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.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Slate's new women's website disappoints. Hugely..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13661
Great post Jess!
We were shocked and disgusted by Hirshman's piece, but as the day progressed yesterday, I just became more and more angry.
First, the name of the site.
Then, the content. It's a backlashy site masquerading as a woman-friendly one. Breslin is right; it isn't a feminist site. It's a shady Slate production that has so far defended rape culture and trash-talked feminism, specific feminists, and competing woman-centered websites. WTF?
I won't be rewarding their misogyny with any more pageviews.
I have to agree with Jess, when the site was actually working, I found the posts to be insulting and actually a little bit bitchy. Tina Brown is worried about Elizabeth Edwards kids, Really?
LAME. Excuse me while I barf in the corner.
Please don't use the ableist term lame on a feminist site.
wow, i have to say i had no idea lame was an ableist term. after some searching on google, i now know better. i feel really awful for not knowing before. here's a link for anyone that needs it: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lame
Please don't spread prescriptivist poppycock on any site.
encouraging good moral behavior != "prescriptivist." I mean, sure, literally I suppose it does prescribe, but telling someone something like "Please do not say 'GAY' (or, say, 'womanish,' etc) like it's shameful" isn't exactly being "prescriptivist."
So you don't think any words should be banned from a feminist site? Would you mind if I called you a sexist term like "honey" or used racial slurs like the n-word? How does a site stay feminist if it allows any behavior?
Fantastic post, Jessica. What a disapointment. :(
The site is disgraceful - there are probably better articles that don't make it through the censors on feministing community.
I don't get it though - why are these women so invested in peddling lies about other women and about feminists? Why are they so reductive and pathetic? Why do they persist in lazy analysis, and personal attack? The jezebel thing was a year ago. Considering the subject matter, it was totally inappropriate to bring it up anyway, never mind the horrible content of the article.
They obviously don't mind (in theory) identifying with women because they are on an XX (yuk!)website for female writers. And they write about women! But their articles are horribly sexist and nasty. Just really nasty and petty. The tone is really badly pitched. It's not snarky, or even heated, instead it's, well, bitchy. It's like some nasty gossipy girls slagging people off - and easy targets at that (feminism isn't fun - thanks for your great insight!).
I guess what I'm trying to say is... why don't they all just go f**k themselves? And they should enable comments so I can go tell them to their faces.
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.
I always found the XX blog on Slate to be extremely stupid, especially considering that the site on the whole is diverse and fun, I enjoy The Root to a degree, and the other articles and blogs on Slate (Human Nature, and the current Happiness project) make me think even when I don't agree with their viewpoint.
XX made me think, alright, made me think "this is sooo laaame."
Just want to reiterate what bifemmefatale said about the term 'lame'; please don't use it here!
Honest to god, I thought you guys were kidding about that.
I'm with you.
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:
Defining "Disablism"
Lose The Language. Now.
Honest to god get a life
I can tell you've got a real strong argument for your point here, given how quickly you've descended to personal attacks... *sigh*
Please check our comments policy; no personal attacks. Consider this a warning.
I apologize but some times this place seems so constrictive and PC about every thing.
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
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.
"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.
I just want to say, THANK YOU for posting the link to that video, he is so, SO right on. Fantastic.
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 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.
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.
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.
for some people in the disability community it is NOT archaic. Just because you don't hear it doesn't mean it's not used any more. Please respect those that point out the offensiveness of the word. There are many non-offensive alternatives!
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?
Why is the ability to use the word lame important to you?
Because, I am not ok with Orwellian restriction and destruction of language. Censorship is more offensive than the speech it seeks to silence. It's also hypocritical to have a "FUCK YOU" segment and then do this PC thing with other phrases. Doubly so because I would think "FUCK YOU" would be far more offensive to your sensibilities.
I sincerely hope this post has offended people.
"Take away the right to say 'fuck' and you take away the right to say 'fuck the government.'"_____Lenny Bruce
"Please do not use this word" does not equal government censorship. Logic FAIL.
