Post by folkie on Nov 17, 2005 23:01:55 GMT -5
There is no deadlier insult to patriarchal privileged males than to refer to them in terms normally reserved to refer to females. These are "fighting words," and the courts have recognized a male right to use violence if thus insulted.
But this can make for a dilemma online. How do you discriminate between males and females and accord them separate, different, and unequal treatment, when some give no clue as to their genital status or gender role?
The most hypocritical of males will simply lie and say that the words "he" and "she" are equal, and that most feminists prefer "she." But it you refer to them that way, which I only do when they deliberately, with full knowledge that I consider it as much of an insult as they do, refer to me that way first, they will inevitably ban or censor me, or both.
I am an unusual case. I claim no sex or gender role either online or in real life. I have lived as a male and I have lived as a female, and I've found that I much prefer to exist as a full, unlimited human being without regard to sex. Having cut off and stifled portions of my personality in order to conform to gender roles, I consider both roles to be nothing more than a way to limit human development and stifle human expression. Not that I wouldn't be happy to act out either role once more, since I've performed both quite successfully, but only on the condition that I was granted membership in an Actors Guild and paid union scale. I don't mind acting, but I won't scab.
Granted, I can only manage this because I'm 65 years old, have sowed whatever wild oats I had long ago (I'm looking at a picture of my grandchild right now), and at this point in my life I feel that equality is more important than stereotypes. Or to put it more clearly, I feel that stereotypes are an obstacle to equality.
But I usually make it clear that I prefer to be referred to with the "traditionally-inclusive" terms, such as "he," "him," etc., and that I consider the exclusive terms such as "she" and "her" to be unequal and insulting. For patriarchal males this is a challenge. They insist that if I wish to be referred to as "he," I must claim to be, or at least pretend to be male, or claim that I live as a male. And if I refuse to do so, then they feel justified in referring to me in terms which they know I consider to be insulting, and which they themselves consider to be insulting. After all, you can't expect people to treat others equally without regard to sex, unless they first know everyone's sex so they'll know exactly how equally to treat them.
Of course they lie, and claim that the terms "he" and "she" are equal. No matter that they never have been and never will be. Females are inured to exclusive sex-based pronouns from birth, and have found no way to challenge them. The insistance on using "he and she," simply perpetuates sex-based discrimination rather than eliminating it.
Unfortunately, females have been led to believe that if they weren't referred to differently, they would lose their primary sexual identity. As if their identity was based on a pronoun alone. Separate pronouns aren't necessary to sex, they are assigned on the basis of sex, so sex is there first. It doesn't only appear after the pronoun is assigned. The system of treating males and females differently, assigning different pronouns, names, clothes, jobs, etc., is a relic of patriarchy, and none of it is necessary to being female. But having some way to discriminate against females is essential to retaining patriarchal male privilege.
And so, having established my right in federal court twenty-five years ago, to equal terms and treatment without regard to sex, I have yet to run into a sexist pig who doesn't feel it their mission from their war god to take my rights away and treat me in a way that they themselves would never stand for.
And thus the banning and the censorship. When somebody insults me, I insult them right back. And since the patriarchal reaction (violence) to fighting words is predictable, their response is invariably to censor or ban me. No matter if their clearly stated raison d'etre is to oppose censorship and banning. There are some things no privileged patriarchal male has to stand for, and being treated like or referred to as a female is one of them.
Well, the way I see it, having successfully performed both roles, I've taken what good I could find in each, and retained it, and rejected elements of both roles that I didn't find useful. And as an egalitarian, I strongly believe that no human being should be forced to submit to anything that another human being considers insulting. Not on the basis of sex, not on the basis of race, not on the basis of religion, or on the basis of any other suspect category.
While females are inured to inequitable pronouns from birth, and have to be in a state of constant denial in order to cope, the female subconscious is well aware that the terms reserved for them are considered insulting by males. And such insults grate on their subconscious hundreds of times a day. That makes females very defensive, and with good reason. A male would lash out at even one such insult, but females have to endure thousands of them.
