BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Don't call me a *****

  
 
pointless and uncalled for
11:32 / 11.08.04
I've been reading some interesting commentary on Darcus Howe's programme Don't Call Me a ***** and then this article pops up on the BBC Don't Call Me a Dyke. All of this follows on the heels of being told at work that I'm not allowed to use the phrase Ethnic Minority because of the negative usage that it's had.

Naturally you can imagine that I'm running at a dead loss at times to know how to refer to people who aren't straight, white and male. Yes male, after all there apparently are times when certain terms of reference for a female are considered improper.

It strikes me as pretty much ridiculous that the most widespread language in the world has such difficulty in being able to refer to its users without causing distress. Not to mention the fact that those most likely to cause distress are those least involved in any form of determination as to what language should be used.

Now I will openly admit to being a coward with langage and where possible will avoid refering to any minority group, carefully allowing others to define the terms of reference. However, there can come a time in a discussion where you have to commit to identifying a group and I have to hope that I can avoid offence. In a way I share one of the sentiments voiced in the BBC article about not wanting to use the "approved" terminology because it seems to clinical, as if I'm quoting some kind of statistic and that in itself feels degrading to those that I'm refering to in a Prisoneresque kind of way.

This quote really characterises the situation for me, "The language thing is tricky - I feel sorry for straight people" - Thom Lynch, San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center, as if there is no real chance of resolution.

So what then are we to do? Is there any real hope that a happy medium where everyone's subset of humanity can be easily refered to without feeling as if years of oppression is being leant against them or that the wrong label is being pinned without forethought?

I have this feeling that we may be forced, for the time being, to accept that, by trying to cater too many opinions, we will never escape a cycle of confusion and unintentional offence.

For those wondering the phrase that I now have to use at work instead of Ethnic Minority is Minority Ethnic.
 
 
Ganesh
13:19 / 11.08.04
Woah, scary formatting!

What are we to do? Wait, mainly; wait and be aware of usage changing over time. It seems to me that the most controversial terms are those which have (relatively) recently been 'reclaimed' by whatever stigmatised subgroup, and are undergoing a slow process of denaturisation. It's difficult to know when a term's been sufficiently altered that straight white males (the near-universal 'oppressor' group) can again use it with impunity: Richard Madely's mistake lay in the assumption that 'dyke' was now harmless enough for him to use publicly, with someone he barely knew. It's not.

Myself, I can remember when 'poof' was a stinging term of abuse, generally applied to gay men by straight(-identifying) men. When I first encountered other gay men, in 1980s Scotland, referring to oneself as a 'poof' was frowned upon. That's changed gradually, throughout the '90s - probably in tandem with public acceptance of homosexuality generally - and the likes of Graham Norton made it mainstream.

It's still not quite harmless, though, and to be used with caution. If a gay person calls me a 'poof', it's fine; if a straight person calls me a 'poof', then it may or may not be fine, depending on the person, our relationship and the situation. If Richard Madely called me a 'poof' on national television, I'd want to punch him in the neck.
 
 
Cat Chant
13:44 / 11.08.04
It's tricky. It's unstable. It's context-specific and pretty personal. Sometimes people will get offended over certain uses. Sometimes there will be productive antagonistic exchanges about the use of certain terms. This is how we change and grow. Why would we want to shut all those shifting edges and spaces for definition and redefinition down?

If you are using a word which you don't think actually fits (like the way I often use "Asian" rather than anything more specific) out of ignorance, remedy your ignorance. If you've been told that using a certain word in a certain context will cause offence, stop doing it unless you want to cause offence. If you haven't been told and you inadvertantly cause offence, learn to say sorry and/or ask about what the history is behind the mistake you've made: most people can tell the difference between a genuine mistake ("Sorry, you have a girlfriend so I assumed you must be a lesbian") and an arrogant assumption that your right to dispose of language and definitions is more important than the right of groups to name themselves ("You're not queer, you don't have enough piercings, you're a lesbian").

