Put up or shut up.
I am a feminist. My family know this. All of my friends know this. In fact, very often I go to great lengths to make sure none of them forget it. And although I was shy and quiet at school, since then I have gotten pretty good at speaking my mind when necessary. Of course sometimes people still underestimate this until the critical moment...
Which is why I find myself increasingly exasperated with my reticence in challenging the casual sexism of strangers; those conversations which promote double standards, or reduce women to objects, vessels to be filled or interpreted. And just so we're clear, sexism does not mean conversations about sex. I have no problem with conversations about sex. In fact I frequently participate in them. That I feel it necessary to make such a distinction is probably telling enough but perhaps an example would be useful here. Last summer, I found myself sat in the sunshine with friends, listening to mutual aquaintances have a conversation along these lines...
Idiot 1: Yeah well if she was going out with Baz she must be well easy.
Idiot 2: Hey, it's not my fault all the sluts love me...
I could continue with this but frankly I shouldn't have let it go uninterrupted the first time around. And why didn't I interrupt? It's a question I've asked myself alot since then, but I suspect it comes down to my own conditioning. Conditioning which says to challenge such exchanges is petty, prudish and just no fun. Exactly what people would expect from 'feminists' who inevitably hate men and by implication sex too right?
But since I happen to believe that words have power, allowing myself to be silenced because of fear that I will be derided and misinterpreted is pretty much the definition of patriarchy in action. And I could keep talking about patriarchy and power structures and dominant discourses but what it comes down to is this... it's like racism or homophobia or anything else - we keep our mouths shut at our peril.
If male voices continue to be the ones that are unconsciously privileged, the ones that we feel compelled to listen to regardless of what they are actually saying, then women will continue to feel that their stories, opinions, emotions are less important. If it's ok to talk about women as objects then surely it's ok to treat them like that too.
Of course I could try to justify my behaviour as a simple matter of minding my own business. Freedom of speech and the seemingly universal ability we all have to go selectively deaf, blind and dumb when behaviour that we find bizarre, threatening or just plain wrong is taking place in front of us. But it isn't as simple as live and let live because conversations like this hurt people. By ignoring it I contributed to a world where judging women on the basis of their sexual behaviour is normal. And ok. And common. I don't want to live in that world so I have a responsibility to do something about it.
The irony is that my friends, the people with whom I do feel able to speak freely, are lovely and intelligent. They don't agree with all of my opinions but generally speaking they aren't sexist in their words or deeds... they don't care how many men I've slept with or how short a skirt I'm wearing (or at least it doesn't change their perception of me as a person!) They really don't need my feminist fire and fury.
And, hey, even if wading into the fray with strangers earns me nothing but a barrage of abuse at least I'll be able to collect a few more anti-feminist bingo cards.
Which is why I find myself increasingly exasperated with my reticence in challenging the casual sexism of strangers; those conversations which promote double standards, or reduce women to objects, vessels to be filled or interpreted. And just so we're clear, sexism does not mean conversations about sex. I have no problem with conversations about sex. In fact I frequently participate in them. That I feel it necessary to make such a distinction is probably telling enough but perhaps an example would be useful here. Last summer, I found myself sat in the sunshine with friends, listening to mutual aquaintances have a conversation along these lines...
Idiot 1: Yeah well if she was going out with Baz she must be well easy.
Idiot 2: Hey, it's not my fault all the sluts love me...
I could continue with this but frankly I shouldn't have let it go uninterrupted the first time around. And why didn't I interrupt? It's a question I've asked myself alot since then, but I suspect it comes down to my own conditioning. Conditioning which says to challenge such exchanges is petty, prudish and just no fun. Exactly what people would expect from 'feminists' who inevitably hate men and by implication sex too right?
But since I happen to believe that words have power, allowing myself to be silenced because of fear that I will be derided and misinterpreted is pretty much the definition of patriarchy in action. And I could keep talking about patriarchy and power structures and dominant discourses but what it comes down to is this... it's like racism or homophobia or anything else - we keep our mouths shut at our peril.
If male voices continue to be the ones that are unconsciously privileged, the ones that we feel compelled to listen to regardless of what they are actually saying, then women will continue to feel that their stories, opinions, emotions are less important. If it's ok to talk about women as objects then surely it's ok to treat them like that too.
Of course I could try to justify my behaviour as a simple matter of minding my own business. Freedom of speech and the seemingly universal ability we all have to go selectively deaf, blind and dumb when behaviour that we find bizarre, threatening or just plain wrong is taking place in front of us. But it isn't as simple as live and let live because conversations like this hurt people. By ignoring it I contributed to a world where judging women on the basis of their sexual behaviour is normal. And ok. And common. I don't want to live in that world so I have a responsibility to do something about it.
