This C. David Coats quote (from the preface to his 1991 book, Old MacDonald’s Factory Farm) has been floating around the animal rights blogspherz for a few weeks now. While I think Coats is dead-on in his analysis, his choice of phrasing strikes me as a little…curious, shall we say.

Take a look:

Isn’t man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife – birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, beavers, groundhogs, mice, foxes, and dingoes – by the millions in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative – and fatal – health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out a card praying for “Peace on Earth.”

In the course of his patriarchy blaming, Coats assumes the language of the very patriarchy he’s indicting. Specifically, he continually employs variants of the term mankind when he’s actually referring to humankind: man is an amazing animal; he slaughters wildlife so that he can raise and eat “food” animals; man suffers from dietary-induced health conditions, which leads man to torture millions of “lab” animals in search of cures for these self-inflicted illnesses, and so on.

In fact, Coats only switches from androcentric to gender-neutral terms near the end of the paragraph – when he transitions from describing the actions of the oppressor (man) to the consequences of these actions on other human animals. To wit: “millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition”; “[m]eanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter” (“at the absurdity of man,” natch).

Possibly, this is an unintentional example of casual sexism – i.e., Coats accidentally employed largely androcentric verbiage when writing this preface. Since this isn’t primarily a feminist blog*, allow me to explain why Coats’s choice of terminology is problematic. By using language which explicitly refers to men – necessarily, at the exclusion of women – we erase women from the public sphere, from our written and oral histories, from our cultural narratives. These seemingly innocuous, male-specific terms have very real, very harmful practical consequences. Language shapes the way we think; words matter. In eliminating women from our discourse, so too do we eliminate them from our consciousness – shoving them from the public (political) to the private (domestic) sphere. “Man,” “mankind” and the like simply are not inclusive, universal terms for “men and women.” Nor is “convenience” an excuse – it’s not very hard to use “humankind” in place of “man” or “mankind,” “people” in place of “men,” etc.

More likely, though, I think Coats’s choice of words is thoughtful and intentional. As I noted above, the first half of the paragraph is front-loaded with androcentric terms: man this, he that. However, Coats quickly switches to more inclusive terms when describing the effects of man’s sins on other humans beings. Rather than a sexist slip-up, Coats’s transition from sexist to gender-neutral verbiage appears to be intentional, perhaps in an attempt to stress that man (as the primary profiteer in a patriarchy) is the oppressor, while other humans (women, children and some groups of disadvantaged men) – in addition to non-human animals – are man’s victims.

While I appreciate Coats’s intent (if this is indeed the case), I think his reasoning is misguided at best (and patronizing or outright sexist at worst). Most humans are both agents and victims of the patriarchy: precious few (men) occupy the top rungs of a hierarchy, while most everyone else – dangling precariously on the various middle rungs – are at once oppressed by those above, as they oppress those below. This goes for most everyone: men, women, children, people of color, religious minorities, LGBTQ individuals, etc. Even the most disadvantaged among us (humans) are able to exploit non-human animals, which collectively sit at the bottom of the pyramid. Just as we are all exploited, so too are we all exploiters.

Think about it: wherever women are genitally mutilated, forced into arranged or underage marriages, expected to birth babies throughout their fertile years, derided for being too feminine or not feminine enough, valued less than the fetuses in their wombs, or otherwise treated like receptacles for the male gaze, his magic seed, various bodily secretions, or outright male hatred, women still have the right to torture, enslave and slaughter animals for the most trivial of reasons, consume their corpses, wear their skins, etc.** Ditto people of color, people of lower socioeconomic statuses, children, homosexuals, transgendered people, people of disability, etc. The particulars may change, but the human privilege is always there.

In excluding women (and other marginalized groups) from the category of “oppressors,” Coats is obscuring the true nature of our relationships – to one another, to non-human animals and to the natural world around us. Truthfully, we all carry some sort of privilege, whether it’s over women, people of color, LGBTQ’s, or non-human animals (etc.). Old MacDonald (as in, The Megatheocorporatocracy (TM) formerly known as Old MacDonald) may own that factory farm, but we all reap its benefits (and consequences). We all need to check our privilege at the door.

The good news? We all have the opportunity for self-improvement, personal growth and transformation. You can start by going vegan, if you haven’t already.

Step #2: ditch the sexist/racist/homophobic/xenophobic/sizeist/ableist/speciesist language, please.

——————

* Crossposted from.

** Hence the Sarah Palin photo at the top of this post: she was (and continues to be) the victim of countless misogynist attacks during the 2008 election cycle, yes, but she also victimizes non-human animals on both a personal (hunting, food, clothing, entertainment) and public (gov’t policy) basis.

