“Chuckdarwin,” while criticizing the Male Privilege Checklist, wrote:
24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won’t make me an object of contempt or derision.
Two words: Bill. Clinton.
Bill Clinton suffered derision for cheating on his wife while being president. Is Chuck seriously arguing this is an example of the typical male experience? Do typical men face an angry Republican party and thousands of scandal-hungry reporters?
A few books and many scholarly articles have documented the “slut” phenomenon in US high schools – two examples are Fast Girls and Slut! Growing Up Female With A Bad Reputation. If any genuine parallel to slut-bashing exists for boys, I’ve never encountered it, heard it spoken of, or read about it in any academic source. My conclusion is that “slut” represents a genuine double-standard.
(In his comments, Chuck suggested “rent-boy.” But rent-boy isn’t a male counterpart of “slut”; it’s a male counterpart of “hooker.” Not the same thing.)
Nonetheless, I wonder if I should reword #24, because it implies that the “slut” label is applied to a woman or girl based on how many people she chooses to sleep with. In real life, it’s not that simple. Research on slut-labeling in US high schools suggests that girls are labeled as sluts for reasons other than their own behavior. The girl labeled a “slut” isn’t necessarily having more sex than other girls; but she’s usually set apart from the other girls in some other way, such as less money, earlier puberty, or being a recent new arrival.
From a review of the book Fast Girls:
White presents her victims of the slut rumor as girls whose identity was chosen for them, as opposed to one they brought on themselves. “Being a slut is not a story about the body so much as all the things that have been spoken about the body” (50). She presents the “slut” as a universal character, inevitably found at all high schools. White first proves that the designated reputation of the slut is born from redundantly similar rumors and this character exists in every school. By universalizing the slut role, White depersonalizes this image and emphasizes the lack of autonomy that girls face when, through no control of their own, they are suddenly cursed with a scarlet letter of sorts. After reading this book, there can be no plausible argument that starts with, “well she must have done something to deserve it.”
In a lengthy and sometimes drifting explanation of the Jungian archetype, White presents the slut as an unconscious rendering of the fear of female sexuality. She describes teenagers in limbo, as they attempt to compromise between messages of excessive sex as bad and their raging hormones. White states that teenagers try to make sense of this contradiction by drawing lines of good and bad. “By turning one girl into the slut among them, the kids try to reassure themselves that they are on the right side of fate: they are good while she is evil… They have the right kind of desire while she has the wrong kind” (59).
I think I’ll rewrite #24 to say There is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” But I’m open to suggestions, too – let me know what you think.
(This is one of a number of posts responding to Chuck’s critique. You can use the category archive to see all posts related to the Male Privilege Checklist.)
Related posts:
“Bill Clinton suffered derision for cheating on his wife while being president.”
Actually, I’d say “for cheating on his wife and being exposed.” The privilege here goes on several levels: a woman would suffer contempt, humiliation and scorn, a man is merely worth laughing at rather than socially rejecting. Similarly it would be interesting to compare the portrayal of cheating men and women in media at large, whether or not they get caught. I bet there would be a pattern easily noticed.
Pingback: The Damned Olde Man » Exposing The Male Privilege Checklist
Isn’t the male term for slut man-whore? I would think of him as a man-whore and I think everyone I know would as well.
I can tell you that right now: people left and right would have been jumping to her defense, talking about how stressed out she must have been, how her partner in hanky panky had undoubtedly been coercing her, and how much Bill had been emotionally neglecting her.
Phil: Funny, but I don’t think any of the people accusing her of having slept with Vincent Foster were being that understanding.
Here’s another reason why slut is a word with no comparison for men.
Its a method of shunning and cutting off women from much needed resources.
Any woman with a child born out of wedlock carries “incontrovertible proof” of what she is. This means that when she applies to rent an apartment, she will likely be denied, particularly if she’s young. When she applies, the thing that happens is, well you know Daddy has to be involved somehow. He’ll be there all the time… So not only will she carry her own “sins” but the imaginary “sins” of the childs father as well. That one “sin” carries over and pollutes every other aspect of her values or character, with zero requirement on a landlords part to prove that. Older women have it a little better, people may believe she’s been married (and they ask) or the woman may have a lengthy employment with one particular employer, thus showing that drugs and laziness (and the ability to pay rent) aren’t necessarily a problem. Its the old “if you’ve sinned against one commandment, you’ve sinned against them all”.
I’ve worked (and currently still) as a superintendent, I’ve listened to landlords say this. So the next step for a “slut” is to apply to the crackhouses, they’re cheap and as long as you don’t burn the place down no one cares. Living in these places frequently cuts a woman off from family and friends( can you imagine visiting your daughter there every sunday for dinner?), and is used as further proof of her degraded character. Why would she live in a crackhouse if she doesn’t use it?
