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.

I usually like Dan Savage, but he has the tendency to say really stupid offensive things about a) the female body and how disgusting cunnilingus/vaginas/etc are and b) bisexuality. From this week’s column:

Very few bisexual women wind up “sharing their lives” with other women; like most bisexuals, male and female, you are in—or were in—a stable, loving, committed, opposite-sex relationship. And, hey, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m a fan of stable, loving, committed, opposite-sex relationships. Really. And I no longer believe that most bisexuals wind up in them because you’re all liars and cheats, or that you’re all dying to access societal perks reserved for heterosexuals, or that you’re all cowards and it’s hard out here for a homo. I think most bisexuals wind up in heterosexual relationships because most bisexuals are mostly hetero. You may be physically attracted to both sexes, but most of you can only fall in love with an opposite-sex partner.

Yes, yes—there are some bi guys out there with guys and bi girls with girls. But they are the exceptions to the rule, and there’s nothing bi-phobic about calling attention to their rarity. And before angry bisexuals start pounding away at their keyboards, consider this: My current position on bisexuals winding up with opposite-sex partners (you’re mostly straight) is a hell of a lot more charitable than my previous position (you’re cowards, liars, cheats, etc.).

First of all, this has almost nothing to do with the letter he’s answering.

Second, yes, Dan, this is extraordinarily biphobic. You are denying the validity of the bisexual identity. Just because you’re not as incredibly ignorant as you were once upon a time doesn’t mean this attitude is acceptable.

Okay, let’s look at some facts:

1. Anywhere from 1-10% of the population is homosexual. (Depending on the study you trust.)

2. This makes finding an opposite-sex partner much easier than finding a same-sex partner if you are attracted to both. It’s a matter of population proportion.

3. Many homosexual people such as yourself tend to be prejudiced about dating bisexuals. As a matter of fact, you have given advice to monosexual people NOT to date bisexuals for a variety of bigoted and ignorant reasons in the past. (Your proposed solution, that bisexuals only date other bisexuals, would be wonderful for some of us if that were a practical attitude to take given the relatively small number of bisexuals in society.)

4. Given that it is statistically easier to find a heterosexual partner and that many homosexuals are distrustful of bisexuals and don’t wish to date them, I think it makes sense that many bisexual people end up with opposite sex partners.

5. I’m not straight. I’m not even “mostly” straight. (And what is that distinction, anyway? All I can think of is The Princess Bride. “He’s mostly dead, not ALL dead. Mostly dead is still partly alive.”) I’m a big huge dyke who happens to occasionally meet people of the male persuasion with whom the idea of romantic involvement doesn’t strike me as unpleasant. That said, I never seem to meet any nice lesbians so I guess I’m stuck. Maybe if I move to Boulder, huh?

I don’t care if this attitude is a slight improvement over the things you’ve previously written. And I don’t think it’s whining to point out that, as far as non-monosexual orientations go (because bisexual, straight, and gay aren’t the only options), you’re an ignorant asshole.

That is all.

Blogging against heteronormativity!

From Wikipedia:

Heteronormativity is a term used in the discussion of sexual behavior, gender, and society, primarily within the fields of queer theory and gender theory. It is used to describe (and frequently to criticize) the manner in which many social institutions and social policies are seen to reinforce certain beliefs.

These include the belief that human beings fall into two distinct and complementary categories, male and female; that sexual and marital relations are normal only when between two people of different genders; and that each gender has certain natural roles in life. Thus, physical sex, gender identity, and gender roles should in any given person align to either all-male or all-female norms, and heterosexuality is considered to be the only normal sexual orientation. The norms this term describes or criticizes might be overt, covert, or implied. Those who identify and criticize heteronormativity say that it distorts discourse by stigmatizing alternative concepts of both sexuality and gender and makes certain types of self-expression more difficult.

I have an anecdote to share: my ten-year-old brother, sweet, perceptive child that he is, one day remarked as we were watching commercials on TV, “Why do they only show straight couples?” (Sort of like the time he asked why human beings are called “man” and “mankind” since we’re not just made of men — yes, my siblings are pretty awesome.)

“That’s called heterocentrism,” I replied. “Being straight is all you see because it’s what everyone is assumed to be.”

“That’s stupid,” he said.

I agree.

Another anecdote: in my fiction, several of my central characters in my ongoing projects are queer. I don’t know how many times I’ve had parents/older authority figures/whoever ask me why “all my stories are gay”.

