Catcalling has been appearing frequently in article I've been reading, on social media, and in conversations with friends. I have already discussed more generally the problems that females face specifically on college campuses, but catcalling is a form of aggression that plagues all women. I use the term aggression purposefully and meaningfully as these catcalls are verbal, sexual assaults on females. These are, in many ways, hate crimes in that they are addressed and targeted towards a particular gender. I argue that these are violent, aggressive verbal attacks on females and are not addressed in order to be compliments or flattery. Any woman of all shapes and sizes in clothing from SoCal casual to Boston coats (I have seriously been catcalled walking down Boylston in my HUGE winter jacket) are catcalled. Like rape, catcalling is not about "flattering" or "complimenting" someone; it is about power, laying claim, objectifying, and reifying an order where men can and are allowed to "be men." The clip below is from a Fox News show where four clueless women and one man discuss how flattering and welcoming catcalling is.
The hosts argue "let men be men." This statement characterizes men as overly sexual, aggressive, and blameless for their actions. This attitude let's men off for perpetrating abusive, violent action towards women. The blame is shifted to the victims for not "taking a joke," their choice of outfit that incites a catcall, or walking in a certain area. Victim blaming is never something that should be encouraged or tolerated in society. Just like bullying or assault on college campuses, it is always the fault of the perpetrator, the person committing the crime and assault. It is never the fault of the victim. In the famous words of the recently passed Robin Williams in Good Will Hunting, victims must always remember, "it's not your fault." The hosts of the show should be ashamed of themselves for laughing and tolerating the inane slow clap of their male counterpart. The female presence is not a show or performance for the adoration or approval of males.
I have been catcalled many times and the first thing that I have thought was not, "oh how nice," or "how flattering!" Instead, it immediately places me in a subject position where my presence is only meaningful in that is a display and object for the male gaze. In one instance, I had a man follow me off a bus in Los Angeles and onto the Metro, yelling at me and attempting to accompany me to my destination. I will probably never forget the fear I felt when I realized he was behind me as I stepped off the bus. My relief in getting out of the situation became sheer panic. He ran up next to me and said, "I'm not trying to scare you sweetie, I just want to marry you." Another time, I was grabbed from behind by a young male on a skateboard on the very street where I live. This catcall, which I tried to ignore, ended in physical assault and made me feel like an object to be squeezed, held, and owned by others. When I step on the street, I have no control over the actions of others, what they may call me, how they may judge me, but I will say that it is more rare than not to have an assault-free day. Louis Althusser noted that when a police officer yells, "Hey you!" at someone, they immediately construct a subject position for them to inhabit. This interpellation is done from a position of power that constructs for the other person an identity that they have no part in constructing. Any reaction is to that assignment position within what Althusser called an "ideological state apparatus" that reifies hierarchy.
Buzzfeed attempted to create a humorous interpretation of catcalling. The video shows "What men are really saying when catcalling." This video is important because it addresses the counter-argument that many people use to defend catcalling: that it is a legitimate way to approach a female. If someone is interested, why not simply call out to them and engage them in conversation? Well, as the video shows and as I fully agree, catcalling is not an invitation. There is no desired or appropriate response. The male simply wishes to undermine the female, assert power, and inflate their own egos. As one of the males in the video states, "I noticed you're confident, so I'm cutting you down to feel powerful." Another notes that he's not sure why he's calling because he wouldn't know what to do if the female responded. When I have tried to respond to catcallers, I am either called a bitch, frigid, or am assumed to already have a boyfriend. Because already being owned by a male is the only reason to call off an approach.
Playboy also recently released a chart that describes when it is appropriate to catcall a female. Though my initial reaction was, "why do you need a flowchart to define the word 'never'?" this chart is important because it incorporates the participation of the female. The only way for catcalling to be appropriate, via this chart, is with the consent and agreement of the female party. This approach considers females active agents instead of simply passive objects to be called upon.
