The smallest minority
This is very funny but also painfully true:
SIX WORDS TO REMOVE FROM YOUR VOCABULARY TO BE A BETTER ALLY TO ME by Wayne Gladstone.
Sure, you’re a good person. Each day you learn a little more about the rest of humanity, and just by clicking this link you’ve already shown your interest in being a better ally. But while you’ve living a good life, checking your privilege and learning about people of different races, religions, social orientations and identities, there’s an ally opportunity you might have overlooked. The smallest minority. Me. And while I may be a minority of one, I must remind you that my opinion of you is not based on a measured consideration of your cumulative actions, but a far more easily defined concern determined by how well you, my potential ally, adhere to my evolving set of words and considerations.
This is where we are. “How dare you not take into account my [ ____________ ] whenever you say anything?”
Let’s see…first of all, I don’t even know who you are? You seem to think we’re close, or used to be close, but I have no idea who you are. Your handle rings a bell, but that’s it.
Second…well see above, and then ask yourself, why would I?
Third…there are people who aren’t you?
Fourth – I don’t care.
Fifth – how dare you not take into account my 1-4?
And an infinite regress ensues.
One of the six examples:
“Wha?”
Yes, the dropping of the “t” in the word “what” has come to express an increased degree of incredulity. While some take issue with this word as an example of race appropriation, that argument is belied by the racist assumption that this word originated in the African American community in the first place. Instead, “wha” is personally problematic because it reminds me of the two months I had to go to speech therapy in second grade to better pronounce my “T’s.” So be a better ally. Say “what” the way it was intended, and be grateful the 20th letter of the alphabet comes so easily to you.
Exactly, just the way being a woman comes so easily to me and all the women I know.
H/t G.
So, before doing or saying anything at all, check in with everybody everywhere.
Got it.
This reminds me of something I came up with while thinking of stupid cencorship, but I dismissed it at the time for being too much of a stretch.
“Oh sugar, I left my phone at home.”
“Sugar? Sugar?! Millions of diabetics live or die based on whether they have an immediate supply of sugar in their pockets, and you dare to use it as a substitute for excrement??”
It is seeming less and less of a stretch in recent times.
Is there really a slippery slope into insanity here? Or is this, “If we let gays marry, what’s next – will my neighbor marry his dog? Will I be able to marry my backpack?”
Most genuine requests behind so-called “language policing” are along the lines of, “Please refer to us with words A, B, or C; not X, Y, or Z”. Call us “women”, not “cunts” or “bitches”. Call us “black people” or “people of color”, not “niggers” or “blackies”. Don’t call us “retards”, instead refer to us as having certain cognitive impairments (and then, only in contexts where said impairments are pertinent). Don’t call us “faggots”, instead refer to our sexual preferences as homosexual, same-sex, or gay (and then, only in contexts where said preferences are pertinent). “Redskins” for a NFL team name? Really?
In other words, most requests are generally reasonable and bounded:
* Don’t refer to my minority status with words that are derogatory or demeaning.
* Don’t bring my minority status into contexts where it’s not applicable.
Most assholes realize this. So, they slippery-slope it: “I can’t say ‘Oh SUGAR!’ because it might offend diabetics” (said no diabetic person ever). They obfuscate: “Don’t call my daughter ‘nuts’ just because she suffers from a cognitive impairment and struggles with impulse control” becomes “Don’t call someone nuts because I have a nut allergy”. They do anything and everything they can to make “please treat me with respect” come across as “I am the language police and if you utter a single syllable that doesn’t meet my standards you will be prosecuted for bigotry”. They do anything and everything they can to make it possible for them to voice their bigotry and then scream “Witch hunt!!! I’m being oppressed! I’m being stripped of my freeeedommm of speech!” when called out for it. When they read each other’s slippery-slope parodies of requests for respectful treatment, they find a resonance with their own thoughts, and deem the articles “funny” and “painfully true”.
The conversation is absolutely filled with people who want to mischaracterize a plea for respect as “censoring everything I say.” There are also plenty of people, especially young activists, who go much further. Who do, in fact, put ridiculously strict rules on language (almost always to service their personal vanity) and then claim they’re being persecuted when people object.
