Ariel Levy will be on today’s Fresh Air. Catch it on NPR if you listen to it, or check back at the site tonight to listen online. Personally, I haven’t read Female Chauvinist Pigs and excerpts and columns written by Levy have failed to impress me, but Terry Gross always does thought-provoking interviews. It should be…interesting. If you’re into Levy you might want to hear, if you hate her, you might want to listen too.

Now that we’ve established that, on to a different reason why it matters which has been touched upon but which was tangential to the other point I was trying to make.

Beauty standards are a class issue. I can’t say it better than Winter did a while back, so just go read that post if you want in-depth analysis. It’s also a race issue, and the two are distinct but also connected enough that if I address one I must address the other. I’ll simply try to explain briefly:

American standards of femininity are constructed in a way to be accessible to members of a certain class and ethnicity because they are markers of precisely that. Women are expected to look, at the least, middle-class and As White As Possible, because that’s what has been constructed as attractive and acceptable. It’s a deeply classist and racist system.

Not everyone has the time or money to spend making themselves look acceptably “feminine” all the time. Debates about whether or not some woman is a “bad” feminist for getting a bikini wax are pointless because they ignore the fact that many women can’t afford to pay someone to rip their hair out of them on a regular basis. Good quality cosmetics are expensive. Being acceptably hairless takes time and money, and if you’re poor, that might not be something you can afford to worry about all the time, and if you’re not white, it takes even more time because you might have more hair or darker hair or you might be more prone to ingrown hairs or skin problems from hair removal.

And the problem is that these standards of middle-class, white beauty are spreading. They are expected of every woman, not just the ones who are easily able to attain them. This is deeply harmful to poor women, and women of color; these are not necessarily one and the same but tend to go together. And so, in order to keep her job, a waitress has to waste time and money on cosmetics which might be toxic because it’s not considered a legally undue burden for waitresses to be expected to be “pretty” even though as long as they are clean and pleasant, it should have no impact on their ability to perform their job. This woman might lose her jobs if she doesn’t conform, a very real and negative consequence of how beauty standards are socially enforced. And so we have African-American women frying their hair flat in an effort to avoid social rebuke, Asian women having surgery to make their eyes rounder and more white-looking, and women of color all over the world being permanently poisoned and scarred from the use of chemicals intended to bleach their skin.

This is not okay. A woman forced to choose between spending her money on actual necessities and cosmetics in order to keep her job is not okay. A woman being forced to iron her hair in order to keep her job because “ethnic” hairstyles are considered “unprofessional”, because somehow her body is unacceptable the way it naturally is, is not okay. Being forced to choose between the pursuit of an ideal which is unrealistic and based on the income and often race of a totally different group of people, therefore often unobtainable, and the ability to make a living and live a decent life is not okay.

That’s why the hell it matters.

I’ve been sitting on this post for awhile. I just didn’t have the heart to finish it or post it, but I need to. So, not quite as timely as it could have been since it’s been a little while since the events I address, but…still worth saying.

I’ve been too depressed by recent events in the news to even feel like writing about them — even though these are things which need to be talked about — but what is there to say? Between the recent violent attacks on young girls in my country (I refuse to call them “school shootings”; I’m from Colorado, and this is no Columbine) and our national legislature’s decision to legitimize the Bush administration’s war crimes, I feel too hopeless to even try. Why bother? No one seems to listen or care; things keep getting worse despite the work of all the amazing activists I know. But that’s just temporary burnout talking. Anyone who actually cares, anyone who actually tries to make the world slightly better, will feel like that sometimes. That doesn’t mean I can stop trying; of course, I can’t. Not standing up for what one believes is right makes one complicit in the whole mess.

If nothing else, here’s what I have to say: the fact that, in 2006, in the fucking United States of America, little girls are being killed by grown men simply for the crime of being born female, should tell us that feminism is still necessary. The fact that, in the US, religious conservatives keep pushing their agenda to prevent women from having any sort of control over their own bodies and health — and hey, people, you realize that women take hormones reasons other than the perverse joy they feel at preventing the implantation of possibly-fertilized eggs, right? to treat PCOS and endometriosis and such? and that by denying them their medication based on your moral principles you’re causing them extreme pain and agony for reasons which have nothing to do with your moral objections, not that your moral objections have any legitimacy anyway? — should tell us that feminism is still necessary.

