'The Nobility in Slut Shaming', Independent Research Project

The data set that I chose to use for my research project is from a blog called Intentious. The blogger who wrote this article, Jason Sutherland, has a number of posts on this site, but I chose a particularly controversial article titled ‘The Nobility in Slut Shaming’. To date, the post has almost 400 comments from people debating the content of this post, the entire interaction is quite heated as people react to either Sutherland’s comments, or other bloggers comments in the thread. ‘The Nobility in Slut Shaming’ is a post discussing the feminist movement Slutwalk, why Sutherland believes it to be ‘stupid’, and an explanation of why it is not only ok, but a great thing to publicly call out women as ‘sluts’. The article is quite one-sided, he criticizes women for their perceived slutty behaviours, yet makes no mention of what he thinks of men behaving in a similar manner. He finishes the 2070 word post with a list of why it is a ‘public service’ to name and shame ‘sluts’. It is an ill-informed, biased and misogynistic article. He fails to recognize that ‘slut’ is a highly subjective word, and what one person considers slutty, another will not. This post is obviously intended to shock and anger readers, especially female readers. In his profile on the blog, Sutherland writes that he likes ‘to play the devil’s advocate’ in his posts. By definition, a ‘devil’s advocate’ is someone who presents an unpopular view as their belief, just for the sake of creating an argument- even if it is not their personal view. They argue the unpopular or opposing side in an argument to try and stimulate a reaction from others. Given this context, Sutherland is probably publishing a controversial post, which he may not even entirely believe, to deliberately anger readers. Online platforms are interesting to examine from a Sociological perspective, as the face to face aspect of human interaction is removed. This usually results in people expressing opinions in a way that is more aggressive and exaggerated than in a physical interaction between two people. The removal of the human aspect gives people the confidence to behave differently than normal, as the consequence of their behaviour is not immediately considered- the anonymity of online interaction presents a new and interesting perspective for the application of sociological theory. I will discuss this post in the sociological frameworks of the micro/macro distinction, and Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical approach to ‘The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life’. This post caught my attention firstly because of the title. Upon reading the post, Sutherland’s point of view was obvious- he is anti-Slutwalk, and believes women need to be sexually responsible, or risk being ‘slut shamed’ (being called a slut). The Slutwalk movement was started in 2011, after a Canadian police officer, Constable Michael Sanguinetti, said in a speech on crime prevention at York University that women ‘should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized’. There was outrage from women everywhere at the suggestion that they are to blame for their sexual assault because of the way they dress, and rallies were organised across the globe to protest the police officers statement, and societal attitudes toward sexual assault. Sutherland frames his argument quite aggressively, his views are very clear and the language used is strong and laced with profanities to reinforce his position. Some of the most strongly worded sentences from the post are: ‘The consequences of being a slut are: contracting an STD, infecting other people with your STD’s, getting pregnant, getting pregnant to a stranger, getting pregnant to someone other than your husband and getting pregnant without a husband or without adequate family/community support to raise a child’. ‘By publicly calling out a person as a slut one is doing a public service.  One is spreading useful information about a person.  Men informing other men of a woman’s sluttiness are telling them she might carry STDs, she’s quite likely to commit paternity fraud and she’s a risk of “accidental” pregnancy’. And, my personal favourite, ‘Get a fucking reality check: a slut is not a good thing to be and if you are a slut, you should feel ashamed for yourself’. At a micro-sociological level, there is obviously the interactions of other bloggers with Jason, and with each other, in the comments thread. The website can be seen as a stage for interaction on a micro level, with time-space constraints of real life removed. If the interaction were in real-life, there is a strong possibility that the diversity of people included in the debate would be far smaller. The reach of the internet allows many people to interact with others that they simply would not have the opportunity to in their lives. However, this is still a micro level interaction. Sutherland is quite adamant to position himself as anti-women, resulting in his post initially being interpreted by myself as a perpetuation of androcentric and sexist belief systems that exist at a macro-sociological level in society (Lyndsey, 2010, p3). There is a commonly upheld double standard in regard to stereotypical expectations of men’s and women’s right to sexual freedom- men are ‘heroes’ whilst women are branded ‘whores’ or ‘sluts’ if they choose to exercise their right over their bodies (Marks & Fraley, 2006, p19). Society, as a macro aspect, informs its members what behaviour is acceptable or unacceptable, this changes over time. Sutherland’s comments, while disappointing, are not surprising to me. I