This is a line of rhetoric I’ve often heard from men who are trying to encourage other men to respect women. ‘Sister,’ of course, can be substituted for ‘wife,’ ‘girlfriend,’ ‘mother,’ ‘daughter,’ et cetera. (As ‘sister’ is the least heterosexist of these words, it’s the one I’ll be using throughout this post.)
Now, many of the people who I have seen using this are people I respect, and I’m not trying to say that they are bad people. They are using words which make sense to them, and which they believe will make sense to the people they are trying to reach. They’re making an effort towards respecting women, and an effort towards eliminating sexism, which is always a good thing. The only problem is, they aren’t making enough of an effort. They aren’t taking things to the next level.
Because the ‘somebody’ they are speaking of is not gender-neutral. They are not saying, “this woman means something to other people in the world.” They are saying, “this woman means something to another man in the world.”
This statement is often accompanied by the question, “how would you feel if someone was treating your sister badly?”
Personally, I’d feel pretty angry if someone were treating one of my sisters badly. (I’m a woman, by the way, in case you didn’t know that; and both of my sisters are younger than me.) The only problem is, their feelings ultimately shouldn’t be my call, and when people consider how to treat one of my sisters, the thing they should not think about is, “how would Genevieve* feel about this?” It should be, “how would Jenna * feel?” or “how would Catherine * feel?”
It also brings to mind paternalistic ideas. This is possibly because the first place I ever saw this rhetoric was in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Teens , Sean Covey’s ode to proactiveness and synergy for high schoolers which my dad gave me when I was twelve. I can’t remember which part of the book it was in, but there was a section in which Covey wrote of the harmfulness of addiction. One addiction he mentioned as being especially harmful was pornography (something I had never even heard of until reading this book…sheltered child that I was, I doubt my dad gave me the book to introduce that particular word into my vocabulary.) Covey used another man’s personal account to illustrate pornography’s effects, and my memory’s a bit fuzzy but I believe I recall its basic jist: the man works for a construction company during the summer, the other workers look at porn, he joins in, one day his sister goes to the site to give him something, another worker makes lewd comments about her body, she gets very upset and leaves, the man feels bad about this, and is left thinking that he shouldn’t look at porn because the women in it are all “somebody’s sister,” and you don’t want people making lewd comments about your sister.
And I can understand where the man in this story is coming from. After all, his sister was upset about these comments, as she did nothing except appear in public with a female body. The women in the porn magazines, however, chose to be photographed without their clothes on. They know what the end result of their actions would be: (mostly) men buying the magazines to look at them naked, to examine and admire and comment on their bodies. Now, whether you’re for or against porn, whether you agree with these women’s decisions or not, whether they would decide to do this in a non-patriarchal culture or not…it doesn’t matter for this argument. They live in this culture, they made their decision.
And if their brothers don’t want men looking at their sisters’ bodies, why does it matter? When you argue “that’s somebody’s sister,” you are arguing that women ultimately belong to the men in their lives. And it’s an argument that might be helpful in the short term, it might get rid of some street harassment and sexist comments (at least for ‘good girls;’ I can see this argument playing very well into the hands of the virgin-whore dichotomy), but in the long run it is harmful and it will not make the world any more egalitarian.
Ultimately, misogyny, sexism, discrimination, harassment, rape, and domestic violence aren’t bad because of what the female victims’ brothers will feel. They are bad because the woman , a person in her own right, is being hurt. And until this starts being the frame around which people, even men trying to appeal to misogynists, argue for equality, equality will not be achieved.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "That's somebody's sister.".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8536
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Ultimately, misogyny, sexism, discrimination, harassment, rape, and domestic violence aren’t bad because of what the female victims’ brothers will feel. They are bad because the woman , a person in her own right, is being hurt. And until this starts being the frame around which people, even men trying to appeal to misogynists, argue for equality, equality will not be achieved.
Wow, word to that. I have always felt vaguely squicky about the "What if that were your sister" line of thought, and this is exactly why.
So so so right on!! I am so happy you wrote this post.
This is the tactic the Integrity Balls (the boys' version of Purity Balls) use to convince young boys to remain abstinent until marriage. Don't sleep around, because you don't want to sully some other boy's future wife. Women are property, and exist only in relation to the men in their lives.
Even if you don't have a mom or a sister or a daughter, you should care about women and treat them as equal human beings.
