Words have extraordinary power. Sometimes, though, words and their meanings get twisted or confused… through malicious manipulation, or just innocuous ignorance. So let’s remind ourselves, every now and again, of what some very loaded words actually mean.
The word of the day today: “sexist”. A brief reminder of what is, and is not, actually “sexist”.
Not sexist: Pamela Anderson, of her own free will, deciding to have her body decorated like a butcher’s diagram for an advertisement meant to sway people towards vegetarianism.
Regardless of your thoughts on Anderson personally, or on the merits of vegetarianism, calling the ad “sexist” (as some have) is preposterous… particularly in Montreal, where one of the biggest tourist attractions (at least for horny young men) is Club Super Sexe (and its skeezy brethen on rue Ste Catherine).
Inherent in something being “sexist” is that it communicates the supposed inferiority of a certain gender. How anyone could discern that message from this advertisement is beyond me… unless you’re intentionally and cynically misinterpreting its meaning in order to suit your own agenda. In which case, piss off.
Sexist: The Catholic Church defining the “attempted ordination of a woman” as a serious crime against Church law, alongside such other transgressions as child abuse by pedophile priests. This is what sexism really is — an institutionalized attempt to discriminate against a group of people based upon their gender.
Without drifting into Rand Paul territory, let me say, the Church is a closed society, and — in my view — may make up its own mind about whether or not to accept female priests. If someone doesn’t like the group’s policies, they’re free to find a different religious denomination. But that’s another discussion — perhaps for the eventual Definition Reminder post on the word “libertarianism”.
The point is, whether or not you agree with the Church’s decision in this regard, based on the definition of the word, the exclusion of women from the priesthood is indisputably sexist — in that it tangibly differentiates between the genders and identifies one as being superior, or worthy of different treatment.
Pamela Anderson deciding to show off her body for the six millionth time, in order to get across a political message? Not so much. Why? Because the exact same ad could be drawn up, for the exact same purpose, using some male model rather than Anderson. Gender equality, there ya go.
And thus concludes the lesson for the day. Class dismissed.