Catcalling engages issues of hierarchy and ideology. In what situations do females catcall men? In what situations do females have the power to objectify and undermine men? Simply put, they never do. The structure of hierarchy implies that the minority or discriminated group never has the agency or power to discriminate themselves. Any action is performed within that hierarchy. My response to a catcaller is always framed with the male in the right and myself in the wrong. Althusser's police office constructs the situation and appropriates the actions of the passerby without a need for reaction. Because of their respective positions within the system, the act of addressing and calling upon someone places them in the position of vulnerability, object, and minority. Catcalling reifies a structure that says that men are always in a position of power over women.
Retrieved from this site. Stats are specific to Hollaback Boston.
A few organizations, such as Hollaback , are trying to end street harassment. Hollaback focuses on sharing the stories of females who have been harassed in a triple-pronged attempt to promote awareness of how frequent and widespread the issue is, to provide validation for females who have been verbally harassed, and to promote healing through collective storytelling. I hope that initiatives like this can help to make real and present the plight of harassment that females experience every day. We as a society need to move away from victim blaming, listen to the stories of those shamed and objectified, and acknowledge the societal guilt that we all share by allowing this culture to exist. Though I am not knowledeable enough to comment in more depth, I do want to use this post as an opportunity to amplify how these issues often specifically and disproportionately affect women of color and the transgender community.
I had previously started writing a piece in response to the Tal
Fortgang “check your privilege” article.
I wanted to discuss the plethora of space and attention the media (and society)
gives to the white, male, cisgender, able-bodied, heteronormative perspective.
I briefly stopped working on that article when news of UCSB’s campus
attack became public. I immediately thought that Elliot Rodger’s story was perhaps
more deserving of being critiqued. This was when I realized the great
similarities between these two men (albeit very far away on the violence
spectrum) that can be linked to underlying societal de-valuing of trans- and
cis- women. I will address these two situations separately before
critiquing the reinforcement of hegemony that allows us to avoid blaming
ourselves for the rampant presence of continuous threats of rape and death.
For Tal, being told to “check his privilege” is the worst
part of his college experience. Tal’s rejection of his inherent privilege
denied the negative experiences of others (at college or elsewhere) of racial
discrimination, violence, and sexual assault. The stories of so many women,
especially transwomen and women of color, are forever swept under the rug, but
the whining of a Princeton-educated, non-struggling story of Tal are lauded as
examples of how society is forcing white people to feel guilty “just
for existing.” It is quite disheartening to know that one’s story will not
be believed simply because one does not have the access to media forums in
which to express them. Or, even when those stories are told, they are often the
white, cis-woman perspective. Or, when women are threatened, we still rely on the charity of men to raise the alarm and offer suggestions.
I praise the strong, powerful women at other institutions,
such as USC
and Northeastern
(my current and previous institution of higher education) that have shared
their story and fought back against institutions that deny women the right to
say no, and their legal recourse against perpetrators. I was not strong enough
to tell my story. Even with my high level of privilege, I was terrified of the
consequences of reporting my sexual assault by a trusted friend at Northeastern.
The word “survivor” never rang true for me. “Survivor” would imply that I had
faced a natural force, like a tsunami or a disease, and overcame the event and
devastating effects. I didn't, though. I
was faced with a human force, a man in complete control of his actions, a
friend, who I had given my trust to, had made a conscious decision to act,
devalue our friendship, and violate my body. This is, unfortunately, the story
of so many women in collegiate settings, but so few are given the space to
share their stories, or feel that they can freely and without consequence equally
access our rights.
Elliot Rodger’s story is also garnering national attention,
including his manifesto where he declares his hatred of women and need to enact
revenge through murder. Despite such plain, obvious language, some people have
come to Rodger’s defense
by displacing blame from his white, male privilege to mental
illness. One of my colleagues at USC, Francesca Marie Smith, argued that
mental illness can be used as an argumentative strategy to undermine the
culpable of agents in a given situation. Examining the 2011 shooting of Gabby
Giffords, she concluded that a focus on the mental capacity of Jared Lee
Loughner derailed larger conversations about the societal pressures and
political polarization that may have fueled the attack.
