Tags
accountability, complicity, gender slurs, Heteropatriarchy, hugo schwyzer, intersectionality, male allies, male power, Male privilege, Misogyny, objectification, responsibility, Sexism, sexist language, sexist oppression, White supremacy, whiteness, women of color
TRIGGER WARNING: This post cites examples of misogynistic language, gender slurs, sexual objectification, and other forms of sexist oppression.
A couple of weeks ago, I came across an article on Vice that was oddly titled, “You’re a Pussy If You Think There’s a War on Men.” It seemed clear that the author, Harry Cheadle, was referring to an awful “reverse sexist” and anti-feminist article about “The War on Men,” which asserts that women are to blame for the “dearth of good men” and must “surrender to their nature” while letting “men surrender to theirs.” Cheadle writes in defense of feminism and exposes the absurdity of claiming that men are “oppressed” by women. While I agree with his arguments that men need to stop blaming and fearing women, the sexist use of the word “pussy” in his title couldn’t be overlooked. After a brief conversation with friends who also found it offensive, I decided to write an e-mail to the author. I expressed overall support for his post and agreed that men need to be held accountable for their sexism, but I also pointed out that using the word “pussy” as a slur to characterize men as “cowardly” and “weak” is still misogynistic because it relies on degrading a woman’s body. It reinforces the sexist logic that being called a woman or, in this case, a body part of a woman, is always negative, demeaning, and shameful. It reminds us that in order for men to feel truly insulted, they must be compared to women because women, as heteropatriarchy teaches us, are weaker and inferior to men. I mentioned in my e-mail that I had no problem with calling men out on their laziness, lack of accountability, and insecurities. However, using the word “pussy” to describe their fear of women is counter-productive and perpetuates sexist attitudes.
I never heard back from him, but a few days later, a friend of mine noticed a status update on Cheadle’s public Facebook wall*, which read:
Just got an email from someone who A) assumed I was an ally in the “feminist struggle” B)Took issue with my use of the word “pussy” in my article “You’re a Pussy if You Think There’s a War on Men” and C) informed me that “the term is not only misogynistic, but also inaccurate since the vagina is actually quite tough, not weak.” asldkfjalsjf adlsj foiasj doia e
When it was asked on the comment thread about whether or not he identified as an ally, Cheadle responded, “I just hate whiners and knee-jerk anti-feminists. I don’t really feel that I’m a part of the whole feminist enterprise, and I don’t really want to be.”
Not sure what he meant by “feminist enterprise,” but I was taken aback when I read these comments because I felt that I was being supportive of his article’s overall message. The quote he used from my e-mail (point C) was actually me paraphrasing common anti-sexist responses to those who equate the vagina with “weakness.” I also pointed out in my e-mail that women have done a lot of work on gendered insults and the impact they have on society, so I was confused as to why he saw me as being a “knee-jerk anti-feminist.” What I noticed the most, however, was his refusal to acknowledge the sexism in his title, which he never chose to change.
I share the above as an example of something I want to discuss in a broader context: sexism and misogyny from men in Leftist spaces and their refusal to hold themselves accountable, even when they are called out on it. What does it mean when a man speaks in defense of feminism, but then, after being informed of his sexism, rejects being an ally in order to absolve himself of any accountability? What are the implications for women who self-identify as feminist when men can easily reject feminism or disassociate from it to excuse and normalize their own sexism? In this post, I will discuss how this refusal of accountability contributes to violence against women, beginning with the usage of misogynistic language, then addressing the various manifestations of sexist oppression, and concluding with points on doing work to end this violence.
1. Misogynistic Language
Whether we are men who self-identify as anti-racist, advocate against homophobia, hold leadership positions in radical movements, rightly express outrage against right-wing misogynists and patriarchy at large, write articles that condemn all forms of injustice, or all of the above, none of this gives us a free pass on sexism, including sexist language. Gendered insults like “pussy,” “cunt,” “bitch,” “slut,” “whore,” etc. are so normalized and acceptable that we hear them in classrooms, workplaces, activist groups, and from our friends and colleagues. In mainstream media, the frequent and increased use of the “b” word on prime-time TV shows over the past decade only reinforces this acceptability. Even in popular video games like Batman: Arkham City, women characters like Catwoman and Harley Quinn are repeatedly called the “b” word by both good and bad male characters (and when women gamers address sexism in gaming, many men respond by trivializing the slurs and making misogynistic attacks). The pervasiveness and normalization of misogynistic language is not simply limited to particular movies, games, songs, or novels, but rather reflective of the sexist and patriarchal values that shape society. These sexist values, as bell hooks explains, are “created and sustained by white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.”
