Eine Studie beschäftigt sich damit, wer „Slutshaming“ betreibt, also Frauen wegen eines lockeren Umgangs mit Sexualität herabsetzt:
Women’s participation in slut shaming is often viewed as internalized oppression: they apply disadvantageous sexual double standards established by men. This perspective grants women little agency and neglects their simultaneous location in other social structures. In this article we synthesize insights from social psychology, gender, and culture to argue that undergraduate women use slut stigma to draw boundaries around status groups linked to social class—while also regulating sexual behavior and gender performance. High-status women employ slut discourse to assert class advantage, defining themselves as classy rather than trashy, while low-status women express class resentment—deriding rich, bitchy sluts for their exclusivity. Slut discourse enables, rather than constrains, sexual experimentation for the high-status women whose definitions prevail in the dominant social scene. This is a form of sexual privilege. In contrast, low-status women risk public shaming when they attempt to enter dominant social worlds.
Quelle: ‘‘Good Girls’’: Gender, Social Class, and Slut Discourse on Campus
Aus der Studie:
Conversations in which women discussed and demarcated the line between good and bad girls—labeling others negatively while positioning themselves favorably—were common. All but three women, or 93 percent, revealed familiarity with terms like slut, whore, skank, or ho. Good girl, virgin, or classy were used to indicate sexual or moral superiority.
Women drew hierarchical distinctions within groups as well as between ingroup and outgroup members. Friends were easy targets, as women believed that they knew more about their sexual behavior than that of other women. As we discuss later, though, public slut shaming was commonly directed at members of the opposing status group.
These cases might be seen as textbook examples of defensive othering—a common strategy for managing stigma. Yet aspects of slut stigma differ from what social psychological models of stigma predict. The criteria for assigning stigma were unclear and continually constructed through interaction. Women were both potential recipients of sexual stigma and producers of it—simultaneously engaged in both defensive and oppressive othering. As one insightful woman put it, ‘‘I feel like you’re more likely to say [slut] if you maybe feel like you could potentially be called that’’ (Abby Y1). There was no stable division between stigmatized and normal individuals
Sieht für mich nach klassischer intrasexueller Konkurrenz und zudem auch dem Bemühen einer Gruppenbildung bzw der Errichtung einer bestimmten Gruppenidentität zu sein.
Das dies darüber, wer wie Sex hat erfolgt ist aus evolutionärer Sicht nicht verwunderlich. Es wäre eine direkte Folge davon, dass Frauen mit der Kontrolle des Zugangs zu Sex eine erhebliche Marktmacht haben und daher zum einen „den Preis kontrollieren müssen“ aber zum anderen eben auch damit, dass sie sich nicht als „Sonderangebot“ auf dem Markt bringen müssen deutlich machen können, dass sie einen hohen Wert haben. Jeder „Sex einfach so“ ist damit zum einen ein Signal, dass der Preis von Sex fällt und zum anderen kann auch ihre Beziehung zu der jeweiligen Person ein entsprechendes Signal sein. Wenn jemand aus ihrer Gruppe Sex billig verkauft, dann fällt das auch auf sie zurück, denn sie hat anscheinend Freundinnen ohne hohen Status. Natürlich gibt es aber Rationalisierungen entsprechenden Verhaltens: Wir sind frei, wir können uns das erlauben, weil unser Status hoch genug ist, wir machen es nicht mit jedem, sondern mit den richtigen etc.
Wohlgemerkt rede ich dabei nicht über bewusste Kalkulationen, sondern eher unterbewußte Wertungen.
Es dürfte auch der Grund sein, warum Frauen in einer Gruppe „Cockblocking“ veranstalten: Die Nichtschlampigkeit der Gruppe zu schützen und deutlich zu machen, dass man in der Gruppe der „guten Mädchen“ ist, lohnt sich für alle Mädchen und auch gerade für die, die evtl gar keinen männlichen Verehrer haben, weil sie auf diese Weise signalisieren können, dass sie nur keinen haben, weil ihre Ansprüche zu hoch sind und weil sie sich auf diese Weise auch für die Gruppe nützlich machen können und ihre Position sichern. Während Männergruppen eher das Motto haben, dass ein echter Freund nicht dazwischenfunkt, sondern eben zur Not den Abend alleine verbringt und auch irgendwie nach Hause kommt wäre es bei Frauen eher Absprachen wie „Wenn die Freundinnen gehen, dann muss ich auch los“ oder „wenn die Freundin dann alleine im Club ist, dann muss ich zu ihr zurück“ oder „Wer als Gruppe kommt, der geht auch als Gruppe wieder“. Die Abwehr des Gefühls, dass in der eigenen Gruppen „Schlampen“ sind kann es für sie wesentlich schwieriger machen, mit einem Mann mitzugehen. Das wiederum kann dann in einem Urlaub anders sein, wenn man sich einig ist, dass das normale soziale Umfeld nichts davon erfahren wird, einfach weil es weit weg ist.
