Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

Some of you who know me offline (and maybe some of you who know me only through this blog) might think that my choice of title for this post is a “pot/kettle” situation. You’re probably right. But I still felt moved to share my thoughts on this topic. In an ironic and unexpected twist, this turned into a two-part endeavor.

I have historically had a mostly neutral opinion of Sally Field. Two recent incidents have caused that opinion to go way down. Lest I be accused of heartlessness, let me state at the beginning that I am fully aware of the sexual abuse allegations that she has made against her stepfather. I am also aware of her revelation that she had an abortion at age 17, an experience that she has (in everything that I have read at least) described as traumatic rather than “empowering.” It is not my intention for any of my words in this post to be construed as disbelief of her abuse story or lack of sympathy regarding the abuse or abortion.

Alongside the sympathy that I feel for her, though, is my belief that our society is often too reluctant to criticize people who have suffered abuse or tragedy. And I think that’s a huge problem. This can be seen in how we approach the #MeToo movement, March for Our Lives, and the Israel lobby. We need to have compassion and sympathy for people, but we also need to hold them accountable for their words and actions, particularly when those words and actions are very public and/or harmful to others. (And yes, #MeToo, March for Our Lives, and the Israel lobby will be discussed in more detail in future posts.)

The first of the two “Sally incidents” that I referenced above was her tweet in response to Samantha Bee’s calling Ivanka Trump “the c-word.” Samantha’s use of that word was revolting, and she was justifiably criticized for it. Sally’s response was equally revolting. In case you had the privilege of missing it, here it is (Note: Sally obviously used the full word rather than ‘c’; I have chosen to use ‘c’ to preserve some semblance of decency on this blog.):

“I like Samantha Bee a lot, but she is flat wrong to call Ivanka a ‘c’. C’s are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest.”

I can say with confidence that this is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard a celebrity say. And not surprisingly, that is saying a lot. A two-pronged analysis is in order here because I think that she intended for the tweet to have a double meaning. I was originally looking at it only from the “word reclaiming” angle, but then I (regrettably) stumbled upon Minnie Driver’s response, which was even more disgusting and made me realize that the tweet may have been intended to be read literally. (I will not be sharing Minnie Driver’s response here.)

Let’s start with the literal meaning. I am not sure that “powerful” is a compliment in this context. Does it mean “something that can be used to control and manipulate a man”? (Because that’s definitely what it sounds like.)

We won’t discuss “beautiful” or “honest.” But let’s talk about “nurturing.” This is strange to me for more than one reason. It seems like it refers specifically to the uterus or metaphorically to motherhood in general. I didn’t think the c-word encompassed the uterus (and yet liberal women are always lecturing everybody about using anatomically precise terminology). But let’s say that it does include the uterus and move on to the elephant in the room here.

Does a “c” remain “nurturing” when it is being vacuumed out during a certain “medical procedure”?

As I mentioned at the outset, I am fully aware of Sally’s personal experience with abortion. I did not intend that question to be a “personal dig” at her and/or her abortion. I wrote that question because I feel like it is important to call out the cognitive dissonance that exists in the minds of pro-choice feminists like Sally and many of her supporters. Here we have someone praising (albeit crudely) the life-giving properties of a woman’s body, while being part of a movement that marches in the streets for the right to destroy the natural results of these properties. These are the same people who will raise a stink if a business is one handicapped parking space short of ADA compliance, while telling a woman who has received an adverse prenatal diagnosis something like, “You should consider abortion because life in a wheelchair is no life at all.”

Now that I have said what I wanted to say about the literal interpretation of Sally’s tweet, I will move on to the “word reclaiming” angle. Does anyone think that if you call someone the c-word, you mean anything remotely close to those adjectives she lists? Let me clarify one thing: by “anyone,” I mean “anyone other than a pro-choice feminist who has been socially engineered to the nth degree.”

If she really thinks that we should start using this word as a compliment, allow me to propose a few different scenarios that I think illustrate how stupid this is:

     -Sally Field to Hillary Rodham Clinton: “I really hate that Trump stole the election from you. But for what it’s worth, I still think you’re one of the greatest c’s that has ever served in our government!”

     -Sally Field to Sally Field: “I really hate that I didn’t get that role, but just because I didn’t doesn’t mean that I’m not a very talented, very valuable c!”

     -Sally Field to her granddaughter: “Congratulations on winning the science fair! You are going to be a very successful c when you grow up!”

And let’s talk about gender: if women can use this word, does that mean men can, too? And if not, why not? Is this one of those things like “Black people can use the n-word, but white people can’t”? We all know the great things that that attitude has done for race relations in this country, so I can imagine that this “reclaiming” the c-word will do similar things for relationships between the sexes. (Fun fact: I have heard it said that when Trump called Clinton a “nasty woman,” he really wanted to say the c-word. If I hear a Sally Field supporter say that again, my response is going to be, “So what if he had? Why would she object to being called ‘powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest’?”)

At the end of the day, my frustration about this whole thing is not primarily about the vulgar language that was used. It is about the worldviews that underlie such language. Many women are part of the problem rather than part of the solution when it comes to things like “rape culture” and “toxic masculinity.” I would argue that “rape culture,” to the extent that it exists, is enabled and preserved by “fornication culture.” When these women (who, btw, are found all across the political spectrum) abandon decency and morals, some men see that as a green light for bad behavior toward women in general. This doesn’t excuse the men, but saying that it is “sexist” or “victim blaming” to call out women for their part in creating and sustaining this environment is not helping anyone.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this series, where I will discuss Sally Field’s recent remarks about her relationship with Burt Reynolds.

And I feel like one final clarification is needed, one that will likely be the most controversial thing I put in this post. In the paragraphs above, I referred to “pro-choice feminists” a couple of times. I want to clarify that I did not intend to present a paradigm of “pro-choice feminism = bad; pro-life feminism = good.” I also want to make it very clear that I myself do not identify as a feminist of any sort. There are certainly areas in which the ideologies of pro-life or conservative feminists are not wreaking as much havoc on our society as pro-choice feminism is.

But I am still very open to the possibility that feminism itself is not a “redeemable” philosophy.

To those readers who may be saying, “I was with you until you said that!” – I hope you will stick around because further explanations of this will be given in future posts. You might remain offended, but at least you will know more about why I feel this way.

Verso l’alto,
Megan