Recently in Language Category
Hello all, this is a call for information. A while back a friend recommended I read Deborah Tannen. Her theories on gender-specific communication rub me the wrong way, but only because interpretations of it will assume essentialism (that gender differences in communication are innate, rather than socialized). She didn't necessarily believe this; however, cursory examinations of her writing doesn't specify one way or the other.
I know some critiques have pointed out Tannen's theories do not take power into account. What I would like to know is what studies have been published looking at power-based communication. I would like to see actual research and I'm convinced it's out there but I haven't found it. My hypothesis is that "subordinate" communication will be less direct and more "cooperative" than communication from a power-holding standpoint.
The reason I believe this is because one quote I read from Biko, by Donald Woods, has always stood out in my mind: "They smile at the enemy and curse at him in the sanctity of their washrooms". I know this was written about South African pre-apartheid, but it struck me as very illustrative of relations between men and women.
The other day I was browsing the feministing community posts. There was one that caught my attention—not the post, but the comments. There was a very angry debate going on about whether certain words that the poster had used were offensive or not. The topic of the post was going ignored, and the issue of offensive language was popping up and detracting from it. And there was no consensus being reached, just a lot of frustration and misunderstanding being thrown back and forth.
Ok, so we all know that there has been a lot of heated debated lately regarding the issue of language. Here on feministing, most of agree on what we deem sexist, misogynistic, homophobic and racist language, but we do not always concur on what we call ableistic language. Outside of feministing, people unknowingly use language that many of us would be offended by, yet they wouldn't understand why, even if we tried to explain it to them.
I’ve always been interested in language: semantics, connotations, and its evolution. I realize that language is, at its most basic level, a very very old metaphor. Words can transcend their original, literal denotations and acquire entirely new connotations. For example, the word “back” used to refer exclusively to a part of the body; now it can also mean the posterior of a physical or abstract entity. I can make all sorts of lofty analogies and comparisons to explain why a word like “dumb” isn’t really ableistic. But I wouldn’t really be proving anything.
Cosigned. I called out ableist and homophobic language on this post and no mods have done anything about the comments. A feminist space should not let this kind of language go unchallenged, and this space does, far too often.
This is my first post, ever. I've been meaning to get involved in this site for a long time, and I want to share my thoughts about the use of the dreaded B-word by the people I love.
I was dating a man for about two years, and we broke up. We broke up because the relationship wasn't making me happy. And then his best friend called me a "man-hating.
I hate the word "bitch". More than any other word in the English language. It's in a little abusive pea-pod with "whore" and "slut". I ask all my friends, family, and co-workers not to use it around me. Or ever.
This particular ex-boyfriend used that word a lot. A lot. But stopped using it in front of me when I told him how I felt about it. Before that, everyone was a bitch. The woman working the register at a fast food restaurant was a "stupid bitch". Any female driver was "bitch don't know how to drive". "Bitches be actin' up".
I sought advice on the subject from a feminist friend, whose advice I deeply respect and appreciate. Usually. He said that I should have understanding for my boyfriends culture. Being Puerto Rican, and from the South Bronx, this kind of language was what he was used to. And, I should have patience because he does try to respect the way I feel about those words, and corrects himself when he "slips".
In other words, he don't really mean that women are all bitches.
I wish I had thought better about this. And not agreed that I should accept someones sexism as "part of his culture". Looking back, it seems really idiotic. And racist.
Who the economy hits harder
by Jeannie Babb Taylor crossposted at www.JeannieBabbTaylor.com
Have you heard the latest buzz? Some writers and commentators are now calling the recession a "he-cession." The new word, coined somewhere out on the blogosphere, incites fear and trembling in the masses because now the recession is actually affecting, well, men.
Times Online ran a headline: "Women are victors in 'mancession.'" Women may not feel so victorious while enduring lower wages, shift cuts, and job loss, plus carrying a heavier share at home. Charlie Gibson's touts the "he-cession" on ABC, serving up caricatures of women who just cannot respect their unemployed, apron-wearing Mr. Mom husbands.
Even Georgia Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond is falling for the hype. Thurmond released a white paper titled "Georgia Men Hit Hardest by Recession" in which he asserts that job loss is more devastating to men than to women. This long-held assumption implies that men's work is important, while women's employment is merely frivolous - perhaps an avenue to get out of the house, or to earn a little money for nail polish.
In reality, women's jobs are extremely important. In fact, 40 percent of women are the sole breadwinners for themselves or their families. Many women value their careers and identify themselves by their profession. Job loss is a major crisis, often on a par with divorce. To pretend that only men are deeply affected is ridiculous and inaccurate.
Worse yet, Michael Thurmond actually uses the term "he-cession" as if it were a real word. Thurmond's grammar teacher must be rolling in her grave. Surely she taught him about Latin roots. Perhaps she would like to remind him that "recession" consists of the Latin prefix "re" (back) and the root "cedere" (to go) and therefore refers to moving backward. If "he-cession" had any meaning at all, it would mean that "he" is moving on, not backward.
Reading Thurmond's white paper, something bothers me a lot more than the painful etymology of the newly coined word. If the recession has become a "he-cession" now that the lay-offs are skewed toward males - what was it in September 2008 when the data showed women were losing their jobs twice as fast as men? We never heard dire warnings about a "she-cession." In fact, the talking heads on TV and the Internet rarely mention women's unemployment. If they bring up unemployed women at all, it is to utter scathing remarks about "welfare moms."
The reason men have lost more jobs, is that men had more jobs to lose. 73% of men were part of the workforce before the recession, compared to less than 60% of women. According to the Center for American Progress, 20.6% of working-age women were already living in poverty at the outset of the recession, compared to 14% of men.