My stories aren’t all gay. Some of my stories don’t have any queer characters at all, some only have a few. The ones in which queer characters are the main ones are of course going to have a greater emphasis on and representation of queers — because we tend to like to make friends with at least some others who share our concerns and experiences. I think I overall have a 50-50 split in my representation of straight vs. gay characters. Perhaps not even that; my trans characters in my novel are technically straight girls, GLBT or not.

People ask me why I’m into slash and why I “choose to write gay love stories”.

Why do straight people choose to write about straight characters?

Everything I read is about straight people. I have been known to be subject to the occasional bout of heterosexual attraction; I think male/female couples are perfectly good writing material. (Even better than straight ones, though, are queer male/female couples. Just because you’re in a “straight” partnership doesn’t mean the individuals participating aren’t queer. Bi and pansexuals do exist. Sometimes, pretty fucking rarely unless they’re in the closet, homosexuals date people of the opposite sex, even — though I think lesbians seem to be more flexible on this point. Heteronormative assumptions strike again!)

Science fiction isn’t queer enough. It’s probably more queer than a lot of other genres barring stuff specifically aimed at a queer market. Speculative fiction that isn’t just science-based tends to be slightly more fabulous…but, still…

I write what I want to read. No one else is going to, so I should, right?

But it’s not “normal”. It’s not the “default”. Writing a book about a gay man suddenly makes me “weird”.

Why?

I am one of those people with the ability to read gay subtext into absolutely anything. (If queer media were prevalent enough, to be fair, I’d probably read straight subtext into that, too.) Half the movies I watch end up with me proclaiming how I think a character is gay or has a thing for another character of the same sex. I’ve read whole books secretly hoping a same-sex couple hooks up in the end, conveniently trying to ignore or downplay any heterosexual entanglements of which I am not fond. I played Kingdom Hearts and its sequel because of my desperate belief that Sora and Riku were meant to be with each other even though the love triangle actually involves their mutual crushes on the girl character, whom I despise (or, well, I did until the end of KH2, but that’s another story) and try to pretend doesn’t exist.

If the possibility isn’t explicitly precluded by the plot, or if I don’t like the male/female couples in a story, I’ll read gay subtext into everything I see. No one except maybe my sister and my friend Megan can really spot the covert homosexuality in just about anything the way that I can.

People think I’m nuts.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but I’ll tell you what this means, what it says about me — it’s a coping strategy. It’s my way of coping with the fact that most of the mainstream movies I watch don’t include people like me or my friends, except as a sexless footnote or a freakish joke. I do watch a lot of queer film and read a lot of queer lit, but not always, not exclusively — how could I, and why? It’s just so frustrating to know that, in most mainstream media, I’m either an abnormal anomaly or my existence isn’t even considered as a possibility. I think that has been getting better, but it’s still pretty bad.

The media’s probably the place where I feel most represented, as a matter of fact, because there are movies that at least acknowledge that gay people exist (in however clumsy or offensive a fashion). It’s the day to day experience of life that exasperates me. Unless I’m in the company of other queers, most people seem to be utterly ignorant about even the possibility of homosexuality, and if they think it exists, they just have to tell me their bizarre, totally offensive, and utterly flawed theories about it. They don’t even acknowledge people who aren’t monosexual.

And these theories on why people become gay? They are flawed because they conform to heteronormative theories of personality because, of course, most straight people can’t think outside of that box — which is understandable (hell, I don’t understand straight people, I can’t think in the heteronormative box), but annoying as all hell. For example:

Lesbians become what they are because they either have been abused by men or can’t find a man who wants them or are in some other way embittered. They just need to find the right one.

Weird oedipal shit about men being raised by women so they identify with the feminine gender role, not having proper masculine role models, or vice versa with queer women, blah blah blah, I’m sure you all know it.

Or, one that I’ve heard which is especially offensive because it acknowledges the validity of the trans and intersex experiences at the expense of the rest of us: that homosexuals are really just physically or mentally the opposite gender they think they are and once they realize that they can become perfectly happy heterosexual members of society. (The woman my dad is seeing explained this theory to him, which she believes, along with the conviction that bisexuality isn’t real; he told her never to say anything like that in my presence, ever, and then tried to explain to her why that’s totally wrong. Sigh. But at least my family members are cool.)

So I guess all I’m trying to say is, I’m not abnormal or unnatural, I’m just me, and I do exist. I kind of like to construct a world around me which reflects that, through my writing, my art, and through my interpretations or critiques of what other people have to say. Apparently, many straight people in my life can’t understand why I do this.