This is not a mere annoyance. It’s that, but it’s also sometimes a political problem that has unwelcome consequence.
Kevin, I wish so very much that you and people with your point of view would acknowledge that. I also wish you’d acknowledge and remember that people around here (Ophelia, me, others) do acknowledge that the phenomenon you describe is real.
But you don’t acknowledge it, and you don’t remember it the next time you’re moved to tut-tut us. There’s no reciprocation from you; it’s a one-way street. You extend no benefit of the doubt to others and treat them as if they were unreconstructed bigots who don’t share any of the lofty humanistic concerns that you have.
Even if you really, really dislike folks here, can you please try to take a minute to think about that? Would you please try to empathize by imagining how you would feel if you were participating in such a lopsided exchange?
Will that do? Or is there something else I can say, or signal, or do, that would persuade to give the bare minimum of reciprocation and good faith?
TLDR; what in the world will get you to include people like Ophelia, or me, or others here in your ethical sphere, instead of in the pile of self-interested bigots who only bigot all day long?
Policed speech does not reflect any improvement in attitude or motive. David Duke can ‘pass’ for a sane political candidate, just by leaving words like ‘kike’ and ‘nigger’ out of his stump speech. His actual intentions and outlook were changed not one whit.
Fair point, Josh. I think it comes down to boundary conditions. Requests which fit within boundaries:
* Don’t refer to my minority status with words that are derogatory or demeaning.
* Don’t bring my minority status into contexts where it’s not applicable.
are, I think, legitimate and worthy of respect. I’d also argue that the *vast* majority of communication guidelines requested by the vast majority of minority groups falls within these boundaries. However, there are certainly instances (sometimes driven by vanity; sometimes by malice), of people abusing this protocol to their own ends:
* “You can’t use the word ‘futbol’; my culture owns that!”
* “You can’t call yourselves ‘poly’; my culture owns that!”
* “You can’t insult/draw The Prophet, that’s derogatory toward Muslims!”
And it’s unfair of me to pretend that such over-extensions don’t occur.
That said, I think it *is* fair to say that the outcry over such over-extensions is massively disproportionate to their relative frequency. I think it is fair to say that people of minority groups suffer far more dire consequences from those who spurn or disparage the guidelines altogether; than people who suffer consequences of being called out for violating over-extensions. I think it is fair to say that the over-extensions are still eons away from the slippery-slope parodies that drive the “language police” FUD narratives, as in the linked article. And I think it is fair to say that when such articles make no effort to qualify the inherent criticisms as directed at over-extensions of protocols of respectful communication, then they’re doing more splash damage than providing constructive criticism.
@John The Drunkard
Please separate metaphors from reality. We’re not talking about actual policing; we’re talking about criticizing those who use words like ‘kike’ and ‘nigger’. In that respect, I’m not clear what your point is. If a public figure refers to Jews as ‘kikes’, are you saying that Jewish people ought not criticize them for using the term? If not… then what is your point? What are minority groups doing wrong, in speaking out against the use of such derogatory terms? What should they be doing instead of speaking up?
Kevin @ 3 – do you seriously think I need to be told that? Really? Do you seriously think I need to be told that “Most genuine requests behind so-called “language policing” are along the lines of, “Please refer to us with words A, B, or C; not X, Y, or Z”. Call us “women”, not “cunts” or “bitches”. Call us “black people” or “people of color”, not “niggers” or “blackies””? Have you missed all the posts in which I’ve talked about that to the point of tedium and beyond?
Oops, sorry, I forgot to refresh, so hadn’t seen @ 6 and 7 yet.
But I’ll ask a different question – about this:
What does that mean? How can it be a rule? And what does “my” mean when applied to “minority status”?
Kevin:
Thanks for the clarification.
