>I’m going off the rails on an [ableist slur redacted] train. Also: Cat poll!
>
Well, discussions about my second Scott Adams piece over on Feministe (which was basically identical to my post here) have now been completely derailed by a number of commenters who’ve decided I’m “ableist” because I used the word … “idiot.” That word, they have decided, is offensive to the “cognitively impaired.” If you want to wade into the mess, here’s the comment that, while polite in itself, started the long slide down this particular rabbit hole. You can see my responses in blue further down in the comments.
I consider this kind of language policing to the EXTREME! to be bad for feminism (and frankly insulting to people with disabilities), and I’m glad a number of others have stood up against it in the comments there. I don’t think that the language police are in the majority at Feministe, much less in feminism at large. But these debates are so frustrating that many feminists who disagree with the language police end up biting their tongues and/or just walking away. At some point I may post more about this fraught topic here.
In the meantime, I’m am conducting a little poll about cats. Please click the appropriate button in the graphic above. Clicking it won’t actually do anything, but I’m pretty sure what the results are going to be anyway. Go kitties!
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Posted on April 3, 2011, in bullying, feminism, idiocy, kitties, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 264 Comments.
>I just recently had a similar incident occur because I used the word "crazy" ~ *sigh* ~ and as the daughter of a mentally ill person, I'm the last person who would use the word "crazy" as a disparagement of the mentally ill. Words are benign…intent and context behind the words are what matter. *shakes head* And I say this as a card-carrying member of the feminist axis of evil…
>You can take away my use of the word "pussy" when you pry it away from my COLD, DEAD HANDS. I think there's a distinction between words like "retard" (pretty much just offensive), words like "special" or "crazy" (closely associated with ableism, but can be used in an otherwise unrelated way; judgement call) and words like "idiot" (the people who use "idiot" to mean the mentally disabled are the ones who are actually being offensive). And of course there are contextual differences too. I comment on Shakesville and I'm careful not to use any terms that could possibly be offensive, because that's the culture there. On the other hand, on my own personal blog I'll call a crazy person a crazy person, as it were.
>OTOH, it is interesting as a writing exercise to try not to use any word ever found offensive. "What about gypped? Damn, no, offensive to the Roma…"
>you reap what you sow
>You are insulting women by mention sow which used to be used to describe a pig. You think women are swine!
>And no, I am not saying I think that. I am saying that is a hysterical reaction.oops! I said hysterical, I must think women (and the men who love them) are overly emotional creatures who get offended at nothing.
>Prosey – actually, no, it's not the intent that matters. Using words that are derogatory creates an atmosphere of disrespect for people that those words are aimed at. I actually am trying to cut "idiot" out of my active vocabulary. And I've written about how we use the word "crazy" here and here.And I was just reading a post on Hoyden About Town, talking about how calling people out on the language they use isn't about being offended. Generally, when someone says to me, "you shouldn't use that word, it's hurtful to this group of people," I listen to them and then make an effort to not use that language in the future. All the arguments against making such an effort sound to me, too much like the justifications that people use for telling rape jokes, or for using "gay" as an insult.
>"And of course there are contextual differences too. I comment on Shakesville and I'm careful not to use any terms that could possibly be offensive, because that's the culture there."Sure. I don't comment there because I don't like that culture. (Not particularly the "calling out" aspect of it, but other things.)Generally, Feministe is a place where there's a high watermark for what's considered ableist. I don't always agree with the terms that are singled out. But why exactly is the Feministe community not deserving of that respect?Re: gypped, I actually consider that pretty out of bounds, at least for social-justice-oriented discourse (which is what we're talking about). I mean, one hopes (or at least I hope) that you wouldn't say someone Jewed you out of your money.
>I agree with you. Avoiding the use of "retarded," "lame" and "gay" in a pejorative, Katy Perry-like way? That makes sense. But banning the use of "crazy" and "idiot" is going one step too far, especially when these terms have been used to designate people who don't act rationally or who don't think things through for a long, long time. There are many things that could be changed in language to make it less needlessly harmful, but right now I think feminism has bigger fish to fry. Once rape has been eradicated, women earn as much as men, abortion is legal worldwide and chores are equally divided, maybe we can start worrying about the harm that the word "idiot" does to the cognitively impaired when it's used against people who think they are much smarter than they actually are. But until then, we have more important battles to fight.