——————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare language intersections parallel oppressions animals and women sexism racism speciesism C. David Coats Old MacDonald’s Factory Farm an amazing animal violence the cycle of violence sarah palin androcentric mankind humankind feminism feminist flickr photo

Of all PETA’s campaigns, I think I find the “fur hag” meme most offensive. While feminists can (and do) disagree on whether nudity and porn can ever be empowering for women, “fur hag” is a rather obvious gender-based slur, and draws upon a number of age-old stereotypes about women – which PETA further elucidates with their “fur hag” artwork.

To be fair, I have no idea whether PETA actually invented the term “fur hag” – but they’ve certainly been quite influential in launching “fur hag” into the mainstream. Wherever fur-wearing celebs are trashed – on gossip blogs, in fashion show protests, or even on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, “fur hag” is inevitably bandied about as an insult. Oftentimes by other women, who apparently see nothing sexist about denigrating women they dislike with misogynist slurs.

Let’s start by looking at the word “hag.”

Dictionary.com defines “hag” as:

1. an ugly old woman, esp. a vicious or malicious one.
2. a witch or sorceress.
3. a hagfish.

The first definition is obviously problematic: a hag is “an ugly old woman, esp. a vicious or malicious one.” While I have no qualms about calling people (women and men) who wear fur “vicious” or “malicious,” the term “hag” also attacks the fur wearer’s physical appearance and gender – a “hag” is “an ugly old woman.” In fact, the primary aspect of this definition involves appearance and gender – a “hag” is “an ugly old woman,” especially [but not necessarily] “a vicious or malicious one.” “Vicious” and “malicious” are somewhat extraneous to this definition; a “hag,” then, is chiefly “an ugly old woman.”

Which begs the question – why should one’s gender and physical appearance be used as insults? A person’s outward physical appearance has nothing to do with her moral and ethical character, or her value and worth as an individual. To call upon physical attractiveness (or perceived lack thereof) as an insult is, well, insulting and prejudiced, not to mention misguided and deceptive. Further, when you stop to consider what constitutes physical attractiveness in Western culture (thin, white, young, “all-American”), such judgments are usually racist, ageist, and sizeist as well.

The size of Beyonce’s ass, for example, says nothing about her as a person. It’s irrelevant.

In this first definition, “hag” is also a gender-based slur – inasmuch as it, by definition, refers to a woman – and an ugly one, at that. Because for women, who are judged largely on their physical appearance (and to a much greater degree than men), there is nothing worse than being ugly, unfuckable, unlovable. We are the sex class, mere objects for the male gaze (and receptacles for their holy, magical sperm).

Since it’s a gender-based slur, “hag” can never be applied to men – unless, of course, it’s used to emasculate a man by equating him with a woman (as is done with “bitch”). Such a use of the term relies on the idea that women are somehow inferior – to call a man a woman is to take him down a peg in our patriarchal hierarchy. Again, this usage just reinforces “hag” as a sexist slur.

The second definition is no better – a “hag” is “a witch or sorceress.”

Let’s look at dictionary.com‘s definition of these terms:

Witch

1. a person, now esp. a woman, who professes or is supposed to practice magic, esp. black magic or the black art; sorceress. Compare warlock.
2. an ugly or mean old woman; hag: the old witch who used to own this building.
3. a person who uses a divining rod; dowser.

Sorceress

a woman who practices sorcery; witch.

As with “hag,” both “witch” and “sorceress” refer primarily to women – and ugly and mean old women. Because Dog knows that women (as opposed to men) are mean and ugly, and our meanness and ugliness only multiply as we age.

Then there’s the use of “witch” as a euphemism for the even more offensive “bitch,” which I’ll return to later.

Finally, the third and last definition offered for “hag” is “a hagfish.”

Hagfish are

marine craniates of the class Myxini, also known as Hyperotreti. Myxini is the only class in the clade Craniata that does not also belong to the subphylum Vertebrata. That is, they are the only animals which have a skull but not a vertebral column.

Despite their name, there is some debate about whether they are strictly fish (as there is for lampreys), since they belong to a much more primitive lineage than any other group that is placed in the category of fish (Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes). Their unusual feeding habits and slime-producing capabilities have led members of the scientific and popular media to dub the hagfish as the most “disgusting” of all sea creatures. Although hagfish are sometimes called “slime eels,” they are not eels at all.

While it’s certainly possible that PETA and anti-fur protesters are referring to the “ugly” hagfish when calling Lindsay Lohan a “fur hag,” I highly doubt it. But hey, let’s just say they are. Using “hagfish” as an insult is speciesist – it draws on negative associations about an animal species, for doing/being what it was designed to by evolution. It’s no better than calling a cheating husband a “dog,” a dirty roommate a “pig,” or a tattle-taley sibling a “rat”: all reinforce negative stereotypes about a particular animal species. These stereotypes, in turn, affect how we view and treat these animals. For example, it’s easier to exploit animals that are perceived as ugly, unlovable, alien or subhuman. PETA knows this: hence their “Sea Kittens” campaign. Words matter.