"Fuck you" is not pointed at any oppressed group. Further FAIL.
Oh, this whole argument is a big pile of crap. People get all "Oh noes Big Brother wants to convict me for thought crimes!" about using word A, but the same people will be just completely offended and taken aback and angry when someone else uses word B -- the only difference will be that A isn't quite as well recognized as horribly offensive by wider society as B is (I have considered making some comments using such a word just to prove that point here, but decided it was in bad taste). The debate isn't about whether we can "censor" words -- people do find certain words offensive and 95% of the population, any regular dude on the street, will get all up in arms over an offensive term. The question at hand right now is over whether 'lame' is offensive at all. Someone says "lame," someone else says "that's offensive," a further person says "no it's not," someone else says "yes it is," and after several more steps finally here we are at ZOMG CENSORSHIP. Besides the fact that the term 'lame' manifestly is offensive to somebody, as evidenced by that somebody's actually being here and being offended -- aside from that particular obviousness, why not just consider apologizing simply the polite thing to do here? As I said below, there's an easy way to get out of this whole 'derail,' which is to just apologize and move on. It's really not that hard.
Have you ever used the word "lame" to describe something in this way?
Judging is one thing but bullying is another. And feminist communities are riddled with bullying just like this. Maybe we should be judging systems, institutions, theories and groups but not individuals for their individual choices. Because once an individual person is targeted the discussion is inherently limited and counterproductive.
Example: Feminist A hears about feminist B not reporting her rape. A calls B an irresponsible party girl, dialog about rape becomes a conversation about how good of a person B is. Instead, feminist A should be writing about why it’s important to report rape and think of ways to prevent women from not reporting rape. But, clearly, that’s less fun and a lot harder than name calling.
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.
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.
Wait--are you suggesting the writers at XX are feminists? Now that confuses me. The site has several articles and quotes against feminism.
I might have mixed up who was being quoted-- but I also thought we were referring to kind of phony "feminists" disparaging other feminists for their choices about how to deal with a rape.
So, since the site is named XX, I guess transwomen aren't welcome?
I would assume so. The site doesn't seem like it's very progressive anyway, so that's probably the case even regardless of the name.
There are some valid points there unfortunately. Modern feminists in the West seem to put all their time into railing against the patriarchy, while conveniently ignoring the rest of the world.
Most of the posts on feminists blogs are about how XYZ ad campaign denigrates women, or about how ABC comedian trivializes rape. To someone in a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran, that has to seem like the most petty form of whining.
If you're doing forced labor in UAE for 14 hours a day with your passport confiscated, consider how much you would sympathize with an American labor union who claims that anything under $70 an hour in wages and benefits is unlivable.
So you'd like Western feminists to focus exclusively on problems in other countries? That wouldn't seem at all invasive or arrogant or presumptive to you? Plenty of American feminists (feel free to read the posts on this site) call attention to injustices around the world as responsibly and intelligently as they can while still acknowledging injustices that manifest themselves in pop culture or politics here in the States.
Your logic is incredibly unsound. It's basically the same as saying there should be no attention paid to poor nutrition in American children due to overeating or eating too much sugar/junk foods because children in Africa aren't getting enough of any food at all. Red herring. Does not compute.
I'm saying that feminists in the west come across as self-absorbed and parochial. Feminism is to women's rights what the UAW is to labor rights. They think less than 3 weeks of paid vacation is an abomination, but don't have anything to say about slave labor in other countries.
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.
I know it's probably an issue of perception, but that doesn't make it less of an issue.
You're still not making any sense. How does organizing a boycott against anything--a pharmaceutical company, a retail chain, a movie--relate to the number of doctors in Darfur? It doesn't. Your argument boils down to "shut up," which isn't actually an argument.
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
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.
This is a BS conservative argument that isn't even true - feminists (American and otherwise) have long been railing against international sexisms. Also.
