An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
Because the Cougar Town thread got so off topic: experience as authority
lenore beadsman
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I am not interested in a feminism 101 thread. There are whole websites just for that. My question is more general: what role does the experience of the marginalized have in determining whether sexism is at play (this could go for racism, homophobia, transphobia or other bigotry)? Obviously the plural of anecdote is not data, as we all know. But human experience isn't altogether quantifiable. Besides, any scientific study, especially social scientific study, begins with certain biases. Moreover, no marginalized group is monolithic. Everyone has different ways of thinking, customs, habits, etc. They also have different perceptions of the world. Maybe a majority of marginalized people don't find something transphobic/homophobic/racist/sexist. Does this mean the marginalized person who does is wrong?
In the Cougar Town thread, which I left to start this one because it was getting way off topic, MrMister accused me of believing that no one can be unjustifiably offended. Guilty as charged. This may be flip, but as Toby from the Office says on sexual harassment day: Intent is irrelevant. Obviously the victim of bigotry is the member of the marginalized group. i.e., it is never worse to be called a racist than it is to be the target of a slur. Therefore they have the authority to determine whether the statement or incident is an example of bigotry--even if other people might not think so. Making fun of Hillary Clinton's "cankles" is sexist, even if my mother-in-law (a woman!) thinks "it's just the truth!" And nobody can possibly know what is in anyone's heart of hearts, and trying to debate that gets nowhere. The fact remains that even if you didn't mean anything by it, you probably shouldnt' have said that about the cankles/"ghetto culture"/"that's so gay"/whatever. Even if your female/black/gay friend doesn't mind.
As I've made clear, I believe experience is the most authoritative element in these conversations. Privileged people almost by definition have the ability to have their voices heard all the time. So when a member of a marginalized group wants to speak, the privileged ought to shut up and consider carefully what they have to say. Like I said, I don't want this to become a 101 thread; I am assuming that the proposition that white people have race/men have gender/straight people have sexuality is uncontroversial. These are all lenses that distort our views of the world. So when somebody says "what you see is not what I see," we should think about why--and we should trust them, and we should know that they have already considered this from the straight/white/male/cis point of view because that is the point of view that dominates advertisements, magazines, classrooms, television, etc.
I am advocating, in short, for a more generous reading of the statements of others, especially the disadvantaged.
In the Cougar Town thread, which I left to start this one because it was getting way off topic, MrMister accused me of believing that no one can be unjustifiably offended. Guilty as charged. This may be flip, but as Toby from the Office says on sexual harassment day: Intent is irrelevant. Obviously the victim of bigotry is the member of the marginalized group. i.e., it is never worse to be called a racist than it is to be the target of a slur. Therefore they have the authority to determine whether the statement or incident is an example of bigotry--even if other people might not think so. Making fun of Hillary Clinton's "cankles" is sexist, even if my mother-in-law (a woman!) thinks "it's just the truth!" And nobody can possibly know what is in anyone's heart of hearts, and trying to debate that gets nowhere. The fact remains that even if you didn't mean anything by it, you probably shouldnt' have said that about the cankles/"ghetto culture"/"that's so gay"/whatever. Even if your female/black/gay friend doesn't mind.
As I've made clear, I believe experience is the most authoritative element in these conversations. Privileged people almost by definition have the ability to have their voices heard all the time. So when a member of a marginalized group wants to speak, the privileged ought to shut up and consider carefully what they have to say. Like I said, I don't want this to become a 101 thread; I am assuming that the proposition that white people have race/men have gender/straight people have sexuality is uncontroversial. These are all lenses that distort our views of the world. So when somebody says "what you see is not what I see," we should think about why--and we should trust them, and we should know that they have already considered this from the straight/white/male/cis point of view because that is the point of view that dominates advertisements, magazines, classrooms, television, etc.
I am advocating, in short, for a more generous reading of the statements of others, especially the disadvantaged.
lenore beadsman on
0
Posts
Didn't Kinsey start studying American sexuality by going around and taking as many people's sexual histories as he could? To me those are nothing but quantified anecdotes.
