In case you're wondering, "Who is David Warren?" he is the intellectual gopher behind this piece of tripe. It has been a while since I wrote something about feminism; well, Mr. Warren has certainly given me ample to discuss today.
This "opinion piece" is derived from the same ill-founded, ignorant, and ridiculous caricature that most misogynist men have of feminism and feminists. Relying upon the false premise that all feminists believe that all men are inherently evil, and building from there using all the cliched catchphrases that misogynist men use to villify feminism (it is a "social and political campaign, nay melodrama," the third wave is comprised of "blather," and the target of feminism's scorn is, of course, "the heterosexual white male"), you've spoken much and said little. I am astonished that such vague and useless descriptions of feminism was allowed to get past your editorial board--that is, I would be if it weren't for the basic fact that bashing feminism in a long-running pasttime in this country.
Let us begin with the ridiculous notion that all feminists believe that all men are inherently evil. I'm sure that there are some feminists out there who believe this is true. I'm equally sure that they have experienced enough violence, harrassment, and hatred from men in their lives to justify it. Yet even if we assume that there are some feminists who believe this, how does that so easily become all feminists? There are some conservatives out there who believe that the West should bring back the Crusades and re-Christianize the Middle East; nobody of sane mind would transpose that idea into the belief that all conservatives want to do same, would they? And yet look at how easily you have transformed all feminists into blathering fools who look for ways to villify the patriarchal paradigm. However, consider this, the viewpoint of the second wave of feminism's strongest guiding force, Andrea Dworkin: "Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It's not because there's a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence." ("I Want a Twenty-Four Hour Truce During Which There is No Rape," http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html) If even the strongest force in 20th century feminism believes that man's nature is not one of inherent evil, and capable of being redeemed, why is it so hard for you to believe anything beyond the caricature which has been constructed? If men were inherently evil, why would feminists even bother? As Dworkin said, it's because of a belief that we are capable of being more than violent brutes that degrade women through the multitude of venues that we currently do.
Which leads me to the most horrifying part of your piece: its conclusion. You blithely accept that there is a need for 500 shelters for women in this country. That's accepted by you, and then it is mocked and you find yourself wondering at the audacity that there aren't any for abused men. This is where your lack of compassion for humanity shines strongest. Instead of being outraged at the reality that there is a need in this country to have 500 places where men cannot hurt women, that there has to be that many shelters where women can go so that they can feel safe, that these shelters are needed in every town, city, and village in this country because in every town, city, and village in this country men are abusing women, you want to know where a man can go when his wife has had enough and fights back. Here's a very basic fact: 92% of domestic violence in this country is committed by men against women. That's 23 out of 25 cases. Ninety-two percent. We're at a point in this country where nearly half of Canadian women will experience some sort of violence from men in their lives. That runs the gamut from murder, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, domestic abuse, uttering threats, and much more. 1 in 2 women, Mr. Warren, and you have the unmitigated gall to ask where men are supposed to go to feel safe. Shame on you.
Showing posts with label empathy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label empathy. Show all posts
09 June 2008
06 December 2007
Remembrance and Action
Today, December 6, is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Eighteen years ago today, Marc Lepine walked into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal and opened fire while yelling that he "hated feminists" and killed 14 women. This horrific act was carried out because Lepine, like far too many men, hated women. It is the world's oldest hate crime and form of discrimination, it has been justified and rationalized by numerous arguments, and it is largely ignored. More than 3000 women are killed by men in the United States every year--roughly equating to a 9/11 on an annual basis. Yet there is no "war on misogyny" that seeks to eradicate men's terrorism and violence against women; it is accepted as the most outrageous manifestation of a "boys will be boys" mentality.
Today is a day of remembrance, to the extent that people know about what happened on December 6th. Given the paucity of white and purple ribbons adorning people's coats in Halifax, I think it is safe to say that not many do. A month ago, we all honoured--rightly so--those killed in the two World Wars by wearing poppies. It is expected. It is right and proper. But we don't take the time to remember the women who are murdered by men today, yesterday, last week, last month, last year, and who will continue to be killed tomorrow, the next day, next week, and so forth. There are memorials in many cities in Canada, and some small vigils. You don't see too many politicians wearing white ribbons in late November/early December. It says a lot about our pride in our forefather and our country that we remember those who gave their lives to a just and noble cause more than half a century ago. Unfortunately, it also says a lot about us that we don't remember and don't honour the women who are killed on an all-too-regular basis. But those of us who do, do so through books, through public events, through personal memorials, and through the commitment that we undertake to take action.
