling it 'slut-shaming' is labeling girls and women you don’t even know as 'sluts' - without their consent (for those who insist they are reclaiming the slur, you do that for yourself, not for others). It reinforces the idea that there is such a thing as a 'slut', defining girls and women who enjoy sex as something negative, and that is unacceptable. In-group, non-pejorative use is one thing -- use it about yourself if you want, use it with your friends if you want, that's entirely up to the women involved... but start calling out this habit of labeling other girls and women as if it's helpful, because it's not.
Call it out in every context. The term only reinforces the idea that calling girls and women 'sluts' is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. I'm sure most who use it mean well and because they do they should be clued in that it's not helpful.
We don’t call anything else '(insert oppressive slur here)-shaming', so just stop. Stop normalizing anti-female slurs.
Stop using slurs to describe women and calling it activist language.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)Always appreciate your perspective.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)This has bothered me for a long time, sometimes I have to do a little ranting and hope some more people will join me in calling it out.
littlemissmartypants
(25,999 posts)
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)redqueen
(115,173 posts)Language is so important. We help to spread ideas with the words we choose to use.
littlemissmartypants
(25,999 posts)Few speak mindfully.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)to Redqueen: you're welcome, although I admit to deriving some pleasure from confronting the hordes of stupid who bump into my life.
to LMSP: Here posting on DU, I have time to review and rephrase comments. IRL, I'm not as well spoken. I am practicing though.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)monitor what we do feed our children. why we pretend that it does not have a huge effect on who we are as a people, conditioned by mere words and images, totally blows me away in the stupid.
btw.... not accusing or calling anyone stupid at all. this isnt going on anywhere on du. just here, discussing this, and i think it is stupid to pretend that words and images do not effect us. hmmmm.... i was gonna work on gentle.
fug
not gonna happen. maybe. i will keep trying.
they say i need to explain and explain, lol
hi redq
thucythucy
(8,779 posts)I haven't had the chance SB to welcome you back.
As always, good to see you out and about these threads.
Best wishes.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)love the name. same with sheshe. thank you.
Response to Half-Century Man (Reply #3)
cerveza_gratis This message was self-deleted by its author.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)I'm sorry, I know I owe you an e-mail.
I am the worlds worst corespondent.
Okaeri, Welcome home.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)like i remember. the wonderful thing about old (and teenage boys love) cant hear, see or.... remember. lol
ReRe
(10,941 posts)People who use that term have no respect for women. To them, women have one purpose. They are also sadists. Narcissists. Sociopaths. In a word: Evil.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)And yes women do it too. All of us grow up with internalized misogyny. If we aren't ever made aware of it and don't actively work against it then we end up being handmaidens to the patriarchy. Helping to spread misogynist and patriarchal ideas without ever knowing that's what we're doing.
littlemissmartypants
(25,999 posts)I cringe whenever I hear it come out of a woman's mouth. Most times, they are bound up in that subculture... they don't even know a different world exists, where women are treated with respect, instead of being belittled and used. They think "this is just the way it is," i.e. life. 
redqueen
(115,173 posts)It breaks my heart to hear of young girls accepting sexual harassment and abuse as simply something they have to put up with, because it has become so normalized. This is the world we have created for them and we can't just focus on symptoms. We have to find the cause and stop it there.
littlemissmartypants
(25,999 posts)littlemissmartypants
(25,999 posts)I am sorry but some of us are not as enlightened as others.
We must keep the conversation open.
Sometimes there is a cost for that acceptance.
Thanks for your point of view.
I love you.
Love, Peace and Shelter.
littlemissmartypants
redqueen
(115,173 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
Peacetrain
(23,645 posts)More of us need to stand up and say this is not acceptable language.. I do not care who uses it.. it is just not acceptable.
I appreciate you trying to get people to look at this in a different light.
Just to stop and think about the language we are tossing around and calling others. Words can kill..literally.. how many young people have taken their lives after being taunted.
