In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday

Jill

Promote yourself.

Netiquette reminders:

  • we expect Content Notes as a courtesy to our readers for problematic content in linked posts and/or their comment threads (a habit of posting only triggering/disparaging links may annoy the Giraffe (you really don’t want to annoy the Giraffe))
  • extended discussion of self-promotion links on this thread is counter-productive for the intended signal-boosting –  the idea is for the promoted sites to get more traffic.  If it’s a side-discussion that would be off-topic/unwelcome/distressing on the other site, take it to #spillover after leaving a note on this thread redirecting others there.

55 thoughts on Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday

    1. (I hope it’s ok if I respond here)

      I have mixed feelings about this issue Aaliyah, just because I think it’s important sometimes to be able to trace the problematic implicit meanings in words. I’m not thinking about the examples you used (transphobia and misogyny), but things like “gay” used as a general perjorative, or “hysterical” or “ret@rded”, for instance. In those cases I don’t think I’d accept the argument that their use had moved significantly on from their previous meanings, so I think there needs to be some middle ground in social justice movements to be able to look at the meanings of the words we use without getting caught in a cycle of having to constantly specify that when we say racism we’re not talking only about race but also ethnicity and culture etc.

      Which obviously you’re not arguing, but I’m just coming at the thought from a different direction I think?

      1. I think the issue with the words you cited is that although people claim the meaning has moved on, clearly it hasn’t, and in fact wouldn’t be used were it not for their supposedly insulting associations. I’ve heard teenagers claim before that “gay used to mean homosexual, but now it just means stupid,” but this the reason that this falls so flat is because it is simply false (the same people who say that will readily use “gay” to describe actual gay people).

        1. Yeah.. It’d be more accurate to say “gay used to mean ‘joyful or happy’ but now it means homosexual”, since in my own experience, people rarely use gay as a synonym for happy anymore.

      2. but things like “gay” used as a general perjorative, or “hysterical” or “ret@rded”, for instance. In those cases I don’t think I’d accept the argument that their use had moved significantly on from their previous meanings, so I think there needs to be some middle ground in social justice movements to be able to look at the meanings of the words we use without getting caught in a cycle of having to constantly specify that when we say racism we’re not talking only about race but also ethnicity and culture etc.

        I agree that some words don’t change entirely in meaning. I mean, certainly those words you mentioned are often used in pejorative ways. In that entry, the context was about people who object to being labeled, say, misogynistic because they think that the literal meaning dictates the accepted meaning (and so I brought up the commonly-used meanings because of their relevance). Nevertheless, I appreciate you bringing up that point because I certainly didn’t make it clear in that entry.

    1. Why is it OK for a commenter on your blog to use the term “twanzphobic”? You do know that that is THE term used by sneering trans-haters to describe transphobia? Which, of course, they claim doesn’t exist? Lovely.

      I don’t know what the point of your little parody was, and I don’t have any inclination to spend the time necessary to figure it out.

      1. I don’t know what the point of your little parody was, and I don’t have any inclination to spend the time necessary to figure it out.

        You care enough to question/criticize, but don’t care enough to read to find out the answer or whether your implied criticism is well-founded, Donna? OK, whatever.

        You do know that that is THE term used by sneering trans-haters to describe transphobia?

        No, I did not know it was THE term, but it doesn’t surprise me if that is the case. It was clearly a sneering putdown. FWIW, I took the commenter to task for the “twanzphobic” sneer in the very next comment (which I’m assuming you didn’t read):

        OK, David Gendron the squirrel, I have to admit that your comment here made me laugh … which makes me feel a bit bad, because in all honesty your mocking reference to “twanzphobia” is, well, pretty shitty actually, given that transphobia is a very real and even lethal bigotry that has made life pretty hellish for a large number of people who deserve the same respect as you and I. It is also completely inconsistent with the mainstream feminists I’m familiar with (Feministe, Shakesville, and many others) and inconsistent with your professed desire to “smash patriarchy” (assuming that means getting rid of gender essentialism and fixed sex roles).

        To anticipate a likely criticism, I did not, FTR, find the term “twanzphobic” to be funny, but I did find David’s ‘identifying as a squirrel’ scenario to be funny in an absurdist way.

        1. I did read your response to his comments. I don’t agree with you that there was anything funny about what he said, and I don’t agree that there’s anything useful to be achieved — whatever your purpose — by composing an allegory about trans people with squirrels as the characters. I am so damn sick of non-trans people treating trans people as some sort of academic subject about which they can philosophize, and debate their theories. Our lives, our bodies. Not yours. And allowing virulent bigots like that guy a platform to post — repeatedly — their hate speech, is giving them respectability they don’t deserve. Whether or not you chastise them is largely irrelevant. Do you let open racists and homophobes and anti-Semites continue to post their vicious nonsense, over and over again? Do you really think it’s appropriate to tell me I have to subject myself to reading through all of that before I’m allowed to form an opinion that the whole thing is gross?

