Yeah, you, person who googled ‘julia gillard dyke’ and found my blog. What you’re noticing is that patriarchy’s version of a logic [note: ha, I just noticed the typo. If only alogic was a word; it would describe this way of thinking so well] goes a little something like this:
…hmm, women are weak and submissive and have sex with me. (Hur hur.) Julia Gillard is the deputy PM of Australia. So she isn’t weak and submissive. And dykes don’t want to have sex with me. So Julia Gillard isn’t a real woman, she’s a dyke. It’s that hair and the being a politician and running a country and all and it’d be fine if a real woman could do it, but she’s not a real woman. She’s fake. So I’m using that against her, because if women don’t fit into their sexual roles, they’re not real women. Huh. Figured it out.
Okay, we’re out of the patriarchal mind hive now. What’s going on here is that
A) Ms Gillard is being dehumanised
B) using a word denoting a sexual orientation
C) which means that a vital aspect of people’s identities is being co-opted, twisted and used to hurt.
I think there’s some good discussion to be had on the formation and use of insults.
Also, how is it that ZatB is the first result for that search term? I think I’ve used “dyke” exactly once and that was in a different post entirely to any mentions of Julia Gillard. I’m glad I have a tag for her! I’m also glad that something unsavoury doesn’t come up first. Tried googling “feminism” lately? The first page of results alone is quite something.
ETA on 7 Feb: Naturally, since I posted this, more people have found this blog using that search term.