believe movements like Slutwalk, that challenge macro level belief systems such as this, are important- micro and macro level interactions are dependent on each other, issues such as social change and societal trends shape our individual choices, beliefs, and behaviors at a micro level, whether we are conscious of this happening or not- and changes at a micro level can, eventually, lead to change at a macro level. The two are interdependent, and just as important as each other (Sternheimer, 2011). A possible interpretation of Sutherland’s negative depiction of women could be that he is indeed ‘playing the devil’s advocate’, he believes the blog post to be his front stage performance- and is trying hard to ensure all his readers see only his front stage character. Posting content online changes the dynamic of an interaction, by taking away the face to face aspect, however there is still definitely an interaction occurring where the ‘actor’ can position themselves to act out a front stage performance. Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical approach, ‘Presentation of Self in Everyday Life’ (1959) proposes that all of our actions are actually ‘social performances’ - with the aim of giving off and maintaining certain desired impressions of the self to others. Goffman details ‘front’ and ‘back’ stage performances, and suggests an actor can be sincere or cynical. As Sutherland’s post is on a web page, the aspects of Goffman’s theory must be translated into a contextual framework that is relevant. The aspects of performance Goffman (1971) discusses that are important to this scenario are ‘front stage’ (p32), ‘setting’ (p34), ‘appearance’ (p34) and ‘manner’ (p35).The ‘front stage’ works to define the situation to those observing the particular performance, so in this case, the blog interface would act as the front stage, the readers are those observing. With regards to definition of situation, it is clear to observers and participants that the page is the primary space for the interaction. The setting, rather than being a physical space, is the web page. The appearance of the blog in relation to the manner of the blog are confusing- the appearance is that of a professionally authored article, however the manner in which the content is presented is aggressive and opinionated. Citizen journalism and blogging has changed the parameters of journalistic processes, and taken barriers to publishing content away. Objectivity and fairness is no longer monitored, and in this case has resulted in inconsistency between the appearance of the blog and the manner in which it is written. This ties in with Goffman’s observation of the ‘dilemma of selecting an appropriate front from several not quite fitting ones’ (1971, p38). The content is not quite formal enough to be news, yet more structured than a conversation with close friends. Bloggers attempt to balance these to make readable, interesting content, in a professional context. I believe Sutherland is a somewhat cynical actor, because of his admission that he enjoys playing ‘devil’s advocate’. By definition, this is a cynical and insincere role. His audience, however, believes him to be entirely sincere, he possibly finds gratification from the fact that he ‘can toy at will with something his audience must take seriously’ (Goffman, 1971, p29). Their reaction never crosses to disbelief of his opinions or beliefs, so in this sense he is a successful actor. Bernie Hogan (2010) presents an expanded interpretation of the dramaturgical approach that frames Goffman’s work together with a consideration of online interaction. Hogan suggests that online interactions are different to Goffman’s ‘front’ stage performances, due to the control the actor has over the release of the information presented, and instead of referring to the space where the interaction occurs as a ‘performance’ space, Hogan calls it an ‘exhibition’ space (2010, p377). This allows for separation of interactions occurring when actors are co-present (in time, if not in the same geographic place, eg online chat); compared to when actors are not necessarily present at the same time but still react to each other’s data- as is the case in this data set from Sutherland. The interaction is tangible, however it is in a slightly different format, that of blog post. There are two distinct categories of comments in the section below the post- those who strongly agree with Sutherland, and those who strongly disagree with him. As there are over 400 comments, I chose a small selection. The interaction occurring in the comments section of this blog post is unique to new media forms. The individuals who post a comment take a dual role, becoming participants in the performance as well as being observers. There is potential for third party cross communication between guest commenters also, if they choose to reply to someone else’s comment. This adds another dimension to linear interaction between author and commenter/s, and allows a diverse range of topics to be debated. In the category of comments that agree with Sutherland’s various points, there are a couple of particularly sexist and misogynistic comments: ‘The term “slut” only deems a woman as culturally failing at her job as a woman, and her job was simple (to stay faithful, to preserve her virginity, to procreate, and to raise the child)’. (Donovan) ‘These sad women who describe themselves as ‘sluts’ and see it as a badge of pride, are some men’s daughters. It is an indictment of our modern society that fathers are forced out of their daughter’s lives so frequently and cannot give these young women a model of masculine virtue’ (Amfortas) ‘If you present yourself as a slut, people are going to see you as one. Simple as that...you feminists need to get over yourselves’ (Laura1) ‘Slut get-ups are useful. They indicate that I am viewing an abortion-scarred bar-hopper who must be avoided like the plague. Slut get-ups = a sign saying “Radioactive Waste – Stay Out.”’ (Live Life) These comments are interesting, in the way they reveal connections between micro and macro level belief systems. These posts are the opinions of audience members (who temporarily become sincere actors) in the interaction- not someone ‘playing the devil’s advocate’. The first comment is a reflection of Donovan’s belief of a ‘woman’s role’, however stereotypical it may be. I doubt this view is commonly held in society from a macro-sociological perspective, I suspect it’s a small minority who think in 2012 that it’s a woman’s sole life duty to raise children. Amfortas’ ‘masculine virtue’ comment is sexist- implying single mothers are not capable of raising ‘respectable’ children, they need ‘saving’ by wholesome paternal figures. Laura’s comment is surprising from a woman, and reveals how ‘slut shaming’ has become common- Laura has been conditioned to believe that women dressing a certain way deserve to be called sluts, and to argue otherwise makes someone a feminist (Lyons et al, 2010). The ‘bra burning, man hating’ feminist stereotype is a common one. Live Life’s comment is quite vulgar and derogatory, and again implies that the way a woman dresses reflects upon her actions or character- in this example, if she is ‘abortion-scarred’. On the other side, there is the category of comments that disagree with Sutherland. These comments generally use less profanity, but are still quite angry: ‘You can stop getting off on “playing devil’s advocate” now because it doesn’t matter. You can stop infuriating and hurting people who have been raped or people who have been vilified for being a “slut” before… Because it’s pointless’ (Laura2) ‘I think it’s disgusting how this article marks the activity of ‘slut shaming’ as something noble, something justified – as something glorious. There is nothing honourable about shaming anyone for anything, under any circumstance – it’s petty, vicious and cruel, and will solve nothing’ (Sophia) ‘If any of the women in your life or yourself had been raped you wouldn’t have dreamed of writing this. I am sure you will not even UNDERSTAND why you have enraged so many people including myself’ (Cosy) ‘You mate, are a complete tool. I just hope you never have the chance to have children because the way you’d bring up daughters would be just repulsive. You perpetuate the ‘women are to blame for rape’ stereo type. Go back to your cave, and don’t come out’ (Stuart) Laura2 assumed that Sutherland was attempting to deliberately provoke readers with his post. Sophia rejects his ‘noble’ statement, with just as much force as the blog post itself, while Cosy tries to understand where he could possibly have formed these beliefs, attempting to inject Sutherland with some empathy for victims. Stuart is also angered, and uses personal insults to make his point. I think these responses more accurately reflect how the majority of society would react in response to the post. However, while women are closing the inequality gap between them and men, there is still a culture of slut shaming and blaming of the victims of sexual assault that happens too often in society. It is incredibly damaging for females to be subject to this type of treatment, and reading posts like this may legitimize that kind of behaviour in society. Unfortunately, Sutherland does not have a rare point of view, even in 2012. This is evident by the number of people agreeing with his blog post. Whether Sutherland was ‘playing the devil’s advocate’, or whether this post accurately reflects his beliefs is not really that important, what is more interesting to me is that anyone agreed with him. This post was interesting to break down from a dramaturgical perspective, and trying to determine whether Sutherland was a sincere or cynical actor definitely changed my opinion. When I first read this article, I was amazed at the sheer lack of research backing up anything written, and angry at the content. When I decided that Sutherland was a cynical actor, playing up to his role of devil’s advocate, I was able to clearly dissect the parts of his performance. Historically, social norms shift as society progresses, so I can only hope that some day soon, we as a society will realise how hurtful and harmful slut shaming can be, and it will no longer be common or accepted to call a woman a slut, for any reason. References- Goffman, E 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York, The Overlook Press. Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’, inThe Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin, pp28-82. Hogan, B 2010, ‘The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online’, Bulletin of Science,Technology & Society, vol. 30, iss. 6, pp377-386. Lyndsey, L 2010, ‘Theoretical Perspectives and Feminist Frameworks’, in Gender Roles: A Sociological Perspective, Pearson Higher Ed, Maryville, USA, pp1-21. Lyons, H, Giordano, P, Manning, W & Longmore, M 2010, ‘Identity, Peer Context, and Adolescent Girls' Sexual Behavior’, http://paa2009.princeton.edu/papers/91710 Marks, MJ & Fraley, RC 2006, ‘Confirmation Bias and the Sexual Double Standard’, Sex Roles, vol. 54, iss 1, pp19-26. Sternheimer, K 2011, ‘Micro Meets Macro: Walking in Your Community’, accessed 2/9/12, http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2011/05/micro-meets-macro-walking-in-your-community.html