>"I agree with you. Avoiding the use of "retarded," "lame" and "gay" in a pejorative, Katy Perry-like way? That makes sense. But banning the use of "crazy" and "idiot" is going one step too far"OK. But the argument a couple years ago went, "Avoiding the perjorative use of "gay" and "retarded?" That makes sense. But banning the use of "lame" is going one step too far."It's not about the words inherently. There are far too many abelist/sexist/racist/etc words to purge them all. Retarded/gay aren't actually inherently worse than idiotic/lame. It's about PWD and their anti-ableism movement being granted the right to decide what language being used to refer to them is okay.The difference between whether "black" or "colored" is the more polite term? Historical, not inherent, and actually reversed at least once. And this was (appropriately) decided by the people affected.
>(BTW, I totally argued that banning "lame" was too far. I also argued that banning "crazy" was too far. I find it irritating that "idiotic" has been highlighted because it's a fucking convenient word. But I never got all defensive about my right to use "retarded" because that had been stigmatized before I got involved in social justice writing, and so it wasn't ever a new thing I had to adjust to. I just accepted it. But if my arguments about "crazy" and "lame" are accurate, then the same thing should basically apply to "retarded."The only difference was my emotional reaction. "Retarded" had already been successfully tabooed so I accepted that without arguing.Anyway, more thoughts @ link, and then I'm going to withdraw from this thread/probably post on Alas eventually — http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2009/06/16/why-not-to-use-the-word-lame-i-think-im-starting-to-get-it/ )
>OK. But the argument a couple years ago went, "Avoiding the perjorative use of "gay" and "retarded?" That makes sense. But banning the use of "lame" is going one step too far."It's not about the words inherently. There are far too many abelist/sexist/racist/etc words to purge them all. Retarded/gay aren't actually inherently worse than idiotic/lame. It's about PWD and their anti-ableism movement being granted the right to decide what language being used to refer to them is okay.Repeating this because I think it needs to be repeated.
>David, I really like your blog, but.. I think you're a bit overly defensive here. I know that lots of people have THE PC POLICE in their minds whenever people ask them to not use sexist/racist/abelist, etc language, but to me it just makes sense. If you look at these words, historically they've been used to hurt people. I don't think people are intentionally going "LET'S PICK SOME RANDOM WORD AND PICK ON PEOPLE WHO USE IT JUST FOR KICKS". I think they're people who have had these words used to hurt them, or know the history behind them to make it awkward whenever people use them around them. It just kind of makes you go "Oh, surely they don't mean it in THAT way." Which, I'm sure they don't. I'm sure you don't, either. But. There are people who still refuse to stop using "gay" or "faggot" as insults because they don't feel that it means the same thing anymore. They don't intend it in THAT way. But it still hurts. And I don't think it's being overly PC Killing The Feminist Movement With Your Bullshit to ask people not to do that.
>I support you. Some people see liberalism as a contest to see who can "win". They, I don't think, will ever be productive or satisfied. You are both, so there you go.
>Also, the shaming of "crazy" is missing the point. That some people are crazy against their will doesn't mean the willfully crazy can't be called out, anymore than the fact that some people are mentally disabled means I can't call the willfully ignorant "stupid".
>Eliza: I'll point out that Pandagon's comments are as strong as ever, and that's because the Word Police are beat down like motherfuckers (a word that insults people who lovingly fuck their mothers). So you're probably right.
>@Amanda The "wilfully crazy" can be called out without using language that marginalizes people who are being neurologically atypical. Interesting that you centre the perspective of people who are using hurtful language (aw poor babies feel like they're being "shamed") instead of the experiences of people who are actually hurt. The exact same argument can, and has, been made about words that we no longer find acceptable. You could easily replace "crazy" and "stupid" in Amanda's comment with "faggot". I don't understand how people are comfortable making such arguments. Also: Some people see liberalism as a contest to see who can "win".What in the sweet mother of fuck is that supposed to mean? What kind of contest are people trying to "win"? Who can be the most "politically correct"? I think you're mistaking people's efforts to not step on others, for efforts to make you look bad. Good job centring yourself, again.