“Hag” as short for “hagfish” is also a slur which attacks a person’s physical appearance, rather than her moral character. As I said above, this is inaccurate and prejudiced. And again, it’s also a slur that’s more likely to be applied to women than men, as a woman’s worth more often rests on her so-called physical attractiveness.

The artwork that PETA uses to illustrate their “fur hag” materials are a “lovely” illustration of the above. In keeping with the dictionary definitions of “hag,” PETA’s “fur hags” are primarily women – ugly, old women.

In addition to the ad I included at the beginning of this post (which depicts the “fur hag” as an older, obese, conventionally unattractive woman), consider the following:

While we can argue over whether Anna Wintour and Donatella Versace are conventionally attractive women, I think it’s obvious that PETA took care to select the least flattering photos of each woman to grace these “fur hag” ads. Again, each are depicted as old, ugly, witch-like women. The ads’ copy goes further, explicitly declaring that “Fur is worn by beautiful animals and ugly people.” While the adjective “ugly” could apply to Ms. Wintour and Ms. Versace’s moral characters, I think the unflattering, deliberately ugly portrayals of each belie PETA’s real intent: to attack their looks in addition to/instead of their personality flaws. Also, while PETA claims that fur is worn by “ugly people,” this is really a disingenuous stab at gender neutrality, as most (if not all) of their anti-fur/”fur hag” ads 1) target women and 2) employ gender-specific slurs.

(I should note that PETA also produces the “Ink, Not Mink” anti-fur ads, which do include some male models. However, I don’t think these qualify, for reasons I’ll explain in a later post. The short answer, though, is that they don’t make sense – comparing “ink” to “mink” is like comparing apples to golf balls. Rather than making a legitimate, logical point, I get the impression that PETA just needed another rhyme for their latest celeb campaign.*)

PETA’s recent treatment of the Ollsen twins (or the “Trollsens,” in PETA’s own words) takes the “fur hag” stereotype to hateful extremes, portraying the twins as painfully ugly trolls.

On the “Trollsens” portion of their website (www.peta2.com/Trollsens/), PETA features cartoonish graphics which portray the young women as old, ugly, trollish witches – “fur hags” to letter:

PETA goes even further, by nicknaming each twin: “Hairy Kate” for Mary-Kate, and “Trashley” for Ashley….

(“Hairy” is yet another insult which plays to gender stereotypes, as women aren’t supposed to have body hair…even though we’re the same primates as our male counterparts. “Trashley” is spiteful, but rather gender-neutral.)

…and inviting the audience to dress them up in “fatal fashion.”:

This last screenshot is by far the most disturbing of the bunch – and the worst extreme of “fur haggery” that I’ve seen. Here, the Ollsens are stripped nearly naked, their barely clothed bodies a horror to behold. The young women are imagined as old and, well, haggard – their bodies, wrinkled and aged, covered in liver spots. They are old, ugly, practically corpse-like – nightmarish trolls and witches, the both of them.

Worse still, PETA also hits a body image hot spot by making the twins impossibly thin – in a word, anorexic. Given the high incidence of eating disorders among women in Western nations (and, increasingly, in non-Western nations which are slowly adopting Western standards of beauty), this is not only hateful – but fucking irresponsible, to boot. Women already receive conflicting and impossible messages about their self-worth and bodies, without a social justice organization adding to the toxic cultural milieu. It’s the classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario” – women are either too thin or not thin enough (the Ollsens are ridiculed for their thinness, while Beyonce is ridiculed for her “fat ass”); spend too little or too much time on their physical appearance (it’s a fine line between frumpy and vain); etc., etc. etc.

In fact, Mary-Kate has been diagnosed with anorexia, and it’s rumored that Ashley suffers from an eating disorder as well. To attack the twins on such a personal level – deriding them for caving under the crushing weight of society’s impossible beauty demands, to the point where one or each of them suffers from a psychological disorder – is shamefully cruel.

While I’m disappointed and angry with PETA for promoting gender stereotypes and misogynist slurs through the “fur hag” campaigns, my heart breaks a little every time fellow animal rights advocates – especially women – refer to it approvingly, thus further perpetuating dis-empowering gender roles. The slur “fur hag” attacks women, simply for being women. A woman’s actions and intent are secondary, merely icing on the cake. “Hags” are vilified for their femaleness – a femaleness which grows more offensive the “uglier” and older they become. In using the term “hag,” women are not only hurting the fur-wearer, but themselves as well.

Ditto the term “bitch,” which is also bandied about in the animal advocacy community with glee. And with increasingly frequency, natch, in the wake of the highly misogynistic 2008 election cycle. Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin may be awful people, but they’re awful for their views on non-human animals, the environment, etc. – not because they’re women who hold these views.

Again, let’s see what dictionary.com has to say about the word “bitch”:

1. a female dog.
2. a female of canines generally.
3. Slang.
a. a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman.
b. a lewd woman.
4. Slang.
a. a complaint.
b. anything difficult or unpleasant: The test was a bitch.
c. anything memorable, esp. something exceptionally good: That last big party he threw was a real bitch.