Also, here's a recent community post that dealt with that kind of argument: http://community.feministing.com/2009/05/a-word-with-a-young-anti-femin.html
"Modern feminists in the West seem to put all their time into railing against the patriarchy, while conveniently ignoring the rest of the world."
Woah, this is crazy, most feminists (Western or not) care a LOT about women in other countries. Let's not forget that injustices happen not only in Eastern countries, not only in Muslim countries (as your comment may suggest), when I compare my home-country to US I think my nation has to improve, but I don't belittle problems North Americans, or Europeans, face. I'm sure Iranians don't either.
From Naomi Klein to Benazir Bhutto to Madeleine Albright, all these are amazing feminists who talked about problems other women face.
So your point that modern feminists conveniently ignore the rest of the world is sort of ridiculous.
"Most of the posts on feminists blogs are about how XYZ ad campaign denigrates women, or about how ABC comedian trivializes rape. To someone in a country like Saudi Arabia or Iran, that has to seem like the most petty form of whining."
So you mean that when feminists write about the trivialization of rape they're whining?
The denigration of women is a problem whether it is through commercials or Sharia laws. It doesn't become ok to denigrate women in US only because in some other country women, unfortunately, have fewer rights.
I kind of get what you're saying, of course there are parts of the world where women have almost no rights, but the way to move forward is not to stop progress here because other places are backwards, but to make progress here and elsewhere. Modern feminists are doing just that.
Think about the International Federation of Women Against Fundamentalism and for Equality, the American Muslim Women's Association, ROZAN, the Aurat Foundation, War Against Rape...There are many international organizations for women.
I can understand where you're coming from with this, but there are three things I want to say.
*disclaimer: I am from, and live in the USA. When I talk about how things are in America, it is not because I think that America is the entire "West" - it is because I've never lived anywhere else and I want to speak about what I know/have lived.
1) There are still many people in America, both men and women, who view women as inferior to men, who believe that women do not deserve the same rights as men, should have less rights than they have now, believe that rape or spousal abuse is acceptable, or that husbands/fathers should dictate how women live. Many such people are politicians, CEO's, or others in positions of power. I don't say this to "whine" (though honestly, I think these are relevant issues in their own right) but because of this: Do you think that people who hold such views about women in their own lives and their own country are likely to be sympathetic to the pleas of women in other countries? Convincing people who want to widen gender inequality that women are people, REAL people who deserve REAL respect and equal rights, is an important step in getting them to actually care about women who are experiencing hardships and discrimination around the world.
2) "Western Feminists," and everyone else for that matter, talks/blogs/is active about what they know. I am a 20-year-old college student, as such I know about and care about issues that college students and young people face more so than those that old people face. This isn't because I think old people are unimportant, or because I think that only MY issues matter - it's because that's where I am in life, that's my experience. While willful ignorance or dismissal of the issues of women (or anyone) from other parts of the world is of course unacceptable, still it only makes sense that western feminists tend to focus on western issues, issues in their own lives. It's one thing to ask someone with more privilege than you for help, but it's quite another to ask someone else to put their own issues on hold because yours should be more important to them. (something I've had to think about a lot, as a trans woman in mostly cisgendered space.)
3) You might want to check your numbers. $70/hr, at 40 hours a week, with 2 weeks off (unpaid) would be $140,000/year. The average American income is closer to $40,000, working closer to 50 hours/week (which equates to about $16/hour). Your point may still be valid, (since $16 is still better than $2), but it destroys your credibility somewhat to accuse a nation in which half the population makes less than $16/hour (probably much less, considering CEO's and millionaires are factored into that average) of making $70/hour. All to often, I find that Americans are criticized as having 3 houses and a yacht and more money than we know what to do with. 1% of us do, but most of us are just struggling to make ends meet (and the rest are somewhere in-between). It's certainly not the worst situation we could be in, for most of us, but it isn't the same as living in luxury, and it does mean that we DO have to focus on our own issues and DON'T necessarily have piles of cash to throw at problems affecting people thousands of miles away. And it also certainly doesn't mean that there isn't genuine poverty and problems here, or that we are being selfish to focus on those problems. Sorry, I've never lived anywhere else, so again your point may be valid - but right now I'm living on less than $10,000 a year (plus some scholarships which cover my college tuition), which in the US is barely enough for food and rent in an apartment I share with 3 people. Though I AM making ends meet right now, I take it somewhat personally when I'm told to just shut up because I'm probably making $150,000/year and so have nothing to complain about anyway. When I graduate, I will likely become a software engineer, a very high-paying position, which incidentally makes a little more than a third of what you posted (about $25-30/hour).