I'm willing to bet this thread is going to get locked anyways but for what it's worth I believe people need to spend more effort in having thick skin instead of not saying anything offensive ever to anyone.
Kinsey did a lot of questionable "research".
pleasepaypreacher.net
1) Sometimes, people are unjustifiably offended.
2) When a member of a disadvantaged group expresses offense, the appropriate initial response is open-minded and respectful rather than dismissive.
See Cougar Town thread. There was this crazy feminist who equivocated between a bunch of different concepts, generally ignored context and misrepresented MrMister's counter arguments, I think their name was...
OH SHI-
Misinterpretation of message/intent, mostly. Certain white people were offended at Do The Right Thing because they thought it was racist and promoted rioting. It isn't and it doesn't. Those people were unjustifiably offended.
I'm more interested in a disadvantaged person being offended. Glenn Beck is a rich straight white adult man. There is absolutely nothing disadvantaged about his social position (other than that he is totally harebrained).
Nice. Is it just me or do you feel famous now?
Anywho
So if a lower class person who is pretty much anything besides white and not gay gets offended it's always justified? I can agree with you that they usually have more to bitch about but I also don't think it's sexist to make fun of Hilary's cankles because she's a women. If I can say that Newt Gingrich's head looks like a loaf of unbaked dough without getting called a sexist then defending the opposite of that just smells like a double-standard.
"Racist" is a slur. Furthermore, in some contexts, it is a racial slur.
Your doctrine is a free pass, ethically and socially, for people to take advantage of those more sensitive than they. Let's say I'm the manager of a retail store, and I catch somebody shoplifting with zero possibility of error - I have a video tape of that person slipping an item from my shelf into his jacket. I call security, who arrive and detain him.
If that person is black, he might call me a racist in an effort to make me uncomfortable or curry favor with the security guards or simply to just make my life difficult.
Under a strict reading of your doctrine, I somehow victimized the shoplifter. Even though I have clear evidence of his shoplifting, even though I uttered no racial slur, even though I treated him exactly the same as I would have treated a white shoplifter, somehow in this scenario I am a racist just because some random thieving shitheel said so.
That is complete and utter bullshit.
The basic mistake that you're making here is removing context from the scenario - which is funny considering your opening line of "I am not interested in a feminism 101 thread," as feminism 101 is all about how important context is. Often, an offended person speaks from a position of authority. Sometimes they speak from a position of ignorance or lies. The only way to know is to look at the context.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Maybe not but I love the way you talk about it. "And let the record show, I own no monkeys" :P
What do you mean by "racist" can be a racial slur?
The point is that in general, women's bodies are considered to be public property and worth remarking on in a way that men's bodies aren't. Media outlets used Hillary Clinton's appearance in an effort to discredit her politics, which is sexist.
The point of the OP was to say that the experience of a marginalized person should be the ultimate authority in determining whether something is sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/otherwise bigoted. I understand that people can lie. Lots of people lie, all the time. And a member of a disadvantaged group can be personally hurt by something but still not perceive it as a slight against her or his group. But disadvantaged people should be trusted when they say "that is offensive to me, as a woman/black person/trans person/gay person/disabled person," and whoever said the offensive thing should consider it carefully and knock it off in the future.
"Racism," for instance, can be taken to mean "discriminatory on the basis of race." Let's say I am sitting at my cubicle, and nine white people come to ask if they can borrow one of my pens. If I oblige each of them, and then refuse the tenth person, who is black, despite having ample pens, that person has good grounds to say "that is racist." I would have by all appearances discriminated on the basis of race.
If I had run out of pens, however, and have no more to lend, my refusal wouldn't be based on discrimination but on supply. Nevertheless, the tenth person says to me, "that is racist."
Here is where my confusion is: Do you think my conduct is in that situation is actually racist, because the black person says so, and hey s/he has the personal experience to know? Or is it merely that when that person says "that is racist," I should take a moment to consider how they may have misinterpreted me? If you believe the latter, then I agree but am confused as to where the controversy is. If you believe the former, then I guess I just have to scratch my head and wonder how you came up with that idea.
