Slut Shaming

Slut shaming. This is a strange term for me. It's one of those things that when I hear it, my brain tingles, like a veil of cognitive dissonance is resonating between places I don't want to be yet am comfortable being labeled. If that didn't make sense, imagine what it's like to be a supporter of science in a classroom deeply entrenched in an area of the US that believes creationism should be a classroom topic; you feel you should own the label, but know you're in deep trouble if you're outed for having it.

That just describes the feeling I get with this term, because, I think, there is some part of the term that I am guilty of yet I don't know if I should feel guilty for it.

It doesn't help that socially hot topics aren't something that encourages conversation. Most people with strong opinions in this area tend to judge by emotion and have trouble relating to people with my type of brain wiring; to not simply understand or empathize with them means I'm stupid or ignorant, or worse.

What I really would like to do is solve what it is about the term "slut shaming" that rings that cognitive dissonance bell in my brain; what am I not understanding? Or do I have an opinion formed, but am missing a key aspect of the topic to have an informed opinion?

I've had this topic in my Trello list of Things To Possibly Blog About for awhile; I'd glance at it, and think about it, turn it over in my head a bit and end up thinking, "Let's save this for later" once more to let the topic ferment in my brain a little longer. I'd re-watch Laci Green videos, like her Jenna Marbles video response to Jenna's Slut Edition video.

 I also watched Laci's appearance on Dr. Phil in an attempt to understand the topic better. I've watched that episode several times, as a matter of fact. And yet...something about it left me feeling more lost than educated.

The Dr. Phil show no doubt was considered, for the general audience that watches his show each weekday, an educational source. But what do you learn from it? Let's break it down.

The episode is called "Girls Who Bash Girls Who Dress Sexy." I'd link to an episode, but a few have already been pulled by television networks claiming copyright infringement, so nothing guarantees my links won't go stale within days so you may have to look it up yourself.

The episode opens with Phil bringing up the latest news headlines regarding the Steubenville rape of a 16 year old girl, where he then ties "blaming the victim" to the term "slut shaming." Both of the terms are already emotionally charged, so I suppose this is an early warning of what the show will be aiming for in terms of what the viewer should conclude lest they are obviously deviant of Dr. Phil's viewership.

He introduces his first guest, a teenager who posted a meme that ended up going viral. She thought her peer age group were often dressing "inappropriate" and decided to post a picture expressing her opinion.

Dr. Phil touches on spoofs of her post as well as people who have given her death threats and insults as a result of her opinion.

This, he said, was kind of the genesis of slut shaming, judging others for their choice of dress. I'll file that away as an aspect of slut shaming:

Telling someone to not show so much cleavage is slut shaming. You're seeing someone's choice of dress, you carry the opinion they should not do this, and make them feel bad for it. The show also labeled this as judging them which is both true and emotionally charged so if you don't necessarily agree, you're made to feel like the bad person in the narrative (can you tell I'm more sensitive to emotional bias when it seems to be more for manipulation purposes instead of education?)

Next up was someone he obviously threw in as the villain in the show. Jason carries the opinion that slut shaming is not only okay, it's a noble pursuit. He doesn't think you should respect people who have no respect for themselves, and slut shaming is about taking responsible for your actions and the consequences of spreading your legs for all sorts of people.

Jason maintains that he judges people by their behavior, which Dr. Phil counters with he's judging people without knowing that is what they're doing. When pressed, he tacitly admits it's based on their dress or rumor. He tries to make his point that if Lady Gaga wears a meat dress in the savannah and a lion eats her; maybe the meat suit isn't the best choice of apparel. "We judge people a lot by what we wear," he said. Dr. Phil counters by showing a picture of he and his wife at a social event (I assume, since he's wearing a suit jacket and open-collar button up shirt and his wife was) wearing a low-cut dress, to which Jason says she's dressed "very tastefully." This was another manipulative moment to define him as the bad guy; what else could he say?

He was going to introduce his next guest, so what did this segment tell me about slut shaming?

Slut shaming is based on seeing people's choice of dress and drawing conclusions about them. There's obviously more I'm supposed to draw from this because it was so blatantly transparent that Jason was cast as the villain of the episode, but I'm trying to enlighten myself a bit about slut shaming, not get sucked into the dramatic aspects of the show. Jason was trying to say that people have conclusions drawn about them because, in part, of the way they dress; he then labels them as sluts given their "uniforms," and assumes more about their behaviors, which is the part he really is taking umbrage to. Their behavior, in turn, is what he disapproves of and sees as irresponsible.

