Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 228 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ AKA Smith - because this sets my teeth on edge.
[Read the article: But see, some women ARE bitches]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If those are truly your concerns, and if you feel those concerns should trump any discussion of anything else here on earth, ever,
I'd settle for this being down the list. I don't recall anywhere near this level of a flap re: Obama's plans for the worldwide rights of women, Hillary's standing on helping poor mothers feed their children, or even McCain's treatment of his different wives.
...why are you posting here in Broadsheet about whether or not it is appropriate to call women bitches?
Because I'm hoping to wake some people up to this.
Yet discussing sexism might actually put a dent in sexism and that would be an excellent thing.
That'd be great, if true.
Here's the thing:
a) sexism cuts both ways. If you get in an uproar about the word "bitch" but still use the words "dick, prick, jerk, etc" - then that is hypocritical.
b) discussing word usage ****does not substantively change the culture**** that uses those words, in any way. Any more than changing the car's color changes the car.
What changes it is *actions* and *circumstances*.
If you feel that the issues of women must always come last,
I don't! That's your misunderstanding. I think women's issues are **very** important. I just consider this kind of obsession over words as an incredibly lame substitute for action changing *real circumstances*.
Seems to me that I once heard someone say, "Words matter!" Refresh my memory on who that was?
I don't remember. Did they do anything else of importance, besides criticize word usage?
-
@melthough
[Read the article: But see, some women ARE bitches]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I definitely agree re: misogyny being harmful, all around. Most forms of hate are.
Feminism is not just about women getting more goodies; it is about identifying, critiquing and hopefully ending what is now a very dated-sounded concept called patriarchy - the feminization and marginalization of others as a means to achieve control and power.
Well, I have a different take on that. I think that trying to change things through a chain like this:
1. identify and critique word usage -> change word usage in culture -> 2. change view of women in culture -> 3. change culture -> 4. change society -> 5. change treatment of women
- is way too indirect to actually be useful or effective.
And even more, the links that this chain misses between 3 and 4:
3b. change economic interests that support power structure ->
3c. change circumstances of individuals within power structure 3d. change power structure ->
- aren't affected by words at all.
You see what I'm saying?
But then, even if that change went all the way to the end of the chain, the power structure just adopts a new coat of paint in the new vogue, and continues. **The underlying structure is unchanged**.
And as a further note, it's changes in 3b, 3c and 3d that have **advanced** women's rights far more than obsessing about words ever has. The bicycle changed the physical ideal of women from passive to active (read this today in Salon.:) ). Cars made it possible for women to travel more widely. This made it more possible for women to organize, march, protest, and get suffrage. Then WWII's sending men to war, meant that women could work in factories and be seen as the real productive equal of men. This made it possible for women in general to advance economically without men. The pill made it possible for women to have sex with much less fear of pregnancy. This made it possible for women to make new lives that their mothers found much more difficult. Etc. etc.
Not words - new things, which enabled new actions, which changed the structure of our culture by changing the economic circumstances **beneath** it.
So no, I don't think improving the lives and power of women should be measured in "goodies", as in purchasing power and lifestyle accessories. BUT I think more women having more money and more capabilities leads to directly to more civil rights, experiencing less violence, living longer and healthier lives. And I think concentrating on real-world concerns directly - not indirectly by trying to change word usage - means more women being able to feed themselves and their daughters even if they're poor, being able to graduate high school and college etc.
In short, I'm into real and physically measurable things that help women. And I think trying to change word usage doesn't affect things on anywhere near the same scale.
-
@ AKA Smith - Obama matters
[Read the article: But see, some women ARE bitches]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It was Barack Obama who said that.
Right. Case in point. He has done far more than criticize our culture's use of words.
-
@ AKA Smith - words and social structures
[Read the article: But see, some women ARE bitches]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, you are begging a really big question there. In my opinion, the names we use actually shape the way we think about them in some ways. We could fight about that for years and still not be done...so I'm not sure it's so easy to brush aside like that.
Well, as I just perhaps rather lengthily said to Melthough, my take on it is this:
-> Our society comes from, and changes with, our economic structure.
-> Our culture comes from our society.
-> Our treatment of women (and men) comes from our culture.
-> Our word usage also comes from our culture.
If our culture was entirely disconnected from our society and economic structure, then yes, it could be possible for word usage to just metaphysically change our culture. But that's just *not* how it is. Culture is generated by society, and not by words. That's it.
In history, the only thing that's ever changed our society has been changes to our economic structure. I'm not a Marxist; they're solutions are worse than the disease. But their original diagnosis is pretty hard to argue with.