Open Thread: On Language and Terms
by Latoya Peterson
So I noticed that one of the themes discussed on Joe’s Look Twice post focused around his use of certain terms. Specifically the words bitch and son of a bitch.
This isn’t the first post on Racialicious to spark some controversy over use of language. A while back, Fatemeh’s post on Halloween costumes prompted criticism for her use of the word slutty. I’ve had criticism leveled at me for using the words heifer and calling myself The Editrix.
Now, I understand the criticisms. But I’m coming at this from a slightly different perspective. So I am wondering…
1. Where in this is the author’s right to relate a story as they see fit?
2. At what point do the words used in the source piece encourage/discourage certain types of dialogue in the comments section? (For example, I’ve deleted scores of misogynistic comments [from men and women] on the Ciara piece and on the Esther Ku piece – though neither of those posts contained the type of gendered language that normally prompts an outcry.)
3. Is it possible for a place designed to encourage conversation to also be a safe space?
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:
I’m going to get attacked for saying this, but I don’t care. People need to STOP being afraid to say what they think.
I’ve been called mysogynistic by other feminists because I use the word “slut” and “whore” all the time in my writings. I’m not going to bow down to their pressure, because I call it how I see it. I’m entitled to my opinion and I’m not sorry for using such words in my writings.
One guy was even offended that I call myself “Deaf” because he said that “Deaf” is an offensive term for Deaf people. Really? REALLY? He suggested I call myself “Hearing Impaired” since it’s much more politically correct.
Um, no. I’m Deaf and I’ll call myself “Deaf” as many times as I want to.
And of course it’s possible to have an intelligent conversation and make it a safe space, but let’s not beat around the bush in order to try to appear “friendly.”
People have actually been afraid to ask me questions about Islam and terrorism, out of fear of offending me, because they think it might be politically incorrect, but it’s NOT.
Stop beating around the bush and get to the point.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 12:28 pm ¶
inkst wrote:
Those are some great questions. Appreciate the post, and I am interested to hear what everyone has to say.
I think one of the hardest things about language is that it is constantly changing and so culturally specific, which makes it tough to know what types of words are going to encourage or discourage discussion. Some people might be completely turned off by something that they deem misogynist or racist regardless of the context, while others might be willing/able to tease out what the writer was getting at.
There were also some reactions to use of the word “chink” in some of the Miley Cyrus related posts.
As far as an author’s right to tell a story, one might assume that the limit is when it infringes on others, which is generally our accepted idea of “freedom,” but one person’s racial slur is another’s friendly wink-wink-nudge-nudge, or even another’s cathartic release of frustration.
Ultimately, IMO, the most important thing is that lines of communication are kept open and that people are willing to profess or accept their ignorance of someone else’s limits so that we don’t have situations where people are afraid to talk. Overall, I would say that Racialicious is a space where this happens.
Thanks to Latoya and everyone else for creating this space and being ready to question it!
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 12:51 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:
I believe in the general principle that we should have the freedom to use whatever words we want… and then, we should be equally free to complain (or bitch if you will
about the words other people use.
Then, we have to make the decision whether or not to respect the opinion of the person who does the complaining.
That makes the decision all about people, not words.
Examples:
I would respect someone who tells me they don’t like the use of a word such as “retard” or “bitch” because they or someone close to them has been hurt by it, or just in general because they have a good logical and ethical argument against it.
I’m not going to respect the opinion of someone who tells me to stop using the word “white” because they are beyond race and it hurts them to have to think they’re not.
I would respect the opinion of someone who wants to be (called/not called) Hispanic.
I’m not going to respect the opinion of someone who demands to be called a Vampire-American. Hey, they’re out there.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 12:51 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
I’ll bite. I think there are a couple of issues here.
One is simple clarity and common usage.
For instance, some folks get all het up over the use of “third world” as a term for he Global South, developing nations, or whatever you want to call it (see, already we run into problems). I don’t see how “third world” or “developing nations” are different in terms of how problematic they might be. Even “Global South” would leave out countries such as Albania, which is poor and falls into the developing nation category by any definition.
So what do you do? You can’t put footnotes at every sentence and I can come up with any reason I want to go through all kinds of linguistic gymnastics, and the result is that what I say is utterly opaque to the casual reader who hasn’t had a ton of semiotics classes.
On top of that, you end up, to my mind, focusing on stuff that’s sort of trivial. We’re all bright enough here to tease out a lot of coded racist arguments when right wing people don’t even mention race directly, but we don’t get caught up in the wording as much as the thrust of the argument, right?
I have no problem, for instance, with the use of “editrix” because strictly speaking it is correct anyway. I have no problem with offhand use of the term “slutty” in some cases because it’s shorthand for a 10-page dissertation on women dressing to please the male gaze.
And what do you mean by “safe”? Protected from ever hearing the n-word? A term you don’t like? And given that this is the net, we can’t tell who is saying what anyway, absent meeting them. No space designed to encourage conversation can be “safe” in that sense.
This doesn’t mean you tolerate dumb-ass things that don’t further the conversation. But I could spend all day trying to police other people or self police and at the end of it there would be no conversation at all, you know?
Latoya, you do damned good work here. Your mod policy has worked so far. And I haven’t seen any evidence of real degeneration of conversation yet — and that’s a testament to your ability.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 12:54 pm ¶
cocolamala wrote:
if an author is going to use language or ideas, of any type, they have to be prepared to hear feedback about their choices, period.
readers need to pick their battles and focus on the issues they want to discuss, and make a choice about what types of discussions are most productive for them.
obviously, i don’t come here to get a daily dose of mysogyny with my anti-racism, and i usually don’t. the site manages to avoid the big mistakes and sexist assumptions. but everyone has their own personal set of boundaries and it is probably impossible to avoid running afoul of some readers boundaries at some time.
but then, when you do, you hear back from commenters, because the conversation does not just flow one way.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 1:04 pm ¶
Seattle Slim wrote:
To answer number three, yes and it’s here.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 1:53 pm ¶
Whit wrote:
To me, a safe space is one that isn’t triggering. So, no endorsement of rape & Holocaust jokes, nooses, etc.
There is a balance between open conversation and making a safe space. You cannot have a conversation that is open to everyone, ever, because if it’s unmoderated, that excludes people who may find the discussion deeply triggering and offensive. And moderating obviously excludes the deeply offensive jackasses. I think it’s clear where I stand on the issue.
Where in this is the author’s right to relate a story as they see fit? In whatever space they find welcoming to their writings. Whether that’s Townhall, the DailyKos, here, or their own blog.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 1:58 pm ¶
gogojojo wrote:
I agree with DIMA (is it okay to abbreviate this?)
And of course it’s possible to have an intelligent conversation and make it a safe space, but let’s not beat around the bush in order to try to appear “friendly.”
I personally curse like a sailor including words that are considered misogynistic. I am open to conversations about why I choose to use such language…but ultimately its my decision.
Just like in my own space it’s my decision about what language is inappropriate. Blogging, as I sometimes do, about rap music I quote sources that use the “n-word.” It’s not a word that I use in my everyday vocabulary and it’s not a word that I really want hanging around my site. So if it’s in direct quotes I *might* keep it. But I also might abbreviate it. It depends on how central I feel it is to the point I’m trying to convey with the quote. Its a definite zero-tolerance no for my comments section. I’m clear about that in my (newly posted) commenting policy and I feel comfortable with that choice.