It’s their loss, I suppose. They’re the ones limited by that worldview, and unless I buy into it or let them upset me (too much), it doesn’t have to affect me.

But — ARGH! It’s so frustrating to be treated like a freak or have my experiences invalidated. How many guys hit on a girl even more after learning she identifies as lesbian because to them that means she’s into hot bisexual threesomes? How totally offensive is that?

And why does it matter? If I don’t allow people to safely assume I’m straight, and neither to put me in a narrow box of whatever they believe the alternative is, THEY. FLIP. OUT.

It’s terrifying to them. It’s a personal affront!

Whatever.

I’d rather be queer.

Blogging to raise awareness about sexual violence.

If you’re not angry you’re not paying attention.

How many of you know someone who’s been the victim of sexual violence? How many of you know someone who’s been raped?

How many of you think you don’t know anyone who’s a survivor? I’ll bet you do. I’ll bet you don’t even know it.

People always seem surprised that I can be so passionate, so angry. I’ve never been raped, right? So why should I care? The statement is baffling, the sentiment downright insulting. Why shouldn’t I care? I’m angry that people live in poverty and starve to death even though I do not. I’m angry about a lot of things I have never personally experienced and hope to keep that way. What kind of person can simply not care when others are in pain simply because it does not affect them personally? (Don’t answer that. I’m not asking because I don’t know. I’d really rather not think about it.)

If you’re not angry you probably just don’t realize why you should be.

I have friends who have been raped, you know. Too many. I know girls raped by strange men in dark alleys, by their friends, by their fathers. Some of these women are my family. I know a man who was sexually abused by his mother throughout his childhood.

Mostly the blame sits on them, not their rapists.

How does a six-year-old girl “ask for it”? What sort of sick mind says a girl systematically abused for years by her father “led him on” or “made him do it”? That may horrify any thinking compassionate person, but that’s what this girl’s family said when she told my sister and my dad called the police. They lied and said they talked to the police, who wouldn’t investigate, so that she’d drop it. When we did contact law enforcement, suddenly, she was the bad one, she’d “broken up the family” and it was all her fault.

Why would a fourteen-year-old lie about being raped at night outside her home? Oh, right, to get attention. Making it all up so that she can be the center of attention, when…it’s so very obvious there’s something wrong. Her mother wonders why she’s suicidal, self-destructive, depressed? Oh, right, that’s for attention too. There couldn’t be a real problem there, now could there?

These are only some of the stories I know, and some of them I’m merely aware of.

It’s not that people I know have been hurt that makes me angry. It’s just that gives it a face. That makes it even more important. I was angry before, but knowing what’s happened to people I care about makes it worse.

How can anyone not care about violence? How can anyone think that the only reason to care is if one is a bitter victim? Must I know someone who’s been murdered to think that killing someone is horrible?

If you’re not angry you probably don’t realize just how pervasive sexual violence is in the world, or how little is being done to prevent and punish it.

Open the paper on any given day; you’ll see a story about rape or child pornography or human trafficking or sexual slavery or something. It’s everywhere. And no one ever talks about the real problem: that sexual violence is wrong. That seems obvious, tautological — so obvious, in fact, that it’s totally ignored and obvious no longer.

Instead the discussion shifts to what people should do to avoid it, when…no one should have to go out of their way to avoid what other people shouldn’t be doing. Idealistic, perhaps, but, legally, true. That’s why we have laws. Certainly, if someone is walking alone in a dangerous part of town and gets mugged, perhaps they had a lapse in judgment — but it’s not their fault, it was the fault of the person who took advantage of that and did something that was wrong. Our hypothetical victim here is not the one who broke the law, and the person who did ought to be punished whether or not the victim put themselves into a position of weakness.

I have a confession to make: I did this too, when my ex reported that she was sexually assaulted. I thought she had put herself into a dangerous situation which she should have been smart enough to avoid, and to some extent I still feel that way, but… it’s not her fault that he committed a crime. That doesn’t excuse what he did to her. I don’t care if she was high or if she should have been smarter than to be in a room alone with some creepy older guy, or if I was a little pissed that she didn’t listen when I told her not to do stupid shit because she’d get hurt; he shouldn’t have touched her. No one can ever be held responsible for the violent acts perpetrated by others, no matter what they did or didn’t do, “should” or “should not” have done. There are circumstances under which, perhaps, sexual violence could have been prevented, but it’s not the victim’s fault if it happened. It is never less wrong if the victim’s foresight and actions weren’t perfect or didn’t fit into some flawless formula. Questioning the thought process or actions of the victim only leads to shifting responsibility from where it actually belongs: the one who committed the crime.

