Happy Columbus Day.

The guy and I almost went to protest the parade on Saturday, but, well, the timing of the protest was unfortunately early in the morning, especially for those of us who would have to commute down to Denver.

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.

Whenever the topic of using non-offensive language comes up, someone invariably objects on one of two grounds:

1. I’m somehow impinging upon their freedom of speech.

This one is ridiculous since making suggestions about how to more politely communicate their points, especially to people who claim to care about anti-oppression work (which is really who my writing is targeted at — if I realize someone doesn’t care I’m not really going to bother explaining why racism, etc. is bad), is very different from me somehow forcing them not to use those words, which I clearly don’t have the ability to do. And I’m not threatening violence on someone who disagrees with me, which is more than I can say for some of the anti-feminists who’ve left comments on my blog. I’m also not going to go and actively harass other people online with whom I disagree until they change their opinions/language, which is also more than can be said for some people. They can say things if they really want to. I just don’t necessarily respect that choice of words. Just because I think everyone should be allowed to express an opinion doesn’t mean I have to agree.

Contrary to what some seem to believe, I highly value freedom of speech. Believe me, as someone who wants to pursue a professional career in writing, I appreciate the ideal probably more than most people will ever have a real reason to. (Being locked up or killed for publishing something the government doesn’t agree with? Yeah, that would be pretty bad and I’m glad that I’ll hopefully never have to deal with that. Being told by some random person on LiveJournal that you’ve offended them? Not so much.) But freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism, and freedom of speech is also responsibility for the words that one uses. I will call people on offensive language, language that hurts or demeans or perpetuates harmful attitudes and stereotypes — including my allies. People need to take responsibility for their actions, and that includes their words. Words are a powerful tool and people are sometimes entirely too careless with them. I “misinterpreted” you? That’s “not what you meant”? Say what you actually mean, then. Or try to, and if I still misinterpret you, clarify.

I have a firm belief that people need to actually say what they mean, rather than resorting to slang and curse words and hoping that people understand their intent and sympathize with it. It’s lazy at best, and that’s my non-judgmental assessment of the behavior.

2. There are no other words in the English language that will suffice except for those which are horribly offensive.

I’ve heard it all. Apparently “if we took out all the words in the English language that people find offensive we wouldn’t have any useful adjectives, adverbs, or nouns”. (Not an exactly word-for-word quote, but paraphrasing a sentiment I’ve seen more than once on various forums.) Besides being totally hyperbolic, I think that if people’s vocabulary is so limited that they can’t find any other words to describe a woman they don’t like besides “bitch”, that they either don’t have a very good grasp of language (which is unfortunate but not an excuse) or they aren’t particularly imaginative. Expressing this judgment has hurt some feelings, but I stand by it, because the English language has lots and lots of words in it. Use them.

You don’t need to call someone “crazy” and further stigmatize the mentally ill. There are already words which connote that someone is making an illogical argument, or a fallacious statement. You don’t need to call someone a “bimbo” or a “slut” since those are value judgments quite often based on someone’s appearance or dress and thus shouldn’t be relevant anyway. Et cetera. Lather, rinse, repeat. There are probably hundreds of different ways to express your ideas in equally powerful language that doesn’t have the side-effect of insulting others or expressing misogynistic, racist, etc., attitudes.

The other side of this argument is really what I want to get at: people argue that they simply have to insult people in order to adequately express themselves. You see, they have a need to assume that a woman is a “slut” or has an eating disorder just from looking at her. It’s absolutely integral to their argument against Ann Coulter that they make assumptions about her physical sex (namely, implying that she’s post-op MtF, because being trans is the worst thing in the world or something); it’s not enough that she’s a hypocrite who doesn’t bother to actually research anything she talks about. Similarly, one simply cannot discuss Hillary Clinton’s politics without bringing in unfounded assumptions about her sexual orientation. It’s totally central to the argument. It is, after all, impossible to actually discuss a person based on their ideas or actions. No one can do that. We need those words. We need to be able to make unfounded judgments and insult people rather than encourage critical thought.

Also, some people seem to argue that they need to be able to use “gay” or “retarded” as a synonym for “stupid”. Actually communicating why you disliked a movie, perhaps found it dull, is impossible. There’s this ephemeral quality to something that makes it “gay” that merely saying “this subject doesn’t interest me” doesn’t quite capture. Something transcending mere disinterest, dislike, or frustration.

