I received a comment on an old post that I wanted to address. Forgive me, I am going to preface this post with a personal anecdote.

When the guything boyfriend and I had our first date, almost a year ago, as we sat together in the car winding through the mountains of Boulder, the conversation turned to feminism (having already meandered through interesting personal anecdotes and basic personal information, and long deep conversation about politics and history which I think left us both impressed), and he said, casually, “You know I don’t expect you to shave your legs or armpits or anything for me.” I told him he’d better not, because any guy who gave a shit about my body hair was obviously not boyfriend material. And then he, completely unbidden and with no input or prodding from me, unleashed a tirade about women internalizing patriarchal beauty standards (oh yes, he used the word “patriarchy” and everything), his male/white privilege, and the wage gap, and that basically sealed the deal for me. Maybe not love at first sight, but definitely lust at first angry highly-controversial leftist political rant. This man was a keeper.

Do I think men can be feminists? Certainly. I wouldn’t be in a relationship with one if I didn’t think he was. This is, yes, personal prejudice, but I also don’t think we’d have been able to stand each other otherwise. I also don’t usually (ever) date guys, and this is one of the big reasons why — men can be feminists, but most aren’t.

The question at hand is, however, an issue of contention among feminists and I understand arguments to the contrary. And I am pretty fucking skeptical of a lot of liberal men who claim to be sympathetic to women’s issues who really aren’t… (An aside: I find it hilarious how consistently readers continue to miss the point of that post, summarized completely in the last sentence. Seriously, folks.) But…in my experience, the only men willing to call themselves “feminists” or “feminist allies” in the first place are usually extremely feminist, whatever political disagreements we may have — otherwise they would not want to use a label which does them no favors socially. Personal experience with some men very committed to and passionate about gender equality and women’s rights has taught me that, yes, men can indeed be feminists, rare though they might be.

There is a radical feminist viewpoint which believes that all men are active agents of a monolithic patriarchy — which, in essence, is true, but this is a gross oversimplification of the structures of oppression and I think an unforgiving understanding of the nature of privilege. I think it is unfair to act as if all men are consciously complicit in and benefit directly from the system. It is wrong to state that gender oppression is the root of all evil, and assume that oppression due to race or sexual orientation or class or physical ability are not also of equal significance and importance. It is true that all men must essentially be sexist — but only because all women have also internalized sexism, because everyone of every race has internalized racism, etc, etc. The only difference is that those with privilege suffer less from these toxic attitudes than do those to whom the hateful stereotypes and beliefs apply. I do not think the fact that not all men are malicious agents of The Patriarchy needs to be disclaimed at every turn and I hesitate to point it out, as it seems both obvious and also derailing from the real point and the big picture. The fact that oppression and privilege are significantly more complex than the radical feminist viewpoint, however, bears discussion.
Read the rest of this entry »

Roy over at No Cookies for Me (discovered just now through his guest blogging at Feministe — yay!) posted a wonderful, thought provoking entry regarding discussions about the sex industry and how they neglect the actual reality and humanity of the sex workers involved:

I sat there at my desk, talking about sex workers and sex work and porn like they were abstractions… but they’re not, and mythago rightly called me on my shit. It took me a while to realize that, but it was a totally fair criticism. My sitting there saying that stats show this and stats show that and look how many sex workers were this or that… none of that helps them now, and talk like that does make me more likely to find myself allied with religious conservatives who have a “moral interest” in condemning sex work… and sex workers.

And when I allow myself to ally with questionable or even flat-out bad groups, I have to accept that the damage they do in the name of our cause is damage that I’m contributing to. I can’t wash my hands of the harm that my allies do if they’re doing the damage in the name of our mutual cause. If I’m rallying behind the cry of “PORN HARMS ALL WOMEN!” and I allow myself to get backing from a group that’s adding “BECAUSE DIRTY SLUTS ABUSE SEX!” then aren’t I at least somewhat culpable? Because, ultimately, don’t my actions help further that cause, as well? And doesn’t that mean that the damage they’re doing is to some extent, on my hands?

Because those people have made it absolutely clear that they don’t care about the women involved. They’re not working to help end the abuse of sex workers. They’re not condemning poor working conditions. They’re not working to help sex worker’s rights. They’re not even remotely interested in making sure that their voices get heard. They’re interested in keeping the whores out of their neighborhoods.

This is my big problem with a lot of (radical, particularly) feminists. I don’t disagree that most pornography is harmful to women* — and not just in a vague, nebulous sense. I believe a great deal of it has a real, tangible impact on the women involved. The industry can be unsafe and abusive, and sometimes it cheats the women out of the money they thought they were going to make by having sex on camera. Not to mention how it’s clear that depicting women actually experiencing pleasure is apparently pretty low on the priority list. (Because women exist for men to enjoy. Whether we enjoy ourselves isn’t important to a lot of people. It’s actually terrifying.) And it hurts women who buy into it, who think that they have to have labial surgery to be acceptable as a sex partner.

But trying to criminalize porn will not help anyone. The women who are harmed will be harmed more because they will have even less recourse. When people discuss sex work in impassioned, black-and-white moral terms, so often they forget that sex work isn’t just about feminist theory. It’s about the actual women who do it, for whatever reason. The lives of women are not abstractions. They are real people with real lives and their ability to make a living however they can manage is incredibly important.