There is a long violent history of these words being used to shame, exploit, persecute, rape, and murder women, especially women of color, who face racism and misogyny simultaneously. Sikivu Hutchinson explains that linking the word “bitch” with “bad girls” has strong racial connotations since “black women have always been deemed ‘bad’ in the eyes of the dominant culture, as less than feminine, as bodies for pornographic exploitation.” Azjones0210 mentions in her blog post that the Oxford dictionary includes a definition that states “bitch” is a “black slang” for “woman.” She elaborates:
[O]ur culture has attached the word “bitch” to the character of a black woman so many times that it deserves to be integrated into our formal language system. Regardless of the word “slang” existing within the definition, it is still there. This is not present for other racial groups in the way it is present for black women. This says to the world that when I walk down the street, and people see me and identify me as black, it is acceptable to connect the word “bitch” to me and everything that it carries way before I even open my mouth or complete any sort of action.
AF3IRM, a feminist and anti-imperialist organization whose membership identifies as “transnational women who are im/migrants or whose families are im/migrants from Latin America, Asia, and Africa,” addressed the history of the word “slut” for women of color and how it continues to be used against them:
This label is one forced upon us by colonizers, who transformed our women into commodities and for the entertainment of US soldiers occupying our countries for corporate America. There are many variations of the label “slut”: in Central America it was “little brown fucking machines (LBFMs)”, in places in Asia like the Philippines, it was “little brown fucking machines powered by rice (LBFMPBRs)”. These events continue to this day, and it would be a grievous dishonor to our cousins who continue to struggle against imperialism, globalization and occupation in our families’ countries of origin to accept a label coming from a white police officer in the city of Toronto, Canada.
When white men and men of color who proclaim to be “progressive” and “anti-oppression” refuse to stop using misogynistic language, they participate in another form of violence against women and end up damaging activist spaces that are supposed to be safe. A typical response is to blame women: “But women say these words, too!” Another excuse is that they were using the “b” word as a “compliment” in a “reclaimed context.” A couple of points need to be addressed here: (1) Some women of color and white women believe in reclaiming gender slurs, and some disagree. (2) Whether or not the women in our lives say these words, men should never say them. A woman saying the “b” word compared to a man saying it is very different. Given the history and present day realities I mentioned above, men are in no position to “reclaim” those words nor do they have any right to tell women not to say them. I’ve seen white men and men of color who self-identify as anti-racist use the “b” word in ways to exert dominance over others, including other men (e.g. “Man up, bitch!”), or to “humorously” refer to a group of male and female friends (e.g. “Got a new phone, send me your numbers, bitches!”) None of this is “ok,” no matter what the “intent” is.
When describing racist and/or homophobic women, there are men with progressive politics, whether white or of color, heterosexual or gay, who somehow think it is permissible to use misogynistic language and slurs. Again, this is unacceptable. We need to go beyond “restraining ourselves” from using these words. Instead, we need to eliminate misogynistic language from our vocabulary and challenge the ways in which this language has shaped our perception and attitudes towards women. This doesn’t negate the activist work we already do nor does it diminish the racism of racist women, but rather calls for us to work against sexist oppression and take responsibility for unlearning the serious ways in which we’ve internalized sexist socialization.