People have an unalienable right to be insulting for no reason, with no actual relevance to the sentiment they’re expressing, just because they can, without being questioned about it. This, truly, is the American Dream. The ideal the founding fathers meant to capture when they penned the US constitution was obviously that people be able to make insulting and pejorative remarks at any time with no repercussions, because the only way to actually communicate is through direct and indirect ad hominem attacks. Freedom of speech isn’t about protecting those who disagree with the government or popular ideals. It’s just about people’s right to be insulting.

Uh huh. Okay. Forgive me my lack of sympathy for the fact that already put-upon people would like it if you stopped making their lives and identities synonymous with whatever negative concept you’re trying to express. Somehow I think you can survive.

Apparently, Ally Work is hosting a carnival to erase racism. I didn’t know about this until now, since I’m apparently really bad at keeping up with these things. But there you have it. Good idea, hosted by some awesome people.

Where I live, race and immigration issues seem much more pressing than anything else at the moment. So I apologize for my lack of things strictly related to feminism, because this is more immediately important to me.

I have been talking to people at work and apparently, Colorado police are randomly checking people on the highway near Denver to make sure they have proper documentation, etc. If they aren’t citizens or legal immigrants they’re being arrested. (I can’t find a news article to verify this, since supposedly the local media doesn’t want to talk about it. But since I know several different people who witnessed this I assume it’s in some way true.) Add this to the fact that the federal government has taken an interest in holding legally accountable the companies which hire undocumented workers, and all I can do is wonder why, if this is such a pressing issue, law enforcement has waited so long to actually do anything about it. I suspect pressure from the companies who benefit from cheap labor has kept the government complacent on the issue.

What’s going to happen to these people who have been arrested in Colorado? Allegedly, they’ll be held at the expense of the federal government until the state can convince it to ship them back over the border. Their property will be seized and auctioned off. They’ll be charged for forging documents and whatever else, and subject to harsher punishments if they come back — ever. They may no longer have a legal avenue to try to immigrate, either. And that’s harsh, but it isn’t my biggest worry. What concerns me most here is that they might not be given access to lawyers, etc., because the police see the issue as: they are not US citizens and not protected by the Bill of Rights. I think this is wrong. I also think it’s important to make it easier for these people to come to the US legally, or to work with the people who are already here rather than simply send them away.

I’m ambivalent even as I’m getting flashes of fascism. While this approach to make sure people are legally in the US may seem draconian and kind of scary, I understand the point and I think, all other concerns aside, that this is a perfectly rational legal approach. (Rational does not mean humane. Rational does not mean morally justifiable. Rational does not mean right.) I don’t think it will actually do anything to solve the problem, but I certainly think enforcing the law and just sending illegal immigrants home is preferable to the “Minuteman” approach where it’s somehow acceptable to shoot random people on sight to protect the purity of our Aryan nation or something. I think any attempt to resolve this issue through law enforcement is really the way to go — and to hear about it being handled from that perspective rather than the alternative is, sadly, a relief. From a legal perspective, I understand why the government doesn’t want undocumented people just wandering around, especially with fears of terrorism. (Is this attitude justified? I don’t know; I think it’s complicated. But I understand the argument.)

The legal issues surrounding illegal immigration which really concern me are thus:

Identity theft and fraud. When people are forced to immigrate without the proper legal channels some of them end up forging IDs and stealing social security numbers in order to work. Identity theft is a huge issue right now, and this makes it even worse. Some of these people are illegally buying houses and cars using other people’s information and while, yes, they’re certainly entitled to and require these things, they can’t do so at the expense of other people. I think this needs to be treated just as it would be if the people committing the crime were US citizens. Obviously, it needs to be addressed. There are already laws for this. We should enforce those instead of making more useless xenophobic legislation that doesn’t deal with the real issues.

Then there’s the issue of tax fraud — which some companies who knowingly hire undocumented workers are committing. (I don’t know that this is the majority of cases, but it does happen. More information and some numbers at The Tax Foundation Blog.) I believe that everyone deserves the work, has the right to work, but I understand why the government would not be pleased with this. Again, if the government cares about this issue, the law should to be enforced. For some reason, all of the sudden, that’s happening. Great. Law enforcement gets around to doing its job. I hear that the executives of these companies are being taken to court, which is good. I think that’s where the responsibility lies, not with the workers, but with upper management. Corporate corruption is an issue which extends even beyond this, but this is one part of it.