So how we use language is very important.. again thank you
redqueen
(115,173 posts)
The responses to this OP are making my radical feminist heart very happy
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have always been uncomfortable with (and have never used) the term; but could never, put a finger on why ... until just now. Thanks.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)I'm so happy that I've helped identify the source of the discomfort, and so not surprised you were uncomfortable with it.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And thanks to redqueen for another enlightening post.
IronLionZion
(47,215 posts)Shaming? Sex-shaming? Being a judgmental prude?
redqueen
(115,173 posts)is simply misogyny.
They are using misogyny to demonize women by attacking their sexuality. That's it.
Yes, more words are necessary, but I don't think laziness is a valid reason for using anti-woman slurs and in doing so further normalizing those slurs.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Why is it even necessary to name, let alone discuss, "the slanderous activity in question"?
ETA: Wait ... Maybe I should ask, what the slanderous activity in question, is ... condemning females that engage in sex, condemning those condemning those women that engage in sex, what?
redqueen
(115,173 posts)IMO it's immaterial. Whatever it is the person thinks is slanderous, they should discuss that, not hurl a misogynist slur at a woman.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)of anything to do with female sexuality. Feminists have to be able to critically discuss the minefield of the various aspects of sex-related topics without having our conversations repeatedly derailed with misplaced accusations of 'slut-shaming'.
So there's another reason this term needs to go. It is actually used to stifle feminist discussions.
IronLionZion
(47,215 posts)including controversial minefield topics. And I still wonder how online conversation can even be "derailed". The same goes with "stifled".
I think its possible to have an intelligent discussion even with the insertion of rampant disagreement and false information from detractors. That's the internet. I disagree with lots of folks on lots of issues. I can still pick out useful information from the sea of fluff. We all choose what and who we respond to. I'm conspicuously absent from certain discussions. Whichever dog we feed is the one who comes back for more. Each of us is in control of our own experience here.
Sorry if that's a bit off topic. Didn't mean to mansplain! 
redqueen
(115,173 posts)I don't even know what to say to that.
But yes, we need words. Words that promote feminist values. Not misogynist, patriarchy-enabling, anti-female bigoted slurs.
IronLionZion
(47,215 posts)We all do.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)and by doing so hopefully help make society just a little less oppressive for women and girls.
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)Someone posts a story about the serial killings of women on the Juarez border. A man pops in to complain the OP didn't talk about murders of men, which are more numerous. It's sexist, blah, blah, blah. Totally derails the discussion away from the subject matter to what he wants.
Someone posts a story of a murder of a young black who comes to the door of a house to ask for directions. The OP frames the story as about racism. A gun activist comes in to natter on and on about his second amendment rights, about "black on black" crime, etc....
Those are two examples of derailing.
IronLionZion
(47,215 posts)no matter who comes into it or what they say. One can selectively respond or not.
An example of something that I may have been involved in:
HoF has a thread about domestic sexual violence (men abusing women). I see it on the greatest page and join in and share my story. I think of it as joining a discussion about domestic sexual violence, and adding to the conversation. Certainly not trying to "derail", "stifle", or "silence" or anything against the other people in the thread sharing their stories or the OP which was probably a news article or blog post about the topic.
However, some may see that as derailing and throw me out and feel angry at me. Others may say "Sorry that happened to you, here's a " and continue on with the discussion. Others may even ignore my post completely and continue on with the discussion. There's nothing wrong with that. That's just how it is. I wouldn't post such a thing in GD, HoF seemed more appropriate. And our own experiences and perspectives guide our opinions and feelings on most everything.
There's no need to respond to every post. If something appears to be derailing or stifling, its OK to not respond to it.
Another example that I can see will happen:
OP here posted a thread about stop using an offensive term. That's fine and it has been an educational experience for many who may not have realized it would be offensive. But you know that in other discussions about the activity in question, someone will use the term and someone else will call it out. Well now the posters in that discussion may be drawn into a discussion about whether its ok to use the term, while others will still continue to discuss the activity in question. It's an individual choice. If enough individuals stick with the original topic of discussion, it has not been derailed.
