Prude-shaming, Love-shaming, Marriage-shaming, and Tradition-shaming

Based on my readings of feminist blogs, women's blogs, media messages, and conversations with certain people I think that there is such thing as "prude-shaming", "love-shaming", "marriage-shaming", and "tradition-shaming". What all four of these acts have in common is that they shame people for doing something that was once considered the norm in the recent past (10-15 years ago). People are being shamed for things that were the norm when I was growing up. A lot of this shaming is based on the theoretical ideas of certain intellectuals or activist groups. Unfortunately what these people are endorsing has not been tested enough in Western societies or many other societies for them to say that they are "good for society" and will not cause problems in the future. There is a big difference between theory and practice and sometimes ideas that sound good on paper are disasterous in real life. Of course traditional viewpoints and lifestyles are not perfect either but at least we can compare times in the past to the present and see the problems that have arisen since non-traditional lifestyles and beliefs have become more popular.

Prude-shaming: This done to shame someone who is uncomfortable with or disgusted by a certain level of sexual activity. It may be used when someone is against sex before marriage, promiscuity, pornography, strippers, prostitution, open relationships or specific sex acts that they think are disgusting. The prude is told "don't judge" something to be disgusting or undesirable when that is exactly how they feel. Prudes are people with a lower threshold for disgust and prude-shamers have a higher threshold. Therefore, a prude could be disgusted by a specific behaviour while a prude-shamer would have a neutral or positive reaction. The prude-shamer then judges him- or herself as "correct", "enlightened", "open-minded" or in some way "better" than the prude and this is used to justify their shaming of the prude. If the prude tries to shame the prude-shamer or people who engage in a given sexual practice then they are called a "slut-shamer" or "sex-shamer" (e.g., Jenna Marbles incident).

The problem with prude-shaming is that people are made to question their disgusted feelings and values and pressured to condone things that they actually don't like. In the worst case, people will engage in behaviours they don't like because everyone else says those behaviours are acceptable and they are "abnormal" if they don't agree (the basis for peer/media pressure).

Love-shaming: This is done to shame someone who believes in love, is looking for love, or who spends a lot of time pursuing and thinking about romantic relationships. This is done to men and women who make any effort to find a romantic partner (e.g., flirting, going out to meet people, approaching people, online dating, matchmakers, reading dating books etc.). These people may be ridiculed and told love doesn't exist, relationships are for suckers, it's better to be single, you are so desperate, you must have low self-esteem if you need someone so bad, all you need is yourself, etc. They are discouraged from looking for love and told that there is something wrong with them that needs to be fixed (e.g., judging them by saying they have low self-esteem, daddy issues, no life, desperate, no goals, no career focus, etc.). They are told that love is just something in books and movies and  they are judged to be being foolish, naive, silly, immature for caring so much about it. Women who appear to be very concerned with relationships are ridiculed for not having any depth (e.g., Taylor Swift is ridiculed for singing so much about relationships). Love-shaming is often done by people who have never experienced love, those who have loved and lost, and those who prefer relationships without love (e.g., casual sex relationships). 

In the worst case, people will give up on finding love, settle for whatever relationship they can get, or allow others to dictate the terms of relationships (e.g., I will use your body but I will not love you, and you will accept this because that's a normal relationship and love doesn't exist).

Marriage-shaming: This is done to shame someone who wants to get married, thinks highly of marriage, or thinks more people should get married. These people are told statistics about how many marriages end in divorce and about couples and singe people who are very happy without being married. They are told that marriage is an oppressive and antiquated practice based on the patriarchal ownership of women and has nothing to do with real love. Marriage-shaming often takes the form of warning people not to get married (especially men) and that marriage ruins relationships. Marriage-shamers love to tell people that they grew up in or know people who grew up in single-parent households who turned out fine so there is no need to get married. Marriage-shaming is frequently done when someone criticizes others for not getting married before having children or blames the decline of marriage for any problem in society. Marriage-shamers often uphold non-traditional relationships (i.e., relationships that are not marriages between 1 man and 1 woman) as being just as acceptable to society, healthy, fulfilling, common, and beneficial to children.

In the worst case, people will not ask for marriage when that is what they really want. Or they will stay with partners who refuse to marry them (because the partner doesn't really want to commit and gives normalized reasons why marriage is unnecessary). These people will feel disappointed and that they were not good enough to marry (e.g., thinking they will never get married because they are Black women :( ). People will not feel the need to get married, marriage rates will further decline, and being unmarried will become the norm. 