Here, as with “hag,” “bitch” primarily refers to an unlikable woman. As with “hagfish,” it can also refer to an animal – a female dog – so using it in this manner is speciesist as well as sexist. (Three of my best friends are bitches, in point o’ fact, making bitch-as-a-slur that much more offensive to me.)

Bigger feminist bitches than I have tackled the b-word, so rather than rehash, allow me to quote liberally.

Andi Zeisler, co-founder (with Lisa Jervis) of Bitch magazine, as quoted in Shakesville:

Bitch is a word we use culturally to describe any woman who is strong, angry, uncompromising and, often, uninterested in pleasing men. We use the term for a woman on the street who doesn’t respond to men’s catcalls or smile when they say, “Cheer up, baby, it can’t be that bad.” We use it for the woman who has a better job than a man and doesn’t apologize for it. We use it for the woman who doesn’t back down from a confrontation.

So let’s not be disingenuous. Is it a bad word? Of course it is. As a culture, we’ve done everything possible to make sure of that, starting with a constantly perpetuated mindset that deems powerful women to be scary, angry and, of course, unfeminine — and sees uncompromising speech by women as anathema to a tidy, well-run world.

From Bitch magazine’s ‘about us’ page:

The writer Rebecca West, back in the day, said, “People call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.” We’d argue that the word “bitch” is usually deployed for the same purpose. When it’s being used as an insult, “bitch” is an epithet hurled at women who speak their minds, who have opinions and don’t shy away from expressing them, and who don’t sit by and smile uncomfortably if they’re bothered or offended. If being an outspoken woman means being a bitch, we’ll take that as a compliment, thanks.

We know that not everyone’s down with the term. Believe us, we’ve heard all about it. But we stand firm in our belief that if we choose to take the word as a compliment, it loses its power to hurt us. And if we can get people thinking about what they’re saying and why when they use the word, that’s even better.

And last, but certainly not least, “bitch” describes all at once who we are when we speak up, what it is we’re too worked up over to be quiet about, and the act of making ourselves heard.

Used as an insult, “bitch” is a misogynist term: it applies to women who are loud, ambitious, outspoken, opinionated. (It’s also worth noting that the threshold where these traits turn from an advantage to a liability is much lower for women than men.) Uppity women are “bitches,” and “bitch” is the patriarchy’s way of telling them to STFU. As members of the patriarchy, socialized in its woman-hating culture, women can be (and oftentimes are) misogynists, too – along with men, many women are foot soldiers, seeking to reinforce and enforce gender roles, or self-haters, denigrating the “unwomanly” traits they see in other women. Women can be sexist, just as people of color can be racist, gays and lesbians can be homophobic, etc., etc., etc.

On a personal note, as a vegan and animal liberationist, I sometimes find myself employing speciesist terms (“dehumanize,” “pig” as an insult, etc.). As someone who was raised and exists in a highly speciesist culture, I’m not immune from unconsciously engaging in speciesism myself. The most we can do is recognize, apologize and learn from these mistakes.

So comes a plea for the animal advocacy community, men and women alike – please stop using sexist terms such as “hag,” “bitch,” “cunt,” “slut,” etc. as insults. Ditto other slurs which rely on various “isms” for their power. Fighting one oppression by engaging in another is both unethical and counterproductive.

Likewise, if you’re a woman, and you feel comfortable doing so, reclaim “bitch” and “cunt” as your own. You can do so by using them in a positive and complimentary way – “Bitches get shit done!”

It’s time to recognize “fur hag,” “fucking bitch” and the like for what they are – attacks on women, attacks which have no place in a social justice movement.

Hate is hate, violence is violence, oppression is oppression – and enough is enough.

(Crossposted from.)

———————

* Update, 1/25/09: Duh, me. Somehow I neglected to mention PETA’s other anti-fur campaigns, “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur” and “Turn Your Back On Fur.” While neither rely on sexist slurs, they do primarily include women celebs – which irks me, since men wear fur, too. As with the “Ink, Not Mink” campaign, I’ll address these in a later post.

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare language fur hag bitch feminism misogyny sexism peta people for the ethical treatment of animals ads advertisements campaigns ollsen twins trollsens animals and women intersections parallel oppressions race racism gender stereotypes class classism words matter marketing flickr photos fur anti-fur

Now that this post is making the rounds (which is to say, a few bloggers have mentioned it – lolz on me!), I want to make the following clarifications:

1) As I said at Change.org, I don’t think Obama is a misogynist. In calling his “girly dog” remark sexist, I’m not grouping him with hardcore misogynists like Ann Coulter, Joe Francis, Rick Warren and the like. Rather, I think that Obama occasionally engages in the sort of casual, softcore sexism that’s all too common among men (and women!) who have been raised in a culture steeped in misogyny. An occasional slip is understandable and excusable – after all, we’re all socialized with certain prejudices, which we have to unlearn – but only if you’re willing to recognize, apologize and learn from it.

