Meet misia
Prepare to become more Woke.
Today’s lesson: how to fight all the varieties of misia.
Offstage voices: The what?
Oh dear, you don’t know what misia is? How sad. Fortunately there is a page for laggards like you. It is the “what does ‘misia’ mean?” page. You’re welcome.
You may be wondering why our guide uses the suffix “misia” instead of the suffix “phobia.” If you’ve not encountered “misia” language before, you may also be wondering what it means. Well never fear! We are more than happy to explain this relatively new shift in language.
The suffix “phobia” comes from the Greek word for “fear of,” and so it denotes an intense aversion to the part of the word that precedes it (e.g. arachnophobia is a fear of spiders). Words like “homophobia” or “Islamophobia” are pretty recognizable, and most folks understand them to mean a position or perspective that is prejudicial and discriminatory against LGBTQIA+ identities and the religion of Islam respectively.
The problem with using “phobia” terms as labels for prejudice is that there are folks who actually have phobias (real anxiety disorders in which someone experiences intense anxiety or fear that they’re unable to control—Claustraphobia, for instance). So when we use terms like “homophobia,” we are equating bigotry with a mental health disorder, which does several problematic things:
- It relies on and reinforces the harmful stigma against mental illness (see the Anti-Ableism and Anti-Sanism tabs to learn more);
- It inaccurately attributes oppression and oppressive attitudes to fear rather than to hate and bigotry;
- It removes the accountability of an oppressive person by implying their actions and attitudes are outside their control.
So since labeling oppression with “phobia” suffixes is harmful, many folks are exchanging them for “misia” suffixes instead. Misia (pronounced “miz-eeya”) comes from the Greek word for hate or hatred, so similar to how Islamophobia means “fear of Islam,” the more accurate Islamomisia means “hatred of Islam.”
For these reasons, our guide will be using “misia” language in place of “phobia” in an effort to be as accurate, clear, and inclusive as possible.
Ok but I feel excluded by the word “folks,” so what about that, eh? Won’t somebody think about what I want?
But seriously – what is wrong with these people? Whoever they are, who wrote this shit. It purports to be from the library at Simmons College, but what does all this patronizing pedantic crap have to do with a college library? Who asked them? Who said they could tell everyone what to say?
Let’s take a cautious look at the transmisia page. Let’s notice that under “further reading” there are some links to Twitter hashtags. Let’s scroll down to “Cis fragility.”
Cis Fragility
Cis fragility (drawing on white fragility in critical race theory) is rooted in a desire to restore and reproduce cisnormativity. It is a combination of lack of stamina in interrogating their conceptions of gender, as well as a resistance to challenging those conceptions, often react[ing] with defensiveness [and] forcing trans people to do the emotional labor of comforting the cis person in addition to educating them.
Cis people exist in a social environment which validates their genders and reinforces a gender binary which corresponds to their lived experiences, giving them relative privilege to trans people. Cis people therefore can can exhibit a low tolerance for that which challenges their assumptions about gender and their conceptions of gender more broadly. (from Cis Fragility)
Another link to a Twitter hashtag.
Anyway…this kind of thing…it’s no good. Collecting a bunch of sanctimonious jargon and dogmatic bullshit off Twitter and presenting it as Holy Writ is neither intelligent nor persuasive nor reasonable nor interesting. It turns off people on the left, so I can hardly bear to think what it does to people on the right.
First, I have no desire to “reinforce a gender binary which corresponds with my lived experience” since my lived experience with the gender binary has been a shitty, hate-filled life of enforced conformity to a gender binary that says I am not worth shit – and now, along come these people to claim that my desire to end the goddamn mindset that says women are certain things and not others is “cis fragility”. Why is it that insisting that someone who feels different than other men must be a woman is “challenging the gender binary” while questioning the dynamics that say men must feel one way and women another is “cis fragility”? Which one of us is really challenging the gender binary? Me, saying that I don’t want to wear nail polish, make up, or high heels, and I’d rather be in a field among snakes and thistles? Or the person who says “I want to wear make up and high heels, so I must be a woman”?
Second, I have some serious anxiety disorders which include phobias – agoraphobia, specifically. I do not feel that use of the word “phobia” is in any way contributing to stigmatizing me. No, the idea is actually to increase the stigma – the stigma of second wave feminists. These “folks” have “second-wave-misia” or “second-wave-phobia” (you pick) in a big way.