I think you can have an intelligent conversation, still be firm about certain rules of engagement and it all be relatively “fair” and develop the kind of safe space that you are looking for. I don’t know if it will be entirely equal though. But then to me those terms are not mutually exclusive.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 2:04 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
In reading Joe’s responses to some comments, you can see that he owns up to his language. In that specific case, he was directly quoting a dialogue he had, so it would be dishonest and disingenuous for him to censor it. He also said that he regretted using that language, which to me should have ended the conversation right there. Obviously, we could talk about what prompted Joe to resort to that language in that instance, but I don’t see how anyone could be offended by Joe’s use of it, given his ultimate feelings on his own usage.
I agree with some earlier posts about the way in which language changes. “Dumb” originally referred to people who were mute, but it then began a pejorative for people perceived to be of lower intelligence. I don’t think anyone is offended by “dumb” anymore, though looking at the evolution of the word, it is clear that people were associating being mute with lower intelligence (FAIL!). The words with which we refer to people with special needs have also changed, not necessarily because the words themselves were inherently offensive (some were, some weren’t), but because many of them were bastardized (is this another example?) into pejoratives as well. I don’t know what the answer is, but it is complicated because of the way language evolves. You could argue that people should take the time to understand the history of words and can’t claim that a word now no longer means what it used to, but I don’t think that is the best response either. Kids nowadays might have no idea that “retard” once referred to people with special needs and might only be another way to razz a friend. Can we blame them for this? I also don’t think there is one-size-fits-all rule for such words. A complicated topic, but meaningful questions that should prompt meaningful discussion.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 2:07 pm ¶
Ike wrote:
I’m with D.I.M.A as well. Especially after being set on “time out” for sarcastically using the term “Uncle Tom” and for saying that Ciara looks kinda tranny at times. I still don’t think it was that crucial, but I guess I know what not to say now.
I curse at times, and have a habit of using certain stereotypical/racist/misogynist phrases at times as well. But it’s usually to add humor to my response. Examples:
“that heffah”… “bitch is crazy”… “beat that trick”… “these niggas”… etc, (u get my point….. I hope).
If it offends anybody, they can bring it to my attention and I’ll apologize, explain myself and move on.
**** My main point:
As long as the comment/response addresses the question/situation at hand, then the comment is acceptable. Censoring comments, just becuz of an “offensive term”, is unecessary in my opinion.
Mod Note – Clearly, you didn’t read what I told you to read. Don’t use the word tranny, period, ESPECIALLY not in a derogatory way. Every person who reads this site isn’t going to speak up when they are offended by what you said, but will instead send me an email (or go comment in a safer space).
2nd warning Ike. I don’t have a problem banning people I generally like from conversation, so if there’s a third time, I’m bouncing you out.
And it’s interesting you chose to vent on this thread, because that brings me to another commenting issue. – LDP
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 3:01 pm ¶
Lisa J wrote:
Personally, lately, I’ve been feeling a bit reticent to post at all much b/c it seems as though things like the bitch comment and a few others that you cite keep coming up. I know that this is a supposed to be a safe space and the intent is to make a point of respecting people’s race, gender, orientation, general personhood and so on, but it seems like so often things get derailed into discussions like, “why it’s unfair to call someone flighty” or “why it isn’t fair to acknowledge different levels of privilege for different oppressed groups’ or “why you are a bad person for using the term bitch or slutty. I know we are discouraged from using the term over-sensitive, and maybe I am being oversensitive but it just seems like people get so carried away with jumping on something that isn’t even relevant to the discussion and is relatively speaking small potatoes. If someone uses the term bitch, especially towards another man, is it really necessary to chastise them as anti-feminist or problematic when there are things a thousand times worse that gets directed at women everyday. I know it is important to recognize things that are somewhat discriminatory or put a group down, but sometimes it just gets beat to death. Or even in instances where the caveat of the term “some” is used still viewed as some sort of broad brush and is dismissed as doing someone or some group wrong.
We talk a lot here about white privilege and I for one have thought a lot about it and lately I have been trying to think of the privileges I have though I am not white, as someone who was raised middle-class, received a good education, lives in the west and so on. To me it sometimes seems as though many people are exercising perhaps middle class privilege or the privilege of being educated (formally or self-taught), and having at least some monetary privilege in having regular internet access, and sometimes tend to over analyze and attack relatively benign or small things. I don’t know, I’m starting to ramble here, but I feel increasingly unwilling to comment and I’ve been trying to cut down on reading things because in spite of the many excellent discussions, intelligent commenters and opportunities to learn things here, I just am so frustrated that I’m trying to wean myself from Racialicious (this was my first check in since last Friday down from a habit of several times reading daily). Maybe what I am trying to say is that people keep problematizing things that don’t seem like that of a big deal, or are a side issue or not relevant or maybe I’m being insensitive but it is just frustrating to me of late. And I’m sure I’ll be chastised by someone for even saying this. Sigh.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 3:19 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Now, here’s a fun explanation.
Do you see what Ike did up there? I told him not to do something and he did it again.
Besides feeling like Ike is testing me, here’s the moderator’s viewpoint on this:
I have a lot of people who read this site and they come from all different backgrounds. I know that I have some transgender readers on the blog. I cross post transgender writers on the blog. And I lurk on sites dedicated to talking about transgender issues and identity. So I know that this phrase is not ok.
However, you have Ike here arguing he’s making a joke.
If this joke alienates some of my readers, is it worth it to allow the joke to stand?
Now, the simplistic answer is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
But really, that’s bullshit.
I remember learning a clear lesson from the Obama identity battles when we had some people who wanted to talk about mixed race people as if they did not have a sense of race loyalty or racial allegiance. Some people argued they wanted to talk about things like “mixed race privilege.” Fine. Two different perspectives, they’ll discuss it among themselves, right?
Wrong.
What ended up happening was a lot of mixed race people left the site because they did not want to argue in circles.
They’d heard it all before and while some people stuck it through, others realized it wasn’t worth the trouble.
So if mixed race folks left the site, who stayed?
The jerks who felt like it was ok to say mixed people didn’t have a vested interest in their own communities. And I ended up banning those jerks later because the continued to spew their ignorance – they weren’t interested in discussion. They just wanted to say what they wanted to say and start shit.
So, dear readers, that’s why I generally don’t trip on terms, but I tend to go off on questions of identity. I only want people who are going to be respectful of others on this blog, who are going to realize some jokes aren’t funny, who are open to engaging honestly with others.
This doesn’t mean everyone is going to like this blog. They don’t.
But it does mean if I have a choice between someone who is trying to defend their right to be a jerk and someone who is trying to deal with the jerk so they can get back to normal discussion, I’m coming down on the side of the person who respects the discussion.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 3:42 pm ¶
Versai wrote:
I think it’s more than specific words that direct the course of dialogue.
Fatemeh wanted to talk about “slutty” costumes–so it’s natural that “what is slutty/what does slutty mean” comes up in the convo.