        2. I respect your reaction, Donna, though I disagree with many parts of it. FTR, my post was most emphatically not “an allegory about trans people with squirrels as the characters.” The post was more along the lines of ‘calling the commenter’s bluff’ so to speak; i.e. if going along with his ridiculous rhetorical scenario was what it would take to get him to treat transgender commenters with respect in the discussion threads, then that’s what we were willing to do. To be clear, the squirrels did not ‘represent’ or ‘symbolize’ transgender people in any way.

          I understand your point about the futility of engaging with people who express this kind of bigotry. Though I don’t entirely agree with you, I do have some mixed feelings about my response. Overall, I think it was worth it, though. Far from giving him a “platform,” I think my post put him in a rather harsh light, and he hasn’t returned.

        3. @Donna. You write: “Our lives, our bodies. Not yours.” Agreed. But if that’s how you feel, then why are you talking about it here at all? Surely you know that not everyone reading these comments is transgender? If people who are not trans do not deserve or are not permitted to discuss and attempt to better understand what it means to be transgender, then, really, why talk about it ever in any platform or in any way?

          I am not being flip about it, I really would like to know whether it’s ever acceptable to have a discussion. I understand the difference between honest discussion and hateful speech, and I am not condoning the latter, but it does not seem, from your words, that that distinction is the issue for you, but, rather, it’s about people who have not earned the right to do so talking at all.

        4. I am not being flip about it, I really would like to know whether it’s ever acceptable to have a discussion.

          Are you fucking kidding me? Donna’s statement was specifically addressing one issue. Namely, “don’t engage in Ackademmic Thinkities on trans-squirrels or whatever, there are narratives aplenty to be found by trans people”.

          The fact that you’re leaping from that to “no talking about teh transfolk! evar!!1!” says more about your “genuine curiosity” than anything. Namely, that it’s genuine gold-star bullshit.

          If people who are not trans do not deserve or are not permitted to discuss and attempt to better understand what it means to be transgender, then, really, why talk about it ever in any platform or in any way?

          Take a deep breath, and repeat to yourself: “sometimes it’s not about me and my bawwww”. Repeat as many times as necessary until it sinks into your skull. Then notice that tons of people post about transphobia and trans issues here, without Donna or anyone taking exception to it. Why? Because they’re not giving airtime to transphobes and engaging in navel-gazing for no reason. I don’t think ballgame is transphobic at all, personally (though the judgment call on posting this particular thing, I find…questionable), but Donna’s problem was not remotely with the fact that a cis person wrote anything about being trans.

        5. Kerplunk, your question about the ethics/etiquette of non-trans* people discussing transgender matters should have been asked on #spillover rather than here – this is a thread which is meant to provide linkjuice/signal-boosts to lots of bloggers so that they get discussions happening on their sites, thus discussions focussing on just one person’s post here are counterproductive. The direct exchange between Donna and ballgame is within bounds, your butting in and pushing it in a different direction entirely is not.

    2. I am so FUCKING sick of people posting their weird trans pontifications on these self-promotion threads and then treating Donna L shitty when she rightly points out the offensiveness of all this cissplaining.

      If anyone wants to make an argument that this was the wrong tack to take — that I wouldn’t have indulged a commenter who made similar bigoted remarks about a different group — I’m all ears.

      You are NOT all ears. What the hell are you listening for if not the EXACT response from above? Was is not polite enough? Was it not clear enough that you’re cute little analogy did nothing to soften the vileness of reposting and engaging with that blatant transphobia?

      From now on I will be reading through the Sunday threads specifically looking for and calling out transphobia because it is not fair that Donna has to spearhead the criticism of it every damn time and receive the brunt of the derisive cissplainy bullshit that inevitably follows.

      1. it is not fair that Donna has to spearhead the criticism of it every damn time and receive the brunt of the derisive cissplainy bullshit that inevitably follows.

        This times like a million.

      2. Thank you both very much. I’m sick of it too. After what happened with Daisy, my willingness to even try to be polite about it is just about gone. If people don’t like being criticized here when they post links to their idle philosophizing about trans people, then don’t post them.