I think any excuse the government gives on why it needs to be able to constantly track everyone in the US at all times is total bull — so there goes any legal argument about strict documentation. But these others are, I think, legitimate concerns from a practical standpoint. These are also concerns which are not limited to immigrants — these are legal issues which need to be dealt with anyway, but sometimes the circumstances which make people desperate to enter this country also make them desperate enough to commit related crimes. These are the only legal issues which I can think of which are actually a justifiable concern instead of simply stereotyping or being blatantly xenophobic.

Of course, it’s technically illegal for them to be here and technically illegal to hire them, those who cry, “BUT THEY BROKE THE LAW!” are quick to remind us. Sometimes laws are good. Some laws protect our safety or property. Just because something is illegal doesn’t mean by default that it’s good or bad. Laws are in themselves meaningless. So, yes, it’s breaking the law. Unless there’s other laws being broken which are more serious crimes I don’t understand why this law should be such a big deal.

The problem is that…well, the people making the legislation to deal with the issue aren’t thinking about it this way. They’re appealing instead to xenophobic nationalism. More than that, these are people who casually talk about murder and massive human rights violations as if they’re perfectly acceptable.

Entering the country illegally is a crime, but it is not a death sentence.

Should people be executed trespassing? Would anyone suggest that as an appropriate punishment for someone born in this country?

People should not be allowed to die in the desert. They should not be gunned down at the border. I can’t believe that some politicians approve of these ideas as if they’re good ones. (Well, I actually can believe it, and that’s where I despair.)

They shouldn’t be employed for below minimum wage slave labor, either.

We need to look at the real issues: why are people so desperate that they’re willing to risk death to get here, with only shitty jobs and a whole lot of resentment from the locals as their reward? This isn’t a decision anyone makes lightly. These people are desperate, and what they find here may help a little, but it doesn’t really improve that.

I think the only way to solve this, actually fix the problems at the root of the matter, is to allow more people to immigrate through the proper legal channels. How much would the US economy improve if we allowed more people to enter the country legally in order to work at safe, decently-paying jobs? What the employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers are doing is bad for everyone concerned. It’s bad for the US economy, the US government, and the Mexican workers.

But it’s so much easier to be reactionary. It’s so much easier to appeal to nationalism or racial prejudice than to actually look at these people as people and try to understand why they’re doing what they’re doing, and plan accordingly. It’s going to happen anyway, and if we make it impossible, people will still die trying. What can we do to make it safe, economically beneficial, and legal?

Read the rest of this entry »

(Warning: rhetorical questions ahead!)

How can one honestly and not at all disingenuously say, “color doesn’t matter; we’re all just people” in the same breath as they then proceed to make a horribly racist statement or three?

Do people honestly not think about what they’re saying…like, ever? Do these people even listen to their own blatant hypocrisy as they proceed to spew privilege everywhere?

I mean, damn, obviously you do think race matters — namely, that you’re entitled to all kinds of special benefits that other people aren’t because you’re white. Don’t pretend you feel otherwise. Racism is only bad when its side-effects or attempts to eradicate it negatively impact you, huh? Otherwise the benefits you get are clearly only because of your naturally superior personality…

Please stop being racist.

Just stop.

I know you think my skin’s just dark enough to look like I tan well, but I’m not white, and I don’t think it’s hard to figure that out. My name, for one, should be a fucking clue. Do you people honestly think that just because my skin’s not too brown for you that means I’ll happily eat up your racist bullshit? Because that’s how it seems to be. Hell knows I have no real idea what’s going on in your heads, because ya’ll seem to be stupid, even those of you who should know better.

I’m not from Mexico. I was born in Utah. I don’t speak Spanish. My grandfather was from Guatemala, that country in Central America that apparently doesn’t exist, because everything south of Texas is fucking Mexico to you.

But my name is a Spanish one. My hair and skin are brown. I have the short stature and figure of a Latin American mestizo, because that’s what I am and where I come from. I’m not tall and thin like an anglo girl; I have the short, thick bones and wide hips of the Mayan women my grandfather came from on one side, the other being the European, yes, European despite their language, conquistadores who gave me my name.

And, despite being raised in the white Mormon cultural vacuum that is Utah, I’m aware of it. You want to know why?

You are the people who can’t remember my last name, unable to spell it correctly even when I tell you how to your damn face, substituting my surname for whatever generic Spanish name comes to mind at the time.