Thus, saying that "the recession hits men harder" is like saying, "The recession hit the rich harder than the poor, because the rich are the ones who had money to lose." Even during the so-called "he-cession," men still outnumber women in the workforce, and especially in managerial positions.
On average, women who do have jobs are paid 20% less than men with the same positions. The fact that women can be paid less for doing the same work actually increases male job losses, since cut-backs target higher-paid employees. Women are also more likely to be underemployed, working part-time jobs without health insurance.
There is no new thing called a "he-cession." The severe economic downturn affects us all. If a quirky new buzzword is needed, maybe "we-cession" would be more appropriate.
There is a significant difference between the two declarations above. The following suggestion from bell hooks helps clarify:
To emphasize engagement with feminist struggle as political committment, we could avoid using the phrase "I am a feminist" (a linguistic structure designed to refer to some personal aspect of identity and self-definition) and could state, "I advocate feminism." Because there has been undue emphasis placed on feminism as an identity or lifestyle, people usually resort to stereotyped perspectives on feminism. Deflecting attention away from stereotypes is necessary if we are to revise our strategy and direction. I have found that saying "I am a feminist" usually means I am plugged into preconceived notions of identity, role, or behavior. When I say, "I advocate feminism," the response is usually, "What is feminism?" (from Feminist Theory from Margin to Center)
bell hooks argues for a de-personalization of feminism by replacing "feminist" as an identity category with "feminism" as a philosophy of action and movement that anyone can advocate. It would be difficult to argue that the identity "feminist" does not override the meaning of feminist movement, at least if we are arguing with those who might always already disagree with feminist politics. Any women's studies teacher who spends her/his first day of class debunking myths about feminists knows that some ill-intentioned representations of feminists, and the consequence of people not thinking critically, can get in the way of feminism(s).
My curiosity lies in whether these representations (and distractions) would exist in the same way if those who advocated feminism did not associate or even conflate their philosophy with initiation into an identity category ("feminist"). Realistically, the term "feminist" has a history that won't be forgotten, and misrepresentations of feminists will linger. But I do think that our actions become re-oriented when we divert attention away from ourselves ("feminists") and re-direct it toward what we are about (feminism).
A few months ago I was at a thrift stop (like I pretty much am for 99.9% of my life) and I found this book published in 1963. It's not very long at all, the font is pretty big, and the language is relatively simple -- it's obviously one of those sort of chapter books that serves as a stepping stone between children's books and novels for kids most likely aged around 9-12. I bought it, because even though it's for kids, it looks like it'd be a pretty fun little read.
It's called The Mystery of the Disappearing Cars, by Cora Cheney. I opened up the book to one of the first pages, which had a little summary of the story. Underneath the summary it reads, "Mystery, adventure, and near-murder make this an exciting story for boys that girls will enjoy, too."
The wording gave me pause. I couldn't decide whether I found it kind of cool that they bothered to include girls at all, or kind of annoying that they worded it to give the impression of, "Well, girls can read it, but it's really a boys' book."
How do you guys feel about this kind of wording?
A close friend and I recently a had an argument, because I said I find the word slut offensive. She said she's reclaimed it, citing examples like "dyke" and "queer." To me, those words are implicit in identity politics, and while they can and have been used offensively, they can be used other than to imply judgment of activity. Even using the word slut in a sex positive way, as my friend argues, implies an either/or dichotomy that deeply offends me. Her definition is, "It's about a person who chooses to have multiple partners and exist in non-monogamous relationships." This seems to ignore all other types of sexuality, and reinforce the concepts of promiscuity vs. purity. It forces women into categories, in the same way that virginity pledges and abstinence only education qualify a woman based on her sexual activity. I'm generally unoffendable, and this is literally the only word I find offensive regardless of context. I wanted to hear how other people feel about it.
I need some help from my Feministing friends: How do you help someone to recognize their privilege?
Namely, my boyfriend. I try to explain to him what 'male privilege' is and he just can't get it. All I want to do is help him to recognize it and be more aware of it, but he seems to think I come at him aggressively or very blame-y when I try to explain.
Even on here I can't really articulate anything.
-I explained that he doesn't have to experience pay discrimination for equal work like some women do-he then turns around and says that I've never been discriminated at work, and you know what? I haven't.
-I told him how a woman can't be aggressive or state her opinion on things without being called a bitch or shrew and a man can act like a pistol all he wants but will never be called out for it. His response was asking me if anyone has called me a bitch for standing up for myself and stating my opinions. No one has in recent memory.
Basically every time I could think of something remotely relating to male privilege he would ask if I have ever experienced it, and for the poor examples I was able to muster I hadn't.
See, his take is that while he understands that certain people have certain privileges (white, thin, male, etc) that it all comes down to personal choice. You can choose to be a 'victim' of your circumstance or you can persevere and overcome any shitty cards you've been dealt. Free will.
So my question is: How have you dealt with this in your personal relationships without coming across as attacking the other person? What are some good ways to illustrate male privilege to someone who still doesn't realize they possess it?
I know it's not my job to "make" him see his privilege. But I just want him to recognize it and be aware of it.
So last night someone vandalized my brother’s car and our house. My brother did nothing to deserve it though; I’m proud to report he’s one of the good guys. Essentially someone put baby oil, eggs, foot powder, pads, etc. on his car, TP’d our house, and wrote “U suck dick” in paint on the driveway. It is very clear that someone did it to be malicious. And it’s stupid that these children (yes with this act I deem this the appropriate title) did this but there are two things that keep playing over in my head.
One: with all that’s going on in the world, really this is what you do? I am reminded of the quote “Sometimes I think that the world is dying, melting, and forgetting” in the book “I Live Here” by Mia Kirshner. Now I move on to the cliché but appropriate “there are bigger fish to fry.” With all this issues in this world, was this even necessary? Between the shooting of Dr. Tiller, and now of the security guard at the Holocaust museum, it’s enough already. I cannot even accurately express this any further. It is simply ludicrous.