Back to the original topic, I've used the term before with good intentions but I will stop now that I see it is offensive.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)using sexist language to insult a young woman. i did it for the harshness, to call him on it and make him stop. or draw others attention to it, to help make him stop. it was disturbing. and pissed me off. he was soon tos'ed as a obvious troll. still i used it. and every time i typed it out, i cringed.
later i heard redq address the issue of the term. i got what she said. and knew she was right on, with every time i cringed typing it out. even though it was for a good.
and i stopped using it. though, i seldom did.
but, i hear ya.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we cannot continue defining our girls with virgin or whore. why? must we have a word to define our girls sexuality in judgment of too much or too less? religion, talk commentators, congressmen on the house floor, police, judicial.... all have a need to define women/girls sexuality.
Squinch
(53,316 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)That the only place I run across this term is in the OP's material.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)seems to me, you have a very narrow path you travel.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)You again 
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)
Squinch
(53,316 posts)us, I have seen the phrase a number of times, and like the OP, I have been disturbed by it.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)I used to think that way too, Squinch, that if I just stopped thinking about stuff that it wouldn't matter, or if I just kept quiet when someone was charging up the wrong hill that it would all turn out right, or if I could just convince myself that it didn't bother me that I would feel just fine.
But then I read about Rosa Parks. I realized that when there are issues of civil rights and equality, that the stands we take have to be ones that make sense at the time to a large number of people on both sides of an issue.
That's when I realized that the civil rights movement would have made zero progress if, in 1955, Ms. Parks had started insisting people stop using the n-word, rather than taking a stand about the inequality of where a human being could sit based on their color.
It just seems like, with the fretting over the term "slut shaming", that someone is worrying about a pair of dirty socks while the house is burning down.
Calling out the language police at this juncture makes a mockery of the fight for gender equality.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)So original.
Bonus points for banging the civil rights drum and even namedropping Rosa Parks for effect.
Your dedication to feminist causes is something else.
Dirty socks indeed.
Squinch
(53,316 posts)charging up the wrong hill.
And you are here to tell us that we are doing feminism all wrong. Because Rosa Parks.
And we are just "fretting," because our concerns are not really important. According to the unimpeachable authority on women's lives: you.
And you need to instruct us in all these things even though you have never seen the phrase that many here are telling you is relatively common parlance. But because you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. Because you are the authority on our experiences. Not us. You.
And now we all know exactly who you are.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)You are drawing inferences I never implied, applying motivations that are nonexistent and seeing insult where none exists.
I'm here because I find the topic interesting, and I have a thoughtful opinion.
I just think worrying about the use of this term is minor compared to equal pay, female circumcision, and reproductive rights.
If you feel that dealing with people using a term will help us fight for those other causes, then go for it.
Squinch
(53,316 posts)And PS, I didn't respond to anything that wasn't clearly stated in your post.
mercuryblues
(15,290 posts)if that is how you feel, wtf are you doing in this thread?
Never saw or heard it, but you know it is nothing to fret over.
Why not just take it at face value and realize women don't like to be referred to as sluts or being shamed because a person thinks they are having sex that they personally don't approve of?
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)The OP is unhappy that people use the term "slut shaming" to describe the act of referring to a woman because they are having sex that they personally disapprove.
I agree that shaming women in this fashion is awful and unacceptable. The OP is unhappy that some folks apparently call this unacceptable act "slut shaming".
mercuryblues
(15,290 posts)That the only place I run across this term is in the OP's material.
So you never saw the term or heard the term being used.
I used to think that way too, Squinch, that if I just stopped thinking about stuff that it wouldn't matter, or if I just kept quiet when someone was charging up the wrong hill that it would all turn out right, or if I could just convince myself that it didn't bother me that I would feel just fine.