Here’s the frustrating part: People who have no intention of being derogatory can unintentionally misuse terms. For example, in Canada a speaker would be seen as rude by progressives if they used the term “Indian” or “Eskimo” to refer to an aboriginal person – here we usually use the term “First Nations” (or “aboriginal” or sometimes “native”); however, it is my understanding that this is not necessarily the case for American aboriginal persons. Another example: For someone whose first language is not English, it could be difficult for them to understand why “person of colour” is an approved term, while “coloured person” is not acceptable. Some people with autism prefer the “person first” designation – i.e. “person with autism”, while others prefer to be called an “autistic person”.
I think most people who consider themselves “progressive” or “liberal” or “socially conscious”, or whatever descriptor is most appropriate sincerely want to use the correct terms. Sometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes my spouse and/or I call one of my sons by his brother’s name. When they were small, weI often even got a cat’s name or two in the mix. It was always understood that this was an honest mistake with no intent to insult (go away, Freud).
As for the “over-extensions”, part of the problem results from a tension between the intent to respect cultures other than one’s own, and the desire to call those cultures out when their practices violate basic human rights. There’s a fuzzy grey area in the middle. Lots of otherwise liberal people do think that there should be limits to the right to engage in behaviour that might be seen as insulting to another person’s cultural practices.
No. But was there anything in the article indicating that the author appreciates, or gives two shits about conveying that nuance? I got the distinct impression that the author of the article would have no problem using the word “cunt” to describe a woman he disliked. I think if he were called out for doing so, he’d sarcastically respond “Oh, that’s right! How politically incorrect of me to use a word that hurts all the poor women’s fee-fees. Someone call the language police! I used a bad word!”. While sludging through such gas-lighting tropes as “And to be clear, these are words to be completely banished, not just avoided with me.”, I certainly didn’t see anything in the article that was either funny or painfully true.
The article stood in stark contrast to the recently-linked College Humor skit, (something like “Trans Everything”?). The humor of the skit was also parodying excessive PC guidelines. But that mockery was delivered by juxtaposing the parodies with legitimate guidelines for treating transgender people respectfully.
That was a bit sloppy – I was referring to the idea of someone saying, “That driver just cut me off” rather than “That driver just cut me off… typical woman driver”; or “The dealership really ripped me off” rather than “The dealership really ripped me off – serves me right for working with a Jewish salesperson”; i.e. mentioning minority status to reinforce a negative stereotype. That said, it would’ve been clearer to just state the guideline as “Don’t project negative stereotypes onto members of my minority group.” Or leave out completely; main idea here is the idea of “Please don’t call us X” being parodied into “We’re not allowed to use certain words, ever”.
For me, that was indicated in the first few sentences:
He’s not making fun of decency. He’s making fun of narcissism.
Kevin’s comment @3 asserts that Ophelia is an asshole who doesn’t understand that not being derogatory or demeaning to minorities is a reasonable request, and who will do anything to voice her bigotries. While asshole is subjective, I’d like some examples of Ophelia referring to someone’s minority status with words that are derogatory or demeaning or bringing up someone’s minority status into contexts where it’s not applicable.
Yes, yes everyone seems to be giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I’m not. Back those assertions up with some evidence.
Perhaps…but is it fair to say that here, where the author of this post has directly suffered consequences of being called out for violating over-extensions? How dire do the consequences have to be before she can say this happened to her and it hurt even if it didn’t hurt as bad as the consequences a trans woman might suffer at the hands of a flagrant bigot?
Meh, I didn’t much either…but I can certainly imagine why Ophelia might, given her recent experiences with certain over-extendors:
Either way though, some examples of her bigotry, or maybe you could retract the assertions you made about Ophelia in comment 3.
I don’t think Kevin was making direct assertions about me in comment 3 – more like implying that I was edging into asshole territory, perhaps, than asserting that I am one. He’s been commenting at B&W for a long time, and if he thought I’d gone 100% asshole I think he’d just stop reading and commenting rather than assert that I’m an asshole.
That said…Kevin @ 12 –
I didn’t, at all; if I had I would never have shared it. No, I take the author to be like me – decidedly on the left, but also exasperated by the more unreasonable and fanatical among my fellow lefties.