>Wow, that's one site where I will definitely not be joining in on any discussions. Kinda enjoyed Diane K's comments, though.
>"… who are neurologically atypical." No "being". Need to proof-read my comments.
>The first attempt I made met with "we were unable to complete your request." I don't know what the problem was (probably too long a comment).Second try, and sorry if it turns out to multiple post.A useful post: http://hoydenabouttown.com/?p=9735I've spent the last few years working on thinking through and discarding language and attitudes that were transphobic (picked up because of intense immersion in radical white feminist texts from the 1970s) and ableist. Some parts of fandom where I hang out are trying to do the same–and coining new terms (which are sneered at by other parts of fandom).I like dickbiscuit myself. Very satisfing in the mouth :>
>2nd half of comment (if the original problem was length).The defensiveness in support of using terms like "lame" and "retarded" and others reminds me too much of the false claims that all of western civilization would fall if "Ms." became common usage (it did in some places, not rural Texas where I teach), and if "he" was changed from meaning "universal human being but really only those with dicks" (which it was–my writing textbooks now all embed gender neutral writing as a recommended style along with a slew of other 'rules').The Romany are still persecuted–so the attitudes expressed by "gypped" still exist. The Welsh (all four of my great grandparents were from Wales) not as much, but I still don't like the term "welched/weshed" on a debt. As Kenneth Burke says, "Language is never innocent."It always strikes me as intriguing what bit of language some people have to cling to and why.
>Cat poll: dang, forgot this part, maybe it was why comment got trashed first time.Cats: we haz seven of them (down from thirteen, all spayed/neutered, all because of work with animal rescue).
>On cats: I've never had one, but they seem nice enough.
>What happened over at Feministe can best be described as niggardly. DO YOU HEAR ME? NIGGARDLY, I SAY!!!
>David, I really enjoy your blog and am grateful for what you're doing here. I was excited to see you posting at Feministe, and think that's been fun to read too. I wish the process of editing your posts from here to make them more appropriate for that community had made you a little more prepared for this.I really don't care if you continue to use "idiot"– I personally have no plans to stop using it. And I agree that those derails can get very tiresome. They're not interesting to the majority of people who click through expecting a different discussion, and they're not good for the community if they happen all the time.But Amanda is flat-out wrong that people point out that language because they are hoping to "win" anything. None of us are here because we just love arguing about an abstract progressive ethic that we believe doesn't affect anyone. Rather, I think most of us care about reducing harm to very real oppressed people. I hope you'll consider that, if the words you're asked to avoid ever seem laughably normal, you'll consider that that's because in our society hurting and insulting entire classes of people is normal.You don't actually have to stop doing every little thing someone complains about in order to be a good feminist. But please don't seriously suggest, as a writer, that reconsidering your words and context isn't a valuable activity– no matter what conclusions you draw. No matter how much you disagree with those commenters or how frustrated you are that that discussion got off-track, I really don't think insulting them here after their community welcomed you is becoming.
>@PamWhat can I say? I see people who are way too damn touchy and I simply can't stop poking and laughing. It was the (warped) way I was raised.
>Kitties: yes please. Family has a 17yo shelter rescue who is worshiped as a household god.
>Raoul, I will have to ask you to resign immediately.
>You'll have to prove I'm White first! Bwahahahaha!
>Aw man, and I just got banned. Is it still trolling if you actually believe everything you wrote?This is the most fun day I've had on the internet in months.
>That thread…Jesus…I think the original comment – "Hey, this word has a history you might not be aware of" was a bit of a derail but was polite and sincerely meant, and hey, I learned something I didn't know. It's when other posters came in demanding that you change your post IMMEDIATELY and in one case threatening "I will roll over your precious privileged toes until you beg for mercy. I will not allow anyone to erase our lived experiences" that took it to a…(the word on the tip of my tongue is "crazy" but I don't want to commit ThoughtCrime!)…let's go with 'deeply unfortunate' place.There was no room for you to respectfully disagree, and honestly no way you could win. I agreed with Florence's comments and think she pretty much won the thread with her link here.
