Insult Politics

I'm currently working a piece which has expanded in scope and breadth far beyond what the initial idea was, but I think I have something good, and something useful. In the meantime, there's something connected to it which seems worth bringing up. 

A good deal of our current political climate is awash in insults. I'm not going to complain about this. There are lots of ideas and people in American politics right which are so absurd that being asked or required to take them seriously is, in and of itself, insulting. It's a natural and probably somewhat healthy response to the onslaught of this inanity to reach for an insult. At this point, it's far too infrequent for people with big platforms or the responsibility of cultural power to take this quote from Sartre in 1945 into consideration where anti-Semites, and fascists and racist generally are concerned. 

"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. The even like to play with discourse for, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert."  

What I've been thinking about is the nature of so many of the insults though. The piece larger, broader piece I'm writing is about the centrality of a traditional form of masculinity at the center of conservative extremism, and it's being the second leg Trump walked into the presidency on, racism being the other. In part because I've now been thinking about this for days, but also in part because it's something I've thought about fleetingly before, I've been noticing how many of the insults which are part of the political discourse are part of this same traditional set of ideas about masculinity, even on "the left." It occurs to me this strengthens extremism, through being an acceptance of the proposal that the variety of masculinity they are basing so much of their movement and ideology on, is the "correct" ideal or perspective about masculinity. Essentially, these insults support their argument and also support patriarchy. 

Let me use an example which is commonly understood. Using "bitch" as an insult toward a woman is a gendered insult, and is generally considered reinforcing gender stereotypes and patriarchal ideas. This is even more true for "cunt." That one is so terrible, even within often traditionally patriarchal circles, it's off limits. For a whole lot of the population, it's just real, real bad, like over the line bad. It's one of those insults which might draw bystanders into a disagreement. You might be able to have a disagreement with a woman in a public way, and as long as it didn't seem like it was going to be a physical confrontation (especially if it's a man on the other end of the argument), people would just try to go about their business or gawk. "Cunt" will get people involved. The insult to the sensibilities and the sense of good taste and acceptable disagreement is of a different caliber than "bitch," even though both are gendered insults. What's terrible about both of them though, is their connection to the way patriarchy positions women, and they are almost always insults used when women are acting in a way the user considers "outside" of the gender norms patriarchy requires. Someone can use a different vocabulary to get across something another person has done displeases them or whatever reason one has happened to reach for an insult. 

Patriarchy has a whole list of different behaviors which are acceptable and unacceptable for men. In the same way women are expected to present themselves in a certain manner, so are men. Let me be very clear, for everyone. I am in no way saying men have it as bad or worse under patriarchy and the kind of gender norms which underlie so much of American society. That is bullshit. What I am saying, is using any of these kinds of gendered insults, whether they are gendered toward the feminine or the masculine, is a tacit and implicit support of patriarchal values and idea. The expectations and standards of masculinity are as much a part of patriarchy as the expectations and standards of femininity are. Men enforce those standards and expectations on each other, and on women, because of what it affords them in the patriarchal delineation of power. Collectively, men are definitely given more latitude to violate those standards and expectations, but they do exist, and the acculturation into them is very often violent and traumatic. 

Consider again the word "bitch" in the context of someone arguing with a man. It's still a gendered insult, right? It's a completely different connotation though, isn't it? Growing up "bitch ass motherfucker," equaled fighting words. If you were going to avoid being bullied, you needed to respond, and it either had to be a creatively tuned insult of the same caliber or a fist. Less than either meant you were going to be subject to bullying. "_________ brought out the bitch in you," is another, and even worse. 

It's the same word. The different connotations are of it being an insult because of the proximity to the other gender. Use it against a woman, and it's saying "unnecessarily harsh, bossy, mean," all characteristics which move away from the kind of softness and deferential nature which women are supposed to portray under patriarchy. Use it against a man, and it means "feminine, lacking in strength," characteristics which move away from the expectations of masculinity.

Bitch is an easy one though, and one that is often discussed and considered, at least so far as not using it as an insult against women. There are others though, and we can see them specifically levied by men on the right to men who don't ascribe to the right's fascist politics. "Soy boy," because at some point, someone on the right was made aware that soy has some level of estrogen in it, and presumably, consumption of soy products will make one less masculine. It also butts up against a kind of underhanded insult where vegetarianism is not masculine either, because it's assumed all vegetarians consume a lot of soy products. There's a number of different inferences about masculinity in there. Weakness, proximity to the feminine being the real basis. 

It's something worth keeping in mind. There's nothing to win in reinforcing those standards, expectations and norms. They're the same standards and norms which get people killed, and really, are responsible for so much of the violence in our country and culture, we can't really expect peace, order, or anything like it, if we're going to keep upholding and reinforcing those norms.