Would do anything
President Piggy’s carrying on is even international news. The BBC is reporting it, with “slut shaming” in the headline.
US President Donald Trump has been accused of trying to “slut shame” a female senator who demanded he quit over sexual misconduct claims.
Mr Trump claimed Kirsten Gillibrand had come “begging” to him for campaign donations and “would do anything” for cash.
Senator Elizabeth Warren said the president was “trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame” her fellow Democrat.
Yes she did.
Are you really trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame @SenGillibrand? Do you know who you're picking a fight with? Good luck with that, @realDonaldTrump. Nevertheless, #shepersisted. https://t.co/mYJtBZfxiu
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) December 12, 2017
In Tuesday morning’s tweet, the US president accused Ms Gillibrand of being a lackey to Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer.
“Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office ‘begging’ for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump,” the US president posted.
Mr Trump did not explain what he meant by “do anything” for campaign contributions.
Wink wink nudge nudge.
Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, a frequent critic of the president, tweeted that “America must reject Trump’s sexist slurs”.
The only way to do that is to reject Trump. Let’s do that.
Saying he’s trying to slut-shame her suggests (to me) that Gillibrand was doing or offering something sexual and that we should look on that as a positive thing, and not as a shameful thing. But she wasn’t doing or offering anything sexual. I don’t know. It just seems like a strange accusation.
Well, Ben, I think he was trying to imply that she had, and slut-shaming her for that. He left it up to the imagination what anything means, but we all know what “anything” usually means, and probably a million times so with Trump, who seems to have only one thing on his mind when women are around.
To me, it reads like people saying, “So what if she did?! There’s nothing wrong with being a whore!”
I know that’s not what people mean, but that’s how it comes across to me.
The “anything” is lurid enough, but the ‘USED!” at the end removes all doubt.
Well, Ben, it’s good to see you’re focusing on the right issue here.
Same to you.
I think it’s exactly on point for me to notice you demonstrating the double standard that we must interrupt discussing a man’s 100% disgusting tweet to discuss whether a woman’s response was only 99% perfect. It’s a perfect illustration of what Gillibrand will face in 2020. All of the people who dismissed Clinton as a “flawed candidate” will suddenly find similar flaws in Gillibrand. And Warren. And Harris.
Ben, I can agree with you on one fact, in your comment #1, sentence #2, where you wrote that Gillibrand “wasn’t doing or offering anything sexual.” But I disagree with how you read the phrase “slut shaming” from the BBC headline.
I read “slut shaming” as one concept, in two parts: 1) To identify a woman as a slut (as a shameful state of being), and 2) To shame her (as a social act).
You seem to frame an objection to “slut shaming” as: 1) An endorsement of identifying a woman as a slut (as a shameful state of being), but 2) An objection to shaming her (as a social act).
As you said in your comment #3, you know that’s not what people mean. But then what was your point? Worst case, you’re framing women as sluts regardless. Best case, you’re denying “slut shaming” as a concept.
Christ, I thought Elizabeth Warren misspoke.
Next thing I know I’m exemplifyjng why the media beat up on Hillary Clinton while also “framing women as sluts.”
Gosh, that must be terrible for you. It’s getting so that a guy can’t recycle the talking points of right-wing Twitter hacks without getting called on it.
I think perhaps Ben is being unfairly maligned. I too thought that “slut-shaming” was an odd term for Warren to use, since in my experience (at least in the past 3-5 years) it is rarely used to mean “calling a woman shameful because her behaviour is slutty”, and far more frequently used to decry the negative connotations of sex work and sex workers. My assumption was that Warren was using short-hand constrained by Twitter, but I do agree that the message was perhaps not as clear as it could have been, providing opportunities for derail and deliberate misunderstanding.
Also I think there is a difference between discussing the finer points of communication in a background discussion with a group of (more or less) like-minded thoughtful people vs publicly criticising the validity of Warren’s statement based on her choice of words.
I too think Ben is being treated unfairly. Several people had the same reaction to the use of the term “slut-shaming.” It’s oddly in-apt, and suggests things it shouldn’t suggest. That’s not a crazy opinion, a misogynist opinion, or the opinion of Someone Who Must Be Vanquished. I hope this is just a communications problem. And, I share Ben’s opinion. That may be to Ben’s detriment in this conversation, but it’s certainly not coming from a desire to recycle right wing talking points.
I hadn’t realised that “slut-shaming” was ambiguous. Perhaps some of the ambiguity comes from circular reasoning. Theo, I’m not attacking you personally but your quote illustrates this perfectly so I’m stealing it:
Circular reasoning.
‘Slutty’ behaviour (by women) has been decreed to be bad and so ‘slut’ is an insult, a vehicle of shame. A woman doesn’t have to be a slut (whatever that means) in order to be shamed as one. Suggesting it – as Trump did – is enough. He was all but explicitly saying that she is a slut and that is shameful. I think “slut-shaming” is exactly what he did and the term doesn’t imply in any way that Gillibrand is whatever a slut is.
This is the reality: even hint that a woman is a slut and you can destroy her reputation. This is the problem. It’s a weapon and one of the easiest weapons to grab. Which is why President Idiot reached for it first.
A timely Christmas message about slut-shaming: https://youtu.be/m7uC1g5WTAM
@latsot, I’ll say “awomen” to the hyrr about sex.
And I note that one of the lines is “women who enjoy sex should not be called sluts”, with which I will completely agree. Is that an example of the common definition of slut-shaming that Warren and most of the posters here are using? If so, that is quite different from the meaning I am accustomed to (negative attitudes towards sex work and sex workers).
I think Warren was using it to name a two-step thing: both calling a woman a “slut” and shaming her for being that.
Funny that there’s no parallel like “cunt-shaming” isn’t it.
Theo,
Surely the definition of “slut” exists to shame women regardless of whether they ‘qualify’, I think that’s the point. Men aren’t sluts, regardless of what they do. To a certain group of men, women are, regardless of what they do.
Yes, people shame women for what they regard as slutty behaviour, but they also shame them for implied slutty behaviour.
From my experience in American high school (class of 1976), the concept of “slut” is captured in the book Fast Girls: Teenage Tribes and the Myth of the Slut (2002). It describes students in high schools independently inventing the concept of a designated slut. It reminds me of The God Delusion description of tribes on isolated islands independently inventing the cargo cults.
On the Amazon book page I linked, the top review has the phrase “slut-shaming” three times. In that review (2013), and in my comment here, the concepts of “slut” and “slut shaming” have nothing to do with sex workers.