I really want to like Slate’s newly launched “women’s”* website Double X. They have some great writers and contributors on board, so I was stoked for the site’s launch. And then…not so much.
Why? Well, let’s take a look at the headlining pieces that the magazine chose to kick off with:
Whine, Womyn, and Thongs: How feminism has failed.
What’s the Problem Now? Feminism’s Dilemmas
Yes, Virginia, Feminism Really Is Dead.
and the slightly more optimistic…
How I Got Bored With Feminism: And why it still matters.
Oh, and the quote of the day? “‘Feminism’ had come to seem, well…just the teeniest bit tiresome.” – Terry Castle
It seems my excitement was a bit premature! Here I thought that Double X might be a site for forward-thinking conversation about feminism and women’s issues – alas, it’s just a sounding board for warmed-over stereotypes and an oh-so-tired “those darn kids” take on younger women.
But what’s even stranger to me than a supposedly progressive site for women that relies on hackneyed anti-feminist pieces is the response to criticisms of the site. Susannah Breslin writes:
Apparently, if you launch a website for women in 2009, the most important question is whether or not it’s feminist. At least, that’s what you’d think, judging by today’s launch of the women-oriented website you’re reading. Only, the funny thing is, I thought feminism was dead. I mean, didn’t we kill it already?
Breslin, who calls feminism “cultural road kill,” takes issue with the fact that recent criticisms of Double X assume that “the only way to judge a female-oriented site is by whether or not it’s ‘feminist.’”
Get over it. Get on with it. I hope the feminist mantle doesn’t fit Double X. I hope this site is bigger than that.
Um, okay. But perhaps if you don’t want folks to talk about your site using a feminist lens, you shouldn’t launch said site with a series of posts asking writers to reflect on Betty-frigging-Friedan. Sorry, you don’t get to publish a handful of feminism-is-in-the-crapper articles and then expect the responses and critiques to ignore feminism.
In addition to the articles declaring feminism boring, dead and whiney, there’s also a piece by Linda Hirshman about how Jezebel is hurting women, focusing on last year’s “Thinking and Drinking” debacle. Hirshman uses that as a jumping off point to make the claim that the women at Jezebel have no place writing about feminism because of their supposedly high-risk lifestyle and the fact that (sigh) two of the writers there didn’t report their rapes.
Given the high level of risk the Jezebel life involves, it is surprising that the offense that arouses the liberated Jezebels to real political fury is the suggestion that women like them might be made responsible for the consequences of their own acts, or that there might be general standards that define basic feminist behavior. Suggest that women report the men who rape them for the sake of future victims, say, or that women should be asked why they stay with the men who abuse them, or urged to leave them, and the Jezebels go ballistic. Judgmental, judgmental!
Now, I was seriously critical of what went down on Lizz Winstead’s show last year. But, as Jill points out, there’s a big difference between critiquing folks when they say stupid anti-feminist things and suggesting that they are crappy feminists because they didn’t want to subject themselves to a criminal justice system that we all know is just so friendly to sexual assault survivors. Jill hits the nail on the head:
I’m not arguing that feminism should be a movement of No Judging, or that we can’t criticize anything women say or do. I’m not arguing that because Jezebel is a feminist site, hands off. But I will argue that how women deal with surviving sexual assault should not be a deciding factor in evaluating whether or not they qualify as feminist. I will argue that a feminism which requires perfection from all women is not something I can be a part of. And I’ll also just throw it out there that one probably should not pull the “You’re a bad feminist” card when one writes for a feminist website that launches with front-page articles like “Whine, Womyn and Thongs: How feminism has failed” and “How I Got Bored With Feminism.”
Double X as a whole seems to reflect an increasing trend in online women’s and feminist media – and frankly, it is making me tired. Tired of the manufactured feminist “cat-fighting,” tired of the hating, tired of the notion that the only way to write about feminism is to smugly (and incorrectly) point out where it is failing. I am all for an accountable feminism and constructive criticism; I think it’s necessary in order to make our work as writers and activists better. But the never-ending bullshit masquerading as good faith critique is simply exhausting. And we can do better.