Two: Okay I’m not even going to address the slang spelling of the word “you,” I will let it speak for itself. Nevertheless, I would like to address said chosen phrase. “You Suck Dick.” Really? With such an array of colorful possible words (not to imply I am condoning any of them) the one you chose to use, the one you deem most offensive is basically a very impolite way of calling him gay. I’m not offended with him being called gay, trust me gay is more than A.O.K. in my book, but I’m offended that being called gay, especially in this crude way, was used as an insult. It reminds me of an article I read on feministing, “Feminist Critique of Hetero Male Culture Causes Mass MRA Hysteria,” that certainly described the issue a lot more articulately than I am able to. The whole thing keeps rolling over and over in my head. This is what they use? These children are recently high school graduates who will be moving on to college. Alas, I am not much older, but it makes me sad, disappointed, angry and a bit less hopeful that this future generation, who, in my opinion, have a crucial role in saving the world, choose to behave in such ways. And maybe I shouldn’t be so offended or angry seeing as it’s quite the common phrase, but I am; and I think I have the right to be.
I’m only 3 years older then these particular children, yet I’d like to think we live worlds apart.
I am a woman. I am attracted to, love, and have sex with other women. I am not attracted to men. Nor have I ever had sex with a man, and have made no plans of ever doing so, ever.
Why is it, then, when people "out me", or other women, they say "she doesn't like boys/men" or "she's not straight"? To me, this language implies that heterosexuality is viewed as the only "normal" or "natural" sexuality, and that everything else is abnormal or lesser than the norm. "She's not straight" means that there was an original assumption that until otherwise declared, I am assumed attracted to men. Why? I never say anything to coworkers, acquaintances, family members that would lead them to believe I am of the heterosexual identity.
"She doesn't like boys" ... why not just say "she likes women"? Why call attention to the fact that I'm "not heterosexual"? Is "not heterosexual" a common identity among those of you on this site who are women and are attracted to/love/have sex with other women?
I personally find it offensive in a way, to have my sexuality not only assumed, but to be defined by what I am not. This yet again places heterosexuality at default, normal and superior to other forms of sexuality. What do y'all think? Am I over-reacting to simple language, or is this something bothersome for other people, too?
Britney Spears might have been onto something when she sang "I'm not a girl, not yet a woman." I mean, it's pretty clear that a 4-year-old female is a girl, and an 83-year-old female is a woman. But I've had trouble articulating the differences between girls and women, especially when it comes to teens, and when that change happens. I do see Girl vs. Woman as a feminist issue, since "girl" is often used as a diminutive or pejorative when referring to a woman of any age who does something dumb or ultra-feminine or when she's a victim. There even seems to be some confusion here at the Feministing community over when to use "girl" or "woman."
Like I said above, I have difficulties defining the difference between girls and women. The two factors that I try to use to draw the line between girl and woman are age and fertility. Obviously, drawing the line this way is problematic, because age of majority and fertility don't always go hand-in-hand. Some 30-year-olds, for example, can't get pregnant for all sorts of health reasons, but I wouldn't say that those 30-year-olds are girls. They're women. At the same time, I really don't want to call the 9-year-old girl in Brazil who was raped and impregnated a woman simply because she can physically get pregnant. And I certainly don't want to call a 14-year-old mother a girl, since she can make decisions for her child, just like any legal adult could.
In the Feministing posts I linked above, "girl" seems to be used when a teenage female is a victim of something, like rape or sexual assault. But "woman" is used when talking about a teenage female doing something great, like sailing around the world, or taking responsibility, like taking birth control, terminating a pregnancy, or raising a child. Is that the difference?
Or can teens be both? Can a 16-year-old be a woman when she gets an after-school job to care for her sick mother, but a girl when she wears pink to her junior prom?
What does everybody think?
Every time you choose to view pornography, attend a strip club, solicit a prostitute, or in any other way, treat a woman like a piece of flesh rather than a person, remember one thing: That girl is some man’s daughter. From: Lessons I Learned Raising My Daughter
(Emphasis mine.)
I found this particular admonishment on The Art of Manliness . (I can't remember how I ended up over there...link hopping, probably.)
I digress.
My thoughts for this post were sparked by that last line.
I've encountered this and very similar admonishments quite often when it comes to the harassment and objectification of women.
The language bothers me.
I realize that people use this and similar phrases to try to make men (generally) think critically about the fact that there is a person on the receiving end of the harassment. The admonishment plays off the question "How would you feel if someone did that to your daughter/mother/sister?" It tries to make the impersonal personal .
And I know it's effective for some audiences, that it does make them stop and think.
But I also feel that we lose something when we use the kind of language in this type of admonishment.
We lose the idea of autonomy.
The woman as her own person. Deserving of the basic respect to not be harassed, othered, objectified.
We, instead, seem to be defining the appropriate treatment of the woman on the basis of someone else's relation to her. Often (in my experience) that someone is male. The woman is: "Some man's daughter"; "Some man's wife"; "Some man's sister." The language is reminiscent of women as property. Don't do that. She belongs to some other man and you're infringing on his territory.
Even if the language is a neutral "someone" rather than "some man" there's still this air of property violation to it. You shouldn't do that (because she's not yours to treat that way).
I find it sad that something as simple as respecting a woman's personhood is difficult to express (or for some to accept) without language that implicates someone else's ownership of her.
I've started to feel guilty about my sexual identity. Like there's something wrong with me, like it's practically immoral.
Why?
Because I'm bicurious.
