Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
October 02nd 2018 print

David Mason-Jones

The ‘C’ in Their ABC

There are words Quadrant Online generally eschews and this essay is about just such a term, recently favoured by the ABC. The minister's complaint was sneeringly dismissed with the advice that he should get a sense of humour. Misogyny equals mirth, apparently, when broadcast by the unaccountable

abc filth IIIs the use of the word ‘cunt’ on ABC Television in recent times a case of us all becoming so grown-up and sophisticated, so worldly and avant-garde, so modern and non-judgemental, so accepting of ‘the other’ that we can finally face up to, and dismantle, some old and meaningless taboos? Or is it just a case of misogyny at the ABC?

The context in which I have witnessed the word used on ABC Television has been to indicate something despicable, distasteful or horrible. The word is also used to convey concepts like reprehensible, worthy of shunning, worthy of ridicule or derision or, in short, nastiness. The list of these adjectives could go on but I think these few are sufficient to make my point.

And, in case I lay myself open to being a little too self-righteous on this issue, let me start by explaining my background with this. I have been in many situations in my life when the word cunt has been used freely and liberally in coarse language and I have not demurred. In times gone by I have also used it myself, not frequently but, nevertheless, I have used it. My behaviour was a result of an unthinking acceptance that this was a common swearword and people around me were using it. So why shouldn’t I? This may well be the same line of thought that ABC Television goes along with today.

In the past I had not reflected more deeply on the context in which that word was used but, even back then, I had still felt awkward – somewhat inhibited – about its use. I just felt it was beyond the boundaries of ‘normal’ rough language, ‘normal’ coarse speech and ‘normal’ swearing. I always had the reservation that, by using the word as a term of disapproval, I was conflating women with concepts of nastiness, ridicule, derision and so on.

Perhaps my unease was based in my family life as a child and youth during which time I claim to have lived in what amounted to a matriarchy. Both my grandfather and father were merchant mariners and away from home for extended periods and my uncles had, shortly before my birth, been away at war for six full years. Due to these circumstances, the circle of women in my family basically ran the show. At the peak of female authority was my widowed maternal grandmother – and her circle of elderly but very stalwart female friends who had all been the wives of ships’ officers, now departed. In the next echelon was my mother and my and two aunts living in Perth and, finally, my two sisters. My experience of growing up was never that these people were stupid or nasty, despicable, worthy of shunning.

Then, perhaps thirty years ago, a random conversation caused me to shift from a stance of uneasiness about using the word as a label of derision, to a conscious decision not to use it at all. An older man who I respected, and who was no prude, just called me out on it one day. He raised the matter quietly and asked, ‘Do you really mean to use that word in that way?’ There was no anger or righteous indignation in his tone. He just said, ‘Think about it, Dave.’

So I did. I concluded that used in coarse speech, the word is hateful to women. This caused me to stop and think, ‘Did I hate my grandmother?’ …  ‘Did I think my mother was despicable or ridiculous?’ … ‘Did I think my sisters were reprehensible or worthy of shunning?’ The answer to my question was, ‘No’. I became aware that I was damning myself by using the word as a term of abuse and, from then on, discarded it and came to the further conclusion that the use of the word is misogynistic.

For fear of appearing too keen on signalling my own virtue, I admit that, when someone uses the word in conversation, I do not launch a set-piece speech on the error of that person’s ways. Maybe I should.

Why is the ABC’s use of the word – or hosting of it – misogynistic? To be used as a term of abuse or disapproval, the word must be associated with something nasty. And what is something that a misogynist may think is nasty? Simple answer: any part, or all parts, of a woman’s body. In response to communications minister Mitch Fifield’s complaint, the ABC said the particular segment was fine by its standards. “The material was reviewed by the program teams prior to broadcast and posting, ensuring both complied with the ABC’s editorial standards on harm and offence,” a statement avowed.

Without its implied meaning being something nasty or distasteful, the word cunt, as used and defended ABC Television as a term of abuse, falls away and means nothing. Is the ABC trying to fill our minds with nothing? Probably not. So we have to revert to the actual meanings the word conveys when used as term of derision. If the ABC is attempting to use the word as a term of disapproval or abuse, then one can only assume that it is happy to associate it with something nasty. From there it is only a very short step to make the further conflation that ‘women have cunts, therefore women are nasty’.

In my view this is misogyny on parade, right there on prime time ABC.

Why does the ABC do this? Is it to show that it is in the vanguard of leading our emergence from a world of senseless taboos to a brave new world of breaking them down and dismantling redundant social inhibitions? Maybe this is true, but the attempt is poor and relies on a dog whistle by those who may be misogynistic to those who the same way inclined.

I ask that any ABC viewers amongst my readers bring this issue to the attention of ABC management, producers, apparatchiks, comedians, staff writers, invited guests, panellists, moderators and so on. And let’s also make the point to others in our circle of friends who are ABC viewers.

Let’s hope that, following the current turmoil at board and senior management level, the ABC can make a fresh start on this matter. Let’s hope the ABC can free itself of any evidence, however inadvertent or well-intentioned, of any hint of an entrenched prejudice against women.