But then I read about Rosa Parks. I realized that when there are issues of civil rights and equality, that the stands we take have to be ones that make sense at the time to a large number of people on both sides of an issue.
That's when I realized that the civil rights movement would have made zero progress if, in 1955, Ms. Parks had started insisting people stop using the n-word, rather than taking a stand about the inequality of where a human being could sit based on their color.
It just seems like, with the fretting over the term "slut shaming", that someone is worrying about a pair of dirty socks while the house is burning down.
Calling out the language police at this juncture makes a mockery of the fight for gender equality.
see here you are saying that this is so minor and feminist should focus on only larger issues. Got news for you, women can multi task. IOW women can "fret" about the small stuff and the big stuff at the same time.
Let me put it to you this way. All of this slop goes into a trough. Sure some of it fills the trough up faster than other slop. However the pigs are there on the Q for their feeding frenzy. keeping the trough from getting full, from ALL angles.
here is some help on how often and how the term is being used
https://www.google.com/search?q=slut+shaming&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&gws_rd=ssl
google gives About 1,190,000 results (0.34 seconds) for the term
Tetris_Iguana
(501 posts)your privilege is showing, telling women what they should and shouldn't be worried about.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)I will try to be careful.
however, it is rather easy to make the assumption that when a feminist man disagrees with a feminist woman that he is speaking from a sense of privilege. But then I recall that the point of feminism is a belief that gender cannot determine who has the better opinion, and therefore the fact that I am a male should in no way be the reason for dismissing my opinion, any more than I should dismiss someone else's opinion because she is a woman.
If there is merit, then let's discuss it without the poor argument that I am in error, because I have a chromosome of difference with the person with whom I disagree.
As I have learned to practice feminism in my own life, it is obvious that hypocrisy is a poor tactic for either gender.
In this case, my disagreement originates from a sense that this particular issue (using the term "slut shaming"
is a misguided strategy, at this time, in promoting equality between the genders.
Tetris_Iguana
(501 posts)I suggest you read and learn from Bain's excellent explanation above about minimizing and derailing.
Appreciate your open mindedness, tho!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it is forever and always defining our girls and women thru their sexuality. be it prude or slut. slut shaming is still defining that woman/girl as a slut, though we should accept her sluttish ways, just not judge. a woman/girl need to break away from the defining factor of who they are as human beings thru their sexuality. they are not their body parts, used or unused.
that is what leads to the dominance and possession, the rapes, the ownership, the congress standing on the floor telling her to put the aspirin between her knees, religion, the judges that let the 40 something rapist off cause the 13 yr old girl was provocative, the boys that have a party drug a girl and video the rape then hashtag it, the kidnapping and selling as a commodity, the less pay, the glass ceiling, the law student discussing contraception at senate hearings, and on and on and on and on.
walking back from womens identity being defined in terms of her sexuality is the very essence of what feminism is. virgin/whore. using slut shame is still promoting that idea, we just embrace it now.
so ya. it is important to address and say over and over slut should simply not have a definition or existence, repeat and uncondition people. especially our youth.
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)Say it sister. 
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)Only the same people who said we didn't care about important things also told us the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision wasn't important. Or they couldn't be bother to mention the decision at all. That make clear to me that those people--some of whom are women themselves--don't believe women's rights matter at all. We aren't important. So don't try that bullshit line about what's really important. The reaction to the Hobby Lobby decision proved that to be nothing but an effort to silence women and prop up power and privilege.
If you think you're Rosa Parks for telling Redqueen to keep her mouth shut about stuff you don't approve of, you have no fucking idea what injustice, civil rights, or activism is. Take it somewhere where they buy your game. This is a feminist forum on a liberal site. Whatever you may think about this group, we are not stupid. Those tired clichés don't cut it.
If you're going to try to play this room, at least put some effort into it. You ought to at least check GD to make sure there isn't a thread using the very term you insist only redqueen mentions, thus proving you argument completely without merit. WE eat professional trolls for breakfast, and you you trifle us with that amateur act? 
