Pizza Diavola

Dear The Economist,

I realize that your “Primary Colour” segment is all about providing sardonic captions to quotes from the campaign trail that are, as far as I can tell, completely unrelated to any significant issues. When I first skimmed it, I was annoyed that the quotes were basically about fluff. When I read

Senator Patrick Leahy has introduced a resolution declaring Mr McCain a natural-born citizen, as is required of presidents. Mr McCain was born on a naval base in Panama. Both Democratic candidates are co-sponsors. The Hill, April 10th

my first reaction was disbelief that Congress was wasting time and attention on this incredibly vital, oh so important procedural non-issue. Frankly, birth location and questions about a candidate’s citizenship proceeding therefrom are the kind of stupid hair splitting I’d expect the Republicans’ attack machine to capitalize on, not the Democrats’. Since McCain is the Republican nominee, he’s safe and there’s no reason that the Senate needs to be wasting time with this crap when it could be focusing on the melting economy or the melting ice caps.

Then I skimmed the rest of the article and saw this caption, which is not okay:

Kill Hill
“She’s talking like she’s Annie Oakley…She’s packing a six-shooter.”
Barack Obama mocks Hillary Clinton’s hunting stories. AP, April 13th

I’m not sure how this caption could be remotely amusing. I get that it’s a play off of Kill Bill, but in context of the violently sexist language in the MSM right now regarding Clinton’s campaign, it’s not just a play on words. When people are talking about the macabre Hillary Deathwatch, when there is a long history of violent threats being used to silence women who overstep the narrow roles circumscribed around them by gender norms, it’s important to watch your language and be careful that it doesn’t play into misogynist frames. “Kill Hill” is a play on a movie title, but I initially read it as Kill Hill, with Hillary as the direct object of the verb. There’s more than one way to read the caption and given the context of reality, which is full of staggering amounts of violence against women and girls and which is full of violent threats and actual violence being used to make women shut up, I’m disinclined to persuade myself to look the other way and pass this off as a joke. If it’s a joke made out of ignorance, then the writer ought to rub his or her brain cells together a bit more next time and think. If it’s a joke made while fully aware of the double violent connotations in “Kill Hill” and the long history of violence against women (i.e. history, period), then the writer ought to grow up and grow a conscience. It’s little things such as oh so clever jokes that normalize violence and misogyny by making it acceptable, little doses at a time.

The writer also ought to consider reading Melissa’s post (Shakesville) for an example of being aware of the power of words, social and historical context, and being responsible for one’s speech:

I am reluctant to use violent imagery generally, but extremely averse to using it when discussing women I don’t like. Despite the distinct unlikelihood that anyone would mistake misogyny as my motivation, even a (metaphorical) attack within a culture in which women—particularly strong, opinionated women—have historically been silenced with threatened or actual violence borrows and legitimizes misogynist strategies.

ETA: Maybe I should start a new tag: “My legislators are doing WHAT?”

————————————-

The Economist, “Primary Colour,” 2008/04/17
Melissa McEwan, Shakesville, “Take Your Boobs and Go Home Watch,” 2008/03/29
Melissa McEwan, Shakesville, “Clinton the Woman vs. Clinton the Person,” 2008/04/17