Why aren’t more people angry? How can people honestly not be angry about the fact that sexually violent acts happen, every minute of every day, all over the world?

Why isn’t everybody outraged?

I know the answers to these questions, of course, and a critique of rape culture and the idea of women as a sex class will have to wait for another day. But I think that most people aren’t so malicious as those answers would imply. I think most people really…don’t notice, don’t see the problem, don’t understand why rape is wrong and what it does to people. It’s a crime so horrific that people want to pretend it doesn’t happen.

I said before if you’re not angry you’re not paying attention, and sometimes…it’s not that people are willfully ignoring things. It’s that they honestly don’t know. There’s such a stigma against the victims of sex crimes that many people never engage in honest dialogue about the subject. People repeat what they’re told without ever thinking about it.

So we need to talk. We need to repeat what people still haven’t heard, again and again until victim’s voices can be heard and not judged.

Are you listening?

Are you learning?

Are you paying attention?

Are you angry yet?

(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?

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.

Or, you know, you can. If you’re a masochist. As I apparently am.

First, via Daily Dose of Queer, a young man who is surprisingly insecure about other people’s gender identity. Apparently, allowing people to check “male”, “female” or write in an “other” as their gender on a college application is the end of the world. Or, at the very least, marks the other as “psychotic”. But what I really love about this editorial is that parts of it are right on the mark. The author knows what he’s talking about. It’s pretty entertaining when it’s not so stupid it’s infuriating.

For example:

There are, to be sure, rare individuals who are born intersexed (possessing attributes of both sexes), but in the Western world corrective surgery assigns a distinct sex soon after birth. [Note: Yeah, and I consider that “corrective surgery” to be mutilation, but that’s neither here nor there.] …

The push for recognizing “gender variance” has little to do with genuine biological aberrance. Its goal is not to treat those burdened with physical forms that are imperfectly realized more charitably, but to abolish sex by destroying the normative standard.

Well, speaking for myself? Yes. And? I’ve run across so many articles which talk about the feminist agenda of demolishing gender roles, establishing gender and sex as a continuum, etc, etc, and, without fail, these articles simply cite that as if it’s some self-evident flaw in feminist reasoning. They have never explained to me exactly why this is a bad thing. I assume this is because there’s no argument against the idea other than stubborn adherence to principle.

But I can explain why seeing gender, and even physical sex, as a false duality, as a continuum, is a good thing. With gender, recognizing however people define themselves is only polite and respectful. With physical sex, the differences are not as clearly-cut as most people would like to believe. Why construct these broad categories which often don’t apply? Obviously, there is benefit to constructing categories which fit most people, but the problem is that usually this ends up forcing everyone else into one or the other, which is marginalizing and often physically or psychologically damaging. This is a problem in the case of, say, the discrimination that transgendered and non-gender-normative folks face. This is a problem when intersex children are mutilated before they’re old enough to understand their own gender identity and express it, in operations which often compromise future reproductive or sexual function, which often lead to trauma when a child who identifies as one gender is raised as the other and/or that child learns what was done to them. (Though “trauma” seems an inadequate word if one means crippling depression and eventual suicide.)

But wait! It gets better:

If I approached the director of the student government’s Queer Affairs Task Force and I claimed to be an eggplant trapped in a man’s body, she would smile, nod politely (she is a nice person), and then call for friendly people in white coats to haul me off to a padded cell. But if I claimed to be a woman trapped in a man’s body, she would force others to act as if my view were correct. In short, psychosis is considered quite alright, provided it obliterates sexual norms, traditions, and taboos.

Do I even have to say anything about this quote? Really? Yeah, I think it speaks for itself. This isn’t even good or logical writing.

And, of course, the obligatory strawfeminist:

Believing in the modern liberal view of sex must require at least an hour of practice each day. How else can they believe, for example, that masculinity and femininity are social constructs with no relation to the biological differences between the sexes, while also holding that homosexuality is inherent? Or that gender is unimportant, except when someone insists that he or she is stuck in a body of the wrong gender?