Comment #3

This is the link to a comment I made on Cindy Outeiro's blog http://cao230.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/week-2-research-blog_29.html?showComment=1349953115845

Warning- This Blog Post Contains The C-Bomb! Week 11 Blog Post

In Nicola Daley's (2003) research paper, titled 'Expletives as solidarity signals in FTA's on the factory floor', she discusses the use of the word 'fuck' as a multi use expression. She describes the different uses as being in 'threatening speech acts, direct complaints and refusals, and its contrasting function in the act of whingeing', and also how it identifies certain community membership within the workplace. I have a similar type of experience, a few years ago, I was working closely with a colleague- we were the only two employees at this business. We became good friends, both inside and outside work, and our greeting for each other somehow became 'hey cuntus'. Yes, from 'hey cunt', which is still a taboo word for a lot of people, we made a little nickname for each other that was endearing, not offensive! However, if you were to greet a stranger with 'hey cunt', it's safe to say they would be incredibly offended! In the article 'Forbidden words: taboo and the censoring of language', profanity is explained as a positive reinforcer in friendships; 'insult can be offered, and taken, as a compliment or a familiar voucher of friendship' (Allan & Burridge, 2006), which is exactly what our greeting was- to anyone else, possibly offensive, to us, not offensive at all! Additionally, the 'community of practice' framework described by Daly could help explain this- we both belonged to a team, and it was quite small- this enabled close friendship bonds to form, therefore we coexisted within that community framework. Certain practices, such as our greeting, became accepted between us. However I think that even if I was to greet another close friend without them being aware of the context, they would possibly be offended. This theoretical approach looks at behaviors and how these indicate 'belonging-ness' to a particular group. Out of the three features of this approach, 'mutual engagement, a joint negotiated enterprise, and a shared repertoire of negotiable resources accumulated over time', I think mutual engagement and a shared repertoire of negotiable resources accumulated over time are most evident in this example. References Allan, K & Burridge, K 2006, 'Forbidden words: taboo and the censoring of language', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Daly, N 2003, 'Expletives as solidarity signals in FTA's on the factory floor', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 36, p945-964.

