Why I am a feminist
I've been thinking quite a bit about the recent furore over Andy Gray's and Richard Keys' comments which have in the light of further revelations led to Andy Gray's sacking. Now there may very well be more to the sacking than meets the eye, but that doesn't interest me. What interests me is that here in the 21st century we still have this sort of "banter" and so many people are willing to defend it. This clip contains some fans who have clearly thought through the implications of judging someone's ability to do a job purely based on their gender and decided to speak out and say that it is wrong, along with some fans who think it's perfectly ok to make sexist comments as long as you don't think you're on air.
Sian Massey rose to the ranks of a league level assistant referee on merit. By all accounts, in the game in question she got the difficult marginal offside calls right. It bothers me that people think it's ok to make jokes about her ability to do her job properly just because she's a woman. It bothers me that there still seem to be so many people who just don't get it that sexism is wrong. It seems self-evident to me that we should not judge people's abilities based on their gender, in the same way that we should not judge on the basis of race, religion, age, or sexuality. I will be a feminist for as long as feminism is necessary, and I will call people out wherever I see discrimination.
Sian Massey rose to the ranks of a league level assistant referee on merit. By all accounts, in the game in question she got the difficult marginal offside calls right. It bothers me that people think it's ok to make jokes about her ability to do her job properly just because she's a woman. It bothers me that there still seem to be so many people who just don't get it that sexism is wrong. It seems self-evident to me that we should not judge people's abilities based on their gender, in the same way that we should not judge on the basis of race, religion, age, or sexuality. I will be a feminist for as long as feminism is necessary, and I will call people out wherever I see discrimination.
posted by Fluffy at 11:31 pm
9 Comments:
Gottle says...
I agree with everything you say, EXCEPT - if employers sacked everyone who held an opinion that someone else would find offensive, no-one would have a job. Every one of us holds an opinion about something that would offend someone, somewhere.
The question here is not whether sexism is wrong - it undoubtedly is - but whether it's right to sack someone for expressing an unacceptable opinion in what they thought was a private conversation.
I notice that Ms Massey hasn't complained.
I wouldn't complain either.
Many men talk in that way. Often they mean what they say and often they don't. Some consider it to be just part of male sense of humour.
Some women do the same in reverse. Just watch Loose Women every weekday at lunch time.
I think there's so much more to complain about. Why aren't people getting as worked up about the government's plans to sell off our forests and woodlands?
Gottle, that's exactly why I said the sacking didn't interest me. I am not interested in whether he should be sacked or not; I am interested that there is so much tacit approval of his comments, because to me they are totally unacceptable attitudes to hold in a society that calls itself equal.
Trouty, an awful lot of men DON'T talk in that way, because they think that to do so would be insulting to women. And you are right, there are sexist women in the world, and when women belittle men I stand up and say that that is wrong too. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Gottle - surely the question here is whatever Fluffy wants to discuss. If you want to write about how you think the sacking is outrageous, the internet is big, you can do it elsewhere ...
Whether or not Ms Massey complains is irrelevant; she may or may not complain for many reasons which we can't know. Whether she complains or not doesn't change the issue: sexist comments were made and a lot of people seem to think that they are OK.
Also, "not meaning" something doesn't make it okay. I know it's a really hard thing to change; for example I've tried to start removing ableist language from my vocabulary (like using "lame" or "crippling") and it's hard and I mess up. But it's a fight worth fighting, because words mean things, and words hurt people.
And not just the people they were aimed at, but also all of us as a society - we get used to referring to people callously, we get used to joking in ways that alienates people - this makes us poorer as a society. This is bad. Hurting people is bad.
Lots of other things are bad too (like deforestation, and famine, and unfair wages ...) and sure, if I had to pick one single thing to try and fix I wouldn't pick sexist language (I'd try for world peace, or stopping AIDS). But we don't have to pick one single thing, we can try to be aware of lots of different issues around us. And sexist banter (and homophobic banter, and racist banter, and ...) is important, because it is wrong and it hurts people.
--Eudoxia
Some of the "defences" of Gray have been ... well, worse than ours was at Leeds. I read a disgusting quote from the fail about how football is where men go to swear and let off steam, and they don't want girlie cooties in their men's club. Which ... just no. I go to football to swear and let off steam, and I'm quite happy to have women doing the same alongside me. I'd like them a damn sight better than the clowns who stand near me and call everyone else female and gay - the two apparently being synonymous in their confused little brains.
So Gottle can only comment if he doesn't disagree? That's hardly fair or in the spirit of creating an harmonious utopia.
I don't want this to get unpleasant. Gottle *was* allowed to comment; look, you can see his name up there. He chose to comment on something that I explicitly said wasn't the point of my post, and I (and others) responded to bring the discussion back to what I originally posted about.
I choose to moderate blog comments in a very light-touch way (and I can do this because I so rarely post anything controversial) so Gottle has right of reply to anything that's been said - I'm not sure what's unfair about that.
Ah, no Fluffs - my comment was intended in reply to Eudoxia, not you:
"the internet is big, you can do it elsewhere ..."
Well, why not do it here where the discussion actually is?
Sorry omally - I might not have put that very well. Fluffy's response to you probably says it better.
Also: I haven't been reading Fluffy's blog for long (although I've known her for a while) so I'm kind of aware that I'm probably misreading people's tone of voice and things like that - apologies!
--Eudoxia
(Far too long and detailed description of what I was trying to say below:
What I meant was: if you want to talk about something that is explicitly *not* the point of this *particular* discussion, you are free to go and start a new discussion about the thing you want to talk about (in this case, the sacking). It's not really fair to divert this discussion if other people want to talk about the original topic, so the easiest thing is to start a new discussion as well.
"The internet is big" probably sounded flippant, but what I was meaning was: unlike e.g. in real life when you're in a conversation where everybody is only in the same place at the same time for say an hour - so you may well *have* to divert the current conversation to be able to talk about your topic *at all* - the internet has no such restrictions.
So you can leave the current discussion, go and start your own on the related topic that interests you, and come back and post a link so if anybody else wants to come and discuss your topic they can find it - that way both get to happen. I've seen it work well on various sites for lots of discussions about things like feminism where there tend to be dozens of interlinking-but-distinct topics.)
Post a Comment
<< Home