David Mason-Jones is a journalist and the author of seven books. His website can be found via this link

Comments [16]

  1. pabloAU says:

    My go at decyphering it as “Auntie Breeds C…” did not slip through The Oz comments moderators.
    Did the minister receive enough complaints from general public to feel supported in his claim to auntie?
    Or are we just too lazy, can not be bothered etc?
    Is auntie too big to go broke? I would like its employees to go on strike, I would like to see it notice
    that the world would not cry nor implode may be even not notice.
    It is a shame what happened to it over the years – and a good lesson at the same time (O’S Law)

  2. Tony Tea says:

    There are plenty of progressives who complain that the c-bomb is misogynistic. The same progressives should have been all over the ABC when it was used on telly.

  3. sabena says:

    Its not only misogyny on display at the ABC.By and large the presenters are:-
    1.Overwhelmingly white and anglo saxon.
    2.From relatively privileged backgrounds.
    3.Had a private school education or a selective state school one and send their children to private schools.
    4.Have a larger than average carbon footprint.
    When you understand this you also understand why they are misogynistic as well.

    • Lacebug says:

      This describes most left wing elites. I know one of the founders of Get Up. She lives with her husband (one of the founders of The Chaser). They are both white, private school educated (Upper North Shore) and live in a multi million dollar apartment in Glebe. Indeed, they live in the same street as Leigh Sales (Hereford Street) with her multi-million dollar house. And around the corner from from former MP and leftist, Verity Firth (Private school educated North Shore) with her multi-million dollar terrace. I notice that none of them have any refugees bunking down with them, nor do they fraternise with the hired help.

  4. pbw says:

    “Progressive” women use the term quite freely, and with venom. It has always been used because of the power in the word, and that to which it refers. The fact of its increasingly frequent use reflects the diminution of the mystery in a culture which no longer places any value on the most important role of women – as the bearers and nurturers of the next generation. So the taboos are swept away, and so is the respect and fear and desire which underlay the force of the word.

  5. Peter Sandery says:

    When I was getting my initial instruction in the English language it was brought to my attention of the difference between the actual language, English, and any local version, sometimes referred to as patois, of it. What has amazed me since my return to Australia in 2008 is the use of words such as the subject of this post as well “crap” “bullshit”, description of criminals as “grubs” and children as “kids”, particularly amongst presenters, politicians and journalists who are supposed to have a better than working knowledge of their medium of communication. My betters in this tell me that the English language is one of the best descriptive languages so far developed – you wouldn’t think so from the what we are presently served up with here in Australia. I suppose she’ll be right , mate, even when we are forced to communicate between ourselves by means of grunts and whistles.

    • LBLoveday says:

      Through explaining English to people for whom it is not their first (and often not even 2nd) language, I’ve learned not so much “that the English language is one of the best descriptive languages so far developed” but that it is simply “a bugger”.
      How can I adequately explain that the basic powers of 2 are won, too, for, ate? That queue has 4 silent letters, and is pronounced the same as cue?

      Why rough, cough, bough and dough don’t rhyme, and so on – I could fill many pages with examples that I had to “explain” with “Because that’s the way it is”, or “You’ll just have to memorise – I can’t give you rules”.

      Think of the two-letter word “up” – I could come up with 20 different common usages in the proverbial “2 ticks”, but think I’ll just shut up.

      “… what we are presently served up with here in Australia”. Read on-line newspaper comments and using its/it’s, their/there, your/you’re ….. seem to just be random picks, and I’m told FaceBook is even worse.

      • padraic says:

        I take your point LB about the different pronunciations of the second part of rough, cough, bough and dough etc and I may or may not have an answer. It always puzzled me why their pronunciations varied until one day when at leisure in London during a lunch hour break to the Cutty Sark at Greenwich I was walking past the main gate of the Royal Naval College (now a university) when two men in civvies (but obviously from their walk and demeanour were officers or ex-officers) came out and I overheard one say “I am feeling a bit roff (rough) because of this coff (cough) I picked up.” I had noticed that in UK one’s accent and pronunciation defined one’s social class and it may be that the different pronunciations belonged to different classes at some point but have become mainstream across all classes, save for isolated pockets in the classes, as I heard at Greenwich.

  6. LBLoveday says:

    “The minister’s complaint was sneeringly dismissed with the advice that he should get a sense of humour”.

    And the minister crawled back into his “safe space” – what a difference between him, the representative of the owners of the ABC, and Kerry Packer, representing the owners of Channel 9 in 1992.

    Packer pulled a one-off special, “Australia’s Naughtiest Home Videos”, mid-screening throughout Australia (except WA, where it was pulled before starting due to time zones) because of its “disgusting and offensive” content, called staff meetings the next day to berate all responsible or involved, had a good number of them sacked and the talking head banned from 9 for life.

  7. necessityofchoice says:

    Ah yes Kerry. What an ornament to civil discourse he was.

  8. en passant says:

    David,
    “I ask that any ABC viewers amongst my readers bring this issue to the attention of ABC …”. Why would anyone watch or listen to their ABC&%# when their is silence, books and conversation as alternatives. The C&%$*’s already have their hands in your pocket, so try not to encourage them. Rather than 100+ complaints I would rather see none.

    As for their going on strike? Good! Who would notice, and perhaps we could make it a permanent condition of their job statement – that they spend their days on strike.

    Get rid of the AB C%$&*’s they are an unnecessary expense and provide nothing of value.

  9. Ross Williamson says:

    It’s an example of something being so obviously wrong you feel silly having to explain why that is so. Also, that standards of behavior are falling dramatically. That women are guilty of this as well is shocking.