Today is a day of action. Today we come together and say, "This must stop." We join the White Ribbon Campaign, taking the pledge to never commit, condone, encourage, or turn a blind eye to men's violence against women. We can join Amnesty International's Campaign to Stop the Violence, or the Stolen Sisters remembrance campaign. We talk to our friends and family about violence that affects 1 in 3 women world-wide. We send letters and emails to our elected officials demanding justice. We tell people that think beating up, humiliating, and degrading women makes for good comedy that they are wrong, that it is not funny. We change our attitudes and look to change the attitudes of others so that we can all come to the very sensible conclusion that the scope and scale of violence against women is unacceptable, that it must end, that we must begin to regard all people with the same compassion and empathy and accord them the same rights and dignity that we expect for ourselves. This is what we do today...and what we must all strive to do every day.
Today is a day of remembrance, to the extent that people know about what happened on December 6th. Given the paucity of white and purple ribbons adorning people's coats in Halifax, I think it is safe to say that not many do. A month ago, we all honoured--rightly so--those killed in the two World Wars by wearing poppies. It is expected. It is right and proper. But we don't take the time to remember the women who are murdered by men today, yesterday, last week, last month, last year, and who will continue to be killed tomorrow, the next day, next week, and so forth. There are memorials in many cities in Canada, and some small vigils. You don't see too many politicians wearing white ribbons in late November/early December. It says a lot about our pride in our forefather and our country that we remember those who gave their lives to a just and noble cause more than half a century ago. Unfortunately, it also says a lot about us that we don't remember and don't honour the women who are killed on an all-too-regular basis. But those of us who do, do so through books, through public events, through personal memorials, and through the commitment that we undertake to take action.
Today is a day of action. Today we come together and say, "This must stop." We join the White Ribbon Campaign, taking the pledge to never commit, condone, encourage, or turn a blind eye to men's violence against women. We can join Amnesty International's Campaign to Stop the Violence, or the Stolen Sisters remembrance campaign. We talk to our friends and family about violence that affects 1 in 3 women world-wide. We send letters and emails to our elected officials demanding justice. We tell people that think beating up, humiliating, and degrading women makes for good comedy that they are wrong, that it is not funny. We change our attitudes and look to change the attitudes of others so that we can all come to the very sensible conclusion that the scope and scale of violence against women is unacceptable, that it must end, that we must begin to regard all people with the same compassion and empathy and accord them the same rights and dignity that we expect for ourselves. This is what we do today...and what we must all strive to do every day.
25 November 2007
International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women
Today is the first of two days that specifically highlight the systemic problem of violence against women. It is internationally recognized by the United Nations, which has a comprehensive information section here: http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/violence/ I encourage all readers to head over there and check it out. I'll be out and about today with my white ribbon, hoping that others will ask what it signifies so that I can inform them. There is a collective responsibility to address violence against women so that it stops. It is inexcusable that 1 in 3 women in Canada will experience male violence in their lifetimes. It is unacceptable that there is virtually nobody in this country that doesn't know a woman that has been assaulted in some way. It is unforgivable that rape is utilized as a military tactic throughout the world. It is unjustifiable that too many husbands hit their wives. This must stop. It is not the work of one or two days of the year, it is an ongoing commitment to recognizing women's humanity and according them the dignity, respect, and justice to which they are entitled. Violence against women will not end because of November 25 and/or December 6th, it will end when men have absorbed the message of these days and integrated them into their lives.
16 April 2007
What Can One Say?
What's happened down at Virginia Tech today is truly tragic, and conjures up the still-fresh pain Canadians felt when the Dawson tragedy occurred. 21 people murdered, and we're still yet to know the reason(s) why and the motivations of the killer who did this.
We know the motivations of those who engineered the Holocaust, the victims of which we remember today. Earlier, in the public square on Spring Garden Road, there was a person reading off the names and a brief history of those who were killed in horrible camps at places such as Treblinka, Auschwitz, and Dachau.
This is a very sad day for humanity.
Update: the number is now actually 31 dead. Worse and worse.