2. Men on the Left Perpetuating Sexist Oppression
In addition to misogynistic language, sexual harassment, rape, and the silencing of women is disturbingly common in Leftist spaces. In a hostile white supremacist and heteropatriarchal climate where many women, especially women of color, cannot call the police because they do not want to strengthen the state or be further victimized by it, working collectively against misogyny and gender violence within activist movements is crucial. If a male activist threatens a woman, or follows her home, or sexually harasses her in a meeting or a rally, or tries to silence and shame her, or rapes her, this man must be held accountable. What’s disturbing is how white men and men of color appoint themselves as “leaders” and use their “activist credibility” or “celebrity” status to hide and excuse their own sexism. On one hand, there are male activists who reject feminism, as discussed above, but then there are men who consciously insert themselves into feminist discourse and assert authority over it. Hugo Schwyzer, for instance, persistently defines himself as a “male feminist,” yet doesn’t see the harm he causes when dismissing his history of engaging in sexual relations with students or writing about how he almost murdered his ex-girlfriend and then made himself the “hero” for not following through with it. Angus Johnston of Student Activism describes this crime as an act of gendered violence and explains that “in all his (Schwyzer’s) writing about this act he has never addressed its implications for his feminism — the feminism he professed when he committed the crime, or the feminism he professes today.”
When writing about “slutwalk,” Schwyzer described his role as “herding sluts” and then gave racist responses to criticism from women of color. Elsewhere, Schwyzer wrote an outrageous article that tried to justify degrading sex acts against women (read Tiger Beatdown’s important response to his post). By declaring himself a “feminist” and advertising himself (as seen on his website) as an “author, speaker, professor” who “shatters gender myths,” Schwyzer dangerously tries to legitimize his sexism as feminist discourse. Refusing to check his white male privilege and power, which has undoubtedly contributed to his “celebrity” status, Schwyzer allows other men to see his behavior and beliefs as “feminism.” When it is taken into account that Schwyzer proudly sees himself as “paternalistic,” it isn’t surprising that he deflects criticism so defensively. His refusal to see this violence is evident in his own words:
Go ahead, call me paternalistic. I’ll wear that title with pride, thank you. I see my students not merely as independent, autonomous agents whom I need to empower, but as vulnerable young people whom I — and others around me — need to protect. And I still have the nerve to call myself a feminist.
I have seen similar refusal from white men and men of color that I’ve come in contact with. Last year, I wrote a post, “Unlearning Sexism and Other Oppressions,” where I mentioned a male photography “activist” who took an invasive, zoomed-in photo of a woman’s body and shared it on his Facebook for public viewing. When white men and men of color left despicable and sexually objectifying comments, I was alarmed to see one of my “friends,” a man of color who asserts himself as a “leader” in his local activist community, participating in this objectification. When I and another male friend/ally wrote to him about this, he responded by denying that anything ever happened. We went back to the photo and noticed that he had deleted his comment. We and a few other friends (women and men) who saw the comment earlier must have been “seeing things” (sarcasm). After confronting him on this, he went on about how his friend, the man who took the photo, is an ally in anti-racist struggle and has even gotten arrested for taking photos of the police. The troubling implication seemed to be that if a man does important social justice work and got arrested several times, it somehow “erases” his misogyny and the harm he caused by sexually objectifying women.
Along with shamelessly lying that he ever commented on the photo, this man never took action against the photographer. Despite the messages my friends and I sent to people in our network and asked them to report the image, it still remained posted. A couple of weeks later, this same man commented on another photo, this time of a woman modeling in a bikini (which appeared on my news feed even though the person who posted it is not on my friend’s list). As men left perverted comments, he encouraged their objectification by saying: “Be careful. some of the puritanical leftists will gouge our eyes out. we must remain serious at all times. after all, we are activists. humor is banned at all times 
” (smiley icon in original).
When friends and I wrote to him and voiced our outrage, we never received a reply. Some of us, including myself, deleted him, but still see his hypocritical “anti-patriarchy” comments posted on mutual friend’s walls. I sent out messages to many of these mutual friends and while some were definitely outraged, others excused his behavior due to his activist work and “leadership” role. So, men who perpetuate sexual objection or other forms of sexist oppression can get away with it just because they do “important work” overall? What does this say about sexism and misogyny? That these issues are “secondary,” “not as important,” and disconnected from struggles against other forms of oppression? What some failed to take into account was how men like him are not unique in Leftist movements.
As my friend Sitara wrote in reference to a white male activist in her community:
What does it mean for our movement that a known abuser (who has REFUSED to address his actions in any meaningful way) has put out a call to form a national revolutionary organization whose platform includes “rejecting patriarchy” in all its forms, including “familial roles”? Answer: nothing good.
