Jump to content
Roderick

Feminism

Recommended Posts

Another thing which I don't think has been mentioned is that some of these terms literally only exist as pejoratives until they're reclaimed. Slut, nerd, geek, these are all fairly unique terms when used to the things they refer to -- using adjectives such as 'promiscuous/sexually open', 'intellectually obsessive', etc may be useful to describe the same kind of person, but aren't really the sort of thing that someone can form an identity around. If someone self-identifies as a term that they only ever hear used pejoratively, or generally so, that's a constant assault on their sense of self-worth and place in the world. In order to affirm that place, a similar term of identification must be found/invented or the formerly pejorative term has to be reclaimed. So, sometimes people really have no choice whether to reclaim a term or not: It's that or abandon their identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what

 

Bjorn, don't talk about people in the same room like they're not there! Faegbeard, it's not conducive to a discussion if you your answer to direct replies to your post with "I don't see how that applies to what I wrote". If that's the case, clarify what you wrote and tell us why the reply didn't apply to it. The derailing tactics Bjorn mentioned are questions that are easy to ask but demand effort to answer, followed by some quick dismissal of the answer. They exhaust the people you are debating with. That said, I would refrain from posting links to lists...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bjorn, don't talk about people in the same room like they're not there!

 

Yeah, it's rude to do that and there are probably better ways to structure that post.  It's the worst kind of passive/aggressive behavior.  But after seeing enough posts to see the pattern emerge, I just can't directly engage or reply at this time.  Particularly when I saw that the exact same line of enquiry ("I don't understand" and the philosophical claims of something not really existing or having meaning) was started in the Ep. 152 thread.   I'm willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt that they are engaging earnestly and honestly up to a point.

 

 

That said, I would refrain from posting links to lists...

 

If that's about what I linked to (not sure), neither were lists.  The first is just the Wiki page on the history of word reclamation/reappropriation.  Good summary and lots of quality links in the references to dig deeper on specific examples.  The second link is a sarcastic breakdown of a wide variety of derailment tactics used against marginalized groups or subjects dealing with marginalized groups.  It's been awhile since I've read that stuff, I just browsed back through it.  Good info to read, as even people who want a good discussion can fall into some of those tactics inadvertently (myself included). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using it as an example. Generally people are only "triggered" by extremely horrific incidents, which will also always have negative connotations.

I know you were using it as an example. It just so happens that you chose a very poor example!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why there are entire websites devoted to derailment tactics.

My favorite thing about this site so far is that it's punctuated so regularly with apparently completely un-ironic ads for books on how to improve communication

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nerd for me has never been anything but descriptive term, one that could be used both negatively or positively depending on context and tone.

As an aside, and unrelated to whatever else is happening in this thread, this is also the case for me. Maybe I grew up after it was a real problem, although I definitely remember people insulting me with nerd when I was a kid. But it didn't bother me. I knew I was a nerd. I actively embraced it. I still got bullied for lots of other reasons and in lots of other ways, but this one specifically never bothered me, as far as I can remember. I'm 27. Maybe I'm too young for that to have mattered. Or maybe I was just actively reclaiming the word even when I was a small child, without realizing it. Eh! Whatever. I found the thought process that just went through my brain interesting, so I thought I'd share it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe I was just actively reclaiming the word even when I was a small child, without realizing it.

You know, that's a good way to look at it. I had a similar experience, but nerd never held the kind of connotations the other words discussed in this thread have held. If it did, I doubt it would have been possible for me to just let it go. Even if I identified as a nerd, I never called myself one and certainly if you look at my relationship history, I have tended to hide that part of myself from my partners. If I was growing up now, I doubt that would have happened -- it would just have been part the identity I display. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been so many posts since this morning that I'm having to scan, but Faegbeard, your argument is utter bobbins. While yes, on some level we think without words, on many we don't, and words are the primary means by which we interact and create culture. Reapproriation is a way for people to draw collective strength in the face of prejudice, while continuously chasing and reframing their persecutors rhetoric. That's something their persecutors cannot do in return (Not all minorities reappropriate, for instance trans people having their own culturally defined term and continuing to reject "tranny").