Joe decided to tell us about that event on the train to “tell a story about race” in America–but misogyny was a part of that race story. So, it’s natural for it to come up in discussion and for people to want to talk about it.
For the other essays you mentioned, there was only one comment each about those words–they didn’t actually spark a dialogue.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 4:21 pm ¶
Restructure! wrote:
@Seattle Slim:
Uh, no, it’s not. I’m actually shocked that Ike’s transphobic comments made it through moderation.
I said before that Racialicious is like a sanctuary for me, but it’s only a sanctuary relative to the vast majority of the Internet. There are still things that make me cringe, like that recent Disgrasian post, but there is a higher signal-to-noise ratio here.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 4:25 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:
I didn’t mind Latoya’s heifer or Joe’s bitch, especially since he owned up to it. I don’t understand what’s wrong with Editrix. I use both heifer and bitch when the occasion calls but I never use heifer to refer to fat women. Having said that I respect other people’s objections to the above-metioned terms as long as the whole convo doesn’t veer off into dissecting them.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 4:39 pm ¶
Steve wrote:
“3. Is it possible for a place designed to encourage conversation to also be a safe space?”
I believe that if you want to be committed to having serious substantive discussions that you have to prioritize that above making all members of your audience feel that things are safe. I think that you can do things via moderation but inevitably feelings will be hurt.
For instance I am a member of a private message board where everyone knows each other personally and where everyone shares a common religion (and most of us share a common denomination) yet even though that’s true and we consider ourselves at least casual friends the substantive conversations have almost invariably bruised someone’s feelings the longer they go on. I think its almost inevitable that if you have a substantive discussion about something that someone feels deeply about and you disagree with them that they will experience some kind of emotional discomfort during the course of going back and forth on it.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 4:48 pm ¶
gogojojo wrote:
@Latoya
Personally I think that as its you’re site you have the right to “set the tone.” People can either decide to adapt or have their conversation some where else. Part of having a dialog is respecting the boundaries of all parties. If one the boundaries set is not to use transphobic language–then everyone who *chooses* to take part in the conversation also is saying that they are willing to respect that boundary.
I think that’s what makes it a safe space. Understanding that, whether every person posting or commenting personally holds a belief about the language policy, we all respect that a standard is being set and agree to follow that standard.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 5:04 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
Whit–
believe it or not, there is a Jewish Holocaust joke.
It’s called The Producers.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 5:34 pm ¶
Steve wrote:
One other question as a relatively new reader to this website. As it is April 1st and I’m checking out the joke posts on my other usual internet reading destinations, I wonder whether this site could do anything like that or by definition anything funny that intersects with race is too liable to be offensive to someone.
That seems reasonable to me that being funny (as opposed to analyzing whether something humorous is offensive) might not be a goal of this site, even on April Fools Day, but does that mean that in the ideal world we would never have any humor that deals with race? I haven’t really thought hard about it but my gut reaction is that if all humor that intersected race were taboo, we’d be worse off for it.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 5:44 pm ¶
karak wrote:
“Bitch” is what he said, what he thought, and what he meant. That’s how this happened. So, as an honest writer, he included the word.
That piece was not about the word “bitch” and the meanings it has in the English language. It was about race and a violent encounter that race was a part of. That was the focus, and sometimes people need to pull the “WHAT ABOUT THE _____!!!!” phrase out of their vocab and look at the issue at hand, the focus at hand.
I think this is a safe space. People mix up the words “safe space” and “womb”. A womb protects you from all badness in the world and is warm and soft without thought or loud noises. A safe space is somewhere were people can talk without being insulted, and where they will be listened to respectfully without being told how they have to be in order to have a voice. People get bruised and offended and disagree in safe spaces.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 6:07 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
In terms of safety vs. openness, to some extent, people decide for themselves what is safe. There are racists who would not consider this a “safe” space to express their ideas, because of how loud they’d get shouted down (if their posts got through at all). But that does not mean the space overall is unsafe. Safety is not about complete avoidance of offense. It’s the ability and freedom to speak up when one does feel offended or violated. Everyone is going to come across things that they disagree with or are directly bothered by; that is the nature of dialogue and discourse.
Safety comes from trusting that the people who come here are generally not intending to be offensive, and if they are, they will be quickly bounced.
Safety comes from trusting that an expression of offense will be listened to and validated, even if not necessarily agreed with.
Safety comes from trusting that one’s needs and interests are being considered.
I think that this space does all of that. Safety does not equal sheltered. If you don’t want to ever hear a word/idea/thought that mind offend you, than this is not the space for you. Racialicious challenges people and, sometimes through that, risks offending people. But it is a responsible place, where people are held accountable for their words and actions. If people simply leave this space because of a word/post/comment they don’t like, without voicing their offense publicly on the boards or privately to the moderators, then I don’t feel they allowed the space to be safe.
Please note, this post may be colored by my admittedly white privilege and may represent a utopian view, but I would hope that a truly safe place would meet what I have lined out.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 6:14 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Steve –
We discuss humor often. Employing race based humor is another matter. While we have posted a humorous piece or two to the site in the past, only one has gone over well.
I’m open to publishing something funny for April Fools, but the boring reality is that Racialicious is volunteer run and so we normally don’t even think about dates when running posts. I think I missed most of black history month before finally writing about it, we always miss blog carnivals, and can never seem to get it together for much of anything with a deadline.
Though, looking at how Jezebel’s prank went this year, I’m thinking we’d be wise to avoid the whole thing…
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 6:31 pm ¶
Bekka wrote:
Here’s my take on it. The word slutty refers to a particular form of behavior. When the discussion is about people ‘acting slutty,’ it may not be perfectly politically correct, but it’s fair, and it’s a legitimate comment about the behavior. When a misogynist commenter posts, “All you sluts…” to refer to all women, or all women who speak up, that’s using the word in a completely different context. There are a very, VERY few occasions in which the word bitch doesn’t invoke all the worst stereotypes of women – shallow, petty, and, fundamentally, so far inferior to men that any association with the even the word is tainting. It’s the entire concept of the female as dirty, disgusting, cowardly, mean. There’s a very real problem with that. There’s a problem with the fact that there are huge numbers of men who casually use ‘bitches’ as a stand in for ‘women.’ It parallels, in form, the use of the k word for Jews, the s word for Hispanics, the n word for blacks. It is a denigration of the entire group, and to direct it at someone who is clearly not part of that group (i.e. calling a man ‘bitch’) is meant to insult because the mere assocation with the group is insulting. Period.
As to Joseph’s piece – I’m glad he kept it in, and I’m glad we’re talking about it. I completely respect the statement he made to the effect that it was not his proudest moment. I appreciate the discussion this has opened up around both the place of language and the ingrained sexism, racism, prejudice that we often never see in ourselves until a moment like this brings it out. I DON’T think that a simple apology means it’s over and he is blameless – I don’t think that would fly with the use of racist slurs, nor should it – but I also think it’s usefulness is as a tool for conversation, not as a shaming exercise. We all have better things to do than endlessly police every word written by what I assume the majority of this site’s readers are, allies in one form or another.