In Courtney Desiree Morris’s very important post, “Why Misogynists Make Great Informants: How Gender Violence on the Left Enables State Violence in Radical Movements,” she describes the numerous encounters she had with abusive men:
There were men like this in various organizations I worked with. The one who called his girlfriend a bitch in front of a group of youth of color during a summer encuentro we were hosting. The one who sexually harassed a queer Chicana couple during a trip to México, trying to pressure them into a threesome. The guys who said they would complete a task, didn’t do it, brushed off their compañeras’ demands for accountability, let those women take over the task, and when it was finished took all the credit for someone else’s hard work. The graduate student who hit his partner—and everyone knew he’d done it, but whenever anyone asked, people would just look ashamed and embarrassed and mumble, “It’s complicated.” The ones who constantly demeaned queer folks, even people they organized with. Especially the one who thought it would be a revolutionary act to “kill all these faggots, these niggas on the down low, who are fucking up our children, fucking up our homes, fucking up our world, and fucking up our lives!” The one who would shout you down in a meeting or tell you that you couldn’t be a feminist because you were too pretty. Or the one who thought homosexuality was a disease from Europe.
Yeah, that guy.
While she points out that many of these men were probably not informants, “the work that they do supports the state’s ongoing campaign of terror against social movements and the people who create them.” I suspect that many male readers will read the examples shared above and think, “Well, I’ve never done any of that, so I can’t be sexist.” However, this belief is an “innocence” mindset that fails to address our responsibilities as well as the ways in which we are complicit in reproducing oppression.
3. Accountability
There needs to be clarification that not all men benefit from sexism and heteropatriarchy in the same way. Certainly, the ways in which gender and race intersect must be taken into account.The framework here isn’t “all men are the same” or “men are the enemies,” but rather that white men and men of color need to practice accountability and understand the different, though interconnected, effects interlocking systems of oppression has on them (e.g. heterosexual cis-gendered white men benefit from both white supremacy and patriarchy). Men of color are horribly demonized and victimized by racist forces in society (as are women of color), though this should not absolve them of sexism and misogyny. White women can exert power over men of color and women of color through racism and reinforcing white supremacy, though this doesn’t lessen the importance of dismantling heteropatriarchy (which is interlocked with white supremacy).
As Morris writes, “Dismantling misogyny cannot be work that only women do. We all must do the work because the survival of our movements depends on it.” Abusive male activist “leaders” maintain power not only by reproducing heteropatriarchy, but also because they are upheld by those who actively support them, which includes both men and women. This support is not always a result of passive or naive internalization of sexist oppression; there is active participation, too. When this complex process is failed to be understood, men may dismiss how harmful sexual objectification is, for example, and make excuses like, “Well, women were commenting on that photo, too” or “But, women weren’t offended by that photo.” Instead of using other women to justify our sexism, we need to challenge heteropatriarchy and work within a framework of accountability. Another mistake that many men (not just those with radical politics, but also those who consider themselves liberal or progressive) make is think they are “outside of patriarchy” just because they read feminist literature, attend patriarchy workshops, have women friends, etc. When we are called out on sexism, instead of getting defensive and claiming that we are “not sexist,” we should be more concerned about whether or not we are reinforcing sexism, either through our language, our behaviors, actions or non-actions, etc. I believe bell hooks’ words are relevant here:
All men support and perpetuate sexism and sexist oppression in one form or another… While they need not blame themselves for accepting sexism, they must assume responsibility for eliminating it.
This is not about men taking on “savior” roles, but instead taking responsibility for their complicity. We are complicit when we are silent about misogyny within movements; we are complicit when we tell women to ignore sexist oppression; we are complicit when we laugh at misogynistic “jokes”; we are complicit when we encourage sexual objectification instead of challenging it; we are complicit when we continue friendships with these abusive men despite knowing the damage their misogyny is causing; we are complicit when we make the conscious decision to refuse listening to those who are calling us out on being silent or participants in any of the above.