  13. I wrote a response to Roman Polanski’s comment:
    “The Pill” Blocks Romance?
    http://broadblogs.com/2013/05/31/the-pill-blocks-romance/

    As I note in the post:

    This man’s comments wouldn’t matter except that some conservatives are trying to make contraception illegal and some are using these sorts of arguments to dissuade women from using birth control: you wouldn’t want to be “masculine” or lose romance! Don’t know how persuasive they will be. But some in the W. Bush Administration and some states have been working to end contraception as we know it.

    For Memorial Day I reran this interesting research for those who may have missed it. A little study on people in happy, long-term relationships:

    Women Want Sex, Men Want Cuddling
    http://broadblogs.com/2013/05/27/women-want-sex-men-want-cuddling/

  19. The F-Word published my post about how the changes in the UK to legal aid will undermine our justice system by making it only accessible to the wealthy.

  23. This week I reviewed The Gypsy, a delightfully weird old fairy tale-detective fusion from the 1990s.

    I also reviewed Cory Doctorow’s Little Brother, which goes beyond teenage escapism to talk about surveillance and our reactions to terrorism. It was a good week all around.

  24. It’s been a while! From the past couple of weeks:

    Is it possible for a feminist to be both a cultural/social theorist and an activist?
    We Can’t All Be Judith Butler: How to (Realistically) Navigate Theory vs. Activism

    How Jen, a devout Christian, came to reconcile her faith with her role as an LGBTQ ally
    Christianity and LGBTQ Sexualities: Weaving a Narrative of Reconciling

    Aaron Sorkin’s West Wing is a classic favorite for many left-wing progressives. But maybe its time for us to take another look at how the show’s male characters treat their female co-workers.
    Taking Another Look at The West Wing

    Remember how everybody was freaking out about man-on-woman hugging in the workplace?
    Here’s a Gender-Neutral Guide to Hugging at Work

    1. Regarding the piece about LGBTQ identities and Christianity:

      Throughout the entire essay the acronym LGBTQ is used many time to group many disparate non-normative identities related to gender and sexuality. The discussion of these identities, however, only refers to sexuality and homosexuality.

      The use of the umbrella acronym is well intentioned but very inaccurate given that the discussion does not include any references to Christianity and gender identity. This is trans-erasure, and part of an ugly trend of people throwing the T into LGBT and then doing nothing to actually create discussion inclusive of trans* people.

      The author is trying to be inclusive by using the acronym LGBTQ, but does not actually create a discussion as wide and inclusive as the identities that acronym is supposed to represent. In doing so, she is marginalizing the experiences of trans people she is claiming to represent.

  25. I tackled gender-presentation in the Game of Thrones over at HBOWatch. One piece juxtaposing Arya Stark with Brienne of Tarth to highlight the damage of beauty standards and the constant visibility of women. The second piece was about Daenerys Targaryen, how she is growing into her power, and why she should be the feminist Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. Beauty/Gender-presentation and policing: http://hbowatch.com/why-we-love-brave-gender-bending-arya-but-we-dont-really-notice-brienne/. Daenerys Targaryen: Feminism for the Iron Throne: http://hbowatch.com/danaerys-targaryen-feminism-for-the-iron-throne/.

  28. I’ve been working on my PhD exam study and blogging about what I’ve read. To that end, I have a post on how fiction can lead to truth and how some different theories on how we situate truth and what we do with it once we find it.

    I’ve also got a post on how writing has always come easy to me and my attempts to make sure that I remember how it feels to be frustrated by something that doesn’t come as easily as I teach developmental writing.

    I also hosted a guest post on sexism in the 23rd century and what responsibility writers have to maintain sexism in older source material when they do remakes (like, say, of Star Trek).

  33. General note: the below has been added to the post and will be part of future Self-Promotion posts:

    Netiquette reminders:

    * we expect Content Notes as a courtesy to our readers for problematic content in linked posts and/or their comment threads (a habit of posting only triggering/disparaging links may annoy the Giraffe (you really don’t want to annoy the Giraffe))
    * extended discussion of self-promotion links on this thread is counter-productive for the intended signal-boosting – the idea is for the promoted sites to get more traffic and discussion on those linked posts. If it’s a side-discussion that would be off-topic/unwelcome/distressing on the other site, take it to #spillover after leaving a note on this thread redirecting others there.

  37. When will white people stop doing this? is a brief commentary on a number of recent instances of a (white) person pretending to be a member of a marginalized group and talking about the “oppression” they experienced while doing so, and how this is not helpful to actual members of those groups.

  38. My journey on leaving an abusive marriage with my heart and soul in tact. I’m a single mother of two loving up my daughters, working full time, and I hope somehow sharing what happened to me might help someone else contemplating or thinking about leaving and protecting their little ones.

Comments are currently closed.