Ferdinand Bardimu, of late memory, was a big fan of shame. Matt Forney published this there and Chuck Ross reblogged it, so the attitude is not confined to him.
The belief of all these guys is that shame is a legitimate and even laudatory tool of social control. My belief is there are two kinds of shame. One is used to keep in-group members in line; it’s only used on low-ranking ones, so it’s still a harsh thing. The other is used to keep outsiders out, and further reduce their status. The first I will admit is legitimate; if you want to be a member of a group you have to accept its rules, its rewards, punishments and sanctions. Groups that rely on shaming are usually low-quality groups that you wouldn’t really want to belong to anyway, but if that’s your thing, knock yourself out.
The second kind is not really recognized as legitimate, even by relatively amoral people. Outsiders are supposed to be left alone. Only crappy people who need somebody to pick on somebody weak hassle outsiders. Because this is the case, people shaming outsiders will try to put it in terms of legitimate social control or justice.
Not many people can legitimately shame you. Your parents? “I disappoint you, Mom? Maybe birth control would have been a good idea.” Your girlfriend? “If you could get a better guy you would be gone already”. Your friends? If they’re losers enough to hang out with you, they should probably look in the mirror.
You can choose whether to feel shame or not. If to you the behavior or quality being criticized is actually bad, you can admit it, and either commit to changing it, not commit to changing it, or confess it to be out of your control.
Easier said than done, because society is built around shame. But it’s better to confine meeting other people’s expectations to those that really affect your well-being.