So thanks to my readings lately, I've been trying to cut the word "lame" out of my vocabulary. On account of the fact that it is some shitty ableist garbage.
Lame was my go-to word for describing a shitty thing or situation when I was in a situation where I couldn't swear for whatever reason (parents/grandparents present, at work, etc). I just read a post over at Disabled Feminists about the history and use of the word and why it's problematic. The second comment includes a line about how maybe people with disabilities "do not appreciate being the cultural go-to for things that suck". Obviously that resonated with me, because that is exactly how I was using this word. In many ways, being a woman in the society in which we live sucks, but if someone were to say "you're not going to the bar with us? Man, that's so FEMALE", it is safe to say that I would karate chop them in their face. The use of female/feminine words as a pejorative is a topic for another post, but it's not used as a GENERAL pejorative for ANY situation that is bad or sucky the way "lame" is.
So, intersectionality fail on me! I would like to hereby declare that I will eradicate the words "lame" and "retarded" from my language. Baby steps on not being a dick to other people in the same way that I want to fight against people being a dick to me. If anyone has any non-problematic words I can use that aren't swears, please to suggest!
Anyways, in reading that post, I was also linked to this post about political correctness.
I have, in the past, also desired not to be seen as politically correct. I thought that it would be just another way in which I would be a whinging, over-sensitive, humorless feminazi boner-killer. But the fact is that political correctness, though often seen as a negative, is just a bad way of saying "a way of speaking that is less exclusionary and more thoughtful than I am comfortable being". Some politically correct ways of speaking include: not being racist, not being sexist, not being ableist, not being classist, not being homophobic, not being transphobic, and generally not being an offensive douche-canoe.
Painting political correctness as negative is just a way of saying that you want to be able to offend people and NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT. Now listen here, you have the right to say whatever you want that offends me. You get your offensive opinions, and I get my opinions on how you are a huge piece of shitty shit. See how that works? Boyfriend and I had a HUGE debate about this the other day. Freedom of speech and thought policing and whatnot, based on a Neil Gaiman post about the Comic Books Legal Defense Fund and how you HAVE to defend peoples' rights to say things that you don't agree with, because if you don't, someday someone will come after the things that you DO agree with and that you are passionate about and then you haven't got a foot to stand on. Gaiman's post is specifically about pedophilia, and a dude's right to write (or own) comics about pedophilia.
This made the conversation more difficult for me, since I hadn't already come to the conclusion that boyfriend (and the illustrious Mr Gaiman) had. I wasn't yet wholly invested in freedom of speech (the idea, not the technical legal part), because it wasn't something I had thought that much about yet. So I was still hung up on the "making comics about fucking children" thing, (which, I am now exercising my right to say I think is totally icky and Not Good) and how I feel about all that (see above: Not Good). Pedophilia gives me the yucks, that is for sure. BUT. That said. My being a queer gives some people the yucks. But I am allowed to write this blog. Also, the dude was not taking pictures of actual kids. We're talking about SPEECH and not ACTION. And I have since come to terms with the fact that yeah, dude should be able to say whatever he wants about whatever he wants (making exceptions for hate speech that incites violence. I don't think you'll be able to convince me on that one). The important thing is that I am ALSO allowed to say what I want, and that includes my opinion on this dude's opinion.
So, back to political correctness. I don't think it means language policing in the sense that politically correct people feel that there are things that you shouldn't be able to say. I think it means being aware of the history of the language you choose to use and being thoughtful about how you speak. And if you speak in a way that is exclusionary (homophobic, sexist, ableist, sizeist, racist, etc), then everyone else gets to call you on it. The point of political correctness is to try and avoid making other people feel like shit through ignorance, and effecting social change by making people realize what their words actually MEAN. Not just the definition, but also the other meanings and the power that WE give words through their usage.
Removing "lame" from my regular speech is something I am currently grappling with! It's tricky, but as you say - necessary.
ReplyDeleteI gotta say though.. I'm not sold on the "it's OK to make paedophilic comics" line. Actively ractist comics aren't supported, are they (are they?)? I read Gaiman's post when he wrote it and I've been lightly pondering it since. I've never been able to get past the defend child porn part. :/
Darn 80s and their catchy slang! Maybe bogus would have the same feel? I almost feel like I could actually get on board with that....Hmm...
