I am not in the habit of reading the Daily Voice tabloid published in Cape Town. It is not the screaming headlines, the picture of a bare-breasted woman on page three, the bad lay-out or the even worse writing that makes me avoid this publication. Nor is it, I would hope, any elitist or superior attitude on my side that stops me from reading this publication.
Fact is, it hardly contains any news worth reading about and I find it boring.
But yesterday I bought a copy of this newspaper (tagline: “ons skrik vir niks“) because of the 5 centimeter high front page headline reading: “MOFFIE HOOKER STEEKED ME”. The article continues on page 7 (headline “YOUR BUNNY OR YOUR LIFE”) and reports that one Zami Zulu had appeared in court on charges of robbery and fraud because it is alleged that he robbed an 80 year old man and stabbed him.
It is strange that this newspaper thinks it can get away with this kind of language. I do not think I am particularly prissy or precious, and I am not personally particularly offended by the use of the “M” word because I know it reflects badly on the person uttering it or deploying it – not on me. But newspapers have a constitutional responsibility not to encourage or perpetuate hatred or disgust of others – especially of minority groups. By using “moffie” in such a derogatory way, the newspaper is perpetuating the stereotype of gay men as violent and disgusting and giving permission to their readers to ridicule and laugh at gay men.
Such a newspaper would never in a million years print a headline referring in a derogatory way to all black people as “kaffirs” or all Muslims as “Towel Heads”. Yet the Daily Voice editors think nothing of using this headline that will reinforce stereotypes and give permission for homophobia and even violence against gay men and lesbians.
The Daily Voice is actually a member of the press council of South Africa and subscribe to the South African Press Code that is enforced by the Press Ombudsman. Section 2.1 of this code states clearly:
The press should avoid discriminatory or denigratory references to people’s race, colour, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or preference, physical or mental disability or illness, or age.
I am sure when confronted with this deeply homophobic headline, the editor of the newspaper will defend himself by arguing that this is how its readers talk and that some gay men in the community in which the newspaper is read also refer to themselves as “moffies”.
I do not think such an argument should succeed. First, as the Constitutional Court has made clear in the case of Hoffmann v SAA, societal prejudice can never be used to justify discrimination. I would argue this would also mean that societal prejudice against gay men cannot justify using a pejorative term like “moffie” merely to sell more newspapers. The Constitutional Court has made clear that gay men and lesbians have the same inherent moral worth as anyone else and that this means that everyone in society has a duty to respect their human dignity – at least in public.
Second, there is a huge difference in the harmful effect of words when used by the targeted group themselves and when such words are used by the dominant group as a way of ridiculing the vulnerable group and of perpetuating the hate and revulsion of that group by society. In the first case the words can be empowering. At the very least the words lose their sting because they are not used by the powerful group to denigrate and humiliate the marginalised group. In the second case the words merely perpetuate hatred and revulsion against an already vulnerable and reviled minority.
The Daily Voice is a rubbish paper but it is read by hundreds of thousands of people in Cape Town. It is therefore a potentially powerful influence on what people think and how they behave towards a still vulnerable and marginalised minority that suffers from stigmatisation and – in extreme cases even violent and deadly attacks. Using words like “moffie” is therefore deeply irresponsible. It is also in breach of the code the newspaper had signed on to. If I thought the paper’s editor had any shame I would have said he should be ashamed of himself.
I disagree. You need to relax Pierre.
Moffie is one of the coolest words Afrikaans brought the South African English.
What would have preferred? Homicidal homo?
You say: “By using “moffie” in such a derogatory way, the newspaper is perpetuating the stereotype of gay men as violent and disgusting and giving permission to their readers to ridicule and laugh at gay men.”
The stereo type in our hyper macho and hyper violent society is anything but. The stereo type is that gay men in SA are effeminate, weak and incapable of violence. That they tend to be well groomed, successful and if the move in next door your property value will go up. That’s the stereo type.
Pierre,
For a white person, you use the word ‘kaffir’ quite a lot. Always illustration of a point or in protest, but a lot no the less. I for one am starting to sit uncomfortable about it.