This has been a dilemma for me as a feminist. (And no, I didn't mean immoral in religious terms earlier). Is it acceptable to be bicurious in this day and age? Now that Katy Perry kissed a girl (while constantly reaffirming heteronormative ideals)? Now that girls make out on Spring Break for the cameras? Now that bicuriousness has practically become a fad?
Why has this word become so problematic? Let's break it down. There's two parts to it: bi, and curious. Why do I identify with this?
I am attracted to both men and women, although in different ways and to different degrees. There's the bi part.
I have only had relationships with men, and I can't (at this point in my life) picture a relationship with a woman. It's not a possibility I would rule out, however. I've been intimate with both men and women, and I enjoyed both sets of experiences. However, my realization of my fluid sexuality is a recent development. I'm unsure of the exact extent of it - maybe I am simply attracted by sexuality, not by gender - and I want to experiment and discover more. There's the curious part.
I don't describe myself as bisexual. I tried it on for size, but when I think of the term, I feel a connotation of more certainty, that doesn't match where I am at the moment. So I am bicurious, and bicurious I am.
So this is the question: is this wrong? For better or worse, I've avoided using the word bicurious to describe myself to others - even though it is the term that most matches my identity - because of the baggage it brings with it. I don't want to be looked at as that girl who in college decides maybe she likes girls but isn't sure about it. I don't want to be thought of as a cliche - a cliche which many people consider to be hurting movements for GLBT rights.
Because I am not a cliche. I am not bicurious for the hell of it, or to impress men, or because it's a cool thing to do. I'm bicurious because I am. It is incredibly frustrating to see this part of my identity stereotyped in popular culture and discussed as though it is not a legitimate thing to be. Because of this, I am afraid to openly identify as bicurious - most of my family and friends are open-minded, but I can't help but wonder what they'd say. What if someday I married a man? I can already hear them joke "well, I guess you were straight after all!"
I feel this pressure to identify one way or another, as something with a set definition. But set definitions don't work for me. Set definitions don't work for a lot of people. If there were, there wouldn't be so many different words for sexual identity or gender identity. They work for some - and it's great that they do! - but each of us has the right to choose the terms that we identify with. Or to reject terms entirely, if we so choose.
So my guilt isn't coming from my identity itself. It comes from the way the term I use to describe my identity is thrown about in popular culture and even feminist discourse. But my being bicurious is not the problem. The problem is the fact that this form of sexuality is often fetishized and represented in a manner that reinforces patriarchal and heteronormative norms.
So if you ever feel the need to rant about that particular phenomenon, do me a favor. Don't classify me, and all of the other bicurious people, in the same category as the problem. Don't isolate us.
Because at least this particular bicurious woman (and I'm more than willing to bet that there are many more of us) is furious that her identity has been stolen and made into something that hurts her and others.
I've seen a lot of feminists (on this blog and otherwise) explain why they dislike the use of the word "pussy" to mean weak, because it equates weakness or inability with having a vagina. Of course I agree that it's disgustingly misogynistic and needs to stop. But it got me thinking about testicles being used as a symbol of bravery or strength -- i.e., when someone accomplishes some feat, or does something badass, or shows some display or bravery, it's said that, "So-and-so is ballsy!" "Man, so-and-so's got kahones." "That takes serious balls," etc.
So, vagina=weak, fragile, and incapable while testicles=strong, brave, and defiant. This pattern sure sounds familiar, don't it?
OK.
So I know that my boyfriend has a little more experience in playing pool than I do. I think I'm at least a descent player, I can make some tough shots, and I know the rules of the game pretty well. I also know that the rules depend on who you are playing against.
When I play my best friend- we challenge each other. She is in a pool league and we try to help each other out. When I play against my friends who aren't very good- we have a little more fun, but I probably still win.
Last night my boyfriend and I were shooting a few games. I wasn't playing very well, I knew. He seemed to be matching my suck-tastic game. I knew he played a lot better than me, maybe he was having an off night too?
So he took a shot, and his ball went in the pocket, but not the one he intended. It was an accidental kind of given ball that just happened to go in. He generously let me take my shot, because he didn't feel he deserved the point (ball) that went in.
I take my shot, and also had an accidental ball go in that I didn't intend, but it was still my ball and I got the point (ball).
So, of course, I look to him to take his next shot. There was no way I could take my accidental ball that went in right after he didn't do the same. I again told him to take his shot. "I didn't call that one. It's your shot."
He kind of looked at me and was like, "No, no it's ok. Go ahead. You got your ball in, it's still your turn."
I said, "But you just did the same thing and forfeited your turn. Don't take it easy on me. I want to play fairly."
He explained, "No it's ok, really. We've been playing pussy-rules all night anyways."
I was floored.
Pussy-rules? As in weak, less than manly, less than he is worth, less than who I'm playing against?
I got pretty heated about it and reminded him about all the women pool players around the world that could beat his ass in two minutes.
His response was that well, "It's just a word. It's just a phrase that people use- I don't understand why you're so upset. It's just like saying 'toast-rules.' It doesn't mean anything."
Toast rules???
Please help me make my argument that this is exactly the kind of mentality that makes the world not change and accept crazy shit like this?
For those of you who read this brilliant post from April 17, you'll know that my friend Ami has written two letters to the editor of the Minnesota Daily , the school newspaper of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Well, the problem column "Network" is at it again. Today the column printed a letter calling Ami "some insecure little girl" and ranting about how she wants to take away the freedom of speech. Here's the quote:
About the offensive comments that have been floating around by some insecure little girl: I don't agree at all with what she has been spouting. As Laharl* said, "...(Net) is therefore completely within Network's rights of free speech, just as you have the rights to be offended..." Well, this statement has a lot of truth, and I want to end on this: Our Bill of Rights grants everyone in this country the freedom OF speech, not the freedom FROM speech.