>Is that a requirement? *has no idea how to do the real word police thing, she just wanted to use a 12 year old political reference.*
>Yeah, I'm pretty sure that doublespeak is one of the main reasons I've largely stopped giving a shit about a lot of things.
>@AmandaOne reason I still LIKE reading Pandagon is that people actually still comment there and whenever the Lame Police show up, everyone ignores them or shoves them in a cupboard or … whatever happens to them. Anyway,The difference with "lame" and "gay" and "retarded" is that "lame" pretty much in our modern language has one meaning. It used to mean "physically disabled" and now that meaning is almost never used. The meaning now is something around "dull and stupid." "Gay" went from being "happy" to "homosexual," and then saw the tween population try to shift it to being another "lame." "Retarded" has held dual meanings for a while, meaning both "being mentally slow" and also "being slowed." Language changes.You wouldn't say "gay" to mean "happy" and you wouldn't say "lame" to mean "disabled" nowadays. You see it in older books, but both words have transformed into something else. And you probably just shouldn't say "retarded" much at all, unless you're talking about fire or something.I guess it just seems like wasting time to get all offended over words that don't even commonly mean what they used to mean. There are bigger battles to fight, even linguistically. If you think "idiot" is a bad word because of its history, don't use it, but don't get pissed if other people use it. Although not quite the same thing, it's about as useful as trying to get your grandma to stop saying the n-word or your grandpa to stop saying horribly sexist things. I personally try to avoid using "girl" to refer to women over a certain age. But I don't bother other people who do this. That would be lame.
>Damn, I mean Newspeak. I was thinking of Doublethink.
>@Diane KLooks like you can't say anything over at Feministe unless you've used snark-checker on your comment before posting.
>I used to think "retarded" was harmless, until I had a job working with learning disabled adults. One day, we had a conversation about the use of the "R" word, and the shame and humiliation they expressed at being called "retards" taught me never to use the word again. As a rule, though, I'm not big on policing language overly much, as it tends to derail important conversations. I'm more than happy, however, to respect the wishes of individuals with a specific disability to not use a term they consider pejorative.
>Ooh! I wrote an article about this in university once! Specifically, Gay and Retarded.http://mondomagazine.net/2008/lexipoeia-offensive-content/One thing I can add is that changing the word doesn't change the attitudes. The reason that you can insult someone by calling them "special" now is that there was a movement to get rid of the term "retarded", as it was seen as derogatory. So special was used instead, and it got all the old connotations attached. I forsee a similar future for "atypical" to mean "crazy".Example from conversation in the not too distant future.Crazy Steve: I don't think women should be able to vote. They can't penetrate things with their genitals!Megan: Well, that certainly is a (deliberate pause) neurologically atypical line of reasoning you're persuing, there.
>I am with Marissa and Rachel on this one. Besides, it is not really too damned hard to avoid using these terms. Asking marginalized people to just shut up and take it is far harsher than asking for small edits to vocabulary. "Insulted and attacked" for being called out on one's privileged use of harmful language is impermisible, but it is perfectly find to insult and attack the marginilized group. Well, as an aspie who used to have PTSD and depression and who had a narrow miss with being misdiagnosed as schizophrenic, let me tell you that I cannot see the word "crazy" without wincing. It has been thrown at me time and time again, including by people of power, to deny me access and services (one doctor told me to stop "acting crazy" before dismissing me without even bothering to test for a health condition that ended up costing me six years of exhaustion that deteroriated down to the point of hallucination and health risks that could easily have killed me). These words contribute to our suffering, our loss of freedom, and even our deaths. So forgive me for feeling not a bit of pity for those who are too fucking lazy to bother to stop using certain words. You want to know if I have had fights over ablism outside of the internet? Yes, I have had them again and again and again. With principals, teachers, professors, doctors, administrators, classamtes, parents, siblings. But, then again, as a person with disabilities, I have far less choice in that matter, don't I? I have sat in rooms and listened to people question my very personhood and my right not to be locked up against my will over these issues. Try that out and then get back to me about how very hard your life is because you were politely asked not to use certain terms.