Responsibility doesn’t mean we should speak for women either. As I was sharing with a friend, I often get tired of calling white people out on their racism all the time and think it’s important to have solidarity from anti-racist white allies. I don’t need white people to speak for me, for instance, though at the same time, I don’t want to be on the receiving end of racism while my white friends just stand around and do nothing. Similarly, it’s not enough for men to simply say, “Oh that’s messed up,” when they see or hear the sexism of male allies. It is important to confront these men, especially if these are men we work with, study with, have friendships with, etc. If we say or do nothing while women are struggling to address these issues, we are only resuming our complicity.
We need to seriously reevaluate and question what is happening in our communities. If a powerfully positioned “leader” in a radical space that strives to end all forms of oppression is a man who uses bullying, shaming, violence, and other oppressive tactics towards members in the group, why is this injustice allowed to continue? Why is he standing on a podium, dominating the mic, and leading a large rally of people who are seeking to end oppressive behaviors like his? Why is he held up as a “representative” for his community, being interviewed by the media, quoted in newspapers, or featured on popular blogs when there are women within the group who are not only fighting against the state’s racist, sexist oppression, but also against the misogyny within their communities? Oddly enough, when men tell women that they should “ignore” sexism or put their experiences with abuse “on hold” for the sake of “the greater good,” there paradoxically is an acknowledgment that abuse is taking place. And yet, despite this recognition of injustice, no action is taken.
We need to stop giving legitimacy to these men and start holding them accountable. We have to stop promoting them as “leaders” and start listening to the voices that matter. There needs to be collective action and communities need to work within a framework that understands that if we do not fight misogyny and heteropatriarchy, especially within our own groups, then our work will amount to nothing. Refusing to address these problems, as Morris crucially reminds us, has dangerous consequences and will work to strengthen the oppressive forces of white supremacy, heteropatriarchy, imperialism and other systems of violence and domination that seek to destroy us. Whether its men who write articles about women’s rights, men making speeches about ending patriarchy at activist rallies, or men who just think they “cannot be sexist” because they are “nice guys,” our work and words mean nothing if we deliberately refuse to accept and practice accountability. As so many anti-racist women of color and white women activists, academics, and community leaders have articulated in their work, heteropatriarchy and other oppressions cannot be dismantled if we do not also work to eliminate them within ourselves.
Photo Credit: #Leftfail
*I was reluctant to share this status message since I’m not friends with the author, but it was pointed out to me that his Facebook wall is open to the public. After verifying this myself, I decided to re-share.
UPDATE: Other readers have pointed this out already, but I recognize that “Vice” is not a leftist website. I apologize for the confusion and meant to clarify that. Later in the post, I mention that it is not only the sexism and misogyny in leftist spaces that should be a concern, but in all spaces, including on popular websites.
Sexism, ableism, racism etc is a huge problem on the “left”. Even men in radical feminist groups have been disclosed to me as abusive when in relationships. This is a refreshing read on a a topic often not broached upon.
It is my assumption that the universal human disease of intellectual knowledge but the hinderance of its application is cultivated in western society wherein it’s theological roots is often in a lazy type of spirituality where the lack of character transformation is acceptable.
Thank you for your comment. I have heard of men in radical feminist groups being abusive as well. It’s disturbing that many men like them are in “leadership” positions and refuse to be held accountable.
Thank you, Mast.
Great post bhai. On the comment from the Vice guy: I don’t think he was calling you an anti-feminist but rather explaining that he didn’t write his article because he supports feminism, he wrote it because he hates “whiners and knee-jerk anti-feminists”. That is, he wrote his response to “The War on Men” more out of frustration with the idiocy of anti-feminist men than out of solidarity with women, if that makes sense. Also, while your point about the sexism and misogyny of men within supposedly leftist spaces is absolutely right on and is needed, I would just point out that Vice is not a leftist magazine, nor does it claim to be. It’s a hipster magazine that is mostly written by and for the kind of people who think any earnest engagement with politics (whether in the form of feminism/anti-racism/liberation struggles, or partisan Democratic or Republican politics) is tacky and embarrassing. (Obviously that is a reactionary attitude that comes from a place of privilege.)