The next guest was Laci Green. Dr. Phil defined slut shaming as women being made to feel inferior because they are dressing, acting, or engaging in inappropriate behavior that connotes sexuality. He then introduces Laci Green saying that slut shaming is about controlling women, not teaching self-respect.

She is quoted from her video talking about promiscuity being a "bad decision" for women, being called slut, losing respect, or asking to be raped. Meanwhile, "dudes" being promiscuous is a "good decision." She goes on to say that, from society's view, dudes are expected to make bad decisions so it's okay.

Dr. Phil and Laci then attack Jason, where Dr. Phil compares his view as bullying. ("Bullying" is a wonderful hot-button word to use.) Why he took this opportunity to attack Jason right after introducing Laci I'm not sure...what was the point of having Laci on? Her viewpoint was entirely summed up by the video, then her chance to talk (on the broadcast) was basically to echo that she disagreed with Jason, then another guest was introduced.

So what do I take away from Laci's segment?

Slut shaming is about controlling women and being sexist, because men aren't shamed for slutty behavior.

His next guest was Trisha, who is shamed by women for the way she dresses. She talked about people anonymously attacking her, then referencing Jason by saying people like him were cowardly when they couldn't hide behind a computer screen.

(It's really hard for me to even pretend you're trying to have a dialog or educate someone when you demonize the person you're trying to convince of the error of their ways. You're doing little more than stooping to a level of childishness and...what, trying to shame them into seeing your side of the argument?)

Trisha talks about sluts, when she was growing up, were the girls who had sex with a lot of people; they screwed half the town or many people in school. Now they were calling her a slut because of the way she dressed.

Jason was pressed for his opinion, and he said she was dressing for attention. She denied this, saying she's all about being "girly" and she's proud of being curvy. She said she's not even interested in men right now.

Laci adds that even if it were for attention, she doesn't see what's inherently wrong with dressing the way you want. It says something more about the person who's judging them rather than the person wearing the outfit. Jason tries to say that most men don't really care what women are wearing but other women seem to judge each other for this, which Laci interjects that many people do care, but then seems to agree that it is a problem because women judge each other for this and not men. She seems really angry that there is a perceived double standard...and the fact that they both seem to say that women are harsh on other women more then men is never pointed out; it's a rule that you don't concede a point to the villain.

Trisha added that she hadn't had sex in three years, yet Jason concluded she was loose and said as much on national television, so he shouldn't be judging her by what she was wearing.

This marked the end of Trisha's segment. What did I conclude I was supposed to learn from this?

Sluts are girls who sleep around, not dress in a provocative or revealing manner.

Phil's next segment was highlighting the "Slut Walk," protests against victim blaming in rapes. Scantily clad women march to reclaim the term "slut." He then introduced Kira, who is an "advocate of modesty" and said that slut shaming is a term used to silence people like her. People are engaging in a competition to sexualize themselves, and she thinks it's an issue of wanting attention. "Women need to put a little more thought into the image they are projecting."

Kira talks about promiscuity having consequences that can follow you for the rest of your life, and that concerns her. She also said that slut shaming is a term to shame people who feel others should be more modest.

Dr. Phil says that you cannot criticize, humiliate, censor, or hold them up to public ridicule and not consider yourself a bully.

He keeps finding reasons to bring that word into the conversation..."bully."

Kira just replies that she's not advocating Jason's position (another slam!) but is advocating modesty and she shouldn't feel ashamed for advocating this.

Phil says it's a leap to go from thinking this person is dressing in a way you wouldn't, to assuming this person is sleeping around and exposing themselves to STD's and such. He also talks about how he has two boys that dress very different, one a rocker, one a preppy Wall Street type, but talking to them they are alike.

This marked the end of another segment. What did I take away from this?

