The Zippy Hypothesis and Slut Shaming

Let’s get to the point. I often read in the manosphere that we need to bring back slut shaming, because in the end it’s going to be far more effective than cad (here I’m using the word as a catch-all term for a sexually promiscuous male, as opposed to female) shaming at fixing what feminism has ruined in regards to the sexual and marriage marketplace.

But is this really true? Let’s look again at the Zippy hypothesis:

Some time ago I proposed an alternative theory that has taken the world by storm: that women, as natural followers, love whomever it is that men love.  And in our modern liberal society men are in love with bad boys.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume this is true (and I’m not sure it is). If it IS true, than cad-shaming would, in fact, be just as important as slut-shaming. Maybe even more so, since if we shamed the cads the women wouldn’t be interested in them anymore. By definition this would mean that there would be less sleeping around, at least as compared to the extreme we’re at now.

More than that, it’s a grave sin to be fornicating anyway, for men and women, which is something that I see routinely tossed aside in the manosphere as irrelevant, which is odd since the morality of sleeping around is VERY relevant to the issue.

Anyway, my point is that if the Zippy hypothesis is true then slut-shaming is only a part of the issue. People who say that we’re holding women to an unfair (for lack of a better word) standard would be absolutely correct. Men who sleep around SHOULD be shamed just as much as women.

Keep in mind that I’m not sure if the “Zippy Hypothesis” is really true, but if it is then I think that approaching the issue with the traditional attitude of slut-shaming is almost certainly the wrong way to go.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The Zippy Hypothesis and Slut Shaming

  1. Traditionally, cads were shamed, just not as much as women were. But men had to hide out “on the Continent” plenty often for sexual misadventures. The idea that men were never cad-shamed is to some degree wishful thinking and flattening of fairly major cultural variation here.

  2. Ilíon says:

    Feminists (*) and other leftists like to pretend that in the bad old days before the 60’s Sexual Revolution men winked at cads and Lotharios. Of course, when it suits their rhetorical purpose, they *also* bitch because in the bad old days before the 60’s Sexual Revolution men actively suppressed cads and Lotharios and drove them off when they could.

    The actual truth is that back in the bad old days before the 60’s Sexual Revolution men did “shame” cads and Lotharios … and did what they could to protect the women they loved from them. Back in the bad old days, men tended to have some sympathy for a “fallen woman” — far more then the other women did — while looking down on the cad who made her one. Women, on the other hand, tended to look at such situations just the opposite, having sympathy (or even swooning over) the cad while despising the “fallen woman”.

    (*) and I include most of the fools/hypocrites of the “manosphere” in this — for it’s not that they oppose feminism and its social destructiveness, but rather merely that they’re bitching (like a gaggle of girls) because they’re not getting the free no-strings-attached sex they believed they’d be getting once society had abandoned Christian morality.

  3. Zippy says:

    It is entirely possible that from an “economic” perspective slut shaming is more effective than cad shaming — and that’s fine. It is also true that “what about the guy” is frequently used as a deflection of slut shaming: this is the central takeaway from Dalrock’s “Gilligan” post. Modernity (including modern Christianity) doesn’t care that cads are getting away with it as much as it is outraged at the thought that sluts might not get away with it.

    So there are legitimate things to be learned from the “manosphere” perspective.

    But it is also important to keep centrally in mind that womanizing men are gutter trash. This bullshit about “a master key opens many locks” is errant nonsense, and men should really give up their infatuation with venerial-disease-infested bad boys.

    • What do you mean by economic perspective? As in, slut-shaming will be more effective with women then with men?

      No argument from me about the “What about the guy” deflection.

      • Zippy says:

        malcolmthecynic:
        Dalrock’s Gilligan post proposes to explain why, ‘economically’ (that is, analyzed as quantitative inputs and outputs in a system of human choices) slut shaming is more effective than cad shaming. It may not be “provable” (not much is), but it strikes me as a reasonably sound argument for how things play out among amoral sexual actors.

      • The post isn’t bad by any means – in fact, it makes some good points – but a couple of lines stand out to me as odd. For example:

        We know from the history of civilization that slut shaming is what works.

        Okay. Examples? Like you said, it’s not provable, but this is really a bold comment, central to his whole argument.

