Names for Women (or how language is oppressing us)

barnyard

How do you spell oppression? …maybe E-I-E-I-O. Today it almost looks like we’re down on the farm!

Let’s look at some names, shall we?

HEIFER/COW – connotation towards female: “a fat woman”

(actual meaning: a female cow who has not borne a calf/female cow)

VIXEN – connotation toward females (according to the dictionary) “a spiteful and querrelsome women” (but a google search turns up very racy photos indeed)

(actual meaning: a female fox)

SOW -connotation toward females: “a female police officer, or a degrading name for a woman”

(actual meaning: a female pig)

NANNY– connotation toward females: “a female caretaker of children”

(actual meaning: a female goat)

HEN-connotation toward females: “a gossiping woman”

(actual meaning: a female fowl)

QUEEN – common connotation:  “a man behaving unmanly and defectively as a woman” (as in flamboyant homosexual male) Also used for a female monarch.

(actual meaning: a female cat)

TOM -common connotation toward females: “tomboy” a female who does not behave as expected.

(actual meaning: a male cat)

BITCH – connotation toward females: “an annoying or whining female, a disparaging name for a woman, or a person who is dominated”

(actual meaning: a female dog)

SIRE – a respectful and formal name for male royalty, such as a king.

(a male dog, or other male animal parent suitable for pure breeding)

COUGAR– connotation toward females “a sexually aggressive woman”

(actual meaning: a large wild feline)

NITTANY LION – a pedophile named Jerry Sandusky (okay that one is just a joke I heard)

MADAM: connotation toward female: “a woman in charge of prostituting women”

(actual meaning: a formal way to address a women in respect)

SIR: A polite way to refer to a man.

MISS: An unmarried woman

MISTRESS: connotation toward females: “A woman having an illicit sexual relationship”

(actual meaning: The prefix of a formal name referring to a married woman or the female head of a household. Abbreviated as Mrs.)

MISTER: A formal way of referring to a man, and sometimes used humorously. Abbreviated as Mr.

(And finally, my least favorite. Scientific studies show that this word is also typically the one men most dread being called. Seriously.)

Screen Shot 2013-06-18 at 11.25.43 PM

By now, you probably have noticed some commonalities. And maybe you can even think of further examples I left out.

What surprised you most?

To me, it doesn’t seem that language favors women. Not the English one anyway.

It also seems that if a man is degraded or thought of an less than, a woman serves as a reference point of that inferiority. This is male privilege in action–every. single. day.

The standard of male as apex not only supports male dominance and heralds masculinity as the preferred societal and ontological ideal, but also works to continually degrade women as inferior. Since language is spoken everyday, every day we learn and re-learn the expectations and norms.

With many names women are highlighted as having defective qualities sexually, morally, physically and are routinely animalized (reduced to sub-man/sub-human) in a hugely disproportionate ways as compared with males. Yes?

Our language reinforces power structures and privilege, and sustains oppression. We should be honest about this. We should be aware.

People will refer to a women as a “girl” but rarely to a man as a “boy”. Plenty of other examples or preference exist.

So, now what can we do to make things better?

…how do we turn this around? I’m taking your suggestions.

Oh, and what’s with all the cat comparisons anyway, right?

# # #

Michael Hyatt says he features the “Best Leaders” (Men) Click http://wp.me/p1g2iA-3bK

Lady Gaga and Fundies (video and commentary)

I TRIED to clip down this gagavision 41 video to focus on a perfect example of how not to create encounters with pop stars. But I couldn’t. (I’m not the techie I hoped I could be.)

There are parts that could offend some of you, my readers. If Lady Gaga offends you, you are certainly not alone and I respect your perspective. In that case, I urge you to not watch this video–at all. The parts I refer to happen at minute 2:20 – 4:00, and are suitable for audiences over age 10. My advice is to skip the other parts, primarily because they do not refer to this post.