The irony is that my friends, the people with whom I do feel able to speak freely, are lovely and intelligent. They don't agree with all of my opinions but generally speaking they aren't sexist in their words or deeds... they don't care how many men I've slept with or how short a skirt I'm wearing (or at least it doesn't change their perception of me as a person!) They really don't need my feminist fire and fury.
And, hey, even if wading into the fray with strangers earns me nothing but a barrage of abuse at least I'll be able to collect a few more anti-feminist bingo cards.
posted by Kate | 17:50
7 Comments:
Well, I'm a bit on the fence about stuff like this. I used to feel the same way about atheism - that it was my duty to educate and inform people about what I know to be right. But these days I find myself less inclined to wade in to religious discussion (although I won't shy away if someone approaches me with it). Partly it's because I wouldn't necessarily appreciate the hubris of someone who thinks they hear the words of the One True God. I don't think that reasoning applies to something like feminism where it's more demonstrable that misogyny causes societal harm.
Mostly though it's because I'm no longer convinced that the best way to challenge people, as an atheist, is tell them how their beliefs are incorrect. Now I'm much more concerned about presenting atheism in a positive light by living a life that sets a positive example. Many religious people don't respond well to "Dawkins-style" atheist overtures, and I suspect those you overheard would remain unaffected, or even hardened, by an approach of "Greer-style" feminist rhetoric.
There's also the point (that you bring up) about putting yourself at personal risk, and while I'm willing to do this if I think I can save someone from immediate danger, I don't think it's cowardice to expend your efforts in the most meaningful way possible, and that doesn't include getting your name in the paper as the victim of an anti-feminist stabbing. Maybe good for your cause, but martyrdom is a tool of oppressive male heirarchy in any case...
I can see why you might suspect me of Greer style feminist rhetoric(!) but I'm not sure that's exactly what I mean.
It's more that for the most part people recognise that it's unacceptable to stand around and use massively racist language for example. We've got to the stage where, rightly, that is pretty much tabboo.
Whereas to use sexist and mysogynistic speech is still seen as 'normal'. Even if it's as simple as people speaking up and saying 'hey, that offends me' that might help to contribute to a culture shift where mysogyny is equally unacceptable.
Tempting as it is I probably would still refrain from giving a larger scale analysis of the pitfalls of patriarchy! And, perhaps naievely, I think lots of people use words like 'slut' and 'whore' without really thinking about what they mean, so a quick challenge might be enough to do something about it.
I actually have, in non-joking way, challenged someone who casually used the word "slut". (I'm not really in the habit of picking my friends up on their language, since it's probably a pretty quick way lose them. And also rather hypocritical since I even get grumpy about being told not to say "fuck" near children. Generally, everyone should be allowed to say what they want.)
Anyway, in this case it was a female friend talking about a friend of hers and she said something along the lines of "I love her loads, but she's such a slut". I pointed out that the equivalent male term for someone perceived to have a lot of sex with different people would be something like "stud". (Or if we were living in the 1940s maybe something like "ladies' man".) In any case, it wouldn't have such negative connotations, so wasn't it perpetuating unfair attitudes about women?
I thought I was on fairly solid ground with this one, but it started a fairly heated debate with some other people, more about language than feminism. I can't remember everything that was said, but one key point was that my friend wasn't really talking about how many sexual partners her friend had, but more that she had a fairly free, relaxed, hedonistic attitude to life, wore revealing clothes, and was often publicly flirtatious with men. We need some word for this behaviour and "slut" was a nice short one. She didn't mean any unkindness and her friend wouldn't have been particularly offended. Presumably she has an exciting sex-life or she doesn't mind people thinking that.
If I needed to describe someone wearing sportswear and jewelry and driving a car with neon lights under it whilst listening to RnB music, I surely would be tempted to talk about them as a "chav" wouldn't I? I might be making assumptions about their socio-economic background or I might not, but people would get the idea.
So is this sort of thing is as bad as using racial slurs, which come with a whole history of hatred and reflect nothing to do with behaviour, only appearance? Some racist words are taboo, but this can only happen once there is a concise, non-racist alternative. Where is the non-sexist replacement for "slut" or "whore"? In some circles at some times, the phrase "coloured people" was considered racist but "people of colour" wasn't. The news media were told to stop talking about a "prostitute-killer" and talk about a "killer who targetted women who work as prostitutes". I don't want us to ban the word "slut" and just end up talking about "women of slutty lifestyle".
Or she's not a "little whore", she's a young girl whose sex live is, in frequency and variety, reminiscient of that of a sex-industry professional. Lucky thing. Obviously, real sex-provision operatives endure violence and abuse whatever they are called.
