The Unbearable Lightness of Acceptable Bigotry
Returning from the ragged edge — where people become few and trees many — to the urbanscape — where people are many and trees are few — has been a tad jarring.
Various good, bad, scary, wonderful, interesting things happen in two months of cruising. I don’t have time even to summarise them right now. What I do want to write about is the strange, clever ugliness of urban culture as I saw it (with eyes rendered wider-open than usual from so much time in the quiet places) afresh on arrival.
Working on a nasty little conspicuous-fuel-consumer power boat in the marina was an ordinary middle-aged man. The ordinary man’s ordinary brown T-shirt had an extraordinarily unpleasant graphic on the back. Off-white lettering in two rows read:
I SUPPORT
SINGLE MOTHERS
and between the two rows of lettering was a line of silhouette illustrations of women stripping and pole dancing.
I felt that little shiver that you feel when you smell a whiff of genuine nastiness (if I call it “evil” it sounds so dramatic, so let’s settle for more mundane language: just plain nasty).
I’ve been trying ever since then to unpack that glimpse of unpleasantness. First off, the graphic acknowledges a fundamental truth of our good ol’ patriarchal culture. Single mothers are at a pretty serious disadvantage economically and socially. It is (even in these allegedly enlightened times) harder for a woman than for a man to find and keep a job that offers a steady living; and a woman with a child is particularly challenged by the need to perform wage labour to support herself and the child, conflicting with the child’s need for maternal care and presence.
In such a rigged system, a certain number of single mums do in fact turn to prostitution or “escort” work as a way to make money at a higher hourly wage than flipping burgers or running a cash register, and with more flexible hours. Similarly a certain number of poverty-class men (and some but fewer women) find that the military is the employer of last resort. Neither reality is something to be particularly proud of: the prostitution industry and the military both recruit via the poverty draft. That’s called “oppression” actually, and reams have been written about it: the poor get to do the dirty work, work that most people with wider choices choose not to do.
So what our “amusing” tee shirt in part says is that the wearer is at some level aware of this dynamic, knows that single mothers are economically vulnerable and may be coerced into prostitution by the structures of a patriarchal culture. In addition, he implicitly represents himself as a customer of the prostitution industry, “supporting” single mums by renting prostitutes or purchasing tickets for voyeurism events (i.e. opportunistically trading on the women’s social and financial predicament for his own sexual convenience).
There is a cruel sarcasm to the use of “support” in this context, in the deliberate imitation of a liberal or progressive political slogan (I Support Fair Trade, etc.) based on goodwill, empathy, trying to do the right thing. But there is more, I think. Does anyone but me sense an implicit warning to partnered and married women contemplating motherhood or already there: This is what could happen to you if you break up with your male protector. You could become the vulnerable prey of men like me. You might have to turn tricks to feed your kid. So… better not piss off your man.
And lastly there is, as in all misogynist (and many other forms of “istic”) humour, a public display of Empathy Deficit Disorder (another candidate for my very own DSM-V). The wearer openly identifies himself as one who capitalises on, rather than sympathises with (as in the more sincere or conventional meaning of “support”), the economic and social disadvantages of single motherhood; he labels himself as unempathic, opportunistic or predatory in his attitude rather than genuinely supportive, helpful, or caring. Effectively, he brags about it.
This public rejection of caring or sympathy in favour of flaunting an empathy deficit is itself highly gendered: a man who would wear this shirt most likely believes that caring, sympathy and empathy are “sissy” and that “real men” are tough and have no time for losers; that vulnerability equals provocation or culpability; that the weak deserve to be exploited… and that the public profession of these attitudes identifies him as culturally male — a Real Man — and hence safe from brutality, contempt, and opportunistic predation at the hands of other men.
His t-shirt might as well read
I AM A REAL MAN
WOMEN ARE LOSERS
WORKS FOR ME
I never cease to be amazed by the way that genuine, rather shocking hatefulness and spite can be made socially acceptable by a thin mask of wit (wordplay, pun, mockery, etc). Particularly I never cease to be amazed by the way that this lipstick continues to work so well on the pig of sexism, even when most people nowadays are (somewhat) less fooled by it on the pig of racism. Trying to come up with an equally offensive and structurally similar T-shirt that would express race hatred, the best I could do was
I SUPPORT SCHOLARSHIPS
FOR FIRST NATIONS YOUTH
with the two rows of lettering separated by a canonical sketch of a Residential School.