Dies ist wahrscheinlich auch der Grund, warum Frauen „Schlampen“ auch sonst schlechter bewerten und nicht mit ihnen befreundet sein wollen.
Defining the self as a good girl required ongoing boundary work. An exchange between Whitney and Mollie, roommates who completed the first-year interview together, provides another example:
Whitney: There’s like, some girls that are big sluts.
Second Author: How do you know if a person’s a slut? What would be the definition?
Whitney: They just go and sleep with a different guy every night. Like this girl. Anna has sex with a different guy
every single night and every single weekend. It’s so . . . I don’t understand how someone could not have any more
respect for themselves. It’s like, you enjoy this. She’s like whatever . . . I could never let myself do that.
Mollie: I couldn’t either.
Second Author: How did you know her?
Whitney: I met her through a friend. She’s cool, but . . .
Mollie: Neither of us are like that, and I can’t think of any of our high school friends that are like that either.
Whitney and Mollie achieved a working definition of the slut, applied the label to someone else, and evaded stigma by distancing
themselves—and their friends— from her. These processes occurred simultaneously. They built the definition as they went, attributing improbable actions (having ‘‘sex with a different guy every single night and every single weekend’’) to a conveniently absent target.
Anna’s supposed transgressions defined the stigmatized trait and concurrently categorized Whitney and Mollie as normal.
Also ein recht einfacher Prozess: man definiert ein extremeres Verhalten als das Schlechte und ist damit in der „Guten Gruppe“. Dies passt man entsprechend nach Umfeld und Personen an. Das ist durchaus ein sinnvolles System, denn übermäßige Moral kann einen in einer Gruppe entsprechend Schaden, weil man dann evtl den Preis überschätzt und Nachteile hat bzw sich die Gelegenheit auf „gute Gene“ entgehen lässt. Es lohnt sich eben insbesondere soweit auf den Ruf zu achten, dass man keine Nachteile hat, also einen „schlechten Ruf“ vermeidet. Danach können die Vorteile geringer werden.
Although this was a fluid process— over which women exercised considerable control—they were deeply invested in it. Most believed in a real difference between good and bad girls and regulated their behavior accordingly. As a participant in the feminist group stated, ‘‘A lot of it is socialization. . . . There’s nothing keeping me from doing it. But emotionally I’m like . . . good girls don’t do this.’’ Some bargained with themselves, following selfimposed rules meant to preserve good girl identities. Tara recalled the agony of waiting until her first serious relationship seemed official enough to make sex okay, noting, ‘‘I need to wait 14 more days . . . then that will be enough time’’ (Y3). Women feared public exposure as sluts. Virtually all expressed the desire to avoid a ‘‘bad reputation. I know that I wouldn’t want that reputation’’ (Olivia Y1). At times they seemed to be assuring us (and themselves) of their virtue. As one anxiously reported, ‘‘I’m not a fastpaced girl. I’m a good girl’’ (Naomi Y1).
In the context of a feminist group interview, one woman came close to positively claiming a slut identity: she proclaimed
that she was done with her ‘‘secret life of being promiscuous’’ and was ‘‘coming out to people now. . . . I’m promiscuous, dammit!’’
Yet she proceeded to admit that she was really only ‘‘out’’ to her friends, noting, ‘‘I don’t tell some of my friends— a lot of my friends. That’s why I really love my feminist thing. I reserve it, as people aren’t going to judge me.’’ Even she feared public censure.
Die AntiSlutshaming-Bewegung passt gut rein, da sie wie so vieles im Feminismus darauf ausgerichtet ist, intrasexuelle Konkurrenz unter Frauen zu verringern. Das gelingt auch durchaus, wenn man in der internen Gruppe einfach den Bewertungsstandard verschiebt. Man muss dann aber den Kontakt nach außen möglichst meiden, was vielleicht auch der Grund ist, warum viele Feministinnen sich in einen Safe Space und einen Kreis aus Feministinnen zurückziehen, indem sie dann andere Frauen ablehnen und als unterdrückt wahrnehmen.
Der Artikel bringt dann noch Klassenunterschiede hinein:
The high-status view: classy versus trashy.