And, of course, it’s not just here. The other day, I heard a report on the radio about how children in Afghanistan attending co-ed schools are receiving death threats, how little girls have been killed for going to school…go ahead, tell me feminism isn’t necessary. Just try to look at that and tell me that we can’t specifically promote the rights of women as human beings, that women and men are equal, that we should be “equalists” instead of “feminists”. Oh, but of course, I forget: we’re not like “them”. This is the US, not the Taliban, and anyway, we’ve liberated the people there, haven’t we…right?

But the people who would point to that as an example of a place where feminism is needed and then claim that US feminism is misguided, misplaced, useless… The way this place is headed, I can see that kind of future as a distinct possibility.* We’ve already fallen too close for comfort. And damned if I’m going to quietly allow myself to be put in a place where I can’t control whether I give birth or how many children I have, where I risk being killed on a daily basis simply for being born female (or not-white, or queer — but then, aren’t we there anyway?).

Those are only the worst extremes of what I’m afraid of. There’s smaller things, more insidious: I live in a place where girls being discouraged or prevented from developing their abilities in certain areas is said to reflect their inherent aptitude; where woman and girls are encouraged to endanger their health or kill themselves in pursuit of an impossible vision of ideal beauty (which seems, by all accounts, to consist of not-exisiting); where if women are not sex objects, they have no value, and if they are sex objects, they have no value. Where women and people of color and everyone who’s just not lucky enough to be born a straight, cisgendered, white male is considered by many to be responsible for their own oppression.

For all these reasons and many, many more: feminism is necessary.

1. I don’t mean this to come across in a “oh my god I don’t want to be like those poor brown women” kind of way, but in a “oh my that’s terrible, I want to help, and I also need to protect my own interests” kind of way. Just in case there’s any confusion.

The only reason I think this is worth commenting on is because I guest-posted on Alas back in May (sadly, a hectic month, so less productive than I’d hoped) and so I think my opinion is possibly relevant. I have always had a lot of respect for Barry and his work; he writes thought-provoking articles and he backs up his information with numbers and facts. This is great, since there are people like me who like to theorize about stuff but have no real data to reference — I really appreciate a lot of the posts on Alas as a resource. And despite his handling of the recent situation at Alas, I still have a lot of respect for him and his work because it is well-researched and well-written, and because I think he’s generally a pleasant person. I am unhappy that he knowingly did something which goes against the principles of a large portion of the community which made his site so popular, but people make mistakes and do stupid things sometimes, and what’s done is done.

Was this situation handled poorly? Yeah. Do I think Barry’s decision to sell his domain in general was a bad one? I don’t know; I wouldn’t want to do it. But I also have more content on my domain than Barry does. (He has a blog and some cartooning pages; I have two blogs, my art portfolio, an Escaflowne fan site, etc.) I’m very attached to it. But I’m not in his situation so I have no right to judge, and I’m not. Am I disappointed in the sort of content now on the amptoons.com domain? Hell yeah. Do I wish he’d looked for alternative solutions that might be more women-friendly and in line with his feminism and the feminism of other Alas posters who might have a problem with pornography (or, like me, a particular variety of pornography)? Definitely. Do I feel he’s “sold out”? Well, maybe a little, yeah, but if he’d sold out differently it would be okay. Selling out isn’t such a bad thing if you’re doing something vaguely in-line with your ethics and ideals.

But…most important, given some of the criticism I’ve seen about him exploiting women by asking them to guest-blog for free, etc… Do I feel he’s exploited my work for personal gain? No. I don’t think he ever had that intention. Am I upset I wasn’t consulted about his decision to sell Alas? I’m not sure. Not really; I didn’t contribute as much as many other people have, and it is (was) his domain to do with as he pleases. Barry has now gotten in touch with everyone who’s written for his blog to let them know we can take our work down if we don’t want it on the site, and while it’s a little late in coming, better late than never, so I’m okay with it.

I’m separating here the person from his actions. Obviously, we can only judge people by their actions, and if they continually say one thing and do another, it can no longer be excused as a mistake, a lapse in judgement, a poor decision. I don’t feel Barry has done this (others do), so I think the situation is unfortunate but forgivable. No hard feelings.