ReplyDeleteAlso, in regards to the child porn fiction thing, I felt exactly the same way. And I think that Gaiman would argue that although one need not agree with racism in comics, one must defend the writer's right to produce it. You can still say "hey man, I don't agree with that, and here's why" and hope to educate someone, but Gaiman is against the LEGAL and literal policing of art. Arresting people for writing something, anything, that is fiction, is something he's against. And, in the context of pure fiction and, I reiterate, NOT ACTION, I guess I feel like I support this guy's right to say whatever the Hell. I still get to say "That's effed up and you are effed up", but I don't feel comfortable with the line-in-the-sand sketchy legal concepts of policing thought crime.
Thanks for your thoughts! I'm thrilled to have someone commenting who isn't just doing it out of pity based on a Facebook link!
We recently had a similar discussion in one of my classes about the "that's so gay" expression, which I personally find equally offensive. Generally, the derogatory use of terms that distinguish things people can't help is pretty repulsive, although we may not always realize what we are saying.
ReplyDeleteAbout the censorship issue, I agree with Neil Gaiman's post wholeheartedly. As an artist, I consider the policing of fictional creative output wrong in any capacity. I know that actual child pornography is very harmful and should be stopped, but I also recognize that fiction is another dimension entirely - because it's FICTION, which does no harm to actual people (and, if anything, serves as an outlet, actually potentially diminishing crimes against children). If Alan Moore writes a book about Alice doing it, who is being harmed? If the government polices what I write and draw, how much of a stretch is it to police what I say and think as well? It's not about what I think of someone's opinions or sexual interests, it's about the rights surrounding expression.
Also, I am not commenting out of pity, although I did get here through Facebook. I am genuinely interested in your post. ;)
I am with on "that's gay". It is unfortunate that such things will likely be a lasting part of our cultural lexicon. And when I say unfortunate,I mean "causing serious damage to the movements for social justice being made by the affected group(s)".
ReplyDeleteAnd I did come to agree with Gaiman toward the end of the conversation with the Boy. At first I was leaning towards maybe having it legal to produce and own, but maybe not to sell freely? Largely because I was worried that kids always wanna go to the naughty section and read the naughtiest thing they can find, and I don't like the idea of the mixed messages that would be present, to find out that grownups think it's normal enough to write books about having sex with kids, so if it happened to them they would feel more conflicted telling someone about it.
But then I remembered that there's no law that says a store HAS to carry anything, and they make that choice themselves. And if a bookstore decides to carry something I disagree with, I can go to a different bookstore. And the whole "personal responsibility, talk to your kids about whatever media they consume" business, which I advocate so heartily in other situations.
So I guess I do still feel like it's problematic, but my pure discomfort and ickiness at the idea doesn't mean I get to legislate against that ickiness. Cause again, people are legislating against the ickiness of MY community and I sure as shit don't like it.
I still think the reason people don't want it legal is that they think such a law would be a tacit endorsement, but that's why we have voices and teh internet. We can say whatever the fuck we want about a potential new law, but it's still a matter of justice to stop legislating fiction. Pretty soon gay or kink fiction could be on the chopping block, and then where will we be?
You know I love you but I will never be PC. You know that. And you've met my mother so you know why :P I do try to watch how often I use "that's gay" and I do try to be sensitive to not use it around those of my friends who find it offensive. But lame and retarded will always be part of my vocab. And I do try to keep my completely uncensored incorrectness under wraps unless I'm around people who are really close to me and understand that that is just who I am and how I talk, example, I try to not just throw out racial slurs at the mall, but if I were to say something potentially appalling at my moms house no one would even so much as blink at it.
ReplyDeleteI definitely still make off-colour jokes when I'm in company that I know will appreciate them and know where I stand on the issues surrounding those jokes. I like to think, in fact, that the fact that I'm SO VOCAL about where I stand politically that they know that I am not serious about any of the un-PC jokes that I make and how I really feel about the topics. One of those "if I don't laugh I'll cry" type deals for the most part.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think it's absolutely your right to use whatever language you want. I think that at the very least your consciousness that those words are kept in private and around people who know you well is better than nothing. But the reason I think it can be problematic is pretty much the reason you mention above. When it's part of your casual vocabulary, there's always the chance it will skip into your dialogue when you're in the company or hearing of people who don't know you.