Slut shaming encourages you to draw conclusions about people from their choice of dress, and it doesn't necessarily reflect the truth about who they are. I say this because Kira made a point of advocating for modesty and feeling that slut shaming was a term made to label her as unreasonable, but the host of the program instead discussed how deceiving looks are, which doesn't seem relevant to the guest's point. He talked about his similar-personality yet differently imaged boys, and he discussed someone who had backlash after pointing out Miley Cyrus had been in a 3-year relationship but was labeled a bitch and slut, while Taylor Swift has been with 13 guys in 3 years but is labeled inspirational and sweet. He didn't seem to address Kira's point at all other than the comment regarding bullying...implying she was a bully.

Next up was a guest speaking on behalf of Felicia Garcia, a teen from Staten Island, jumped in the path of a train after she ran a train on four football players and a few girls and a couple of guys harassed her about it mercilessly. "Words don't hurt, but they kill," Alissa, her friend, said. The segment was little more than telling the story of how she was bullied until she killed herself. "She made a mistake" (referencing having sex with four guys.)

Dr. Phil talks about promiscuity being about pain, lack of self worth, need to be accepted, lack of self esteem, basically a number of things that aren't sex. So the label of slut ignores the actual issues and just adds to the issues that may have driven that behavior in the first place.

The next segment continued the Felicia story, but then he introduced Gabriella Van Rij, author of an anti-bullying book, and a small discussion on getting help for kids being bullied. The only thing I remember of her contributions were that 85% of the girls she talked to in schools claim to have been bullied (is that a real statistic, or anecdotal?) and that people don't need their mistakes pointed out to them repeatedly, they know they screwed up and are humiliated enough.

This segment, I suppose, is supposed to tell me that slut shaming is a form of bullying that can lead to suicide. Especially if you're a teenager where everything is a major, universe-changing incident, from being picked on to having a pimple break out before prom.

Here's the summary of what conclusions I drew from the show:

• Telling someone to not show so much cleavage is slut shaming.
• Slut shaming is based on seeing people's choice of dress and drawing conclusions about them. 
• Dr. Phil defined slut shaming as women being made to feel inferior because they are dressing, acting, or engaging in inappropriate behavior that connotes sexuality. 
• Slut shaming is about controlling women and being sexist, because men aren't shamed for slutty behavior. 
• Sluts are girls who sleep around, not dress in a provocative or revealing manner.
• Slut shaming encourages you to draw conclusions about people from their choice of dress, and it doesn't necessarily reflect the truth about who they are.
• Slut shaming is a form of bullying that can lead to suicide. 

I think those are all the conclusions I drew from the segments. It seems that the majority of them have to do with how women dress. If I had to summarize, I'd think that "slut shaming" is primarily about seeing a woman dress in a particular manner, then telling them they shouldn't do that (or make them feel inferior for their choice of dress.)

I had a few problems with this presentation of slut shaming that I think impedes my ability to properly understand the argument. At the very least, there are some issues that I don't think were addressed.

Several times, the point of the choice of dressing style carrying the connotation of behaving in a certain manner or believing in a certain lifestyle had come up but was not addressed beyond dismissing it as being misleading, or at most having the label of "judging others" slapped on the act so as to shut down the subject (since judging others carries a negative connotation, therefore you're performing a negative act and should be ashamed of yourself for judging someone.)

Yet we choose our image every time we get dressed and go into public. In the segment where Phil shows a picture of himself with his wife, I guessed he was at a social function; it was outdoors, there were other people around, but he's wearing a suit jacket with button up shirt, she was wearing a low-cut (but elegant!) dress. It's never brought up why he is hosting the show in a suit coat, trousers and tie. Why does he wear this outfit? Is it just what he is most comfortable wearing? Or is it because he won't be taken seriously wearing pajama pants and tee-shirt, something I've seen more than once in high schools and in Wal-Mart?

Come to think of it, the guests on the show were all wearing outfits that, on the average spectrum of clothing, would be considered less casual and more dressy. Even Trisha, the one criticized for her outfits, wore something that didn't show much cleavage.

Why? Why did they choose the clothes they wore?

How can you claim that outfits don't mean anything when there was obviously some shared theme to the choice of outfits worn for appearing on TV?

We do judge people at some level when we see them. Snap judgement act as a shortcut for our brains; it's a simple way to evaluate how we should react to people around us.

Is it realistic to pretend we don't acknowledge that we do certain things to project a certain image? Many people will say they don't care how people see them when they dress; it's their own style, or it's just an expression of themselves. SO DON'T JUDGE ME!

