Sexism, Ageism, Misogyny: Alive and Well in America

I was told that whistling wasn't ladylike, but I knew even then that women were simply not supposed to be that happy. ~Anonymous, quoted in Kindling the Spirit by Lois P. Frankel

Women are not forgiven for aging. ~ Jane Fonda

Is your remarkably sexist drivel intentional, or just some horrible mistake? ~ Lisa Simpson (Yeardley Smith)


One of the fascinating things about Clay Aiken is the way that he generates so much interest. Love him or hate him, he has captured the attention of the public eye. Not only that, but the fact is that a variety of hotpoint social and cultural issues seem to be played out both in people's responses to him and to each other. It's one reason why there is such a wealth of material for this blog. Previous blogs have looked at issues of journalistic integrity, cyberbullying, and sexuality. Today I want to talk a little bit about sexism/misogyny and ageism.

If there is one thing the typical Clay Aiken "hater" hates more than Aiken himself, it is his fans. On any given day, the vitriolic language flows from the blogs and messageboards they frequent. Their words are couched in bullying and insults based on gender, age, and weight (feminist issues all) ...painting the fandom with a broad and convenient (though often innacurate) brush. It is true that there are many women over 30 in his fanbase -- he attracts all ages of fans from the child to the grandmother. But it is the older fans who are attacked and cruelly ridiculed. The irony, of course, is that so many of these self-professed haters belong to that exact same demographic which they so freely disparage. Self-loathing perhaps? A refusal to admit that they are what they have become--or in some cases have inevitably yet to be? The "obsessed with hatred" mocking the "obsessed with love?"

Those fans are referred to by these anti-fans as (and I quote): "fat old hags," "a bunch of middle-aged, wannabe teenagers, " dried up old twats," " like cockroaches that can't bear to have the light shined in their direction," " bitter older women," " crazy old lady fans ," ClayMate twats," "old fatfroglookingmate ," and so forth. The litany of similar expressions drone on through much of their writing. As some of the posters on one of the hate blogs put it,

If I see some fat sloppy looking middle aged or old woman I think to myself "could she be a mat?""
---
all those senior citizens so in love with him is hilarious.

So it is hilarious and mockable that women over 30-40 years old are engaged by a singer and his music? What does this say about the box in which we place middle age and older women? What does it say about the skewed and sexist belief systems that those putting them in that box internalize?

And then there is this kind of blanket misconception:

I think they fit the same profile as the middle aged ignorant women who fell for Jim Bakkers fraud in the 80s and tune in TV preachers like Benny Hinn every night and send them their money like sheep. I think lonely old women are who most Claymates are and that part of society should be exposed for it. Maybe it will help them recognize their own faults and find a better way for them to spend their time and energy

And what better way for them to spend their time and energy would there be? I wouldn't be surprised that the answer would be staying home, "taking care of their families," i.e., fulfilling the sexist and stereotypical domestic role society has created for women in this age group.

Of course the reality is that these women DO take care of their families (assuming they are married, and not all are, or have children), but they also like to enjoy themselves. One does not supplant the other, though that concept is apparently difficult for some to realize. Are middle aged women ONLY allowed to function within the parameters of domesticity? How DARE they feel joy and laughter and pleasure and companionship with other women with whom they share their affection? Don't they know they're supposed to be chained to the kitchen? If they feel sexually attracted to, or feel affection for, or admire a popular figure, is that a violation of what is permissable for women past their 30s in our society? Is that not a double standard, for certainly one would not have to go far to find men the same age who find a younger female attractive. Or is it unacceptable only if these women enjoy someone that doesn't meet the approval of those who deem themselves to be the arbiters of what is "cool" and acceptable?

As also indicated in the last quote, there is a misconception of who a middle aged and older woman is. Their assumption is that she must be right wing, fundamentalist Christian, and homophobic, as well as miserable, fat, and lonely, to have become a fan of Aiken. These assumptions are, of course, wrong, and are nothing more than cheap shots, attempted intimidation, and cyberbullying (see previous blogs).

All of the bullying and hurtful, ugly language and attack directed towards the women who call themselves fans of Aiken have the intended effect of dehumanizing, hurting, and devaluing these women and their lives. They also serve to negate the reputation, credibility, and worth of that fanbase. The fans are thus easily ridiculed, easily dismissed, and easily used as an excuse for mocking Aiken. (Clever scheme if one had a goal of lessening the impact of a sizable fandom.) The public's (or media's) perception of the fans is further worsened by the "haters" who have gotten used to impersonating the fans online and in emails with their over the top characterizations.