Here, Mrs. Obama offered her husband several opportunities to reconsider his comments – and he didn’t. To me, his failure to recognize how this gendered stereotype might offend his wife and daughters is worse than the comments themselves.

2) Upon re-reading the post, I see that I conflated “small dogs” with “girly dogs” – my bad! While I think there’s a strong correlation between a dog’s size and his/her perceived “girly”-ness, there are exceptions. The standard poodle, for example, is a larger breed, but might be considered “girly,” inasmuch as it’s “high maintenance” (i.e., is rather well groomed). “Girly doesn’t necessarily equal “small,” but the two are somewhat related.

Nor do I have a problem with Obama preferring a large dog; indeed, as some have pointed out, large dogs are overrepresented in shelters, at least in some areas of the country, and thus it might do more good for Obama to adopt a large breed. That’s fine by me – but he can do so without denigrating “girly” dogs (and, by extension, actual girls and women).

3) Enumerating the consequences of gender-based stereotypes and insults on human men and women is well beyond the scope of this blog.

However, if you:

a) Don’t understand why the term “girly” might be perceived as an insult, and a gender-based one at that;

b) Don’t see the links between misogyny and homophobia; and/or

c) Don’t recognize the practical, real-world effects of gender stereotypes and gendered slurs on men and women (and girls and boys), or understand how men and women (and girls and boys) receive different, gendered socialization, then

I highly recommend adding some feminist blogs to your reading list. For a primer, start with Finally, a feminism 101 blog. As far as non-AR feminist blogs go, I also like Shakespeare’s Sister and Feministe, both of which are relatively light on speciesism.

If you think I need to “lighten up” or “get over myself,” you really need to do some feminist homework!

4) Finally, I’d like to add that the term “girly dog” also invokes class and race stereotypes. When you think of the quintessential “girly dog” and her “owner,” probably you think of a small, white, yappy, puffy little dog with bows in her perfectly groomed hair. The dog – being a lap dog, as Obama also said – is most likely pictured lounging on the lap of an equally perfectly groomed woman, who is either prissy and “diva”-ish, like Paris Hilton (another blogger’s term and example), or older and regally respectable, like Ms. Walters. Either way, she’s white and upper-class. At least, that’s my take on the term.

—————–

Oy. After months of equivocating on the dog issue, the Obama family has announced that they’ve narrowed their choice down to two breeds: the Labradoodle and the Portuguese Water Dog. Unfortunately, as Adopt-a-Pet.com reports, while these are not the only two “hypoallergenic” breeds available, they are harder to find on animal adoption websites:

You recently signed Adopt-a-Pet.com‘s petition on www.Presidential-Pooch-Pardon.com asking Barack Obama to adopt a shelter dog. He is interested in adopting, but has narrowed his search to uncommon breeds that are difficult to find in a shelter. Now, on the President-Elect’s website, there’s a section where people can vote for their favorite ideas, and the top vote-getting ideas will be directly seen by Obama. One of the animal shelter workers who posts pets for adoption on Adopt-a-Pet.com has posted an idea urging the president to consider finding a mixed breed dog with the right individual traits that meets his family’s needs.

You can make a huge difference by voting one more time here. If this is your first time on the site, you’ll be asked to create an account, which is super simple. After you create your account, click the link above again to locate the suggestion.

Thank you for being part of this non-partisan effort to promote homeless pet adoption please spread the word to your friends!

Indeed, a search of Petfinder for “Labradoodle” currently turns up zero results, while “Portuguese Water Dog” uncovers seven purebred dogs.

Additionally, in selecting a purebred dog, the Obamas are practically inviting greedy breeders to cash in on their (hopefully) compassionate choice by sexually exploiting and selling the “Obama dog.” (Doubly so if they adopt a breed that’s hard to find through adoption routes.) A mixed breed or mutt – particularly one of unknown heritage, which can’t easily be reproduced – would help minimize this risk.

Also on the Obama dog front, Adopt-a-Pet.com has some crazy cute graphics you can download, encouraging the Obamas to adopt a mutt.

They’re available at muttslikeme.adoptapet.com, which is a riff on Obama’s observation that “A lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me.”

Incidentally, the Tennessee Guerrilla Women included a clip of the November 25, 2008 Barbara Walters Obama interview in their discussion of the Labradoodle/Portuguese Water Dog dilemma. Here, Walters asks the Obamas about their dog search, sharing with Barack and Michelle a photo of her own dog, Cha-Cha – a Cuban Havanese who she describes as “like a little terrier”:

I’m too lazy to type up a transcript, but luckily the WaPo’s Ruth Marcus summarizes:

No girly dog.

Excuse me?