Khosi, this is a tricky one. I revile the word and in the past I have referred to it as “the K word”, but then it sounds very coy. At the time of Irwin Khoza’s spat there was a big debate about whether to use the word or refer to it euphemistically and the consensus seems to have been that when using such a word (like using any other word) context is all important. You seem to disagree. I am ambivailent myself.
I do not really want to engage inthis debate, because I’m neither gay nor black, but I still detest the use of the mentioned words (in any context) today, by anyone. But then again, ‘moffie/-s’ is used by older Afrikaansspeaking people not to refer to homosexuals, but to muttoncloth gloves; and Muslims call people who have left Islam for Christiandom ‘Kaffirs’, so perhaps context is all important as you suggest Prof de Vos. Should we not have a complete list of words that makes other people feel uncomfortable, when used in a specific context? – A relatively innocent word that springs to mind is ‘coconut/-s’ to refer to black people with white hearts, as it were, but also sometimes jokularly used to refer to someone’s head/skull, or the fruit/nut itself. Then there is ‘boy’, which is what I sometimes call my son, and a few people (black and white) have it as first name (or nickname), while using it to refer to a black person, its degrading; and, what about ‘ousie’, which is what some people call their older sisters, and a Dutch lady referring to y two daughters (white) as ‘meide’ (‘maids’ / ‘virgins’ / ‘whatever’)? We seem to have too many such words where one usage can be innocent, and the other degrading. Perhaps people should be taught at school never to use such wrd in a specific context, or …, perhaps they should be banned altogether? I don’t know, this debate is too intricate. But I agree, the way in which the Daily Voice used the words ‘Moffie’ and ‘Bunny’ is degrading – but so is almost everything they publish. Cheap, sensationalist porn-rubbish I would call it.
This is such a silly debate. Your getting your knickers in a twist for nada.
I have yet to meet a gay SA male who does not call himself a moffie. Perhaps your one Pierre? But I bet you that if you put it to vote to the SA gay community they would overwhelming vote in favour of the word.
Perhaps I move in the wrong circles? I don’t think so. Watch this space, the word Moffie will travel far and wide, even beyond our borders.
So do you want to do a Starbucks or Macdonalds on the South African lexicon? What words do you propose we use for a gay male in SA?
If more people were reading the ‘Cheap, sensationalist porn-rubbish’ then perhaps the xenophobic attacks would not have been such a surprise.
Our ivory towers are incredibly isolated, drearly, anodyne and humourless it seems.
drearly > dreary
Kasi is back.Well i trust that anyone on this blog is not a reader of the ‘Vioce” cuase it is not a good read and contians stories that do not carry any substance, you can just talk along. Pierre, “moffies” are of human descent and prone to do all things (whether good or bad) that any next person falling out of this class are susceptable to. What i find particularly offensive though as you rightfully pionted out, is the overt perpetuation and is a clear indication to me how uneducated our socities are, hence the perpetuation by papers such as the vioce. Moreover, the task that we as constitutionalist are faced with in contributing towards the reqiured change, cause, let us face it a criminal lawyer for example might in all likelyhood find nothing wrong with this type of perpetuation. I might stay in a zozo (shack) but i know what i should exercise my mind with.
I have been reading this discussion and it seems as if it has gotten a bit out of hand. Personally i do not condone the language used in the Daily Voice and i certainly do not read this paper. I find that their writing style and content are quite offensive and rather redundant. Everyday it is filled with the same twaddle of the day before. Gossip, derogatory terms and unethical angles and down right nonsense. But hey, thats just my opinion and i respect your views listed before. But The Daily Voice is a poor excuse for journalism, dont you think
Yeah, it is!!
Today, Efraim Khabolisa jumped off the Karl Bremer hospital roof, to his death.
I believe it was a photo of him in his descent that was on the front page of this paper today.
Journalism so astonishingly base can’t be expected to conform to anything like a reasonable code of ethics.
The chairman of Mitchells Plain Taxi assotiation Mr. Nazeem Abduraman was arrested today at his office in the Town Center for involvement in the shooting of a taxi driver and intimidation. Mr Abduman is also the vice chairman of Santaco