Maybe I’m jumping the gun. Maybe Double X will turn out to be a great site that simply got off to a weird anti-feminist start – I certainly hope that’s the case. But in the meantime, I think I’ll stick to reading sites that give me hope, that point out all of the amazing work women are doing, and that shine a truthful light on the feminism I know and love.
*As has been pointed out elsewhere, the name of the site is a reference to chromosomes – making how ‘woman’ is defined a tad problematic.
137 Comments
I can tell you’ve got a real strong argument for your point here, given how quickly you’ve descended to personal attacks… *sigh*
I apologize but some times this place seems so constrictive and PC about every thing.
Doesn’t using “weak” offend those who are not physically strong, suggesting weakness as a negative? Do you call people “sad” because you don’t give a crap about those who are depressed? How can I use “sucky” without suggesting that someone who enjoys oral sex is bad? You expose your privilege as someone who passes when you say people “fail.” How do you know I don’t live with a colostomy bag when you say “crappy” or “shitty”?
I apologize for the sarcasm, but has anybody actually applied the word “lame” to an actual disabled person outside of a fantasy novel in the last century? As an EMT who works with disabled people constantly, I can say for certain that I’ve never heard it applied as such. I think there is an argument to make against over-sanitizing language, and the suggestion that everyone research every negative description they might use. The suggestion that the use of “lame” was an instance of hate strikes as a little over-the-top, and too often quibbles over marginally controversial language is used to derail away from addressing an actual point. Safe space is admirable, but at some point, can’t the space get too safe?
If you think having to be polite and non-offensive is “restrictive”…you need to check your privilege.
Here. Since you seemed disinclined to read anything, here’s a brief video to watch instead. Jay Smooth is talking about racial tensions in the video, but it’s equally applicable to any case of relations between a majority and a marginalized group and the language used between them.
Asher Roth and the Racial Crossroads
Do you feel that lame specifically is referencing a particular subset of people dealing with physical impediment? For example when people use the word gay when they mean bad (they obviously don’t mean happy) they are specifically referencing a group of people but lame (lame duck, lame horse) has been used for a very long time to mean lacking strength or weak. The turn was adapted to be a reference to people. I think in this case it is important to trace the meaning of the word. If the word had changed meaning (such as gay) and then the word were used as a slang referencing something bad then I would totally be with you on this, however since the using of the word “lame” is still holding true to the original (and in my opinion, prevailing) meaning I don’t think it was meant as a slur.
Examples:
Retarded means literally slowed but obviously the use of this word to describe something that people think is stupid is a reference to the way we used to refer to people with learning or other types of challenges. Retarded does not mean dumb it means slowed so if I were to say that the motion of the projectile was retarded that would be a proper use of the term.
Gypped, this is a reference to gypsies which is a minority. It is a reference to gypsies being thieves and conmen.
In conclusion, if a word has negative connotations to me then I don’t like that word but I don’t take it away from others. For instance, geek: geeks were sideshow people who would bite the heads off of animals. If you call me a geek you making a literal accusations that I may not appreciate but I assume you don’t really mean it that way as it has come to mean something different (ie geek chic).
Having said that, I am totally down with being the word police so I would like to add the following words to the no-no list, easy, queen, king, master, pork, slave, dog, cat, mulatto, mule, dark, pontification, phallic and suck. That is all I can think of right now but I will continue to post.
I completely agree that when words are meant to be offensive we should be critical of personal attackes but when no offense is meant and there is actually traditional meaning of the word that is applicable we should not jump on some one who used the word “lame”. It is a misunderstanding not an attack.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED – NO HATE SPEECH OR PERSONAL ATTACKS.
… I’m definitely sticking with Jezebel. Linda Hirshman’s rape apology piece was beyond belief!
some people need to realize that you just can’t add x’s or z’s to words or titles and thus make it cool!
Y’know, I was riled by Hirschman’s article and her contentions about rape and Jezebel, but I read the first series of posts and found that I liked them. Not that I agreed with all that was said, not by far, but they provided enough food for thought to keep me busy for another week, if only to figure out where and why I do and don’t agree. And I like that.
Still hate Hirschman’s piece, though.
You make some very good points.
When I found out “that sucks” was a reference to oral sex, I wanted to stop using it. But what to replace it with? “Fuck that” — more crude, and still refers to sex as a negative. “Shitty, crappy” — what about people who like scatological play, or who have medical conditions like colostomy bag? “Weak” of course could offend those of us with small muscles. Sad could bring up someone’s issues with depression. Etc etc.