That’s right. Barack Obama doesn’t want a girly dog.

As in Barbara Walters’s non-allergenic terrier, a Havanese named Cha Cha.

“It’s like a little yappy dog?” Obama asked Walters, foolishly ignoring his wife’s advice not to criticize.

“It, like, sits in your lap and things?” queried the skeptical president-elect.

Michelle, still trying to save her husband from himself, pronounced the dog “cute.”

Barack wasn’t buying it. “It sounds kind of like a…a girly dog,” he said, at which point his wife pointed out, “We’re girls. We have a house full of girls.”

Except for the, well, Top Dog, who forthwith issued an executive order. “We’re gonna have a big, rambunctious dog.”

That’s right. The “new face of feminism,” who is married to a woman and has two young daughters, doesn’t want a “girly dog.” And, ahem, sees nothing wrong with using the word “girly” as a pejorative. Nice.

The term “girly dog” is yet another example of intersecting oppressions – another instance of animal advocacy as a feminist issue.

Let’s start with the stereotype of a “girly dog.” “Girly dogs” are much like “girly girls” – small, weak, fluffy, frilly, frou-frou-ey, in need of copious amounts of grooming, with large closets (filled with sparkly pink clothes, no doubt) and even bigger (yappy) mouths. Girly dogs, like girly girls, are feminine. Submissive. Annoying. Rather useless. Lazy. Bitchy. A pain in the ass. By extension, men who “own” “girly dogs” (or are “girly” themselves) are gay. Which is almost as bad as being a woman.

Big, rambunctious dogs, on the other hand, are manly. Tough. Full of testosterone. Rebellious. Not easily controlled. Leaders, not followers. They take shit from no one – least of all, girly dogs and women. 100%, Grade A hetero. Manly dogs are no one’s bitches.

Akin to the men eat meat / women nibble on salad dichotomy, the girly / manly dog split also hurts women and animals. Here, both women and small dogs are devalued for superficial reasons; the content of their characters is based on their physical characteristics, real or imagined. That which is “girly” or feminine is dismissed, denigrated, while the “manly” or masculine is judged superior and preferable. Inherent in this equation is the “I ain’t no fag!” protestation – only homosexual men “own” small, yippy dogs. In addition to being breedist and sexist, the term “girly dog” is also homophobic.

Ageist, too: small, “girly” “lap” dogs are the sort of “pets” one might picture relaxing in the laps of older women, such as Ms. Walters herself.

To summarize, in just two words, women (older women especially), gay men and small dogs are all denigrated through their perceived associations with and similarities to one another.

So eff you, Obama, for using the term “girly” as an insult – and in the company of two accomplished women, one of which is your wife, to boot.

To paraphrase Wanda Sykes, “Don’t say that something is girly when you mean that something is dumb or stupid. It’s insulting. It’s like if I thought this pepper shaker was stupid, and I said, ‘Man, this pepper shaker is so 47-year-old man with dumbo ears and a penchant for flip-flopping.’” Or, you know, “This pepper shaker is so Barack Obama.”

And while we’re at it, don’t reinforce the stereotype that small dogs are somehow dumb, stupid or inferior because of their size. My “girly” dogs will eff you up, yo.

(Crossposted from.)

—————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare pet companion animal dog canine adopt mutt mixed breed Labradoodle Portuguese Water Dog hypoallergenic Adopt-a-Pet.com barbara walters michelle obama girly sexist sexism misogyny homophobe homophobia parallel oppressions intersections language video video blogging you tube

This FSMas marks the third holiday season since the Mr. and I eloped in June of ’06. As time grinds on, it’s become obvious that some relatives – mostly the older and more conservative of the bunch, but not always – are a-ok with foisting their values on me, vis-à-vis the way(s) in which they choose to address me. Inevitably, we receive more than a few x-mas cards made out to “Shane and Kelly Brady” or – more odiously – “Mr. and Mrs. Brady.” This despite me never having changed my last name upon marrying Mr. Brady – and being extremely vocal about my choice: he and I have separate address labels, with different last names; when we send out joint mail, particularly those FSMas cards, we always sign them with both our surnames; and, for fuck’s sake, I’m the weird hippie librul veg*n feminist heathen in the family – so of course “Mrs.” isn’t gonna fly with me, ya? And yet, certain relatives still insist on referring to me as – blecht! – Mrs. Brady.

And it’s not just on the joint x-mas cards – the worst offenders of the bunch will address birthday cards and other pieces of mail meant specifically for me to “Mrs. Brady” or “Kelly Brady.” You can’t even pretend to use the “timesaver” excuse there, nosiree – it’s only two extra letters, people.

Perhaps most tellingly, the reverse never occurs. I have a few random, extended family relatives who have never met the Mr., and aren’t even sure of his last name. Even so, they are cautious not to commit the egregious faux pas of referring to a man by his wife’s last name – because that would simply be rude and emasculating. Heaven’s no, can’t have that! Mail from these folks arrives addressed to “Kelly Garbato and Shane,” rather than “Mrs. and Mr. Garbato” or “Kelly and Shane Garbato.”