So thanks, Joseph, for being honest in what you wrote, and please know that, for me at least, the discussion over the word is over the word, not over your character, not looking for blood. I hope in being the guinea pig you don’t become the sacrificial victim!
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 8:01 pm ¶
Asada wrote:
ppl seem to think cursing and name calling is cool. I prefer to portray myself and as thinking person, which means I have to watch my speech. There ARE so many different ways to get a point across.
Then again, I like to be diplomatic and tactful. It really works wonders when done right…..
I can’t say I understand it in this day and age, I’m sure its a sociological thing. People are desperate to prove something about themselves being, enough of this , or not that, something.
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 8:17 pm ¶
Ike wrote:
@Latoya:
I’m “testing you”???? I “did it again”???
You created a thread titled:
“OPEN THREAD: ON LANGUAGE AND TERMS @ RACIALICOUS”. And then you asked:
“2. At what point do the words used in the source piece encourage/discourage certain types of dialogue in the comments section? (For example, I’ve deleted scores of misogynistic comments [from men and women] on the Ciara piece….”
So why wouldn’t I “vent” my feelings on the matter here? I was ready to move on, but since you made a thread on the subject, I was like “damn… might as well.”
I read your policy and I don’t see how my post on THIS thread violates it.
I would like to address/explain my using the “T-word” to describe Ciara yesterday, but I’m soooo confused/surprised about how you’re reacting that I’ll just drop it and let it be.
I guess I see where you’re going with the whole…
“every person who reads this site isn’t going to speak up when they are offended by what you said, but will instead send me an email (or go comment in a safer space).”
But really… is that our problem? If somebody can’t gather the strength to lift a couple of fingers and voice (or I should say type) their unsatisfaction, from the safety of their computer screen, then that person shouldn’t be heard at all in my opinion.
But at the end of the day…. it’s YOUR blog. You decide what goes and what stays, so it’s whatever.
*** Also… is the term “drag queen” prohibited as well??? Would it have been less offensive if i said that instead? (cuz I’m seriously confused about all this)… *___*
@restructure:
“transphobic comment” ???
I fail to see how my comment was “transphobic”.
Mod Note – Ike, you failed to see why this is an issue because you ignored the link I sent you to when you first made the mistake. And while everyone makes mistakes, it appears that you seem determined to keep repeating them. Also, this thread wasn’t created for you – the comments I deleted where ones most of you never saw, most along the lines of “if she’s going to act like a whore, she’ll be treated like a whore – she asked for it.” In sum, this thread was not about you. I’m revoking your commenting privileges for a while and banning you from the conversation. I would suggest that you spend some time on the Trans 101 thread at Feministe, the Transgriot blog, and the Questioning Transphobia blog. – LDP
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 8:27 pm ¶
Lauren O wrote:
I have to say I’m a bit disappointed to see more than one commenter say something to the effect of, “I use misogynistic language, and I don’t give a shit if it hurts anyone.”
Posted 01 Apr 2009 at 11:09 pm ¶
little mixed girl wrote:
I have a huge problem with minorities using racial slurs as a “take back the word” kind of thing.
I cringe when I hear mixed people call themselves “mutts/half-breeds/mulattos/heinz57/etc”, when blacks and Asians use the n or c words to describe themselves/people in their communities, etc.
I don’t find it empowering…I find it embarassing.
When it comes to swear words, I use them a lot more online than I do in real life, but there are times when I have seen the use of swear words go overboard.
I don’t advocate for having those words pulled out of the English language and burned.
But especially in the case of racialized words, you have to have more tact in your usage.
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 12:22 am ¶
Nathan wrote:
I think on a general level, when you constrain the language, you constrain the mind. Of course, there is a particular point at which we need to be constraining the mind.
Being a sanctuary in some ways limits the available breadth of conversation for this site but at the same time, there are other sites with more open moderation policies where those topics can be hammered out more fully. And as someone else mentioned, the sanctuary concept allows the inclusion of many for whom the conversation would otherwise be untenable, owing to triggers.
But the mod policy also (to some extent and not the main benefit) allows a relatively benign place for people who don’t necessarily agree or are unfamiliar with the concepts accepted here to engage and understand. Granted, more often than not those dialogues end in ban-hammer-deployment, but at the same time, some good does result.
But for the most part, it is good for self-reinforcement of people here, many of whom have mentioned their exhaustion hashing out on unmoderated places like YouTube comments.
I can appreciate how difficult it is to find where to draw the line between tolerating honesty in discussion between different viewpoints and cracking down on pejoratives/ad-hominems such as, oh, say “delusional” (*bitter-bitter*). In short, glad I don’t have your job, Latoya!
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 12:32 am ¶
Pheagan wrote:
Bekka– not to argue with you, but it’s funny that of bitch v. slut, you think bitch is worse. It’s not that I don’t think it’s a terrible word, but for me, slut has always been the most terrible word.
For me, it started during my adolescence. Because when the whole losing my virginity thing came up, there were two things that were important to me: I didn’t want to be afraid, and I wanted to know everything, have every experience. I wanted to do what I wanted, with who I wanted, and I certainly didn’t want to be stuck with one know-nothing sixteen-year-old for all of high school. I still think that’s totally normal and healthy. And in high school that came up against the slut-shaming. I was much more afraid of the word slut than bitch in high school, and found myself a group of boys the next town over to play with, in order not to be stigmatized for, again, what I regard as totally normal, healthy behavior.
I fought against that word. I would not let my friends use that word. I would not let other girls be described as sluts. Even today I don’t use it, but I use bitch all the time– as much for men as women. It just means “mean” to me. I am aware that it means something stronger to others. For me (and I know this isn’t necessarily true for others), “slut” is the word used the most to disenfranchise women from their sexuality, to keep that virgin/whore line in place, to propagate all these myths that have resulted in me, NOW, having problems with sex and men that I never had in high school, the only time I ever felt absolutely free. I have heard myself described as unhealthy, have had men regard me differently once they knew how many partners I had, even have a friend stop being friends with me and try to make my other friends stop being friends with me because I was regarded as a slut.
I’ve never cheated. I’ve used a condom every. single. time. I don’t even give blow jobs unless I’m in a monogomous relationship with tests. But I’m a slut, apparently. And I can’t embrace it like other feminists do. I hate that word, truly I do.
I just have never understood what the fuck the problem is with consensual sex.
OK, slutty Halloween costumes. This is a fairly complex issue because 1) there’s the aspect of women being surrounded by this sexy image and feeling the need to live up to it and 2) there’s the issue of this image being sold to younger and younger girls, BUT– is it really so terrible to see anyone scantily clad? Honestly, I don’t get it, aside from issues 1 and 2. In the selling and marketing of it, there are issues. In the feeling that you need to be a certain way to get sex, or that you feel the need to get sex or sexual approval not because you genuinely want to, but because you have identity problems, there are issues. But if I feel like wearing a short skirt? Why not?
Anyways, this is just to say, this is what “slut” means to me. And you know, I don’t get offended when someone is like, “what’s up with the popularity of these slutty Halloween costumes?” But that’s because I know they’re coming at it from issues 1 and 2. When people are like, “Why are you being a slut?” or “This behavior is what can be described as slutty,” I do get kind of offended, because in adhering to these normative standards, I know I’m in the judged zone.