You are the people who put me in the lowest academic classes when I transferred to school in Colorado, apparently assuming from my name that I was one of the many ESL students without even bothering to look at my fucking transcript, because if you had you would have seen that I was supposed to be in the advanced classes. And then you did it to my little sister when she went to middle school, too — making the same mistake two years in a row, which took a total of months of everyone’s life to resolve, again and again and again.

You are the people who assume I don’t speak English, or that I’m uneducated or incapable of being educated, that I’m less than human and unworthy of respect because my last name didn’t come from English or German or whatever other European languages seem more acceptable to you. And if I’m not subhuman I’m a demographic, oh, glee.

And you know what?

You may think that you’re only talking about undocumented Mexican workers when you say racist shit to my face, but you’re the same people who think that we’re all one homogenous group. Hell, you could at least pretend to be concerned about illegal immigration in general, since Mexico isn’t the only place that people come from — so when you only talk about “those people” with brown skin from further South than makes you comfortable, it’s pretty obvious you don’t actually care about the immigration issue. It’s just an excuse, because you’re fucking racist.

When you talk about those “Hispanics” taking all the jobs, it’s pretty fucking obvious this isn’t about immigration — it’s about language and culture and surnames and that which allows you to identify them without knowing anything more, skin. It’s about skin. Because you assume that an entire continent and a half is all Mexico, all immigrants, all illegal. Even those of us who are born here, even those who have lived here for generations longer than your families.

So when you say all these things, it seems pretty clear to me…that you’re talking about me, and forgive me if I find that pretty fucking offensive. Forgive me if that makes me defensive.

When you say that Mexicans are subhuman (and, literally, some of you have actually said this to my fucking face), you’re hurting me. When you talk about how “those people” are taking over and “ruining” “your” country, you’re hurting me. When you say that illegal immigrants deserve no legal rights or protections whatsoever, by extension, you include anyone Latino, you include anyone with a Spanish last name, even those of us here legally, even those of us born here, even those of us with skin pale enough to please you — because you don’t know us. You don’t know who we are, or how or why we’re here, and you all use rudimentary and, frankly, stupid measures to identify us.

So what reaction do you think you’re going to get from me? Why does it surprise you when my feelings are hurt and when it makes me angry? I’m not from Mexico and I’m a US citizen and I don’t speak Spanish — but I’m still going to be fucking personally offended when you say that shit, because people see my name and they automatically lump me into those categories. All. The. Damn. Time. I don’t care if you don’t realize it. I don’t care if you don’t think that about me, personally. I don’t care if I’m white enough that it doesn’t register in your egocentric anglo mind that my feelings as a mutt are going to be hurt. I don’t care, I don’t care, I don’t care.

This is still who I am, and I’m acutely aware of it. It’s your privilege not to have to think. It’s your privilege to plead ignorance, or to claim that’s not what you meant, or that you’re not including me because I’m somehow special and worthy of being elevated to “human” status.

America is a nation of mutts and immigrants and their children. You white people don’t get off talking about how those immigrants are ruining “your” country, because it wasn’t “yours” until you took it, and I think the ruining thing was pretty much all your fault to begin with. (And I’ve got colonial invaders from all over the world in my past, Spanish America, British India and Africa, and who knows where else — but I kind of accept that my ancestors were responsible for that and that I benefit from it.) Your families all came here from somewhere else, and apparently that’s all fine and dandy for you because your names aren’t Spanish and you don’t have indigenous Latin American blood to darken your skin. Why is it different for us? Why don’t we get the benefit of the doubt in the land of opportunity?

I’m not a good little queer, who shuts up and doesn’t trouble you with my existence. I’m not a complacent little bitch who puts up and puts out and takes being treated as anything less than a man would be. I’m not a baby-making machine or a sex object, and I’m not a heterosexual man’s pornographic bisexual fantasy. Given that, I’m not going to be a nice little mestizo, a quiet little mutt, a properly hidden and assimilated Latina to make myself palatable to you, either.

Love, Julie

PS: And you know what else?

My grandmother on the other side was a Mexican immigrant who never became a US citizen. And. She was Anglo. She was from Utah Mormons, from English nobility and German ancestry, totally, completely, thoroughly white. You see, in order for Utah to become a state they had to outlaw polygamy, so my great-great-grandfather and his three or four wives packed up and moved to a Mormon colony in Chihuahua where it was still against the law but no one cared, and they stayed there for generations until they ran out of nice anglo boys to marry their daughters off to.

