Women in the public eye regularly get flamed with sexually violent language by anonymous Internet commenters. It’s time to put a stop to this behaviour.
Disclaimer: This article contains strong language, quoted verbatim from Internet message boards.
By Lisa Li
Is the People’s Action Party (PAP) candidate Ms Tin Pei Ling bearing the brunt of criticism and prejudice because, and only because, she is a young woman?
Or, as a friend pointed out, is it sexist to assume that “Ms Tin wouldn’t be mocked as badly if she were a Mr Tin”? After all, if a hypothetical Mr Tin had behaved the same way or demonstrated similar weaknesses, wouldn’t he have been criticised as well?
It is heartening that these two views value gender equality, differing only on the nature of discrimination and how we should respond to perceived sexism. Still, it is this small difference that creates some tensions among those of us who desire gender equality.
Should we speak out against sexism, pointing out how it drives criticism of female public figures? Or is speaking out against perceived sexism itself a sexist act since it creates an unfair distinction based on gender, when the criticism may in fact be gender-blind?
I think both views are worth considering. A certain degree of gender-blindness is necessary, because to label the criticism as purely sexist (or ageist) ignores the valid concerns people have regarding Ms Tin’s capabilities and views on public policies in Singapore.
However, to be completely gender-blind would also mean ignoring the current reality. Simply put, female public figures still receive criticism based on sexist stereotypes, discrimination and gendered violence.
Take a quick look at online forums and you will find many sound, articulate opinions – and also many comments that are utterly sexist and offensive.
Apart from PAP’s Ms Tin, other female public figures in Singapore have also received similar treatment in recent months. In late 2010, The New Paper reporter Ms Ng Wan Ching was criticised for her alleged role in exposing the personal details of website Temasek Review’s founders. On a separate occasion, Ms Braema Mathi, chairperson of human rights NGO MARUAH , was criticised for supposedly being a “PAP plant”.
Regardless of one’s opinion on these different matters, surely nothing justifies such gendered insults:
“She is “a bitch on heat [which] knows no boundaries.”
“Let’s f her. But yuck! Can’t ‘stand’ her sight”
“BITCH, WE ARE COMING FOR YOU”
“Can somebody post the link for me to see what type of “f**K me pls” face of this prostitute?”
“Leave politics to the pigs and do something to help the dwindling birth rate”
[She is] “still wet in the panties”
“Her mouth is looks like a drive-thru for blowjobs”
[She] “is only fit for selling her cheebye”
These comments are quoted verbatim from forums such as Temasek Review, The Online Citizen and YouTube, which is not an indictment of these websites, but an indictment of the anonymous netizens who posted these comments.
The insults were directed at the aforementioned women for different reasons, yet the vitriol is remarkably uniform in nature. They clearly invoke the familiar insults of violence against women, reducing the female public figure to a body part or a vulnerable female who can be prostituted or raped – all of which is completely unwarranted and unrelated to the issues these women are supposedly being criticised for.
One could argue that this type of violent online language is the work of trolls who are, in all likelihood, immature cyber-flashers who delight in provoking shock or fear, and therefore not even worth acknowledging.
You might even argue that this language is colourful but common, and the sexual aggression is less an actual threat than a habit of speech. Perhaps people rely on such swearing to communicate the extent of their rage, and not to physically threaten anyone.
Do these possibilities excuse such behaviour? I think not. There have been countless cases of verbal harassment that cause an individual to live in a state of fear. Verbal harassment may be less of a crime compared to physical abuse, but it is no less serious.
Still, what’s the point of speaking out against it? After all, swearing is clearly universal behaviour, writes British journalist Peter Silverton in his 2009 book Filthy English. The same likely applies to these gendered and sexist insults as well.
This was also a point of discussion during Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker’s 2008 interview with The Guardian. Pinker explained that he developed his interest in language “because it reflects our obsessions and ways of conceptualising the world”. Swear words, in particular, were “a window on to the domains of life that arouse the strongest emotions: bodily secretions, powerful deities, death, disease, hated people or groups and depraved sexual acts”, he said.
The power of the violent swear word and the misogynistic insult makes it the dirtiest, cheapest, quickest way to attack someone and convey intense anger, and it seems here to stay.
Yet, inevitable or not, silence in the face of such sexist insults is a form of resigned consent. I believe censorship is not the solution – education and persuasion is. Whatever our differences when it comes to the discussion of issues, the common deminominator should be a discourse that avoids sexist criticism, be it in our homes, classrooms or offices. Such blatant sexism is offensive and hurtful to the individuals involved, and to all of us who wish for a better way for our children.
The author is a teacher, writer and AWARE member.
The main focus of this course is on achieving and maintaining financial independence.
If you have an interest in social and other issues and would like to have your say about them, come to our monthly AWARE Roundtable meetings.
