Embracement
They want to be clear about something.
We want to be clear about something. The Second Shelf is intersectional, inclusive, and expansive in our use of the term women as we embrace the multidefinitionality of gender identity and expression. We will not debate this.
— The Second Shelf (@secondshelfbks) January 15, 2019
Only, to me it’s not clear. It’s anything but clear; it’s downright muddy.
For instance, why is there any need to be “expansive” in anyone’s “use of the term women”? Why can’t the word “women” just mean “women” and let it go at that? Apart from anything else, it’s convenient. It saves trouble when words mean what they mean and not some “expansive” extra set of things imposed from the outside. If the word “women” is “expanded” to include dogs and hammers and lettuce and who knows what else, won’t we just need a new word that means “women”?
For another instance, why “women” in particular? Why “women” only? Why not also, for instance…oh let’s see…hmmm…”men”? Why not “men” too? Why is The Second Shelf not announcing, with a stern “We will not debate this” for emphasis, that it is intersectional, inclusive, and expansive in its use of the term men?
And that raises another question, which is: why don’t people notice this? Why don’t they feel discomfort about it? Why don’t they notice that it’s only women they’re telling to move over and share and shut up and don’t even try to debate this? Why don’t they notice that it’s only women they’re bullying, and the historic pattern that fits, and the social justice movement that has been trying to rectify that for quite a long time? Why are they so comfortable and at ease with this new arrangement where people take to Twitter to issue orders to women about what we can call ourselves and how we have to abase ourselves to men who want to use the term women for themselves?
One reason, I’m afraid, is just that they can. It’s easy to bully women because it fits the old pattern, so let’s just do that to get our daily quota of bullying in. Women have been told to be compliant in a million ways ever since infancy; even those of us who had feminist parents still lived in a culture in which telling women to be compliant is second nature. The Second Shelf is just tucking itself comfortably into that ancient pattern. (They can go fuck themselves.)
“Why is The Second Shelf not announcing, with a stern “We will not debate this” for emphasis, that it is intersectional, inclusive, and expansive in its use of the term men?”
Because The Second Shelf is about women. If it were about men it would be The First Shelf, or just The Shelf. Obvs.
I guess we’re supposed to be grateful that they are not using “womxn”….
With words like this, you have to know they are serious!
What a word salad nightmare.
I’m quite happy with the good old, “narrow,” term woman that correctly, and monodefinitionally identifies the female half of the human race, thank you.
Ooh, they must be ever so smart and progressivey and truthy. You can just tell.
I recently read a comment on a post about toxic masculinity. It was rightly bemoaning the way that men as a class tend to act and think. But the commenter said “we cis men [are to blame]”.
What? Trans men aren’t responsible for all this toxic masculinity? Fair enough, but then aren’t they just men, without debate?
Seems you can have it both ways: nobody else in the comments jumped in to ‘splain things to the poster.