We are told NAWALT (not all women are like that) over and over again. Naturally, the question comes up on whether all women are like that or not or if a particular woman is like that or not. The answer can be more complicated than being either/or. There are many cases where a particular woman may truly not be like that but pretends to be, acts likes a woman like that, or thinks like a woman like that out of some bizarre sense of female solidarity. Here is an example (from a woman using the username “Doomed Harlot”):
I self-identify as a “slut” because I have always opposed the double-standard and the transactional view of sex, and have acted accordingly. On the one hand, I may not qualify under the standards set forth here. I never had sex with, or even kissed, anyone other than a premarital boyfriend of several years and my husband.
For the sake of argument let’s assume that everything “Doomed Harlot” says about her sexual history is true. She has only had sex with two men, one of which is her husband. Yet, she calls herself a slut out of some bizarre desire to oppose supposed double standards and female solidarity. Is “Doomed Harlot” a slut? Is she like that? Technically not, but if she’s willing to talk like one, think like one, and identify as one what is the real meaningful difference between her and an actual slut?
The issue of female solidarity and NAWALT is not limited to slutitude. This applies to a lot of issues. For instance a woman might never intend to divorce or have an abortion herself and find those acts in most or all cases to be immoral, but she will fight against any changes to the law on those subjects. Even if she has no intention of having an abortion or starting a divorce, can she really be said to not be like a woman who does those things?
What has happened is that a lot of women who technically might not be like that have decided that female solidarity is more important than actually demonstrating that they aren’t like that. What is the meaningful difference between a woman who is like that and a woman who isn’t but talks, thinks, and identifies as a woman like that out of a sense of female solidarity? There really is none because either unintentionally or (most likely) intentionally, the woman who isn’t like that but acts like a woman like that is providing cover for the women like that. A woman who truly isn’t like that would want to demonstrate the difference between her and women who are like that.
Going back to the “Doomed Harlot” example, if a woman talks like, thinks like, and identifies as a slut, how is a man supposed to know she isn’t actually a slut? If she thinks she’s a slut then how can men know she really isn’t a slut? If “Doomed Harlot” isn’t going to make an attempt to differentiate herself from actual sluts, why should men?
Unless a woman is willing to clearly demonstrate she is not like that, using NAWALT as an argument is hollow and hypocritical. If a woman doesn’t think it’s important to clearly differentiate herself from women who are like that then men cannot be at fault for thinking she is like that.