Elliot should not be memorialized, lauded, made a hero, or
removed from blame. This was a calculated, terrorist attack on women as a whole because he
had been told “no.” He believed he had a right to the female body as sexual
property and projected his own shortcomings on the failure of (female) others. People
should not watch his videos or read his manifesto: let us not immortalize a misogynist
who decided to take life instead of realize the privilege in his own.
These two stories began and ended very differently. Tal has
certainly upset people with his lack of awareness and care for the stories of
others, but Elliot has murdered. I do not wish to equate these stories; I am
not making claims about “all
men.” I am instead commenting on the attributes that they share and what
this says about our society.
Both are inherently linked to race
and gender, because they laud the white, male perspective over all other bodies. Yes, Elliot was mixed race, but there is no denying his feelings of privilege and superiority that accompany this perspective. Both believe in the power of their privileged body to make decisions and that they have the right to remove of agency from others. Tal and Elliot are not allowed to be told “no,”
especially not by people of color or women. Tal cannot be told to “check his
privilege” and Elliot cannot be denied sex. These are the autonomous decisions
of others that put into question the privilege that Tal and Elliot could not
even recognize they had (being blind to their own condition and the conditions
of others).
These men are just two chapters in the larger story of a society
that allows their privilege to continue unabated, that celebrates and defends
them, and that prevents us from looking inward at our own complicity. If it the
fault of people who question Tal’s struggle, Elliot’s mental condition, or my inebriation,
then society as a whole is declared “not guilty.” We can live in the façade of
a world where these events are mere peppered outliers in a properly functioning
society, instead of symptoms of a diseased organism. Walking down the street or
taking public transportation is an opportunity for women to be yelled at, groped, followed, threatened, or even worse. Even spending time
with trusted friends and family members can lead to the violation of the
female body. Althusser's police officer defines the power structure and everyone's position in it by addressing someone, "Hey you!" When I walk down the street and am called "bitch" while being grabbed from behind, that also defines me without my permission, reaction, or ability to subvert.
We cannot let these stories be drowned out by the mob quick
to defend the current system. We must give space and attention to those that
are fighting for change and awareness of larger issues. We perhaps cannot
change the minds of current misogynists or denialists who will resist at all
costs the crumbling of the society that preferences them. But, with increased
effort, we may be able to usher in new generations brought up in a society that
recognizes the issues that face the majority of us and fosters a culture that
is actively trying to change it.
I've titled this piece specifically in reference to a previous post justifying anti-choice instead of pro-life for the description of abortion right's opponents. The point of the post is to discuss a few interesting manifestations of visual rhetoric in anti-choice arguments that I've recently noticed. The visual tactics of the abortion movement have been documented well by those scholars who have come before me, especially in terms of the photographs and images of aborted and damaged fetuses as resembling born children in appearance and described action (Petchesky, 1987; Lake & Pickering, 1998; Condit, 1990). My first artifact heavily references these visual elements in equating the fetus to a baby. A new service called "3D Babies" allows for parents to upload photographs of their ultrasounds which can then be printed into a doll-like plastic sculpture.
These dolls reflect the argumentative tactic of representing life as starting from conception. Due to the physical resemblances of a fetus to an infant, the doll represents a visual argument for the protection of the fetus as one would protect a child. This image is described on the website as a 23-24 week old baby "measuring 8 inches from crown to rump." At 24 weeks, the fetus is nearing the end of the second trimester, so is nearly considered a viable fetus that could survive outside of the womb. Because of this, third trimester abortions are currently illegal in most countries. Consequently, abortions at this stage in the pregnancy comprise less than 1.3% of all abortions. The likelihood of a fetus looking like this doll when aborted is very low. This decision, then, is strategic in that the fetus is as far along as possible without being illegal to abort, thus appearing much like an infant. 91.8% of fetuses are aborted in the first trimester, (or less than 13 weeks) which makes their appearance closer to an embryo, only called a fetus at 12 weeks.