For affluent women, a primary risk of sex in college was its potential to derail professional advancement and/or class-appropriate marriage. Hooking up, particularly without intercourse, was viewed as relatively low risk because it did not require costly commitment (Hamilton and Armstrong 2009). When asked who hooked up the most on campus, Nicole responded, ‘‘All . . . the people who came to college to have a good time and party’’ (Y1). Women even creatively reframed sexual exploration as a necessary precondition for a successful marriage. As Alicia explained, ‘‘I’m glad that I’ve had my one night stands . . . because now I know what it’s supposed to feel like when I’m with someone that I want to be with. . . . I feel bad for some of my friends. . . . They’re still virgins’’ (Y1).
High-status women rejected the view that all sexual activity outside of relationships was bad. They viewed sexual activity along a continuum, with hooking up falling conveniently in the middle. Becky’s nuanced definition of hooking up is illustrative. She argued that ‘‘kissing [is] excluded’’—minimizing this favorite activity of hers in seriousness. As she continued, ‘‘You have kissing over here [motions to one side] and sex over here [motions to the other]. . . . Anything from making out to right before you hit
sex is hooking up. …I think sex is in its own class’’ (Y1). This view hinged on defining a range of sexual activities—such as ‘‘hardcore making out, heavy petting’’ (Becky Y1), mutual masturbation, and oral sex—as not ‘‘sex.’’ ‘‘Sex,’’ as women defined it, referred only to vaginal intercourse. H
Da hätten wir also den Ansatz, dass bestimmte Aktivitäten okay sind, und damit keinen „Schlampenmalus“ geben, andere, wie eben tatsächlicher Sex aber nicht.
To high-status women, looking ‘‘trashy’’ was more indicative of sluttiness than any amount of sexual activity. Women spent hours trying to perfect a high-status sexy look without crossing the line into sluttiness. This was often a social exercise: women crowded in front of a mirror, trying on outfits and accessories until everyone assembled approved.
As Blair described, ‘‘A lot of the girls when we we’re going out . . . they’re asking, ‘I don’t look slutty, do I?’’’ The process was designed to protect against judgment by others, although it also provided personal affirmation. For Blair, the fact that she and her sorority sisters asked these critical questions signaled that they were ‘‘classier. . . . That’s important’’ (Y1).
Blair was not the only woman to contrast a desirable, classy appearance with an undesirable, trashy appearance. For instance, Alicia noted, ‘‘If my house is considered the trashy, slutty house and I didn’t know that and someone said that [it] would hurt my feelings. [Especially] when I’m thinking . . . it’s the classy house’’ (Y1). Classy denoted sophisticated style, while trashy suggested exclusion from the upper rungs of society, as captured in the phrase ‘‘white trash’’ (Kusenbach 2009). They rarely referred to actual less-affluent women—who, by virtue of their exclusion from social life, were invisible (see Fiske 2011). Instead, women used labels to mark gradations of status in their bounded social world. By closely aligning economic advantage and moral purity, women who pulled off a classy femininity were beyond reproach
Also scheint mir in dem Bereich insbesondere auch schlicht das Erscheinen eine wesentliche Rolle zu spielen. Man will nicht schlampig wirken, was im Sinn des Signallings auch recht gut verständlich ist.
As she noted, good girls do not wear short skirts or revealing shirts without social permission. She was aware that women who dressed provocatively were not necessarily ‘‘actual sluts,’’ but her language suggested belief in such women’s existence, necessitating efforts to avoid being placed in this category. Another woman highlighted ways that dress and deportment
could be played off each other. She noted that it was acceptable for women to ‘‘have a short skirt on’’ if ‘‘they’re being cool’’ but ‘‘if they’re dancing really gross with a short skirt on, then like, oh slut.
You’ve got to have the combination’’ (Lydia Y1). Women lacking familiarity with these unstated rules started at a disadvantage. In general, classy girls did not get in trouble, draw inappropriate attention, or do anything ‘‘weird.’’ For instance, one supposed slut was ‘‘involved with drugs, and she stole a lot of stuff, and her parents sent her to boarding school’’ (Nicole Y1). Others were described as having ‘‘problems at home with their families and stuff’’ (Nicole Y4). In one case, a slut was remarkable for ‘‘eat[ing] ketchup for dinner [laughter]. [First Author: Like, only ketchup?] Right, she has some issues’’ (Erica and Taylor Y1). These activities were not sexual. Instead, they represented failure to successfully perform an affluent femininity, with sexual stigma applied as the penalty.
Ich vermute mal der Unterschied mit dem kurzen Rock ist, dass man zeigen darf, was man hat, aber nicht mit den passenden Verhalten signallisieren darf, dass man es weggibt.