Unfortunately, pejorative stereotypes are not used only by the obsessed hater but are also given free rein in such public forms of expression as jounalism (presumably responsible and undoubtedly powerful), both written and online. Virtually every concert review, for example is less about the concert and more about the fans who attend it...the amazement that there are women there in their 40s and 50s and beyond having a good time. That these women aren't being quiet and subservient and confined to the domestic hearth, acting like their own bias dictates they should. Their focus tends to be on middle aged women and teens -- two female demographics who happen to be those that society tends to disempower. Even music reviews have to include the subtle (or not so subtle) dig at the women who enjoy the music. They think it is somehow OK to marginalize and make fun of them.

Online blog sites reduce the fans to

Gawker

a "Clay Mate" (aka post-menopausal fag hag from the 'burbs)"

Blender

a delusional cult of lonely, middle-aged hausfraus.

It is hard not to mistake the underlying current of hostility and misogyny, as well as ageism, in words such as these. And this is socially acceptable in our society?

Is it that once an individual reaches the 30s they are no longer expected to go out and have a good time? That once they become mothers or, God forbid, grandmothers, they are no longer to feel any joy and comradery beyond the family or have a hobby that takes them outside the home? Is it all about superficial appearance...if you don't "look" like our artifical image of an "attractive" woman, your feelings are null and void? Is it just women of a certain age and weight who are not expected to feel such things as passion, humor, and joy? How shallow (and unrealistic).

How many concert reviewers, for example, comment on the large numbers of middle aged and gray haired men at a Stones concert and ridicule them? At McCartney? How about the men who paint themselves and dress outlandishly for sporting events? But when women do the same thing (well, not even as extreme as the men at those sporting events .. the Superbowl should show us a few of those ..) they are ridiculed, mocked, and given the very strong social message to stay in their place. Men can follow their favorite teams and travel to out of town games and that's fine. Women who travel out of town for something they enjoy, like a concert or a fan gathering, are mocked. They are further ridiculed for any expressions of support -- for their creativity and expressions of spirit. Again, if those self-appointed arbiters of "cool" don't agree, there is nothing to do but belittle and trash.

The fact is that society as a whole tends to devalue women as they approach their middle years. This is nothing new. There is a sizable cultural force that pushes these women to assume a subordinate place in our society. Of course women have always defied these stereotypes. In the 1690s they called some of them witches and hung them.

But exacerbating this public ageist misogyny is the context of a culture that, at least recently, has become more masculinized...a hawkish, militaristic, "macho" culture that values the Rambo ideal of true manhood. The feminine is not to be embraced, but is to be rejected. It is not surprising that in such a culture a man who self-admittedly has some feminine qualities would be mocked, stereotyped and dismissed. Women who attest to the appeal of such a man are derided as wrong, delusional, or crazy. To make things even worse, take a group of women who are supposed to be quiet, in the home, beyond the age of physical pleasure or the capacity to experience joy, and use them as a vehicle to express that social force that attempts to keep women (and men) within a narrow parameter of acceptable behavior, while reinforcing the male dominant culture.

Our society likes to think of itself as somehow more enlightened in terms of gender related issues than those in the past but is it really? For example, in addition to the above, it is not "politically correct" (a term which I hate) to express public heterosexism and homophobia directed towards individuals who are openly gay (see previous blogs). Take a man, however, that says he is not gay. If others, based on their own heterosexist stereotypes, have decided he is.... it is assumed he is in the closet and the public -- comics, gossip columnists, bloggers, journalists -- can feel free to express their homophobia and antipathy towards the gay population without repercussion (and this includes self-directed antipathy by those who actually self-identify as gay).

Finally, there are some stereotypes out there of what appeals to this population of women terms of culture and music ... stereotypes based on models nearly 50 years old. Well, news flash. This generation of women 40 and beyond were at the vanguard of rock and roll, women's liberation, the sexual revolution, student protest, and movements for self awareness. This is a population who not only can rock out with the best of them but who also knows how to use its voice to stand up for itself. This is not the generation of Andy Williams, Pat Boone, and easy listening, but a generation born in the music of the Stones and Janis Joplin, the Grateful Dead and Jimi Hendrix, Blondie and Kiss, Sex Pistols and Talking Heads, Deep Purple and Frank Zappa. Despite the attempts to categorize these women and stuff them into a stereotypical box, they burst free and in some cases give a collective finger to those who would marginalize them according to the fallacious images of a past generation.