But I have asked him to take my posts off the site while the content which he doesn’t control links to pornographic websites. If the advertising in the future changes to something I find unobjectionable or if Alas moves to a new home, I will be fine with him putting my posts back up.

Here’s why: I wouldn’t say I’m pro- or anti-porn. I see nothing wrong with sexually explicit material; I like to personally describe a lot of my fiction as being borderline-pornographic. To me, it’s a value-neutral term. Porn can be degrading and misogynistic, and it can be fun and egalitarian. Certainly, almost all of it is the former. But, if it depicts people who haven’t been coerced actually enjoying themselves (rare in hardcore movies and such, I know–fiction is better in this regard), I don’t see the problem. I like porn with feminist and queer sensibilities. (I know some feminists will argue that can’t/doesn’t exist, but I have a wide definition of what I’d term porn, including erotic literature.) So if the content on amptoons.com were linking to material I didn’t find otherwise objectionable, I wouldn’t really have a problem. My site isn’t exactly safe for work as it is, what with all my nude art and general amount of foul language.

The problem is that the material being linked to I find racist, misogynistic, anti-queer, etc. Given that I am currently attempting to build a career based on feminist, queer, anti-racist writing, and given that I do use my penname as my handle on Alas and Definition, I do not want my words associated with a domain that also promotes that kind of material. I do not want that content to reflect on me or my writing, because I feel that undermines what I am trying to achieve professionally. If I left my words there, I would feel like a hypocrite, and certainly, I wouldn’t be willing to guest-post on Alas now, given the other content on Barry’s domain — not because I don’t like Alas, or Barry, but simply because it runs counter to my principles and goals at this time.

Anyway, if you’ve somehow managed to miss this whole thing, here’s some links:

The new Alas post detailing the sale of amptoons.com.
A good round-up of posts on the issue at Creative Destruction.

A long response to tekanji in this post started to take on a life of its own and get out of hand so I thought I’d just write a post instead.

So, tekanji said:

But, see, you’re setting up a strawfeminist with the “choice feminist” arguments. I’ve never seen anyone identify as a “choice feminist” but I have seen it often used to try to shut down discussion on the topic of choice before they start. And, furthermore, by the first part of your definition, people would see me as a “choice feminist” because I often say that feminism is about choice. Because, to me, it is.

(First off, I’d like to acknowledge that “choice feminism” was a very poor choice of words on my part because it was what first came to mind in trying to describe the concept I was thinking of. So, I’m retracting that statement since it was really loaded with a lot of connotations I wasn’t trying to convey and don’t agree with. Just in case you don’t read the comments on the other post.)

I think it’s disingenuous and does feminism a disservice when people say “it’s all about choice”. I am not trying to put words in tekanji’s mouth, because that’s not what she said. I am just explaining where I’m coming from on this. In fact, I’m mostly using her comment as a springboard onto a tangentially-related topic and not a direct response. Just in case that isn’t clear.

Is feminism all about choice? Just about choice? No. It’s not. That’s part of it, and an important part, but choice isn’t possible without economic and legal equality, equal rights, etc. I suppose for women like me and tekanji, choice is probably the most important aspect of our feminism because we’re very privileged, but in many parts of the world (and, hell, for many women even in the US), there isn’t a choice. You do what’s expected of you, or you may not survive. For those living under the system of oppression, there can be strong economic, legal, or social barriers preventing any choice from being possible in a very literal sense. Sometimes, it simply makes that choice more difficult, and I would argue that’s still not a “real” choice if it’s made under coercion but the two situations are enormously different.

There’s a lot of other things feminism is about too. I think the ultimate goal should be that, in the end, people can do whatever makes them happy* as individuals, where everyone has the same potential, starting from an unbiased position that doesn’t privilege certain people over others (as much as that is physically possible, which is admittedly a problem). …but this isn’t because all choices are good or that we have to honor/respect all choices. It’s because feminism is, to me, recognizing women as autonomous, individual beings who, by extension, must be allowed to make their own decisions and live their own lives with as little intervention as possible. Choice being available is really a result of the basic tenets of this attitude, which is great. My feminism includes trying to extend this attitude not simply to women, but other marginalized groups as well. Everyone deserves the same basic rights. So people need to be given the freedom to decide for themselves regardless of what others think about it, because everyone deserves the right to live on their own terms according to their priorities and what serves them best.

