Recognising Gender Based Censorship: Shut Up! You Stupid, Ugly Mutt

According to Wikipedia:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons..."

Wikipedia then goes on to suggest that there are occasions where censorship can be used to protect children, in the interests of national security, to prevent libel, slander and so on. And that, whilst some forms of censorship may be legal, others are not.

What then, do we mean by gender based censorship? In the broadest sense, gender based censorship involves the silencing of womens' experiences, perspectives and ideas, by preventing them from reaching any intended or potential audience. However, gender based censorship extends beyond that which is removed from the book shelves, or overlooked for display at the art gallery. Rather, censorious social mechanisms exist on every level; structural, personal, political.

Ironically, Bronte's novel opens with an assault on a girl at the hands of the male heir to the household. Whilst the girl is reading, the male takes her book from her and then assaults her with it. Were these Jane's experiences, or Charlotte's?

Recognising the importance of language, expression and perhaps to some degree self imposed censorship (Woolf, 1929) asserted that the " Man's sentence is unsuited for a woman's use." Similarly, Woolf's A Room of One's Own examines the potential life of Shakespeare's sister, what she might have achieved had she lived in different times. Woolf describes her as a poet who never wrote a word. Clearly Woolf envisages a future where women can openly, and as a collective, talk about their experiences and share their feelings without fear.

" For my belief is that if we live another century or so—I am talking of the common life which is the real life and not of the little separate lives which we live as individuals—and have five hundred a year each of us and rooms of our own; if we have the habit of freedom and the courage to write exactly what we think;"

Today, women in the west are routinely reminded how far they've come, how much freedom they've  attained and how they are able to write, paint, read and study as they chose. And whilst it is true that within both a cross-cultural and historical context, women in the western world are far less likely to be subject to official forms of censorship from the government or military in comparison to women from other cultures or different times, these statements however, neglect to recognise that gender based censorship also occurs through a culture of exclusion. It is cultural, it is structural.

It is also no coincidence that some religions still refuse to ordain women. Womens groups have long argued that religion has been used for centuries as a vehicle for social control. Excluding women's voices from the upper echelons of any religious institution only perpetuates religion and spirituality as seen through the eyes of men. Thus womens experiences of, or expectations from, religion, religious institutions and discourse are silenced by exclusion.

Nor is it a coincidence that women authors who write critically about gender issues and the current social order will invariably struggle to find publishers for their work. Nevertheless, as the women's movement gained momentum in the 1970's, so to did the emergence of women only publishers such as Virago Press. Yet still, both prominent and emerging authors are often ignored by literary editors who flagrantly and unashamedly favour male authors. When Publishers Weekly compiled their top ten best books of 2009, not one women author was included on the list and this was a year in which books published by acclaimed authors such as Margaret Atwood, Alicia Ostriker, Lorrie Moore, Rita Dove and others had emerged. 

And the world of art is also notoriously unbalanced when it comes to gender, curation, collections and value. In fact, in Linda Stein's piece entitled Art World Insiders Struggle to Address Disparity it is noted that in 2009, less than one third of New York's solo exhibitions feature women.

By all intents and purposes, the emergence of the internet created a space for women to freely publish their art and share their experiences without banging their heads on the glass ceiling. 

The internet offered, not only a platform for women writers and other artists, but anonymity- should it be required.

Initially, although not necessarily by design, the freedom to publish on the world wide web began to tip the scales of the social arrangement. Not only did women bloggers, artists, journalists and scholars have a platform from which to freely share their experiences and opinions; but women outside of the public sphere were able to engage in the discussion, too.

The inclusive nature of publishing and commenting on the internet appeared to render the somewhat nuanced and westernised forms of woman silencing null and void. Womens voices were becoming louder; they could no longer be ignored.

And whilst the anonymity of the internet empowered many women from the around the world, unfortunately, it also invited some deeply embedded misogynistic strategies to silence; insults, intimidation and threats.

These tactics are as old as the hills. Frequently used, not just when women present a strong and credible argument and not just when women ask men uncomfortable questions which may or may not be related to gender arrangements, but just because a woman has dared to speak.

This form of gender based censorship generally follows a well established pattern. The aggressor will attempt to dehumanize; a woman who resembles an animal is too ugly to be taken seriously; she is stupid, demonise, discredit and finally silence. He will also present himself as virtuous in comparison to his female opponent, he will remind her of her place in relation to his.

In the video below, David Starkey, a rather controversial British Historian, is accused by Laurie Penny, a well known British journalist and blogger who writes from a feminist and left leaning perspective, of playing Xenophobia and national prejudices for laughs. The debate focuses on Britishness and what it means to be British. Note his reaction.

Without hesitation, David Starkey presents himself as virtuous in comparison to his opponent. He was prepared to work without charging a fee, whereas she had the audacity to ask for payment. She is mean and grasping. The attempt to demonise.

He compared her to some runt comedian. The attempt to dehumanise, also never to be taken seriously. She is stupid.

He described her as a jumped up public school girl. She needed to be reminded of her place, she is but a girl, a child. He will not be lectured to by her. She also needed to be reminded of her place in relation to his.

He has the emails. She must be the only one telling the truth, and everybody else must be lying. The attempt to discredit. 

Subliminally, David Starkey is warning Laurie Penny that she must Be Quiet, Be pretty, Be Good.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the video above has been edited. Starkey's aggressive male posturing emerged, not immediately after Penny accused him of playing Xenophobia and national prejudices for laughs, but when she asked him where he was domiciled to for tax purposes. Perhaps a pertinent, albeit uncomfortable question for Starkey. The footage can be found here.

In a piece for the Independent Newspaper entitled A woman's opinion is the mini-skirt of the internet. Penny discusses the alarming frequency and intensity of the threats made against her.