How to be allowed to say something
So let’s talk about gender.
First let me stipulate that I care deeply about the feelings of every one of you, and of every one of the people not reading this, too.
Let me stipulate that I’m taking the greatest care not to wrench any of those feelings.
Let me underline that I would never cause any bruising to anyone’s feelings if I could possibly help it.
Let me add that I understand profoundly and abjectly that intent is not magic.
Let me insist that your feelings and the feelings of everyone are the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning.
Let me say that I love you all more than I love Talenti raspberry chocolate chip gelato.
Let me assure you that I’m on your side.
Let me emphasize that I hope to be an ally, a good ally, a serious committed sensitive perfect ally.
Let me say that I understand completely that an ally’s job is to shut up and listen.
Let me swear that I will never talk over the voice of a marginalized community…except women of course, and lesbians and gays and queers, but never ever the voice of my trans sisters and brothers.
Let me admit that I know nothing at all about gender, that in fact I have minus knowledge about gender – I have ideas about it that are so wrong they suck all the knowledge out of everything for a 15 mile radius.
Let me confess that I’ve been a feminist for a long string of decades, and that therefore I am necessarily and automatically wrong and full of shit about everything – feminism, gender, LGBTQ issues, especially trans issues of course; identity, society, performativity, marginalization, stigma, GMOs, veganism, gluten, selfies, shoes, femmephobia – and everything else.
Let me bow while you spit on me and I assure you that my intentions are good even though they’re not magic.
Now, let’s talk about gender.
Oh dear I’m afraid that’s all the time we have. Tune in tomorrow for another episode of “Say Nothing Until You Have Apologized For All Of It First.”
Meh. Needs a little work. I’m not sure it’s abject enough.
;-)
Come sit next to me.
Something about this line in particular, I heard it à la braggadocio rap…
… come to think of it, an Epic Rap Battle style thing between two Extremely Fervent Progressive Allies (TM) competing for the title in the self-denigration world final would probably be pretty awesome.
I sense deception.
MrFancyPants,
If she had said “sea salt caramel,” then it wouldn’t have been credible.
Screechy Monkey@5:
Or “pumpkin spice” :)
Well. Let me just say that I love as much as I love Talenti raspberry chocolate chip gelato PLUS my dogs and cats PLUS my prescription swimming goggles. You officially have my permission to talk about gender tomorrow for 90 minutes.
Your gender talk is awesome. I love what you write. I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter and find out more.
I don’t buy it.
I think you’re being disengenderous.
“in fact I have minus knowledge about gender – I have ideas about it that are so wrong they suck all the knowledge out of everything for a 15 mile radius. ”
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Snark. Snark is not allowed in an apology.
Real suffering and self blame is required.
Don’t know if this belongs here or elsewhere, but I just found this on “Almost diamonds”: (http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2015/08/27/steel-and-onions/)
” … Trans women are women
There are volumes of meaning and implication behind each of those short statements. More critically, we’ve spent ages breaking down the volumes of meaning and implications behind each of those short statements, only to see them generally ignored or elided in favor of engaging with the short form of each.”
So there are volumes of meaning and implications behind such statements, and one should not ignore all these, but if someone refuses to accept them in the short form without any reservation, that is not to be tolerated? I’m confused.
Ooh, how I wish there was a recipe for genuine snark gelato; gender sprinkles on top optional, of course.
I also am deeply affected by the catholic trend in modern news media to bite off more than can be chewed and swallowed, cut up everything into molecular soundbites and then run out of time just as it begins to get interesting.
@ #3 AJ Milne, by curious coincidence I am just now reading a novel by Dottore U.Eco (Edition Zero, in translation) where one of the personages is actually called Braggadocio. It appears to be a general snark on hindsight, news media, and the political tumult of post-war Italy. Etc. Plays out in 1992. Interesting perspective. Only wish I understood more about the allusions and hidden meanings based on actual Italian history, all the better to enjoy it.
No, actually I also wish I had new gloves, my old mitts are threadbare.
Sonderval @ 12 –
………..
Wow. I’m speechless.
@ #14 OB: So, the treatment worked then?
Speechless is silenced. Now, what is the actual color of a Zvan?
Ooops.
What in screaming fuck, Stephanie Zvan? Are you even. . . is somebody KIDDING us?
This made my day: In the comments, Stephanie Zvan is lecturing about basic information processing. Yeah. I know.
I’m also quite entertained by Stephanie’s “when having an answer is important” reasoning, except she doesn’t elaborate on why having the answer is important. Were you applying for a job or something? I must have missed that.
And strangely, after asking again I’m told to go away. (Which I’ll do.)