OK, I completely understand where you are coming from on this, and I agree that it does kind of imply a male relative, even if it doesn't say brother/husband/father, etc, and in that regard, it is somewhat paternalistic. However, I would like to say something in defense of this argument.
If someone catcalls some woman walking down the street, it's likely they have trouble seeing the woman as a person, as a opposed to a sex-object. However, they are much more likely to see their close female friends as people, and so putting it in that perspective might cause them to rethink their actions.
I'm not saying it is a perfect solution, but I think that is what people are going for when they make this argument.
Whenever someone says the "What if someone treated your sister that way" line, I can't help but think that there are guys out there who WOULD treat their sister that way. And their mother and their daughter . . . It makes me think of a scene in Persepolis where the main character's mother is shouted at for allowing some hair to peak out from her head scarf. When the mother calmly asks him to speak to her with the same respect he would show his female relatives, the man screams, "Bitch! I throw whores like you in the trash!" If someone is that misogynistic, personal connections with women don't mean squat.
Geobqn commented at August 11, 2008 7:49 PM: "Whenever someone says the 'What if someone treated your sister that way' line, I can't help but think that there are guys out there who WOULD treat their sister that way."
Good point!
Meanwhile, what about when a guy hears "that's somebody's sister" and thinks "yeah, but I hate that somebody, hurting his sister is a convenient way for me to hurt him, he better not treat my sister the way I treat his..."? Telling him "that's somebody's sister" when he's harassing a woman may be as ineffective as telling him "that's someone's net" when he's slam-dunking.
I'm going to go out there on a limb and say I disagree with you. I don't think this is implying a male sibling and I don't think it is "someone owns her". I think it is "someone cares about her". This is someone's sister, someone cares about her, the way you care about your own family and you don't want other people hurting people you care about.
I have heard references to "that is someone's dad", too.
As for people who are so uncaring that they would like to hurt someone BECAUSE they are someone's sister, they are unhelpable. I have written them off anyway.
Is the appropriate tactic, then, to ask, "How would your sister feel if she experienced this?" Would that be the best way to avoid the insinuations of property and belonging?
Or would that just not work as well?
I have also heard soldiers in Iraq refered to as "someone's brother or sister".
This post is right on. I've always felt a little uncomfortable with that line of reasoning, and this post explains why really well. You should treat someone as a person, because that's what they are. Not because of someone else's feelings about them, or connections. They deserve that respect regardless.
Now, I will say that I think that line of reasoning CAN be effective. It's being used to make the person see that women are people just like them, with loved ones and connections. The people hearing this may take it to heart, and it could do some good. It's definitely still flawed, though, and it's unfortunate that it takes defining women through their relationships to men to make them "real" to some people.
Right on. I realize that the "sister" argument is meant to humanize women, but you're totally right about the implication that her human-ness is predicated upon her relationship to a male.
Mamma Mia--
I'm going to go out there on a limb and say I disagree with you. I don't think this is implying a male sibling and I don't think it is "someone owns her". I think it is "someone cares about her". This is someone's sister, someone cares about her, the way you care about your own family and you don't want other people hurting people you care about.
Yes, it wouldn't need to imply a male sibling. However, every single time I have ever heard this used, it has been for a male sibling. Men are the ones who this line of rhetoric is usually used on, therefore the person using it is almost always appealing to their possible paternalism.
Max--
If someone catcalls some woman walking down the street, it's likely they have trouble seeing the woman as a person, as a opposed to a sex-object. However, they are much more likely to see their close female friends as people, and so putting it in that perspective might cause them to rethink their actions.
I'm not saying it is a perfect solution, but I think that is what people are going for when they make this argument.
I know that, I tried to convey that idea. I realize that there are people out there who are too misogynist to listen to reason, and like I said, the "sister" idea might work with them...but it just isn't enough.
Kelly Hiccups--
Is the appropriate tactic, then, to ask, "How would your sister feel if she experienced this?" Would that be the best way to avoid the insinuations of property and belonging?
It's better, yes. It might be a good way to get through to some people.
I also have to respectively disagree as well but for a slightly different reason.
I think that when someone says something like "would you treat your mother/wife/sister/daughter/etc. that way" or "would you let someone do that to her" it's not saying that the woman belongs to the man. It's an attempt to create empathy. Sometimes it's hard to summon that kind of empathy for someone you don't know or an abstract concept. Associating the distant concept to a relative brings that concept home and thus makes it relevant.