>I was called "four-eyes" in school once. It hurt. I'm not saying that pain stays with me today, or that I consider that an example of marginalization.But I'm not going to deny unprivileged people of any stripe the right to express offense at the use of a given term. It's your choice whether or not you care. But you're not the one being persecuted here, as DSC said.There's also another angle to it. Like Marissa said way up at the top of the thread, sometimes it's not just offense. When someone uses the word "gay" pejoratively, I don't feel offended. But I do feel a certain amount of contempt for the person who said it. Of course, I'm bisexual but I easily pass for cis, so I reap a lot of privilege in that area, so if others are outright offended by the word "gay" used pejoratively, I understand entirely.
>Crap. The internet ate a nice long comment. (It was my fault, not blogger's, for once.) Anyway, what Capt. Awkward said. Beyond that, a few other thoughts: I am certainly happy to avoid using language that contributes to the further marginalization/stigmatization of a marginalized/stigmatized group. Darksidecat, you make a pretty persuasive case for avoiding the word crazy. As someone who has suffered from depression for most of my life I've long been troubled by the stigmatization of mental illness. But because I don't get called "crazy" I have probably vastly underestimated the ways in which that word can be stigmatizing. But it's one thing to bring up these issues, and another to do, well, whatever you want to call what happened in that thread. These weren't people who had been stigmatized by the word "idiot." These were people who were declaring themselves offended by proxy for others, and presuming to speak for them. And trying to roll over everyone who disagreed. It was a pile-on; it was a kind of bullying. Reading that thread in fact "triggered" a friend of mine who faced a similar kind of intellectual bullying in college. I spelled out more of my thoughts in the comments there; I may try to pull them together in a post here. Or a may just let it drop.
>I'm actually deeply appalled by the Feministe debacle (I've been posting as Sarah J.), particularly because it's being supported by the moderator. Said moderator seems incapable of acknowledging exactly how extreme the comments have been.It's a problem I've encountered in feminist spaces. I advertise my blog on Feministe, when I actually have time to update it, and sure enough I got a bitchy post from someone over my use of the word "crazy." Important info: my use of the word "crazy" regarded Janet Folger Porter, who masterminded the "testimony" of two fetuses in the Ohio statehouse.I replied to the bitchy comment by mentioning that I have a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and will therefore use the word crazy as I damn well please. End of troll.
>I replied to the bitchy comment by mentioning that I have a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and will therefore use the word crazy as I damn well please.There is some flexibility as far as this goes, certainly. Being bi, I have a couple gay friends that call each other and me a fag occasionally, and it's all a good larf. I suppose it's like the n-word (which, being white, I don't use). But if someone ever asked me to stop saying the word fag in their presence, I'd stop immediately. Because it is super-offensive.I don't doubt that you're similarly sensitive with your use of the word crazy. I'm just commenting for the sake of conversation.
>Oh, I agree that context is vital. I've tried to argue that point on Feministe to no avail. And there certain terms I do feel are always ableist: schizo, the r word, etc. Similarly, it bugs me to hear anyone use "bipolar" or "schizophrenic" or "OCD" casually. If you don't have the disorder, leave the word alone, because you clearly don't understand the implications of what you're saying.I suppose what really bugs is that the worst Feministe commenters (and the troll on my blog) don't claim to be people with disabilities, yet they've apparently appointed themselves the grand high arbiters of all that is ableist. I resent that. If you don't have a diagnosis, you haven't faced the sort of discrimination I've experience and you do. not. speak for me.
>I agree with Amanda. Once you let the language scolds dictate your vocabulary, you can no longer call your keyboard your own.
>Oh, and regarding the kittehz: two.
>I'm totally on board with what (almost) everyone has been saying. Yes, the words we use matter. Yes, if I were unknowingly using a word that made you feel hurt or marginalized, I would stop immediately.But on Feministe (I've also noticed it in parts of the Tumblrverse), it's actually difficult to have a conversation on any topic because, for every reply that actually addresses what you said, you get a whole cascade addressing your wording. It's a problem when your language use expectations are actually preventing communication.
