TopShelf
Abusive men, not actual men.
What about a hurt man?
A man can get hurt and just feel the hurt, think about the problem and make changes accordingly to avoid future pain.
An abusive man is a more limited, less matured, underdeveloped person. He thinks there is some sort of entitlement to cause others pain when they have hurt him. There isn't. What we all have a right to do is to talk it out civilly, walk away and/or divorce.
The slur is meant to cause harm. That's abuse.
It's the same as a jilted wife lashing out after she learned her husband strayed. Insert __any slur__ here.
Using slurs is abusive whether it's a female or a male hurling them. However, it is not the same.
What makes it different is the threat of violence behind the angry, sexual, hate-words. In a country with a sexual assault every 107 seconds, where for decades the leading cause of death of pregnant women was homicide committed by a boyfriend or husband and where children flee incest preferring to survive by being raped by adults whom are strangers and then get to be called, "whores," there's going to be some strong reactions to the language.
A man hearing such language does not have the same threatening experience. Which is exactly why the language persists.
The other point is about what the language reflects between two people. It's a risk to try for a monogamous sexual partnering for a long term relationship. Statistics and research show that we humans parallel other mammals, and only a very tiny minority are naturally monogamous. The denial of that fact or the insistence upon the fantasy that religion or promises can change our natures has led to many a broken heart.
And, my final point is about language. It reflects values... so Eskimos have maybe 200 words to describe snow because their survival depends upon specificity. What is so telling about the English language is the sheer number of words which objectify and express hatred or dismissal of women. We all know the words.
And, when those words are used against men, it's a "killing two birds with one stone" move. It's the worst criticism of a man to be seen as an equal or having similarities with women so when a guy is called a feminine-related slur, both he personally is emasculated while simultaneously conditioning the idea that to be like a woman is to be inferior. It's the language of male supremacists/woman-haters. Women whom use that language have been conditioned, oppressed and abused but have not yet made the connection and perpetuate the self-loathing language without understanding the ripple effects.
So, I think those factors and effects are worthy of consideration if the goal is to live in a world in which women are treated and perceived as equals. Equals... that means that men are equals, too.
The definer is promiscuity -- which she wasn't shown to be either. Slurs in this case are visceral reactions.
The definer being promiscuity is the problem. These words assign value to women according to their sexual choices and actions. That is nobody's business but her own... you know, same as it is for men. It's the notion of the discussion itself that is the problem. It's intrusive and women must have the same freedom from small-minded meddlers as men enjoy. The measure of a woman's respectability is not to be about her sexuality, rather about her character and her ability to add value to the world - same as men.
The biggest offender is pre-teen girls labeling a girl a slut. THAT social phenomena is an example of the saying, "You know the oppression of a group of people is complete when the oppressed themselves take over the job of oppressing each other."
As a complete opposite to such oppression would be the examples of awards given to Woody Allen and Bill Cosby and Roman Polanski. These men are NOT being measured by their sexuality.
Bottom line, slurs objectify and objectification is the first step in the crimes committed against others. So, find better words. :) Think about it... those words need further clarification anyway. Individually, you can't really know what people mean by them so their true purpose (male supremacy) is all you are truly advancing.
Reading your exchange with ScottishKate made me think this information might be useful to explain why it's objectionable in more ways than, "It's just not polite language." It's way more damaging than that.
I really do admire Steven Knight's writing because while there is always room for improvement, his female characters are depicted in ways which do not define them according to sexuality... he's way more comprehensive than that which is the opposite of objectification. And, equally important, he writes male characters whom relate to the women in their lives as full and smart and powerful people. This is rare in filmed media. Kudos to Peaky Blinders for a step in that right direction. :)
ETA: Spelling correction
Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.
reply
share