The Love Song of K. Ellen Yates

Sunday, February 28, 2016

"Bitch"

men who speak with conviction: assertive, confident, righteous

women who speak with conviction: bitchy, shrill, self-righteous

@moscaddie

After a three week hiatus, I return with what I would like to become a regular series; before I begin, might I take this opportunity to outline my intentions with the phrase 'linguistic oppression.' By using 'linguistic oppression,' I refer to any word or phrase in the English language which is or has become harmful to a group of people. This week's example is 'bitch.'

I wanted to start with the fourth most popular profanity in the English language online according to analyses conducted by Slate. Coming in at around 4.5 million uses within a three day period amongst Facebook users in the USA, "bitch" has long-been one of our more problematic insults. According to Dr. Timothy Jay, there are "over 70 different taboo words" but 80% of the time, only 10 words are used, of which the word 'bitch' is included. Interestingly, and unlike the other swear words, the use of the term does not fluctuate by gender; across the board, "bitch" consistently retains its title at the top. Moreover, "bitch" is the first (most obviously) gendered obscenity.

Language is ridden with seemingly gender-specific terms. Gender has been applied to all manner of things which are now deemed to be intrinsically masculine or feminine due to the way we have been socially programmed; think of the colours blue and pink (or see my other post 'The Absurdity of Gendered Toys'). With its well-known etymology in the Old English noun 'bitch' referencing 'female dog,' or the Old Norse 'female of the dog,' 'bitch' gradually became "the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of whore" ('Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue,' 1811). If a woman being referred to as her canine equivalent could be so offensive, where have these connotations come from? Funnily enough - this, too, stems from the root of the word, where 'bitch' suggested that a woman had high sexual desire comparable to a female dog in heat. As such, the range of meanings related to 'bitch' have expanded.

Today, there is a distinct difference in meaning when 'bitch' is used in relation to woman than a man. @moscaddie's tweet succinctly outlines this difference by paralleling the perception of speaking with conviction by man or woman, challenging the damaging notion that where man is right, woman is wrong because she is being 'bitchy.' This pejorative term suggests that she is unreasonable, aggressive, and intrusive - impeding on a masculine sphere by attempting to speak with conviction. Inherently feminine by definition then, when 'bitch' refers to a man, this man is considered to be subordinate and weak.

Although the gay community reclaimed the word 'bitch' in the 1980s in an attempt to recuperate the reputations of men referred to as such, Shanelle Matthews points out that "ironically, the more commonly a derogatory word is used, the more invisible it becomes." It is no secret that 'bitch' is still offensive, despite its casual day-to-day use. To combat 'acting like a bitch,' studies have shown that women use an increased amount of apologetic phrases to foreground their speech in order to ensure that their ideas are not presented as 'shrill,' 'self-righteous,' or 'narcissistic,' especially in the workplace.

It is not my intention to police language because words can be our most powerful tool - but I do think that, in order to curate a safer, more accepting world where gender equality is a genuine possibility, all oppressive factors must be taken into consideration. When 'bitch' is having an active effect on relationships in professional environments, this is a situation in which its usage needs to be reconsidered.

Thursday, February 04, 2016

Legalise Rape and a "girl will protect her body like her smartphone."

I'd had an idea to write a post called 'The Problem with Pick Up Artists' for a little while now. My intention was that this would lead on from a previous article ('Negotiating Gender Roles with the BBC') with a more refined focus on the attitudes that pick up artists tend to exhibit. As it turns out, these pick up artists are worse than I initially thought. Although I do not want to allow him the publicity by dedicating a post to his cause, Roosh V's marches to legalise rape under the guise of the innocently-named 'international meetup day' - due to take place this weekend (Saturday 6th February 2016) - urgently needs to be addressed. Despite announcements on Return of Kings that the official 'meet ups' have been cancelled, there is no guarantee that those who were intending to gather without Roosh's attendance will decide against it. As such, I urge anyone in big cities across the globe to be cautious this weekend, especially if you do not present as a straight cisgender male.

To offer some context, Roosh V publicly proposed the legalisation of rape in a blog post last year in an attempt eradicate rape culture and 'solve' the problem which ensues when lives are crushed by rape allegations, false or otherwise. When confronted in Reggie Yates's documentary 'Extreme UK: Men At War,' he laughingly claimed that this was satire but this is not easily deduced when read from the website upon which it appears. Roosh writes: "by attempting to teach men not to rape, what we have actually done is teach women not to care about being raped, not to protect themselves from easily preventable acts, and not to take responsibility for their actions... I thought about this problem and am sure I have the solution: make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds" (full article here). When this paragraph is taken as a discrete fragment of the whole article, the entire proposition inevitably sounds absurd but Roosh's writing is nuanced and the justification which follows almost seems palpable. He foregrounds the article by evoking an image of his sister and highlighting the fact that he would not want her to be raped. As a result, he conjures the idea that his argument is considered and compassionate in lieu of his sibling, inviting readers to agree because they do not want their family members to experience rape either.