>BTW, 0, but hopefully 1 soon. I'm at the humane society too, and it's just a question of which one.
>BTW, 0, but hopefully 1 soon. I'm at the humane society too, and it's just a question of which one.Good luck! If I ever had a male cat, I would name him Captain John Sheridan, Welcome to Babylon 5. Not John. Not even Captain John Sheridan. Captain John Sheridan, Welcome to Babylon 5.If I had a female cat I'd name her April.
>Makes me think of Daniel Tosh's joke about having a restaurant named "Thank you for calling, how may I help you?"
>I broadly agree with David, Florencem et al. Two comments–Sam, the Feministe viewpoint is a little more reasonable, and a lot more complicated than that. I know about the euphemism treadmill, and it might look like they're just trying to spin the wheel of euphemisms ahead a notch, but they aren't. What they want is more ambitious, for good or ill.They would still be angry if you call your opponenets "neurologically atypical," because their complaint is that you should not equate moral badness or wrong conclusions with mental disability. –Diane K, I read your comments. They were deliberately hostile and inflammatory. I would definitely call them trolling,. In my mind, trolling is not about saying thigns you don't mean (necessarily), trolling is saying things you know will be inflammatory to your audience. I think you should take a step back and rethink whether those posters really deserved some of the things you said to them.
>I honestly don't get this. I'm agnostic on the content of the disagreement itself, but I find the eagerness to mock and belittle — and misrepresent! — the other side that's evident in this thread deeply weird. As folks have noted, people are putting forward arguments are literally identical to those of the defenders of "faggot" and "retard" and "bitch." Literally identical. That doesn't give you pause?There's a glee to the slamming of the "language police" here (language police? seriously?) that I don't get at all.Oh, and as for this… Pretty soon the only insult you'll get to use is, "Oh that disagreeable person!" It's assholery. It's asinine, ridiculous, bullshit, wrongheaded, disingenuous, snotty, ignorant, unimaginative, absurd assholery. We've got a rich and vicious language. Always have had, always will. Chill out.
>…And now I've been over to Feministe, and I see that the first polite criticism of David was followed immediately by an aggressively abusive rejection of that criticism. Which was in turn followed by another polite, but more insistent, response to David, which David replied to in a dismissive and hostile way.After that, both sides got louder and angrier, but it's really clear who turned things ugly, and it wasn't the PC police.
>My feeling is that not everyone can speak for everybody. Context is important as well. However, if a word makes someone uncomfortable, I won't use it around them. They have expressed a preference and the polite thing to do is to stop. But that doesn't mean that it applies to everyone, in every situation and context. Language is fluid and meanings change over time. Unfortunately, just changing the usage of the words won't eradicate the underlying thought behind them. New words will be used to insult and hurt people. It will always be there.I honestly thought that the first "idiot" response was reasonable. After that, though…not so much. I do think that there is a certain type of person who will nitpick to dismiss arguments and make the thread about them, and sometimes it does walk a fine line between concern and concern trolling.
>anthonybsusan: "my use of the word "crazy" regarded Janet Folger Porter, who masterminded the "testimony" of two fetuses in the Ohio statehouse."I'll throw in my $0.02. No one can seriously argue that right-wing conservatives are marginalized in the United States, but I would certainly argue that they should be. Calling their actions "batshit insane" (or the like) is not the act of marginalizing an oppressed minority, but the argument seems to be that we shouldn't do so because this may be insulting to batshit insane people. In other words, we can never say "something is seriously wrong with you if you interview fetuses in the Ohio legislature," because other people do indeed have something seriously wrong with them and therefore could find it offensive. If someone asks me not to use certain terms on their blog or in their community, I will absolutely make the effort out of courtesy (which is an outgrowth of empathy and respect), just as I would in their home. But in a public forum or on my own blog it's another matter entirely. I think that we have to be very careful here. In our discourse we need far more mockery and ridicule aimed at stupid and dangerous ideas and people, whether or not other stupid and dangerous people may be offended. To insist that liberals in general should always be above employing potentially offensive tactics is foolish and short-sighted, precisely because language is such a powerful weapon – mockery works. This very blog is built entirely on that concept. If one wants to marginalize right-wing conservatives, anti-feminists, etc., how does one do so without using marginalizing language? And while I agree that we can and should consider the potential harm to marginalized groups of the terms we use, the outright banning of a word like "idiot" in all contexts is…pardon me, idiotic. Maybe I should just change my blog header to read "This is NOT a safe space for idiots."