The problem here, I think, is that someone a) doesn’t understand the terminology being used and b) doesn’t care. Masculinity and femininity are gender roles. Anyone can act in a way society deems “masculine” or “feminine” regardless of being male or female, man or woman, intersex or genderqueer. Gender is an internal identity, a state of mind. Sex is an inherent physical characteristic which can be medically altered to a certain extent. These are not interchangeable. That is how I can believe all these things at once; because they are not synonymous. And believing that gender should be unimportant so far as social or legal issues go, that everyone should be treated equally, is not opposed to the idea that people’s right to self-define is important.

The rest of the editorial kind of veers off into a bunch of pseudo-philosophical crap that I admit I got bored and stopped really reading closely. (I skimmed!) But apparently “Our culture has become so oversexed that it is abolishing sex.” I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, since it’s confusing the two totally different definitions of the word sex: namely, that which is related to reproduction and all its happy perks, and…innate physical characteristics that don’t necessarily have anything to do with definition number one. As I said before: logic? Decent writing skills? Anywhere to be found?

And then there’s this awful thing someone linked to in the feminist LJ community. I can’t even begin to articulate how much this article pisses me off. Whatever one thinks about Ariel Levy (Personally? I think she has some good points to make, but I don’t think she’s a very good writer from articles I’ve read. I haven’t read the book, just excerpts and articles she’s written about the book which make me disinclined to read it. I expect I’ll get around to it sometime.), I hope we can all agree that whoever wrote this thing is living in a different universe. Observe:

We’re not trying to be empowered. The twentysomething women I know don’t care about old-style feminism. Partly this is because they already see themselves as equal to men: they can work, they can vote, they can bonk on the first date.

Putting aside the myth that women have never been allowed to work outside the home (as women of color and poor women and just about any woman who wasn’t rich and well-off have always been forced to work rather than having the luxury of staying home with the kids); men and women are hardly on an equal playing field. Things are better in many ways, but it’s not equal. This remains true of all civil rights struggles. And sure, women can bonk on the first date, it just means everyone will call her a “slut”. Being called degrading names! Empowering!

Oh, but it GETS BETTER. By which I mean, much, much worse:

Another reason for the rise of raunch is that women are rediscovering the joy of being loved for their bodies, not just their minds. … Instead of desperately longing for the right to be seen as human beings, today’s girls are playing with the old-fashioned notion of being seen as sex objects.

I defy anyone to seriously argue that women are now valued for their minds at the expense of their physical characteristics. Or that women’s minds are valued. Or that women are valued. I don’t know about you, but this twentysomething girl is still at that desperately-longing-to-be-seen-as-a-human-being stage.

And you can read the rest if you really want, because there are so many gems in there I didn’t want to bother quoting. I’ll just close with this explanation on why sexual harassment in the workplace is the greatest thing ever:

If a thong makes you feel fabulous, wear it. For one thing, men in the office waste whole afternoons staring at your bottom, placing bets on whether you’re wearing underwear. Let them. Use that time to take over the company.

I would, personally, prefer if no one except possibly a sexual partner spent any time thinking about my undergarments. If they can’t help themselves, there’s no need to speak about this thought aloud. I can’t be the only one who finds this quote extremely nasty.

People who ask this question obviously don’t understand what is meant by the term “sexual objectification”. No, I don’t want to be objectified, not ever. Not by random people on the street, not by an intimate partner.

“Why?”

By definition, what is an object? An object is something inert to be manipulated by others. An object exists only for the purposes it was made and can only passively fulfil that purpose through its use by an active party. A grammatical object is the part of a sentence which indicates what is being manipulated by the subject; linguistically, an object has things done to it but does nothing on its own.

In more concrete terms, what are objects? Objects are items that exist outside of ourselves which we put to specific uses. A banana is an object. It’s a plant which has been domesticated so that its only purpose is to be consumed by human beings. The plant can no longer reproduce without human intervention, so its natural biological purpose has been subverted and it no longer has a real function outside of the uses humans design for it. When we plant grass in our yards to look nice, this is an object. The only real purpose of grass is to grow and spread, but we add cultural baggage, assumptions about class and aesthetics which we attach not only to our lawns but to their color and health, their maintanance, their growth. A car is an object; it is for transportation. A stove is an object; it is for cooking. Food is an object; it is to be cooked, it is to be eaten. A baseball is an object; it is to be thrown within the specific context of certain games.

Objects are things.

A woman is not an object.

Let me ammend that: people are not objects.