Is it right that a woman’s only option to support herself might be sex work? Absolutely not. (Although if she really enjoys doing it, and, yes, I think that’s possible although perhaps rare in a world this fucked up, and she can make a living on it, more power to her.) But it doesn’t matter if it’s right or wrong. What matters is that this is a human being who needs the money to live.

And one would think, one would hope something feminists could agree on is that women being able to live is important — but somehow, we manage to forget that for many women that’s exactly what’s on the line. The lives of sex workers get lost in the discussion and suddenly they don’t matter. I wouldn’t argue that most people are intentionally devaluing the lives of these women, but that’s the end result. Isn’t treating women’s lives as negligible exactly the attitude we need to get away from?

1. I also don’t think porn should be criminalized because I don’t think it’s inherently harmful or wrong, but that’s another discussion entirely.

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.

One continuing source of frustration for me is the fact that in every single “debate” (I use the term loosely) about shaving, makeup, and other (American, white) cultural beauty standards, everyone seems to miss the real point. When I post about it, of course I get the obligatory male response telling me how I need to alter myself to properly fit cultural norms in order to “look my best”. Hell, even other feminists have occasionally posted comments which amount to “well, if women sometimes want to wear heels/whatever to feel pretty…”

The point here is not about high heels. Not about bras. Not about makeup. Not about shaving. Not one of those individual things is at the heart of the matter of what I or other people critical of these beauty norms have really been struggling to say. You know what it’s about?

Bodily integrity. It’s about wanting my body to be seen and respected as a normal human body. It’s about wanting to be accepted as good enough on my own merits.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

So, tekanji said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well…maybe.

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

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

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.

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.

This post at Pandagon and some of the comments my posts about makeup, etc., have sparked really make me wonder. Common words people are using to describe certain socially-accepted practices of grooming and dressing seem very problematic to me. Specifically, people keep referring to this concept of the “feminine”. Feminine fashion. Girly dress.

And everyone seems to have at least a slightly different idea of what “femininity” entails.

This is why I purposely try to never use the words “feminine” and “masculine” in this context unless it’s tongue-in-cheek or I’m making it clear I’m using the popular understanding of words that I don’t particularly like. “Girly” has a particular place of loathing deep within my vocabulary because it sounds very dismissive and basically infantilizing, but I understand it’s not always used that way, so it’s not that I get angry at people for using it (unless it’s obviously in a pejorative context).

What’s “girly”? Why is makeup “girly”? Not all girls wear it. Not only girls wear it. Not only girls can wear it. Is long hair “girly”? Because even if it’s not as in fashion in America today, in plenty of places throughout history men have worn their hair long, too. There is no intrinsic definition of this word that has anything to do with the state of being female or identifying as a girl/woman.

Similarly with masculine/feminine. Any application of these words to certain ways of dressing or grooming or whatever seem entirely arbitrary to me. I usually treat these words as basically meaningless and highly subjective descriptors. I have no way of knowing what other people consider masculine and feminine, because it varies from person to person and culture to culture. There’s enough of a basic understanding of what is meant that people continue to use them, but it’s a serious pet peeve of mine, especially in this kind of discussion, because the words are usually too vague to really impart much.

(A note on usage: When I use these words in this kind of discussion, it’s usually in the context of gender roles, expected, enforced, or discouraged behavior and personality traits — and I’ll make clear to clarify “masculine gender role” when I use it as such. The other context I use it in is to describe gender identity, which isn’t necessarily a standard usage but I think using “men” and “women” and “masculine/feminine gender ID” makes it clearer when I’m talking about gender rather than physical sex characteristics, when I try to use the terms “male” and “female” to describe biology. Obviously one’s gender identity and sex usually coincide so there is some overlap and a little confusion, and I’m not always sure which word is appropriate. But if the discussion involves gender vs. gender roles vs. physical sex I always try to make the distinction, and that’s the only time you’ll hear me use the words “masculine” and “feminine” seriously.)

If “feminine” is what women do, how women dress, what women typically are, that doesn’t get us any closer to a standard definition than where we started, because individual women have so much variation in preferences and personality that I’m not sure there even is what we could call statistically average behavior. Men and women and everyone outside the binary act in pretty much any conceivable way possible regardless of physiology or psychology. Average where? When? Within which subcultures or groups? Even people who more-or-less conform to their assigned gender role typically exhibit a wide range of personality traits and interests. (And this definitely includes fashion sense.)

If femininity is what women are, then clearly whatever is typical for me can be labeled feminine. Therefore it is feminine to be geeky, obsessed with science fiction, into computers and video games, to enjoy action movies, read comic books, to be loud and aggressive in conversation, and to argue with people a lot.

If I’m not typically feminine, something I think few would accuse me of, I must be masculine…for a female. So it must be masculine to have long hair, wear skirts, cook, be willing to compromise and defer to others’ needs, write romance, watch musicals, love classical music, and read poetry. Oh, yes, and if I’m not feminine it must be a deeply masculine trait to be concerned with social justice, particularly queer issues and feminism.

If you’re going to disagree with either of the preceding paragraphs, if I’m not masculine or feminine, what am I?

What do “masculinity” and “femininity” mean to you and why? What do you mean when you use the words? If you know what you mean, why don’t you just state that definition instead?

Not the most important issue in the world; it just seems like something worth thinking about.