I'm talking to myself here as much as to you, by the way, if I sound preachy: trying to lay down some rules that work for myself, too. I'm particularly guilty of referring to everyone who's neither white nor 'black' (Afro-Caribbean) as "Asian", for example, and of not hazarding guesses in case I spark conflicts. But, you know, [addressing self again] conflict is good too, that's how you find out how different people think...
 
 
Loomis
14:16 / 11.08.04
I don't worry too much about it, to be honest. I would if I was making statements on national tv, because there's a higher duty of care there I think. But in general usage, I think your strategy is fine, Seldom Killer, attempting to give the person in question an opportunity to lead the way themselves in a discussion with you. But I don't think it's likely to get you into much trouble if you're nice about it.

Sometimes these articles that pop up tend to give the impression that all of us poor straight white guys are just trying to do our best and that there are armies of nasty minority groups just waiting for us to slip up so that they can accuse us of all manner of crimes. I personally don't find that this is the case. Any sensible person should be fine, and if someone is not aware that dyke hasn't been reclaimed enough to be using it on people you don't know, then he's not been paying attention in class, has he?
 
 
sleazenation
15:31 / 11.08.04
What do people feel about the word 'sapphist'? I've always thought it too quaint to be pejorative, too archaic to be offensive. But what do other people think?
 
 
Chiropteran
16:58 / 11.08.04
In my own experience (as a straight white male, more or less), I've found that context makes a big difference in what terms I use. This is most especially true in the difference between "talking about" and "talking to" - refering to a(nother) demo/psychographic and needing a handy label as a conversational convenience vs using that label in conversation with someone who identifies with that group.

In most casual conversation with (mostly white) friends, I feel fairly comfortable using the word "black" in reference to people of African ancestry, because it seems to me to have achieved a fairly stable level of cross-race acceptance, and so far the only people who have taken (or at least expressed) offense to my use of the term are certain righteous white people who object to it on grounds of "political correctness" (often with the telling add-on that "we don't call them that anymore"). When I'm speaking to someone of African ancestry (see how convenient labels are for discussion?), I usually do try to follow their lead -- most of my black friends have used "black," and haven't objected when I do the same. If I need to make a semi-public statement or I'm talking to a stranger without the benefit of observing their own usage, I tend to default to African-American, but this can be problematic when speaking with/about someone of Caribbean ancestry.

Other context factors include the specific topics under discussion. "African-American" works well in a discussion of advertising demographics (alongside Caucasian, Hispanic, and other formalized and over-broad terms), but Chuck D, at least, prefers "Black" (with capital) for talking radical race politics (Nation of Islam, etc.), just as an example.

Also, it's probably worth noting that "African-American" is used as both adjective and noun, but "black" I use almost exclusively as an adjective ("some black people" not "some blacks"). I think this can really make a difference in how things are taken, for a lot of terms ("gay men" vs "gays", etc.). This fits with the ideas behind "person first" language ("a person with a handicap" rather than "a handicapped person") - not a perfect fit, but certainly related. (Although, now I think about it, I do use "whites" as a noun - but almost exclusively in plural. Hmm. To think on.)

Moving from race to sexuality, in my experience there is usually (!) little harm in using the relatively formal terms "homosexual", "heterosexual", "lesbian", etc. in a general discussion of sexuality - they may not carry the finer distinctions other terms offer, but they are usually pretty "safe" for generic use. When things get more specific, though, is when trouble starts: for example, some women-who-love-women will say that only "lesbian" is acceptable and that "dyke" is perjorative, some embrace "dyke" wholeheartedly, some say that there is a qualitative difference between "lesbians" and "dykes" and you'd better not mix them up, and some object to the women-who-love-women generalization altogether. As above, I tread lightly and follow example.

"Queer" I use freely when refering to things like sexualized areas of study or politics ("queer theory," et al), but I am very careful applying to individuals unless I am very clear about their word-preference. "Queer" in the broader "in the manner of a homosexual" sense I choose to sidestep. "Queer" is also clearly an adjective for me, never a noun.