Comment #2

This is the link to a comment I posted on Brooke Avery's blog. http://bea091.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/wk11-blog-swearing-tradies.html?showComment=1349946484354

Dramaturgy

‘All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players; they have their exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts’

(William Shakespeare, 1599) In his book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1971), Erving Goffman describes everyday interactions as a ‘performance’, involving actors, or people, in which they put on an act. He describes two extremes, sincere and cynical. A sincere act occurs when a performer is fully convinced into believing his or her own act- ‘the reality staged is the real reality’ (Goffman, 1971). A cynical act occurs when the performer has ‘no belief in his own act and no ultimate concerns with the beliefs of his audience’ (Goffman, 1971), this cynicism may be spiteful, for example, pretending to be nice to someone you dislike, or in the best interest of the other actors in the ‘scene’, for example, pretending to like that hideous jumper your great aunt knitted for you so you don’t hurt her feelings! In a face to face interaction, it is a lot easier to judge if someone is being sincere or cynical, by looking at body language or other cues. Goffman discusses front and back stage performances. Front stage means the area where the actor ‘formally performs and adheres to conventions that have meaning to the audience’ (1971). Back stage is where performers are present but audience is not, and the performers can step out of character without disrupting the performance (Leporc, 2011). An interesting journal article I found discussed undercover detectives in a dramaturgical framework. I found it funny, because the author, Bruce Jacobs, states his interest in the topic came about from a few ‘minor brushes with the law over drug use’ (1992). Busted! He describes four areas of deception related to dramaturgy- rehearsal (of the deal), which took place in the back stage; manipulating appearance, which was a back stage preparation for a front stage performance; verbal diversion, where the agent would distract the dealer from the centrality of the drug deal by talking about a non-related topic, also a front stage performance; and finally, physical diversion, which is also front stage, and involves body language manipulation, for example, the detective pretending to look around anxiously as a drug buyer might do. This would of course be a cynical performance, but Jacobs talked of ‘light’ and ‘deep’ cover detectives- those in deep cover were so immersed in the job that they sometimes changed their whole life to go deep undercover, and I have to wonder if they would start to believe their own performance? References Goffman, E 1971, ‘Performances’, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth, Penguin, pp28-82 Jacobs, B 1992, ‘Undercover Deception: Reconsidering Presentations of Self’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, vol. 21, pp 200-225. Leporc, A 2011, ‘Interpretation of Erving Goffman’s Dramaturgical Theory in Relation to the ‘Online Stage’ and Facebook’, accessed 28/9/12, http://antoineleporc.com/interpretation-erving-goffman’s-dramaturgical-theory-relation-“online-stage”-facebook/

Comment #1

This comment was on Karishma's blog post for week 9 http://bhandarykarishma.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/bloody-australian-culture.html?showComment=1348827268655

Why The Bloody Hell Were They Offended? (Week 9)

This weeks reading was ‘Australian cultural scripts- bloody revisited’, by Anna Wierzbicka, and it concerned the use of the word ‘bloody’ in Australian speech discourse. Bloody as an adjective has been a part of Australian speech for a long time, since the 1890’s in fact, when weekly magazine of the time, The Bulletin labelled it ‘the great Australian adjective’ (Ludowyk, 2002). But why the bloody hell do some people find it offensive? You can be sure I don’t mean any bloody Aussie when I say that! But the English do find it offensive. So offensive, in fact, that in 2001 they banned an Australian tourism ad featuring Lara Bingle, that asked the question- ‘So where the bloody hell are you?’ (Hong, 2008). The $180 million campaign was swiftly banned in the UK because ‘bloody hell’ was deemed an offensive term. But in Australia, it’s not an offensive term. It wasn’t meant to offend anyone by being used in the tourism ad, least of all the English! ‘Bloody’ is used as a sort of intensifier of what is being said, for example, ‘I just kicked my bloody toe!’. Wierzbicka (2002) identifies two meanings to the word ‘bloody’, depending on if they are used adjectively or adverbially. The Australian National Dictionary (2008) describes the difference as being the adjectival use associated with with negative feelings, while the adverbial use is not necessarily associated with bad feelings. While ‘bloody’ may be considered to be impolite in other countries, in Australia it is a part of Australian culture and speech discourse. Therefore, it should be viewed as one of the common and casual phrases used in everyday life (Hong, 2008). References Australian National Dictionary, 2008, http://australiannationaldictionary.com.au/index.php Hong, M, 2008, ‘Bloody hell and (im)politeness in Australian English’, Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communication, vol. 1, no.1, pp 33-39 Ludowyk, F 2002, ‘The Anatomy of Swearing’, accessed 14/9/12, http://andc.anu.edu.au/ozwords/April%202001/Swearing.html Wierzbicka, A 2002, ‘Australian cultural scripts- bloody revisited’, Journal of Pragmatics, v34, pp1167-1209