And fuck those standards, it’s called HEALTHY SEXUALITY, I was once one of the few blessed by it, but that goddamn word and everything it entails is what has robbed me of it now.
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 2:40 am ¶
Pheagan wrote:
Sorry if I threadjacked, but maybe in an indirect sort of way I highlighted some of the issues of this post.
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 2:43 am ¶
Versai wrote:
If Joe’s piece had been an excerpt of an article or op/ed in a newspaper–with a link to the complete piece–and not presented as a guest post, I don’t think there would be as much of a struggle over “can we bring a discussion of the use of ‘bitch’ into this convo about race”.
I don’t think there would have been a fear of harping on/trying to shame the author. (I say “fear of” because I don’t think anyone was trying to do that.)
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 8:51 am ¶
Whit wrote:
I have t0 disagree with BSK that intent matters. Intent doesn’t matter. The effect of the words is what matters. If someone can’t communicate their intent effectively, then that’s their problem (and one I often have). It is not someone else’s problem for taking offense where none was meant.
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 9:32 am ¶
CVT wrote:
“Is it possible for a place designed to encourage conversation to also be a safe space?”
The answer is yes. I’m a teacher. A middle-school teacher. And we have serious conversations all the time. But before we do that, all of us agree on some ground rules, so that we know the rules we’re playing by when we share our opinions. That way, we don’t end up knocking somebody else out of the conversation. And even the kids who you’d think wouldn’t want “rules” come up with basic ones about respect, etc. And it works. Even in middle school.
So it kind of appalls me that adults on this site don’t think that some level of boundaries are necessary to create safe conversation. It’s fine to “say whatever I want” on my own site, especially when venting – but not if I want CONVERSATION. Conversation doesn’t begin by trampling on other people’s opinions.
If somebody asks you, respectfully, not to say something when you’re having a conversation with them – then DON’T F-ING SAY IT. If you go on to trample their request in the name of “I’ll say what I want to say” or “I don’t care” (all middle-school excuses I hear all day long at work), then you aren’t part of the conversation any longer – you’re just somebody ranting. And that’s when you should step out of the comments area and “say what you want to say” on your own site.
It’s that simple. I am careful about the words I use simply because I actually want to have dialogue. If I know certain words are going to keep certain people from entering into conversation with me, then I won’t use them. Because, unlike the folks who will “say whatever they want,” I’m actually looking to learn from people on the other side. I actually want to hear from them. And prematurely silencing them by pissing them off doesn’t do it.
And sure – people will find fault with a lot of things I certainly wouldn’t, but if they ask me to change my wording with a valid explanation (namely – please don’t say it, it bothers me because . . .”), then no problem. If they automatically jump to insults or accusations based on my use (which some folks here do tend to do), then I’ll be a little more hesitant – because that’s not asking for conversation, either.
Whoo. I said I was a middle school teacher, right?
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 10:23 am ¶
CJ wrote:
I don’t usually comment, but to me there is no such thing as a safe space. Every space is hostile to somebody somewhere out in the world.
That being said, I agree with DIMA. People need to toughen up. It’s good to be PC, but some people take it to ridiculous levels, and that’s just as dangerous to society/freedom of speech as any right wing nonsense. We can’t always tip toe around each other; making nice and saying the “right” thing.
But as many have pointed out, it’s all up the the moderator. I don’t think people should just be allowed to rant and rave here, but I read this blog often and it usually doesn’t devolve into that.
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 10:51 am ¶
Tracey wrote:
Wow. Being too analytical is something people like to accuse me of quite often, however I don’t think it is being to analytical to call out people for using language that is racist, sexist, trans phobic, etc. Language is used to reflect the way we think and it also has a lot to do with the way we view the world and people. So the acceptability of the word bitch just reinforces the idea that there is something inherently wrong with being a woman and that it is okay to use terms associated with women as put downs for men or as a way to devalue/put in place a woman. As for slutty, I hate that word so much because it reinforces the whole Madonna/Whore dichotomy. It isn’t about a woman who dresses for male attention, it’s used as a out down for women in general, a way of devaluing all women, especially those who dare to be sexual in any way (whether or not they actually have sex).
I am also surprised to find such terms accepted by people who decry “slanties” and other race based insults. Language can be a form of violence, especially when it’s use reflects/reinforces/ingrains certain social inequalities. How can we decry abuse towards women when they’re nothing but bitches and sluts anyway? Who decides who is what? The same thing can be said for the LGBTQ community. I find it hard to be anyone can use gay/tranny/queer as insults and still say they believe we are equal and deserve the same protections as them and freedom to be ourselves.
With that said, I understand not everything can be censored, and I personally don’t believe in censorship. However, i think people should be prepared to be called out for their use of language and be ready to own it. If you are someone who regularly uses “slut,bitch, whatever” be prepared to be called out for what your are: sexist and misogynistic. And don’t try to act like language is harmless or is a minor problem. I believe we have to call out “isms” wherever and whenever. You don’t want to be a responsible human being and instead decide to use language that reinforces social hierarchies and inequalities, whatever. Just please don’t be so quick to accuse people of oversensitivity for defending their humanity and that of others, and don’t be so quick to draw a line between yourself and others who reinforce social hierarchies.
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 12:36 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@All –
Thanks for the perspectives.
It’s about time to do another update to the comment moderation policy, and I’ve been going back and forth as to if we should add a feminist speech qualifier.
I keep going back and forth because the words I would ban (bitch/cunt/slut/whore) should be obvious no-nos and the words that spark conversations like this are rarely those.
I also don’t want to be in a situation where I let my contribs do one thing but hold commenters to a different standard. And if the writer feels like the word “bitch” is essential to the telling of the piece, I do expect them to be called out on it, but I don’t expect it to become a subsequent sub-thread in the comments.
Or, to put this in a different light – I allowed atlasien to use the word “nigger” in her narrative about racist abuse in middle school, though she’s not black. And Thea used the word chinky, which caused some commenters to cringe. But if you look around on the site, I rarely censor racial slurs when discussing or reporting on them.
So, should I accord gendered language the same considerations? Now in the case of Joe’s piece, I could have easily edited out the references. Unlike Atlasien’s piece, Joe’s piece would have worked fine without the bitch comments.
But that also bumps up against my experience as a writer who submits pieces for editing. It can be quite annoying to find that the piece you slave over and pick every single word with care has been reimaged by an editor in a way you didn’t intend. So, with Racialicious, I tend to heavily edit for clarity and make my edits known to the writer for final say. I also advise writers on words I think might be derailing or be so inflammatory but I leave the final decisions up to them.
Writing for Racialicious is a volunteer thing – no one is paid. So the least I can do is allow them to express themselves. I reject anything that isn’t keeping with the values of the site. But as a writer who has stopped working with certain editors because of their policing of my words, I prefer that the writers take responsibility for what they write – which they tend to do.
But, as I’ve mentioned before, I hesitate to add something to the comments mod policy unless it solves a certain problem and I am not sure what such a qualifer would do. As I pointed out, posts that do not have anti-feminist language tend to spark misogynistic comments anyway; and adding something to the comments policy would place another restriction around my writers that might ultimately stifle the piece. After all, if I can’t tell a story truthfully, as it happened, what’s the point of telling it at all?
