Misogynist Logic

Anonymous

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

Knowing how much young men love to refer to basic dictionary definitions to discuss complex concepts, I figured the definition of ‘logic’ would be a convenient starting place in addressing the recent anonymous analysis of ‘thot logic’ on Murdoch Confessions.

First let’s briefly outline some terminology. Word limit prevents me from delving into the history in detail, but ‘thot’ originated from African American Vernacular English, since becoming popular in mainstream culture so there is a good chance the meaning has evolved. In its current form it has the same effect as hoe, slut, and whatever other terms people use to attempt to devalue, ridicule and dismiss women.

Urban dictionary provides a particularly delightful meaning: “A woman who pretends to be the type of valuable female commodity who rightfully earns male commitment – until the man discovers that she’s just a cheap imitation of a ‘good girl’ who is good only for mindless sex, not relationships or respect.” Yikes.

Thot patrol: essentially a group of men ‘outing’ women as being thots, supposedly to protect each other. Online thot patrol groups involve men posting women’s images and profiles to encourage ridicule, harassment, and excessive reporting of their targets’ social media profiles until the profiles are removed. Some women withdraw from social media themselves, to avoid the harassment. Confessor is surprised that this isn’t happening at Murdoch. I am surprised Confessor is in law rather than prison, since they are so comfortable displaying blatant disrespect for simple laws like not harassing women.

Let’s look at the logical analysis of thot logic provided by Confessor, who we can safely assume is an 18-24 year old male law student. Men in law, particularly, are held up to be the epitome of logic and reason so I expect we will discover some very meaningful insight.

Ø  dress in the sluttiest clothes imaginable

We are asked to accept that the type of cloth a woman drapes over her external skeleton directly correlates to her sexual activities. OK, let’s assume that is correct for a moment.

Ø  get super drunk and screw everything that isn’t nailed down

The real problem in this scenario is the fact that anyone is having sex with someone who has been identified as ‘super drunk’ but I think we’re supposed to ignore that and focus on the implication that the super drunk woman is bad for being drunk and bad for having sex with ‘everything’. I take ‘everything’ to mean ‘anyone else who is not me’ because let’s face it, guys most often label women as hoes, sluts, thots et cetera when they’re not the one the woman is having sex with. We are expected to accept that this is thot behaviour and because thot behaviour is deserving of patrol aka harassment, we can surmise that the behaviour is perceived as bad.

Ø  omg I can’t believe that we’re so objectified by men

Omg right? How illogical that women, who repeatedly state that they are worth more than their sexual activities, would be upset when they are reduced to and solely defined by their sexual activities. How incredulous that women want to exist as sexual beings who are also complex humans with skills, virtues, needs, goals and achievements. Most of us are just trying to navigate our way through a society that tells us our value is inherently tied to our fuckability, while simultaneously devaluing us if we are perceived as being fuckable. It’s a lose – lose situation where the only real ‘winners’ are those who spend excruciating effort trying to walk a subjective fine-lined tightrope of ‘fuckable good girl’ that shifts depending on who’s holding the rope.

I understand why confessor thinks ‘thot logic’ is nonsensical, their premise is essentially that women who express sexuality want to be objectified and treated as less than human so it is illogical to be surprised when they are treated as less than human. Confessor also seems to believe that women’s sexuality is inherently bad and deserving of dehumanisation. Objectification and dehumanisation can be used interchangeably in this context: objectification specifically refers to being treated as an object, dehumanisation is being treated less than human. Being treated as an object is being treated as less than human. Unfortunately for confessor, logic must be based on strict principles of validity. Until hundreds of thousands of women confirm that they’d like their humanity stripped away each time they have sex, I’m afraid your premise is invalid. As for believing that it’s acceptable to treat anyone as less than human, I can’t even begin to address how disturbing it is that you are in law school at our university, where everyone deserves to be treated with basic respect and dignity.

I’m not sure what is so difficult to understand about women existing as sexual beings while still being seen as complete, complex, humans. Somehow, men have been able to achieve these two things simultaneously for centuries. The frequency that a man has sex does not impact his perceived humanity; it’s time to reject the idea that women’s intelligence, virtues and inherent human value can somehow be eroded every time we choose to show skin or take a sexual partner.