I am avowedly, and unashamedly a feminist. The sexes should be treated equally, and equality of opportunity should exist for all (that also applies for all races, sexual orientations etc.).
At times though, I fear that some in the feminist movement (it is a very broad church with many practitioners all implementing different strategies but towards the same ultimate goal) are inadvertently counterproductive in their efforts.
Recently, a friend *who shall remain nameless* made a post about an extreme-right group in the UK, and how utterly horrible they are. Insults were included, and a request that people who sympathised with the group should no longer associate themselves with said friend. The specific term "twat" was used to refer to this extreme right group.
One individual commented that the language was "wrong", and that "twat" should be changed to "wankers" (under the reasoning that use of the word "twat" is sexist).
This is wholly counterproductive to the feminist caused. Instead of lauding an effort to issue a counternarrative to a violent and extreme group, or to seek a constructive discourse in how to better combat such groups, the individual hijacked the disccusion, and made it one of sexism based on a semantic technicality, that is based on cultural and gendered understanding of the terms "twat", and "wanker". Quite aside from arguably having sexism in that point itself, it also seems patently ridiculous, paints feminists as foolish, and gives ammo to mysoginists who want an excuse to sally the feminist cause.
Perhaps I'm a mysoginist and alone on this one, but to me, "twat", whilst derived from female genitalia, is a generic form of genderless insult, in much the same way as "bastard", "git", or "shithead" are, whilst "wanker" is iherently more a term of abuse towards men. Yes, "wanker" is technically gender neutral, given that all are capable of masturbation, so the insult is not limited to any specific sex. So if we assume the commenter in question was intentionally correcting the author to make it a genderless insult, they are correct
However, gender is all about perception and cultural bias (and I'm not convinced the commenter was using "wanker" as a gender-neutral term). I would argue that the term "wanker" is inherently more associated with male rather than female gender (however technically inaccurate this may be). Whilst I personally regard the word (when used as an insult) as a general term for abuse, if forced to use a gendered lens to scrutinse the word then I would say that "wanker" is more male, and that "twat" is more with female. So (whether by design or not), the commenter forcibly made the discussion about gender, substituted the original insult, and made the insults be scrutinised from a gender-perspective, in a way which they never were from the beginning. The commenter actually ended up being sexist (whether intentionally or not), by reinforcing gender-association with words. Had they pointed out that the term "twat" was sexist, and that instead a gender-neutral term should have been used, then all well and good (at least in part), but they did not do this, and the picking of a word that is just as equally gender-laden (to my mind) simply substitutes one form of sexism for another.
At times though, I fear that some in the feminist movement (it is a very broad church with many practitioners all implementing different strategies but towards the same ultimate goal) are inadvertently counterproductive in their efforts.
Recently, a friend *who shall remain nameless* made a post about an extreme-right group in the UK, and how utterly horrible they are. Insults were included, and a request that people who sympathised with the group should no longer associate themselves with said friend. The specific term "twat" was used to refer to this extreme right group.
One individual commented that the language was "wrong", and that "twat" should be changed to "wankers" (under the reasoning that use of the word "twat" is sexist).
This is wholly counterproductive to the feminist caused. Instead of lauding an effort to issue a counternarrative to a violent and extreme group, or to seek a constructive discourse in how to better combat such groups, the individual hijacked the disccusion, and made it one of sexism based on a semantic technicality, that is based on cultural and gendered understanding of the terms "twat", and "wanker". Quite aside from arguably having sexism in that point itself, it also seems patently ridiculous, paints feminists as foolish, and gives ammo to mysoginists who want an excuse to sally the feminist cause.
Perhaps I'm a mysoginist and alone on this one, but to me, "twat", whilst derived from female genitalia, is a generic form of genderless insult, in much the same way as "bastard", "git", or "shithead" are, whilst "wanker" is iherently more a term of abuse towards men. Yes, "wanker" is technically gender neutral, given that all are capable of masturbation, so the insult is not limited to any specific sex. So if we assume the commenter in question was intentionally correcting the author to make it a genderless insult, they are correct
However, gender is all about perception and cultural bias (and I'm not convinced the commenter was using "wanker" as a gender-neutral term). I would argue that the term "wanker" is inherently more associated with male rather than female gender (however technically inaccurate this may be). Whilst I personally regard the word (when used as an insult) as a general term for abuse, if forced to use a gendered lens to scrutinse the word then I would say that "wanker" is more male, and that "twat" is more with female. So (whether by design or not), the commenter forcibly made the discussion about gender, substituted the original insult, and made the insults be scrutinised from a gender-perspective, in a way which they never were from the beginning. The commenter actually ended up being sexist (whether intentionally or not), by reinforcing gender-association with words. Had they pointed out that the term "twat" was sexist, and that instead a gender-neutral term should have been used, then all well and good (at least in part), but they did not do this, and the picking of a word that is just as equally gender-laden (to my mind) simply substitutes one form of sexism for another.
Why does this matter?
This matters because, far from taking the post my friend made, and supporting the aim of combatting the far right, the commenter hijacked the debate and made it one of gender. Apart from lacking respect for my friend and the point the made, the gendered argument utterly focused on absurd semantics - rather than much more important feminists issues such as the pay gap, equal maternity/paternity care, restrictions on women even being permitted to take tests for things like the army etc.).
This type of approach does a great disservice to the feminist cause, as far from undermining sexism, it reinforces the patriarchal stereotype that all feminists are "angry", "hairy-armpit", who "become lesbians", and "kill their children" (all vile terms I found from a simple Google image search of "feminist") who will always seek to make the discussion about them, even when it patently isn't (call me a man-splainer - but not everything is an issue of sex and gender. I like potatoes. Explain that one Kate Millett).
I believe we should see all things as equally as possible. Why have a politics of separation? Why give gender classifications to glorious insults such as "cunt", "bitch", "dickhead", "wanker", and so, so many other glorious terms, that are can be appropriate for any person, regardless of their gender (some of the biggest bitches I know are men... (myself included probably...))
Can we not end this madness? Can we not focus on the big issues, and focus on a person's intent instead of over how you deliberately choose to interpret their message? It feels like doing the latter is completely missing the point, makes us all look bad, and is utterly counterproductive to advancing the laudible aim of making all be treated fairly.
Now ok I'm a reasonable individual (or so I like to think). So we can't agree to that, can we at least agree to a ceasefire, and to making the following gender netural:
- "Wanker"
- "Bastard"
- "Dickhead"
- "Fucker"
- "Shithead"
- "Cunt"
- "Bitch"
- "Dick"
- "Tit"
Insults and hate-spreading should always be avoided where possible (that's why no names in this post). But occasionally, insults really are necessary (or at least satisfying to bellow...) and it would seem a pity to not be able to call that fucking wanker a bastard for making such a tit of themselves, simply because I live in fear that of being accused of sexism.
- Sincerely, a fucking concerned feminist.