So I wonder, maybe I should start a little experiment wherein I address all my mail to the women – using their maiden names, of course – and their husbands: “Ms. and Mr. Garbato.” (An obvious stumbling block is that there is no male equivalent of “Mrs.”; men are simply men, Misters, no matter their marital status. But, you know, work with me here.) Addressing women, men and couples with no regard for how they wish to represent themselves to the world. Addressing the menses as though they’re just nameless, faceless, unimportant appendages or pieces of property; things without purposes or identities apart from their wives or their children.

How do y’all think that might go over, huh? But, what’s the big deal? It’s “just a name,” right?

Naturally, my lil’ sis is excluded from the above rant; I know she purposefully calls me “Mrs. Brady” just to get a rise outta the hackles on my hairy feminist calves. That’s what little sisters do, no?

By the way, sis, remember when your turtle Henry bit you on the chin and, dangling there, refused to let go, despite your comical levels of hysteria? Good times.

———————

Tagged: feminism feminist surname marriage fsmas cards mrs. mr. language

KING: OK. A strange story.

We begin here in Los Angeles with Davida Kelley, a former member of the Children of God. It’s now called Family International. She was raised in the household of that sect’s now dead leader, David Berg, whom she says sexually abused her.

Also here is Amy Bril, a former member of the Children of God. She was summoned to the household of David Berg as a young child and married to him at age 13. [...]

KING: At what age were you first tampered with?

Yes, “tampered with”. Because the human body is like a Tylenol bottle, and sexual assault is similar to fiddling with the safety packaging on an unopened package of aspirin.

King returns to this clumsy euphemism for “rape” several times throughout the interview:

KING: And Ricky, Davida, he killed, what, the person who was his nanny?

KELLEY: Yes. She was one of many nannies who…

KING: Tampered with him.

KELLEY: Yes, when he was a child.

Remember, we’re talking about child rape and sexual exploitation. “Tampering” doesn’t even begin to describe the horror of what these children (now adults) endured. You “tamper” with a toilet and a roll of Saran Wrap on April Fool’s Day in order to pull a prank on your younger sibling. To refer to ritualized, lifelong sexual abuse and exploitation as “tampering” is to minimize, deny and obscure the realities of what actually took place.

FYI, though King does use the terms “sexual assault” and “sexual abuse” several times throughout the interview, the word “rape” does not appear once – not once! – in the entire, hour-long transcript. Go figure.

———————–

Tagged: larry king cnn rape sex sexual abuse sexual assault msm

Correspondingly, a “rape scene” does not equal a “sex scene.”

Thus, your profile of actress Summer Bishil in the August/September Bust is disappointingly misogynistic. And anti-feminist. Yes, I understand that you’re about as feminist as Planet Green is, well, green, but still. Even for a superfluffyfunfeminism magazine, this is beyond the pale.

You’re better than this:

The first question I want to ask Summer Bishil, star of Alan Ball’s new film, Towelhead, is what it was like to do a sex scene with Aaron Eckhart. “I thought he was attractive prior to meeting him,” she replies, laughing, “so I was pretty nervous.” The response catches me off-guard, because the scene in question is a harrowing one in which Bishil’s character, 13-year-old Jasira, is raped.

Wow, Jasira is raped and raped while underage. Where does the “sex scene” come in, exactly?

Seriously, I’ve come to expect this sort of woman-hating, rape-denying/-minimizing bullshit from the mainstream media; the mental gymnastics they sometimes perform in order to avoid using the word “rape” in a news story about rape truly are Olympian in nature:

‘World’s greatest dad’ charged in online child-sex sting (USA Today)

Child rape sting! ‘World’s greatest dad’ charged in online child-rape sting!

Mental Health Expert, 78, Charged In Internet Child Sex Sting (Tampa Bay Online)

Child rape sting! Mental Health Expert, 78, Charged In Internet Child Rape Sting!

Police: Men had sex with teen runaways (The News & Observer)

Raped! Police: Men raped teen runaways!

Guilty Verdict In Videotaped Sex Slay Case (CBS News)

ZOMFG! Rape slay case! Guilty Verdict In Videotaped Rape Slay Case!

Richard D. Davis and Dena Riley raped, tortured and killed a woman! While videotaping it! Where the mofo was this “sex” of which you speak!?!

Former Coroner Employee Had Sex With Body (WKRC TV Cincinnati)

Raped! Former Coroner Employee Raped Body!

Seriously, I am this close to losing my shit now. How on earth does a corpse consent to anything? That’s not a rhetorical question, I really would like an answer. I’m talking to you, anonymous WKRC TV Cincinnati headline writer!

Rape is not sex:

“The word ‘sex’ implies consent,” she said. “I never once would describe (what happened) as sex. He’s making me commit perjury.”