“Here’s another reason why slut is a word with no comparison for men.
Its a method of shunning and cutting off women from much needed resources.”
— Not in the US. They don’t get cut off from resources, rather they are given them – HUD, WIC, Food stamps, special job training, special scholarships, you name it.
Single women without kids? Nope. But get knocked up and you’ll get all kinds of help. That’s why some have made a “career” of sorts out of multiple kids by multiple “baby daddies.
“Any woman with a child born out of wedlock carries “incontrovertible proof” of what she is. This means that when she applies to rent an apartment, she will likely be denied”
— Again, not in the US. They get first priority with HUD, Section 8 housing and other public housing. I’ve also never seen or experienced a baby mama having any trouble renting a private apartment/house provided she could afford it. The baby daddy might have some trouble, but oh no, not the baby mama.
Single mothers get priority for housing in Canada too. The problem is, so little new housing has been built and what’s available is frequently in such a state of disrepair that much of it will have to be torn down in the next ten years. Toronto is probably the most recent example of mismanagement, other cities will soon follow. Frankly, animal welfare wouldn’t let dogs be kenneled in some of these “homes” but we can warehouse the excess Canadian population in them. The end result is that single mothers can wait several years to find a geared to income unit. I’ve noticed lately that while single mothers are offered training programs, welfare has made it increasingly mandatory to complete the highschool credits. Failure to comply results in being cut off. We don’t have food stamps here and I’m not certain how much a single mom pulls in on each cheque. Its probably equivalent to what I make, maybe a bit more with the child tax benefit. We have our share of career baby mommies too, though with the tightening of regulations, I don’t think many women are going to choose this route much longer.
CCC:
False dichotomy. It’s quite possible — in fact, it happens all the time — that people are simultaneously cut off from some resources while others become more accessible.
I also wonder if you’ve ever actually been on section 8 housing, or known anyone using it. Most folks — including people with children — are on the waiting list for years before they get any help. In many areas (Chicago, for instance), there’s no preference for families with children. The picture you’re painting, as if single women with kids and no jobs are on easy street, is simply bullshit.
Pillow, housing “developments” are well on their way out down here. What section 8 does now is put people in regular houses and apartments, many of them very, very nice. Many previous “projects” were torn down and the residents relocated to much better homes in much better areas. Often bringing their crime with them, unfortunately. When you have generation after generation being born without fathers, that tends to result in juvenile delinquency which later turns into adult hard crimes. Its a mess.
Curiously, a major piece of research (pdf link) was just released about the connection between housing vouchers and crime. What they found is that the causality is just the opposite of what people assume. It’s not that people with vouchers move into a neighborhood and bring crime with them. Instead, it’s that neighborhoods that are “on the way down” have increasing crime rates — and that those neighborhoods are also the most likely to have section 8 housing available. But the crime rates were going up before the voucher folks moved in.
New poll: What would you find in Amp’s basement?
1) A team of social scientists eagerly awaiting Amp’s instruction.
2) A time machine.
3) Both.
4) Neither.
5) Someone who signs her internet posts with the words “garden variety.”
In my area (SF Bay) you can’t even get onto the waiting list for Section 8, regardless of who you are or what your situation is, and the waiting list if you are on it is elephantine. Not long ago there was a lottery to get on the waiting list which we lost. And most people lost. (I know this because I have a disabled son on SSI.)
Everyone talks as though there are hordes of folks with Section 8 vouchers which are handed out like popcorn. Here they come, in their numbers! Well, maybe there are somewhere else, but not here. Section 8 is all but dead here unless you’re already on it.
I’ve read research that shows that roughly 75 percent of children of single parents (not just mom) turn out to be well adjusted, regular people. Perhaps the number of generations of single parents plays a factor. I’m sure economic status also plays into it, and apparently people in government do so as well. Which is why Canada and the U.S put programs into place to alleviate the worst aspects of poverty. What the government can’t legislate away is the SHAME of being poor or a single and unwed mother. SHAME is rarely a good motivator. CCC are there other factors contributing to the lack of education of Black youth? For starters, a highschool education means nothing if you can’t find a way into college at the very least. Can you see any other factors causing Black youth to sell themselves so short?
“What the government can’t legislate away is the SHAME of being poor or a single and unwed mother.”
Nor should it. And unfortunately it doesn’t have to here in the States where being a “baby mama” is practically a badge of honor! These girls feel no shame whatsoever. Rather it gives them a sort of twisted sense of status to have been knocked up by some “baller”.
There is no shame in being poor but there is shame in being a “baby mama” in any sane society, which mine is not.
“SHAME is rarely a good motivator.
Not in the West, anyway.
What section 8 does now is put people in regular houses and apartments, many of them very, very nice.
When you know what you’re talking about, please get back to us.