Still thinking it over.
Oh, and for everyone who mentioned that they don’t think conversations here turn bad – that’s the invisible hand of moderation at work, where you don’t notice when someone is being a douche because they are quickly removed from the conversation.
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 1:27 pm ¶
red wrote:
@ Latoya – I think your example of atlasien’s piece is an important one. Unfortunately I don’t remember the actual piece, but from what you said above, it sounds like atlasien was quoting someone else’s speech (schoolyard racists presumably).
Now I think the distinction that is worth making is between reported speech and writers or commenters using the racist/sexist words directly themselves.
I think it is actually sometimes very improtant – if unpleasant to read or hear – to spell out the language actually used if you’re quoting someone. The effect of substituting in softer phrasing like “the N-word” can be to sanitise racists, to take away the impact of what they have said. I’ve no idea whether this was actually the context for atlasien’s pice, but in my mind here is a racist murder case that is well known in Britain… You will see what I mean if you read para 1.3 here: http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm42/4262/sli-01.htm
Not something to “clean up” or make milder than it actually was. Because of police racism, Stephen’s family, friends and others had to fight for years to get any action taken at all, and even now the killers have largely escaped justice. The hard facts of the case are crucial.
Joseph’s piece is a bit different, of course. But it was also a report of an incident, in which he described what he said. I think he was right not to edit this out (and so were you) – we would have got an easier-on-the-ear version, but not the actual story of what happened. I think it was important that the many subtle things going on during the incident were all put out there for us to reflect on.
I think it would be reasonable to allow such language in both articles and comments where it is in reported speech (where it isn’t just gratuitous – ie a commenter reporting speech in order to deliberately use the terms over and over…). Obviously, commenters would need to be able to use the term to discuss its use as well.
But it would also be reasonable to ban/edit/otherwise stop people using this kind of language directly.
So Joe could write what he said in the subway row, using the word in full, but if someone wrote (as a made up example) a film review and used the phrase “what a bitch”, or similar, that would be out of order.
Just my view…
As it goes, I have always thought you’re particularly good at moderation. If only all blogs were like Racialicious.
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 3:43 pm ¶
Medusa wrote:
Lauren O, I’m with you. It’s even more disturbing coming from women.
Posted 02 Apr 2009 at 8:33 pm ¶
Janine deManda wrote:
Jess wrote:
“I have no problem with offhand use of the term “slutty” in some cases because it’s shorthand for a 10-page dissertation on women dressing to please the male gaze.”
I do have a rather substantial problem with offhand use of the term “slutty” in any case in which it is presumed to be shorthand for “women dressing to please the male gaze”. That assertion, imho, is loaded with sexist, sex-negative, and profoundly heterosexist baggage. I’m a fat, gimpy, “not gay as in happy, but queer as in fuck you” proud ethical slut*, and I have dressed “slutty” on countless occasions with absolutely no intention of pleasing “the male gaze”. I am so, so tired of the hackneyed notion that overtly sexual women must be the benighted victims of internalized misogyny resulting from patriarchal inculcation to be pitied or held in contempt or enlightened. Yes, I struggle with internalized misogyny resulting from patriarchal inculcation. And you know what? Part of that struggle is asserting ownership of MY body, MY sexuality, MY eroticism, MY gaze, and MY damned wardrobe.
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
“I’ve been called mysogynistic by other feminists because I use the word “slut” and “whore” all the time in my writings. I’m not going to bow down to their pressure, because I call it how I see it. I’m entitled to my opinion and I’m not sorry for using such words in my writings.”
I’m entitled to my opinion, too, and if you are using the terms slut and whore to negatively judge/describe women who are sexually active with “too many” partners and/or for money, then imho, you are being actively misogynist. You are using woman-hating patriarchal standards to punish other women for making choices you have opined are wrong. I’m of the opinion that that is a fucked up projection of internalized misogyny. Now, on the other hand, if you’re using those terms to affirm the self-determination of women who have reclaimed those words for themselves to describe sexual choices unacceptable under patriarchal norms, then no, in my opinion, you’re not being misogynist. However, given that you’ve taken a defensive position in the above text and described yourself as “call[ing] it how I see it”, I’d wager the former is a more accurate assessment. I feel compelled to inquire why, in your opinion, saying “I’m entitled to my opinion and I’m not sorry” is an acceptable justification for using historically misogynist language with a present misogynist intent, but would NOT, I’m guessing, be an acceptable justification for a analogous {yes, they’re all flawed} use of analogous language in the realm of race or religion or physical ability?
Despite being troubled by Jess and DIMA’s language choices and the reasoning behind them, I am still glad to be able to engage in this conversation here. Though I found Joseph’s use of “bitch” troubling in the post this post sprang from, I was incredibly heartened by his choice to address it and the conversation that ensued. As a “passable” mixed blood myself, I was mostly focused on his intense portrayals of aspects of that experience, but I didn’t mind the tangent at all because it was literally the first time in blogspace that I’d seen a man cop to sexist language and an intelligent conversation ensue {though I’m sure part of the latter was due to LaToya’s tireless efforts}.
*and as such, I am very troubled by the possibility that I might be unable to name myself as I prefer on this site in future. A few years back, I received a solicitation to participate in a new parenting site. When I went and tried to set up a profile, my self description included the word dyke, and it was edited out ‘cuz “dyke” was one of the words the site’s censorship policy found unacceptable. I wrote the site expressing my distress at having my capacity to name myself in the way I felt most apt curtailed, but nothing changed. For that and other reasons, I visited the site only a handful of times before writing it off. I’m not about to give up the awesomeness of racialicious myself – I’ve been reading and appreciating since back when it was mixed media watch, and I’m not about to stop now just ‘cuz I may not be able to describe myself as a proud slut or a fierce bitch or a complicated mutt here under a new comment moderation policy. Mostly, I just read and read some more here anyway, but I’d hate to think of other folks who might otherwise engage here being put off by circumscriptions of expression not, imho, necessary to maintain the excellent level of discourse here.
That said, I do also understand the plentitude of contested issues around reclaiming language used as epithets by hateful people, and I do absolutely support the banning of folks who continue to use that language hatefully {which sometimes just means casually, imho}, and I so very much appreciate the amazing, enormous work that LaToya does in moderating here, so I am not in any way suggesting a boundary-less free-for-all. I’m just offering my two cents as someone with an entire list of identity tags that are profoundly meaningful to me and profoundly offensive to many others.
Posted 04 Apr 2009 at 12:25 am ¶
Janine deManda wrote:
FYI:
“The Ethical Slut”
by Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy:
http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Slut-Practical-Relationships-Adventures/dp/1587613379
Posted 04 Apr 2009 at 2:20 am ¶
PatrickInBeijing wrote:
@CVT, I agree. I’m also a teacher, and my students sometimes come to me with new and to them interesting words. I explain that some language is not polite and should not be used in public. (This space is public.)