Females are told that they are equal and that the terms used to refer to them are equal. But little boys are told that if anybody ever refers to you the way they refer to females, you have to fight. So what can little boys think except that females are either too dumb to know when they're being insulted, or so inferior that they deserve to be insulted? When little boys say (in sociological studies) that they'd rather be dead than female, they know exactly what the conditions are. Apart from all the other gender role restrictions on females, they'd have to submit to being insulted hundreds of times a day, and since they already know it is an insult, they'd rather be dead.
Can you change things by using "he and she" or "she/he?" No, because such usages retain the most important distinction in patriarchal societies, that based on sex. Nor can you invent a new term to be used inclusively, because males are so accustomed to their unearned privilege that they won't accept it.
When feminists realized that many careers and professions excluded females, they fought to be included.
When feminists realized that the "traditionally-inclusive" pronoun wasn't actually being used to include females, they protested, but never quite managed to insist on being included.
All sorts of arguments and obstacles were thrown in their path, not to mention lifetimes of conditioning. The clincher was that if they didn't prefer separate, different, and unequal treatment, they were ashamed of being female. Sure, you can't be female if you're equal now, can you? I mean, by definition in a patriarchal society, female means inferior, so if you want to be female you have to accept being treated less respectfully than males. It comes with the ovaries.
And by the way, my excursion into roles was not for sexual reasons--it was simple survival, so that I could work. But what I learned was that everyone, not just me, should be entitled to equal terms and treatment without regard to sex.
I've been trying to spread that message for 25 years, and it still gets me censored and banned with regularity. Traditionalists of both gender roles continue to insist that separate pronouns are necessary. No matter that China, which didn't have separate pronouns, was as sexist as any other culture.
The first time I was censored and banned, I hadn't expected it. The board claimed that they held free speech sacrosanct, but of course that only applied to the child molesters running the board. Fortunately someone later wrote a book about it, so I was able to to document the incidents I wouldn't otherwise have been able to prove.
But it has become quite predictable for me. There are two major classes in our society, and one is more privileged than the other. Anyone who challenges that can expect to be censored and banned.
So I've learned to document each incident of censorship and banning, and send the transcripts to reside with the private collection of my personal papers at one of the Harvard libraries. Perhaps in the future, young researchers and historians will find them interesting, as a sidelight on how sexist our society was. I hope so.
But this can make for a dilemma online. How do you discriminate between males and females and accord them separate, different, and unequal treatment, when some give no clue as to their genital status or gender role?
The most hypocritical of males will simply lie and say that the words "he" and "she" are equal, and that most feminists prefer "she." But it you refer to them that way, which I only do when they deliberately, with full knowledge that I consider it as much of an insult as they do, refer to me that way first, they will inevitably ban or censor me, or both.
I am an unusual case. I claim no sex or gender role either online or in real life. I have lived as a male and I have lived as a female, and I've found that I much prefer to exist as a full, unlimited human being without regard to sex. Having cut off and stifled portions of my personality in order to conform to gender roles, I consider both roles to be nothing more than a way to limit human development and stifle human expression. Not that I wouldn't be happy to act out either role once more, since I've performed both quite successfully, but only on the condition that I was granted membership in an Actors Guild and paid union scale. I don't mind acting, but I won't scab.
Granted, I can only manage this because I'm 65 years old, have sowed whatever wild oats I had long ago (I'm looking at a picture of my grandchild right now), and at this point in my life I feel that equality is more important than stereotypes. Or to put it more clearly, I feel that stereotypes are an obstacle to equality.
But I usually make it clear that I prefer to be referred to with the "traditionally-inclusive" terms, such as "he," "him," etc., and that I consider the exclusive terms such as "she" and "her" to be unequal and insulting. For patriarchal males this is a challenge. They insist that if I wish to be referred to as "he," I must claim to be, or at least pretend to be male, or claim that I live as a male. And if I refuse to do so, then they feel justified in referring to me in terms which they know I consider to be insulting, and which they themselves consider to be insulting. After all, you can't expect people to treat others equally without regard to sex, unless they first know everyone's sex so they'll know exactly how equally to treat them.
Of course they lie, and claim that the terms "he" and "she" are equal. No matter that they never have been and never will be. Females are inured to exclusive sex-based pronouns from birth, and have found no way to challenge them. The insistance on using "he and she," simply perpetuates sex-based discrimination rather than eliminating it.