But...how are you expressing yourself without those styles having a certain meaning? Otherwise you're expressing nothing. It communicates nothing. Even the act of communicating nothing is a form of communication, much in the same way as the people in high school who go against the grain by actively trying not to fit in with the pre-labeled social cliques become, themselves, their own group.

Right or wrong, your clothes do draw certain judgements from others.

Think people might be a little more hesitant talk about their beliefs, if they're not Christian, and you're wearing a cross on your neck?

You think teens didn't get backlash if they wore a trenchcoat to school after Columbine?

Even Phil talking about his son wearing rock musician outfits said there were unusual looking kids at the concerts...implying they tend to wear a particular style of clothing to fit in with a certain crowd.

The rational part of my brain will say that the outfit doesn't necessarily reflect who that person is in other ways; looks can be deceiving. But on the other hand, the outfits are still a reflection of how they want you to see them. They are projecting an image that you're expected to understand. And it's a disingenuous joke to expect people to not draw conclusions based on your outfit, whether it's to tell others you're a 'Don't mess with me' biker in a leather jacket or a 'Respect me' business suit.

Is it realistic to expect people not to draw conclusions about the image you project?

You can choose to reject their judgements or conclusions. You can choose to put the onus of changing opinions on yourself, and change the image you project. But you really shouldn't whine about it; I fully expect strange stares if I wore a spiked red mohawk, or a garishly multicolored muumuu to work, because these are fully outside of society's norms to the point where it would be considered strange. There are already the occasional odd look from people when you're strolling into a building in the financial district, populated by bankers and traders and other expensive suits, while wearing a tee-shirt and jeans.

I also think that there was another point of possible irony that was glossed over. When Laci's video was being played, there was a bit blipped out; "Women, you don't give away your precious <blip> gift until you're under the ownership of a man!"

Watching her actual, unedited video, the word blipped out was "vagina."

When showing the montage of images for Trisha during her introduction, there were a number of shots where her cleavage was fuzzed out. Basically, censoring her body.

...if these things aren't inappropriate, if these are things that shouldn't matter, why were they censored?

Isn't that a non-verbal slut shaming, saying that whatever outfit she was wearing in those images cannot be shown on television?

And keep in mind that not only was Phil humiliating and criticizing Jason, which would fall into the purview of his repeated call of bullying, but his show censored Laci and Trisha.

There's some irony, if not cognitive dissonance, to that.

In the end I'm seeing hypocrisy in the show's message, and never having the point of how appearance draws judgements from others (and engaging in dressing in a certain manner for the show, implying that outfits do project a certain image and adds to the legitimacy of the idea that there are "appropriate" outfits) properly addressed or acknowledged.

I'm confused in this.

The idea of social shaming is also never addressed, and the relationship of social shaming to slut shaming. Social behaviors reinforced through collective social shaming has been a strong force since...well, societies existed. Why is social shaming allowed, and in many ways encouraged, yet slut shaming is somehow special and needs to be excluded?

Perhaps the big difference is whether you make your disapproval known. You can disapprove of a behavior or outfit without telling the person, although then I am lost as to where the difference is that this isn't the same as a chilling effect, discouraging you from expressing an opinion.

Perhaps my mistake is trying to understand this concept through the lens of a daytime TV show. It seemed pretty obvious that it was less about educating and more about forming a dramatic narrative; Dr. Phil's show had a definite "here's what you should believe" instead of a "here are the facts" approach.

Or maybe this is a topic governed largely by emotion and less by rationalization, so it's a little more nuanced and complex than I can easily empathize with. I'll probably continue to turn this topic over in my head, trying to understand it better...but if I've gone this long without understanding it, I'm not sure I ever will.

A Reason Wealth Inequality Matters

I intended to follow up on my previous post regarding wealth disparity much sooner than this, but sometimes life gets in the way.

I rent an apartment in Manhattan. If you know anything about the five boroughs of New York, Manhattan is the borough the Muppets, Jason, several superheros and Cloverfield have all either taken or destroyed, and is also known as one of the most expensive places to live despite the several times it has had to be rebuilt. Well, the non-Hollywood part is true, at least.

I work in a part of Manhattan called "The Financial District," a very small area of real estate where each weekday enough money flows through the virtual coffers of the banks and trade floors to fund small countries.