*Laharl is the name or pseudonym of someone who wrote to Network the other day.
You can read the rest of the column here . The writer calls her/himself "A Net Supporter."
The freedom of speech argument, which in itself is problematic, though I do not think it is an invalid point in a discussion of what should or should not be published in an academic newspaper. I get the sense, however, that this writer is using the argument to shut Ami and those of us who support her down, rather than launch a discussion on the Minnesota Daily and the freedom of speech. What I find more troubling, though, is the fact that the Daily prints such snide, offensive comments that are meant to insult Ami. An insult can go a long way toward shutting someone down. In addition, it is just plain mean! What is the responsibility of a school newspaper like the Minnesota Daily to publish or not publish such comments? Personally, I think it is abhorrent and they should publish neither these petty insults nor sexist comments.
if you are interested in Network and Ami's exchange, here is a chronological list of Network's columns and Ami's letters.
1st Network column: 04/07/2009
2nd Network column: 04/13/2009
3rd Network response: 04/15/2009
I am a student at the University of Minnesota, which has one of the greatest student newspapers in the nation. I read it everyday at lunch. Toward the back of our newspaper there is a regular feature called "Network". It is a joke column, but one that I regularly ignore, because it is rarely witty, or thoughtful, or in any way capable of making me laugh.
One of the reasons for this is that Network frequently refers to women as "hos". Recently, a very thoughtful (and in my opinion, courageous) woman, Ami Wazlawik wrote two letters to the newspaper protesting the sexist language in this feature.
Also on the same page as Network is a romance column called Dr. Date. The author of this column has joined Ami in calling for Network to be disallowed to continue with the use of such offensive language, and won my heart. Today Dr. Date called for women at the University to join Amy in her critique of Network.
I was content to ignore Network until I saw the response printed in that section today. An excerpt follows:
"Network is not, not NOT a sexist. Whether it's sexy little co-ed bunnies, fugly women's studies majors, CSOM douchers or those tools on the football team, you're all equal in the eyes of Network."
"Network doesn't have the TIME to respond to foolish little college students whose daddies didn't love them enough."
Network followed these comments by printing a letter, which included comments like this:
"Not only does Network's discussion have next to nothing to do with gender as I have proven, but the fact that someone would use it as a staging ground actually works against the movement for the elimination of sexism: By jumpin on every little thing that looks like sexism, you devalue your own cause by making the movement look radical."
Yes, because women can't do two things at once! Seriously? I really just want to email them the "Derailing for Dummies" thread.
Some are responding on the online forum that really, we shouldn't have any problem with Network's language because his column is satire...I love satire and Network has never seemed particularly satirical to me. I'm pretty sure the author that wrote in to Network in that last comment was sincere.
So I am looking to take up Dr. Date's call to "pick up the slack". Any good lines I can drop in a letter?
Oh and this is why I said Dr. Date has forever earned my admiration:
"Together, through a concerted effort to inform the Daily's management about our dissatisfaction with Network's near-infinite suckage, we can have a world where Backtalk readers don't have to suffer the idiocy of that fool (who I am pretty sure approves of drowning kittens in burlap sacks and clubbing baby seals)."
As you can probably tell, this section of the newspaper is very informal. However, is there any planet on which Network's comments can be construed as acceptable for publishing in the newspaper of an academic institution?
If you want to read some comments on patriarchy by people who so clearly don't grasp the concept, that will make your head spin, I suggest you read Ami's second letter and the comments that follow here.
You have to admire Ami's patience!
Rebecca Traister deconstructs the latest euphamism for sexually active women:
The enthusiasm for the "Wild Kingdom" analogy is a sign of how strange and hysterically funny the idea of energetic female sexual desire is....How sad and backward that we have to give it a nickname, animalize it as if it's outside the boundaries of civilized human behavior, make it a trend, pretend that Demi Moore invented it. That's not progress, and it's not a step forward for women.
I'll admit, I've thought about "bitch" "pussy" and "cunt," but I hadn't put a lot of thought into the implications of "cougar." Interesting article.
I was directed to this video by another blog I read, Towleroad.
I think that with the recent discussion we had about the implications of the phrase "in the ass" in conservation, I think it's appropriate also to take the phrases that we use in other communities and their potential implications.
Video potentially NSFW due to language...
I want to draw attention to a couple things in the video. First, it's the way in which the gay community takes feminine pejorative words (like Queen and Bitch and Cunty) and turns them into a false positive.
I was very glad to see the "Stop Apologizing " post a few weeks ago, as I had often had the very same thought. I was also happy to see Rachel add to the conversation . And while I do agree with most of what's been said so far, there is an important nuance that I want to make sure we don't miss.
Women tend to use what are termed "feminine speech patterns". They'll say "What if we did XYZ?" or "I think we should try XYZ" rather than "XYZ is the best solution." Women are then told that this type of language makes them sound (to men, especially) that they are insecure or unsure, and it allows other people to take credit for their ideas. So women start practicing being more forceful and more direct, because clearly masculine speech patterns are more effective.
Wait, what?!? Since when do we just accept the fact that masculine equals better?
Turns out we shouldn't. Feminine speech patterns are much better than masculine ones at encouraging engagement and building consensus. If all that matters is you prove your point, forceful and direct is fine. But if you are trying to get people on board with an idea or create an atmosphere where everyone is able to contribute their knowledge, phrasing things in terms of a question often works better.
I recently participated in a workshop, where we split into male, female, and mixed gender groups and were given a simple project. At any given time, the groups with women tended to have more people participating. Also, midway through the activity we took a break and had to answer a few questions about what was going on. Groups with women tended to have more consensus about the way the project was going and about what the final solution would be (and the all-women groups tended to have the most consensus). If you asked a random person on the street "who are better communicators, men or women?", they'd likely tell you women. So why have we fallen into the trap of thinking that masculine speech patterns are more effective?