(I allow my students pretty much free speech in class (language class), but they have to listen to me explain why some words should not be used in some places and at some times (and why some words should never be used) and as you might guess, I go on at length)
Arguing that we can’t communicate without using language that is objectionable to others, doesn’t make any sense to me. Certainly most of us should be able to do so. I agree with all of the folks here who pointed out that when the language is objectionable, there is no real communication going on. Only name calling.
Language is about power, words are about power. If I want to listen to others and have them listen to me, I need to learn how to do it in a respectful manner. That includes respecting them and their feelings and concerns. It isn’t just about me.
@Latoya, you do a great job of moderating. I wince when I imagine the time it takes, but appreciate it. I have walked away from blogs where there is no moderation and no respect. They are not worth my time. I learn more here in this “safe” zone than I do in all of the name calling joints in town.
In terms of a writers language, I would err on the side of trusting the writer, but feeling free to discuss the language if it seemed needed. Sometimes I write something, and miss the impact of it. It doesn’t hurt to challenge that.
Posted 04 Apr 2009 at 2:28 am ¶
Janine deManda wrote:
PatrickInBejing wrote:
“when the language is objectionable, there is no real communication going on. Only name calling.”
Seriously? So, queer theorists aren’t communicating in any real way ‘cuz folks find the word queer “objectionable”? And Inga Muscio’s book Cunt communicated nothing effectively ‘cuz the title is so very “objectionable”? What about Dorothy Allison’s collection Trash? And the National Queer Arts Festival I attend every year is just so much noise? Dykes on Bikes? Radical Faeries? The Ethical Slut?
PatrickInBejing wrote:
“Language is about power, words are about power. If I want to listen to others and have them listen to me, I need to learn how to do it in a respectful manner. That includes respecting them and their feelings and concerns. It isn’t just about me.”
Yes, language is about power, and power is being exerted when language is being circumscribed, or even when that’s just being attempted, as when folks who are “offended” by race talk assert that anti-racism would be more effective if we just didn’t use words like, ya know, racism ‘cuz they’re sooo objectionable to people. No, it isn’t just about you or me or any one person, and sometimes listening in a respectful manner and respecting feelings and concerns includes not telling a deaf woman that she has to call herself hearing impaired because deaf is such an objectionable word, or maybe it includes not telling a queer femme bitch top that she has to call her self a dominant feminine person with an alternative lifestyle ‘cuz that’s easier for people to hear, and so on and so on.
Paying attention to the power use involved in naming versus the power abuse involved in name-calling is extra work, but imho, it’s absolutely essential to, you guessed it, effective communication about “objectionable” topics and identities.
Posted 04 Apr 2009 at 12:10 pm ¶
PatrickInBeijing wrote:
@Janine deManda
You got me. I didn’t think what I was saying through clearly enough, nor did I clearly articulate my thoughts.
Your points are extremely well taken.
Let me try to express myself again, and see if I can make sense out of what I was trying to say.
When I said that objectionable language closes communication, I should have been clearer about what I mean by objectionable.
I was thinking of the contexts of language (which I, duhh, didn’t say). Certainly where language appears and who uses it changes its meaning.
There is a difference between self descriptive use of language and using language to label others.
In terms of communication, if I call someone a racist, they will feel attacked and will go into a defensive mode. We won’t be communicating. Perhaps sometimes, I don’t feel like communicating, so then I might feel justified using that term (it would be true in both cases, but in one, I wish to communicate with the person).
None of the examples you cited are ones where I would find the words objectionable.
However, if we say it is okay to use all kinds of language in any place under any circumstances, where does that leave us?
My concern is it leaves us communicating less. There is a difference between objecting to ideas and words. I am in favor of communicating ideas. But if the words I use make others angry or hurt them, they stop listening.
When you say that “Paying attention to the power use involved in naming versus the power abuse involved in name-calling is extra work, but imho, it’s absolutely essential to, you guessed it, effective communication about “objectionable” topics and identities.”, I agree 100 percent. Although I don’t believe that topics or identities are ever “objectionable”.
What I hope is that I can find ways to express difficult ideas in ways that leaves people receptive and open to hearing about them. I don’t always succeed. Thanks for making me think.
Posted 04 Apr 2009 at 10:31 pm ¶
Janine deManda wrote:
@PatrickInBejing
I’m glad the respective pages we’re on were closer together than they seemed to me initially.
You wrote:
“However, if we say it is okay to use all kinds of language in any place under any circumstances, where does that leave us?”
As I noted further up in the comments, I’m not advocating a boundary-less free-for-all. Still, I would disagree that “objectionable” or confrontational language always closes down communication. I tend to speak baldly and directly – that’s just me, and I don’t tend to temper that in myself when discussing systems of oppression with folks who are resistant to acknowleding their existence and/or the full breadth and depth of their existence. Over the years, I have encountered folks who stonewall, yes, but oftentimes, some of those same folks will come back to me later and say our conversations shook them loose, and they have begun educating themselves and their loved ones further on whatever “objectionable” topic we discussed.
That said, I try to always keep Jay Smooth’s distinction in mind and steer my remarks wide of who/what a person is and focus them instead on what a person/people/system DO and what that means in context. Context is everything, imho.
You wrote:
“I don’t believe that topics or identities are ever “objectionable”.”
I don’t either, but many folks clearly do. That’s why I put the word in quotes.
You also wrote:
“What I hope is that I can find ways to express difficult ideas in ways that leaves people receptive and open to hearing about them. I don’t always succeed.”
In a similar vein, I hope to find ways to express difficult ideas in ways that help that click of understanding happen or maybe at least add a grain of sand to the desert-shifting that precedes that click. I don’t always succeed either, but I think the main thing for me is to keep my focus on speaking in my own voice as clearly as I’m able. How that voice is heard will change from listener to listener, and I can’t control for that without hobbling myself, imho. A friend of mine teaches race, class, & gender courses at a small state university, and she is quite adept at successfully controlling her voice for her listeners’ ears, but it’s just never been my forte.
Thanks for engaging thoughtfully.
Posted 05 Apr 2009 at 12:18 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
@Janine DeManda –
I was only trying to say that sometimes, people use shorthands for things that aren’t perfect, which is why I said I was okay with it in some cases (not all).
Your point is well taken, yes, the word “slutty” as all kinds of issues. But the point I was trying to get across is that too often we get into battles of dictionaries and semantics that have nothing to do with the thrust of the discussion.
That’s what I mean — I can’t get hung up on the use of single words if the point of the argument has little to do with it. People here got really hung up on the use of the word “bitch” in one piece, when the guy was just reporting what was said, and the whole piece had so little to do with that it just got kind of silly after a certain point. Not seeing the forest for the trees, as it were.
Maybe I just don’t have the energy anymore to be Deconstruction Man all day, every day. (I did so much of it in college that it sort of put me off it, maybe).
When I used to try to discuss issues of sexism or racism — or history, for that matter, with some folks (usually people that were the victims of one too many readings of Gilbert and Gubar), it would always get sidetracked on the use of terms.
At which point I would give up and say “OK, what the hell word should I use that passes muster for X?” Usually the thing they came up with (if they came up with anything at all) was obfuscatory at best, or it turned out they were having a problem with the argument itself and didn’t really want to address that so it became a battle of dictionaries.