The problem is when the argument becomes just about choice. If feminism is reduced only to the choices women make on an individual level, ignoring the bigger issues, it becomes either incredibly judgmental or incredibly useless (or, probably, both in different ways). For example, I also believe people should have the legal freedom to say what they want, even if I think it’s harmful or wrong*. But this doesn’t mean I can’t criticize people’s speech. To me, the idea that we can’t critically examine women’s choices is much like that, or the people who claim that to be “tolerant” you can’t criticize their intolerance. If you stretch the concept too far, it becomes not only useless but also self-defeating.

BUT. I don’t think it’s okay to criticize or personally attack women for their choices. I don’t think it’s okay to make blanket statements telling all women they’re wrong for doing X. I think it’s better to suggest possible conditions which might influence people to make certain choices, to point out why certain choices could be problematic, and then step back and allow a woman to decide for herself what her priorities are, how she feels about things, and how her choices make her personally feel. And sometimes a woman will make an decision which is not feminist, but if it’s a practical matter of life or death, the last thing that woman forced into making a bad decision needs is to be judged, belittled, or demeaned.

We need to trust other people’s judgement about their own specific situations, that they do what seems best at the time or what is practically possible at the time. To assume we know better than someone else what they need to do, or what makes them happy, is not only presumptuous but antithetical to the basic goals of feminism.

So, I suppose, the big point I wanted to make here really was: is feminism about choice? Yes. But not just about choice. That’s the distinction about the attitude I was criticizing and those who believe choice is a very important facet of feminism. Choice is an abstract idea in many situations, for many people. Ideally, if everyone were in a more privileged position, choice would be all it would have to come down to. As it stands, feminism needs to be concerned with more practical concerns as well: healthcare, the wage gap, sexual violence, etc. And it simply gets worse if you’re a person of color, queer, poor, disabled; if you’re struggling to survive, or if you’re more likely to be profiled or targeted for hate crimes, or if you’re denied basic rights that other people are granted by default, those are much more immediate threats and concerns which must be dealt with before we can even begin to talk about choice.* It’s very nice place to come from if not being criticized for potentially anti-feminist decisions is the most one needs to worry about. For most people, it’s not that easy.

Footnotes:

1. Disclaimer: I don’t think it’s okay for people to choose to do things which harm other people. If your ability to be happy is contingent on doing horrible things to others, that’s a problem. So, yes, whatever a person finds fulfilling is great within what should be basic and obvious limits: doing nothing to another person without their consent, not abusing a person (or animals, for that matter) physically or emotionally, and not intentionally causing harm to someone. Unfortunately, there’s still room to argue about whether, say, BDSM is evil according to these guidelines, or abortion, but I don’t think either of them are, and that’s a debate for another time. Right. Disclaimed.

2. Another disclaimer: unless they’re actively promoting harm by trying to incite people to hurt others, or they’re sending death threats or something. Words can hurt but when it crosses the line into promoting physical violence there is a problem and I don’t think this kind of hate speech is okay. This is a slippery slope and hard to determine from a legal perspective, because if anyone’s speech is limited, everyone’s is. So I don’t like it and have no solution, but there it is.

3. This doesn’t mean we can’t talk about choice until all the world’s other problems are solved. I’m just saying it’s understandably not high on everyone’s list of priorities.

1. Why is liking to cook a gendered behavior and why is it unfeminist to take care of my house? Because, really, these are practical life skills and something that needs to be done by someone. This isn’t abstract theory. I’d be lying if I claimed there was no pressure whatsoever to take care of my house, but when I’m the only one with the free time to do it and I don’t actually mind, and if my siblings do their chores also and the boys do as much if not more housework than the girls, what exactly is the problem? Christ. You’d think wanting to eat decent home-cooked food or not wanting the kitchen to be buried in dirty dishes was some sort of crime against feminism. (And I’m not even supportive of so-called “choice feminism”!) I mean…really, people, it’s just something that needs to be taken care of, preferably by someone who doesn’t mind taking care of it.