Tradition-shaming: Prude-shaming, love-shaming, and marriage-shaming can also be considered types of tradition-shaming. Tradition-shaming occurs when someone is shamed for a belief or lifestyle that is traditional and has been acceptable for a long time. Disgust with promiscuity and certain sex acts is traditional and present in many religions. Belief in love and having romantic relationships is also traditionally accepted (but in some places arranged marriages are just as/even more acceptable). Belief in marriage is of course very traditional all around the world and in many religions. Tradition-shaming also occurs when anyone is shamed for endorsing and embracing a traditional feminine appearance, traditional feminine activities (e.g., cooking, sewing), or gender roles. Tradition-shaming is often applied to people who try to maintain their cultural roots or those who are religious. Tradition-shamers judge that there is something wrong with those who uphold tradition and call those people old-fashioned, brainwashed, non-thinking, closed-minded, afraid of change, sexist, zealots etc. because they are not following newer trends or beliefs. Tradition-shamers believe in modern beliefs and lifestyles and judge them to be superior to those of the past.

In the worst case, people will abandon their beliefs and traditions in favor of modern lifestyles that have no track record of being better for most people or beneficial to society . Instead of doing or asking for what they want people will suppress these desires and do/accept whatever other people say is "the new normal" (e.g., Many men and women are settling for just "hooking up" when they really want relationships because the media keeps saying traditional dating is dead. Women will settle for not getting married because the media says marriage is becoming rare. Women will accept open relationships if the media says open relationships can be healthy and satisfying. Women will put up with being "baby mamas" if everyone says it's acceptable and fathers are unnecessary).

The purpose of this post was to show that shaming goes both ways. Progressive people shame and judge conservative and traditional people for their views. This shaming and judging has become very prominent with the media, intellectuals, and activism groups (e.g., feminists) who become outraged when traditional people shame and judge them back. They make up terms like "slut-shaming" and "fat-shaming" when someone states their being promiscuous or very overweight is unattractive for them or romantic partners they are seeking. People are shamed for having opinions that are not super liberal and modern. Just as these modern thinkers call traditional people closed-minded, small thinking, or brainwashed, traditional people call modern thinkers irresponsible, unrealistic, lacking self-control, and brainwashed by the media and activists!

Who is the real free-thinker with strong beliefs that will not be swayed by the opinions of others? Is it the modern person who follows every trend and thinks we should just accept and adapt to whatever other people choose to do? Or is it the traditional person who compares the past to the present, thinks some things in the past were better, and fights against the loud voices of those who want to abandon everything we have learned in the past? Traditional people have their books and theories and modern/progressive people have their books and theories. Both groups JUDGE their views to be better than the other group and they both SHAME the other group for their views.

I think it is abnormal to not have any opinions or values and people who say "I never judge" and "I accept everything and everyone" are lacking self-awareness. They are unaware of their biases and preferences but you can pick these things out by looking at the way they live and the choices they make for themselves. Beware of people who say they support lifestyles that they have never engaged in and have NO DESIRE to engage in. Ask them why because that will reveal their biases and preferences. This is a big red flag! For example, some feminists say they will support any woman (including a friend's) sexual lifestyle even though they have never engaged in that lifestyle, and have no desire to do so. If they have no desire to engage in the lifestyle under any circumstance then they do not really approve of that lifestyle! If they can not list reasons why they think that lifestyle is valuable, good, justified etc. then they do not approve of that lifestyle! If under different circumstances they would not engage in that lifestyle (e.g., no one would find out, no danger, trusted people, nothing to lose), then they do not approve. I liken this to you asking someone if doing A is a good idea, they say sure, you then ask them to do A with you and they say "No way I'm not crazy!" These people will NEVER give you honest and good advice about important life choices because they will nod their heads and support ANYTHING! Should I quit school? Sure! Should I be a stripper? Sure! Should I join the circus? Sure! Should I sleep with the entire football team? Sure! Do you see how useless and potentially destructive that is? They either don't think or they don't care to protect you from harm. True friends and family members would never do this. They would talk to you about your decision, make sure you were informed about the pros and cons, and discuss alternatives. Don't bother seeking approval for people with no standards, you may as well talk to a brick wall.

Being Quiet does not Equal Being Weak

I think that some women are deathly afraid of being perceived as weak. This is probably because something bad happened to them in the past that they were not able to prevent. They blame themselves (sometimes unconsciously) for what happened and think that the incident could have been prevented had they been stronger or even more like a man. They see men being loud, aggressive, and hard and think that this will protect them from further victimization. These women reject anything feminine which is often anything soft, delicate, or fragile. They refuse to behave in ways that are not dominant and see being quiet, non-argumentative, and very polite as signs of weakness that could lead them to be victimized. These women feel that putting on a rough exterior will protect them so it is a defense mechanism but if they need it then they should keep it.