Why is it that insisting that someone who feels different than other men must be a woman is “challenging the gender binary” while questioning the dynamics that say men must feel one way and women another is “cis fragility”?
Seconding, with emphasis.
“lack of stamina in interrogating their conceptions of gender”
This part is really confusing to me since it seems like most conversations about conceptions of gender that get abruptly shut down due to “lack of stamina” are not shut down by the fragile cis. “Google is free” but it often doesn’t have any coherent answers to the questions people are asking.
It’s not new.m It derives from Greekiness that gave us misogyny and misandry, etc.
Why do kids these days think they invented everything?
Reinforcing 1, 2 and 3 above. The fundamental problem I have with some strains of trans-activism is the fact that it essentially enforces a stereotypical view of what womanhood (or manhood) is and shouts down people who try and challenge that view. Arguments about toilets, safe spaces and sports representation are not unimportant, but to me fall behind that first objection. That said, I’m a man, so maybe I should take a lead from what women who have lived all their lives as women think about the priorities…
“Anti-sanism” .
This is magical thinking. The notion that words have intrinsic power is very ancient.
And very silly.
And now if you volk will excuse me, I’ve got some spells to cast. *goes in search of etymological dictionary*
So… because words don’t have power, and the meaning of the words we use isn’t important, we should now all be OK referring to groups of people we don’t like as “animals”, and referring to situations we don’t like as “retarded” or “gay”, referring to women as “cunts”, and we’re now all fine to use the “n” word again?
I realise now that I should have checked the credentials of whoever came up with the idea that using those words in that way was bad, because I probably didn’t ask them, and what did all that patronizing pedantic crap have to do with them anyway, amirite?
Why didn’t I realise this before? I’m such a spaz!
This is real echo-chamber stuff. Seriously, who is paying any attention to this outside of a small subgroup of language fascists, and maybe a few sociology academics?
Out in the Real World(tm), no one has even heard of half these words or concepts, and it’s the Real World(tm) which decides what concepts enter the language. We’ll see if any of these go mainstream… but I’ll be surprised.
One thing: “Anti-Sanism” is s really stupid term. Sane and insane are not medical/psychological definitions. No one has ever been diagnosed “insane”. Insane is a legal definition meaning that the person is not capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong, is subject to uncontrollable compulsions, or cannot distinguish reality from fantasy. (There’s more, it’s a long definition, but that’s pretty much what it boils down to.) It refers to a person’s ability to be responsible, not to whether or not they have been diagnosed with a mental illness.
Because of this a person may be mentally ill – even severely so – but not be “insane”. Equally, someone may be declared “insane” by a court, without going through the full diagnostic assessment you would have to for a diagnosis of an actual mental illness. So, then, “anti-sanism” would technically refer to the oppression of those hospitalised by a legal court by those not…
I have some sympathy with the idea if “ableism” – but we used to lump all this under The Patriarchy (straight, white, wealthy, able-bodied power) then we coined The Kyriarchy, which was useful as it emphasised that there isn’t a single axis of oppression… and then class and systems analysis was abandoned as too second wave which was bad for Reasons, and now we have random -isms all existing independently with no reference to systems or history.
It all reminds me of some of the Tumblr kids who shout very loudly about how “queer” is a slur, how it was forced upon us by nasty cis-hets, before some older queer person politely schools them on queer history and etymology. Although some of them refuse to believe it, even when given sources.
It’s sad but the Left is currently batshit insane and I’m actually looking forward to the coming, inevitable. collapse as it eats its own ( as happens every 10 years or so). The current bunch are achieving nothing except alienating the people who would otherwise be on their side,. Maybe the next iteration will be saner (using the legal definition of being able to tell reality from fantasy…) and less in thrall to the worst excesses of post-modernist “thought”.
(I remember something similar to this happening in the 80s as the Left disintegrated into the usual disparate special interest groups which took the Second Wave down arguing furiously about personal sexual habits and political lesbianism. It seems to happening faster this time.)
Oh good, a new crop of sillies stumbling into the etymological fallacy. From a college library.
“Here is my elaborate, jargonistic theory of why I receive tired, annoyed stares every time I explain my elaborate, jargonistic theories.”