>Oh, and I haz da bestest kitteh EVAH!
>@Orion,I will definitely grant that my initial response to Tori was a direct hostile attack. I could see where things were going (another ableist language police shit fight) and I was angry.My mock "apologies" in my later reply were clear sarcasm against everyone. I'm guessing you're referring to my direct attacks against sabrina and Nahida. Sabrina declared that my "awful language" gave her a panic attack. I don't know what the hell we were supposed to do with that piece of information, but I never RSVP to pity parties. Honestly, swearing and vehement disagreement give her panic attacks? So now we must lower the bar to there in order to protect her?Nahida lost it because saurus decided that "butthurt" must be indicative of anal rape. No matter that I didn't use it that way, and the term is commonplace in the feminist blogosphere. One person said it was a RAPE TERM (which I think I'm naming my next Rock Band, btw), and thus it is now verboten by all.So yes, I found both those things offensive, both people looking to claim victim status in order to gain control over other people. Only instead of getting butthurt, I poked. Hard.Why don't we all continue down the road to Duckspeak, only instead of quacking all we say is "privilege."I also found it ironic that I was called "douchey" and no one rose up to defend me after I pointed out how sexist the origins of "douche bag" are. I thought we can't use any words that are -ist?
>Diane, it's not at all clear to me what your complaint is. You went over to a site where you know your position is mostly disagreed with, and you acted hostile and aggressive. You mocked people. You abused people. You argued in bad faith. And now you're … What? Surprised? Offended? Appalled? … that people got angry and upset? That was the whole point, wasn't it?I'm seeing in Diane and David's comments throughout this brouhaha a sort of willful jumbling up of objections to the form and content of arguments. David would (I'm gathering) never object to someone criticizing the use of "retarded" or "nigger" as an epithet, but when people criticize "idiot," suddenly they're Maoists? Seriously?I just can't take that kind of double standard seriously.
>I was commenting angry. Part of my point was to argue how absurd I thought people were being. Part of my point was to mock the people I thought were being most so.So yes, trolling. Guilty as charged.Although I will say that I no point was I arguing in bad faith.
>Thank you for this. This extreme language policing has driven me away from several feminist blogs that I otherwise loved.That is all.
>The problem is when well-meaning people jump on you for using "offensive" language based on an *incorrect* understanding of what's offensive to the population they claim to be speaking on behalf of.For example, I have a work colleague who's a member of the a Sioux tribe. I was telling friend of mine about him, and she explained to me that I shouldn't use the term "Sioux"–I should use the term "Lakota" instead–because Sioux is a pejorative term in that community.The problem is, that's not true. I asked my Sioux colleague, but you wouldn't have to–all you'd have to do is Google "Sioux" and you'd find things like the Rosebud Sioux tribe's website. Basically anyone with even the most minimal engagement with the Sioux know that the term is not offensive to Rosebud Sioux (maybe it's offensive to some other Lakota-speaking tribes, I'm not sure). I think it's reasonable to expect that if someone is going to tell you which terms are and aren't acceptable to a community, they should have at least some kind of minimal engagement with that community.
>I just can't understand how asking someone to please not use a word is abuse, and triggering, yet going to a site to willfully troll about how ABSURD YOUR FEELINGS ARE isn't. And..I just..this language police bullshit. Really? You're going to use the SAME EXACT ARGUMENTS that people have used to defend their use of "faggot" and "retard" and the like? Because it's the same wording being used here. ARGH. In regards to the cat poll, cats are awesome.
>These discussions bring to my mind, Whoopi Goldberg's "Most of all, I dislike this idea nowadays that if you're a black person in America, then you must be called African-American. Listen, I've visited Africa, and I've got news for everyone: I'm not an African. The Africans know I'm not an African. I'm an American. This is my country. My people helped to build it and we've been here for centuries. Just call me black, if you want to call me anything."