Thanks, Eskandar. Yeah, I’m not sure where he was going with those comments. It seemed all over the place. I can see what you mean about him writing the article more out of frustration than out of solidarity with women.
You’re right about Vice not being a leftist magazine. I wrote in my post that I’m not just talking about men on the left or men with radical politics, but also men who don’t see themselves as sexist in general. But yeah, I should have clarified that better in the post.
I was trying to show how easy it is for men to do both: self-identify as feminist (e.g. Hugo Schywzer) and reject being a feminist ally in order to absolve themselves of sexism.
Thanks for commenting!
Reblogged this on Salt On Your Wound and commented:
This piece on Muslim Reverie hits very close to home for me. In the recent past, I have been shocked to discover that many people who consider themselves not to be sexist, will defend sexism, and otherwise support sexist messages. I’m glad to see I’m not alone in being concerned about this issue.
Pingback: Misogyny is Dead. And so is Racism. Really. (Not)
Really good, useful piece – very relevant at the moment, sadly. (Oh for the day when it’s not relevant any more!)
NOTE: A Twitter friend noted that you link to “radicalhub” – or their image hosting, at least, in the “racist responses to criticism from women of color” link in the Hugo section. I don’t know how much you know about RH, but it is a hotbed of bigotry and transphobia, and it would definitely be better to host the picture somewhere else. :/
Aside from that – again, great piece, and one I’ll be referring/linking to in future, I predict.
Hi Jo,
Thank you for your comments! I didn’t know anything about “radicalhub” or their bigotry and transphobia, but thank you (and to your friend) for pointing that out. I will remove the link right away. Sorry about that!
It’s always upsetting to hear about other so-called radical groups perpetuating oppressive attitudes.
Thanks again!
Did you actually look at the site or are just taking Jo’s word for it?
I don’t know all the details surrounding the radfem/ transphobic debate, but I do know that trans activists and rad fems hold views that are fundamentally opposed to each other, but that doesn’t make rad fems transphobic.
I took Jo’s word for it because anything that involves oppression against another person or group is something I think we all need to take seriously. I later googled “radical hub and transphobia” and found a lot of results, disturbingly. Here is one of many posts I came across:
http://uncommon-scents.blogspot.com/2011/07/yet-another-nail-in-coffin-of-rad-fem.html
Would you please define feminism and what is means to be a feminist? There are just so many definitions out there and I think its important to be clear on which definition you had in mind when you wrote this piece. Thanks.
Read “Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center” by bell hooks.
Danish asked for a definition, not a book.
Carol – I found it strange that Danish was asking a man for the “definition of feminism and what it means to be a feminist.” He asked me to be clear on what perspective I was speaking from, so I recommended “Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center.” Women of color, specifically Muslim women of color, introduced me to feminist politics and to radical anti-racist feminist literature written by women of color. Much of my politics are informed and influenced by radical women of color and so much work has already been done by them on defining feminism. That is why I suggested the book by bell hooks as a starting point (which was the first book I read on the subject).
Would you say that her statement “Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression” is a good summary?
Danish – Yeah, and I would recommend reading her entire book.
Oh Jesus Christ. That piece was so solemn and long winded that reading it felt like a tedious chore.
(Am I a religionist now?)
I can understand how some women might have objections with a title like that, but is it really worth getting that worked up about?
What’s important is how the guy treats people, right?
If “pussy” and “bltch” are unacceptable and sexist, what about “prick” “dickhead,” arsehole, etc etc.
Some women are friendly, some are quiet, and some are bltches.
Some men are friendly, some are quiet, and some are @ssholes.
Yes they are crude words but they are just slang for mean woman/man.
There’s nothing wrong with a vagina being a vagina and a woman having one. Nothing at all.. But a grown man should not be like one.
The hypersensitivity to these interpersonal issues can be quite suffocating and depressing. It’s gotten to an extreme point in the left. I’ve met so many stern activists who took all that personally and got completely absorbed in their emotions about it.
Please. Can we lighten up a little and forgive us for not being perfect equalitarians all the time? Arseholes like me who make insulting generalizations and rude comments need to be put in our places, but everyone does that.I know you do it- make demeaning and condescending remarks about big groups, full of individuals you’ve never met. It’s not that big a deal, but try not to.