One of my assumptions is that people are reasonable. If you have run out of pens and your black coworker says that it is racist that you have no extra pens, then I do not think that is a reasonable person. I don't really see where you're going with this example. The perceived controversy comes from when people ask questions like "what makes one person's experience more valid than another's?" or "how is it offensive if not every woman thinks it's sexist?" etc. If a member of a marginalized group says "this is offensive to me as a member of XYZ marginalized group," then it is not the place of a person with a greater position of privilege to say "you are wrong to feel that way, because in my heart of hearts I didn't mean anything offensive by it." Offense is not dictated by the intent of the offender. I didn't think that was a controversial position, but I know some commenters disagree.
You aren't really saying anything here aside from "people should be polite."
I'm not trying to be condescending and society could certainly do with some more understanding and politeness, but I don't really see how this informs our understanding of the issue of racism.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I categorically reject the idea that racism has anything to do with intent. If you don't think you're racist, but you say something about fried chicken and watermelon or whatever, but in your mind you don't hate black people then that mental process is irrelevant. Actions can be racist (or otherwise bigoted) even if the actor doesn't think she or he is a bigot.
I think people can say "that is offensive to me" all they want, about pretty much anything; if you are offended, you are offended, and that is just the way you feel, whether it is the fault or anyone else or not. I do not think that, say, a gay person can just say "that is homophobic" about anything that offends them and have it be true.
You are right that the intent of the speaker does not by itself make a remark homophobic. Nevertheless, I don't think the feelings of the listener does it, either. There is an objective standard here: a remark is homophobic if it communicates hatred or fear of gay people. If you say "that's so gay" casually to mean "that's so lame," you may not intend to insult any particular gay person, but by associating homosexuality with something undesirable, your remarks are a vector for prejudices in the greater society. A gay person may justifiably find the pejorative use of the word "gay" offensive. But at the same time, that remark isn't homophobic just because a gay person somewhere feels it is. It would be homophobic even if there was no one around to hear it.
This reminded me of one of my favorite racial minicontroversies. People who follow football may remember the story from a couple years ago when Junior Seau (who is samoan) was quoted as saying that the best way to slow down LaDainian Tomlinson (african american) was to fill him up on fried chicken and watermelon. The sports media had a field day with this, and it only blew over once the pair explained that when they were teammates in san diego, they got together every friday for fried chicken and watermelon, and Seau was making a joke about that.
Racism? I have a hard time saying it is, especially since 'racism' has become such a charged term at this point. We might need another word that we can use as a less confrontational term for "thoughtlessly repeating negative stereotypes."
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
HINT: It's not satire if you believe that shit fuckers.
EDIT: Probably been brought up before, but the worst is some of their backwards ass logic (ignorant people, not /b/tards, though they're also pretty fucking ignorant) to defend their statements.
"I have nothing against black people, but I hate N*****s!" - Them
"What" - Me
"Well they make all these rap songs about killing people, that's ignorant. So they say ignorant things, I'll say ignorant things right back" - Them
"If violent rap lyrics are your definition of ignorance, your use of the word _____ is my definition of intolerance" - Me
"..." - Both
And to think I had a thing for that chick.
Yes, it would be homophobic even if there wasn't anyone around to hear it. An excellent point. Maybe I should revise my statement to say that the disadvantaged have the most authority to observe the communication of hatred or fear of [disadvantaged group]. If I say "that's so gay" and a gay person takes offense and tells me that it communicates something hateful, I do not have the authority to say "nuh uh, I didn't mean anything by it. You're just being oversensitive." The member of the disadvantaged group should have the ultimate authority in this regard. You're very right in saying that my previous assertion depends on somebody having heard the hateful remark; it's still wrong even if nobody hears it. Thanks.
Anyway, the "I didn't mean anything by it" and "that's not homophobic" are two different claims that I really think we need a way of differentiating between, and the popular rhetoric currently doesn't.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Limed for truth.