I have a feeling that wearing that slogan in public, even among the fairly peaceful Salish of our area, might have got him beaten up; he probably wouldn’t take the risk. Insulting women, however — abrasively celebrating male power over women — is generally safe.
I’m not saying that up the coast, out on the edge, there are no patriarchal dickwits, that sailors and homesteaders never tell a scurrilous misogynist joke, that women are treated with respect and equality as soon as you get away from town. But I am saying that I don’t see that kind of shirt on the backs of the locals up the coast, and this is an aspect of “sophisticated urban culture” that I’m definitely not going to miss when we leave Nanaimo…
And while I’m on the subject: on my return, feminist friends drew my attention to the German business executive’s corporate-sponsored sex-party (held in Budapest, not in Germany) at which prostituted women were colour-coded by market value and stamped like library cards after each use, and a Toronto pub where the owner has installed urinals in the form of pouty, parted, red-lipsticked lips.
The pub owner said the urinals were intended to “spark laughter”. The official Munich Re newsletter described the prostitution party as “killer fun.” Well, ha bloody ha.
I know all the primatologists and neuroscientists will at this point nod sagely and point out that humour amongst us not-very-nice monkeys is merely suppressed or redirected hostility, that the majority of all recorded humour through the ages rests on elements of insult or schadenfreude, etc. — and therefore that humour is a predictable mode of expression for bigotry, xenophobia, paranoia, etc. But ya know what, even with my awareness of all that jazz… it still bothers me that bigotry mechanically, repetitively, tediously, smirkingly pretends it’s “just joking”; it still bothers me that this “jokeyness” is just one more infuriating aspect of not taking the humanity of the insulted persons seriously; and it still bothers me that even where we have — at great cost, with great and often heroic effort, and with limited success — made it uncool to flaunt one’s bigotry against the racially-defined Other, it’s still so completely acceptable to flaunt it against the sexually-defined Other.
Harumph. Welcome back to Civilisation.
Dwight Towers:
Excellent piece. And of course, if you call anyone out on such, they hit you with “you’re just a humourless feminazi”… “It’s just a JOKE. Can’t you take a joke?” etc etc. Assholes.
23 September 2011, 11:57 pmAjax:
If want something else that’ll piss you off, read the comment section under the Toronto Sun piece about the urinals.
We have the usual right wing hate speech against the liberal party premier of Ontario (Mcguinty) but we also have women insisting that there is nothing offensive about the urinals. That’s far more interesting. What makes women like identify more with patriarchy than the cause of their sex?
24 September 2011, 7:26 pmchasm:
There is not, and never has been, such a thing as “just” joking. All jokes reveal something serious about those who find them funny. What I find funny has changed dramatically over the years as I’ve matured, and not just from the potty humor of elementary-school kids, or because I’ve gotten more intellectual, but because I’ve learned a great deal about how privileged my own life has been, and how much others have paid so that I might have such privileges. To find the joke about single mothers as strippers funny, you have to lack compassion for single mothers, and for women in general. If it were that man’s mother, he might not find it so funny. So I repeat, it is *never* “just” joking.
27 September 2011, 2:19 amaskod:
My impression is that the basic structure of a joke is to build up a tension which is then released by the laughter. This tension is often built on misfitting concepts – like pure/unpure, high/low, group X/group Y, expected/unexpected etc. For a creature that thnks in cathegories this is probably necessary. The joke as communication then reinforces group-identities and values. If you do not find the joke funny you question the group and its values – thus the necessity to question you by accusations of humourlessness – while if you just plain do not understand it, you are probably removed from the group altogether.
Another thing I find interesting here is the rural/urban differences. I think the necessity to have more visible group markers in an urban setting is simply down to relationships being non-personal so you need to carry symbols to identify which group you belong to – in particular as the species has a tendency to do violence to those of to low group-status – as opposed to relationships in a rural setting where people tend to know who you are and base your group-status on that knowledge. So in a rural setting that man would not need a tshirt for it to be known that he is a dick.