>I follow SleepTalkinMan on twitter (someone tweets what their partner says in his sleep). And the most recent tweet seemed relevant, in that it sounded kinda like what the people complaining about Feministe here are saying:"Okay, okay, you've got to meet me halfway, alright? I'm sorry for smacking you in the face, but, you've got to apologize for existing."
>I just read through the comments section over there. This is so awesome on so many different levels. David, you were doing great standing up for yourself, at least until the mod stepped in. You're in the right, of course, about the language issue. And you defended yourself manfully, I was impressed. You used the internal inconsistencies of their logic to turn the point around, bringing in your supposedly feminist abuse survivor experiencing a trigger from the comments, making it a social class issue, etc. Ha! Awesome. But, that's very similar to what I see Scott Adams as having done in the original essay that upset so many people- he was using the logic of the MRM worldview to derail their own arguments. That seems to be the point that you and others have missed here. (Not that he didn't screw up with his deletion/response/I meant to do that which was pretty lame.)Another thing: I read the MRM blogs myself because they are the only ones talking about father's rights which is an issue that I have a strong personal stake in. I enjoy and appreciate your blog for calling out some of the extremes from these blogs – helps me to keep things in perspective and not let myself get carried away by anger over injustices in my personal experience. So I appreciate what you do for my own reasons even if I often disagree with you. That said, if you are going to call people out for extreme bullshit, you're a hypocrite if you only do it where the MRM is concerned. I thought it was cowardly of you to back down when the mod stepped in, because you were in the right and the language police bullshit was complete bullshit. Not incidentally, this kind of ridiculous victimhood competition in those comments could have been a parody written by an MRM, I doubt even a parody could have gone as far as some of the commentators over there did. I wonder if you can see that this sort of thing is part of what the MRM is reacting against?
>Okay, I updated my commenting policy to state: "This is not a safe space for idiots." Perhaps this will serve to keep away idiots, as well as those who would be offended by my use of that term. Win-win.
>diane k, you used a rape attack against a woman who has on several occasions been extremely open with her situation on feministe. The use of the term butthurt has always been a rape narrative. To dismiss people who have trigger episodes over that is cruel. I'm glad that you personally don't have to live through that but as a rape survivor myself I see your comments as attacking and then you go on to mock her for getting upset over being triggered? Not okay. Not okay at all
>"I think it's reasonable to expect that if someone is going to tell you which terms are and aren't acceptable to a community, they should have at least some kind of minimal engagement with that community." Here's my problem with that, Joe. I dislike it when people appoint themselves the voice of all PWDs. "This is offensive to PWDs, don't use it!" Well, no. Not necessarily. But thanks for appointing yourself my representative. It's actually just as ableist as anything they've accused David of.
>@victor:And you defended yourself manfullyThe thing MRAs but also everyday privilege deniers like yourself never seem to grasp is that people like David aren't interested in being "manly." This is a central part of the feminist critique of social attitudes: concepts like manliness and femininity need to be seriously questioned.I wonder if you can see that this sort of thing is part of what the MRM is reacting against?The main thing the MRM is reacting against is that uppity women are demanding full human being status. Don't sugarcoat it.
>"The thing MRAs but also everyday privilege deniers like yourself never seem to grasp is that people like David aren't interested in being "manly.""I knew that would get a response. But you knew what it meant. Different people have different levels of privilege depending on the situation. There are plenty of situations where women enjoy privilege. I don't deny my privilege where I have it, but I won't pretend to have it when I don't. It is very easy to paint large segments of society as privileged, then anything they do or say or want can just be dismissed. It's cheap, dirty and disingenuous. There are real issues, and real people getting screwed over. You don't see it because they are in a class of people who's concerns you have decided are irrelevant. There are lots of people with lots of motives in the MRM, if I'm sugarcoating it, you are deliberately demonizing it to score a rhetorical point.There is a difference between demanding equality and demanding privilege. I'm very happy if we could all enjoy full human being status in all areas of life. This would mean addressing the issues where women enjoy privileges that men don't. Like parental rights and equal time for equal crimes, just as a starting point.