One thing to point out. Most men don't realize all this, and will likely still draw the conclusion that you are insecure if you use feminine speech patterns. The "safest" thing to do for credibility's sake may be to stick to more masculine speech patterns. So let's add this idea to the types of sexism we fight every day. The problem isn't the the way that women speak. The problem is the way men interpret it. That's not saying that many women (myself included) shouldn't learn to present ourselves more confidently. But let's also make sure we all see the value in feminine speech patterns and help others to see that value as well.
Oh, and basically this post is a punch in the face to patriarchy.
I go to a small cafe for a coffee and muffin on my way to work. This morning, I was the only person in line, so I had a chance to chat with the barrista, "Sam." I was asking him a few questions about his band when a customer, who had been sitting at a table, walked up to the counter for a refill, and interrupted our conversation by asking "Oh you're in a band? What kind of music do you play?"
Being interrupted really irked me. This guy didn't join our conversation; he ignored me and spoke to Sam as though I wasn't there. Had he interrupted to say, "could I get a refill," or if he had been waiting behind me in line, I wouldn't have minded. Instead, he elbowed his way into a discussion without regard for half of the people involved. I didn't have time for a discussion with Mr."Can't-Wait-For-My-Turn" on the finer points of common courtesy. I also didn't want to put Sam into the rough spot of having to referee between two customers (I've been a server myself, it sucks.) Instead, I caved to my internal voice that said "you should just be polite and walk away, it's not that big a deal." So I left.
I don't think Mr. "Can't Wait" needed a huge lecture on manners or male privellege, just a reminder that I was still there. Fellow feminists, what should be done in a situation such as this? What are some ways of asserting ourselves during casual (eg. brief) exchanges?
I've been wanting to post about this for a while and get some feedback/advice from feministing readers, so here it goes.
I'm a senior in college and a member of Alpha Phi Omega - APO - a national co-ed service fraternity. I joined the group as a freshman looking to make friends and do some service around our community - I knew that I'd never be all about the group tradition's or rituals, or really the fraternity culture in general, but I put those things aside at the time. Soon, though, one part of APO really started to bother me - all members, regardless of sex or gender, were called "brother". As a woman, I was very uncomfortable with this - why should I be called a brother? Would the men of our chapter want to be called sisters? Unfortunately, as uncomfortable as I was being called a brother, I was even more uncomfortable making waves in the group and being the cause of any controversy.
Fortunately I got over that mentality after two semesters of being called a brother. Along with a fellow women's studies major in the group, I drafted a motion to amend our group's constitution. Our motion would allow for anyone in APO, regardless of gender, to be called a sister. It would not force this new terminology on anyone, but would simply allow those who so chose to refer to themselves or others as sisters.
Lately, I've been struggling with the issue of picking a last name after marriage. I've been a missus for two months now, and even though I initially thought I would take my husband's name, I'm still sitting on my own. Why? I saw how much paperwork it takes to change my name (and my social security card, and my driver's license...) and I got pretty annoyed. "Why should I have to put in all this effort to change my name when Husbandito doesn't have to do a damn thing?"
I asked him if he would be terribly, horribly offended if I just kept my maiden name, and he was hurt. He believes women who don't take their husband's last name are showing a lack of commitment to the relationship, but men shouldn't change their last name because people aren't used to it and it makes them look suspicious. Frankly, I don't want him taking my last name anyway; it's not a family name and I don't really have any particular attachment to it. His surname, however, has a lot of family pride attached to it, since everyone in town knows them (they've been here for three generations, and Italy prior to that). Not only does he think I don't want to be married to him by saying I don't want to change my name, he's certain his family would be offended too.
Personally, I'm too full of pride to let that kind of talk get to me. I'm not married to his family, and if he thinks one stupid name thing means I don't want to be married to him, then obviously we have some sort of bigger problem going on. I've been poking around into the prospect of hyphenating my name (even if it makes my full name sort of a mouthful), but if I have to do official paperwork to go hyphenated, then I don't really want to do that for the same reason I don't want to just change it in the first place.
Having different names brings up the issue of what we'd name our children, though. It seems natural that we'd give them his name, but why? Just because he's the man? I know I'm getting petty here, but this whole thing reeks of patriarchy, and it's irritating to me in the same way that being forced to walked down the aisle by my father reeked of patriarchy (I'm not a piece of cattle to be passed off from owner to owner). In any case, I'd like to have the same name as my future children, thank you very much.
For you cisgender female feminists out there who have married cisgender male feminists, what did you do? How did you work out the children thing? Do you think I'm being too much of a pain in the tush for the sake of being a pain in the tush? And does it take extra effort to hyphenate? Advice is appreciated.
This is crossposted here.
I often think about how women (as opposed to men) navigate their physical space, but the way we navigate conversational space seems like a parallel to the use of physical space. To begin with, there are the drastically different ways that women and men are taught to use eye contact and body language in conversation. Without even realizing it, we communicate all kinds of messages about dominance and submission as we speak with each other. But lately I've been thinking about female vs. male use of apologies, and what this says about our relative social standing.
It seems to me that my female friends and colleagues apologize a lot, and for things that aren't even their fault. At work a few weeks ago, several people were late to a meeting because of a fire drill in an adjacent building. When a group of women who came from that side of campus arrived, they referenced the fire drill and apologized for being late. A few minutes later, three men from that same building came in and made no apology or explanation. Nobody seemed to notice. Several of the women prefaced their remarks in that meeting with "I'm sorry if this is something we should have covered last week..." or "Maybe I should already know this, but..." None of the men apologized, even when their questions or remarks made us backtrack on the agenda. And this is not an isolated experience.