Roosh continues his hypothesis by stating: "if rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone. If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can’t resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of—she’ll scream, yell, or kick at his attempt while bystanders are still around. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with. After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied." By emphasising women and girls as the issue because they fail to “protect their bodies,” Roosh normalises victim-blaming whilst also ignoring the fact that men are raped too – which you would have thought would be a priority for the figurehead of neomasculinity. In addition, Roosh eliminates the possibility that men and women can be merely friends in a heteronormative society. Women are thus objectified in the bodily comparison to a smartphone, reducing their bodies to something which is asking to be raped if it isn’t looked after properly, as a phone is asking to be stolen when left unattended.

The most problematic part of his argument, then, is that his writing is compelling because it masquerades as logical. Moreover, using the internet as his platform means that his audience is vast and ever-expanding. With attitudes like this online, he can easily penetrate the minds of insecure young men who have had their confidence knocked by relationship-related issues, and this is when it becomes dangerous. Return of Kings and Roosh’s own website are ultimately broken manifestos exuding intense hatred for women which perpetuate the notion that misogyny is okay. It would be both naïve and futile to suggest that we can do anything to stop Roosh and the allies he rallies with his persuasive writing style, but what we can do is ensure that we are careful this weekend whilst we endeavour to create of a safer, more harmonious society.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

You're Probably Being Sexist

Inspired by some of the posts which have recently frequented my Facebook feed, today I would like to talk about internalised misogyny. When I mention the phrase 'internalised misogyny,' I am usually met with blank expressions so it might be apt to begin with a simple definition: internalised misogyny is the "involuntary internalisation of the sexist messages that are present in their societies and cultures." What this definition highlights is the fact that these misogynistic views are not inherent from birth, but learnt through observation of the world we live in (much like our genders, attitudes, opinions... the list goes on) - a process called 'socialisation.'

Erin McKelle rightly stated that "We all can be complicit in our own oppression. It’s not always other people or other genders that are responsible for sexism. Sometimes, it’s actually you" ('On "Choice" Feminism and Internalised Misogyny: Why We Participate in Patriarchal Oppression'). The most troubling thing about it internalised misogyny, then, is that it penetrates our understanding of the roles we should pursue, forcing us back into those broken gender binaries. In addition, we learn to perceive ourselves as limited by our genders which are, themselves, a social construction. If you have ever caught yourself thinking something as seemingly quotidian as ‘that’s a girl’s car,’ or ‘that’s a man’s job,’ you have exhibited internalised misogyny – and you are not entirely to blame.

A more tangible example of internalised misogyny comes in the idea that "women who slap it on that thick should be done for false advertisement." Our lives are saturated by images of beautiful women and, a lot of the time, those photographs have been subjected to countless hours of retouching. In lieu of this, the notion that these women should be "done for false advertisement" is ostensibly feminist because it criminalises the falsity in fashion and promotes positive body image. Simultaneously, however, this thought is damning to women who choose to use make up as both a creative outlet and a method of (sometimes literally) covering insecurities; "make up in itself is objectively neutral. All the meanings that we attach to it are socially constructed. Even though those meanings are socially constructive, they still can have very real effects on the way that women are perceived and judged" (Marina Watanabe - 'Stop Telling Women What To Do With Their Faces'). The use of what is deemed to be 'excessive' make up is thus problematic because there are many people capable of using lots of different products to achieve a very natural look. This goes hand in hand with embracing 'natural' beauty but that topic is for another time.

To give another example, I highlight the exasperated-looking woman on the top left hand side of the image above. When women claim that they are "not like other girls" as a way of differentiating themselves from stereotypically feminine characteristics (cue gender roles), they choosing to adopt a marginalised identity whilst also belittling their own gender. This is, fundamentally, a representation of internalised misogyny because these women and girls have fetishised the idea of being othered from women/girls as a whole and - when you consider the negative portrayal of women in our patriarchal society, it is unsurprising that they want to distinguish themselves as dissimilar. Nonetheless, if we want to come to any kind of solution, it is obviously not to exhibit further sexism.

Internalised misogyny is so deeply entrenched into our culture that, unfortunately, there is no easy way out. I would suggest being mindful of your words and thoughts in order to start avoiding this kind of behaviour to allow for a more open-minded and safe society. After all, how can we consider ourselves to be feminist allies if we're still consciously distancing ourselves from the oppressed?