Why the little things matter.

[feuervogel]

Once upon a discussion with my libertarian now-ex-boyfriend, he told me that I shouldn't get so upset over "the little things," like "that's so lame" or the eleventy-millionth depiction of bisexual women as slutty, indecisive, or outright evil, because ... I don't know, I guess because sharia exists, or something. The Real Problems, as defined by a white, middle-class, straight, cis man, because bisexual women don't get to define our own problems, I guess.

sohotrightnow has this excellent post on why little things matter.

Do not ever forget that it started small, that the Holocaust was merely the logical conclusion of the gradual devaluing and dehumanizing of large swaths of people -- some people claim that focusing on microaggressions and trying to end them is reductio ad absurdum; I'd go in a different direction and call the Holocaust an increscio ad absurdum: a completely logical series of steps from one degree of devaluing and dehumanizing to the next, on up to the most horrifying and completely logical conclusion. But don't forget either that there were a lot of people, along the way, who did fight, who didn't simply accept the tiny little ways their society had told them, day in and day out, for their entire lives, that certain lives were worth less than others, that certain people were less human than others. Don't use the latter fact to write off the former, because if more people had spoken up from the beginning, if more people had examined their assumptions and their language and the casual everyday ways they devalued and dehumanized the undesirable, maybe the more dramatic actions of the Righteous wouldn't have been necessary. But don't let the former cause you to lose hope, to think that there is nothing you can possibly do in the face of widely-held, systemically-enforced, popularly-approved and -perpetuated injustice. And by God, don't let it be an excuse to do nothing, to ignore the microaggressions because there are "real" problems, "real" injustices: because -- I know I am saying this over and over again, but seriously -- if more people had stopped and examined the small injustices they were committing or simply ignoring from the beginning, there may not have been a need for a few people to give up their lives trying to stop huge injustices.

And as far as the casual throwing around of "lame" as a derogatory term, who does it hurt to make the effort not to use words others find offensive? Ask yourself, if someone said "that's so gay," would it piss you off? Would it add to the hundreds of papercuts of society-wide injustice perpetrated against the LGBT* community? If yes, then STOP USING LAME as a replacement for gay in that sense.

Comments

[thesmallwonder.livejournal.com]

I'm not using it in your space, I am however disagreeing with your point of view. Which I'm p certain was okay so long as I didn't get rude about it. But if I'm wrong...

[feuervogel]

You're defending its usage, quite vigorously. That bothers me.

Disabled people are saying, "stop using that term. It hurts us." What your defense is telling me is that their hurt is less important than your convenience and your ability to use this casual insult which conflates being disabled with badness.

[thesmallwonder.livejournal.com]

It wasn't intended as vigorous. It was intended as my not really agreeing with the definition of the word and believing that modern times has changed it. People can be upset over whatever word they want to be, but I do beleive that sometimes a step back needs to be taken so we can view the context in which the word was intended to mean.

But you got it, you don't want any opposing points of view from me on you're journal, consider this my last comment here.

You kind of burn a lot of bridges by getting very defensive very quickly. I appreciate your passion but not the execution. :v

[feuervogel]

When did I say I don't want opposing viewpoints? I don't want people to use slurs or defend their usage when I have asked people not to do so in my space. Feel free to defend and use ableist slurs in your journal all you want.

My point is that it doesn't hurt YOU to stop using something that HURTS disabled people, which they're saying in that blog entry. And you're saying, well, they're overreacting/meanings change, as if no social justice activist has ever heard that before. (They have, so often, in fact, that it's on a bingo card.)

[steuard.livejournal.com]

To be fair, what thesmallwonder said was "you don't want any opposing points of view from me on your journal", not "you don't want them anywhere". And that's pretty literally what you've said here. I absolutely support your right to enforce your journal as a space that's safe for you in whatever ways you need, so I won't fault you for that at all. (It can make conversations a bit disjointed, though.)

I'll be honest: I too have mostly come to the conclusion that it would not be safe for me to comment on your journal to voice any disagreement with a position you've taken. I simply haven't studied these issues enough to know what sorts of arguments are disallowed (since many of those are not remotely obvious to me), and I understand that you don't want to spend your time catching lots and lots of people up on the basics.

It does make me uncomfortable to see you swear at people or express intense anger toward them for making arguments that, while entirely flawed, are nevertheless very, very commonly used by even well-intentioned people who have not studied this topic (which unfortunately is "almost everyone"). (Admittedly, not noticing an earlier thread on the same topic is poor form.) But again, this is your space and the standards here are yours to define.

[feuervogel]

There are some habitual repeat offenders, who've defended a variety of jerk behavior over the years, when I've specifically said "don't do X, it's offensive because [link]." They've defended it with bingo-card statements and shown little interest in educating themselves by reading the convenient links I've provided and considering that the writing of the marginalized person at the link is valid, and that the writer's offense is important enough for them to stop X.

So, when I've said "stop X, it's offensive/hurtful." I get a handful of "you're overreacting/it doesn't really mean that/meanings change" derails. Which I then have to spend my time rebutting and attempting to teach them remedial social justice. It's exhausting, especially when I'm talking to a brick wall.

If someone wants to be part of the solution -- which was the point of the original post: how to make the tiny changes that can help people, through awareness and listening when people say "that's hurtful, please stop," which could lead to breaking down the systematic marginalization and dehumanization of women/POC/the disabled/LBGT*/immigrants/non-Christians -- they will show a desire to learn, to change their habits. Someone well-intentioned, or someone who'd say, "huh, I never thought of it like that before," is very different than someone who's fighting to defend the status quo (and their privilege). The former can follow a link and be enlightened; no amount of linkage will help the latter.

Disabled people say "lame" hurts them. That's enough for me to stop throwing it around as an insult. If only it were enough for other people to do the same.