According to Deborah Tannen and other researchers who study gendered use of language, this communication pattern is typical, and it makes a lot of sense. In many cultures apologies are generally made from those of lower social standing to those of a higher position, and rarely vice versa. Apologies are taken as a sign of weakness. Along with not initiating eye contact or breaking it first, stepping aside or altering your path to avoid a collision, and deferring to someone who talks over you or interrupts you, apologizing is a marker for those in a lower social position. It subconsciously sustains the hierarchy among a mixed-gender group. So I think it should be an objective of all feminists to stop issuing all these unnecessary apologies. If you truly did something wrong or insensitive, by all mean apologize in a sincere manner. But when things happen that aren't your fault, or if you're unsure of the validity of your question or remark, or if the conversation just seems kind of awkward, resist the urge to apologize to smooth the situation over. Take responsibility for your own faults, but no one else's. Social equality dwells in the big picture and in the details, and the way we interact with others on a daily basis is a significant, but practically invisible, detail.
Those of us who are both in academia and sensitive to the diverse lifestyles and intellectual perspectives of those around us know that there are some terms and ideas one doesn't just throw out there into non-academic society, at least not haphazardly.
Academic ideas, no matter how prosaic they may seem to us ("Imagined Communities" still gets people riled up? Seriously?), rub some in the "general" populace the wrong way.
They are often denounced as pretentious, out-of-touch, pie-in the-sky (hence, the enormous popularity of politicians who indulge in and are rewarded for hokey, folksy populism).
So I've got a group of guy friends that I've started to hang out with regularly. They're nice guys, tons of fun, but there's one huge problem I have with them. They use rape as a slang word for cool. Actually rape is the single word they use to describe anything they feel is the best thing ever. I asked one of them why they use such a word as slang and they said its not bad because of the context they use it in. Now I get where they're going with this, they think they're taking a word that is usually a scary word and making it into something cool. People do this all the time, with the "N" word for example. The thing is they aren't making it into something harmless. Every time they say it they're giving off the impression that they think rape is cool or fun. Now Im pretty sure none of these guys think that at all, and they've tried convincing me that its all good and I shouldn't worry about one little word. Obviously they just don't get it and I would love to explain why they shouldn't say that in a way that would actually be meaningful to them. So my fellow feminists, any suggestions?
I'm probably the only one watching this... but I was amused during the Senate Confirmation Hearing for Hillary Rodham Clinton that Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, referred to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) as 'the gentlelady speaking before me'. It was marvelous when he was interrupted, corrected, and then, somewhat embarrassed, apologized and corrected himself. All though its depressing that common courtesy of referring to female Senators by their titles wasn't respected, at least he didn't get away with it. Hurray!
(Though I always have to fight the urge to punch people who want to call me a lady, much less a 'gentlelady'. We're about two centuries past that, no?)
So I just listened to a Daily Show episode where Jon Stewart interviewed our old friend Mike Huckabee about gay marriage. He (Stewart) asked, "if marriage is the bedrock of society, why would you want to limit it?"
And Huckabee replied, "Marriage is one man, one woman. For five thousand years, that's the way it's always been."
And I've got some problems with that.
Apparently Huckabee's never heard of Sinbad, because Wikipedia, at least, defines concubinage as "the state of a woman or youth in an ongoing, quasi-matrimonial relationship with a man of higher social status"...and typically a man has an official wife, then several concubines, which are basically mistresses with legal rights.
And before anyone goes on about how it was just the Indians or the Chinese or whatever who had concubines, wise old King Solomon had a couple hundred.
Abraham, David, and Jacob were polygamists.
In Ancient Greece, marriage was a verbal contract rather than a legal one. The pederasts of old technically could have married men if they wished.
In the Mahabharata, Draupadi marries the five Pandava brothers.
Finally, in medieval and Renaissance Europe, marriage was a legal contract, a business deal. If populations permitted, polygamy was approved-of:
"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."*
And in "Der Beichtrat", Martin Luther gave the Landgrave Philip of Hesse a dispensation to take a second wife; fifteen years earlier, he said that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture."*
I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here; mostly, I think, that Mike Huckabee needs to shut the fuck up and check his facts.
*Quoted or paraphrased from Wikipedia
So, browsing through the feministing community, I ran across a pretty cool article and wanted to respond with something from below that I'd written a while ago.
I guess those of you who have read "the Bitch Manifesto" know where I am going with this.
A woman is called bitch because she is strong, intelligent and doesn't take shit from anyone. She's called a bitch because she's ambitious, outspoken and doesn't let anything stop her from accomplishing her dreams. She's a bitch, as defined by society, because she challenges what's natural, does what makes her feel happy, and doesn't accept society's norms and rules - especially when said norms and rules are designed to keep her down.
Australia's Herald Sun has come up with an opinion piece entitled US politics is no place for a woman.
I believe that generally a journalist doesn't come up with an article title; I hope to goodness I remember aright!
The general thrust of the article is far from offensive. In fact, I think it's excellent. Though the piece is relatively short, it points out the flaws of Gov. Sarah Palin's role in the presidential campaign, and its potential repercussions on women in politics. It presents her faults as the faults of a human being rather than something intrinsically feminine, and also observes how her nomination was blatant pandering.
In short, I liked the article a lot. It was a concise summary of various things that were wrong with Gov. Palin's position.
But oh gosh. The article title. What can I say? It smacks of belittling condescension and runs completely counter to the piece.
This is a very tiny issue, I know, compared to the huge things that are going on in the world right now. But it's also one of those "one step forward, two steps back" that stays at the back of your mind for the rest of the day.