The scoop: It appears a Christian Fundementalist gave Lady Gaga a card/tract that said, “Get Out of Hell Free.”

In a far friendlier tone than I can image approaching hostile protesters, she said, “Hi, I’m Lady Gaga.” and they said, “What do I care?”

What I find so interesting is that she bothered to talk to them, and tell them she did believed in God, and that she had Christian influences in her formative years. It was like she was trying to find common ground. A novel concept for approaching those you disagree with, huh?

They were more concerned with showing their opposition, and contempt for her. From her comments, it seems to me, that their actions, got to her, at least for a little bit. They bothered her. She said that she didn’t want her fans to have to see that, but it seemed to bother her on a personal level, as well. (But, sadly, NOT in a way that would likely bring her to a closer fellowship with followers of Jesus.) I would really like to hope that Gaga would not lump these loonies with authentic followers of Jesus. I hope it wouldn’t sour her on the whole bit.

Maybe these people just couldn’t find a Koran to burn that night, or something.

At best, the whole encounter would be confusing, or hurtful to her, or anyone. Hurtful? To a super star, really? Yeah, that’s my guess. Because, I think she’s mostly a regular 25 year old young woman. Like almost all of us, she wants to be liked and not be disparaged and maligned.

It’s easy to hear the condescending tone from the protester speaking, and his smug uses of the word “darling”. In snide fashion he tells her that the book “with the black cover, and the gold pages, and the ribbon down the middle” will show her she has “pervert ways”. It seems he’s piecing it all together for her, in case she’s not aware of the visual image of a Bible. Really, a sweetheart…um. NOT!

Ya know, these are not endearing traits of Christians. They are shameful ways to act. (I should put that word Christians in quotes, because I think they had their own agenda, and their “Good News” …sucked.)

Perhaps Get out of Hell Free signs, tracts, and cards, helped these protesters turn from sin and come to God. But, in most cases, relationships (read: legit friendships) are far more helpful. Their demonstration and literature was probably are more of a confusing message.

So, now we know how to not show God’s love and redeeming grace, right?

IT BEGS THE QUESTION:
What if there had been loving dialogue? What if the people who think they are doing God’s work, acted like Jesus, and started interacting with Stefani Germanotta on common ground, instead of peacocking self-righteousness on what they deem to be enemy lines.

Maybe you’re a Gaga monster, paws up, and everything. Or maybe you don’t care for Lady Gaga’s music or showmanship techniques, but will you share your take on Christianity / evangelism, and music stars?

Clementi, bullying, and ethics

It would be easy to say the case of Tyler Clementi–the talented violinist, who recently killed himself after an intimate encounter, and streamed online by his roommate–was about Tyler’s homosexuality, or just technology run amuck. It would be easy to focus on a bullying issue, or a sexually based hate crime.

Even though those factors surround the incident, a root problem is overlooked if these aspects get the most attention.

Why did it happen? Because people didn’t act according to proper ethics. They had no understanding or appreciation to act ethically. It was an easy laugh to embarrass a roommate, and technology made it so simple. The choice to record and stream this video was possible, and that–to the perpetrators–made it acceptable to do. But there is more:

The obvious question is “why”? The simple answer is “a blatant lack of respect for another.” Selfishness.

Ethics teach to do right by another, not because we like it, or because we benefit from it, but instead because every human being has this unalienable right. Because we are human, we are endowed these quality, and must act accordingly.

Some people think sensitivity training will stop bullying. It’s just not enough. It calls attention to those who are different, but it does not provide a satisfying reason to treat them well. Treating a special education student, an immigrant, or a homosexual young adult in a “tolerant” way, or with unique deference, alone, misses the most important point:

We don’t respect others, be kind, because this makes us nice people. We don’t do it, simply because we wish to be treated that way. We don’t do it because people will like us more. We engage as we ought because it is right in itself. And that’s enough.