But honestly, I still am confused a lot by everyone – neither do I really get why it is so important to provide simple answers to complex questions as soon as anyone demands them, nor do I (on the other hand) understand under what conditions the argument “I’m just joking” and “I’m not really harming anyone” should be considered acceptable.
Must be because you are such a special case, Sonderval? (Just kidding!!)
No, honestly.
Rrr:
The Eco sounds pretty awesome. I’ve always loved him in Bullshitters Gone Wild territory (which he seems to be a lot). Didn’t even know there was another coming (yeah, always a bit behind)…
I always believe his bullshitters, I find–as in: they always seem oddly plausible, however baroque their schemes get. Outrageous as it might seem at first blush, I just look sideways at what happens in the real world, and it’s like, right, yeah, how many million people are now following a ‘gospel’ written by a nineteenth century scryer who pretty much got caught red-handed claiming run-of-the-mill funerary texts were yet another message from the creator of the universe to his American flock? How many hundreds of million and billions probably equally dubious characters from early centuries… And never even mind what passes for ‘news’ in the mainstream and in the ads in the margins of the net… So how is this even implausible?
(Except, y’know, that everything pretty much is.)
AJ: I was also behind quite a bit. Zero is (c) 2015 in Milan so it’s pretty recent. Before that it must have been ten, maybe fifteen years since my previous book by him.
In a way he reminds me of Sir Salmon, if I may discocombombyulate a little for bots’ benefit. One never knows who is at the doorhole, ok.
Maybe I’d just better put the book down. And the shutters. And bolt the doors. Or maybe finish the book. Yes.
Rrr:
Well, I find the His-Salmonness comparison quite reasonable, myself. Each and every book of each I read, I think: sooner or later I’ll become tired of this. He can’t have more of this, evolved enough from the last it’s still worth reading another. But, somehow, I don’t. There’s this exuberance about both of them, this similar delight in and fascination with cosmic fish tales. It was long a thing that seemed especially cheap to me about that whole sordid how-dare-he-let’s kill-him (and/or disown him) escapade back in the day: sometimes I still want to shake people and say, no, listen, don’t you understand, he fucking loves the lot of you. Yes, he also thinks you and your prophet are and were utterly full of it up to your eyeballs, but a) he’s painfully right, and b) he probably thinks that of most of us, including himself. I’ve no idea if the slippery character whose now probably absurdly embroidered life you lot claim to consider a model would have been equally amused could we somehow mess enough with time and space that they might meet, but, y’know, I’m not even sure I’d be that surprised. Bullshitters, storytellers, embroidery specialists, the lot, catch them in the right mood, and they can get along…
(… as to who’s listening? Listen to this, if you are: after all you’ve done, you still also amuse me. Cut me down and all who think like me, and let’s learn again that history is written also by contingency. And my remaining fond hope is the half or eighth or sixteenth truth that somehow becomes legend and then fact is we died laughing at you.)
I sense irony.
Irony is not allowed. Try again, Ms. Benson.
Ah, AJ, that was some literature. Much better than the TV drama I just spent an hour watching. (Oh, shouldn’t have said that, should I?)
@Sonderval #18
I guess they see your confusion and questions that come from it as “jaqing off”. And although I can understand people can get tired of answering question when they get the feeling such questions are not asked in good faith. My impression is they have gotten very suspicious so that asking questions itself is seen as a sign of ill faith.
Asking questions is often a sign of independent thought, and as such must be punished.
On a more serious note, I have been concerned by the JAQing off meme since it arose. Yes, many people online use it to troll, but many others ask questions because the are actually trying to understand something, or even because arguing a position one does not actually hold is an excellent way to understand the position one DOES hold. When we abandon questioning as an intellectual tool, and even more when we abandon the devil’s advocate or Socratic method practice, we’re pretty much doomed to develop our ethical reasoning by following the herd. This does not seem like an excellent plan.
Yes…That’s yet another one of those jargon phrases that I’ve never used, because I dislike them. Another is “doubling down” – which implies that every criticism is valid and that therefore no one has any business rejecting or ignoring it. The usual suspects are of course accusing me of “doubling down” all over the place…when the reality is I just haven’t been convinced by the people yelling at me.
So here I am reprehensibly doubling down and continuing to ask questions. How very dare I.
Reprehensible You. Is that the prequel to Despicable Me?
I think the prohibitions on JAQing off, doubling down, playing devil’s advocate, etc. are all grounded in a particularly American sort of anti-intellectualism, not unlike the anti-intellectualism present in every other area of contemporary American thought. And being the United States, we’re doing an excellent job of exporting and/or encouraging this scourge to/in other parts of the world.