Bei dem zweiten Teil, nämlich das bestimmtes Verhalten, welches nicht mit hoher Klasse in Einklang zu bringen ist, als „slutty“ bewertet worden ist, wäre für mich die Frage, ob sie nicht einfach statt dem eigentlichen schlampigen Verhalten die Gründe aufgezählt haben, weswegen sie eigentlich nicht zu ihrer Gruppe gehört.
Und zu der „lower Class“:
The low-status view: nice versus bitchy.
The notion that youth should participate in hookups was foreign to less-affluent women, whose expectations about appropriate relationship timelines were shaped by a different social world. Many of their friends back home were already married or had children. Amanda, a working-class woman, recalled, ‘‘I thought I’d get married in college. . . . I wanted to have kids before I was 25’’ (Y4). Hooking up made little sense uncoupled from the desire to postpone commitment
Evolutionär gesehen kann man eine „Kurzzeitstrategie“, also ausprobieren mit Sex, auch eher fahren, wenn man reiche Eltern hat, die ein Sicherheitsnetz bieten. Dann kann man darauf bauen, dass man über diese das Kind durchbringen wird und daher eher entsprechendes Verhalten zeigen, sofern es nicht damit kollidiert, dass man dadurch seinen Status gefährdet.
As discussed in the Methods section, not all low-status women lacked class advantage, but even low-status women from affluent families opposed hooking up. As upper-middle-class Madison noted, ‘‘I just don’t [hook up]. . . . I’m not really into that kinda thing, I guess. I just don’t like getting with random people’’ (Y1). Similarly, upper-middle-class Linda described herself as ‘‘very sexually conservative’’ in contrast to her ‘‘liberal’’ floor, in part due to their participation in hooking up (Y1). Some low-status women were confused about hooking up, as they were excluded from the social networks where the practice made sense. When asked for a definition, Mary, a middle-class woman, responded, ‘‘Good question. I honestly, I couldn’t tell you what some of their. . . I mean I’ve heard them use [the word] and I’m kind of like, well what does that mean? Did you have sex with them or did
you just make out with them or . . . ?’’ (Y1). Working-class Megan had not even heard of hooking up until we asked her about it.
She equated hooking up with an alleged sorority hazing ritual in which ‘‘they would tie the girls up naked on a bed and then a guy would come in and they would have sex with them’’ (Y1). Without insider cultural knowledge, low-status women did not make the same fine-grained distinctions between types of sexual activity outside of relationships. For these women, the relevant divide was whether the activity occurred in a relationship or not. They assumed that hookups, like most committed relationships, involved vaginal intercourse.
Wäre ein Grund, warum Universitäten eher eine gewisse Freizügigkeit entwickeln als Leute, die relativ früh im Berufsleben ankommen, wobei es ja nun aus meiner Sicht in dem Bereich auch genug „Sex einfach so“ gibt.
The judgment low-status women passed on their high-status peers was about more than sexuality. They often derided sorority women and those who attended parties. As Carrie described, ‘‘[My sister] who goes to [private college] is in [a sorority]. Umm, hello. All those girls are sluts. Sorry, they were. All they did was drink and go to parties. She’s not like that so she deactivated’’ (Y1). Linda referred to women in the Greek system as ‘‘the party sluts’’ (Y4).
Alle Frauen sind also irgendwie Schlampen und gleichzeitig auch nicht, je nach dem ob man eine andere Gruppe fragt oder sie selbst. Weil sie jeweils ihre eigenen Regeln für die Bewertung verschiedener Verhaltensweisen ausmachen und diese auch verschieden signalisieren.
Madison equated sluttiness with exclusivity—being bitchy, stuck up, cliquey, and unfriendly. She contrasted this with the desirable trait, ‘‘niceness,’’ which she was obligated to attribute to Sasha and her friends.
Niceness, also described as being ‘‘friendly,’’ ‘‘laid back,’’ or ‘‘down home,’’ referenced a classed femininity in which social climbing, expensive consumption patterns, and efforts to distinguish oneself as ‘‘better than’’ others were disparaged. Madison rejected high-status femininity, despite her own affluence.
Also: „Die sind Schlampen und halten sich für was besseres, befreit von den normalen sozialen Regeln und nicht so bodenständig und entspannt wie wir. Wir schlafen uns auch nicht nach oben und verjubeln Geld für Parties, um uns an reiche Typen ranzuschmeißen“ oder so etwas in der Art.
Slut discourse helped establish and maintain boundaries between high and low-status women. Midway through college there were no friendships crossing this line, despite the cross-group interactions necessitated by living on the same floor. Women enforced moral boundaries on uneven ground. Most cases of conflict occurred when low-status women—lured by the promise of fun, status, and belonging—attempted to interact with highstatus women, especially in the party scene. There was not much movement in the other direction: high-status women had little to gain by associating with low-status women.
