The old epithet question
What’s wrong with this picture?
A guy commented on a Facebook thread about Carmen Callil’s boycott (as it were) of the Booker International prize over its decision to give it to Philip Roth:
So much to love about that story. Virago indeed. [plus some more that’s not relevant]
I said
“Virago indeed”?
Oy.
He said
@Ophelia — no offense intended. Just reading the article, and following up with a visit to Webster’s.
Sigh. Whether intended or not – it’s sexist. Never mind “offense”; it’s both less and more than that.
But I couldn’t say that, on someone else’s FB page, so I was more diplomatic.
[His name] – sure, but sex- (or race etc) specific epithets are just that. That was the point of calling Virago, Virago…
He said
Respectfully, I’ll take my free pass on irony too, then. Now, about the merits of Ms. Callil’s comments on Roth’s oeuvre…
What’s wrong with this picture?
It’s that he doesn’t get to take “his” free pass on irony too. Why? Because he’s a guy. We don’t get to help ourselves to free passes on “irony” when it comes to epithets that don’t apply to us.
Isn’t that obvious? If it’s not it should be. I know I’ve had a few million arguments about it, so I guess it’s not, but godalmighty, I can’t for the life of me see why not.
He wasn’t being ironic in using “virago” about a woman who’d done something he didn’t like. The women who founded Virago were being ironic in using the word, but he was not, and he doesn’t get to hide behind the word “irony” when he just used a sexist insult.
This thread was on the page of a rather well-known writer of Indian origin. I don’t think this guy would call the writer a “wog” or a “darky” or any other epithet of that kind, even ironically. I don’t think he would refer to anyone as a “wog” or a “darky” on the writer’s page, even ironically. Maybe I’m wrong; that’s a conditional verb; but I do strongly believe that – it would be such a clanger. Yet for a woman…
That’s what’s wrong with this picture.
I get fokking tired of it sometimes.
I honestly never heard that term before. I feel somewhat enlightened (and to be honest the sexist roots of Christianity suddenly make more sense now..so horrified as well)
Of course there’s a difference between people using terms like that ironically (although I’d probably say it’s more reclaimative) to describe themselves and between people using it on other people, which has all the weight of its history upon it.
Reminds me of the pathetic usage of racist terms by Whites because some old civil rights organizations still have them in their names.
Also, it’s the first time I have come across that term, too. At first I thought it was a transcription error and you meant “Viagra”. But then, nothing made sense. I couldn’t understand anything you were trying to say until I googled up the word “virago”.
Yes it’s a pretty archaic word. Callil and Co gave it what relevance it has.
I too learnt a new word today.
I just thought it was a motorcycle, since I used to ride a Yamaha Virago 1100.
I see both sides of the issue, although clearly there’s something off is using virago in this situation. I’m not sure where not liking Phillip Roth is a woman’s issue, versus simply a literary issue. Since tie goes to the offended person, and this isn’t even a tie, the proper response for this guy would be to shut up and apologize for offending, instead of defending it.
I’d rather not make it an issue of offending, actually, not least because people can be “offended” for crappy reasons. I don’t think the word would be harmless if I’d never seen it. I don’t really care whether or not I personally was “offended”; I care about what routine normalized unabashed verbal misogyny does to women as such.
Add me to the “I learned a new word today” list.
Although if you really want to see nasty and sexist, cop the comments section after this pretty reasonable article on the porn industry. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/how-the-hardcore-porn-industry-is-ruining-young-mens-lives-20110517-1erac.html
oh, and you’ll be pleased to know the op-eds are up and about against beauty pageants.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/child-beauty-pageants-are-hideously-ugly-20110518-1et2k.html
~Fucking privilege, how does that work?~
This is such bullshit. Not the least because a ‘virago’ is a ‘masculine, domineering woman’ which implies that 1. to be dominant is to be male and 2. that there is something wrong with a woman who wants to be dominant because it means she wants to be a man/emasculate men (basically buying into old fashioned, ridiculous stereotypes) and 3. that there is something Other about females and we can only get at it by describe it in terms of male power and emasculation. It is absolutely an insult and the commenter is full of shit that he didn’t mean it that way/gets a pass for being “ironic.” Um…no.
Hmmm… what word should one use besides “offensive” then? “Sexist” is fine, but then I tend to add “fuckstick” on the end, and it is hardly conducive to reasonable conversation. :)
Point taken, though… especially since people feel like they can dismiss sexist/racist/bigoted behavior and language by claiming that the other person just has sensitive feelings and is being overly emotional.
