The value of Microaggressions, e-mail response.

An e-mail response to the Microaggressions post, by Dani. She can be found @thequeengeek, and on her own blog, A Geeky View on Life.

I'm not looking to start a flame war as much as a discussion back and forth about what I see as an interesting and multifaceted issue.

Some disclaimers: I'm a white, cissgender, college educated woman. I was raised in a low income, working class home, and have spent a large portion of my adult life in pretty precarious poverty, but I have to acknowledge my privilege where it lies. I also have never seen that website till your blog post, so I can't speak about it from a place of expertise.

I think my issue with the post is that you seem to dismiss any positive outcome of recognizing the daily small events that highlight our institutionalized racism, sexism, ableism, cissgenderism, classism, homophobia, etc. I think there is some inherent value in pointing out that certain games, shows, magazines, websites, etc are geared to one gender, age, sexual orientation, et al. Akin to consciousness raising groups in the late 60s and early 70s, it helps people be able to identify where the ingrained and societal biases lie, so that the battle ground is clear.

On the other hand, I do take issue with the idea that changing language alone can end oppression. I think there is some validity to the idea that the way we speak about ourselves can change attitudes about certain things, BUT, I don't think that by changing language, all the biases of the world will magically melt away.  

If people are feeling marginalized by language, though (ie, Gentlemen start your engines), perhaps it is a symptom of an illness. The individuals feel excluded, pushed out and unwelcome in the community (in this case, gaming), but can only find physical proof in the words and packaging of the institution. Does that make sense? I know, for example, when I worked in a gaming section of a retailer, the men did not take me seriously as an expert. But only once did one say to me "Can I speak to a dude?" I felt he put his finger on what I was feeling through non-direct actions to be true-- that men would rather talk to a man about gaming, because they assumd I knew nothing based on gender. That one incident should not have been as offensive as it was, but it was an illustration for a greater feeling.

Then there's the argument that people who feel marginalized and slighted should be able to have a voice and a place to express it. That the internet gives people facing oppression the ability to speak out about how they feel, and how certain things make them feel. That it's a fine line to draw, saying what is a big enough deal to express publicly, and feeds into a stereotype of minorities being whiners and wanting special treatment because they can't man up and take it, etc.

I don't know. I think you're right in some aspects, too, but these difficulties came to mind. All the issues are super tough, and I'm just looking for people who want to sit down and talk them through, because even if we never agree, the discussion is stronger than anything. I totally respect what you do, and think you do a good job doing it.

-Dani

Video of the Day - Absolutely No Honor

Barely 2 weeks after a marine in NY schooled some local police on how they were treating unarmed civilian protesters some shit like this happens in Oakland.



Tip of the Fro to Daisy.

Video of the Day - Asmaa Mahfouz

Is there something wrong with me noticing a part of the work and organizing that Asmaa has done seems to include invoking the "real man" clause? I mean really we get past this "if you were a real man...." stuff?

It really ramps up at about 8:06 where she says, "If you are a real man you have to come with me to protect me and to protect our country."

Don't get me wrong I would definitely say that she is fighting for a great cause and her heart is undoubtedly in the right place. I'm just wondering if she is just trying to invoke chivalry for her own ends (and I also wonder if maybe other people aren't noticing this because they think her ends justify the use of such means).

Sound off!

Video of the Day - Pray until it Hertz

Sound off.

Video of the Day - No Honor

Discuss.

Video of the Day - Excessive Violence?

So I was over at Spearhead earlier and came across a story about two women jumping over the counter at a McDonalds and attacking the cashier. This cashier got his hands on what looks like a metal rod of some sort and beat them to the point that one has a fractured skull. You don't actually see the hits due to them being on the floor and behind the counter but you can hear them screaming so tread carefully. (Sorry for no embed of the video, for some reason I couldn't get the embed code to work.)

My question is this. Bearing in mind that a lot of people will say that when attacked they should fight back should he face the felony assault charges he is staring down the barrel of now? I ask this because if this were a video of an attempted male against female rape I don't think people would be so quick to charge said female no matter how violently she fought back. Should he be charged? Is this a matter of self defense? Would we react differently if the situation were reversed?

Let's talk.

Apples

Video of the Day - the best video ever

These people inspire me. Perhaps I shall put a megaphone on my grocery list.

Video of the Day - When I Was a Boy

Video of the Several Hours Later

It's technically still the same day that I posted the last video, but I slept in between posting the two, so it doesn't count.

Here is a musical and illustrated rendition of the fall of the Soviet Union:

A Female Equivalent to "Guy"?

Is there one?  Many people use "girl" as though it is, but when you consider that "boy" is really the male equivalent of "girl," the logic behind that really falls apart.  I know this doesn't bug everyone, and the feminist community seems to be split on whether or not it is appropriate to refer to a woman over 18 as a "girl," but language, and how it intersects with gender, is one thing I'm particularly obsessed with.  Language is the the first way that we humans tend to communicate with other people, and it shapes the ways in which we interact with others.  Using "man" or other male pronouns, for example, as a default rather than gender-neutral language (humankind rather than mankind) leads easily into the wider men-as-default, women-as-other assumption we're all socialized with, and artificially influences power dynamics between individual men and women, among other things.  