Now when everyone else refuses to clean the litter box, that’s what pisses me off. Which reminds me…ugh.

2. Why are there no decent candidates running for…well, anything? The gubernatorial election in Colorado is specifically what I’m talking about. So there’s the Republican candidate, terrifying in most every way, and the Democrat who, true to the party line, is less evil and doesn’t seem to actually stand for anything without scowling about how he disapproves personally first (see: stance on abortion), and then there’s the Libertarian who is great on women’s issues and gay rights but is, well, Libertarian, and thus whom I cannot vote for in good conscience as the commie I am.

Okay, that’s oversimplifying. Her stance on immigration terrifies me, as does the general Libertarian philosophy regarding social welfare programs, which she definitely supports. Which brings me to the big point: all the candidates have fairly inadequate platforms regarding immigration. This is a big deal to me. I get to hear people using “immigration” as a thinly-veiled pretense for their racism every single day. “Immigration” as an excuse to ignore the complex race and class issues that are actually at the core of the matter. “Immigration” as a front to promote hate speech against not only undocumented workers, but pretty much anyone who vaguely resembles what they imagine lurks south of the border (where everything is Mexico), which includes anyone with darker skin, a Spanish-sounding last name, and/or a funny accent — because if you’re not white you must be “illegal”. No other explanation for it.

And I’m sick to death of this. Beauprez’s the worst; his website from what I’ve seen (and I didn’t linger very long) seems to be fairly tame compared to the propaganda his campaign’s been plastering all over Denver. It’s all xenophobic, reactionary hate speech. That’s all it is. At least Ritter’s only committed to enforcing the laws we already have, punishing companies who hire undocumented workers and the like, which I can support from a legal perspective even if it isn’t particularly useful or humane. (My personal opinions and proposed solutions? Maybe another time.)

I hate feeling these split loyalties. I can’t find a candidate who seems anywhere near decent on all the issues personally important to me: gay rights, women’s rights, immigration, and a general commitment to helping people in poverty you know, not starve or die from preventable illnesses and that kind of thing. The one that’s okay on the first two is terrible on the others. The one that’s more moderate on the last two is not that great on the first two. There was recently a post on the feminist community on LiveJournal urging people to vote for Winkler because she’s unabashedly pro-choice…without realizing that, for some of us affected by other issues, that’s not enough on its own. When I hear people talking about how “Mexicans are less than human” (actual quote) and about what they want to do to “those Hispanics”, you know what? Whether I, the queer Latina girl who mostly doesn’t like guys and isn’t sexually active, can get an abortion is the lesser threat to my immediate wellbeing.

3. If you have to preface a statement with “I’m not racist…” whatever comes out of your mouth next is almost certainly racist, and if not, it’s at the least going to be ignorant, poorly thought-out, problematic, or insensitive. Ditto for “I’m not sexist”, “I’m not homophobic”, etc. I know it’s been said before but it bears repeating.

3. a) If you feel the need to include someone’s race when talking about them in a situation where you would never think of attaching a racial slur if they were white, you’re racist. Sorry. (Or not. Yeah, not sorry.)

3. b) If you don’t want to be around me because you feel “judged” because I think you’re racist, maybe you shouldn’t say racist things. No, I’m not going to feel bad for leveling judgement after you just said something horribly offensive about the ethnic group I happen to, um, belong to. Especially if by “horribly offensive” I’m just trying to be polite about the fact that you just told me you want to commit what would legally constitute a hate crime.

4. Okay, I think I feel better until something else comes to mind.

5. Oh yeah, and I’m going to see the Dalai Lama speak tomorrow and that’s going to be really, really awesome. This isn’t an annoyance…unless maybe we start talking about how I feel about Tibet. I guess that’s another discussion for another time.

Okay, I normally avoid jumping on the feminist blogosphere drama bandwagon, but seriously. It’s so “nice” to know that no matter what kind of work you’ve done, how intelligent you are, or how well-respected, if you are female, you are not allowed to be taken seriously or treated with any amount of dignity:

You know, I was psyched to be invited to this lunch and was feeling pretty honored. But then things like this remind me that no matter what I do or accomplish, because I’m a young woman all I’m good for is fodder for tacky intern jokes and comments that I don’t “represent feminist values” because of the way I posed in a picture.

