Women as animals - a problem for women?
I have noticed throughout my time at university, that in our youth culture tends to label women with animal imagery, especially when speaking about the sexual pursuit of girls in nightclubs - 'pulling birds', 'why have a burger, when you have a steak at home', 'messy birds', 'grilling birds', 'fat cow', 'spitroasting her' 'dogging her' etc..
The symbolic association of women as animals has been argued by feminists to represent women's oppression due to the assumption and 'social norm' that animals are inferior to humans. Referring to women as animals, represents them as 'others' and sexualized objects to be utlised for the benifit of men in a patriarchal society.
Any comments or accounts of personal experiances on this as a newly exposed subject area for debate?
|
2
points
2
points
I think the dynamic between men and women is rather instinctive and animalistic in nature, where men are generally more the predator, and women are often the prey. In a sense this does kind of make them "lower" than us, not really in my opinion, but I suppose in a sense. That can and does take place, while the "predator" ultimately respects the "prey" as an equal. However equivalence is not necessarily exact sameness, and the way men treat women differently, has had its contributions from women as well, as well as they treat men differently to. I do think in the long run that we associate women with animalistic expressions in these situations more often then the other way around, but it still happens, for instance "you dog, you!" Ultimately though, I feel that these expressions aren't necessarily bad, after all we are animals, and women are completely free themselves to do the same if they truly want total sameness, as long as both partners ultimately respect each other as equals should be the real concern. The work of Feminist Joan Dunyer has looked into, and exposed some of the metaphoric terms associating women with animals over their life span, for example: "a young girl is a chick or a bird" and when she's older "she has her brood, henpecks her husband and eventually turns into an old biddy". Dunyer evaluates the oppressive roots of such terms by investigating the exploitation of hens in our culture that are utilised purely for their reproductive bodies, kept in disgusting conditions. Do you think that by looking at the deep rooted meaning of terms, expresses the more problematic usage of them when labelling women? 1
point
Do you think that by looking at the deep rooted meaning of terms, expresses the more problematic usage of them when labelling women? Not necessarily, it depends on what is meant with the expressions. Chicks are cute, it could be meant as a compliment. When women refer to men as animals, we don't take it as an insult, we take it as a compliment because it is meant that we have the naturally attractive qualities often found in nature, like "strength and grittiness" or of the like, when expressions are used on women it can be meant to highlight their "adorableness and cuteness". etc. If the expression is used in a degrading manner, then I would have to say it is a problem. It happens both ways, not just to women, men get referred to as animals as well, and I am sure if someone really wanted to they could put an angle on that, to make it sexist. 1
point
To be honest, we do kind of see animals as inferior to humans. We don't want to test on other humans if tests are dangerous, but we have no problem with testing on other animals as long as those tests are as careful as possible. When we farm animals, we treat them horribly in some farms, giving them no room to strive and live happily before their quick deaths. If an animal was going to die and a human was going to die, which one do you think you would most likely end up saving? Assuming you knew nothing of either of them? ... 1
point
although it does seem fair to say that names such as 'birds' could relate to the oppression of women in that animals are seen as inferior to humans, these terms have become a part of interactions in society unconsciously and without people analysing the root they have come from. So essentially i don't think when males use these words when interacting or discussing females, in order to show their superiority, i think it has just become a part of language without them really noticing. Obviously there will be males out there who are sexist and use these words to discriminate against women however in general it doesn't seem that this is the case. It could be argued that women are referred to as animals as a way of making men feel more superior in a world where women are becoming more equal in terms of having a career, having children later on in life and generally having more choice and freedom to do whatever they choose to. However, women are also guilty of referring to men as animals in terms such as "hes a dirty animal" or "he is such a pig" to reduce the male superiority. It could pose a problem for women as it can make women feel more inadequate. Although, women should be defiant as gender inequality has been significantly reduced over the last century and it could be seen that males referring to women as animals is simply a way to try to hold onto gender inequality within society. 1
point
Terms can be left open to people's interpretation. Such terms can be taken as negative only if the person using the phrases shares the belief of animals being less superior. Without that assumption the two cannot be linked. Girls also use such terms with regards to guys. These terms are merely common slang where only very few will have underlying meanings |