We know the motivations of those who engineered the Holocaust, the victims of which we remember today. Earlier, in the public square on Spring Garden Road, there was a person reading off the names and a brief history of those who were killed in horrible camps at places such as Treblinka, Auschwitz, and Dachau.
This is a very sad day for humanity.
Update: the number is now actually 31 dead. Worse and worse.
21 March 2007
This is Not a Good Idea
A group of prostituted women in Toronto are planning to launch a constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court of Canada to get prostitution legalized in order to enhance their personal liberty and security, which they feel are impeded by Canada's current laws. As you can imagine, I do not think that this is a good idea.
It is not the illegality of prostitution that puts women at risk. It is the men, the johns, who do that when they solicit a woman for the purpose of prostitution. The women in this case want the government to "remember that they are human." This is an interesting comment, because in the news story where I first heard of this (link), only once is the word "woman" used and is overshadowed by the usual dehumanizing terms used to describe the people involved: "sex-trade workers" and "prostitute" appear regularly and in more prominent sections. Rather than seeing Ottawa as the problem, they ought to focus on those who seek to procure them, for they are the ones who do not care about the humanity of these women. It is those men who threaten female security through their actions, because prostitution itself is an act of male violence against women.
I have argued in support of the Swedish model for dealing with the problem of prostitution, for it recognizes the act of procuring a woman as an act of violence against her person that threatens her security while not imposing penalties on women who are involved in prostitution, either due to threats, duress, or their own free will. Johns can receive up to 6 months in jail for solicitation, and the results in Sweden in the past 7 years have been demonstrable: bawdy houses have all but disappeared and the overall occurrence of prostitution has declined.
On the television news story, it was mentioned that these women have had their "freedom of expression" curtailed by Ottawa's policy on prostitution. Again, this is not true, and misses the real target. It is those who have created the conditions for these women where they have no other alternative who have limited their ability to express themselves, whether that means the abusive parent or relative, their pimp, or their john(s). To suggest that in Canada there is an "official death penalty" imposed upon prostituted woman is not true. It is certainly not the state which is killing women; it is depraved individuals such as Pickton and his ilk, for they are the ones who are killing these women without even a moment's thought for their own humanity.
It is a situation of terrible personal circumstances and a lack of opportunity that often pushes women into prostitution. Where Ottawa has failed these women is in not providing them with enough resources, such as safe houses and stronger police protection, to avoid prostitution or escape from it. I have no shortage of empathy for women who seek to make their own lives more secure and free, but what this constitutional challenge does is not eradicate the cage that is imposed upon prostituted woman; rather, it would only make the cage larger and make it easier for people to get inside. Freedom, in the only true sense of the word, means being able to live one's life in the manner of their own choosing and pursue our happiness in our own way without infringing upon the right of others to do the same. This challenge to potentially legalize prostitution would make it easier for pimps to violate that basic principle of freedom with greater impunity. It is also an entire level removed from consideration of giving women enough opportunities, training, and resources to pursue their happiness without having to resort to prostitution and sacrifice their own humanity.
It is not the illegality of prostitution that puts women at risk. It is the men, the johns, who do that when they solicit a woman for the purpose of prostitution. The women in this case want the government to "remember that they are human." This is an interesting comment, because in the news story where I first heard of this (link), only once is the word "woman" used and is overshadowed by the usual dehumanizing terms used to describe the people involved: "sex-trade workers" and "prostitute" appear regularly and in more prominent sections. Rather than seeing Ottawa as the problem, they ought to focus on those who seek to procure them, for they are the ones who do not care about the humanity of these women. It is those men who threaten female security through their actions, because prostitution itself is an act of male violence against women.
I have argued in support of the Swedish model for dealing with the problem of prostitution, for it recognizes the act of procuring a woman as an act of violence against her person that threatens her security while not imposing penalties on women who are involved in prostitution, either due to threats, duress, or their own free will. Johns can receive up to 6 months in jail for solicitation, and the results in Sweden in the past 7 years have been demonstrable: bawdy houses have all but disappeared and the overall occurrence of prostitution has declined.