Gender terms I sometimes have a little trouble with. Despite my age, my inner self-identity is still clearly "boy" (or more specifically "boi") - "guy" I have never identified with, and "man" feels a little scary. This isn't really much of a problem when dealing with other grown males, since "guy" will get me by in most casual contexts and has no age-specificity. On the other hand, because I think of myself in terms of "boi," I tend to think of females in my own (broad) age-range as "girls," while older females are "women." I really don't think that this habit is indicative of any desire to diminish or patronize the people I'm talking about, but I know it can really be taken that way. So, I try to be careful. Genderless language and non-dualist gender pronouns and the like are a whole other issue, and I really don't know where I stand there, except for the stock-rule of "listen, then emulate with discretion."

In general, I will echo Loomis and say that, specifics of each situation aside, most of the time one can get by just by using a little sense and sensitivity - unless you're dealing with someone who is especially politicized and confrontational in their thinking, most people aren't looking to trip anyone up, and misunderstandings and accidental offense can usually be straightened out without too much fuss.

Regarding "sapphist," I'm not really in a position to approve or condemn its use on personal grounds, but it does have a certain aesthetic appeal that many more prosaic alternatives lack (to my underqualified eye).

~L
 
 
Jub
09:16 / 12.08.04
In general, I will echo Loomis and say that, specifics of each situation aside, most of the time one can get by just by using a little sense and sensitivity - unless you're dealing with someone who is especially politicized and confrontational in their thinking, most people aren't looking to trip anyone up, and misunderstandings and accidental offense can usually be straightened out without too much fuss.

Lepidopteran; I think that's fairly on the money.

I find the "African-American" as a phrase rather odd, partly because I don't think African-Briton would ever be adopted by anyone here, and partly because it's specific to the states. I vaguely remember (although this might be an urban myth) that when Nelson Mandela first visited the US, they weren't sure how to address him because they wanted to make a point that he was the black leader as opposed to the white leader. I think they plumped for African-American South-African, which Mandela promptly laughed at.

Similarly, I have mates who don't really like (but don't really care) about Asian. Mostly, most refer to themselves as brown. The point being whilst their families might be from Asia, they most certainly are not, and whilst black and white is a descriptive term, Asian is a geographic one.

I remember refering to someone as Oriental once and an American colleague was slightly shocked thinking it was a racist thing. Apparently, Chinese, Japanese and Korean (etc) natives are known as Asian along with subcontinental (eg Indian, Pakistani etc) natives. Is this still the case, or am I waay behind the times?
 
 
Chiropteran
11:52 / 12.08.04
I remember refering to someone as Oriental once and an American colleague was slightly shocked thinking it was a racist thing. Apparently, Chinese, Japanese and Korean (etc) natives are known as Asian along with subcontinental (eg Indian, Pakistani etc) natives. Is this still the case, or am I waay behind the times?

In my experience, "Asian" still seems to be the most acceptable generalization, but there does seem to be a growing trend towards being nation-of-origin-specific (e.g. "Korean"). I have heard some people speak out against "Asian" as a demeaning overgeneralization, but not much. There is also the geographical angle, as noted above, but there is also the counter-move of referring to "whites" as "European-Americans" - which, while it is open to the same criticisms as any label, does have the potential to (occasionally, perhaps) shake someone of their unquestioned "white" = "default American" assumptions.

Oh, and also (in my experience), I think a lot of Americans don't habitually think of the subcontinent as "Asian" - and tend to lump people from India, Pakistan, etc. all together as "Indian." Similarly, people from the Middle East are all lumped as "Arabs." "Asian" is generally reserved for China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and others like Laos and Tibet (if people happen to think of them at all). Whole lotta arbitrary generalizations going on.

In my area there is an interesting example of inaccurate-generalization vs specificity going on right now: my town has a large (and fairly recent) immigrant population with origins in Russia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Latvia. Both for reasons of national/ethnic pride, and especially given the political history of their homelands, many of the people from former Soviet republics do not want to be identified as "Russian" -- yet "Russian" is the almost universal umbrella term applied to them by town "natives." We have "the Russian Churches," "the Russian store," and a lot of stereotypes (and growing bitterness) over "all these Russians."