EDIT: I curse too much
What makes a racial slur wrong is that it carries the baggage of a racial stereotype and prejudice towards a race. If the word "racist" is used as an epithet against a white person, simply because they're white, based on a stereotype that white people tend to be racist, then it becomes a racial slur in and of itself.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That is a lame slur. Accusing someone of racism because they call someone else racist strikes me as a lot like accusing someone of being intolerant of intolerance.
Not really. Being "intolerant of intolerance" isn't really wrong, and so the accusation is spurious whether it's accurate or not. It doesn't carry any weight.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
1. Whether or not something is offensive to someone.
2. With whether or not something implicitly or explicitly coveys an insulting, bigotted, objectionable or otherwise exploitative meaning.
3. And finally whether 1 is justified or not, which is in turn informed by 2.
These are separate issues.
(We could, alternatively "whether or not something is offensive" for 2, but that's already lead us to the state of equivocation we find ourselves in. We could specify "morally offensive" or something like that to refer to the inherent properties within it, but that's still likely to lead to the aforesaid equivocation or open a new can of worm s about whether the adjectively we placed at the start is the right one and what that implies).
There's a really simple explanation of all of these things, and all from real life. I am relating them from memory, but even if the details are wrong, the principles remain.
A few years ago, there was an interview on a news program with a black man. On the ticker below him, relating to a different story the phrase "niggardly" appeared.
This lead to some people decrying this as racist as being offensive. And ultimately the news program issued a retraction for offending their viewers.
So, we have people who WERE offended, as per 1, as they did not know the meaning of the word. However, as per 2, the word carries no racist connotations and wasn't even displayed in relation to the black man on screen. And thus, as per 3 while they may have been bona fide offended, their offense was unjustified.
Likewise, in a somewhat more personal example, a guy I went to Uni with was talking in a linguistics class we shared about how he had met a guy when he was in the US and they got to talking. Somehow they moved onto tv shows that they liked and disliked, and the US guy started explaining that he didn't like a bunch of shows because they were too "New York". My friend took that to refer to being too intwined with the cultural details of New York so that the appreciation of most of the shows relied upon being familiar with New York. The two wrinkles to the story - he later found out that New York was a euphemism for "stinking Jewish", the guy from uni is Jewish. So, while the content was objectionable, the Jewish guy was not offended at the time.
Offense and objectionability are separate. Offense is not always justified. QED.
Wait.
1) You think one can be unjustifiably offended.
2) You do not think one can be unjustifiably offended.
Which are you, and what the hell does "unjustifiably offended" mean?
Mormon.
Not that Beck is right, or sane, just saying...
See, the sheer immensity of human creativity stands against this statement. Each of us could brainstorm up absurd scenarios in which someone gets offended about something entirely unrelated to them, and their offence would certainly be rationally unjustifiable. Such a thing just can't possibly stand as an absolute statement.
Then one of the key premises to your argument is, frankly, wrong. People are not always reasonable, especially when dealing with emotionally charged issues such as prejudice. The resulting verbal exchanges can frequently be boiled down to attempts to verbalize a deep-seated emotional response by both parties, and such emotional reactions are by definition not rational.
No, rational objectivity is the ultimate authority here. The offended individual can never be considered the "ultimate authority" on anything other than the knowledge of whether or not they felt offended. A truly objective, all-encompassing perspective on a hypothetical confrontation would include all of the history, previous wrongs, and subtle connotations that may be overlooked by the privileged individual; only such a perfect analysis could be considered "ultimate."
Thing is, I get what you are trying to convey here, and I agree with you. But you couch it with such absolute and indefensible statements as to render it impossible to agree with your argument as a whole.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Well it won the ratings war in its time slot, so probably not for a while at least.
And also I agree with Talleyrand. People in general are just too damn easily offended.
Is that all it takes to be considered "successfull?" *sigh*
I'd like to think I don't take offense easily. On the other hand, most of what I say seems to offend others.