It's the same principle when you're teaching a child empathy and you say, "Johnny, it's not nice to hit Brian. Now, would you like it if Brian hit you?" Adults still have to be reminded of their capacity to empathize.
It's the same principle when you're teaching a child empathy and you say, "Johnny, it's not nice to hit Brian. Now, would you like it if Brian hit you?" Adults still have to be reminded of their capacity to empathize.
I realize that's partially the intent, but shouldn't people have realized that other people have feelings by the time they're ten or so? I realize this often isn't the case, but that is what we should be aiming for. And the 'sister' argument almost always amounts to, "that's not something you do to another person," but to, "she matters to another man, you're damaging his property." Which is a band-aid argument, and is harmful.
Thanks for articulating why I've always hated this line.
"I know it's impossible to empathize with a *woman*, so just think of how the men in her life would feel."
The reason I come to Feministing is because I like to think about things that I might not consider otherwise, and this post is no different. I have been thinking about this all day, and had trouble falling asleep last night because I was thinking about it. All good things, in my mind.
So here is where I am now: still unconvinced, for a few reasons, but still listening.
First, I truly feel this is equivalent to someone arguing against the war because the soldier who dies is someones son or daughter. I myself have used this argument with other *women*, and when I made the argument, it was to humanize the person on the battlefield. It was not to suggest ownership of a child, but to remind us of the pain we feel when something happens to someone we love. Therefore, I don't see this type of argument applied only to women or only offered to men.
Second, when I think of the kind of guy who might be convinced to stop catcalling because "that is somebody's sister," I believe he is the same guy who will get into a fight with another guy who beat up his brother, or maybe his cousin. I see this not as an ownership issue, but perhaps a tribal or clan issue. We feel protective of the people in our own clan, not just the women. Saying someone is somebody's sister is trying to inspire that same kind of protectiveness for someone else's clan.
Third, for the inevitable men who are convinced by "that's someone's sister" BECAUSE they feel sisters are property (which most certainly happens), these are men who are unlikely to be convinced by feminist arguments. When I worked on a suicide hotline, I learned that someone who calls has many problems, but the most important one is whatever is happening RIGHT NOW. If you have only five minutes, focus on stopping the risky behavior, and if you get more time, work on the back issues. In this case, the behavior happening RIGHT NOW is the catcalling (for example). Stop it first with whatever is effective, then when you get more time, work on the deeper issues.
Finally, I personally don't like this as an argument, either. To me, it is like the anti-domestic violence campaign "Real men don't hit women." I have always been bothered by it because I feel real men *aren't violent.* However, for a man who is not ready to be non-violent, you start where you can make an impact, so I understand the campaign. You shouldn't have to convince someone not to be a harrasser because she could be a sister. They should not do it because it *isn't acceptable*.
So there is my long response. Thanks for bringing up this topic!
Mama Mia--
I think I get what you're saying. It is sometimes hard to fight the Big Fight when there's so much shit in the world right now.
What's especially sad to me is that, when I think about it, all the men I know who have been abusive probably wouldn't have been moved by the 'sister' argument, even.
But no one ever said that there weren't people who sucked in the world.
(As ‘sister’ is the least heterosexist of these words, it’s the one I’ll be using throughout this post.)
I would think "daughter" would fit better, honestly.
Not every woman is someone's sister...but every single woman is someone's daughter. Every man is someone's son.
This comment is largely useless, because I'm exhausted, I just wanted to add that bit.
Genevieve,
I totally agree that it is hard to fight the big fight. I struggle with how hard to push back, when, with who. And your main point, that it shouldn't be the reason someone shows respect is completely true. Respect should be shown because we are human, not because we are sisters or daughters (good point, BlackThirteen). And people should not have to be reminded of this.
I have really appreciated how respectful the tone of this conversation has stayed (we're all human, after all).
This is a really great post. I have in the past used that kind of line, but I will think of it differently now. I think we are more protective and caring about our loved ones, and that's why we might say "what if..." rather than the anonymous woman in question. But you're right, woman deserve respect regardless of their relation to a man.
The "what if..." works best in terms of porn and stripping I find. If a woman is in dire straits and she "chooses" sex work, no problem! But if that was someone you personally cared about, people reconsider--because no one wants someone they love to take their clothes off for money if they're doing it out of desperation and not out of a real choice.
Maybe "what if that was me?" works better (?)
All in all, there's an issue with women as valuable only insofar as they are useful, which is unable to be solved here.