Gender and political "fighting words"

[Sparkly]

This is NOT about any of the candidates themselves, but about some of the language the punditry uses and how I respond to it.

This morning, MSNBC was all about the debate tonight and the talking heads kept using fighting metaphors with words describing physical attacks, particularly from Obama against Clinton. For example, he's got to "hit her hard" and "give her a knock-out punch" and on and on like that.

I found myself cringing at these words, even knowing they aren't meant literally. I finally realized that it's one of those things that should, in a perfect world, be gender-neutral, but isn't (to me). The imagery of men "hitting" and "punching" a woman struck a nerve with me, probably for all sorts of personal reasons. Again, if everything were equal, it could face a reversal test: Would I have the same response if those words were about a woman attacking a man, or a man attacking a man, or a woman attacking a woman? Maybe the answer should be that it's the same, but it isn't. Given the nature of violence of men against women in our society, it bothers me.

Again, I know, rationally, that it's only metaphorical. Yet it bothers me.

Did anybody else have the same reaction, or am I just oversensitive or nuts?

[saracat]

1. I see where you are coming from and it is too bad really that

we are still apparently at a point where we cannot be neutral.If women are truly to be equal, these words should not have any more effect than when used about a man. The gender card is unfortunately being used to perpetuate myths that continue the gender divide.When Hillary Clinton's opponent "loomed " over her and "demanded" she sign a pledge during her Senate run, it was viewed as threatening by women and many say that was what won her the election. I happen to agree that that moment was pivotal but I also think it shouldn't have been.

Perhaps none of those words you mention should be applicable in political discourse to begin with as they seem somewhat "violence" based and discourse should be "above"that. Neither sex should be identified with that. And I do not believe it reflects any better on male candidates. I hope someday for parity and true equality between the genders. Perhaps then we can begin to vote for quality rather than symbols that do not necessarily represent what is best for the nation. Until then, perhaps we need to monitor our choice of language.JMHO.

[Al Federfer]

2. It bothers me that it's sometimes seen as OK for women to hit men. n/t

[goodgd_yall]

5. Something in your response hinted you are a newbie

Care to expound?

[Al Federfer]

7. Expound about what?

[iverglas]

3. it bothers me that we don't have daylight savings time year-round

Meanwhile, back on topic ...

I think it's one of those things to which normal people can react differently, and in respect of which everyone should at least consider others' feelings before acting.

Men shouldn't have to alter their behaviour because their mere existence makes some women nervous -- but I have known wonderful men who make a point of crossing the street if they find themselves walking toward or behind a woman alone on a dark street at night. They recognize that they live in a context, and they tailor their behaviour to the context, which has other people living in it too.

In that sense, I think it would be wise if people did not use violent metaphors when describing relations between men and women. The language and images are being put out into a context, and they can have effects on that context.

It's also arguable that by not crossing the street, my wonderful men friends would help to change the context by creating a situation in which a woman was able to experience being alone on a dark street with a strange man and having nothing bad happen to her, thus perhaps increasing her confidence about going out alone at night and reinforcing a positive image of men. The fact would remain that going out alone at might puts her at increased risk of harm, and there are men who want to cause her harm, in both cases simply because she is a woman.

While the use of violent images in political discourse, used equally to talk about men and women, might reinforce an image of women as equal contenders in the political arena, it could also in some small way legitimize the idea of using violence against women, and also be intimidating to women in that arena.

Basically, if it isn't necessary, why do it?

[goodgd_yall]

4. I get what you mean

That often happens to me too. There's still plenty of domestic violence towards women to make this a natural reaction. And if we have personal experience with it, all the more so. I mention DV rather than attacks by strangers because it is the most prevalent and most widely experienced either personally or by someone we know.

I've cringed when I hear the words "bitch slap" and "wifebeater" (as in the undershirt). I wondered if those terms are used mostly by people for whom violence was never a part of their experience so that they don't have any charge at all. Lucky for them.

I think the above examples you give don't bother me so much, but I think it has a lot to do with one's own experience and exposure to DV.

[MH1]

6. It bothers me but not for gender.

I don't know why we have to use images of violence, period.

It makes no difference to me in this situation that one person is male or female - I can handle that much abstraction, and I do respect Hillary as a strong woman (that's about all I'll credit her with) - but I don't know why we can't get away from violent speech in general.

[youthere]

8. I'm not trying to be snarky...

but I keep getting flashes from the movie "Anchorman" where Will Ferrel's character says " I'm going to punch you in the ovaries" .

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. The Way The MSM Treats Campaigns Is Puerile

I use rich metaphors in my posts but I'm just venting...My role isn't to inform the public...

[Chovexani]

10. It bothers me too.

I wish I had an answer, but this is the nature of politics now. :(