Page 152 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 5-6: Teaching Feminism, ed. Valerija Vendramin
P. 152
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 5–6
to the domestic sphere (people whinge doing the dishes) trivialises their
words or re-privatises them (p. 30). Such attitudes, assumptions and prej-
udices are hard-wired in us: not in our brains but in our culture, language
and history (p. 33).
A few months ago, in an evening daily news programme on Slovenian
commercial television,3 we were witnesses to such an attempt to silence
the woman speaker. The guests in the show were the president of a right-
wing populist party, who is also a member of parliament, and the pres-
ident of the trade union that unites young employees. The union presi-
dent, who is otherwise a very articulate speaker, successfully criticised the
topic and defended the politician’s constant attacks and attempts to si-
lence her. He namely kept interrupting and discrediting her in an attempt
to silence her with statements such as: “Stop blabbering on … I pay taxes
and you don’t … Lady, stop talking rubbish … You have beautiful red hair,
beautiful eyes, a charming smile …”. And after that, when the presenter
of the show carefully reminded him to stop, he complained that he had
only told her that she is beautiful and wondered what actually the prob-
lem was with this. At the same time, during the whole talk the present-
er with almost no interventions actually enabled this situation. In short,
the presenter was not trying to stop the politician; she left the trade un-
ion speaker to the gladiator’s combat for the price of ratings?! The chatter,
the “rubbish” talk of the woman, the remarks about her beauty are exact-
ly the silencers of women’s voices. It really does not take much, just a small
remark about babbling and beauty, because the cultural-historical context
is already in background and strong enough.
Mary Beard underlines a tradition of gendered speaking to which we
are still directly, or more often indirectly, the heirs. Western culture does
not owe everything to the Greeks and Romans (p. 20). “And those 19th
century gentlemen who designed or enshrined, most of the parliamentary
rules and procedures in the House of commons were brought up in exact-
ly those classical theories, slogans and prejudices”, continues Mary Beard.
“Again, we are not simply victims or dupes of our classical inheritance but
the classical tradition has provided us with a powerful template for think-
ing about public speech, and for deciding what counts as a good oratory or
bad, persuasive or not, and whose speech is to be given space to be heard.
And gender is obviously an important part of that mix” (p. 21).
Female politicians are still seen as a disturbing image and a threat to
the orderly world, and so it is the good Amazon who can only be a dead
Amazon. The beheaded Medusa remains a cultural symbol of resistance
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZFDVSrORtk
150
to the domestic sphere (people whinge doing the dishes) trivialises their
words or re-privatises them (p. 30). Such attitudes, assumptions and prej-
udices are hard-wired in us: not in our brains but in our culture, language
and history (p. 33).
A few months ago, in an evening daily news programme on Slovenian
commercial television,3 we were witnesses to such an attempt to silence
the woman speaker. The guests in the show were the president of a right-
wing populist party, who is also a member of parliament, and the pres-
ident of the trade union that unites young employees. The union presi-
dent, who is otherwise a very articulate speaker, successfully criticised the
topic and defended the politician’s constant attacks and attempts to si-
lence her. He namely kept interrupting and discrediting her in an attempt
to silence her with statements such as: “Stop blabbering on … I pay taxes
and you don’t … Lady, stop talking rubbish … You have beautiful red hair,
beautiful eyes, a charming smile …”. And after that, when the presenter
of the show carefully reminded him to stop, he complained that he had
only told her that she is beautiful and wondered what actually the prob-
lem was with this. At the same time, during the whole talk the present-
er with almost no interventions actually enabled this situation. In short,
the presenter was not trying to stop the politician; she left the trade un-
ion speaker to the gladiator’s combat for the price of ratings?! The chatter,
the “rubbish” talk of the woman, the remarks about her beauty are exact-
ly the silencers of women’s voices. It really does not take much, just a small
remark about babbling and beauty, because the cultural-historical context
is already in background and strong enough.
Mary Beard underlines a tradition of gendered speaking to which we
are still directly, or more often indirectly, the heirs. Western culture does
not owe everything to the Greeks and Romans (p. 20). “And those 19th
century gentlemen who designed or enshrined, most of the parliamentary
rules and procedures in the House of commons were brought up in exact-
ly those classical theories, slogans and prejudices”, continues Mary Beard.
“Again, we are not simply victims or dupes of our classical inheritance but
the classical tradition has provided us with a powerful template for think-
ing about public speech, and for deciding what counts as a good oratory or
bad, persuasive or not, and whose speech is to be given space to be heard.
And gender is obviously an important part of that mix” (p. 21).
Female politicians are still seen as a disturbing image and a threat to
the orderly world, and so it is the good Amazon who can only be a dead
Amazon. The beheaded Medusa remains a cultural symbol of resistance
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZFDVSrORtk
150
