Browse By

Men, Women and the Whole Subject-Object Thing

As Donald Trump insanely pirouettes off the presidential stage, I’ve been struck by a pair of statements regarding women by Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, and John Cornyn, who occupies the #3 Republican leadership spot in the U.S. Senate.

I am disgusted by Mr Trump’s words about women: our daughters, sisters and mothers.” So wrote John Cornyn.

John Cornyn could have just written, “I am disgusted by Mr. Trump’s words about women.” But he added: “our daughters, sisters and mothers.” Cornyn used possessive language: women are “ours.” Women are possessions. Whose possessions? I can’t tell you; Cornyn hasn’t defined who the possessors are. But women are the possessions; they are someone’s.

Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified.” So said Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan’s sentence is odd for its stilted “are to be.” Again, there’s a implicit subject of this sentence, and I can’t tell you who the subject is meant to be. But women are, despite the “not objectified” part of the sentence, the objects of the sentence. _________ champions women. ____________ reveres women. Women are to be done to.

Speaker Ryan’s choice of things to do to women — champion them, revere them — is part of the thousand-year-old code of chivalry in which it is men’s job to act in the world, to do, to be subjects of sentences, and in which it is women’s job to be championed, to be revered, to be sanctified, to be placed on a pedestal, to be desired objects. A woman’s job in the chivalric code is to be ultimately won, as a prize, as an object.

You can say you want to do bad things to women, or you can say you want to do nice things to women, but no matter what adjective you use with that construction, women are still the passive recipients of your action. Is being a passive recipient better than being a possession?

Here’s an alternative to all that possession and objectification: women speak, women think, women do, women choose.

One more: women vote.

6 thoughts on “Men, Women and the Whole Subject-Object Thing”

  1. frank says:

    yep women: vote. And remember who the crook Hillary is married to: a man with his pants down being sucked off in the oval office. A man who stuck a cigar in his inter vagina…a man who abused several other women and raped one.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      You just objectified women again: a presidential candidate is an extension of her husband.

  2. frank says: That’s the man you want to set foot again in the Wh.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Dinosaur, meet the Cenozoic era.

  3. longtail says:

    What is it about Republicans that makes them so, for lack of a better word, creepy?

    1. Jim Cook says:

      I’ve been wondering the same thing, longtail. Is it maybe that the creepy came first and the choice to be a Republican followed?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!