ANY word we use in a situation like that could be offensive, because we are trying to say that something is BAD, so we are trying to use words that we think describe something negative.
Should we just always say “that’s too bad”?
Please check our comments policy; no personal attacks. Consider this a warning.
I don’t know that you’re wrong. But then, I wouldn’t; you’re basically telling people–politely, but still–that they’re not offended by something when they clearly are.
That said, from my (able-bodied) perspective, as long as you’re willing to avoid using the word, even if you argue with the necessity of doing so, you’re approaching this better than someone who says “I don’t find it offensive, so I’m going to keep saying it.”
But anyway, this isn’t really the topic of this post
Just would like to remind folks to not derail; thanks.
I’m not telling people that they’re NOT offended by something, but that maybe they shouldn’t be.
First of all, I don’t think that lame has been used to mean physically disabled for quite a long time– at least as long as gay hasn’t meant happy. Second of all, if you do interpret lame as physically disabled, let’s think about the meanings. Physically disabled means that something physically does not function as well as it could/should/was originally supposed to. So if I say that some plan failed and that’s lame, isn’t that an accurate use of the word?
Similarly, if I say something is retarded to mean that its stupid, isn’t that accurate?
That’s why I think these are different than the use of “that’s so gay” because when people say that, they don’t mean that its either “happy” or “attracted to the same gender,” they mean that its bad/wrong/pathetic– something negative that has nothing to do with the meaning of the word gay.
So, someone with a physical disability might decide to be offended at every use of the word lame. And that’s their perogative, certainly. But if they can be offended by that when people clearly don’t mean any reference or offense to them, then why aren’t we offended by every literal meaning of every borderline curse word out there? Personally, I don’t say words like fuck, ever. But logically I think its more offensive that we use words for sex to mean bad bad unspeakable things, than that we use a word meaning stupid to describe something that is stupid.
If I announce that I have trouble building muscle, or even some medical disorder that makes me have trouble building muscle, will everyone agree to stop saying weak as a bad thing? If someone enjoys scatological play (I read Dan Savage too much), will everyone stop saying shit and crap as bad things? If we think for two seconds about how sex-positive we want to be, can we stop using fuck, screw, suck, cock, balls, ass, etc? If we consider someone with chronic pain will we stop saying things are “painful” when we mean socially awkward? And then if we meet someone with Asperger’s syndrome will we stop saying socially awkward?
Personally, I don’t say thing are retarded. I do sometimes say things are lame, but I’m trying to stop. But logically I think that its taking things too far, and that if we can’t use a word like lame to mean something that fits its definition, then we really ought to get rid of almost all words with negative connotations. And where does that leave us?
Anyway, even though I didn’t start this discussion, it is off topic– maybe someone would like to make a separate post on this issue because I do think its worth discussing.
They do it for the same reason Naomi Wolf wrote her stupid piece for the WAPO – to get published. That’s what they care about. That’s all they care about.
And this wasn’t directed to one person in particular, FYI
“we should not jump on some one”
No one jumped on someone for using the term, they just asked them to NOT use the term because it is offensive to some. When people REFUSE to reconsider their language even when told it offends someone, then yes, maybe they get jumped on.
But for most people it’s just a word, so it doesn’t hurt them to just stop using it. If it offends someone, why keep using it? Or are you just not convinced it actually offends anyone? I’ve read plenty of blog posts from disabled bloggers, and it DOES offend people. So what do people gain from continuing to use it?
I love when publications bill themselves as “new” and “different,” then trot out the SAME OLD SHIT. Again and again and again. Why does this new women’s section at Slate even EXIST? You might as well pick up a frickin’ Cosmo or Glamour. That goes for Yahoo!’s dumbass attempt at engaging women, “Shine.”
And “Double X,” aside from the enormous middle finger to trans and ambiguous-gendered individuals, is close enough to “Triple X” to me leave me thinking … wtf.
I think some of the articles are interesting, and even well written. I just think that in the past few decades, the definition and applications of feminism have broadened so much. Its a good thing, but it also means there will be a much more diverse variety of opinions out there. Its no longer an issue of being either a liberal, progressive feminist or a wing-nut conservative house-wife; there are too many roles to fill in between.
