Redundant language: feminist women, ethical sluts

You're welcome to give me grief for quibbling over terminology but in the last couple of days I've had some overlapping epiphanies and I'd like to share them. Both involve qualifying terms and, I propose, artificial or obsolete distinctions.

I'm not sure which to tackle first so since "artificial" comes first in the alphabet I'm going to go with that first.

The other day Amber of Being Amber Rhea tackled the word "slut" again. Slut is one of those words a lot of people hate and a smaller number of people try to wear with pride.

So, first ask yourself: what is your definition of "slut"? (If you've already gotten past using it as an insult, this section doesn't apply to you, since you've already done the hard work.) Your answer might be something like, "A girl who gives it away," or, "a girl who has sex with lots of guys" - something like that. Then go a step further and ask yourself, "Okay, well why is [whatever your definition is] bad?" More and more questions will follow, which you should continue to ask and answer.

...

It's not enough to just go along with neatly packaged, widely accepted sexual mores just because you've never had occasion to call them into question. You should call them into question. Why make decisions (and judgments) based on beliefs you haven't even bothered to examine, but have just accepted at face value?

So, what's my reclaimed definition of "slut"? A slut is someone who is self-determined, secure in his/her own sexuality, and who does what s/he has found to be right for himself/herself, regardless of whether it's right for others. Concurrently, s/he doesn't begrudge others the right to make different choices. Whatever s/he does (or doesn't do), it's because it's what s/he wants; s/he won't be pushed around.

You can see that this definition includes nothing about number of partners, type of clothing worn, gender, sexual orientation, etc. By this definition a virgin could be a slut (and apparently, some are). To be a slut is to be sexually liberated - it has nothing to do with how much or what type of sex you have.

You can read her credible attempt at redefinition here.

So my problem with this very lucid attempt at redefinition implicitly implies that a "slut" is a special class of woman (and, most people who use this definition would say, men) where "regular" non-slut women or men are... what? Standard issue? Normal? *Preferable?*

I'm not singling out Amber when I say sorry, I don't get it. I think what most people mean when they use that word is "sexually self-determined and fulfilled." That's certainly what Easton and Listz had in mind when they wrote the classic in the field, The Ethical Slut.

But here's the thing. Being sexually self-determined and fulfilled doesn't really strike me as a departure from what ought to be *normal* and in that sense it's an implicit acceptance that the "shouldn't" that have been imposed on people. Rather than being an aspect one takes on through effort, it's a series of artificial distinctions that one casts off.

To this extent and this extent only I'm more comfortable with the traditional definition of a slut as someone who's fishtailed the other way, merely inverting the conventional "shouldn't" and trying to turn it into "should" instead. In other words rather than seeking the equilibrium of natural, uninfluenced desires that Amber, Easton and Listz, and countless others describe, tread beyond their natural desires in much the same way others attempt to deny them. I would argue that, by definition, neither undercompensating nor overcompensating is normal.

My point, then, is that I'd rather we began using the baseline-normal words: "women" and "men," for baseline sexual self-determination and fulfillment and reserve the words "inhibited" or "slut" for those who depart from that baseline. (Final note: since overcompensation is far more common in stereotype-influenced men than women, my proposed use for the word "slut" would be genuinely applicable across genders.")

---

Actually I'm glad I tackled "slut" first because I think it nicely lays the groundwork for my next item: the redundancy of saying "feminist woman" or "feminist man."

In the 19th and 20th Century it made a world of sense to adopt the word "feminist" to distinguish one's self from ordinary women. Ordinary women's lives were the pits. If they could work at all they were paid less -- often far less -- than men. They couldn't vote, for heaven's sake! They often couldn't sign contracts, own property, collect inheritances, get credit, expect to be able to go in public unescorted without harassment. They were deemed weak, subject to humors, secondary, meek, and subservient to men. They were expected to guard their hymens with their lives, to marry as virgins, to be "given away" by their fathers to their husbands. They weren't allowed to smoke, drink, ride horses the normal way, and God Forbid if they expressed enthusiasm for sex even after marriage. And while women were pedistalized as bastions of virtue and beauty they were generally treated like shit. Back then if you thought all that crap was bullshit it made a lot of sense to distinguish one's self from other women because... the majority of women agreed wholeheartedly (at least publicly) with the status quo. So back then it made sense to distinguish one's self from ordinary men and women with a special label like "feminist."