On the television news story, it was mentioned that these women have had their "freedom of expression" curtailed by Ottawa's policy on prostitution. Again, this is not true, and misses the real target. It is those who have created the conditions for these women where they have no other alternative who have limited their ability to express themselves, whether that means the abusive parent or relative, their pimp, or their john(s). To suggest that in Canada there is an "official death penalty" imposed upon prostituted woman is not true. It is certainly not the state which is killing women; it is depraved individuals such as Pickton and his ilk, for they are the ones who are killing these women without even a moment's thought for their own humanity.
It is a situation of terrible personal circumstances and a lack of opportunity that often pushes women into prostitution. Where Ottawa has failed these women is in not providing them with enough resources, such as safe houses and stronger police protection, to avoid prostitution or escape from it. I have no shortage of empathy for women who seek to make their own lives more secure and free, but what this constitutional challenge does is not eradicate the cage that is imposed upon prostituted woman; rather, it would only make the cage larger and make it easier for people to get inside. Freedom, in the only true sense of the word, means being able to live one's life in the manner of their own choosing and pursue our happiness in our own way without infringing upon the right of others to do the same. This challenge to potentially legalize prostitution would make it easier for pimps to violate that basic principle of freedom with greater impunity. It is also an entire level removed from consideration of giving women enough opportunities, training, and resources to pursue their happiness without having to resort to prostitution and sacrifice their own humanity.
07 March 2007
Hatred Hits Home in Toronto
Easily the most vile story of the day comes from Toronto, where four young (and I use the term extremely loosely) men--two youths who cannot be named plus a pair of shitheads named Philip Perry and Barton Reeder--raped an unconscious young woman. And they videotaped it on their cellphones, presumably to forever treasure the memory of their action and show it off to their friends. They probably would have even told themselves that she was asking for it, since she didn't say "no" and all.
This is the type of story that should make every decent human being shudder in disgust. I know that since I first saw the headline in this morning's Post and subsequently read about it again in the G&M and saw it on CTV, a fury has been building inside of me. It is the type of thing that makes me want to call the Minister of Justice's office and repeat the calls from all corners of the country to get serious and impose some serious punishments for this type of violent offence against the integrity of the person. Sure, stiffer penalties may not deter everybody from committing crime, but they will make at least some potential perpetrators think twice. Getting locked away for 20 or 30 years would no doubt affect the thinking of some potential rapists who would no longer feel as though it was worth the risk.
Of course, we probably have to take another step back. If groups of young men are patrolling the streets looking for passed-out women to gang rape, we're already in a world of trouble. Kids such as this already have such hatred for women that they're actively looking for targets to express that hatred and assert their lust for domination. The parents, the schools, and the system have already failed by this point. And the ones that have to suffer, as is often the case, are women. Women bear the main brunt of male hatred.
How many will it take until people stand up and say "NO MORE!" We're already at a point where 1 in 3 women in Canada will experience male violence during the course of their lifetimes. Does it have to be 1 in 2? 2 out of 3? 3 out of 4? 4 out of 5? All of them? At what stage of things do women and men--particularly the latter, since it is ONLY MEN WHO CAN STOP RAPE--collectively say, "Enough of this bullshit. It is well past time we took action against those who rape and inflict violence against women simply because they are women." Because clearly 1 in 3 isn't enough.
A 16-year old girl, who had no agency or ability to defend herself in this circumstance, was assaulted by a group of males who hated her for what she is. Will they face the appropriate consequences? Seemingly yes: they are being charged with sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, gang sexual assault and manufacturing child pornography. Philip Perry is also facing a charge of uttering death threats, while one of the 17-year-olds is facing an additional charge of possession of child pornography. If convicted, they will face jail time, a not insignificant amount of it. The young woman, however, will have to bear the scars of this assault for the remainder of her life. Whatever their intentions were, these men have profoundly affected, for the worst, the life of another human being that they didn't even see as a person. And it is for that reason, I conclude by asking: will the consequences, if any, amount to justice? On that front, I fear that the answer, as it so often is, is no.
This is the type of story that should make every decent human being shudder in disgust. I know that since I first saw the headline in this morning's Post and subsequently read about it again in the G&M and saw it on CTV, a fury has been building inside of me. It is the type of thing that makes me want to call the Minister of Justice's office and repeat the calls from all corners of the country to get serious and impose some serious punishments for this type of violent offence against the integrity of the person. Sure, stiffer penalties may not deter everybody from committing crime, but they will make at least some potential perpetrators think twice. Getting locked away for 20 or 30 years would no doubt affect the thinking of some potential rapists who would no longer feel as though it was worth the risk.