Australian cultural scripts: 'bloody' revisited, Ann Guballa and Rachael Roby, Thursday 3.30pm tutorial.

Australian cultural scripts: 'bloody' revisited, Ann Guballa and Rachael Roby, Thursday 3.30pm tutorial. from rachael_roby

Data Set Link, SOC250 Presentation

Here is a link to the data set I will be presenting on, a blog post titled 'Sabotaging Slutwalk, Like a Man'. The author is Jason Sutherland, he writes on a blog called 'Intentious'

http://intentious.com/2012/08/27/sabotaging-slutwalk-like-a-man/

I will be looking at the initial post, then the comments beneath to establish two distinct sides to the post- agreeing and disagreeing with Jason. As there are over 60 comments, I will be selecting the ones I see as most relevant to analysis.

Ethnomethodology, Week 7

When I first read the word ‘ethnomethodology’, I cursed Sociology and its fondness for using words I don’t understand! But after a little more investigation, I learned that it’s just a fancy-pants word for studying everyday human interaction. Ethnomethodology is a term coined by Harold Garfinkel in 1967, this method of research seeks to highlight how social order is achieved by the ‘interaction of people, rather than social order being the framework within which action takes place’. In other words, people define social order, there is not a rigid set of rules that define our behaviour, rather, we are  continually defining and redefining these unwritten rules via our interactions with others at a micro level.

So what does this mean in terms people can actually understand? ‘Many people engage in a small degree of ethnomethodology every day, even though they aren't aware of it; for example, a parent explaining a concept to a child usually thinks about the way in which the child approaches the world and processes information to put the concept in terms the child will understand’ (wisegeek, 2012). Ethnomethodologists seek to make 'generalized claims about the nature of social interaction based upon specific research, itself driven by particular theoretical motivations' (Ethnomethodology, 2012).

Two important theorists studying different aspects of social action and organisation that influenced Garfinkel were Talcott Parsons and Alfred Schultz (Heritage, 1984). Parsons developed the 'action theory', which focused on attempting to create a unified theory of social action for the social sciences (Social Theory Re-wired, 2011). Schultz argued that Sociologists should study common sense beliefs and actions. Garfinkel then drew on this and other research to propose that social reality and social facts are constructed, produced and organised through the mundane actions and circumstances of everyday life, and he wanted to explore how people accomplish, establish, produce and reproduce a sense of social structure (Cohen & Crabtree, 2006).

It was a confusing topic, but I think the point is that there are expected patterns of behaviour in day to day life- when these patterns are broken, Garfinkel called it 'breaching', then there is confusion from other actors in society we interact with. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to be bad-ass and face the back in an elevator, and watch everyone get all creeped out!

References:

Cohen, D & Crabtree, B 2006, 'Qualitative Research Guidelines Project', accessed 8/9/12, http://www.qualres.org/HomePhen-3590.html

'Ethnomethodology', accessed 9/9/12, http://www.sagepub.com/david/Chapter_Ethnomethodology.pdf

Heritage, J 1984, 'The Morality of Cognition', pp75-102, in Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Social Theory Re-wired, 2011, 'Ethnomethodology', accessed 8/9/12, http://theory.routledgesoc.com/category/profile-tags/ethnomethodology

Wisegeek, 2012, 'What is Ethnomethodology?', accessed 9/9/12, http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-ethnomethodology.htm