Pretty much. Unfortunately, it’s worse than that. If you’re an attractive young feminist you can’t be taken seriously because you’re attractive and young. But if you aren’t attractive you also can’t be taken seriously since you’re an ugly man-hating feminist, and you must only care about women’s rights because you’re not pretty and assumed to be insecure. If you’re not pretty enough you’ll get flack for not being good eyecandy no matter how thought-provoking your ideas, and if you’re too pretty you must not have anything valuable to say since we all know intelligent women are never attractive. And so on and so on.

I think someone must really have to hate women in order to think like that. I do.

PS: Since it’s my area of concern at the moment, I think I’ll post some stuff about feminism and fiction writing soon, okay?

I want to live in a world where abortion is just another medical procedure, about as morally-charged as treating a cold or getting your wisdom teeth removed.

Does a tumor have a right to life? It’s the same thing. It’s a clump of cells that siphons off your body’s resources so it can grow. Sure, sometimes a fetus is a wanted parasite, welcomed, even, and I have no issue with that. That’s great. But even when it’s wanted it can take a toll. The body sees a baby as a foreign invader and does everything it can to try to kill it off. Plenty of fertilized eggs don’t even implant. (If we take conception as the moment life begins it means lots of sexually active women have a miscarriage without even realizing it.) A tumor is alive. It has human DNA, even.

The fact is, especially early-on, it’s something that happens all the time, purposely or no. And the baby’s not really a living, thinking thing in anything other than the strictest sense — a glob of cells the size of a pencil eraser. Can you tell me removing an unwanted embryo at that stage is comparable to murder? (As an aside, I think that comparison really minimizes the gravity of murder. A person who has lived years of life is different from something that’s existed for a few weeks or months and hasn’t even experienced anything yet.) It’s not a big deal at this stage. I really believe this.

This is not a “callous” attitude and it’s not disrespect for life. I have an immense respect for all life, which is why I’m anti-war and against the death penalty and try to buy cruelty-free meat and won’t kill a freaking mosquito if I don’t have to, for god’s sake. I have respect for the life of the woman carrying the fetus. I have respect for that woman’s autonomy. And that is why I say it’s not a big deal. People kill bugs all the time and I wish they wouldn’t and it’s something I don’t do, but it’s not a big deal so I don’t try to pass legislation telling them that killing living things just because they’re “pests” is wrong and they can’t do it. Because if you don’t swat that fly, a spider will eat it or something anyway. Everything dies. Small lives are not worth more than large lives, and the converse, respectively. All life is worth immeasurably much. But it’s also not the end of the world when something dies, either, though it can feel like it.

Death is not the worst thing that can happen. Our fear of our own mortality is what makes us feel it is. If we accept that all things die, that we will die, one more death upon the billions this world is built on doesn’t seem so awful. Torture concerns me. Disregard for human rights concerns me. Destruction of the environment concerns me. Injustice concerns me. Rape concerns me. Abuse concerns me. Oppression concerns me. Genocide and murder concern me.

Against those things? A woman deciding she doesn’t want to dedicate the rest of her life to caring for another creature doesn’t really phase me. Some people can’t or don’t want to take care of pets. I respect that decision and encourage them not to purchase one. Having a child is a much heavier and deeper responsibility with lasting repercussions that impact generations of lives. I strongly encourage some people not to have kids, ever.

Mind you, I know it’s a slippery slope, and that’s why I’m not placing conditions. I don’t think one can be pro-choice with conditions or caveats. As long as the thing is still in a woman’s body, I support her right to do whatever the hell she wants with it. I don’t care how far along she is. There are circumstances that sometimes prevent a woman from getting an abortion until it’s too late, until after the point when it’s no longer legal, when their intention was never to carry it to term. I think these women should not be punished due to factors which prevented them from aborting sooner. Some people will cut off at a certain date, when they think abortion is no longer permissible, and I think this is usually arbitrary. It’s often based on exactly when that particular person thinks an embryo is human enough for its death to qualify as murder.