Quite; that’s another reason to avoid the word. Plus it’s whiny. This isn’t about being whiny. Nobody here thinks it is, so I won’t belabor the point!
Virago may be a slightly archaic word, but Virago Press was arguably the most famous feminist publishing imprint ever, so anyone with a passing interest in feminism would know the word. And it’s not like the word is completely unheard of today (I think it belongs in the same class as “discombobulated”, that is, not in common usage but most readers will know what it means or work out the meaning from context). And, just because a word is archaic doesn’t mean it is value-free; in most instances, one would wonder why an author would choose an archaic word with a specific meaning if not to express that specific meaning.
Virago was originally a positive word: it referred to a heroic woman. Unfortunately the word praises by suggesting that courage is inherently male (vir = male).
In Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady, Florence King wrote, “A virago is a woman of great stature, strength, and courage, who is not feminine in the conventional ways.” She applied the word to her mother, a gallant tomboy (!) with a mouth like a truck driver.
Yes, I’m surprised that Virago Press is so thoroughly forgotten. Sic transit gloria mundi. Sigh.
Forgotten? It still exists and is still publishing books that get media attention.
(Roth) “goes on and on about the same subject in almost every book,” Callil complained. “It’s as though he’s sitting on your face . . . I don’t rate him as a writer at all.”
That’s being a virago? Sounds like a wonderfully succinct and accurate comment on this one-trick pony of an author who should have given up writing long ago. And aren’t panel judges supposed to disagree? If they didn’t the first book nominated would be the winner – every time.
So what is the appropriate epithet for Cartwright and Gekowski who pushed their choice through?
Not sure calling somebody something akin to a shrew is the same as “darky”.
Just seems like a lame joke. Is it really reinforcing misogyny?
Never heard of the word outside the press.
Well Adam it wasn’t calling somebody something – it was calling a woman something woman-specific pejorative. Yes, that is really reinforcing misogyny.
I think we should strive to make all of our insults gender-neutral. Short of learning to be more polite(not a possibility for me, but there’s hope for the rest of you!), that solves this particular problem pretty conclusively, doesn’t it? From a positive and useful perspective, if you’re looking for a way to criticize someone isn’t it maybe better to find words that express why you’re criticizing them? Even if you don’t see the sexism, you should be able to see the laziness in calling someone “virago” or more likely “bitch” when you disagree with them.
If you disagree with Carmen Callil’s assessment of Phillip Roth’s writing, then go after that. If you can’t come up with a rational reason to disagree, you don’t get to resort to insult and sexism to make your point. If you do, and especially if you defend your behavior in the face of being called out, you’re being intellectually lazy, sloppy in your criticism, vapidly sexist, and rhetorically callow.
Also, you’re a jackass. :)
Improbable Joe, @19:
You said it all.
I was surprised to learn that “virago” was originally fairly neutral or even mildly positive, reasonable translated as “woman” – not “man”, but close – and used by the British, who have a history of heroic women, for ships’ names.
“Bitch” is the nearest English cognate, and one close friend, a tall, strong, capable and assertive woman, would often use it to describe herself, but always with a hesitation that betrayed a certain pain. She resented having to act in a way that most men wouldn’t think twice about, putting herself forward and telling other people they were wrong. I could sympathize, because I find that excruciatingly difficult as well, but because of my privileged position I rarely had to make the effort.
I found that top level meetings became more tolerable the more women we had in executive positions. Whether it was because women were more reasonable or because I spent less time thinking about killing the other guys is difficult to say.
Theoretically, we might expect that the more common it becomes for a woman to be in charge, or at least in a position of power, the less difference we ought to expect between male & female management. Who knows? It might happen some day, but I don’t expect it in my lifetime. Right now, white collar workers’ attire remains strictly gendered – men in ties, women in heels – and it’s my life experience, jeans & t-shirts for everyone, which is looking like historical re-enactment.
I’d always assumed that the naming of Virago press was as Karmakin says recaimative rather than ironic. Given that virago is not exactly a word that hangs around on street corners in the company of belligerant drunks I’d have thought we could safely mark it ‘reclaimed’. But maybe not. And I’m not arguing for giving the guy the benefit of the doubt – I’ll go with Ophelia’s judgment there. That and the fact that in 2011 there’s really no need for either blame or praise to be gendered.
Improbable Joe
A while back I had a neighbour who rode a beautifully maintained Virago. If we’d ever got beyond a nodding acquaintance I would likely have asked her if it was a “statement”. I’d wonder about it every time I walked past the bike.