I have a good friend who is married to a woman who cannot say no to a stray cat. They share a two bedroom apartment with six cats. It's not the happiest situation, not for the people and definitely not for the cats, but these were cats that were going to be put down or were just wandering the streets, so at least they're not dead. However, since cats are territorial, there is some friction, and there is one cat who is The Boss. Every now and then, The Boss has had all he can take, and he goes from room to room finding each of the other cats and smacking them around. My friend described it as "Guess what!?? It's 'Everybody-gets-an-ass-whippin'-day!'"
As I wrote in the comments, I think comparing Maureen Dowd's disagreement with Judy Miller to a catfight only serves to minimize Dowd's opinions. Patrick disagrees. He thinks that had the imagery been that of dueling wombats or tapirs, it would've been equally funny. Patrick says that the description came to mind only because his friend has cats and not wombats.
And that may be the case. Nonetheless, if you saw two monkeys fighting at a zoo and then wrote about how much they reminded you of your two black neighbors, you'd be rightly accused of racism. Likewise, when someone compares disagreement between women to a catfight, don't be surprised when I call you out for sexism. Especially when you acknowledge that the sexist nature of the comparison occurred to you before you posted it.
I have to wonder, would Patrick have used the same analogy if the disagreement had been between Paul Krugman and David Brooks? Though I can't say for sure, I tend to suspect the comparison wouldn't have occurred to him. Regardless, if he knew that his paragraph had an ambiguously sexist connotation, I think he should've changed it instead of risking misinterpretation.
If catfight wasn't widely understood to mean women fighting, then the imagery would've been appropriate. As it is, the word carries a negative connotation. Depicting someone as the winner of a catfight simply isn't normally understood to be a compliment.
Patrick invites me to interpret him any way I like. In fact, I would like to interpret this as a mistake and misunderstanding. But he makes that difficult when he also claims that I have highly tuned sensibilities. By this I understand him to mean that he thinks I'm being overly sensitive to this issue. It is just such an attitude that allows women to continue to be marginalized. Is it any wonder that people keep asking where all the women bloggers are?
3 comments:
Actually, Charlie, your monkey analogy isn't apt. If one sees two monkeys and says "They remind me of black people," that's clearly racism. If you saw your two neighbors fighting, whatever color they were, and said "Wow, they remind me of monkeys in the zoo," then that would only be construed as racism if you chose for it to be.
I have seen Krugman go after plenty of deserving targets, and yes, I would say that there have been days where the "It's Everybody-gets-an-asswhippin' Day!" metaphor would have also been correct and just as funny, whether it was cats or wombats or neon tetras, especially in as murky and overcrowded environment as the Times editorial board must be these days.
You yourself acknowledge that your "my beef with Patrick's post is fairly picky." I won't stand between you and that observation.
Actually, there are a number of racial groups who object strenuously and perceive it as racism when they are likened to monkeys. There was a Midwestern hubbub a few years back when some Filipino children were compared to playful monkeys—so it's not just African-Americans who have heard that and felt deeply offended. Even if the speaker/writer doesn't mean to be racist, it can still come off that way. The moral? Don't call people monkeys unless they're your own children.
As for cats and catfights, I'd like to see Charlie and Patrick strip down to bikinis and start slapping each other and calling names in a full-out catfight. Oh, wait, that's just for women, isn't it?
You know, it's kinda funny that you post on sexism when its been on my mind lately (not that it usually isn't, just not in its current capacity).
I think it is apt to suggest that an individual could not have meant such a comment to be sexist but does by the interpretations of those who read into it, or, as you said, are more sensitive to it.
I remember a classmate suggesting that it was okay for Michael Cunningham to write about women because he was gay. It took me staring at him for a bit before he realized what he had said was indeed sexist and, well, not very nice.
Last semester a guy expressed his surprise that a woman his age, height, stature could beat him at any sport, likening it to an 11 yr old beating him. He said that it would surprise him bc it just doesn't happen. He said this with a straight face and everything, not realizing the sexism in that statement even after I pointed it out to him.
For my sociology class we have to post on blackboard and I made the comment how men will always be a little bit sexist. A classmate challenged that theory, suggesting that all men aren't evil and that there are a few good men out there. She didn't get my meaning so I had to explain it further.
Of course, I would be taking this Women and Law class, too, which details the history of the rights of women through the justice system and am on the chapter about sexual harassment right now, lol.
Post a Comment