Part of the difficulty, I think (and this is also an issue with "Asian"), is that the people who are using these words as catch-alls have a hard time guessing national origin by sight: someone who has been raised in a Euro-centric culture has a good shot at identifying an (at least stereotyped) Italian person, or at least differentiating her from an Irish person. This same person (whether from lack of experience/exposure or unwillingness/laziness - or likely both in varying amounts) might assume all Korean and Lao and even Malay people are "Japanese," or just lump them as "Asians" in a way they wouldn't dream of lumping "Europeans."

And probably a lot of people just don't care enough to be specific, which is in itself a problem.

This is an incomplete thought - but I need to get to work.

~L
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:54 / 12.08.04
Not to mention the fact that those most likely to cause distress are those least involved in any form of determination as to what language should be used.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this statement. Are you saying that it would make more sense for - to use your control group - straight white men to decide how other races, genders and sexual orientations should be described, since they are the ones who are most likely to cause offence if they get it wrong? Only, I don't think that's how it works. These terminologies are not developed and changed as a minefield designed to make you feel awkward. They are part of the way people and groups indentify themselves. The straight white guy is not an immeditate consideration, I wou;d suggest.

As such, for example, we can laugh at, say, Nelson Mandela being described as an "African-American South African", but I think we have to look at what our objective in doing so is. Are we identifying a situation in which somebody failed to respond intelligently to a particular situation requiring a description they were not sure about, and getting it wrong? Or are we trying to demonstrate that the whole idea is dear old Political Correctness, once again foaming at the mouth and staining the bedsheets? I really don't know... as has been said, people are generally not looking to trip you up - what is far more important might be how you respond to somebody correcting your usage.

In my experience, these things tend to find a level. So, "African-Briton" doesn't crop up because "African-American" means something specific and not translatable. It means somebody who is American, but who is descended from people who were brought to America from Africa, yes? As such, it is often used as the term most likely to be correct when describing a black American. "Black British", like "Black American" is a broader terminology, acknowledging the complexity of the possible issue. For example, somebody might be born in Britain, their parents may be Tobagan, but after some research our notional Brit may discover that *their* ancestors might have been from, say, Ghana. How they decide these factors affect their self-perception, and thus the modes of address they are comfortable with. It's a bit complex, but not necessarily in a bad way.

Would like to come back both to "sapphist" and "oriental" when not sleepy...
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
08:37 / 13.08.04
Apologies, not written as well as it should have been. This statement particularly refers to official discussion rather than evolved cultural language. Specifically with reference to diversity action and awareness groups who support and respond at a business level.

Certainly I would never expect such a group to say "what would you like to call us?", I think that this has, in a majority of situations, been established and very much at the root of the issue.

However if there is a discussion of choice of official language then the involvement of the SWM should at least be engaged at the level of communication of the chosen accepted language and preferably accompanied with an explanation as to its derivation. I think really this is more of a railing against a current institutional dynamic which I see as critically flawed. The current methodology seems to be at best a communication of please make note of the current accepted practice, that is all and more often a response (in workplace) of "Hey, you can't use that language on us".

It's evident to me that this dynamic needs to be overhauled dramatically if tangible progress is going to be made otherwise it appears to me that this will create more ignorance than it solves.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:27 / 14.08.04
The current methodology seems to be at best a communication of please make note of the current accepted practice, that is all and more often a response (in workplace) of "Hey, you can't use that language on us".

I don't follow. Do you mean that the terminology is imposed from above and then challenged by fellow workers?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
15:19 / 14.08.04
As such, for example, we can laugh at, say, Nelson Mandela being described as an "African-American South African"

How about the absurdity of using a four word descriptor for something as clear as the colour of a person's skin? How is Mandela American? Why couldn't they just introduce him as South African? Why did they need to highlight the colour of his skin when the majority of people can plainly see what colour it is? Surely he's simply African, not American.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:22 / 14.08.04
I think I just said that, didn't I?
 
 
Ganesh
02:29 / 15.08.04
Yes. You did.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
20:46 / 15.08.04
Oh damn you and your language. I can't believe I managed to misread an entire paragraph. Sorry.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
06:56 / 16.08.04
haus - sadly a common occurence in large burueacratic structures when it come to non-essential culture shifts.
 
  
Add Your Reply