Women do not exist solely to be sexually manipulated, used, abused. When a woman is objectified she is made into a passive thing — she is not an individual with thoughts and ideas, with ambitions and goals and principles. She is simply something to be used for the pleasure of the one who objectifies her. And do things have feelings? Does anyone care what an object thinks or wants? In a very real way, objectification is dehumanization. Dehumanizing a subject, making them into an object, allows for their feelings and thoughts to be completely disregarded. Does consent matter when dealing with a thing rather than a person? Does anything matter but the pleasure and whims of the user, the abuser?

Other people are made into objects, too. It’s not just women who are made into objects in order to fulfil the fantasties of others; parents make their children into objects, too, assuming that the child’s only purpose is to live up to their expectations, to do as the parents would like the child to do. Politicians and advertizers make people into objects: we are a passive audience for them to manipulate, to do what they want us to do for their benefit and not for our own — we are a means to an end and we are not human when we do this. We are objects to be used and manipulated and then discarded when our usefulness is through.

So not all objectification is sexual. None of it is good, beneficial, or in any way desirable. I am a person, not an object. I take particular exception, however, to being made into a sexual object. My sexuality — the firing of neurons in my brain, the combination of feelings and sensations moving along my nerves, my body, my breasts, my vulva — does not exist for the pleasure of anyone but me. This is not to say that I’m selfish, that I would take pleasure from another while denying them pleasure from my body, my sex — it is to say that if I find it pleasurable to give pleasure to a particular person, that is my business. It is nothing that can be taken without my express will, my explicit consent. My body does not exist specifically for the visual or physical stimulation of others, especially those to whom I do not give permission to use me in this way.

“Don’t we all like to be objectified sometimes?”

No. I don’t. I don’t enjoy being made into a passive object to be manipulated. I don’t enjoy being made into something less-than-human. I don’t enjoy being ignored and overlooked as the individual that I am and instead made into something else against my own will.

Do I enjoy being found attractive? Yes, of course. Everyone does. But too often these two phenomona are conflated and confused. Being objectified, being verbally or sexually abused, is often said to merely be the same thing as attraction. It’s a compliment, it’s an honor to be harrassed on the street. Being a desireable object is confused with being a desireable human being. Being made into a thing to be used, which exists solely for the purpose of this use and is judged only on its usefulness, is not the same as being found attractive at all.

When a person finds another person attractive, that other person is still human. They are an active participant in all interactions. No one can have a relationship with an object; relationships are a dynamic, mutual process on the part of all involved. Relationships are an active process. In the dynamic of objectification, only one party retains active personal agency.

There is something to be said for the desire to submit, the desire to be passive, in a sexual or romantic dynamic. Some people feel more comfortable in dominant or submissive relationship roles. But this is still an active, consensual decision, and that is the distinction. In my relationships with my family, I enjoy caring for and taking care of others, I enjoy cooking and don’t mind cleaning because it makes everyone’s life more livable. If a young sibling is ill I will nelgect my own desires, my own plans for the day, in order to ensure that they are comfortable and all right. I would be absolutely the same if I were in a romantic relationship, because this is my personality and it is what gives me pleasure. I do not do this simply because it’s expected of me (it’s not), but because it is the role I am most comfortable expressing. This submission to the needs and desires of other people is an expression of love. If this submission is forced, rather than an active expression of the person in question’s authentic personality and desires, as it often is, that relationship is abusive.

A real relationship allows for everyone involved to act however they like, to fill whatever role they like. Objectification does not. Objectification forces a role and a purpose onto the object which, even on theoretical occasion that this role and purpose might conicide with how that particular person expresses themselves, still limits that person’s ability to be anything outside of that narrow set of expectations. It is still wrong, and it is always wrong.

I posit that no, nobody ever really likes to be objectified. When people ask that question, or when people say that they like a little objectification now and then, I think it’s clear what they actually mean is that they enjoy being found attractive, they enjoy attention. These are perfectly valid wants and desires. But I am not willing to accept that anyone on Earth actually wants, of their own free will, to lose any and all freedom to define themselves or to have any real agency in their own lives. Powerlessness as a fantasy or a kink is not the same as actual powerlessness, as actual slavery and bondage. No one who actually cares about the subject would think to conflate the two while describing submission in those terms, and the fact is that being made into an object is very real powerlessness, is very real bondage to another person’s desires at the expense of one’s own.

Objectification is a forced loss of self.

No one has any right to ever, under any circumstances, inflict this on another person.