Of course, we probably have to take another step back. If groups of young men are patrolling the streets looking for passed-out women to gang rape, we're already in a world of trouble. Kids such as this already have such hatred for women that they're actively looking for targets to express that hatred and assert their lust for domination. The parents, the schools, and the system have already failed by this point. And the ones that have to suffer, as is often the case, are women. Women bear the main brunt of male hatred.
How many will it take until people stand up and say "NO MORE!" We're already at a point where 1 in 3 women in Canada will experience male violence during the course of their lifetimes. Does it have to be 1 in 2? 2 out of 3? 3 out of 4? 4 out of 5? All of them? At what stage of things do women and men--particularly the latter, since it is ONLY MEN WHO CAN STOP RAPE--collectively say, "Enough of this bullshit. It is well past time we took action against those who rape and inflict violence against women simply because they are women." Because clearly 1 in 3 isn't enough.
A 16-year old girl, who had no agency or ability to defend herself in this circumstance, was assaulted by a group of males who hated her for what she is. Will they face the appropriate consequences? Seemingly yes: they are being charged with sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, gang sexual assault and manufacturing child pornography. Philip Perry is also facing a charge of uttering death threats, while one of the 17-year-olds is facing an additional charge of possession of child pornography. If convicted, they will face jail time, a not insignificant amount of it. The young woman, however, will have to bear the scars of this assault for the remainder of her life. Whatever their intentions were, these men have profoundly affected, for the worst, the life of another human being that they didn't even see as a person. And it is for that reason, I conclude by asking: will the consequences, if any, amount to justice? On that front, I fear that the answer, as it so often is, is no.
24 February 2007
In Defence of Britney Spears, Person
Over the course of the past week or so, Britney Spears has been in the headlines a lot, for reasons that have nothing to do with her music career. First, it was Headline News for 24 hours on serious news channels that she got her head shaved and got a couple of tattoos. Then, in mostly tabloid fodder, it was revealed that she had checked herself into rehab. A day later, there was a frenzy over her leaving. Mixed in with this was the announcement that her court date to determine custody of her two children with Kevin Federline was put on delay because of her rehab stint.
For any non-celebrity, male or female, none of these events warrant countless hours of television time. I shaved my head last June and not a single television camera captured it to put it up on TMZ or YouTube or to sell the footage to CNN. But the cult of celebrity in North America is such that anything a remotely famous person does is amplified to become "newsworthy," regardless of its actual importance or consequence to any human beings beside the subject in question. And only for celebrities is getting one's head shaved something used in the court of public opinion to determine whether they or their ex-spouse should get custody of the kids. And amplify that if it's a woman doing it.
Now, I am not a fan of Britney's music, and I never have been. Pop doesn't cut it for me, and the record label-engineered turn to Britney's full-on sexual exploitation and degradation--which they referred to as her "maturing"--certainly didn't do anything to make me a fan.
Of course, in the past couple of years, Britney's music career has been put on hold--maybe never to return--as she turned to family life: marriage, kids, and ultimately, divorce. It is in this arena, more than any other, that the dehumanization and hatred towards Britney Spears have manifested in ever-more prominent and despicable fashion. Say what you will about her music--I certainly have--but it is an entirely separate category of bile that is thrown towards her that is so offensive and should serve as a reminder to all women that there are some men out there who hate them.
How does the misogyny directed towards Britney represent a microcosm of a broader hatred of all women?
Britney Spears is a highly successful woman. In many of the hate-filled comments made by men about her, the evidence of jealousy is clear and in abundance. Jealousy of her success and their own decidedly average or uneventful lives. This is something that is fairly pervasive in society, as many men feel intimidated by women who make more money than them, creating a sense of resentment and anger. She defies the archetype, the norm that men make and are entitled to make more money than women. She may do so in a manner that isn't the most positive role model for young women, relying on her sexuality and body more than her vocal talent, but she has reached a point where she will be financially secure for herself and her kids and their kids...at the young age of 25 years old. It is the use of her image that can result in a lot of problems, exactly the same as any other powerful female public person has to encounter, and many of them don't even use their corporeal vessels to get ahead. Which leads to comments like this from random men:
"When your looks are your number one asset, why get rid of them?"