But what about women who have not been victimized? Is there a reason for them to put on a rough exterior? Why do they equate softness, being quiet, and non-argumentative with being weak? I can think of so many times when someone was talking way too much, offending people, and really putting their foot in their mouth...this is not an admirable thing. I think that it is more wise to listen to people and try to understand them because then you are in a position to decide if they would be a compatible friend or partner or if you should ever listen to their advice. People who talk a lot reveal themselves while the quiet ones remain a mystery. When you talk too much you reveal too much about yourself, sometimes too quickly so people may be turned off.  When I first meet people I don't share any strong opinions or show much of a reaction to the opinions they share because I am trying to figure out whether we are compatible. I am gathering information before I form an opinion of them and it's very hard to learn if I am too busy talking.

This post once again was inspired by an article on Clutch called, "Damned If We Do: On Black Women Standing Up For Ourselves". First of all, standing up for yourself is NOT the same as getting into debates with people because it amuses you. If you are familiar with teachings about how to make friends and be liked then you know that people like you more if you listen to them instead of constantly talking, especially about yourself. The quiet person who asks questions and shows interest in others may end up being liked more than the person who constantly debates and challenges others, boasts, or talks too much about herself. That person will appear argumentative, imposing, and self-absorbed to others and may end up being disliked. It's interesting that the author mentions times when BW were criticized harshly for being argumentative or less than cheerful but instead of learning from those lessons she voices the usual "well if men do it then it should be acceptable when women do it" defense. Well men who are argumentative, always trying to change people's opinions, and constantly bragging or talking about themselves are just as annoying! I was reading somewhere thought that men may respond well to and like other men who brag and can beat them in arguments (maybe an alpha- beta-male thing) but they don't like it in women. That's just the way it is.

But that doesn't mean that the men's way is the better way! Is it really beneficial to women to share all of their opinions with others? Have we not learned that this can lead to harsh criticism and negative consequences? Share your most controversial opinions with people who you trust who you already sense may agree with you, or at least accepting of your differences. In many cases if you disagree it is best to not argue especially when that person means nothing to you or has some power over you because you could lose a lot over an unnecessary argument. I would like to know the reasons behind the author's comment, "I  love to pick apart other people’s points, state my case, and vigorously argue my point of view, hopefully winning someone over to my side." Why? Well I guess she doesn't have to justify what she enjoys but what she enjoys may be annoying to others. People like this like to change other people, think they are right about most things, and like to put others in their place by showing them they are wrong. They are not easy people to get along with.  A comment on the post really stood out for me. A commenter stated that she was 99% of the time agreeable, well mannered, and polite but when she argued one rare time she was criticized harshly for it by her husband. Someone else commented, "It just goes to show you being a pushover and a “yes sir, whatever you want sir” type of woman does not gain you respect or admiration." Do you see how being polite and quiet is equated with being a pushover and someone not worthy of respect or admiration? I know these were just two comments but a lot of people think this way.

When I think of wise people, I just can't imagine them arguing about almost anything. They feel secure in their opinions so they don't need to prove they are right to anyone. They don't feel the need to listen to other people's arguments either. If you are secure in your views or if you don't care about what someone else wants to argue about then there is no motivation to get into a debate. I used to like debating a bit too until I noticed how much men hated it and got angry. I didn't think it was worth it because we were debating unimportant things (e.g., whether cats make better pets than dogs, whether air shows should be banned because they are dangerous...seriously) and they became angry at me. I also noticed that when I said controversial things they reacted negatively too and I would have been better off not saying anything. You don't have to say every single thing that comes to your mind or everything that you believe! In today's society we seem to want to be an open book but that is more risky than being quiet, modest, and reserved. So actually, I think that if BW want to protect themselves they should reveal less about themselves and their opinions because there will be less things to attack them for. Voicing opinions about important things should be the goal instead of debating for fun or to feel like a winner (maybe join a debating club for that). This also fits with my new stance on not complaining all the time or venting because they are often useless behaviours that have little benefit.

My point here is to just think about the consequences before you express your opinion and ask yourself if you will actually benefit from sharing. Ask yourself if you will benefit from getting into a debate about the issue. Arguing about important decisions with your partner may be necessary but arguing over politics on your first date is not. There were so many comments on the post basically saying "I was taught to never back down", "I speak my mind and no one will silence me", "Men can speak their minds and are respected so I should be able to do that too" and I think this type of thinking is not in one's best interest (whether someone is female or male). Men have to watch what they say too and can get into fist fights over harmless-seeming debates. Yes women are probably judged more harshly and are rewarded for being more quiet but I think being quiet has it's advantages! Also, if you are in an important discussion with a man and he resorts to calling you names or insulting you then realize that he has just lost the argument because he has nothing relevant to say and has resorted to ad hominem attacks. You have hurt his pride because he lost the argument so he is now trying to hurt you. You probably won't end up getting what you wanted anyway because now he is angry so the argument probably wasn't worth it. Women should be listened to and respected but no one respects argumentative people who try to impose their views on others for no reason. This is just my opinion (lol) because, maybe due to my blogging experiences, I don't enjoy debating my opinions or preferences with anyone and I am turned off by those who try to argue with me.