We're not buying what you're peddling.
PADemD
(4,482 posts)They'll only say, I don't hate women, just sluts.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)Adopting their misogynist terms, normalizing them and using them to label women is not.
90-percent
(6,909 posts)Well, polite society would label them sluts. I like their tatted up fuck everybody way of going through life. Ballsy biker chick types. Most don't ride, but do have the 'tude.
And I learned this term from a sister in law describing her ex-husband;
MAN-WHORE
Which is one the most important aspirations I am currently working on in my life.
I don't like unfairness of any kind. It always bugged me that the despicable cool guys in school would seduce the girls and then brag about it on Monday at lunch. And be afforded teenage respect for it. While the poor betrayed girls were heartbroken and saddened and reputations ruined or diminished.
Women that enjoy sex should be applauded, not scorned and shamed.
And promiscuous men that satisfy their sexual appetite in a less than honorable manner should be scorned and shamed.
-90% Jimmy
redqueen
(115,173 posts)I don't know your friends and they're not here so there's no need for you to sling that word around about them here.
BainsBane
(54,982 posts)Whether your friends like sex with lots of partners, one partner, or abstain entirely--their sex lives are a matter of their own choice. It should not be pathologized as either slutty or prudish. They live their lives and sex is part of that, just as it is for you and the men you know. It should be neither remarkable or scandalous that they enjoy sex. Many human beings do.
If they refer to themselves as sluts, that is their choice. But I would advise you not to apply the label to other women, nor refer to women you think as sexually deficient in some way as prudes. Just let them live their lives as they see fit.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)My understanding was that the term "slut shaming" itself arose in opposition to labeling women thus. I took the term to be critical of the person doing the shaming, specifically because of the impropriety of the label.
I don't use this term a lot, and would be happy to drop it from my lexicon.
Squinch
(53,316 posts)is an unfortunate choice of words that insults the woman that it is trying to defend. Makes no sense.
Warpy
(113,131 posts)So, no. I'll keep it.
Squinch
(53,316 posts)shouldn't be shamed for having a sex life. However, it is, obviously, calling these women with a sex life "sluts." It is nullifying its own purpose.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)Doesn't make any sense, does it?
The fact that it could seem to make sense to use this term is a testament to how normalized misogynistic slurs are.
It's a shame that it is so deeply woven into our culture but there's only one way to change it
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Similar, perhaps, to the intent behind the SlutWalk:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/slut-shaming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming
In that context, I don't think the term was misogynistic when it was created, but I agree that it might be time to move on from it:
http://jezebel.com/slut-shaming-has-been-tossed-around-so-much-its-los-1478093672
The series of fitful debates about whether someone is "slut-shaming" a public figure can be seen as the feminist equivalent of smarm. As defined by Tom Scocca, smarm is "an assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of constructiveness, without the substance. Smarm is concerned with appropriateness and with tone." Both sides of the slut-shaming debates are smarmy. In condemning a public figure for objectifying herself and profiting off of her own sexuality, you ignore the larger context in which her actions take place, and you attack a woman personally as a some kind of brainwashed dupe of the patriarchy, as someone who thoughtlessly harms women by complying with destructive sexual norms. Conversely, in accusing someone of slut-shaming a public figure, you dismiss their tone as judgmental and not sex-positive. You characterize them as prudish and a bad or backwards feminist and, as such, you don't deign to engage with the content of what they're saying. All this talk of "slut-shaming" causes us to plow blindly through nuance and to get worked up over distracting trifles. When we tell women that it's ignorant or old-fashioned to feel uncomfortable with over-sexualized depictions of women in the media, we lose sight of the context in which those depictions take place. Because of this, the way we tend to talk about "slut-shaming" can be harmfully reductive.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)but the fact remains that it is literally reinforcing not just a misogynistic term, but the idea behind it as well.