"can't believe why she did this, she used to be such a pretty girl, but over the past years she really made herself uglier, getting these huge breasts and now this... shame"
"My god this bird is so stupid i just want to give her a slap and tell her to grow up."
"Can't believe this trailer trash whore still makes the news."
"I think Britney's a scumbag, dumb bitch no matter what she does"
Being a high-profile woman, Britney is of course obligated to fulfill her obligations under the Professional Beauty Qualification so that she is visually acceptable to the men out there. This doesn't nullify their anger that she makes truckloads more money than they'll ever see, but it does allow them to still use her as an object for their own gratification. Note the comment lamenting how it's such a "shame" that she's not "such a pretty girl" that meets his standards of hawtness. Of course, for some people it doesn't even matter what she looks like since she's a "scumbag" regardless of anything that she chooses to do in her life. Ignore the fact that she's made significant donations to cancer charities and has a foundation in her name that is dedicated to helping needy children, she's just a "dumb bitch" that needs a few good slaps so that she grows up, learns her place, and gets hot again so that she can entertain men.
An example of "sympathy" being shown:
"she is still human but that doesnt automatically make her a person...you have to have a personality to be a person."
This is how people on the Internet refer to Britney Spears when they pretend to feel bad for her. I suppose that it is only a degree less bad than some of the comments directed at Anna Nicole Smith after her death. Some folks out there decried that her death was not a particularly huge deal, seeing as she'd "never contributed anything to the world" and all. This coming from people who have made no contribution of note to making the world a better place, it seems a little rich.
The manner in which high-profile women are treated has a trickle-down effect on the way all women perceive themselves and how men feel about them. We are on the cusp of seeing a woman secure the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 2008, yet rather than embracing this historic occasion, the hatred thrown at Hillary Clinton has been readily evident. A fellow blogger, known far better than I am for Blaming the Patriarchy, had a post a couple of weeks ago regarding Donatella Versace's comments that Hillary needs to stop acting like a man and be more "feminine." Tasha came across a KFC billboard picture that was advertising the "Hillary special," which consists of "two small breasts, two fat thights, and a left wing." While the wing part was good for a laugh, the first two-thirds were a reminder that this will be the first presidential campaign in history in which a candidate's bust size, thighs, and degree of sexual desirability to men will be issues. When a woman who works 9-5 at a crap job for 2/3 of what her male colleagues makes overhears how said colleagues and other men spew the hate-filled garbage they do at Britney Spears or Hillary Clinton or any woman that has a spotlight on her, how is she supposed to feel? Is it any wonder that a lot of women don't seek high-profile work that will subject them to similar discussions?
Again, I have no interest to sit through a Britney Spears video to listen to one of her songs. That type of music does nothing for me. But Britney Spears is a human being, a person, and that's why I will occasionally listen to what people are saying about her. Sadly, the lack of empathy or consideration for her humanity all too often come to the fore. The term "trainwreck" and a host of other such terms (see above) seek to portray her as an evil force in the world, while young men who are apparently still embittered over her having the audacity to marry Kevin Federline seek to deny her of even being a human being. That is wrong. Whatever her faults and foibles, she is still a person who is entitled to be treated with a measure of dignity and respect, something glaringly absent from much of the public discourse around her.
For any non-celebrity, male or female, none of these events warrant countless hours of television time. I shaved my head last June and not a single television camera captured it to put it up on TMZ or YouTube or to sell the footage to CNN. But the cult of celebrity in North America is such that anything a remotely famous person does is amplified to become "newsworthy," regardless of its actual importance or consequence to any human beings beside the subject in question. And only for celebrities is getting one's head shaved something used in the court of public opinion to determine whether they or their ex-spouse should get custody of the kids. And amplify that if it's a woman doing it.
Now, I am not a fan of Britney's music, and I never have been. Pop doesn't cut it for me, and the record label-engineered turn to Britney's full-on sexual exploitation and degradation--which they referred to as her "maturing"--certainly didn't do anything to make me a fan.
Of course, in the past couple of years, Britney's music career has been put on hold--maybe never to return--as she turned to family life: marriage, kids, and ultimately, divorce. It is in this arena, more than any other, that the dehumanization and hatred towards Britney Spears have manifested in ever-more prominent and despicable fashion. Say what you will about her music--I certainly have--but it is an entirely separate category of bile that is thrown towards her that is so offensive and should serve as a reminder to all women that there are some men out there who hate them.
