| |
|
People really need to separate the assertion "That statement is (racist, misogynist, homophobic)" from the assertion "You are a (racist, misogynist, homophobe)."
This is a big problem. If people keep reacting to criticism of their words as if they are being attacked, no one will ever get anywhere.
I agree, this is a good point. It's not just the people being attacked who need to make this cool-headed separation, though -- those making the call need to do it, too.
If I were to challenge someone's wording on the grounds that their language is misogynist, it is not the same thing as saying that that person actually hates women.
No, but I'd still be interested in knowing why they're using the word "misogynist" and not "sexist (against women)". Maybe it'd be useful -- for me at least -- to have some examples of each. I got into a debate on another board recently when someone stated that to consider the glove compartment in a woman's car as a space for her lipstick and hairspray was "misogynist". I said I'd regard that as sexist, but I didn't see how the language (the language, here, nothing to do with the person using it) suggested hatred of women. Actually I think it suggests a belittling, trivialising, misplaced (attempt at?) affection... something more complex than hatred, anyway.
And if something I say in ignorance turns out to be racist and someone calls me on it, I pray the gods I never turn to them and start talking about how calling me a racist is pretty strong language and they'd better be prepared to back up their assertions, seeing how insulted and offended that makes me.
Sure... that wasn't what I suggested my reaction would be if someone called me on "gyp", or if it turned out that "shyster" is anti-Semitic. I'd welcome them pointing that out, though I might feel embarrassed about it. It'd help me in the longer run.
If they said I was using racist language because I described someone as "niggardly", though, I would be ticked off.
It sounds like you think only wife-beaters hold misogynist beliefs, which is like the assertion that only hood-wearers hold racist beliefs. If someone says "I don't hate Black people, but... (almost anything that can follow that statement)" and they are challenged for making a racist assertion, they are likely to respond that their critic is weakening the word "racist" by crying wolf.
Hmm: it is an interesting point. I think if your thinking is overwhelmingly coloured by racist beliefs, or by sexist beliefs, then that does qualify you as "a racist", if you see what I mean. But yes, I don't feel I am "a racist" (I certainly don't identify as "a racist" -- some people surely do) but I do feel I hold some racist views. The point is that I feel those views are often fleeting, or that I try to challenge them internally, or that they don't, in my opinion at least, overwhelmingly shape my outlook. The same is true of sexist views. I don't feel I am "a sexist" but I fully accept I'm capable of thinking sexist things, and expressing them.
So I take your point. The person making the call has to do some of the work too, and also make this effort. As I said, I'd welcome it if someone said to me, nicely like, "look kovacs... you probably didn't know, but that word's actually got a history as a slur against Jewish people."
If they instead said "I refuse to engage with you now you've revealed yourself as an anti-Semite", and I was wtf, and they were "your language in the above post... if you can't even admit it, that's even worse", then I don't think I can be blamed so much for getting off on the defensive foot. |
|
|