I think an embryo’s always human. (Now, when it becomes a person, that’s debatable.) To deny that would be silly. And abortion is always killing a living thing, but I don’t see why that’s a huge issue given the undeniable realities of physical existence — living things always die. (We cannot live without killing. Even vegans eat plants. Even if we could invent a machine to synthesize food that’s never been alive, chances are it would have an environmental impact. There’s no way around this. As far as I’m concerned, there doesn’t need to be. Curing any disease is killing something, usually millions of microscopic somethings.) Life isn’t perfect and it’s not lasting and it’s really not as huge a deal as people make it out to be. Life at all costs is a short-sighted philosophy that ignores, I think, the impact of what’s really important: quality of life.

Living life by a rigid standard of ethics, denying relativism and pragmatism entirely…it may survive some philosopher’s purely logical standard of what is absolutely morally acceptable, but what is right is not always what is Absolutely Good. Nothing can ever be perfect. Utilitarianism isn’t any better a standard than this, either, and neither is hedonism, so I’m not endorsing either. I just think what is right depends. It depends on the situation, the circumstance, the people.

All we can do is what causes the least suffering, if in fact such a thing is feasible or practical. If not, we’re not perfect and we’re not all-powerful. We just are. We’re animals with an inflated sense of self-worth and our impact on the universe around us. If a God existed, would ze care, really, what we do and do not do? Does ze care about morals and ethics, if ze is really all-knowing, unconditionally loving, all-powerful? I doubt it. Everything can be forgiven. Better yet, mistakes in an absolute moral sense don’t need to be forgiven. There’s nothing, in a great cosmic sense, wrong with them.

We participate in and condone killing every day and it’s not in the sense of cold-blooded murder, it just is. Why is this any different? There is no reason it should be different that doesn’t buy into the idea that humans are inherently superior to animals, plants, bacteria. And I honestly don’t think we are. This attitude of mine is only a disregard for life if you accept that smaller lives don’t matter. As I don’t…what’s the problem? Where is the moral dilemma?

As for my unconditional support of choice, don’t give me that I-support-abortion-but-not-as-birth-control bullshit. What else is it? It’s a form of birth control. Did you mean to say “in place of contraception”? And if so, why? What about women who can’t take hormonal birth control (my sisters, my mother, me)? What about women who can’t afford it (again, were I in a position to be having penis-in-vagina sex, probably me)? What’s the litmus test here to see if a woman is deserving? If she used multiple forms of birth control perfectly and they all failed? It’s okay then? Is it only okay once? If birth control fails twice in ten years is that okay?

You can’t know another’s circumstances. Don’t judge. It’s not up to you to decide. The choice, in all likelihood, has absolutely nothing to do with you. Keep your nose out of it.

And if it is because a woman just didn’t take precautions…just because she doesn’t want a child, even if she could afford to care for it… So? Why is a woman obligated to become a mother? Why is anybody who does not want a child for any reason obligated to have one? Aren’t there enough people in the world? Do we need more? Why is this an issue, other than as a form of control over women’s bodies, women’s lives?

I want to live in a world where a woman’s decision to have an abortion is nobody’s business. I want to live in a world where anti-choice attitudes are not the accepted norm and are instead a radical fringe philosophy that normal people find horrifying. I want to live in a world where abortion is cheap, easy to access, and available whenever a woman needs one.

That is not the world we live in now, no matter what the anti-choice propaganda says.

I’m not in a good mood, and I’m just musing and venting. I do not want to debate this, and this post is not an invitation to debate. Thank you.

I’ve been told by a couple of people that my last post was attacking strawmen because I engaged the weakest arguments to my point and ignored the better ones.

Well…maybe.

But a decent argument can stand up for itself. Is it really a strawman if people have actually tried to argue the point at length with me, and expected me to take them seriously? Does it bother anyone else that, even though the argument seems weak to you, that someone out there thought it was brilliant and can’t see the glaring problems? That someone (lots of someones!) don’t see why judging someone based on their appearance or resorting to insults rather than discussing the actual matter at hand is…well, irrelevant? Rude? Especially when people who should know better participate in it? (Because there are feminists who attack other women as “sluts” or “bimbos” and don’t see the hypocrisy when they ask not to be judged by that same standard.)