 

While racism of course still exists, no term has arisen in America with the same venom or normality "n*gger" has had at various points during its history. When a term does have that normality to it, the culture using it has hegemony and momentum. Reappropriating terms weakens hegemony and robs prejudice of momentum. Making the linguistic meaning of terms ambivalent by reclamation also raises the cognitive load in using them, for everyone. It interferes with the ability of the prejudiced to voice, reinforce, spread or even feel quite so utterly confident in their own hate, and it can galvanise non-members of the discriminated against group to resist or call out prejudiced usage of the term.

 

There isn't a memo, or some kind of watershed moment where the prejudiced people realise "Oh right. Guys we've got to pick another term. Call in the Bigots Parliament". There's a period of ambivalence and confusion in which one group builds a greater sense of cohesion, identity and pride, while the other struggles to look relevant, reasonable or attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up front, I am sorry for coming in here and posting something that is non-sequitur and really just a rant.

 

Over the last year or so, I've really tried to internalize the kinds of privilege and stratification that exist in our society. I do this mostly in the microcosm of the gaming community, keeping up with people like Anita Sarkeesan, Anna Anthropy, Cara Elison, Emily Short, Christine Love, and others. After the most recent cast, I started following Danielle on Twitter.

 

Shortly after, I saw this tweet, with the associated image:

BkUvXn9CMAAvYBZ.jpg

 

Intellectually, I get that this is probably satirically taking something to the ultimate degree that belies healthy feminist intent. But when I see it, I just immediately react in a defensive and hurt way. My mind whirs in ways that I know would make me look the pig if I voiced any of it. Because, I am a white male middle-class university-educated tech person, whenever I have this reaction to something in the circle of feminists I follow, I just feel like I'm part of the problem, the ultimate dickbag, and carry this huge weight of social guilt to the point where I shut down and stop reading social justice stuff altogether for weeks.

 

I don't know why I find it so difficult to represent my intellectual views emotionally so I can engage with feminism in a better way. I don't feel justified to call myself a feminist or an ally. I've always struggled with empathy (by the time I reached adulthood I was extremely pragmatic and logical to the frustration of friends and family). I don't get angry or indignant when I read about inequality.

 

Beyond that, I feel like (and I get that this is ironically empathy) my voice is useless because we are already inundated in voices like mine, and therefore as an individual by speaking out I can only take away bandwidth from groups of people who don't have it.

 

The episode 152 thread made me realize that this is a forum that is a) filled with people like me demographically and b ) more socially literate and emphatic than I am. I guess I'm just wondering if other people found this journey difficult, or some assurance that I'm not the ultimate dickbag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that image and laugh.

 

But I know what you're going through because I went through it. And then one day I just decided to stop feeling like I'm part of the problem. Whenever I have a reaction to something someone good (i.e., feminists or what-have-you) says, I think about why, and identify why. I find it pretty easy to do now, although it was annoyingly difficult at first. I'm not guilty and I should not feel guilty for the things that have been drilled into me as I grew up. I'm only guilty if I choose not to try to be a better person. There are still a lot of things that trigger that kind of reaction from me, but they trigger that kind of reaction for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, I am a white male middle-class university-educated tech person, whenever I have this reaction to something in the circle of feminists I follow, I just feel like I'm part of the problem, the ultimate dickbag, and carry this huge weight of social guilt to the point where I shut down and stop reading social justice stuff altogether for weeks.

 

I don't know why I find it so difficult to represent my intellectual views emotionally so I can engage with feminism in a better way. I don't feel justified to call myself a feminist or an ally. I've always struggled with empathy (by the time I reached adulthood I was extremely pragmatic and logical to the frustration of friends and family). I don't get angry or indignant when I read about inequality.

 

Beyond that, I feel like (and I get that this is ironically empathy) my voice is useless because we are already inundated in voices like mine, and therefore as an individual by speaking out I can only take away bandwidth from groups of people who don't have it.