I’ll bet that blows your narrow little mind. This is what happens when you define a whole country, a whole continent, a plethora of cultures and languages and racial backgrounds, as one homogenous being.

This is what happens: things don’t fit. Reality doesn’t conform to expectation.

Do you like irony as much as I do?

“Privilege” is a word much bandied-about in the online feminist and pro-feminist community. What it means varies depending on the context in which it’s used: white privilege, male privilege, class privilege, hetero privilege. Sometimes these various forms of privilege intersect, and sometimes people are privileged in some ways but oppressed in others.

What does it mean, in the most basic sense, to be a recipient of social privilege, in any or all of these areas? What, exactly, are these privileges that the privileged party receives?

First and foremost, I think, is the privilege to self-define and to define others. Oppressed people do not have the power to insist that they be labeled and perceived as they are by society at large; instead they are stereotyped. Individuality is a privilege that powerful groups can claim. Privilege is invisible to those who have it; therefore being privileged, that group is seen as the default: white, male, heterosexual, gender-normative, middle class. Anyone who varies from this mold is “Other”. They are marked as Different. Different people are defined by what they are not: the so-called “normal”, the “average”. Being defined by what they are not, rather than what they are, the Other is defined in narrow and confining terms.

This can be seen in representation in the media. A white man in a movie is just a man. He could be anybody. He is the Everyman. A black man in a movie can’t just be anybody, no, he’s the Black Man; he cannot be made the universal protagonist because he is something Different, with Different concerns and Different history and Different thoughts than what is the “average” white experience. (Nevermind that any actual differences in life experience between a white man and a black man are mostly due to the fact that a white man benefits from privilege — this is why it is invisible. It’s not that the black man is inherently different as a human being, it’s that the average white man is utterly oblivious as to how or why his life is easier; it’s not the black man’s fault if the white man can’t relate to him.)

A woman can’t be just anybody. She is defined in relation to her heterosexual interactions with men, real or hypothetical. Women are defined as the mothers of men’s children, or an objects with the purpose of men’s aesthetic, romantic, or sexual appreciation. She is somebody’s mother or somebody’s love interest, and if she is neither she is considered remarkable only in that she rejects these stereotypes. A man can be a father or a love interest, and he can be neither, but he is still a man. A female character who does not fit the traditional roles is usually referred to by her similarity to men — because if she does not fit the role of the Other, the things which men are not (or not supposed to be), then she must be aspiring to the Default. She must be trying to be like a man.

One queer character in a story makes the story “gay”. It is assumed that all characters are straight, and any representation at all is cause for outrage and alarm among some conservatives. Even acknowledging the existence of people who are not heterosexual threatens their viewpoint that homosexuality is an immoral aberration. Anyone who defies the heteronormative conception of gender has their gender taken from them: gay men are characterized as inherently effeminate and lesbians as inherently masculine, or even as non-women, non-men, asexual creatures without identity.

It must be said that, by defining the oppressed as what the privileged are not, the privileged are certainly hurt, too. These narrow categories of “normal” and “deviant” limit the self-expression of everyone — but, though it certainly hurts, this is another privilege in and of itself: the privileged person has a chance to fall from grace. Certainly, yes, being subject to cruelty for failing to live up to what one “should” be is terrible, but what is at the root of this?

At the root of it is the fact that the privileged party is now being treated like the Other, and ze is not reacting well to that indignity. A man enraged at being treated like a woman is still drawing from a misogynistic attitude — otherwise, what should be the problem? If women were not perceived to be weaker or less then men, why should it be so upsetting to bear the same burden they do? Being perceived to not be what one “should” is essentially a problem of Othered groups being stereotyped as exactly what the privileged are not.

This is why racism is everybody’s problem, why sexism is men’s problem too, why homophobia should also be a heterosexual concern. This leads to my next point:

Ignorance is a privilege. Being able to ignore the oppression of others is a privilege. It is a privilege to be unaware of or unconcerned with one’s own privileged status. It is a privilege not to experience the same things as other groups, and so, be able to discount others’ specific concerns. Simply because one does not personally experience or see the same things others do does not mean that those things do not exist.

It is a privilege to be able to believe that others’ subjective accounts of their own experience are not valid: women aren’t subject to sexism, instead, they’re “overreacting” or being “emotional”; queers are “flaunting their sexuality”; people of color are “playing the race card”; the poor are “lazy” and simply need to “work harder”; fat people “have no self-control”; everyone is “asking for it” by daring to defend their rights and dignity, or simply by virtue of being who they are.

