If nothing else, the 2012 election cycle in the States is providing numerous examples of communication with unintended consequences. For those paying attention, it has been instructive. As Yogi Berra famously said, “You can observe a lot by just watching.” One of the most interesting observations has undoubtedly been the reaction to radio host Rush Limbaugh’s comment that a young woman, Sandra Fluke a “slut” for advocating health insure coverage for birth control. The whole story is even stranger than that part.
For an overview of men’s most recent efforts to control women’s sexuality in the States, see On International Women’s Day, Congress Debates Measure To Limit Reproductive Rights, by Laura Bassett.
A bit of history on the Rush Limbaugh fiasco: The U.S. House Democrats and Republicans had a tiff about hearings being conducted by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by a Republican. The Democrats walked out when the Republican majority refused to allow a woman to testify. The all-male panel evidently thought that testimony from a woman could not contribute to their understanding of the birth control issue. The woman in question, Sandra Fluke, was subsequently invited to speak to House Democrats. Rush Limbaugh used parts of her testimony for three-days of commentary on his radio show. Among other things, Rush demonstrated that he doesn’t really understand how prescription birth control works. He is evidently a Viagra user and seems to think that hormonal birth control for women works the same way: You take a pill every time you want to have sex.
Rush, and a number of other men commenting on the testimony, failed to notice that Fluke’s testimony was based on the experience of a friend of hers who needed hormonal birth control to counter an ovarian disease. Birth control pills aren’t just for birth control but address a variety of women’s health problems. Nevertheless, Limbaugh spent three days of commentary focused Fluke’s having such a strong sexual appetite that she can’t afford all the birth control required and wants insurance to pay for it.
Then the tide turned. Women—and not only Democrats and progressives—protested, using social media to do it. They evidently flooded the websites of the sponsors of Rush’s program, and a number of advertisers have announced that they would no longer sponsor the show. It’s worth noting the power of social media and the Internet. Connectivity is changing the nature of game. Because of the Internet and social media, we—and not just those of us in the States, but all of us everywhere a cell phone can get a signal—are connected in ways simply not possible in the past.
But the story also has another interesting wrinkle. When given the opportunity to criticize Rush for his rush to judgment, not one of the Republican candidates for President would say outright that he was wrong. They all basically said, “It’s not the language I would have used.” The absence of a repudiation of the substance of what Rush had been saying implies that the idea is fine but should have been expressed using different language. Perhaps if instead of “slut” and “prostitute,” Rush had said that Sandra Fluke was a “Lady of the evening,” it would have been OK in spite of the other errors in his view of her testimony.
The major, problem, however, is literally as old as the hills. The double standard for men and women goes back to the myth of Adam and Eve, in which Eve is easily led into sin by a talking snake and then uses her fruit of Good and Evil to tempt Adam to disobey God. I assume, but don’t know for sure, that other cultures have similar myths and would guess that many of them blame women for all problems. If not Eve, it must have been Pandora, who opened her box and let trouble into the world. No metaphors there….
One thing led to another, and before you know it, men were locking women in chastity belts before going off to rape and pillage. Even today, when many of the old stereotypes are falling away, a guy with a lot of sexual experience is a “stud,” while a woman with the same experience is “loose.” While the current battle over who should control women’s sexuality is unpleasant, I am wondering if the current crop of antifeminist politicians in the States may be demonstrating the death throes of the double standard.
One of the difficulties, of course, is that we tend to be too close to the trees to see the forest. Marshall McLuhan rightly said, “We don’t know who discovered water, but we know it wasn’t the fish.” It is a lot easier to see things in another culture than it is to see them in your own. It is not, however, impossible. We can observe a lot by just watching. How do the men and women around you treat each other? Do you observe any condescension or exploitation What are your expectations for men and women, and how are those expectations different?
Some gender differences do, of course, exist. Men tend to be physically larger and stronger, especially when it comes to upper body strength. Not all men, however, are larger and stronger than all women. In brain structure, women have a larger corpus callosum than men, which may mean that they take more information into account when making decisions. The corpus callosum is the structure that connects the left hemisphere of the brain (which processes logical information) and the right hemisphere (which processes primarily emotional and relationship factors). And, of course, women have babies.
Having babies is the difference that has determined a number of social and behavioral differences, regardless of culture. Men go off to hunt or do other kinds of work, while women stay home and tend to the children. Men worry about spending time and energy raising some other man’s children, while a woman always know when a child is hers. Biologically based social mechanisms get woven deeply into the fabric of a culture and change only slowly over time. In the States, the shift began with WWII, when women went to work in large numbers. And then came Elvis Presley, rock & roll, rhythm and blues, and the the crossover of “Black” music into popular culture. Even the whitest of white listeners knew that Pat Boone just couldn’t do justice to either Little Richard or Fats Domino. In a very short time, culturally speaking, we had interracial dancing, dating, and more. In some ways, Woodstock (1969) put the “cap” on social change.
Those stuck in the past are still struggling. One of the reasons some Republicans have been working so hard to define President Obama as “other” (not born in this country, a Muslim, etc.) is a direct outgrowth of what I think is a “last ditch” effort to return life to what it was before WWII, when men were men and women were glad for it. Like it or not, however, culture is continuing to evolve in the direction of greater equality and greater acceptance of differences. Race (if there really is such a thing these days) and gender are only two of the differences that are falling away. Sexual orientation is another. Increasing numbers of people (especially those who are confident about their own orientation) simply don’t care.
One of the reasons that Rush’s rush to judgment caused such an uproar is that the underlying premise, that men should be able to control women’s sexuality, is going the way of medieval chastity belts. One of the reasons we are hearing such a hue and cry at this point is that the “rear guard” know that if “they” can’t turn the tide now, the old and familiar will become just another part of history, horses and buggies in the age of Interstate Highways and air travel. When you look at the “rear guard” (see Darrell Issa’s panel, that the men are all old. This is not to say, of course, that some young men don’t share (or pretend to share for political purposes) the views of their elders, but the “old” generation declines in numbers on a daily basis.
President Obama’s campaign slogan in 2008, “Change you can believe in,” captured a cultural inevitability. Regardless of who is (was or shall be) president, culture is going to change. In some ways, the changes are predictable. In most of the world, we have been moving in the general direction of greater freedom and equality, even if the change has been the cultural equivalent of two steps forward, one step back. While cultural change doesn’t come with a guarantee, the more we know and the more we share our knowledge, the more likely it is that we will continue to move in the direction promised during the French Revolution: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.”
We can all observe a lot by just watching, so let’s pay attention with open eyes, open hearts, and open minds. It would be nice to avoid another step backwards, wouldn’t it….