Men should be more like women and women should be more like men, no need to scowl about it.Try not to be a bltch or a dickhead please. Can we just treat each other with love and respect and not be so hypersensitive?
Then why did you read it?
You don’t seem to understand the dangerous impact sexist and misogynistic language has. I suggest you read the post again and educate yourself by reading other literature on sexist language. There’s a lot of work done about this. What’s next, are you going to tell people to stop getting “worked up” about the n-word and other racial slurs? Language is powerful and plays a significant role in the oppression of others.
Seriously? Calling a man a “prick” or “dickhead” is nowhere near as degrading as the “b” word is for women. How many times is Batman called a “dickhead” in Arkham City, for example? ZERO. How many times is Catwoman called a “b” word in the same game? More times than you can count. Do you seriously feel shamed or degraded if someone calls you a “dickhead”? These terms carry different meanings. When people are described as brave and courageous, they’re told to “have balls,” but if they’re cowards, they’re called “pussies.” Do you see the difference here? Don’t bother with those ridiculous “reverse sexist” comments. Like “reverse racism” arguments, they are not welcome here.
What the…? On a post about sexist language, you are attempting to normalize it. Why is it so important for you to describe women with gendered slurs? Do you seriously feel oppressed when people tell you to stop being a misogynist?
No, they are not “just slangs” and the words carry different meanings for women and men. Again, read what I have written above.
Umm, what do you mean a “grown man should not be like (a vagina)?” You’re perpetuating the sexist logic again that being associated with a woman is a negative and shameful thing. Fail.
Ha, here comes the typical “tone arguments.” People are being “too emotional,” “too hypersensitive,” and “too angry.” We need to “lighten up” and stop getting angry about things like misogyny, sexual violence, racism, and other forms of oppression. Let’s just chill out and let men say all of the sexist things they want. Because men are so bloody oppressed. Google “tone arguments” and learn about how problematic, condescending, and dismissive you’re being.
Yeah, you sure do.
Love and respect goes against your arrogant and condescending judgments of people. Love and respect doesn’t mean you call people “hypersensitive” as an attempt to dismiss their views, experiences, and/or feelings. You obviously don’t understand what it means to treat people with love and respect if you’re simply trying to justify and normalized the use of sexist and misogynistic language. Love and respect means LISTENING and being conscious of your own privileges and complicity, especially when you’re called out on it. Love and respect doesn’t mean you act like an arrogant, condescending know-it-all and accuse people of “getting worked up” about serious issues.
Lastly, if you’re going to comment again, please review the comment policy guidelines.
@Mast Qalander
I’m surprised at how aggressively and poorly you react to criticism of what is clearly a contentious argument. You appear unable to respond in a way that doesn’t fall into the same sort of narcissistic, egotistical, brook-no-argument totalitarianism you apparently want to argue against.
p.s. stop using Batman Arkham City as your reference point for the validity of your claims about the degrading nature or otherwise of the term bitch.
Nick – So, I’m being graded now on how I respond to comments that attempt to perpetuate and normalize sexist and misogynistic language? I’m called “aggressive” for advocating anti-sexist politics?
I will write a post on this because I get lots of comments like yours (not just on posts about sexism, but racism and Islamophobia as well). But I’ll say this for now: saying that it’s “ok” for men to say the “b” word or “p” word is SEXIST, and that’s not up for debate. Reinforcing and excusing sexist language is not up for debate. This blog is unapologetically anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobia, anti-Islamophobia, anti-classist, anti-ableist, and anti-oppression.
If you want to “debate” on whether or not saying the “b” word is sexist, then you’re on the wrong blog. If you don’t like my referencing of Batman Arkham City, then you’re missing my point about how powerful media is (Batman is such a popular character and there’s no doubt, despite the Teen rating of the game, that children play that game – it is Batman, after all). Look at Hollywood films. Look at TV shows. Read the link I shared about how increasingly common it is to hear the “b” word and other sexist slurs on popular TV shows.
By making assumptions about my “tone” and characterizing it as “aggressive,” you are making a pathetic attempt to make this about me. My responses to criticism is more upsetting to you than the actual problem of misogyny and sexism within leftist movements (which is what I addressed in the post). Your silence on that is the most disturbing part here.