Unfortunately, females have been led to believe that if they weren't referred to differently, they would lose their primary sexual identity. As if their identity was based on a pronoun alone. Separate pronouns aren't necessary to sex, they are assigned on the basis of sex, so sex is there first. It doesn't only appear after the pronoun is assigned. The system of treating males and females differently, assigning different pronouns, names, clothes, jobs, etc., is a relic of patriarchy, and none of it is necessary to being female. But having some way to discriminate against females is essential to retaining patriarchal male privilege.
And so, having established my right in federal court twenty-five years ago, to equal terms and treatment without regard to sex, I have yet to run into a sexist pig who doesn't feel it their mission from their war god to take my rights away and treat me in a way that they themselves would never stand for.
And thus the banning and the censorship. When somebody insults me, I insult them right back. And since the patriarchal reaction (violence) to fighting words is predictable, their response is invariably to censor or ban me. No matter if their clearly stated raison d'etre is to oppose censorship and banning. There are some things no privileged patriarchal male has to stand for, and being treated like or referred to as a female is one of them.
Well, the way I see it, having successfully performed both roles, I've taken what good I could find in each, and retained it, and rejected elements of both roles that I didn't find useful. And as an egalitarian, I strongly believe that no human being should be forced to submit to anything that another human being considers insulting. Not on the basis of sex, not on the basis of race, not on the basis of religion, or on the basis of any other suspect category.
While females are inured to inequitable pronouns from birth, and have to be in a state of constant denial in order to cope, the female subconscious is well aware that the terms reserved for them are considered insulting by males. And such insults grate on their subconscious hundreds of times a day. That makes females very defensive, and with good reason. A male would lash out at even one such insult, but females have to endure thousands of them.
Females are told that they are equal and that the terms used to refer to them are equal. But little boys are told that if anybody ever refers to you the way they refer to females, you have to fight. So what can little boys think except that females are either too dumb to know when they're being insulted, or so inferior that they deserve to be insulted? When little boys say (in sociological studies) that they'd rather be dead than female, they know exactly what the conditions are. Apart from all the other gender role restrictions on females, they'd have to submit to being insulted hundreds of times a day, and since they already know it is an insult, they'd rather be dead.
Can you change things by using "he and she" or "she/he?" No, because such usages retain the most important distinction in patriarchal societies, that based on sex. Nor can you invent a new term to be used inclusively, because males are so accustomed to their unearned privilege that they won't accept it.
When feminists realized that many careers and professions excluded females, they fought to be included.
When feminists realized that the "traditionally-inclusive" pronoun wasn't actually being used to include females, they protested, but never quite managed to insist on being included.
All sorts of arguments and obstacles were thrown in their path, not to mention lifetimes of conditioning. The clincher was that if they didn't prefer separate, different, and unequal treatment, they were ashamed of being female. Sure, you can't be female if you're equal now, can you? I mean, by definition in a patriarchal society, female means inferior, so if you want to be female you have to accept being treated less respectfully than males. It comes with the ovaries.
And by the way, my excursion into roles was not for sexual reasons--it was simple survival, so that I could work. But what I learned was that everyone, not just me, should be entitled to equal terms and treatment without regard to sex.
I've been trying to spread that message for 25 years, and it still gets me censored and banned with regularity. Traditionalists of both gender roles continue to insist that separate pronouns are necessary. No matter that China, which didn't have separate pronouns, was as sexist as any other culture.
The first time I was censored and banned, I hadn't expected it. The board claimed that they held free speech sacrosanct, but of course that only applied to the child molesters running the board. Fortunately someone later wrote a book about it, so I was able to to document the incidents I wouldn't otherwise have been able to prove.
But it has become quite predictable for me. There are two major classes in our society, and one is more privileged than the other. Anyone who challenges that can expect to be censored and banned.
So I've learned to document each incident of censorship and banning, and send the transcripts to reside with the private collection of my personal papers at one of the Harvard libraries. Perhaps in the future, young researchers and historians will find them interesting, as a sidelight on how sexist our society was. I hope so.