“Sex” implies mutual consent, while terms such as “had sex with,” “engaged in sex,” etc., say as much; after all, you can’t mutually engage in an act or perform an act with someone unless your partner is doing it, too. Rape victims aren’t “having sex” with their assailants, they are being raped.

So, Ms. Priya Jain & Bust mag editors, I am extremely disappointed, disgusted and appalled to find you, of all peoples, regurgitating the language of the patriarchy. The language which implies that a rape did not, in fact, take place (no matter what that self-hating whore says the morning after); the language which denies and minimizes rape (what are you talking about, I didn’t rape her; we had sex); the language which allows all of society to turn a blind eye to the realities of rape. After all, if the word “rape” never graces the headlines, where’s the problem?

Call me naive, but I expected more from an indie/feminist media outlet.

Signed,

- A soon-to-be-ex-subscriber. (But not because of your unfortunate choice of words to describe rape. I’d already made the decision not to renew when I leafed through your latest issue. I just totally like Bitch better.)

Oh, and P.S.: Decorating your Twin Peaks fashion spread with a decapitated deer head? Totally uncool. Really, would it have killed you and your grand artistic vision to just substitute in some wrought iron doohickey instead? Random acts of violence are so 1942, dontchaknow.

———————

Tagged: bust msm rape sex misogyny feminism language speciesism fashion

In Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflections by Women Writers, Deborah Tannen* brings us entry #105 in Hillary Sexism Watch**:

All human relations pivot on two dimensions: on one hand, closeness/distance, and on the other, hierarchy. We ask of every encounter: Does this bring us closer or push us apart? And also: Does this put me in a one-up or a one-down position? Researchers in my field [linguistics] refer to these dimensions as solidarity and power. You can see them at work in forms of address. If you call others by their first names, you’re exercising solidarity, bringing them closer; using their titles and their last names creates distance. But forms of address also operate on the hierarchy dimension, especially if they’re asymmetrical. Calling people by their first names can indicate their lack of power, as with children and workers in service roles. Addressing someone as Mr., Ms., or Dr. can indicate either formality or the fact that they are above you on the social ladder and, hence, more powerful. This constitutes another double bind, and it brings us back to Hillary.

Why, we might ask, do we refer to Hillary as Hillary? Women are far more often referred to by their first names than are men in similar roles. This is partly because people tend to feel more comfortable with women and find them less intimidating. For a political candidate, that’s a good thing. But being referred to by a first name is also the result, and simultaneously the cause, of women commanding less respect. During the Democratic primary campaign debates, Hillary shared the stage with Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, and Obama – not Dennis, John, Joe, Bill, Christopher, and Barack. Of course, one obvious reason that Hillary is Hillary to us is that she shares her last name with the other famous Clinton (a choice, recall, that was pressed upon her). Another is that her name is unusual and therefore more recognizable than, say, Susan or Mary. But the name Barack is even more unusual.

If you look back through the archives, it’s plainly obvious that I alternate between referring to Ms. Clinton as “Hillary” and “Clinton”, but very rarely use first names in reference to the male candidates. Barack Obama is usually just “Obama” – even though, as Tannen points out, “Barack” is at least recognizable as “Hillary”.

Given the misogyny directed Clinton (see, for example: “she-devil”, “robot”, “cold”, “calculated”, “Sister Frigidaire”, etc.), I don’t think most people call Hillary “Hillary” because they’re overcome with warm fuzzy wuzzies and want to be one with her. (Her supporters, perhaps, but her detractors? Not so much.) Rather, in many cases I think it’s more likely that “power” (vs. “solidarity”) is the operating principle: it’s a way of infantilizing her, taking the ball-buster down a peg, cutting off another uppity bitch’s feet. Hillary doesn’t seem as powerful, as intimating, when she’s just “Hillary” – as opposed to “Mrs. Clinton” or even (gawd forbid!) “Hillary Rodham Clinton”. And what with all the jokes about castration, I think it’s more than safe to say that a good number of men feel threatened by her, some subconsciously, others more obviously so.

So what does it say of me, that I address Clinton by her first name while addressing most others by their surnames? Probably that I’ve internalized so much misogyny over my thirty years that I’m still trying to shake it off. I want to be a radfem blamer, dammit, but I’ve received the same socialization as the dudez over at the Daily Kos!

* See: “The Double Bind: The damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t paradox facing women leaders”, p. 132-133

** I know, I know, the primaries are so! over!…but the misogyny, my friends…the misogyny will last a lifetime.***

*** Along with the racism, homophobia, transgenderphobia, religious bigotry, speciesism, etc. In singling out the misogyny, I’m not discounting all the other isms, just so we’re clear, mkay?

———————-

Tagged: 2008 elections feminism misogyny hillary clinton language linguistics books book review thirty ways of looking at hillary Deborah Tannen sexism