I used to think like that as a young Philosophy student.
What helped me change is being persuaded by the consequentialist side of Ethics. That forces you to consider whether your behaviour is actually bringing about the changes you want to see in other people’s thinking.
Also, from Feminist philosophy I learned to question assumptions about what is normal for men and for women. That’s a good thing for these #youngpeople to try to teach others.
They should take a look at how feminists have actually spread that idea, successfully.
Could you be more byzantine in your strategies for self-sabotage? My detached retina isn’t a visual impairment, its just another flower of ‘opticodiversity!’ Trump is ‘diversely’ sane and competent.
And Rome burns while these twits rosin their bowstrings.
“And Rome burns while these twits rosin their bowstrings.”
AH! A ROSINIST!! HERETIC!!!
Personally I like Mísia. I guess that makes me a Mísiaphil.
I do think they are correct that “-phobia”/“-phobic” wasn’t very accurate, as there often (even usually) is hate without fear.
But after decades of using those suffixes they’ve expanded in meaning to cover hatred whether it’s based in fear or not, so I don’t think new suffixes are necessary.
Karellen
The issue isn’t that words don’t have meanings – the issue is that they have the meanings which they are understood to have.
We do not associate a homophobe with an arachnophobe – because we think in whole words, not bits and pieces of words. The etymology of a word is a curious and interesting thing to study, but it doesn’t actually inform the usage of that word.
The concern shown in the quoted piece is, well, just silly posturing as a consequence. It doesn’t actually improve anything for anybody with an actual phobia, it just provides another avenue for euphemisms, which are themselves pretty harmful in how they end up dulling the edge of language.
If you look at the NHS in Britain, the hardest hit by repeated cuts to funding have been the disabled. How did the politicians get away with this? Through the judicious use of people being terribly offended at the use of the word disabled. The “differently abled” can damn well get different jobs, they don’t need to sponge off the state right?
Which means that the people who actually can’t damn well get jobs, their mental or physical disabilities are just too severe are, to put it bluntly, fucked. People being so damn conscientious about language use so as to not exclude, not offend, not be mean, ends up with them losing the benefits they need to live because the edge is taken off their conditions with a nice heaping dose of euphemisms.
With homomisia you end up taking the fight against anti-gay bigotry back to a point where we need to explain terms all over again, and now you actually do have an association between homophobia and clinical phobias because you need to build it in order to explain why you don’t just use to the word homophobia.
And in consequence, phobias will begin to be seen as negative personality traits rather than medical issues. We’ve just gotten halfway past the stigma of mental illness, and here come the phobiaphobes (or should that be phobiamisic?) to return the stigma through the medium of trying to remove a stigma that was not associated with it in the first place.
Does anyone honestly believe that calling a homophobe a homophobe actually made my life as an agorophobe more stressful? No, of course not, but then, this parsing of words isn’t actually honest. It’s just to show how woke you are by people who are worried they are not woke enough.
Skeletor #16
But in many (but not all) cases of alleged “Islamophobia”, “transphobia” etc. a suffix that denotes hate is no more accurate than one that denotes fear, since neither hate nor fear of living people is involved in the first place, only rejection of ideas, non-acceptance of certain ideological dogma etc.
@Bruce #17 – Thanks. That clarifies things and makes a lot of sense.
But…but…but…rejection of ideas is rejection of the people that hold those ideas! Because those ideas are the people themselves! They are sincerely held beliefs, and to question them is hate, bigotry, and fear, in any and every case…unless, of course, you are questioning the sincerely held beliefs of second wave feminists. Besides, second wave feminists are all old, so what do they know?
In previous jobs I did a lot of work on building accommodation, to help my clients conform with the requirements of the ADA or UK Equality Act. When I was doing this work in the US I was told that the preferred description for the people we were accommodating was ‘people with disabilities’, allowing us to focus on the ‘people’ part and not attaching a particular trait to them. However, in the UK the preferred description is ‘disabled people’. It took me a while to adapt to this, but now I understand why it’s important–the people we’re designing accommodations for have been ‘disabled’ by those of us who designed and built the built environment in the first place–it has nothing to do with them, really. Being disabled is a function of the space we live in, not something inherent in any given person.
Karellen, was your comment #9 directed at me? Because I said words don’t have intrinsic power. In other words–what Bruce Gorton said.