Last Friday I was sitting in the back seat at the coffee bar with some developers who, despite having Internet access cut off at the office, decided to stick around and socialize a little. A small part of the conversations involved a nearby apartment building whose rent, they said, ran around $40,000 a month.

That's $480,000 a year. Nearly half a million dollars.

I said I couldn't imagine what it's like to have so much money in the bank that I could afford to spend that as rent. I'd love not to have that kind of financial worry in my life...and then I wondered, what is it like for people who do make that kind of money?

Someone said that they knew someone who had lived near there a period of time and said it was a nice apartment, but the location sucked. My first reaction was, "How?" but someone else reminded us there aren't really any supermarkets nearby.

That's true...groceries would almost exclusively be delivered.

(I know there are some markets in the financial district; they tend to be small and pricey, though, even for Manhattan.)

This isn't to say that if you have groceries delivered in Manhattan that it means you are wealthy. It's quite common; there are several people I know that are getting various grocery-type items delivered who aren't what I would consider top income earners. But it is an added luxury that does add up over the course of a year, especially when you add in the cost of having laundry picked up and delivered (it usually costs a dollar or two a pound, although pricing for dry cleaning and specialty treatments can quickly increase costs. The convenience of having grocery and laundry items delivered as a service is, to me, like cable or satellite television...nice to have, but something I can do without, especially after actually sitting down and doing the monetary math.

Manhattan is a kind of illustration of the wealth disparity in America. There are pockets of affordability; it's safe to say that my apartment is nowhere near forty grand a month in rent. But it certainly is far north, for what I get in relation to what I pay, to what I could afford back home with the same amount of cash. Other people get by finding roommates on Craigslist to afford rent, or making do with tiny studio apartments that suits a more frugal lifestyle.

And by tiny, I mean 500 square feet or less.

And by pockets of affordability, I mean I can cross a street or two and there are apartments that will cost the upper side of four figures, or possibly five figures, per month. Even near our office I've heard rumor of apartments that are slightly below $3,000 a month in rent being a block away from apartments that are tens of thousands per month.

The cost of living isn't getting any cheaper, either. Rent costs, along with transportation, and service industries, are creeping higher. Couple that with the news that middle class income is essentially stagnant, and you end up with the most common option for people who work in New York and need to afford housing; they have a longer commute.

The truly affordable housing tends to lay in the concentric zones farther from Manhattan; on the far north side of the island is Harlem, or people move into Brooklyn or Jersey, across the river. The rent is lower, but the commute tends to jump from a 25 minute subway ride in train-dense Manhattan to 45 minutes or an hour once you factor in multiple train hops, or in some cases and hour and a half. That's the tradeoff for affordable living if you enjoy your job (or in this economy, just want to keep the job you have.)

In the course of the conversation I recounted an account I read in a book on New York "tunnel dwellers," people who lived in the subway tunnels. It was remarkable; it described how you could walk within three feet of someone, and not even know they were there. One fellow interviewed worked more or less full time at McDonalds, and said his coworkers had no idea he lives in the subway tunnels. It was sad and surprising given the amount of spin and vitriol, especially during our recent presidential campaign season, towards the laziness of the poor who are portrayed as lazy ne'er-do-wells sucking tax dollars in exchange for sitting on the couch watching daytime TV.

Here's the thing; much of the city thrives on the poor and middle class to do the jobs the upper (and upper middle class) rely upon, but wouldn't want to do.

I don't see too many bankers who would want to be out in crappy weather delivering Seamless and GrubHub orders to hungry folks. Or doing laundry or custodial services, or waiting tables. Even the artists performing on Broadway often share rooms with multiple roommates to make ends meet. These are people eking out a living, hoping they don't become ill or badly injured lest they end up going bankrupt with a visit to the hospital or ending up not being able to go into work from illness, meaning no income since many of them are hourly workers (which, by the way, is a terrible way to prevent the spread of disease, when you think about how many people come into contact with someone who had to go to work in order to make ends meet while still contagious...think about that when you are commuting on the subway or eating prepared food.)

If prices keep rising, more people move farther away, until the strain of the commute will basically price them out of the city. They move on. It's a process that is basically an extreme form of gentrification, only with the economy being what it is, it's not only pushing out the poorest people. The lower middle class and middle class feel the strain as well.