Case in point: Greta Christina writing a very long article saying white people have to shut up and listen when talking about black issues – without a shred of irony or self-awareness or sense of the absurdity or anything like that. I don’t know which I find more repellent – the pomposity or the total lack of a sense of humor.
It’s not a particularly comfortable territory to occupy. I get shit from the crowd that calls women cunts AND the crowd that solemnly writes 5000 words telling fellow honkies to shut up and listen. But oh well, I’ve never been a joiner anyway. The blog network period was an aberration.
Judging from the excerpt above, I don’t want “to be an ally to” Wayne Gladstone.
Purely on a tactical level, I want the pissy self-centered nags all on the other side of whatever fight I’m in.
Lady Mondegreen @13
I read the exact same passage and come to the opposite conclusion. I read it as targeting two groups:
1) Marginalized people who speak out against things that contribute to that marginalization. Gladstone’s not making fun of narcissism; he’s implying “people of different races, religions, social orientations and identities” are narcissistic for speaking out. A woman who publicly calls out & shames a man for saying how stunning her professional LinkedIn photo is: narcissistic thought police. A group of black people rallying under “BlackLivesMatter” (not “AllLivesMatter”? narcissists!). A transgender boy who wants his grandma to stop referring to him as a “granddaughter”: narcissist-in-training. The whole lot of them: directly comparable to Wayne Gladstone asking people not to use the word “Tall” because it makes him feel bad about his height.
2) People who take people in #1 seriously and respect their requests. After all, since marginalized people are just narcissists audaciously requesting that they not be addressed in derogatory way, those who respect such requests are really just suckers.
Gladstone spends the rest of the article showing how the marks in #2, who buy into the narcissistic con of those in #1, are applying logic entailing that they must also be respectful of any silly thing that Wayne Gladstone can claim makes him feel marginalized.
NoxiousNan @14,
Huge gulf between “Assholes, motivated by Y, do things like X. Ophelia did X.” And “Ophelia is an asshole.”
Nonetheless, I do retract the association – there’s an even larger gulf between Ophelia and the bigoted assholery I was alluding to, and I should have limited my response to criticism of the article itself.
Ophelia @15,
True. I’m guessing it won’t come as a huge shocker to state that I have a shaky relationship with some of the views you express on transgender issues. That said, you’ve always been (and still are) one my favorite thinkers/writers on the web. Yes, transgender issues hit very close to home for me, and I’m sure that shines through in the heat of my comments when I do think you’ve gotten things wrong. But much as I think they’re off the mark at times, I do respect where your views come from. For the record, none of what you’ve written has come close to diminishing my motivation to read, and learn from, your insights on a myriad other subjects.
Besides, one of these days I’ll actually make my points with sufficient clarity that you’ll respond, “Oh, now I see what you mean! Trans women/men/boys/girls really are women/men/boys/girls, in every meaningful sense of those words.” ;-)
So… bodies are meaningless. Interesting. Funny how often I have to make appointments to go see doctors. Maybe I’ll just learn to ignore this meaningless physical existence of mine.
The smallest minority. Me.
If you really think Gladstone is suggesting that requests for civility toward “people of different races, religions, social orientations and identities” are all just as ridiculous as the demands of his self absorbed narrator, Kevin, I don’t know what to tell you. There’s nothing in the text implying that everyone who speaks out against, say, derogatory language is narcissistic.
The Left is about collective action; in this piece its language is co-opted by a whiny privileged individual. He’s doubtless a stand-in for any number of whiny privileged individuals who are nominally Leftists, but he obviously has little in common with, say, BLM activists. Their concerns go a bit beyond the traumas of Tic Tac Toe.
Kevin #12
I’m one of those for whom didactic intrusions function to a substantial degree as humor killers. A modest proposal interspersed with disclaimers “conveying the nuance”, making sure at each step that the reader obtains “legitimate guidelines” for treating the poor respectfully? Oh, come on!
I agree that it’s risky. However, I usually consider such risks worth taking.
(My sincere apologies for using the hashtag in this comment. Next time I will try to be a better… hmm… friend.)
I appreciate that Kevin K, thanks.