Here's the deal though. I just said it used to make sense to distinguish one's self as a feminist because the overwhelming majority of men and women had antedeluvian conceptions of women? Those people are now in the minority now. They're a nasty minority, yes, and a vocal, angry, and all too often violent minority, but a minority never the less.

But look at us all now. The vast, vast majority of men and women in Western Civilization are "feminists, but..." now. Even The Patriarchy is stunningly "feminist, but..." For instance I happen to think Vice President Richard (Dick) Cheney is at the apex of the patriarchy yet he hasn't shot his daughter in the face for her sexual orientation or the equalitarian politics she (generally) practices. Look at former Vice President J. Danforth (Dan) Quayle who said in a mainsteam media interview that he'd respect his daughter's decision if she ever chose to have an abortion. Even Phyllis Schlaffley, the 70's era bastion of "women belong in the home" had a significant career outside of the home, leaving her children to be raised by nannies and housecleaners while she made a huge pile of money crusading for that which she never practiced herself. Look at the otherwise troglodyte legislators and pundits and talk-radio wingnuts who, if they have daughters of their own, qualify their terms and become outraged when their partners or daughters or mothers or aunts are treated as second-class citizens.

Finally consider that for every one self-described feminist there are somewhere between a dozen and a hundred women who say "I'm not a feminist but..." and then describe nearly every non-separatist feminist objective under the sun. A lot of us think that's lemons. I'm starting to think that maybe it's time we started making lemonade.

If we're in the majority why should *we* bear the burden of special labels? When *they're* (deservedly) in the dwindling minority why on earth should we permit them to retain the unqualified terms for normalcy? Why should we hand them a rhetorical stick to beat us with when they're the ones in need of correction.

My point is that since we're the normal majority now why don't we drop the distinction and start calling ourselves plain old unqualified "women" and "men" and hang an appropriate label on them? Instead of distinguishing ourselves as "feminist women" and "feminist men" why not do a little marketing and brand them with some appropriate qualifier like, say, "subservience men and women?" Or patriarchialist men and women? Or Second-classers? Let them struggle with qualifications for a while and see how they like it! (And no, don't you *dare* suggest letting them get away with "traditional men and women!")

Look yourself in the mirror and try saying it yourself. "I'm a woman so like all normal women of course I believe in the right to reproductive self-determination." "I'm a man so of course like all normal men I believe in equal pay for equal work." It might feel a little unfamiliar at first but I've been playing with it for a couple of days now and it feels pretty powerful. It' especially powerful because I think it'll be a no-brainer to convince all the "I'm not a feminist, but I believe in equal pay and reproductive self-determination" to make the switch. I mean, they're already there in everything but name and switching from "I'm not a feminist but..." to "I'm a woman/man so..." is going to give them a hell of a lot more power.

---

Again, please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the word "feminist." Not at all, at all, and no amount of jackassery from 10,000 Rush Limbaugh clones is going to change that. And if I'm mistaken that the qualifier is still important I'd be proud to wear the label "feminist man" if feminists are willing to have me. And one way or another I passionately believe that full and equal rights and responsibilities for all men and women is a just, morally correct, and (I believe) inevitable social, personal, and family good. I just happen to feel that the time has come for people who believe in those things to graduate to unqualified "men and women" because tag, we're it, we're no longer practicing the piano, we're playing it (to borrow an old George Carlin one-liner.)

---

Finally, whether you believe me or not, whether you accept me or not, whether you think it's time or not, I'd like to ask you for help me begin to brand the people who really need branding, the men and women who really need qualifying, the ones who think women shouldn't be given bank accounts, or own businesses, or sign contracts without a man's co-signature, the ones who believe women shouldn't have the same reproductive freedoms men have, the ones who believe men are inherently superior to women, the now-radical, now-revolutionary troglodytes who want to turn the clock back to pre-history, the ones who deny the role women played in the early Christian church and therefore deny them roles today as ministers and priests... the ones who are now misappropriating the unqualified and undeserved labels of "normal men and women."

Whether you believe it's time to stop using the word feminist I think most of you would agree we need to start labeling them to distinguish them from normal, ordinary, decent men and women.

Earlier I proposed "subservience men and women," "patriarchist men and women," and "second-classist men and women." I have enough experience with corporate branding campaigns to know that any one of those could be made to work, possibly well enough that they'd start using it themselves, but I'd prefer something that would stick a little harder and be a little harder for them to peel off again.

One way or another the brush is in our hands now and the tar is waiting to be liberally spread. Comments are now open. I'll promote your suggestions with a big thank you. (And accept your admonitions and criticisms with very real humility -- posts like this scare me to death.)