What we call the males of the species varies more than what we call females.  Males have boy, guy*, and man.  Females have girl and woman.  Boy and girl mean the same thing: child**.  Man and woman mean the same thing: adult.  Guy typically means: young adult male.  Since we have a common word to differentiate the area between childhood and full maturity for males, why don't we have one for females?  There was gal, but that feels old-fashioned and outdated for everyday use.  Chicks was problematic for other reasons, and fell out of common usage a while ago in mainstream culture.  Most people who use "girl" for adult women say that they prefer it to describe 20- and 30-something women, because "woman" sounds too mature, and the image they see in their mind when they hear the word is a matronly, de-sexualized figure, and that's not the way they picture the person they're describing.  But why use girl, which indicates a child, to describe a woman who's clearly no longer a child, when we rarely use boy to describe a man who's clearly no longer a child?  It's infantilizing, and can get really creepy when you consider that, often, men who are referring to women they're sexually attracted to as girls are describing, literally, children.  It's not that I think this indicates some kind of latent pedophilia among men who use "girl"; not at all.  Calling adult women "girls" is definitely not a male thing.  The inappropriate use of the term transcends gender.  It's that women exist in this continuum of "sexy" and "mother" ("mother" being, by definition in our culture, asexual), with nothing in between.  Sometimes you'll hear "young women," like a hasty clarification that the speaker doesn't mean old lady, but "young man" is another of those terms that sounds very old-fashioned that I never hear from people in my generation.  There's nothing in-between, nothing neutral enough to allow for a broader understanding of females.  That's my problem with "girls."  I still use it on occasion (although it's usually followed with a *cough* "women"), but I struggle to find an alternative that is more equivalent to the highly useful "guy."

So what do we call adult females who are the same types of people who, if they were males, we would call "guys"?  Is there something you say to refer to these women, which is considered an equivalent to "guys" where you live, or among your social circles?  Because in mine, there isn't a word.  Chicks isn't something anyone says unironically anymore, and even though we're all nearing 30 or just passing it, we all show clear discomfort when we force ourselves to say "women," while we consciously avoid "girls" for political or fresh age-related reasons, as we realize that we're all getting a little to old to be calling ourselves and our female peers girls.

Anything?

*I realize that "guys" isn't a universally-used term for males somewhere between boy- and manhood, and is somewhat generational in its use, but there's usually an equivalent used for the term.  Also, "guys" is often used to describe a gender-mixed group, which is also pretty split in terms of acceptability in different camps, because of its throwback to male-as-default language.  

**My niece, who is three and a half, just told me a story in which she described an interaction with grown-ups, and she referred to them as "big kids, like you, and my mom!"  So, maybe to some children, everyone's just a "kid."  That's all right with me... so long as it's a toddler saying it.

Video of the Day - Trippy as Fuck Propaganda

I don't get it, either.

Video of the Day - I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY I LOVE BILLY JOEL FOREVER edition

Video of the Day - Jesus' Brother Bob

Apparently this offends people, although I can't really figure out why, because it's really just neutrally funny:



via Unreasonable Faith.

You are enterin'... North Country

This might be the cheesiest song I've ever heard... but it's about Minnesota, so I like it at least a little.



"Winter has a reason / otherwise there'd be no spring."

Yeah.  Thanks for that.

Otherwise, though, most of that video totally looks like the way I spent this past weekend.  Lots of trees, a lake, beer, and grilling.  No guys with goatees or cowboy hats, though, but that's okay.

Video of the Day - Trailer for every Oscar-winning movie ever

This is why I don't watch movies.  It's just too accurate for words, and hilarious.

via Ms. Marx.

Video of the Day - Humans!

Looking for a way to fuck up your planet?  Order some humans today!

HUMANS! - watch more funny videos

Video of the Day - the problem with the economy

Former Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, explains what's wrong with our economy:




h/t Warren.

Breitbart's bewildering Netroots cameo, and some pictures

To his credit, I really don't understand why the only thing that reporter could think to ask about was a cocaine habit, repeatedly, even after he already answered pretty definitively.

More about the cocaine!  And prostitutes...?  Of all the things to ask Breitbart about, mid-lefty-conference-infiltration!

But seriously, hilarious.  You can hear my narrating a bit and giggling intermittently in the second video.

And here are some photos:

Breitbart, of course

First panel about messaging (will expand soon)

More about messaging, with Darcy Burner

View of the city from the Convention Center
courtyard

Settlers of Catan table

Joe Bodell from Minnesota Progressive Project
with Eric Pusey and other state-specific bloggers

I met these folks at the bar during lunch.
They came from Right Online, the conservative
conference across the street.
"They look so normal!"

I do not remember why I took this picture.

Me and @DAbitty, a Tweep I met
for the first time at Netroots

Breitbart pointlessly infiltrates Netroots Nation -- UPDATED

"I really need some attention, guys!!"

During the lunch break, I headed over to the Newsroom for a bite and a beer, and found myself sitting next to a couple Right Online attendees.  They were pretty nice folks, and we chatted for a bit.  They told me Andrew Breitbart was at Right Online, which intrigued me, but I wasn't about to try and infiltrate the Hilton to go find the dude, so I let it go.  But, as luck would have it, as I arrived back at the Convention Center, I ran into Amanda Marcotte, who told me Breitbart had just showed up at Netroots!  Pardon?!  What in the hell was Breitbart trying to do?  I naturally, I joined the crowd of angry Breitbart haters with cameras and followed the entourage.  Once I get home, I'll upload the video.  It was just... well, it was really fucking funny.  He complained about how he wasn't allowed into the exhibition hall, to which we all replied "pay for it like the rest of us did, asshole!"  ...or some variation thereof.  Eric Pusey of The Minnesota Progressive Project mentioned that Breitbart was here because he was concerned about potential troublemakers infiltrating the Right Online conference (check out MPP editor Eric Bodell's take on it here).  How he thought doing exactly the same thing to Netroots was appropriate, I don't know, but there he was.

I'm still laughing my ass off over here.  That was just a riot.

Update: here's the whole story with some background info, by Sue Wilson, who I just met while waiting in line to get a (free!!) beer.