I guess I take it as given that referring to another human being by their genitals is offensive and sexist. If I appeared to gloss over that it’s simply because I find the nature of this medium to be outrageously overarching in any conversation such as this. By that I mean that this is a drop in the ocean – 25% (or whatever stake the porn industry constitutes) of the internet references women by their genitals – so although I would never say it is fruitless making a good fight over principles, trying to frame that email as being anything other than a tiny crumb of an enormous problem approaches futility in the beating-one’s-head-against-the-wall stakes.

The context of an email sent by someone known to Helen is a different thing entirely and I trust and hope they are beaten on the kidneys with a large stone tablet printout of the email for demonstrating their penchant for the stupid.

I have been fairly involved in huge multi-thread/multi-week discussions about sexism on Metafilter in the last half year** which were about attempting to shape the behaviour of people commenting in a large community setting. It was frustrating, exhilarating, amazing and ultimately, quite positive in the outcome (which will never be permanently perfect but far exceeded the expectations of those of us who cared enough to want to engage). I mention this only because I think it’s instructive in terms of how the debate about sexism gets promulgated online. When the discussion is about the language/behaviour used by regular visitor/commenters on a large website, there is a real hope in my mind that attitudes can be changed for the better. I think a lot of that has/had to do with people getting to understand how (real!) people they ‘know’ express how they feel about others’ behaviour and word choices.

But when an otherwise random email becomes the object of a sexism discussion such as this, I see little opportunity for advancing the debate because, as we see above, it’s all about one’s attitude to words and less about the effect that those words have. I am not suggesting for a second that it’s not a debate worth having nor that Helen ought not to have presented it here; I just suggest that anything other than the expectation of frustration as an end-result is optimistic.

By the way Aphie, I think you have it ass about. The porn industry didn’t create the sexist language: “muslim pussy” “brunette pussy” etc etc. They’ve just exploited the lowest common denominator language used by males throughout history. That’s why I – tainted, obviously, by my blokeiness – see the subject line of the email as a pun on the porn industry in the first instant rather than a more serious manifestation of sexism. And yeah, sorry, but I do see grey in most contentious areas of life. The offensiveness to some women of overeager door-opening males is just not in the same league as that male talking to his mates about how many blonde pussies he’s carved notches for.

I’m not even saying I’m agreeing to disagree; as I went to pains to communicate, I admit my comprehension is lacking at times and I regard the subject as an ongoing dialogue rather than positions set in stone.

Helen, I concede that people of Muslim faith would likely find the whole email offensive yes. I don’t agree that it’s saying that Muslim = suicide bomber. It’s saying that a suicide bomber who is Muslim is a wimp Muslim, in my reading of it. But again, I’m surely not arguing that this email is a good thing or that it ought to be forwarded to anyone. I’m merely trying to state how it affects me. I was wrong to note that the intended effect and the actual effect are important distinctions (they can be at times) because any half-wit would know that marrying up pornesque language with negative cultural stereotypes is going to offend a lot of people.

**If you really want to know where my head is at, I use the same nickname at Metafilter where any reasonable searching will turn up my history quite easily. But ask if you want the URLs of the major sexism threads that occurred over there (more than a 1000 comments each though so not for the faint of …. time)

It’s not benign but I think the emphasis of the joke creator — criticising suicide bombers — is not where those who are offended by this lame-o stunt believe the emphasis to be.

See, the lame-o stunt has several offensive subtexts, not just one, and this one is the equation of muslims = suicide bombers, which is inciting at worst hatred and at best obdurate incomprehension. I think if you live in a place where there are lots of Muslim families peacefully going about their business as I do, it’s easier to see the offence whereas the author of the lame-o stunt maybe lives in a little town in the Midwest and has never met one. Or something. It does appear to be the work of someone who doesn’t consider that the members of an unpopular group may be human beings with lives and feelings, just like him/her.