Of course there is a counterbalance to this that econ 101 teaches us; prices will level out at a point where people will pay what they can afford. The pendulum is supposed to swing to a point where once it is noticed people are moving away, the overall economy suffers, jobs aren't being filled, and the politicians and businesses start offering incentives for people to come in again, hopefully in the form of "this apartment is pretty crappy so we'll make the rent affordable."

Only I wonder if that's what is actually happening. My employer is actually paying a very decent salary, and I'm still wondering how long it will be before I will have to look at moving to Brooklyn. The city has raised transportation fees, which doesn't affect me personally (thank you again to my employer offering Metro cards as a job perk) but does cost money when my wife and son come to visit; most people on the island are beginning to notice the nickel and diming adding up for them to get to work.

So what happens?

I wonder if you'll see a push of poor and middle class out of the city. Jobs will become more difficult to fill as people move away; at least, the jobs that keep trash cans in offices emptied, clothes laundered and food delivered. Business will end up having to pay more in order to get workers, squeezing small businesses closer to going out of business.

Quality workers may become more scarce. I see this effect in education; as the job perks slip away and the negatives become a heavier burden, teachers who are good teachers, people who care about the work of being a teacher and not a cog in the education system, they leave. They see that the reality of teaching is far removed from the job description and certainly doesn't match what they thought was happening when they were sitting at the desks on the receiving end of an education.

Instead I saw, over time, more B-stringers getting their chance to become teachers. These are people who are less passionate about teaching and more fitting into the dysfunctional system that is in place; real teachers become disenfranchised and demoralized, and soon enough begin looking for work outside the education field. The B-stringers just stop caring or are comfortable working at a mediocre level within the broken system.

Ever notice how hard it is to find teachers who are passionate about their jobs? The people who would be passionate are driven away from the field.

So what happens if a city becomes largely dysfunctional, and the people who would be passionate about it leave? Does it end up become like Detroit?

I doubt that a place like New York City will ever be like Detroit, but then again, it wasn't long ago that you wouldn't have thought Detroit would become today's Detroit. I hear stories about what has become of the Vegas suburbs after the economy tanked, and California, as a state, is having larger scale issues that are creeping into the lives of its citizens. Florida is having interesting economic effects on its citizens largely in part from Tea-Party political ideas put into effect, and Florida already has an economy heavily funded by retirees and spring break tourists.

Only time will tell. But one thing I'm sure of is that as long as people look only for themselves, there will be looming problems. The myth of the job creator paints a picture of a wealthy citizen waking in the morning and feeling the burden of keeping his employees employed; the truth is we have more people who are willing to step on whoever is in his or her path to financial gain in order to have more financial gain. There is a disconnect wherein the wealthy can't relate to the middle class, let alone the poor. I read an article outlining tips to save money for bankers and their wives, and the disconnect couldn't be more stark; it made what was common sense for middle class families sound almost novel or shocking. If these ideas hadn't occurred to them before, no wonder they don't care about the financial situation of people around them. And worse, the advice felt like the equivalent of, "Instead of driving the Ferrari, take out the Benz!"

I read the tone of the article summed up in the lines,
“I still go to New York  five or six times per year, but now I forego business class to travel in premium economy,” he said. “With the new flexibility to plan ahead – which was impossible when I worked for a bank – you can get good fares. And if you’re smart about it, the airlines still give you all the perks.”

 and,

“The wife is doing the ironing,” another banker told us. “She’s not loving it, but she doesn’t want to get a job herself so is having to accept it.”

It's a novel idea to have to scale back and still have perks many people will never have.

We need to care about our neighbors. We need to understand that when people become miserable and stressed, there are repercussions. This doesn't mean handing out free checks to everyone (although this is done in Alaska...) to boost incomes but it does mean acknowledging that maybe a single minded pursuit of everything that's best just for ourselves will come back to bite society in the ass. Benefiting everyone still means everyone will benefit, not just the poor or middle class. And we need to stop stigmatizing the desire to help others.

Otherwise you end up in a system where only the most connected and financially powerful will call the shots, and gradually they get into positions where laws are created that will only benefit the most connected and financially powerful, snowballing their accumulation of wealth until there's nothing left for anyone else.

Sound familiar?