This was just as awesome as the article itself^^….keep up the good work and try not to let these assholes raise your blood pressure, but of course retain the passion. See…asshole is accurate, because the only thing that comes out of them is shit.
LOL! Thank you for your kind and supportive words!
I.didn’t see.this.as getting “worked up” at all. I saw it as an intellectual review of the issue. It was not emotional at all. I think thou doth protest too much.
Women would not have to go on ad nauseum if it were’t for dicks like you Gadfly. Rather than blather on about how fucking bored you were, how ’bout you just stop calling anyone a pussy–because of all the reasons the author stated. And it does make a difference how one uses language–see how I called you a ‘dick?’ It’s because you are acting like a tool that has no brain.
Enjoyed reading your post.
In India, I often hear feminists, many of them women activists, using bitch, pussy or cunt to put down someone quite casually. It is part of the “liberated lingo” of the progressive women here. And if you aren’t comfortable with that, then you are branded conservative. About a year back, i had interviewed Germaine Greer, and one of her remarks was: “… the most powerful word in English, the word that makes men pale, is the word ‘cunt’….” Use the word as a weapon, she said
Really liked your piece Mocking “Foreign Accents” and the Privilege of “Sounding White”.
I would argue that the word “pussy” in this context has nothing to do with female genitalia and everything to do with “pusillanimity,” i.e., cowardliness; from the latin pusil (little boy) + animus (spirit).
I would argue that you need to read the first 8 or 9 paragraphs of my post because you clearly missed the part about how that term is so commonly used as a gendered slur. To argue otherwise is ridiculous, dishonest, and an attempt to derail.
:::Standing O::::
interesting article. as someone grounded in southern male bigotry my own struggles with friends and family have been difficult to say the least. and i would like to raise a question because after reading your post i am uncertain whether i have proceeded in a way that disarms them or simply reinforces them.
the use of sexist terms is flagrant. so i began some time ago, and before id really read any literature on the subject, to turn the phrase back on itself. so when someone was called a ‘pussy’ i would respond by asking them how weak they thought that was since it passed them, the size of a football, into the world. they would make comments about growing some balls or ‘she has some balls’, to which i would try to append the comment ‘she has ovaries of steel’.
its difficult b/c on the one hand i am keeping to the language of genetic difference to describe strength, yet at the same time, i feel that turning the image on its head is the only way to get through at some level.
would be interested as to your thoughts.
thanks.
As an advocate for better treatments and supports for people with serious mental illness, I have the same problem with people on the Left who use the words Schizo, nutcase, psycho, crazies, nuthouse, looneybin, etc, when expressing frustration over people whose extreme views are not in line with their own.
I completely agree with you. We need to stop using ableist language as well.
i agree with this empowerment of the individual to state what their particular feelings are concerning specific words and phrases.
at the same time i believe there is a necessary difference between acceptable social discourse and what we privately feel. social discourse should of course not be allowed to disempower an individual’s response. instead social discourse is an agreed upon means by which we may all communicate in ways which are comprehensible to each other. if you will, it is the social grease that smooths the ability to hear each other. if words or phrases are being used which simply shut down communication then these should be carefully reconsidered.
of course these boundaries can and should always be tested and expanded or contracted depending upon an overall agreement. for instance, a minority of a particular group may find a particular word is acceptable or currently not in describing themselves. there will be tension over this, and there should be, but the greater virtue is for the majority to take this understanding seriously and to adapt to the minorities request even as this request is being debated internally.
YES
And for the asshole men who say b*tch and p*ssy are no big deal, you don’t get to dictate how I feel about those words. You don’t get to dictate if I feel degraded or not, just like a thief doesn’t get to dictate or define what theft is.
Thank you for your comment! I fully agree.
Reblogged this on karen:meandering and commented:
This is an absolute must-read.
Thank you for writing this and giving me hope
Thank you for reading and commenting.
Vice is not a leftist space. It is a libertarian magazine that embraces hipsterism as the highest form of capitalism. Its motivating idea is “too cool to care”.
That point was clarified in an earlier comment, thanks!