27 September 2011, 10:10 amC.C.:
@ Chasm:
This is an interesting analysis of joking. I have never heard of humor being explained in such analytical manner. I’ve often heard stand-up comedians dissect their own humor, and the commentaries they bring in explaining humor are enlightening. But they never ever question the premise that humor is an unmitigated good. It’s almost as if they get very offended if you don’t “get” their humor.
When I’m around a group of people (mostly from work), I’m usually accused of being a “fun-hater” or an “idiot” for not laughing at or “getting” their jokes. Instead of questioning the premise of their own joke in order to wonder from what frame of reference they find funny in their jokes, it’s just taken for granted.
Never underestimate the subtle litmus test of humor. It reminds of the scene in the movie “Philadelphia” where Tom Hanks’ character, Andrew Beckett (a lawyer who was fired on suspicion of his homosexuality), recounts in front of a jury a story. He tells the story in response to the questions, “Why did you feel that you could not disclose your homosexuality to your peers and bosses? Why didn’t you say anything sooner? Don’t you trust your colleagues?” His response is a story in which he is in a sauna with his colleagues and bosses, and they are telling “good ol’ boy jokes” revolving around misogyny, homophobia, and racism. When Andy hears a joke about homosexuals, he immediately realizes that his lifestyle is not welcome, and nervously laughs in order to retain his white-male-heterosexual privilege as a lawyer in a prestigious firm.
27 September 2011, 10:03 pmMark:
A friend of mine wears a t-shirt that says “I support the right to arm bears.” And it has a caricature of a bear holstering a pistol. I think the implications are quite amusing.
28 September 2011, 2:35 pmDan:
It is unfortunate but true (at least in my experience) that the only thing bullies respond to is a savage beating. Empathy and emotional connection has been completely replaced by visceral, lizard brain pain/pleasure pavlovism.
In that context, one of the only ways I have ever been able to get a rise out of pigs like that guy is to start telling redneck jokes directed at them and make everyone laugh at them. When they get pissed for being the butt of the joke, I point at their shirt (or whatever offensive billboard it is that they have chosen) and say “What do you expect?”
Of course, I am privileged to be able to be in a position to consider that kind of retaliatory “teaching” because I am a large, white, reasonably “macho” man… so I have it easy in terms of that kind of behavior.
So, it just basically sucks all around, our society is in a terrible shambles from root to branch, and there really isn’t much to be done about it except to hope to be well out of the way when it starts to crumble faster and furioser. I wish, for my own, my friends, and my child’s sake that it were not so…
But hey, at least she knows how to grow veggies!
29 September 2011, 6:56 pmStan:
I have to respectfully challenge a couple of the things from Dan. I don’t for a minute believe that bullies are irredeemable by anything except violence. On the contrary, the idea of redemptive violence is just as pernicious as the idea of retaliatory or pre-emptive violence. It’s a species of each. As someone who has been the bully many times, and for a long time, I can assure you that violence directed at a bully only confirms his belief that violence is how to be effective. That includes retaliatory sublimated violence. Aggression is aggression is aggression. Aggression breeds aggression.
1 October 2011, 9:44 amBob:
That’s the conundrum of humanity, how to stop the violence with out resorting to violence. Capitalism requires bullying and so it must be enshrined in the various products it produces. Most sports require the domination of one over the other. Good sportsmanship is the acceptance of losing out, where high schools are pitted against high schools, cities against cities and nations against nations. We give medals to bullies.
2 October 2011, 6:54 am(Boer) Tom:
@Bob
On an interpersonal basis, it isn’t that hard. Try to be empathetic to the bully, while being firm in opposing his bullying. Call him out if he persists. Calm him down when he works himself up (that ‘lizard brain’ bit above sounds accurate, but it generally relies on a state of overwhelming emotional agitation – bullies generally justify themselves to themselves, and get worked up in the process), firmly if needs be, but without humiliation. A(n elderly) bully in my extended family would get utterly worked up and engage in screaming matches with child relatives over bagatelles such as the child not following instructions exactly. I’d have to calm the child down, then said relative would start screaming at me ‘for taking the child’s side,’ so I’d have to send the child away to calm said relative down first, by pointing out that both said relative and the child were in utter states and weren’t achieving anything. After they calmed down, other relatives could give appropriate judgement/commentary on their behaviour, but doing so while they were that agitated would only make matters worse.