Maybe it’s the weakest argument. I think sometimes attacking weak arguments is a good thing, because obviously someone actually made it and it didn’t occur to them on its own that there were problems. If people can’t understand why the argument is weak…

Sorry I haven’t been posting more this month, all. Hopefully I’m getting quality over quantity, though. A word of advice: don’t get a pet who, in the event they should feel sick, won’t eat on their own. Especially if this pet needs to eat every few of hours throughout the day in order to live. Just saying. (She’s fine now, though. Amp can post pictures of his kids, I can post pictures of my ferret. Isn’t she cute?)

I’ve talked about this before, but it bears repeating. Basically, in the past few days on the Queer Rage community on LiveJournal, someone was banned for using the word “bitch” in a post as a synonym for “complain”…but only after being asked not to use that word, refusing, AND getting into an argument insisting that using the word isn’t misogynistic. (The post is locked, BTW.) It’s clearly stated in the rules of the forum that certain language is not permitted, and that those who use it will be asked to rephrase posts or not use it in the future, as the community is designed to be a safe space. This happens all the time in the LJ *_rage communities, because apparently people don’t actually read the rules before joining and then think people are being mean to them. I don’t really understand why anyone acts so surprised about this.

Anyway, that’s just the background for my post. See, after that, then someone else had to make a “goodbye cruel forum” post which has since been deleted (so I can’t link it), basically arguing that “it’s not words that matter, but the intent.” I see this defensive reaction a lot when people are asked to please examine their use of language and perhaps not use words which others find offensive.

While I agree that, sometimes, people unintentionally use language that can be offensive, once they have been informed that others find it hurtful, they should at least apologize. So “gay” and “lame” and “crazy” are often used as derogatory terms by people who don’t realize the history behind those words. (Especially “lame”.) Fine. Then, yes, intent is more important, and sometimes the language used does not accurately reflect it — but more often, intent is demonstrated through the word choice of the individual.

No matter what people claim their intent is, that doesn’t make it so. After all, people lie. People can say they intend whatever they like, but people prove themselves through their actions. Their actions are the only thing others have to judge their intent by. Speaking is an action. Word choice is, therefore, especially in a text-based medium, the most important indicator we have to judge a person by. If someone truly cares about the rights of oppressed groups to be treated with respect, they would understand why it’s important not to use words referring to those groups in a negative sense, even if they’re not actually referring to members of those groups.

I’ll just repeat what I said in the ensuing discussion:

I guess what it comes down to, for me, is, “Okay, so you don’t think use of this word is a big deal. If it’s not such a big deal, why do you have to defend it so hard? If it’s not a big deal, why is it so hard to just…not say it?” And I think that insistence on using words one has been informed are hurtful, just because it’s slightly easier than thinking for a couple of seconds before the words come out of your mouth, really reflects exactly the attitude that any anti-oppression work is trying to fight. “Allies” who refuse to change their use of language because it’s slightly inconvenient don’t really get a lot of respect from me. If it’s the intent that matters, not the words used (as one poster said), then…uh…I’d appreciate it if the intent was a conscious effort to be respectful expressed through language.

And that’s where I really stand when it comes to this. I have to seriously question anyone who claims to be an ally who is willing to use gender-based, anti-gay, racist, ablist, etc., slurs. (Not in a reclaimatory sense, of course. Totally different discussion.) It shows to me that these people say they care about the issues, but they aren’t willing to actually change the simplest, most basic aspects of their behavior in order to subtly combat the attitudes they claim to oppose. So many protest the idea of changing their word choice on the premise that it’s such a little thing that it shouldn’t matter. Were that true, it wouldn’t be so hard to refrain from saying certain things in company you don’t wish to alienate whom you know will not appreciate it.

The other thing which usually comes up when issues some deem “trivial” come up, is that someone has to invariably try to imply that anyone who cares about it obviously doesn’t have anything better or more important to do with their time. I find that usually the opposite is true. The more you care about anti-oppression work, the easier it becomes to see all manifestations of it, even the small ones. Does anyone honestly think that just because I want to discuss word choice, or issues which may seem trivial but which do actually impact people on an everyday, practical level (like the posts about grooming and makeup), that I somehow don’t care about bigger issues, like the war? Worse, it’s argued that paying attention to small manifestations of an oppressive society somehow detract from the larger struggle — it sets up a false dichotomy, an opposition which isn’t even there.

Fighting against little things is important, too. There needs to be a balance.