„Frauen aus einer geringeren Klasse“ auf einer Feier von Frauen mit einer „höheren Klasse“: Man kann es sich vorstellen, wie da die Augenbrauen gerümpft werden und die jeweiligen Frauen verachtet werden, weil sie die Spielregeln nicht kennen.
This freedom from stigma is particularly remarkable considering what we ascertained about women’s sexual activities (see Table 1). All but one high-status woman hooked up during college in between committed relationships. Some low-status women also hooked up, but usually only once or twice before deciding it was not for them. Nearly two thirds of this group did not hook up at all. A few low-status women left college without having had vaginal intercourse, but no high-status women refrained from intercourse entirely. Most low-status women limited their sexual activity to relationships.
Low-status women reported to us, on average, roughly 1.5 fewer sexual partners (for oral sex or intercourse) during college than high-status women. These patterns underscore the disconnect between vulnerability to slut stigma and sexual activity. From the perspective of low-status women, the sexual activities of high-status peers were riskier than their own strategy of restricting sex to relationships (or avoiding it altogether)—yet high-status women evaded the most damaging kind of labeling.
As long as they were discreet and did not, as one put it, ‘‘go bragging about the guys I’ve hooked up with,’’ high-status women experienced minimal threat of judgment by others (Lydia Y1). Uppermiddle-class
Rory, who with more than 60 partners was the most sexually active woman we interviewed, explained, ‘‘I’m the kind a girl that everybody would like talk shit about if they knew. . . . I have this really good image. Hah. And people don’t think of me that way. They think I’m like nice and smart, and I’m like yeah’’ (S07). Casual sexual activity posed little reputational risk for savvy affluent women who maintained a classy image
Das ist eigentlich eine recht interessante Darstellung: Um so höher die Klasse, um so eher gehen die Spielregeln dahin, dass man bestimmte Sachen machen darf und es eben keiner mitbekommen darf und man darüber auch nicht redet. Solange man Gebildet, nett und wie eine Dame aussieht kommt man mit einigem durch. Es geht also in vielen Fällen um Diskretion.
Interessant wäre, wie da das polternde, laute, die Haare rot färbende und Regeln durchbrechende des Feminismus reinkommt, welches eher mit „ich stehe dazu, eine Schlampe zu sein“ aufmacht. Es beißt sich jedenfalls mit dem „upper class“ Ansatz, es hat zu viele Anzeichen niedriger Klasse, wie schlechtes Aussehen und das offene zugeben von entsprechenden Verhalten. Es setzt nicht darauf, bestimmte Regeln einzuhalten, sondern versucht sie zu ignorieren und dürfte dabei mit beiden Seiten in Konflikt kommen. Es ist vielleicht eher eine Anpassung der Unterklasse an die Freiheiten des universitären Lebens. Sie haben die Freiheiten der Universitäten, aber nicht die sozialen Regeln und Möglichkeiten für den Mittelweg „machen, aber es darf keiner merken“.
Auch ein interessanter Absatz:
Sexual privilege, however, involves the ability to define acceptable sexuality in ways that apply in high-status spaces. High-status women in our study were deeply embedded in the dominant social scene on campus. Over the years, they moved into positions of greater influence—for instance, later selecting the women who joined them in elite sorority houses. They did not care what marginalized individuals thought of them as these opinions were inconsequential both during college and beyond. As gatekeepers to the party scene, however, high-status women had considerable power over low-status women who wished to belong. It is in this
context that the sexual activity of advantaged women becomes invisible.
This is not to downplay men’s power in sexualized interactions or deny the gendered sexual double standard faced by women. Yet we differ from the classic framework posed by Connell (1987), in which no femininity holds a position of power equivalent to that of hegemonic masculinity among men (but see Schippers 2007). We argue that women are actively invested in slut shaming because they have something to gain. They are not simply unwitting victims of men’s sexual dominance. The winners—those whose femininities are valued—enjoy sexual privilege.
This is a benefit also extended to men who display a hegemonic masculinity (DeSantis 2007; Sweeney 2013). It indicates the importance of attending to dynamics within—not only across—gender.
Eine Studie, die Frauen eigene Interessen zuweist, die anerkennt, dass Frauen im Bereich Slutshaming eine eigene Agenda verfolgen. Das ist ja fast schon eine Besonderheit.
Andere Artikel zum Thema:
Gefällt mir Wird geladen …
Alles Evolution 