I think some of the articles are interesting, and even well written. I just think that in the past few decades, the definition and applications of feminism have broadened so much. Its a good thing, but it also means there will be a much more diverse variety of opinions out there. Its no longer an issue of being either a liberal, progressive feminist or a wing-nut conservative house-wife; there are too many roles to fill in between.
I think some of the articles are interesting, and even well written. I just think that in the past few decades, the definition and applications of feminism have broadened so much. Its a good thing, but it also means there will be a much more diverse variety of opinions out there. Its no longer an issue of being either a liberal, progressive feminist or a wing-nut conservative house-wife; there are too many roles to fill in between.
I have been thinking about this since I read it a couple of hours ago. And even though I know that this will go over like a fart in an elevator, I can’t help it.
WTF is it with the attitude towards posters who aren’t tuned into the language of academia here? Why jump on people in such a nasty way? I too had no idea about the word “lame” having such negative connotations regarding the handicapped. Sure, if you think about it, it makes sense. But it’s understandable that someone hasn’t thought about it, since it’s such a common term, and rarely used to describe the physically handicapped.
So, explain it to someone. But that’s not what happens here. It’s always some fucking nasty, snarky remark, couched in academic langauge. I mean, I’m sorry, but “ableist”? I had no idea what that meant. And the people use it then go on to lecture others about their “privilege”. I mean, that is LOL funny, but in a sad way.
I think it’s a better world with Feministing in it, but the above is exactly why I rarely post here. And I bet I’m not alone.
The word ‘lame’ in the context of disabled is incredibly archaic, so incredibly archaic that all of this finger-pointing might as well be directed to an unrelated word (to ableism) such as iron or eraser.
“Why jump on people in such a nasty way? ”
What are you even talking about? Someone used the term and someone responded:
“Please don’t use the ableist term lame on a feminist site.”
Someone used the term again, and a moderator responded:
“Just want to reiterate what bifemmefatale said about the term ‘lame’; please don’t use it here!”
Where is this imagined ‘nasty’ hostility?
I mean, holy shit, they even said “please” both times.
Again, and I’ll only type it one more time, and don’t think I don’t know that I’m wasting my time becuase NO ONE here is ever wrong…neither Jessica nor the original poster, even bothered to hint at why the told her not to use the term. They just assumed that she should know what “ablelist” refers to. If that’s not unthinking priviledge, I don’t know what it.
After that, the poster said “Honest to god I thought you were kidding about that” and received this response:
“What the fuck? When someone calls you out on an -ism, the least you can do is at least *consider* taking it seriously. Maybe, y’know, do a little research.
It is a serious display of privilege to just assume someone’s kidding when they ask you not to use ableist (or any other -ist) language.
Here. Since I’m such a nice person [/snark] I grabbed a couple links for you to start with”
The first two “requests” to not use the “ableist” term, were condescending at best, issued by two people who assumed that everyone has the benefit of their educations. The third response was outright fucking nasty and mean. Period.
And that’s par for the course here. It’s why I choose to post at another feminist blog, and rarely here. Maybe I am alone…but I doubt it.
Try explaining something to someone as if they were you know, kinda like your equal? And maybe the atmosphere wouldn’t be the way it is. If you like it this way, good for you! Enjoy it.
As and Iranian feminist, I couldn’t DISAGREE more. Please read my post here: http://community.feministing.com/2009/05/a-word-with-a-young-anti-femin.html
“were condescending at best”
Serious, snark-free question:
How would you politely ask someone not to use a word then? If not by saying, “please don’t use that word.”
wow, I clicked on a random article and immediately had a desire to stab myself with a fork.
This is our problem. There are all of these feminist/women’s rights groups which do amazing work but I feel that there is not enough outreach to the general public, there is not enough work on the media and there are not enough coalitions… (not that there is none, but there isn’t enough).
if we don’t create a strong voice in the media, and if we don’t educate people how can we expect anything other than crap like this?!
I mean, I just don’t think there is a way to tell someone that they did something that was wrong or offensive without making them slightly uncomfortable and potentially coming off as ‘condescending.’ But does that mean we should never tell people if they do something wrong/offensive?