Otherwise, allow me to try and elucidate you as to why the email could be read as sexist:
You’ve hit the nail on the head with the way that “pussy” is configured in Australia society (only, it’s slang for VULVAS, not vaginas – I seriously doubt that references to ‘pussy’ in a sexual context are only talking of a single hole).
However;
how can a piece of disembodied genitalia possibly profess a religion?
It can’t; it’s the human being the genitalia is attached to that claims a religion. So the line “Muslim Pussy” can be read as referring to a Muslim woman.
And in this instance, that woman has been reduced to her genitalia. And that’s it. THAT is sexist. Women are human beings, half the human race. Not just “pussy”, a slang term for part of a woman’s body that is often framed as being solely for the use of men. And that form of sexism has a history in Western culture, that can be most easily traced back to the porn industry (as you again realised, without quite connecting all the dots, I think?).

I clicked through to this blog (not this post) because I like to visit here from time to time (so I haven’t seen this reported elsewhere, nor have I gone elsewhere to see other takes on it).

First I saw the picture and laughed. Mostly I think it was the madness of the thing: who would go to such trouble and also the contrast of a suicide bomber with the epitome of benign: a cat. Insane juxtaposition.

Then I read the posted entry and it made me think and wonder.

Then I read all the comments and admit that I have not come to any definite conclusions as to how to take the email.

Then I read the email subject line again….and the first slide.

And now it occurs to me that in Australia, this sort of forwarded email will be more offensive to women because we don’t generally have the same double meaning of pussy as they do in the States. Here it is always (well, in most forwarded email and adult commentary on the interweb situations anyway) a reference to a vagina [when it's not, you know, in ref. to a feline perambulator].

In the States, pussy is often used interchangeably with wimp. So we have most of the puns revolving around a very very very small section of the Muslim world – suicide bombers; and the fact that they are, by any other descriptor, gutless and not complete human beings and the polysuch (that’s the implication, not my position).

I just thought I’d point that out. I’m still not sure how I feel about the level and type of response to the (admittedly distasteful and childish) email. With such a huge amount of porn and spam porn around, coopting of the ‘muslim pussy’ title for a fairly lame joke is less objectionable than in cases where that title is used when actual porn is shown or when it is at the end of a click wouldn’t you say?

I disagree with the conclusion that this jokey email is a commentary at all about Muslim women and I’m unable, finally, to see how it amounts to any serious manifestation of sexism beyond it punning on the pornography branch of the internet.

Again, I’m not certain I’m right. I have on occasions in the past been edumacated by women who are able to elaborate how they feel about certain words &c; but I wouldn’t have sent this email to anyone anyways. It’s not benign but I think the emphasis of the joke creator — criticising suicide bombers — is not where those who are offended by this lame-o stunt believe the emphasis to be.

2c

“Hate” is a rather strong word to use (the overuse of certain words – e.g. Nazi – can make such words meaningless). It’s a satirical dig (you know, at the idea that all fundies from America’s South are obese). Fundamentalists of all faiths and beliefs can be anything from murderous to annoying. This people are in dire need of being satirised.

However, the idea that all Muslims are the same or that all evangelical Christians are the same is, of course, a nonsense.

At any rate, I’ve got plenty of junk in my trunk.

I had a bit of a titter (titter – tee hee – tit – tee hee and all that) at the fundamentalist zealot pussy cat. Wasn’t offended by it. Mind you, as the owner of a cat, I don’t know how the owners got it to stay still long enough. Perhaps a Christian fundamentalist cat could have a fat arse, be wearing a bad suit and sport an expression that says: “I must not think about sex; oh my gawd, I thought about sex, I’m going to hell”. Perhaps a cat posing as the kind of boy blogger who likes to use terms like “feminazi” and says “feminists have got no sense of humour” (wow, I’ve never heard that one before) could have a fat arse, be wearing a bad suit etc etc A couple of the boys on this thread were obviously having a bit of wank while posting their comments. Others one can just feel sad about, but I’m sure their mums will give them a cup of tea and a Bex. mugwump is just trying way too hard. I’ve tried to get my cat’s picture on LOLcats, but she just doesn’t do anything funny enough (grrr, she’s TEH FEMINIST).