 

I don't think it's a bad thing to feel uncomfortable with your position, and it seems totally normal to struggle with some parts of such a big, complicated issue. I'd say that if you are setting out to treat people respectfully and consider your own privilege, you're far from part of the problem  :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Particularly when I saw that the exact same line of enquiry ("I don't understand" and the philosophical claims of something not really existing or having meaning) was started in the Ep. 152 thread

 

The reason I used that language there is because I simply do not follow the logic in the post I was talking about. I cannot outright say that it is wrong because I may be missing something and would like them to expand upon it, so that if nothing else, I can at least comprehend why someone would hold a particular opinion about something, even if I disagree with it.

 

 

a good post

 

Two things though. One, I think the dislike of a certain subset of people is a simple enough thing that it exists completely independent of language.

 

Two, I'm not sure that re-appropriating terms is what weakens hegemony and robs prejudice of momentum. I think both the re-appropriating of terms and the weakening of hegemony and prejudice are both things that result from a change in popular opinion towards a group of people. While the two are related, I don't think that one causes the other.

 

To bring it back to the original topic, if it was a widely held view in society that sexual promiscuity was a good thing, then the connotation of the word "slut" would change. I don't think this process works in reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two, I'm not sure that re-appropriating terms is what weakens hegemony and robs prejudice of momentum.

Maybe it wouldn't weaken the persecutors, but also it might strengthen the persecuted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Up front, I am sorry for coming in here and posting something that is non-sequitur and really just a rant.

 

Over the last year or so, I've really tried to internalize the kinds of privilege and stratification that exist in our society. I do this mostly in the microcosm of the gaming community, keeping up with people like Anita Sarkeesan, Anna Anthropy, Cara Elison, Emily Short, Christine Love, and others. After the most recent cast, I started following Danielle on Twitter.

 

Shortly after, I saw this tweet, with the associated image:

BkUvXn9CMAAvYBZ.jpg

 

Are those for sale? We've been looking for something to spruce up the bathroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flik, the emotion you are feeling? Where you are made to feel oppressed and shitty about something you can't really change about yourself? It's pretty rough, isn't it?

 

Feminism is a fight against sexism and patriarchy. Sometimes, often times, most times, that means men. Sometimes, often times, that's white, educated, wealthy men. Feminism is not necessarily a fight against men, but it sometimes seems that way. That cross-stitch is something that some people believe, and they are entitled to believe that. Patriarchal men have given some people a reason to believe that. 

 

Being a feminist is not something where you get a free pass because of your beliefs. The best you can do is fight patriarchy, and listen, and support where you can. Don't feel like your voice is useless. Read more. Listen more. Take a stand when someone says something that goes against what you believe. And until then, recognize that what you are feeling is something you never want to project onto other people, through action or inaction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That cross-stitch is something that some people believe, and they are entitled to believe that. Patriarchal men have given some people a reason to believe that. 

That cross-stitch is clearly a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's just the old 'feminists hate men' epithet turned into a mocking joke, and cross-stitch, despite being basically pixel art, still has that cultural stereotype of being a twee thing for middle-aged ladies. The joke is the juxtaposition between cross-stitch and the internet-derived third-wave feminist mocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most jokes have a kernel of truth that's worth finding.

If the kernel of truth is, as RubixsQube suggests, that some people literally want all men to die, then the kernel of truth is only worth finding so that we know that person is a crazy person. I think it's absolutely absurd to say it's okay for someone to believe that [group of people] must die.

 

No, in this case, the kernel of truth is exactly what Merus suggests. I thought that was fairly obvious, hence my knee-jerk "huh-wha?!" reaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that the cross stitch is a joke, I support the fact that some radical feminists desire a world without men. Now, I do not support killing (of any form), but I do support the "kernel of truth" behind the idea, which is that patriarchal oppression has inspired this form of radical feminism. So, I understand what you're saying, Twig (although I would be wary about using the word "crazy" to describe anyone), and I agree with Merus as well (except the thing is, some feminists, do, in fact, hate men, and they've been given good reason, and that is in their right to do so). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not at all wary about using the word "crazy" to describe someone who legitimately thinks half the world's population should cease to exist. Feminist or otherwise. I think it's fucking weird that you would describe them any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×