Ought is the word one cannot skip. The fact that we all comprehend an ought, points to a source outside ourselves as the barometer of ethical standards.

Who determines this? Who are the rule makers?

Sometimes it’s special interest groups; sometimes religious groups, sometimes it’s educated experts; sometimes it’s the presidence of laws. All arbitrary starting points, in and of themselves, that can be expected to fold, like a house of cards.

The bullies continue. The “good citizen” character building taught often in schools falls flat, or is soon overshadowed by self-interest.

Rather, it is a birthright to be treated properly, even before one is born. It’s a non negotiable imperative to which we must all abide. As a basic feature of our makeup and purpose, it is a meta-edict for humankind. A dialectic of grace.

Nathan is a child who attracts peer ridicule. My son speaks and moves in odd ways. He’s sensitive, and obsessed with trains. Recently, he was punched repeatedly in the crotch and taunted by 3 boys who were screaming a train song in his ear.

I could envision a similar fate for Nathan which happened to Tyler. Both were exploited for sport.

Share you comments about this case, or bullying.

Have you ever been bullied

[Did you know] Mark Driscoll is Gay?

Rachel Evans is calling for a response to Marck Driscoll’s recent bullying of effeminate men, here: But I have to mention….doesn’t this sound a lot like an episode of GLEE?

Does this gay bully look like Mark Driscoll?
“macho man: Mark Driscoll”            Wait! Is that a flattering blouse?

Mark Driscoll is gay? Don’t kill the messenger…I didn’t come up with this.

You can find a pretty solid case HERE, compiled from his friend Don Miller, who–years ago–coined him, “the cussing pastor” in his best-selling book Blue Like Jazz. (When I say “case”…I mean Donald seems to refer to Driscoll, with some detail, right along with [other] male leaders associated with…well, gay scandals. Maybe it’s a connect-the-dots thing.)

Another person to recently point out Mark’s hyper (and perhaps suspicious) masculinity, is Brett McCracken, within the pages of his new book Hipster Christianity, (pages 103-105.)

  • “There is a strong drift toward the hard theological left. Some emergent types [want] to recast Jesus as a limp-wrist hippie in a dress with a lot of product in His hair, who drank decaf and made pithy Zen statements about life while shopping for the perfect pair of shoes. In Revelation, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.” –Mark Driscoll [4]

  • (There’s a common theme of guy-on-guy fights/violence with Driscoll. You may remember he showed, the hot and sweaty brawl movie “Fight Club” as an official church event. Hum.)
Is Mark Driscoll’s Jesus Tough and Buff? 

Mark, if you’re reading this, you can stop over-doing it to throw us off track. Don and I both realize you’ve painted yourself into a corner, Mark. The gig is up, dude.

 

(A bit like gay twins?) Driscoll and Gay WWF wrestler “Giant Gonzales” (Both picts are just so creepy. Sorry about that.)

Nevertheless. IF Driscoll was gay, we would love him anyway. Right, everyone? Right?

There’s a punchline in here somewhere. Can you spot it?

Is Mark Driscoll too overtly macho, and (like recent pastors caught in self-created sexual hypocrisy -Eddie Long and Ted Haggard), too anti-gay to be straight? (This is where you start to realize how silly the whole topic is.)

Disclaimer:
Am I joking about Driscoll? Sure. Of course. I’m a humorist. (I’m upfront about that here at the blog.) And despite loads of circumstantial evidence, and the writing stylings of Don Miller, Mark’s certain proclivity could remain a mystery, much like Theodicy, or atonement theories. This is all probably just a loooong series of coincidences. No biggie. If Mark is gay, or tempted with homosexual thoughts or feelings, I’m sure we could trust that he’d just open up and tell us–straight out. Or, maybe, like his marriage book, he’ll hold out on telling us that he’s had some trouble until he writes a book on the topic. I”m honestly NOT worried about it. The point is, neither should any of us be!

Cue the “It’s Raining Men” ditty.

:)