And yes, as your linked piece shows, I'm not the only feminist who has decided that it is time to stop using it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)
KyleMcShades
(40 posts)I've seen the term used before and always thought it was well intended. But I totally get what you mean. Thanks for clarifying for me. I'll be sure to denounce the term.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)But so is telling girls and women that they shouldnt dress a certain way or they might get sexually harassed or raped. It's rooted in misogyny and patriarchy and we have to stop perpetuating harmful ideas.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Now, my two cents on the word itself. I used to work construction. There was lot of foul language, but it was not gender or race related. It was just over generous use of the f-word, and the d-word actually to describe tools and stuff. They knew who held the power in society and didn't get upset at the d-word, and never used female slurs to describe things.
We had fights, but the law was against a a hostile workplace for women, gays or minorities. It was not a burden, as the Rush types of the world have said it is and too many have accepted. It was a union job, and we ensured against discrimination. But we talked freely.
The only example of the s-word discussed here was applied by men to a man. One who made a point of bragging about his weekend 'conquests' of women, although he was married. We felt bad for his wife, who he said was religious and didn't know.
He brought in pics on Monday, but not naked ones, which would have gotten him in trouble, and didn't give us any sexual details, just wanted to prove his 'manliness' in his own ignorant way.
Universal opinion, both male and female, was that he was a 'low-down dog.' I didn't have to say anything, the abuse all came from the men. They quite angrily called him a 's___' and told him to shut up after a few weeks of that.
Neither he, nor any misogynists, racists or homophobes were popular, period. They gave them a lot of grief.
These men voted for Carter. This was a crew who had, with their wives, decided to not have any more children. They didn't want to burden their wives with birth control any longer, all went together on the same day for vasectomies at the closest Planned Parenthood clinic.
They joked and said they'd be holding each other's hands to get over their fears of something going wrong with their huh, you know. They knew it wasn't likely, they weren't stupid. But they admitted the thought of a pair of scissors or other stuff 'down there' was intimidating. They all went and the surgery went well and they were back to work after the weekend.
This was prior to Reagan. There was no controversy or anti-abortion drama. It was when men and women seemed to care a lot more for each other's feelings and would back off if called out on saying something wrong and not sit back and plan their revenge like these MRAs do. They didn't regard women as enemies, just different and had to respect that. I miss that time.
Now tell me what you think of that use of the term. I felt fortunate to have been the one who educated these guys to be feminists. Yet they applied that word to a man.
I really feel sad we are having to start to educate again. And I feel bad for younger women growing up in this environment.
JMHO.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)When I've heard men called those terms it was definitely said with admiration if not envy. In a joking around, pat on the back type of context.
If men want to use it about men around other men that's their prerogative. IMO it is gendered and as such I only find in-group use in any way acceptable. Just because they used it about men, to me that doesn't change anything. It's certainly not a common usage so it's not illustrative of anything.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
mountain grammy
(27,402 posts)redqueen
(115,173 posts)Nice to see a post from you.
thucythucy
(8,779 posts)and it has the added effect of producing an interesting and informative conversation.
Language evolves, as does political and social consciousness. Language influences this evolution, and this evolution also then influences the language we use, and vice versa. One of the coolest things about this OP is how clearly you articulate and provoke the articulation of this interaction by using this specific example, if that makes sense (need more coffee...).
I agree with several other posters, that the term in question didn't arise from misogyny as such, but that it has now outlived whatever usefulness it had in feminist discussion and needs to be dropped from the lexicon.
Thank you for beginning this process on DU. I can always count on you to be in the vanguard here, leading both by example and explication.
Best wishes.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)that is a very kind post
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But, as someone who ticks off all of the privileged boxes (white straight cis male) I feel supremely unqualified to weigh in on debates over reclaiming words.
With you in spirit, hope your argument prevails.
redqueen
(115,173 posts)so this idea is catching on.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)just use that kind of language to be all edgy.