How does the misogyny directed towards Britney represent a microcosm of a broader hatred of all women?
Britney Spears is a highly successful woman. In many of the hate-filled comments made by men about her, the evidence of jealousy is clear and in abundance. Jealousy of her success and their own decidedly average or uneventful lives. This is something that is fairly pervasive in society, as many men feel intimidated by women who make more money than them, creating a sense of resentment and anger. She defies the archetype, the norm that men make and are entitled to make more money than women. She may do so in a manner that isn't the most positive role model for young women, relying on her sexuality and body more than her vocal talent, but she has reached a point where she will be financially secure for herself and her kids and their kids...at the young age of 25 years old. It is the use of her image that can result in a lot of problems, exactly the same as any other powerful female public person has to encounter, and many of them don't even use their corporeal vessels to get ahead. Which leads to comments like this from random men:
"When your looks are your number one asset, why get rid of them?"
"can't believe why she did this, she used to be such a pretty girl, but over the past years she really made herself uglier, getting these huge breasts and now this... shame"
"My god this bird is so stupid i just want to give her a slap and tell her to grow up."
"Can't believe this trailer trash whore still makes the news."
"I think Britney's a scumbag, dumb bitch no matter what she does"
Being a high-profile woman, Britney is of course obligated to fulfill her obligations under the Professional Beauty Qualification so that she is visually acceptable to the men out there. This doesn't nullify their anger that she makes truckloads more money than they'll ever see, but it does allow them to still use her as an object for their own gratification. Note the comment lamenting how it's such a "shame" that she's not "such a pretty girl" that meets his standards of hawtness. Of course, for some people it doesn't even matter what she looks like since she's a "scumbag" regardless of anything that she chooses to do in her life. Ignore the fact that she's made significant donations to cancer charities and has a foundation in her name that is dedicated to helping needy children, she's just a "dumb bitch" that needs a few good slaps so that she grows up, learns her place, and gets hot again so that she can entertain men.
An example of "sympathy" being shown:
"she is still human but that doesnt automatically make her a person...you have to have a personality to be a person."
This is how people on the Internet refer to Britney Spears when they pretend to feel bad for her. I suppose that it is only a degree less bad than some of the comments directed at Anna Nicole Smith after her death. Some folks out there decried that her death was not a particularly huge deal, seeing as she'd "never contributed anything to the world" and all. This coming from people who have made no contribution of note to making the world a better place, it seems a little rich.
The manner in which high-profile women are treated has a trickle-down effect on the way all women perceive themselves and how men feel about them. We are on the cusp of seeing a woman secure the Democratic nomination for President of the United States in 2008, yet rather than embracing this historic occasion, the hatred thrown at Hillary Clinton has been readily evident. A fellow blogger, known far better than I am for Blaming the Patriarchy, had a post a couple of weeks ago regarding Donatella Versace's comments that Hillary needs to stop acting like a man and be more "feminine." Tasha came across a KFC billboard picture that was advertising the "Hillary special," which consists of "two small breasts, two fat thights, and a left wing." While the wing part was good for a laugh, the first two-thirds were a reminder that this will be the first presidential campaign in history in which a candidate's bust size, thighs, and degree of sexual desirability to men will be issues. When a woman who works 9-5 at a crap job for 2/3 of what her male colleagues makes overhears how said colleagues and other men spew the hate-filled garbage they do at Britney Spears or Hillary Clinton or any woman that has a spotlight on her, how is she supposed to feel? Is it any wonder that a lot of women don't seek high-profile work that will subject them to similar discussions?
Again, I have no interest to sit through a Britney Spears video to listen to one of her songs. That type of music does nothing for me. But Britney Spears is a human being, a person, and that's why I will occasionally listen to what people are saying about her. Sadly, the lack of empathy or consideration for her humanity all too often come to the fore. The term "trainwreck" and a host of other such terms (see above) seek to portray her as an evil force in the world, while young men who are apparently still embittered over her having the audacity to marry Kevin Federline seek to deny her of even being a human being. That is wrong. Whatever her faults and foibles, she is still a person who is entitled to be treated with a measure of dignity and respect, something glaringly absent from much of the public discourse around her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)