During the Projects: Feminist Subjectivities as Partial and Dynamic

By the end of each project, all of the participants were displaying forms of feminist subjectivities. For some, this engagement was modest, and was illustrated by less frequent or less passionate displays of feminist subjectivities. For others, this was a strong engagement shown by the frequent display of feminist subjectivities. However, for all of the young people in the projects, the feminist subjectivities displayed were in some way partial and dynamic. As well as the moments where the young people displayed strong feminist subjectivities, there were also moments when the young people acted in a way that contradicted or complicated their display of feminist subjectivities. For many of the participants, the primary form this took was through the use of gendered or sexist language.

In both projects, the young people had taken part in research and discussion groups surrounding the topic of gendered language. In these discussion groups, the participants examined the ramifications and impacts of using gendered or non-gendered language, and in particular, using gendered terminology when referring to different professions (such as airhostess, fireman, or fisherman). In these discussions, the young people were supportive of the use of gender-neutral terms to describe professions, and considered gender neutral alternatives to popular terms (such as flight attendant, firefighter and fisher). In both groups, the conversation then turned to more general uses of gendered language, such as the phrase 'man-up'.

Facilitator: So with 'man-up', do people think that it's generally seen as acceptable to say that?

Cameron: Well, technically it doesn't work, because Matt is more manly than me, because I've got the highest pitched voice.

Ernest: What would you say to a woman? Would you say woman up?

Elliot: And it's because it's used so broadly, it's become okay. Erm, so you can't just say, no, it's not okay, because people are just led to use that now.

Facilitator: Yeah, it's really hard to get people to stop using it. In 30 years time, do you think we'll still say man up?

Elliot: There will always be someone.

Facilitator: Yeah, so say in 30 years time, the next 30 years of the youth group, do you think they'd hear something like, 'you're so gay', and 'man-up'?

155

Matt: Not as much as us. I hope so anyway.

In this section of dialogue, the young people in the youth group project were sceptical of the use of gendered language, but hopeful that over time it would be used less and less. In these discussions, both groups seemed conscious of the damaging effects that gendered language could have on society and individuals.

During the action stage of the project, both groups discussed the possibility of creating a contract for members of the group to sign, declaring that they would commit to use less unnecessary gendered language. In the school project, this potential action was one of the four favourites of the group, and was only dropped when the group decided to focus on gender-neutral toilets. However, despite seeming to be aware of the problems of using gendered language, and being committed to the idea of using this language less, the young people in both projects continued to use gendered or sexist language on occasion throughout the projects. For example, in the school project, the young people used gendered insults on several occasions, including:

Eleanor: [Student's name] is just a dick, isn't he?

In this moment, Eleanor was using language that relied on gendered terms to insult or disparage another student at the school. The gendered language Eleanor used both relied upon and reinforced an assumption of negative associations with male genitalia.

Gendered language was used in a similar vein in the youth group. At one point, in a discussion about the use of the word 'cunt', Ernest attempted to defend the use of gendered slang and taboo language:

Ernest: But as an insult, it doesn't have that meaning. So, it's kind of....

Gendered language has been argued to be a form of subtle sexism, that has an insidious impact on society (Swim et al. 2004) and can be used to construct and communicate gender norms (Sczesny et al. 2015). As such, words are not neutral, but instead are part of the reproduction of social inequalities (Thurlow 2001). Both of the gendered insults described above reinforce gender stereotypes in this way, but from different positions and contexts. Using the word 'cunt', which uses a term for the female genitalia to insult someone, operates from a larger patriarchal context in which language such as this is used to devalue women. In contrast, the word 'dick' to insult a man originates from a different place within gendered norms, and so in some ways could be understood as an act of defiance, where this young woman reverses gendered norms around swearing, slang, and the gendered nature of insults (Sutton 1995). However, despite the difference in the form and context of these insults, both

156

insults use gendered or sexed references to create a negative undertone in a way that can be understood as a sexist use of language.

While the use of gendered insults could be considered to demonstrate sexist behaviour and speech, that is not to say that the young people using this language held fundamentally sexist behaviour. Gendered language is often used by young people with little thought to the underlying meaning of the words spoken, and as such, is often not explicitly thought to be sexist (Swim et al. 2004; Thurlow 2001). While individuals who hold sexist views are more likely to use gendered language, language is also determined and influenced by habit and comfort, and as such, often operates on a subconscious level (Koeser et al. 2015; Sczesny et al. 2015). As such, "habits formed from past language use influence gendered expressions, even if those expressions are not entirely consistent with actors' deliberate intentions" (Sczesny et al. 2015, p.944). The young people using this language may have therefore spoken in a way that was shaped by their own habits, rather than through a conscious desire to use sexist language. Subjectivities are multiple, unstable and fragmented, and each self may display contradictory and conflicting versions (Moore 2013; Hall 2004; Eckermann 1997). In this discussion of the use of gendered language, the inconsistent and paradoxical nature of the subjectivities displayed by the young people can be seen. In both projects, the young people considered the place of language, and discussed ways to alleviate the use of gendered languages in their own lives. However, during the projects, the young people also displayed subjectivities that appeared to exist in direct contradiction to these beliefs, through the use of gendered and sexist language to tease or insult one another. Throughout the space of the project, subjectivities were made and re-made constantly by the young people. In each moment, the young people negotiated the relationship between their sense of self, society, and feminism. As the young people moved through the projects, they displayed contradictory and conflicting forms of subjectivity, which reflected the constant negotiation and mediation required to navigate the self and the tensions between subconscious habit and newly emerging consciousness.

5.3.2.2. During the Projects: The Gendered Nature of Subjectivities