*TRIGGER WARNING*
As most of my readers know, I
am a leftist and I sympathize with left-wing groups and individuals, however, I
try not to define myself by organizations or political parties. When I do vote
in elections, however, I tend to vote for the New Democratic Party of Canada or
the NDP. While I do not agree with all of their policies and perspectives,
several MPs in that party are truly inspiring, honest and caring individuals.
However, last night one MP from the NDP, Pat Martin, expressed his anger at the
cuts to vital program funding for Aboriginal Canadian youth by sending out an
angry message containing a sexist slur on twitter. Mr. Martin tweeted that the
Conservative party of Canada was a bunch of “rat-faced whores.” In fact, his
full tweet looked like this:
“Martin’s night began by expressing anger over
the role of Vic Toews’ involvement in Winnipeg’s Youth for Risk project for
at-risk youth that has received $3 million in federal funding. He said the
First Nations in the community were concerned that the “building was empty” and
that the money for the “inner city youth went to ‘Youth For Christ’, who are
Vic Toews’ donors and buddies.”
It is clear that Toew’s behaviour warrants outrage and
dissent, however using blatant misogyny is neither an effective nor appropriate
tool for opposing the Conservative Party. There many other words that come to
mind that could effectively oppose the Conservatives, so why did Pat Martin
choose “rat-faced whores?” Furthermore, why are NDP supporters and other
members backing Martin and defending his words? Yes, we can despise the
Conservatives but is it really constructive to use highly dehumanizing and patriarchal
language that has and continues to be used against women and girls in order to
make a point or oppose unjust policies?
Nevertheless, numerous NDP supporters and other
leftists – mostly men, but some women – have been angrily messaging me on
twitter, outraged with my outrage. People seem bewildered that I would “focus on something so stupid” instead of looking at why Mr. Martin was so upset with
the Conservatives' Vic Toews. A man tweeted me with the Merrian-Webster definition of
“whore” to inform me that, in fact, the term means “a person considered as
having compromised principles for personal gain.” I informed this man on twitter that the term “whore,” despite its formal definition has been and continues to
be used to degrade, abuse, shame, vilify, and pathologize women and girls.
Several other mansplanations were given to me, but a personal favourite was sent out by a charming young chap. After rejecting the dominant definition of
‘whore,’ this man informed me that I was “semantically singular” and “preposterous.” Well! let me
tell you something – that had me set in my ways, I tell ya! What was I even thinking, trying to
explain why I felt a man saying “rat-faced whore” in any context was absolutely
fucked up? Another young fellow even reflected the awe-inspiring words of the lead “singer” of the
faux-punk band NOFX, “blaming men will never change anything.” Yes, because of
course, calling men out on their use of vile misogyny to express political
opposition is “blaming men.” While various men and several women were excusing
Mr. Martin’s 8th grade boy’s locker-room patois, there was one male tweeter who seemed to get it. "David D." truthfully tweeted: It's entirely possible to tweet without regrettable or inappropriate language--or without bringing gendered insults into it.
Then there were others on Twitter expressing their belief that Pat Martin’s remark was “anti-sex
work,” more than anything else. However, I would argue that women and girls are called “whores” for many, many
reasons that do not depend at all on sexual activity or sex trade activity. The fact that several men
and some women said that the term “whore” is and I quote, “an equal opportunity”
term rather than a gendered term, is extremely troublesome to say the least. The attempt of those on the left and right to try
and neutralize the political and gendered use of the term “whore” (as it is
used today and historically) is incredibly irresponsible and harmful. If we
pretend these terms have no meaning or are somehow apolitical, we trivialize
the very realities of women and girls all over the world who are called "whores" and know how the word feels. “Whore” is often used in mainstream porn to
degrade women and titillate misogynists, it is often used against women who
have sex and women who don’t have sex. Women and girls are also called "whores" when
they are being abused, bullied, and raped.
The importance of language must be emphasized. The
use of oppressive language is particularly important when it is employed by those
in a place of power, specifically white, middle to upper class men in Canada’s
House of Commons.
If the NDP wants to continue supporting women’s rights
in Canada they must stand up and reject the normative patriarchal sociocultural
perception of women as less-than-human. They must do this by calling out other
members when necessary. Blindly following everything that every member does in
order to maintain a façade of party unity is irresponsible and reflects the
Conservative’s approach to party politics.
Today Mr. Martin deleted his Twitter
account after sending out this apology.
However, this is not enough because Pat Martin did
not directly address why his tweet was so problematic. I
truly hope that he decides to offer an apology that is directed to women and girls.
Also, to Pat Martin I’d like to suggest that maybe it
is time to wonder why the first thing
that came to your mind whilst enraged was “rat-faced whores.” Are those the
words of a progressive? How do such words reflect the Canadians that voted for
you?
Finally, and this applies to all people of all political ideologies, in the words of Toni Morrison:
"Oppressive language does more
than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of
knowledge; it limits knowledge."
