Calm down, dear? Do me a favour David Cameron – language matters

[seabeyond]

When Michael Winner delivers his catchphrase "Calm down, dear" on the Esure insurance ads he does, on occasion, have the good grace to do so dressed as a fairy. For David Cameron at prime minister's questions this week there was no such self-ironising. He directed the borrowed injunction at the shadow Treasury secretary Angela Eagle while in costume as leader of the coalition. He did not even carry a string of sausages, which would at least have made explicit the official return to Punch and Judy politics that he was initially so keen to rid the house of.

*

Male sketchwriters and assorted Westminster aficionados either affected bemused indulgence on behalf of their slighted sisters or scented the whiff of political-correctness-gone-mad. The storm was argued back into its teacup. This was just a joke and a gender-blind one at that. The House of Commons is a bearpit and those participating have tacitly accepted that the usual rules of polite discourse need not apply. Edwina Currie was among former female ministers wheeled out to pooh-pooh the notion of "bleating about being a woman". Ergo, telling a female colleague to "Calm down, dear" is Not That Big A Deal.

*

To these assorted exculpations I reply: "Do me a favour, love!" (For those whose mental data cloud does not include a section marked Public Wallyfication, this refers to Sky Sports presenters Andy Gray and Richard Keys discussing the West Ham vice-chair, Karren Brady, off-air.) Because language really, really matters. It is fundamental to how we construct and convey meaning. And when that meaning is: "I am expressing paternalistic concern at your inability [as a woman] to rein in your emotion" then yes, that is sexist and yes, it is a big deal. To undermine her anger as hysteria, to reference her femaleness, is a particularly male way of putting a woman down.

Language is about inclusion and exclusion. Whether certain men revert to sexist banter when they think they can get away with it, as was the case with Gray and Keys, is beside the point. What matters is that nowadays, in the majority of public spaces and, crucially, workplaces, such behaviour is policed by other men as well as women. What matters is that when women don't hear this kind of language on a regular basis they get the message that they belong and become more confident about speaking up. That this subtle but fundamental inclusion is not manifest in our own parliament is of profound concern.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/28/calm-down-dear-david-cameron

[redqueen]

1. Didn't hear about this when it happened...

thanks for posting it.

I wish I could say I was shocked that a woman would jump on the bandwagon, but the kyriarchy is something internalize thoroughly. Just one more reason it should be challenged at each and every opportunity.

[seabeyond]

2. with this new board and adms desire for the posters to identify why our words matter

i thought maybe a discussion on sexism in language and why it matters was important.

to create a visual of "measure the spread of legs" suggests a vulnerability in women that cannot be countered in regard to a man. for a man to use that in a post is a means empowering gender and setting another gender up for vulnerability. and an inability for posters to recognize the abuse in such language on a message board.... matters.

i read another poster griping that no one can say anything anymore without someone being offended. and another poster replied there were things he was not aware of that he said that were offensive. when he realized a certain word was offensive to others, he stopped using it. no harm, no foul. didn't hurt him a bet to consider others.

and of course a forum wanting to be treated with privilege because it is mainly a gender based forum, not because of design, but subject. an inherent privilege that words no longer matter because of group think.

i thought all these interesting developments on a new site that is asking for individuals to take responsibility and group to monitor.

i also get that many many good, very good men don't get sexist language (and women, too for that matter. hence, my post on mothers), nor do they grasp the harm it does. i have never felt a person was wrong in a choice, when they were ignorant/unknowing of the issue. how can they be. so, a lot of the sexism we will see on the board wont be recognized and we just have to get it.

what happens in a group when there is blatant sexism and others don't see it? anger, resentment, sides are created. for or against. then nothing is learned and a whole lot of chaos ensues.

[redqueen]

3. No kidding... and how the **** is measuring the "spread of the woman's legs"

in any way related to a discussion of masturbation?

A discussion which was initiated by referring to campaigns by alleged 'health specialists' which don't even exist, I should add.

The whole thing is indicative of something insidious and very wrong.

[seabeyond]

4. yes. my thought. an absolutely obvious dominant play totally overlooked

by most that viewed it. including 5 of the 6 that had an obligation to consider the wording.

in the scheme of things, none of these, individually, are big deals. but as a whole, it says something.