How would you approach it?
This. There’s a difference between saying “please don’t use this word, some people find it offensive” and “HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT YOU IGNORANT PERSON.” Especially since it was pretty evident that the original commenter did not mean it in a malicious way. I find the tendency of people here to jump down people’s throats about minor slights offputting.
Thanks you, exactly! The whole thing is ridiculous, and distracts from any real issue. I honestly thought that the first comment, “don’t use lame, it’s ableist” was in jest. We are going to run out of words that are happy and PC enough to be used. The funny thing is, I totally agree with the criticism of Double XX, but I get distracted by laughing at arguments like this.
Seriouly, I support use of the word lame. This website issues a weekly feminist “Fuck You” because it’s offensive and in your face. Yet the word lame is out of bounds? Should we ban Huck Finn because of language or Ray Bradbury because there aren’t enough parts for women?
To borrow from Breslin (in her linked piece), I think that Double X is also trying to “have it both ways” with its name. It purports to refer to female chromosomes (which you’ve already pointed out is problemmatic), but it also implies a cartoonish bra-cup size. I’ve posted on this issue here: http://misscavendish.blogspot.com/2009/05/double-x-john-currin-and-slatecom.html
Why is the ability to use the word lame important to you?
Have you ever used the word “lame” to describe something in this way?
Can you provide us with a documented example of a feminist “bullying” another feminist for not reporting her rape? I’ve never heard of that.
Personally, I find “fuck” or “fuck you” to be far more offensive than “that’s lame.” And yet this site has a regular “fuck you” feature. I think its offensive on a couple levels– first of all the word is considered vulgar and rude (that’s the point of using it, right?). Second and possibly more importantly, the word refers to sex. Do we really want to be saying “go have sex” to people we’re mad at? It doesn’t make sense and its grating and offensive.
And I’m not just trying to make a point here, I actually think that. I do NOT go around asking people not to say fuck, but I don’t like hearing it and I NEVER say it myself.
However, somehow I doubt that me posting this comment is going to make anyone stop saying “fuck.” And I don’t really think that it should.
I would like to make the comment that I too was very critical of the ableist term “lame” since I took it to mean weak and unsatisfactory, but then I did some research. I wouldn’t be surprised if etymology proves that the “weak” and “unsatisfactory” meaning of lame stemmed from ableist privilege. Don’t think of inoffensive language as restricting. Instead, see it as a chance to learn and be educated. It’s freeing to understand situations like this. It also makes you a better person.
You mean besides the one mentioned in the original post, where the writers at XX disparaged Jezebel writers for admitting they hadn’t reported their rapes?
I haven’t followed all the details in this case, but it sounds like the example being referred to.
Someone seriously pulled the “But being disabled is objectively bad” card?
Dragging my lame arse back to safer spaces. Right now.
Right behind you, lauredhel.
My lame ass isn’t welcome here.
I’m just wondering when they are going to hire Anne Coultier to write at XX (haha, sorry – couldn’t help myself).
The name bugs me too — the first thing I noticed is that when the name is written as “XX,” it’s just one X away from “XXX.” The second thing I noticed is that “Double X” is the name of a fairly popular beer (Dos Equis). Then there’s “Double X” as the bra size thing…
…and then somewhere way down the line, after more associations like this, is “Oh hey, maybe it’s the chromosomes thing? But don’t people usually read XX chromosomes as ‘ecks ecks,’ not ‘double ecks’? Yeah, nevermind then.”
There are real problems in the west, obviously. But I think everything should be taken in the right context. Organizing a huge boycott campaign against “Observe and Report” while there’s a shortage of doctors to repair fistulas in Darfur doesn’t pass the smell test.
You’re assuming these are mutually exclusive.
They’re not.
Then GO AWAY
For God’s sake GO AWAY.
Any so-called feminist who uses the word PC is out to me anyway.
I don’t even know what to post here except that I am so sorry that these commentators are driving you off in their stupid and selfish displays of privilege (laziness and other things which I won’t post here cos my post will be moderated out).
I don’t know what to say. I had to stay off feministing while the FGM thread was on the main page – as an African WOC I had to retreat to racialicious as I was too angry to comment or even post a response.
All of that is to say that in a non co opting way, I understand your frustration.