This is why a white gay man can be racist, people of color can be homophobic, the feminist movement has historically been both of these things, and none of these groups tend to recognize the concerns of those who are not able-bodied. (And there I go, defining a group by what is it not. “Disabled” and “handicapped” seem like a ruder way of saying the same thing; does anybody who knows more about this than me know a better word?) A person privileged in some areas and disadvantaged in others is still capable of ignoring the existence or effects of hir own privilege, even when ze ought to know better. If oppression does not effect someone personally, most people tend to ignore it, believe it doesn’t exist, or think that the oppressed are lying about the extent of their oppression.

Marginalized people do not have the luxury of believing that their own experiences are not real, are imagined, are a simple misunderstanding or a fluke. It is a privilege to be free of these experiences and so able to dismiss them as legitimate or valid or logical.

Because ignorance of others’ oppression is a benefit of privilege, privilege is ignorant and in denial of its own existence.

This is, at the root, at the most basic level, what is means to have privilege: it is a sense of entitlement, a sense of superiority, and it is the sense that one’s own life experience is the most accurate measure of the state of the world. It is the idea that one’s own problems are the only and most pressing problems. It is the idea that one’s life and attitudes are the norm and all variations are simple errors that ought to be corrected. It is the idea that other people must be what you think they ought to be, tailored to your preferences and needs to be complimentary to you, what you need, what you want, what you are not, and that those who do not fulfill this purpose are doing you real harm by being themselves rather than your fantasy of them. It is massively egocentric and dismissive of others as only privilege allows.

In reality it becomes more complicated. The way that this is expressed in the real world is reinforced by racist, classist, sexist institutions which give very real benefits to the privileged at the expense of the oppressed. Because the white heterosexual middle-class man is “normal”, therefore “good”, everyone else has to work extra hard in order to be the same, or to conform to his expectations — however, becoming what one is not is impossible, and so women, people of color, etc., etc., will never be quite “good” enough. At most they are pretenders. They are still Other. At best they are seen as imitating the Default, at worst they are seen as dangerous and revolutionary and out of their place.

That is what I mean when I use this word.

Let me first begin by saying that I do not consider myself to be “politically correct“. The term is laughable; it’s a pejorative term coined by conservatives to argue against the concept itself, and so I think it’s unfortunate that there are liberals who accept the usage of the phrase without considering where it comes from or why it originated. In using the term at all, we are allowing our opponents to frame the debate and to define it. This is not in any way an effective political strategy (and, on a small US political tangent, exactly the reason why I dislike the Democratic party so intensely).
It has the connotation that people are somehow being “forced” (either by law or social disapproval) to curb their freedom of speech in order to avoid offending others, which is ridiculous and a lie. The oppressed people and the small minority of privileged allies aware of their status who insist on use of respectful language within their own circle do not have the power to “force” anyone to agree with them. We do not have the numbers to “force” anything legally in a democratic society, and forgive me for being skeptical about the claim that society at large has any concern for the feelings of the oppressed.

Beyond the connotations and history of the term which disincline me to make use of it, I do not see why it should be a bad thing to consciously attempt to use language with which marginalized people are more comfortable. There is no defensible or noble reason for purposely using offensive language in an effort to offend. The reason usually given is one of convenience — it is more trouble to be at least a little polite and respectful to others than it is to be a complete asshole. It is too much effort for those in a position of social and hierarchical privilege to acknowledge the feelings of others. At best, this excuse is simply rude, and at worst, inexcusably cruel.

This is the only real reason I can see for opposing the concept of using the language others prefer to describe themselves. It is because people want to avoid looking at their own privilege. It is because people are cruel, and sexist, and racist, and otherwise hold every other type of prejudice imaginable. (Too many to list.) I think that the majority of people are ignorant and also unfortunately fond of loudly expressing themselves, so that they see any attempt to gently inform them of the effects their words have as an attempt to force them to abdicate their freedoms. And I think that there exist those, thankfully fewer in number, with more malevolent reasons, people who sincerely understand what they are doing and continue to want to hurt others despite it.

When you say “I’m sick of being PC”, what you’re saying is “I’m sick of treating others as equals”. When you say “It’s so much trouble to make sure I’m not offending someone” what you’re saying is “It’s too much trouble to be kind”. (And when you say “I hate that everyone’s trying so hard to be ‘fair’ to every group out there”, you’re not only being totally horrible, but obviously living in a delusional alternate universe, but that’s neither here nor there.)