        And this:

        Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first. This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business. This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.

        But if cads are no longer looked up to than a good deal less women will be interested in them, right? At least if the Zippy hypothesis is true. That post seems to be assuming that it isn’t.

        He also says that shame will tend not to work on cads because of their personality traits. But the idea isn’t to make cads feel bad, but to make other men ashamed of supporting them.

        In the manosphere I find that the baby is thrown out with the bathwater a lot. Say cad-shaming is a bit less successful than slut-shaming. That doesn’t necessarily translate to “don’t shame cads”.

        Another example, tangentially related: On Dalrock’s blog there was some sort of scuffle because Cane may or may not have accused some random woman of being a slut. I don’t really care if he was right, I have no dog in the fight, but Team Man started cheering and saying Cane shouldn’t apologize because who cares if a woman wants an apology, we’re men, we never owe apologies to women, and anyway hapless betas apologize too much anyway.

        I responded no, if Cane owes an apology he owes an apology. Period. I don’t really give two shits if betas apologize too much. I mean exactly what I said and no more – if you owe somebody an apology, give one, man or woman.

        I get their point, but distinctions really are important.

        Throwing the baby out with the bathwater seems to be a very common attitude in the manosphere.

      • Interestingly enough, looking at the comments on Dalrock’s post I seem not to be the only person, even among the manosphere, who has some questions about the Gilligan argument.

        Bear in mind, by the way, that for the most part I quite like Dalrock.

      • Zippy says:

        malcolmthecynic:

        But if cads are no longer looked up to than a good deal less women will be interested in them, right? At least if the Zippy hypothesis is true.

        That would depend on the different causes and effects involved working in the same manner and on the same time scales, which is rarely the case in real life. I could expand on the point tl;dr, but perhaps “it is more complicated than that” will suffice.

        Say cad-shaming is a bit less successful than slut-shaming. That doesn’t necessarily translate to “don’t shame cads”.

        Agreed. Even beyond that is the simple matter of integrity, which extends past analysis of economic effects.

        In practice the reactionary call for cad shaming too frequently dilutes and distracts; so achieving a true both/and as a matter of economic cause and effect can be quite difficult. This is aggravated by the tendency to see women as inherently more moral than men. But “it is complicated” is pervasively the case here and in any case it isn’t clear that we ought to see ourselves as primarily economic (in the general sense) actors rather than moral actors. The consequences are unclear, but the moral course is much clearer.

      • I do think it’s worth mentioning again that the morality of the actions in question DOES seem to be glibly dismissed when it comes to males by the manosphere BECAUSE they’re worried about the “Gilligan effect”.

        As I said – baby and the bathwater and all that…

      • Zippy says:

        malcolmthecynic:
        Glib dismissal of the womanizer’s evil is the best of it. It is quite common for the womanizer to be positively celebrated, with Beavis and Butthead snickering about how “a lock that opens for many keys is a bad lock, but a key that opens many locks is a master key.” In short, frequently the very men who show contempt for women falling for scumbags also, themselves, fall for scumbags.

      • That’s a good point, actually. And ironic.

        I think of a guy on Vox’s blog, that he quoted in a post, who was like “Yeah, I’m 21, but I’ve only had sex with three women, which is, like, no experience”.

        We’ve reached Wonderland.

      • …That said, I want to make it clear that I agree with the thrust of your comment. Think of me reacting to the manosphere as the manosphere reacts to the outside world – not completely dismissing the good, but unhesitatingly pointing out when there are errors.

  4. Andrew says:

    Thought: perhaps the critical issue is that men tend to expel “cads” from their group. That is, they take responsibility for their own. Thus, those (men or women) who refuse to be part of the group are de facto left to fend for themselves. A friendly fortress isn’t much good to you if you insist on living outside the walls.

    It’s similar to the rape issue: The typical male response to “protect us from social rape” is “keep away from untrustworthy men and stick with us”. In general, men don’t have a lot of sympathy for “we deliberately ignored your advice and things went badly”.

  5. Pingback: One solution to revenge porn: ‘cad-shaming’ » Spectator Blogs

  6. Pingback: Spectating The Spectator | Malcolm the Cynic

  7. Pingback: Fun with Backlash | Malcolm the Cynic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s