So when you read the pathetic attempts at "reviews" that focus solely on the fans' demographic, when you read the bullying insults of the haters that are so grounded in misogyny and ageism, remember that those reviews and insults say more about the bigotry, cruelty, and narrow-mindedness of those doing the writing than it does those they target. It speaks to the fact that they themselves are trapped into an oppressive and outdated cultural stereotype and belief system.
Technorati Tags: Clay Aiken, Claymate, Claymates, fandoms, feminism, gossip blogs, homophobia, heterosexism, misogyny, sexism, ageism, music, women's issues, women's studies, middle-age

Cyberbullying and "Maturity"

While in the process of doing the research for the blog I'm currently working on ("Cruelty in an Internet World") I came across a few articles and links that I wanted to share with you in the interim. These articles deal with internet bullying and cruelty.

One thing struck me as I read them. It seems as though there is an assumption that cyberbullying is an activity endemic to just teens and children. There is little acknowledgement of the fact that such bullying is also being conducted by adults in the internet world. Perhaps part of the reason for that is the assumed maturity level of those who engage in that bullying. One would think (or hope) that once one reached adulthood, one would be past the stage of taunting, threats, lies, mockery, and other actions practiced by these online purveyors of nastiness. Of course, that is a false assumption, as clearly shown by those who daily bully Clay Aiken and his fans "like it's their job."

Regardless of the fact that the following excerpts are from sites and articles that are specific to children and teens, much of what is identified within also holds true for the adult bully. Society has clearly defined the sorts of activities in which they participate to be unacceptable. It is difficult to believe that some of the things I've been reading in preparation for the next blog were written by adults. I've seen higher moral and ethical standards (not to mention intelligence and maturity) in a Middle School.

So...on to the articles I discovered:

Here are some relevant selected excerpts from a site called "Cyberbully"
(comments in brackets [ ] are mine):

Types of cyberbullying

• Flaming -- angry, rude arguments

• Harassment -- repeatedly sending offensive messages
  

• Denigration -- "dissing" someone online by spreading rumors or posting false information
  

• Impersonation -- pretending to be someone else and posting...

• Cyberstalking -- creating fear by sending offensive messages and other harmful online activities

How, Who, Why

• Cyberbullying may occur via personal web sites, blogs, email, discussion groups, message boards, chat, instant messaging, or text/image cell phones.

• A cyberbully may be a person whom the target knows or an online stranger. A cyberbully may be anonymous and may enlist the help of others, including online "friends."

• Teens [or in this case adults] may not be concerned about the consequences of harmful online behavior because: They think they are invisible or can take steps to become invisible, so they think they can't be punished.
  

The Harm

• Cyberbullying can cause great emotional harm to the target

• Online communications can be very cruel and vicious

• Cyberbullying can be happening 24/7. Damaging text and images can be widely disseminated and impossible to fully remove.

More excerpts from another site that deals with teens and online cruelty:

Define cyberbullying

Cyberbullying is harassing, humiliating, intimidating others on the internet. Some teens [and adults] are using the internet to deliver cruel and harmful messages. Sometimes cyberbullying involves racial, religious, or cultural slurs. Sometimes it is sexual in nature. It can involve someone you know or a complete stranger.

One of the questions in the children's activity section in the article:

8. What positive values are missing when someone bullies online? (Respect, responsibilities, fairness, etc.) What about kids who watch as another kid is bullied online? What does that say about them? Their values?

Excerpts from the section that deals with sharing information about cyberbullying:

2. ...cyberbullying is different from face-to-face bullying because:

• It frequently gives the bully anonymity.

• The cyberbully doesn't see the hurt he or she has inflicted. There is no visual or auditory feedback. Cyberbullies may not feel any compassion or empathy.

• Cyberbullies can be dangerous people.

• Online bullying is a punishable offense.

Finally, The Washington Post published an article that dealt with the "hidden culture of agression" in our society, and how that was applicable to children and internet bullying. Again, this article uses children as its reference point. Amazing that the activities it addresses are also being conducted by (supposed) adults.

As you can see, even though the above sites and snippets are directed towards children and teens, concerning bullies who also happen to be children and teens, much of what is said within them can also be applied to the adult online bullies witnessed every day on several of the "hater" sites, and on the message boards and comment areas where they swarm anytime a mention is made of Clay Aiken. Again, the maturity and emotional level of those who engage in this form of activity is highly suspect.

Consider this blog a preface to the one I'm in the process of writing.