No no expects anyone to always know the answers. I admit that I may not be aware of certain aspects of my use of language, so if I unintentionally use discriminatory or offensive language, I expect to be called on it. This is how we learn. It’s a process of trial and error, and I understand better than anyone that it is embarrassing to realize that you are wrong, or to be called on a self-righteous manifestation of privilege, and that this is often expressed in the form of an indignant “Well you didn’t have to jump all over me!”

At the same time, it’s nobody’s responsibility to educate me. I will work hard to try and understand these issues, because I am interested in being a more-or-less compassionate and fair human being. The rights and dignity of others are far more important than my own self-conscious desire to appear all-knowing and infallible.

This is in no way an effort to force others to agree with me or conform with my worldview; in all honesty, some of the people I insist on showing respect to would not return the favor. I am not attempting to tell others what they can and cannot say; it would be nice if other people agreed with my priorities and sympathized with my opinions. I believe in absolute freedom of speech, but also that decent people should have a few limits on what they will allow themselves to say. And freedom of speech is not freedom from critical analysis, freedom from criticism, freedom from opposition.

Freedom of speech is also a responsibility. Since I have the power to say whatever I like, I also have the responsibility to say things that I think are well-reasoned and respectful. This does not mean that I will not argue, will not disagree, will not pass judgment. This does not mean that I will not express ideas which many people probably find offensive, radical, or objectionable. It simply means I will try to express these ideas while avoiding any unnecessary use of terms purposely designed to marginalize or misrepresent already oppressed people.

Anyone who is remotely interested in justice and human rights needs to adopt the same attitude. And those who claim not to care at least need to understand the horrific gravity of what they are saying.

…wait, yes, they have, and it didn’t work then, either.

Discussions on race with most people tend to really, really disturb me. It’s creepy how little people seem to actually know about history — and if they do know about history, they seem incapable of making the connection to the present day. So that the rest of you thinking people can share in my total bewilderment, I present some brief examples of this thinking in action, courtesy of the scary people I’ve talked to on a perfectly average day at work:

Statement 1: Those damn Mexicans, taking our American jobs BLAH BLAH BLAH

My Reaction: Yeah! And don’t forget those filthy Irish immigrants, taking all the underpaid, unsafe factory jobs that Americans don’t want! This is just like the Industrial Revolution! We should send them all back to Ireland! Or Mexico! Wherever!

…yeah, whatever. Blame everything on the popular scapegoat at the time. Same old. This has only been happening in the US since the country was founded. Immigration happens. Get over it.

Statement 2: We ought to round up all those Muslims and lock them up! Damn terrorists.

My Reaction: ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? World War II, anyone? Does ANYONE remember WWII? You know, that little part where Asian-American citizens were rounded up and put into internment camps and they lost their jobs and their rights and they were beaten and killed and malnourished, and it’s only, oh, recognized as one of the most horrible things that’s ever happened in this country, ever? Something that most people now universally recognize was evil and wrong and totally unwarranted?

WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THE EXACT SAME THING. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU??

Statement 3: Racism would go away if people stopped making a big deal about it. OR, racism doesn’t exist anymore.

My Reaction: See statements 1 & 2 and then shut the hell up.

Statement 4: Damn Mexicans! We need to build a wall across the border so that they can’t sneak in!

My Reaction: Great idea. That’ll totally work. And we totally have the money to spend on that, too, since our government isn’t, like, bankrupt or anything. Why don’t you go quit your job and do that? And then, why don’t you go toil in a field somewhere for pennies an hour since we won’t have anyone else willing to do it? HAVE FUN. Or, alternately, why don’t you go buy free trade organic whatever and complain about how much stuff costs when people actually get paid for their work. Oh, but you don’t want to spend more? Thought not.

Statement 5: Those people in the Middle East are filthy and uncivilized pigs and BLAH BLAH BLAH

My Reaction: The savages! We’d better invade and civilize them with our Christianity! That’s totally worked throughout history!

Oh, wait, you think we just ought to nuke all them? BRILLIANT IDEA! Nuclear winter ROCKS!

…no, seriously, what the hell is wrong with you that you’d make that kind of statement?

Oh, and one final note: Just because you think I look white doesn’t mean I am, and it doesn’t mean I’m not going to call you on your racist bullshit. Just, yanno, saying.