Online bullies come in two varieties that I’ve been able to find, namely those who are convinced of their cause and want to throw their weight around a bit, and those who whether for reason of pay or spite want to destroy someone or a group. For the former, being firm yet empathetic works quite well – think through their arguments, state your disagreements, and where they are silly, gentle mockery works as a last resort – they might lie to themselves a bit, and the sooner it is cut down, the better – use solid references to dispel myths, and don’t go to win, but rather give them weeks and months to think through your arguments and evidence. The latter bullies will continue to escalate, use tactics such as talking points (especially developing their own as they go on), threaten violence, and so forth. Some people run away, others name and shame. If they improve their behaviour, great, but again, some are in it for pay, and it makes more sense to remove them from the discussion, and address their financiers (or better yet, the ultimate clients of their financiers).
2 October 2011, 8:04 amMatt:
thank you for the post. I wasn’t sure I was going to be able to follow it all the way, as I live in this type of environment (nastiness) on a daily basis. I appreciate the education and positive message here and look forward to re-evaluating the social climate that nutures this line of thought. Keep up the good work.
2 October 2011, 9:43 pmDan:
Stan, fair enough and I do see what you’re saying. My personal interactions are the only guides I have, mostly due to the fact that I have spent very little time studying or understanding bullying beyond my own being bullied over quite a long period of time during my teens. I went through the entire gamut of attempted responses/remedies and the only thing that worked for me, personally, was redemptive violence on all planes of interaction (physical, social, humor, etc.).
Once I “graduated” from being a target of bullies, my experience with bullying has been limited to being around when others get bullied and attempting to intervene as effectively as possible. I’ve found that “drawing fire” and redirecting the bullies’ attention to me, and then basically mocking them has been effective. At least on the surface.
However, like I said above, I’ve never really studied it or delved into it on any meaningful social/political level, so all I have to go on is my own experience…
How do you reach someone like that man in the story above? How do you redeem that kind of attitude without breaking it down first?
It seems to me that the only way that sort of hardened, vicious way of being can be reached is through reversal of circumstance – the only way one who stomps the weak and laughs about it can begin to understand what they’re doing is if they are in the weak position, getting stomped and laughed at.
Perhaps I am naive.
4 October 2011, 9:19 amAlan:
“public rejection of caring or sympathy in favour of flaunting an empathy deficit is itself highly gendered”
I have not noticed this at all. Some of the most vicious sentiment is directed at men.
22 October 2011, 8:10 pmStan:
By men. No doubt the culture at large encourages hard-heartedness, among both male and female, but empathy is still generally considered suspect in men and natural in women. The history of hard-heartedness as virtue is the history of masculinity, even though a female like Ayn Rand can write about the “virtue of selfishness.” Men are encouraged to direct violence at other men as a means of proving their male bona fides. So men can be simultaneously the authors of the violence and its victims (esp if the men are otherwise othered).
Historical tendency and anecdote are not analogous.
23 October 2011, 6:12 amMichael Anderson:
http://fukushima-diary.com/2011/11/lets-die-together-marathon/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=lets-die-together-marathon
During WWW2, Japanese government gathered female students in okinawa and made a nurse team, called Star Lily Corps.
When US army landed on Okiwana, they were forced to work give medical care for Japanese army and 224 of 297 girls and teachers died.
Some of them fell off from the cliff to commit suicide. It was a female version of Kamikaze.
Now Japanese government is going into the same insanity.
They are holding a marathon relay race in Fukushima city. source
At this moment when this article is being written, teenage runners are running.
The radiation level is as high as mandatory evacuating area in Chernobyl.
Thousands of people called the administrators to stop the race but it ended up started.
Runners are 13 ~ 31 years old.
Most of them are teenagers.
They are from various of the prefectures.
To attend at the race, they made the girls sign on the contract.
“Even if I have health problem from this race, I will not sue the promoter (= Japanese government)”
13 November 2011, 2:14 pm