These visual choices are strategies to associate a fetus with an infant, one of the most (if not the most) vulnerable population on the planet.This is paired with cries to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The power of the visual and the associations that come from it can serve to overpower logic and the verbal by calling upon the aesthetic and the visceral. This is in part the strategy of laws that require ultrasounds before allowing access to abortions. The law provides a visual connection that the woman/mother and fetus/child share. If one sees the ultrasound images, one might be less likely to abort, directly associating the images on the screen with a potential life that cannot be avoided. The efficacy or ethics of this law could surely be debated, but the point I'm making here is the ingrained power of the visual to elicit emotion and its role as an anti-choice strategy. Facing visually one's actions is tantamount to removing agency if it clouds the judgment of agents. The intended purpose of this law is certainly to halt abortions or at least give women pause (or immense guilt). The woman, then, cannot make a personal decision of her own thought without the visual pressures of the potentially aborted fetus. The ultrasound and 3D doll images present that problem: that the fetus is a potential life, baby, and child experienced and seen as true.
The 3D doll can be purchased by whomever might want one, and I would hope that it would not be used as a persuasive tool to encroach upon agency. The larger issue for me is the laws that force the power of visuals on women making important, stressful, and life-changing decisions. Certainly images and narrative hyperbole about well developed fetuses (past the second trimester) being aborted are questionably moral actions. One cannot, however, stop them from being used in public forums, protests, and billboards. Something that should not be allowed, however, are deceptive images and unnecessary invasive practices forced upon women before receiving a potentially life-saving medical procedure.
As an informed public, scholars, and voters, we must all consider the potentially deceptive qualities of visuals and the arguments that they are making. For the ongoing abortion controversy, visuals and they employment are extremely important in helping the anti-choice movement portray women seeking abortions as murderers and masking invasive, sexist laws as protective statues. There are many intriguing documentaries about this issue, specifically as realized in America. I would particularly recommend Unborn in the USA that does directly discuss the visual strategies involved in the debate.
Doing research on the intersection of religion/politics and religion/science have brought forth some interesting, shocking, and saddening examples of what happens when these collisions occur.
Some things that I have read have made me echo the immortal words of Professor Farnsworth on Futurama:
This bill in Tennessee would place those who have had an abortion on an information-sharing list similar to sex-offenders.
The passage of this law in Idaho questions women's abilities to understand if they have been raped and requires them to view an ultrasound of the fetus before obtaining an abortion.
A doctor in Kansas is being stripped of her medical license for agreeing to provide an abortion to a 10 year-old rape victim carrying her uncle's child.
Protesters at Gay Day in Michigan threatened to rape and kill participants in the event, quoting and relying on biblical verses to justify the attack.
Representative Andy Gipson (R - MS) stated and then confirmed his opinion that it is people's duty to follow the word of God by having members of the LGBTQ community put to death.
Doctors in South Dakota are now required (as upheld by a recent ruling) to advise women seeking an abortion that there is a psychological link between having an abortion and depression and suicide.
Republican politicians confirm the active disenfranchisement techniques of Republicans towards African American and Latino voters.
Massachusetts judge approves a sex change operation for an inmate and sparks outrageous comments about the rights of prisoners, sex change operations, and tax allocation.
Stories like these ones above are not always bad, however. They remind me that there are still issues in the world that need to be addressed and corrected. We as people, part of humanity, cannot be satisfied with partial victories, segmented success, or the fracturing of freedom and equality.
Other news stories, however, help me to strike my best Freddie Mercury pose and exclaim:
The passage of the Affordable Care Act allow for equal coverage for women and access to preventative measures so they can be in more control of their health care.
Obama's statements on gay marriage and the Democratic Party supporting the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, though a small step, is an important first political gesture to inclusive marriage equality.
The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell ended the prevention against open homosexuals from serving in the military and allowed for people to be open and honest about their identities.
The election of the first openly gay Senator and the passage of marriage equality in Maine and Maryland.
I hope that in the future, I will see more progress towards the acceptance, tolerance, and inclusion of all of humanity through equal treatment and opportunities. These are goals that we all can strive for and as scholars, voters, and communicators, we can strive for change together.