Posted 05 Apr 2009 at 1:27 pm ¶
Janine deManda wrote:
Jess wrote:
“I can’t get hung up on the use of single words if the point of the argument has little to do with it. People here got really hung up on the use of the word “bitch” in one piece, when the guy was just reporting what was said, and the whole piece had so little to do with that it just got kind of silly after a certain point. Not seeing the forest for the trees, as it were.”
Okay, but see, here’s my problem with this approach, especially here. This entire site is about the trees AND the forest. Any number of the creators of the popular culture critiqued and discussed here through an anti-racist lens would vehemently insist that racialicious folks are missing the point – “it’s a music video!”, they might say, or “it’s a joss whedon show!”, they might say, and “ya’ll are just completely off base!” So, why is the level of critical engagement general to racialicious okey-dokey despite weary dismissals, but the level of critical engagement that sparked and constitutes this thread is just ::sigh:: too tired?
In the “Look Twice” thread, Joseph addressed his problematic language choice directly in the original post, and he and other folks touched upon it in the comments. Frankly, while I can understand how semantic disputes can get paralytic, I don’t understand how that particular thread exemplifies that at all, and even when semantic disputes do get paralytic, I don’t see that as cause to stop addressing the challenging power dynamics inherent in language choice.
Posted 06 Apr 2009 at 1:12 am ¶
Jess wrote:
Janine, you are probably right that that particular thread isn’t a great example, but it’s the paralyzing thing that bugs me, is all.
I said it before: we’re all smart enough, when discussing, say, Glen Beck, when he uses coded racist language without going all Bill Clinton on the meaning of “is.” And I guess what I am expressing is a tiredness with some of the mental gymnastics I had to engage in in college and sometimes after with people when trying to discuss issues of race and class.
I mean, I could declare the English language hopelessly sexist, racist, and any old -ist you want, so NO word is ever, ever acceptable. I mean, it’s easy enough. But where does that get us? No place at all.
And maybe it comes from my old labor movement orientation.
My dad used to say to many people he met in movement politics that how you spell “women” doesn’t matter jack to a woman making $8 an hour in a hotel job.
Challenging power in that case means organizing and getting her paid more and getting her a health plan and putting her in a position where she isn’t worried every single day about making rent. That’s a freakin’ challenge to power. (And the powerful know this, ever wonder why the stock market drops when the DoL reports increases in wages?)
To me, a lot of the language stuff is gravy. And sometimes is used as a way to avoid engaging more concrete issues, and that is why I get frustrated with it a lot.
Posted 06 Apr 2009 at 9:18 am ¶
Juba Kalamka wrote:
Jess Said:
“My dad used to say to many people he met in movement politics that how you spell “women” doesn’t matter jack to a woman making $8 an hour in a hotel job. ”
JK: If the above is a shorthand for your dad’s positionality in general, I would say he (whether he understood that to be so or not) was heavily steeped in presumption, privilege and self-congratulatory myopia.
I’ve know, and have known plenty of women who work and have worked in the wage strata described to whom said naming, spelling,saying,etc. was of absolute
import.
I would also submit that if one is being honest, it is impposible to pick gendered (or sexualized, or racialized,etc.) issues of economic justice apart from the want and need of people seeking said redress to create self-determinate language and identifiers.
Attempts by overcultural forces (or say, well meaning grassrooty/labor/union etc. activist types-pick your generation) to poo-poo the continued neccessity of addressing and re-addressing the context and nature language is ultimately about maintaining the same systems of order and privilege.
The notion that motivations behind (and contexts of) woman-with-a-y feminists and living wage seeking housekeepers are somehow one-note mutual exclusions is itself, intensely sexist and classist.
I , for one am glad there is language available (because people, across class,race and sex and sexuality, have been willing to, um, *work*) because it reminds me to keep working….even after I’ve finished two degrees, after college even.
I’d guess, language might be the gravy you described Jess, if one was satisfied and comfortable with the big bowl of mashed potatoes they already had.
If they’re already buttery and delicious,satisfying and sustaining, you might not think about gravy much. However, if the gravy was what you had, was *all* you had, you might understand gravy as very real and *concrete* issue.
I’ts a way of pushing forward both simple and complex conversations to those people nervously hovering over the spuds (and the hamburger steak and the vegetable medley…) and copping an attitude with you when you ask them to talk about sharing, let alone how you’d prefer to be addressed when you come to the table.
I’m just sayin.’
Posted 06 Apr 2009 at 3:27 pm ¶
Jess wrote:
My father was a union organizer. And he earned his stripes, I can tell you. And never once on the picket lines was anybody taking semiotics ’cause the goons were coming to beat the shit out of people and we had a few more important things to deal with right then.
“Hi, I think your language is sexist”
::skull cracks as company goon hits you with brick::
That’s an extreme example. I didn’t say you should never have conversations about language or whatever, just that I find it frustrating because it becomes an avoidance strategy very easily. If you spell womyn like that the woman who is working her ass off isn’t getting a bigger check because of it. You can’t eat language.
We make a big deal out of using certain words like “Native people” — I know I do to avoid offense, for instance. But back when I was a kid, I don’t recall any of the AIM activists caring about that, you know? They were fighting real battles and doing real things. Who the hell cared if they were “Indians?” They took Alcatraz back, you know?
MLK himself used the word “negro” quite a bit. He didn’t get hung up about it, I don’t think.
After college I looked at a pile of literary/linguistic, women’s studies, ethnic studies junk I had piled up. I felt absolutely empty.
And I had spent all that time when I could have done something friggin’ useful, you know? I felt a lot better going with a friend of mine to defend a women’s clinic.
I reiterate. I don’t think you can’t have discussions about semantics, language and its use. But too often I feel like it gets blown out of proportion, like there’s no perspective. And it frustrates the hell out of me sometimes, is all. Maybe I am just a literal-minded kind of guy.
I don’t think the goals of feminists and working class women are one note, or even mutually exclusive in the least, but can you understand why I often find it so damned frustrating sometimes, why I glaze over whenever I see some polysyllabic neologism that seems designed to obscure rather than clarify?
Posted 06 Apr 2009 at 5:50 pm ¶
Nick wrote:
Not sure if I’m in any position to comment (being middle class, male and white) but I’ve always been troubled by the idea of words used in conversations and debate being defined as offensive based on any one particular person’s beliefs.
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist refuses to be cowed by other’s being offended over her use of the word “slut”. She is entitled to her opinion
Janine DeManda takes offense at this and gives her reasons why. She is entitled to her opinion too.
My question is: since we are all of differing opinions and backgrounds, who has any right to say anything? Someone somewhere is going to take offense at someone else’s words, which in turn could lead to the original speaker being offended at the suggestion they are being offensive.
I’m not explaining myself very well, but I’m interested in hearing from others, since this seems to go to the core of freedom of speech.
Posted 07 Apr 2009 at 4:12 pm ¶
Safiya Outlines wrote:
A word which I’m reading far too much here:
Co sign…. and often nothing else in the comment.
It’s great to agree, but a comment should be more than a written head nod.
Posted 09 Apr 2009 at 9:21 pm ¶