Basically, I'm almost convinced that words are the sympton and not the problem. There are lots of people who think that a particular level of promiscuity is wrong for women, but harmless for men. And there are people that really treat women as sub-human pieces of meat. If I disagree with these people, shouldn't I argue with all of them, not just the ones that actually say "slut" or "whore"?
I don't think it matters whether you confront your friends for their use of words which may or may not encourage underlying attitudes. I don't think it's going to stop any rapes, forced marriages or prostitute murders. But things like stopping sex trafficking, funding for shelters, safer streets, regulated brothels, better policing just might.
I like the stuff that Amnesty is doing to end violence against women, and I will look out for genuine bigots to argue with, but next time anyone tells me about their slutty friends I'm going say "cool, could you introduce us?"
Chris - I think you miss my point to a certain extent. The kinds of conversations I'm talking about are those in which words very clearly do reflect damaging attitudes, whether or not any obviously sexist tags are used. The example I referenced wasn't between a bunch of people referring affectionately to their friends in a "we're so close we don't have to worry about being misintepreted, aren't we radical for breaking tabboos" kind of way. It was between entirely male participants and the clear implication was that since the girl in question was 'easy' she was somehow a bit suspect. Good for a cheap lay but not especially deserving of any respect, even at the basic level of being a human being. Even in the case of your friend, "I love her loads but she's such a slut" still prefaces the slut part with a but, which to me still implies negative connotations.
Whether or not you find the word slut offensive in and of itself (and I still do, because I would argue that it does have a long and not particularly glorious history of hatred and control against women and their sexuality)it would be a nonsense to say that their aren't plenty of people who use it in order to demean.
And I'm not even sure that I agree that we need some kind of word for 'sexually adventurous and happy to experiment with a bunch of partners'. It isn't a sometimes necessary category like gender or race. Is a woman who enjoys sex and doesn't restrict herself to one partner really such a shocking thing that she needs swiftly defining and containing? If the whole thing wasn't still such a big deal we wouldn't be hung up on needing a word to explain it at all.
Finally, and most importantly, the way we talk about things absolutely can have a bearing on real life violence against women. If you grow up hearing people talk about women as either lumps of meat, or categorised into 'good girls' with whom you have to follow the rules and 'bad girls' who deserve everything that's coming to them you are bound to have a more permissive attitude to issues of consent if someone dresses provocatively or has a reputation for sleeping around.
Going back to Duncan's point - I think challenging friends' specific small actions/words is probably one way in which people do change their thinking, although if they're anything like me they certainly won't admit it at the time! Unfortunately there's not really a culture of doing this in our society.
I agree that:
- arguing more abstractly about ideologies is unlikely to have much impact. (I to am more likely to shy away from this kind of more-heat-than-light debate)
- setting a positive example is a good approach and means that any arguments you do end up in will be from a place of integrity.
Kate, you say you aren't convinced that we need a word for "sexually adventurous and happy to experiment with a bunch of partners" because that would mean it's such a shocking thing that needs to be defined and contained. You could say that about anything. For example, homosexuality shouldn't be shocking either, but it's still useful to have a word for it that isn't offensive. In fact, in that case it's interesting that new words have to be found as the old ones become offensive, then sometimes they get reclaimed over again.
By the way, if we did need a word for this then I reckon "hussie" would be a better choice to start with than "slut". It seems to have a nicer sound, and because it seems easier to apply to both sexes. I quite like "perv" too, that's really gender-neutral, but it does seem to imply less conventional interests.
To make a wider point, I'm not at all convinced that the words we use reinforce and affect people's behaviour as much as some people think. (Maybe, understandably, people that do a lot of reading and writing come to think that words are very important and think that words create rather than reflect attitudes.) I don't think sexist language makes people sexist, any more than I think violent porn makes people violent, or that watching World War 2 movies makes people want to annex the Sudetenland. Sexist people obviously use sexist language, but that wasn't what made them like that.
It seems much more likely that people acquire their bigotry and prejudices from the bad example of their family and friends, particularly when they are young. They don't shake them off until they meet some nice people, if ever. So I guess I agree with Jon that positive examples are important. Maybe we need a character in a soap opera that sleeps around a lot, but is also a deeply kind and good person?
Chris- I agree entirely that people learn sexist attitudes from those around them. But I would still maintain that words are one crucial medium through which such attitudes can be passed on. Also, we are all products of sexist condioning to one exent or another. Even if you want to argue that words reflect rather than cause problems, examining their casual use might help us to identify prejudices or hang ups we never realised we had. I think ultimately we might have to agree to disagree on this one, since I think language is incredibly important in almost all of our higher beliefs and thought patterns. Without words it is hard for us to grapple with or define almost anything, so I'm never going to be convinced that the way we use them doesn't matter.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home