Technorati Tags: Clay Aiken, Cyberbullying, Bullies, Cyberbullies, Internet Cruelty, Online agression, gossip

To be obsessed ....

What does it mean to be obsessed? What does it mean to be a fanatic? In the words of Winston Churchill, " A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

For a variety of reasons, some academically interesting, some mind-boggling, some frightening, Clay Aiken has accumulated not just a following of fans (the benign version of "fanatic") but also a cadre of individuals--fanatics-- who devote significant amounts of time and energy each day -- like 24/7 -- trying to ruin his career and destroy his life. They plant false rumors and stories on blogsites, on various messageboards and websites, and in the tabloids. They have created a fictitious persona of who Clay Aiken really is. They have discovered that due to the decline of journalistic standards in this country -- the fact that sources are rarely checked and "legitimate" mainstream news now relies on the word of bloggers and artificially created stories which deflects interest from those issues which SHOULD be of concern to the ordinary person--that their skewed reality and fiction gets repeated as if it were truth and so enters the popular consciousness.

Not content to simply hate Aiken, these same individuals have targeted his fanbase for ridicule and derision, relying on sexist, misogynistic, and ageist rhetoric to mock, belittle, and attack that fanbase both in hopes of fracturing popular support for the singer, and also for the sheer, simple delight in bullying. It is rather like the internet version of Lord of the Flies.

Some of these "haters" are participants in what are known as "fan wars." They've never gotten over the competitive impulse generated by a show like American Idol. Nuts, I know, but it's true. From 2003 onwards, many of these "haters" have impersonated "Claymates" not only on blog and messageboard posts, but in emails and phone calls to DJs, newspapers, and even TV shows, creating a perception of Clay's fans that is grounded less in reality and more on the over the top, insulting, ridiculous characterizations they created. Nuts, I know, but it's true. Some are former fans who thought to gain Aiken's attention and failed -- they felt like jilted lovers, and you know they say hell hath no fury like a woman (or man) scorned. Nuts, I know, but it's true.

And then there is another group: fans who claim to actually care for Aiken but can't accept any reality other than that he is gay. Some are affecionados of what is known as "slash" fiction -- rather explicit gay sexual fiction. Ironically declaring themselves advocates of gay rights, some of these individuals decided that based on Aiken's bone structure, speaking voice, mannerisms, and physical characteristics he was the perfect leading character for their slash. Before long, it ceased being fiction for them and they became determined to prove that Aiken was as gay as they wanted him to be. This is despite the fact that Aiken repeatedly stated that he was not gay ... up until this year that is, when he finally said, "You know what? No one believes me anyway, so I'm done talking about it." So, claiming to be gay rights advocates, they rely on demeaning stereotypes to try to force him out of a nonexistent closet, while spreading rumors and planting fictitious stories on sites such as Datalounge and Perez Hilton. Nuts I know, but it's true. Taking a cue from the true "haters," mentioned above, they also ridicule the rest of Aiken's fans in many of the same terms. Their conclusion is that anyone who believes Aiken's assertion that he is straight is a deluded, middle-aged, homophobic, right-wing, fundamentalist. Nuts, I know, but it's true.

The "haters" go by a variety of internet monikers that often change daily -- Groucho, Ketchup Monkey, MyPeeSmellsLikeCheerios, Director Sandy, tinfoilhat, Shannonk, Un4gitible, Clayzfan, Naturalwoman21, GoJohn&Clay, Poodle, Percocet, and many more. And then there are those who have bought into the rumors and untruths and have brought the delusions, the hatred, and the skewed representations promulgated by these individuals into a larger world...bloggers like Perez Hilton; tabloids; radio; sites like TMZ, Faded Youth, and even msnbc online.

As they try to belittle Aiken and his "rabid" fans, it becomes clear that it is they who are truly obsessed, only in their case it is an obsession with trying to destroy a man...one whom most of them have never even met. As crazy as all of this sounds, it is actually very well documented.

So. The purpose of this blog is to explore this very interesting topic in more depth. One day we might look at some of these "haters" in greater detail .. bring over some of the posts from one of the blogs they've set up to try to smear Aiken and his fans. The insanity of it becomes pretty clear very quickly. Another day might bring a closer look at the state of journalism in America that allows non-stories and fiction to become repeated as fact. And yet another day might look at the women's issues involved in some of this hatred directed towards the fans, a hatred which can be extremely crude, vicious, misogynistic, and ageist. Interspersed will be glimpses of the individual that Clay Aiken REALLY is, not the twisted caricature the obsessed fanatics try to push into the media.


Comments will be moderated.