The Double Standard of Female Shame

Source: Sundry Photography/Shutterstock

Teasing out the double standard women and men is a challenge. It challenges us by confronting people with their own bias and by exposing previously ignored gender riddles.

The current #MeToo movement began in 2006, when Tarana Burke used the phrase to mark out difficult often traumatic experiences that were frequently shrugged off as “that’s just how things are”—even by victims. Eleven years later, in 2017, when Alyssa Milano tweeted the phrase, adding a hash tag, previous tolerance of sexual predation turned to outrage. Following the exposure of sexual predation by high status men towards children, boys and girls, this movement, on the whole, has been a huge advance towards female solidarity, power and dignity.

There are nonetheless aspects of the #MeToo movement that raise concerns—for example, how to balance the accuser’s evidence against that of the accused, and how far to make moral distinctions between types of sexual misconduct. But my concern here is different. My concern here is with the double standard that is exposed by common responses to a woman whose husband has been exposed as a sexual predator. These women come under suspicion, and they are shamed.

Of course this isn't fair. These are not cases where a woman participated in any way in the sexual misconduct. She is not accused of grooming victims, or enticing them or silencing them. Is this, then, yet another case where sex becomes a female shaming weapon? It is well understood that the victims have been silenced by shame; they are shamed by disbelief or ridicule or blame (“What did you think would happen?”/ “What did you expect?”) when they speak out. And now we have a reminder of how vulnerable a woman’s dignity is: the misconduct of a man she has sex with shames her. In other words, misconduct is a sexually transmitted disease—albeit a one-way transmission, from men to women, only.

The dynamic of this transmission can be de-coded from responses, male and female, to allegations. When the New York Times announced the investigation into Harvey Weinstein’s misconduct, Weinstein said that his wife Georgina Chapman, was 100 percent behind him.

Later, when Chapman started divorce proceedings against Weinstein, she said she had no idea about his coercive sexual behavior, and would never have remained married to him had she known.

Each of these statements draws on the background norm that the woman is responsible for her man.

Weinstein’s claim that his wife supported him was intended to give the message that the woman who knew him best and was in the best position to represent him, thought him innocent. His remark drew on the assumption that the best witness exonerated him. After all, a woman has "special intuition" that probes a person’s worth; she is supposed to know her man and to love him because he is (underneath rough edges and bluster) fundamentally good.

Knowing her dignity is at risk, a woman whose husband is charged with sexual misconduct selects from one of two lines of defense. Julie Chen responded to accusations of misconduct against her husband Leslie Moonves, former Chairman and CEO of CBS Corp, in language that draws on the Weinstein assumption that a woman is the best witness of her man’s worth: Moonves, Chen said, had always been “a good man and a loving father…I fully support my husband.”

Chapman’s insistence that she did not know, that, in fact, she had no idea that her husband might be guilty of sexual misconduct, is the second defense open to a woman. After all, if she thought her husband was fundamentally good, in spite of rough edges and bluster (Chapman admitted she was aware of Weinstein’s temper), then how can she be shamed by his misconduct?

The problem is that shame does not work according to the legal logic of guilt. Shame involves “losing face”, and a woman whose partner appears guilty of sexual misconduct loses face in two ways. First, there is the supposition that she really did know. People magazine quote colleagues of Weinstein saying that Weinstein was coercive in every walk of life; he was always making people do things. The colleagues were puzzled that they themselves had missed the cues, but seemed nonetheless dubious that a wife, with all that “female intuition,” didn’t somehow really know.

Second, a woman is likely to be shamed because her status is granted by her man’s status; therefore his loss of status diminishes hers. Any sudden drop in status brings shame.

If a husband said about a wife accused of sexual misconduct, “I stand by her and support her. She has always been a good wife and mother,” I do not think these words would be uttered to tame an onslaught of shame. They would more likely be heard as, “I have loved my wife; I see many good things in her. I offer my support in these bad times.” We would see connection and decency, not bravado in the face of shame. After all, he didn’t know.

Embarrassment Essential Reads

Humiliations Galore: Surviving, Perhaps Thriving?

Managing Embarrassment

If a man’s spouse loses status then he is likely to receive sympathy and support. His status, assumed to be his own, is unchanged. At worst, he is the victim of a woman’s deceit–something a man can own without shame. In this scenario, where a woman behaves dishonorably, each person bears responsibility for her own actions, only. When a man misbehaves, it is (at least partly) the woman’s fault—just as Adam’s fall in the Bible is often portrayed as Eve’s fault.

It is important that we absorb all lessons of the #MeToo movement, even those that highlight flaws in the most well-meaning hearts. It’s purpose, after all, is to challenge norms and to re-configure shame so that it only falls on those who are shameful.