Slut/stud stereotype reinforces oppression

By Suneela Jain

Andrew Jones’ column (“Sexual double standard is
natural,” Viewpoint, April 17) is built upon a
pseudoscientific foundation and is constructed with value-laden,
contra`ment together.

Jones throws around terms like “sexual Darwinism”
and “biological heritage” as if he has any inkling of
what these terms embody. Jones’ analysis is reminiscent of
the faulty reasoning employed by the Social Darwinists. These
individuals also applied a superficial analysis of Darwinism in an
attempt to prove that women, certain races, and lower social
classes were genetically inferior ““ proven false by the
scientific community.

Jones’ failure to recognize the complexity of evolutionary
psychology and biological evolution completely destroy any validity
his arguments may have held.

Clear evaluation reveals, however, that Jones’ argument
did not need a faulty foundation to fall flat; it never had any
integrity in the first place. When Jones discusses the slut/stud
double standard, it would be helpful if he fully evaluated the
ramifications of supporting both sides of this standard.

Jones claims “decreased single motherhood rates achieved
under the harsh double standard are a positive result (of the
double standard).” While it would be nice to hear any
evidence that calling promiscuous women “sluts” is
causally linked to decreased single motherhood, it would be even
more enlightening to hear how calling men “studs” for
sleeping around also leads to this result.

If Jones truly believed in supporting a decrease in single
motherhood, he would also condemn the societal practice of
supporting male promiscuity. Instead, Jones depends on the fact
that a twenty-five year old man is “less likely to abandon
his wife in pregnancy.”Apparently, we should support a
societal construction that allows men to impregnate women until
they are 25, after which they may stick around to fulfill their
parental responsibilities.

Jones also defeats his own advocacy by claiming that we should
respect the fact that the double standard has naturally developed
from the physical imagery of sex. Apparently, we should support an
idea that evolved from the metaphorical “stabbing” of a
“defenseless woman,” the “sword battle”
ending in a “victory for the man and a defeat for the
woman.” Even if Jones had provided any evidence that this is,
in fact, where the double standard comes from, I would argue that
this is in itself a basis on which to reject the double
standard.

The most disturbing aspect of Jones’ article is the
oppression and violence it validates. Jones claims to give
“power” to women by bestowing upon them the gift of
being able to deny men their sexual impulses. I say that at the
moment in which Jones advocates for a double standard that allows
only one permissible decision, that “power” does not
exist. Any true decision-making power is not tainted by threats of
retribution. In the United States, we are fortunate enough that the
consequence for promiscuity is verbal approbation. However, it is
the slut/stud double standard that prolonged or denied justice for
women in rape cases. In other countries, it is this same double
standard that allows for the harassment and murder of
“slutty” women.

Trying to rationalize a double standard that has led to
inconceivable suffering by claiming scientific justification is
reprehensible. Jones ignores the fact that certain segments of
society have been able to personally gain by perpetuating this
double standard ““ perhaps under the guise of seeking
“stable gender relations and a strong”¦society.”
He also ignores the fact that this “strong society”
sacrifices half of its population and that the double standard
created in its pursuit has been used as a tool to perpetuate female
subservience and to legitimize violence.

Jones can keep his power. I will keep mine.