We now understand why the “queen vs. hoe” binary is harmful but let us talk about how harmful it is to call women “hoes” in the first place. Let’s take it even a step further:
What if I said “hoes” do not exist?
Yep, you read that right. I said what I said.
“Hoes” do not exist.
Read it again. Read it one more time for safe measure. Read it until you’re past your shock and denial. I know what you’re thinking: “Hoes do exist. I see them everyday. They’re walking around my campus as we speak.”
Before I delve into why “hoes” do not exist, let’s talk about what a “hoe” actually is. For one, I can strongly argue that it is a gendered term geared towards women in particular. Whenever you ask someone what a “hoe” is, they often start their response with “a woman that…” Along with that, when people jokingly talk about a very sexually active man, they say a “man hoe” or “man whore” implying that the slur--yes, slur--is not typically meant for men but for women. Lastly, the social consequences of being called a “hoe” are felt heavily by women--not men. Women are literally shunned for being “hoes” whereas men are praised.
Now, the classifications of what makes a woman a “hoe” varies from person to person. Some say a woman who exposes a lot of skin and has a lot sex partners is a “hoe.” Some say a woman who simply wears leggings instead of pants is “hoe.” I’ve even seen men go as far as calling women “hoes” for using the puppy and flower crown filters on Snapchat. Women have been called “hoes” for saying yes and women have been called “hoes” for saying no.
So basically, a woman is a “hoe” for exercising one of her human rights--agency over her body.
People don’t even stop to think about they feel the need to call women “hoes.” I remember awhile back on Twitter, I asked what was the purpose of calling women “hoes.” What do people get out of doing that? No one could answer me. I’ll answer for them.
There is no meaningful purpose behind calling women “hoes.”
The slur “hoe” is meant to control women and our bodies. It is to shame women for doing anything outside of what’s considered acceptable for a woman to do. We are “hoes” when we dare to be sexual for our benefit and not for a man. Women being sexual is considered acceptable, as long as it is for one man.
You still don’t think it’s all about control? You ever noticed that when a woman posts her own nudes, people flip out and call her all kinds of “hoes” but when a man leak her nudes, the backlash she receives is minimal compared to the backlash she would get if she posted her own nudes? People even heart eye her nudes. It’s incredibly troubling that a woman’s nudes are relatively accepted when her privacy and trust has been violated by a man as oppose to her posting her nudes herself.
Another example: Nicki Minaj’s single cover for her track sparked controversy because she was squatting with a thong as thin as dental floss on. People said that she was putting out a negative image to young girls. People shamed her to death about that single cover. Now, those same people are quiet when women dressed just like Nicki was on that single cover are squatting at the feet of some male rapper on his album cover. Women are allowed to be sexual… only if it is for the male gaze--only if it is at a time that men see as acceptable.
This is incredibly violent. Chastising women for being sexual outside of the male gaze implies that as women, our bodies are not ours but solely for the consumption of men. Denying a woman of her human right to agency contributes to rape culture. Sexual assault is about pillaging one’s body. It is about taking power over their body and denying them consent. Suggesting that women should not be sexual unless for a man goes along with this notion of denying women power over our bodies. In other words, when you call women “hoes” for being sexual, you’re also contributing to rape culture.
People even go as far as using a woman being a “hoe” to discredit sexual assault or harassment that happens against her.
These are just a couple of statements I’ve heard that were intended to discredit sexual assault victims. How little do people value women that they excuse sexual assault because a woman wasn’t covered up to their standards? You care about a woman being covered so much that you think if she isn’t, that warrants her body and space being violated? How much do people reduce the fluidity of a woman’s sexuality to the point that they believe that simply because a woman has said “yes” to sex many times before, there’s no way she could say “no” or express that she doesn’t want sex one time?
If we have any sincere intention of ridding our society of rape culture, we have to rid the idea of “hoes.” We have to rid the idea that the only appropriate time for a woman to be a sexual being is when it’s beneficial for a man. When we rid that notion, we also rid the toxic idea that a woman’s body isn’t hers.
What a woman does with her body is her business and it is not our place to judge her morality off of something so superficial. She should not have to be met with such harsh criticism and judgement for simply being human. Calling women “hoes” does nothing but shame women out of feeling in control of their bodies and sexuality. It does nothing but take ownership of a woman’s body away from her into the hands of a man. It does nothing but stigmatize sex and hinders necessary conversations about sex. Not only do we need to move away from the binary “queens vs. hoes” but we also must rid the notion that “hoes” even exist in the first place.