The other day, a male classmate of mine tried to "sum up" feminism. We were discussing sexist advertisments, like those for men's body wash and stuff. I first stated that I think the ad's are very demeaning to women. He goes, "Why because they show girls being easy?" (WTF! No, it's MUCH more than that!) So I replied, "No, its a much more complex analysis of men and masculinities, objectification of women, sexism, society's perception of gender, and the impact of the media." Apparently I am not allowed to "sound smart" about the things I am passionate about, because he said:
"Some feminists take it a bit too far. The whole idea is to make men and women equals, but feminists boost their status by bringing down men's status by being bitches."(WTF!?!?)
I wrote a version of this on my livejournal, which is read by the (male) friend I refer to.
"Last night, a friend said of me: 'A strong woman who knows what she wants and is only a bitch part of the time? Rare.'
My first reaction was honestly to be a little hurt. I do occasionally refer to myself as a bitch, but I don't really take kindly to being called one by other people.
I think part of it is the fact that the word doesn't necessarily have a clear definition. What I mean when I refer to myself as a bitch may not be what you mean when you call me or any other woman a bitch. Some women use the word to reclaim it (and I'm going to talk more about that in a minute); some people, both male and female, use it as an insult.
I'm so pleased to find out a number of you are gamers here!
I play World of Warcraft, and I'm in a raiding guild that prides itself on being really supportive and, while not completely PC, as inoffensive as you could expect a bunch of gamers to be. For the most part, we really haven't had any trouble, the guild is made up of real-life friends and in-game friends. However, we've had a few cases where we've had to ban people for offensive comments--including one person who got banned for referring to a battleground as "Gay" and then refusing to apologize and promise to not to do it again.
So, you can imagine my annoyance in last night's raid. Our raid leader referred to a rather difficult female boss (enemy) as a bitch. I made a brief comment as to how it's unnecessary. He told me he wasn't saying that because she's a woman--and when I told him that's sexist bullshit, he got huffy and told me he wasn't getting into it.
And while we're at it, the word rape gets thrown around a lot, with no comment about it either.
I'm waffling over whether or not to bring it up to the guild leader. We're friends, but I'm worried he'll think I'm being oversensitive--or worse, that when he tells the guildies to stop it, he'll add that that's because it offends me, not something like "It's sexist and offensive" or even "We have female members, please consider them". It's come up once before, I don't remember over what, but I was made the odd person out for telling my leader, privately, that something happened was troubling me, and people blamed me for ruining their "fun".
My family's way of dealing with conflict was to engage in passive-aggressiveness. We were taught not to rock the boat, not to start fights or even voice negative feelings. My father was a violent man when provoked, and he was easily provoked; though there were only a few times that he actually physically hit any of us (and no, I'm not excusing it, just stating fact), conjuring fear was his favorite answer to someone else confronting him. Passive-aggressiveness was the only way to express those feelings without having to cringe and tremble over the consequences. There is a long history on that side of abusive, alcoholic homes that dealt with tension the same way.
Although I hate to admit it I have not been a feminist my whole life, preferring an imagined life as a radical flower child. Not for any particular reason other than I was uneducated about the movement and did not take my first class until I was in college. *Quick side-note: this has made me passionate about bringing women’s issues education to K-12 institutions.* Before that life-changing course, feminism was something I knew about and although I always "wanted women’s rights," I never identified as a feminist. Needless to say, that has all changed.
One of my favorite bloggers, Ren from Renegade Evolution, is guest-blogging at Feministe this week. True to form, she starts off her guest tenure with a "controversial" post , which includes a rant about language and swearing. When you read this post, you will understand why I love Ren so much -- she's strong, she's opinionated, and she's certainly not going to let anyone get by without knowing what she's about. Upfront, honest, clever, intelligent, and a fucking potty-mouth: everything I want to be. I look up to Ren, and I just want everyone to know it.
The last time I had a series of run-ins with ostensibly feminist women who nevertheless rejected the term - choosing instead to define feminist in ways that would make Bill O'Reilly proud, I asked readers to send me their definitions of feminism - definitions of feminism penned by feminists. Well, it has been another one of those weeks, so I'm putting the same question to the Feministing Community - what's your definition of feminism, and how has feminism impacted your life?
I've been getting really into linguistics lately. The words we use hold so much more meaning than Webster tells us. Linguistics is my minor, and I've done reports and given lectures about the difference between sexism and misogyny, which have very different meanings but are often used interchangeably.
But right now, there's a very specific word I can't seem to get out of my mind. Hate. Hate is a much stronger word than people realize, and it's a word I think a lot of people use too lightly. There are so many people who don't understand the repercussions of true hatred. Hatred gives us racism. Hatred gives us misogyny. Hatred starts wars. Takes lives. Forces innocent people to live in fear. Hatred starts genocides. And yet, we live in a culture in which this word is tossed around like it's nothing. Like it's meaningless. Have we become so immune to true emotions that we can disregard the true meanings of our words - the true impact of our words - and turn a blind eye to the true hatred that is all around us?
I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing. I'm not. I just needed to get this off my chest.
So, please, think before you speak. Make sure you mean what you say wholeheartedly.
I've been waiting for a good reason to put a post on here, and sadly, that good reason just happened.
I'm working on a group project for my college speech class, and I just emailed one of the guys in my group for some feedback on a change I'd made to the project, blah blah blah...
His response was short and, well, it was short. He said "Yeah, that's tight and wet."
What is that?! Is that some hip phrase I am unaware of? (I am a sheltered Indiana girl... I guess) He's not from this country. Is that a popular phrase elsewhere? All I know is I've never heard it and my mind jumped to what I think is the pretty obvious connotation. Am I over-reacting, or was I just harassed via email?