Seems to me that complaining about how "western feminism" doesn't deal enough with global issues of -isms just makes it easier to ignore the issues entirely and allows people to not do anything about anything because the problem is "too big."
I say boo to that argument entirely.
yay! it's the oppression olympics!
The site is a huge failure. I've yet to read one positive response to it anywhere. But then again, I wasn't expecting much as I was always put off by the Double X blog. There were some occasionally good posts but the quality of thought (and writing) on the whole was uneven and uninteresting.
In terms of the Jezebel piece, Tracie Egan pointed out that one of the Double X editors used to work for Jezebel: http://www.onedatatime.com/dick_liker/2009/05/how-one-outoftouch-woman-is-hurting-women.html
and Moe (formerly of Jezebel) also wrote for the Double X blog. So the Jezebel vendetta seems sort-of strange and a little shady...
Shady as in "I found two girls who identify as feminist and challenge my feminism so I want them kick both of them out club! Quick, somebody take their cards, talk endlessly about old shit (they apologized? oh, I don't care) and call 'em names!"
I haven't checked out that site, and now I'll know to avoid it. I'll stick with Feministing, thanks.
Great Scott! Victim blaming! I tell this same little speech to anyone who gives the "party girl defense" of rape (which, sadly, I've heard women say way more often than men):
It doesn't matter if she's a wild party girl. I don't care if she got so drunk she didn't know where she was. I don't care if her skirt was so short that her butt was visible. I don't care if she's laying passed out, among strangers, with her legs wide open. That doesn't make it okay -EVER- to rape her! Only in a rape culture do we think that her "poor decisions" led to a rape. If only she hadn't been at that party, so drunk, and walking home in the dark without an escort. Tsk tsk.
This is the result of a culture-wide belief that a woman's body is community property. If you say that outright, lots of people would laugh at you and say it's ridiculous. Women's bodies aren't public property! they say. Then, why, as soon as a woman's guard is let down (like when she's drunk) she is at risk for being harrassed, groped or raped? Hey, open season!
To any woman who may cluck her tongue and disapprove of the "party girls", I say only this: if you really espouse this line of thinking, then it isn't too far of a logical leap to take the side of men in certain misogynistic cultures who blame a woman just showing her face or ankle for inciting uncontollable male lust, which may result in her rape or death.
Once you believe women can dress or act a certain way to "bring the attention on themselves"...what's to stop you??
This.
Thank you.
"Today’s feminism—a kind of Facebook feminism that elevates personal experience and personal performance above all else—allows everyone from Madonna to Martha Stewart to serve as icons of female empowerment, and is a label largely devoid of meaning. It also allows women living in the prosperous West to avoid confronting the challenges and ambiguities of women’s condition in other parts of the world."
What the fuck? I'm tired of people making off-base judgements about the feminism of my generation. First off, the whole way they are framing feminism (women as an oppressed class), their argument of it being outdated, simply doesn't jive with me. My feminism is that our culture oppresses EVERYBODY. In different ways. Different oppressions intersect. It's not just about women, it's about men, its about gay people, its about straight people, its about transpeople, its about cispeople, its about black people, its about asian people, its about hispanic people, its about native americans, its about white people, its about poor and middle class and rich people. Feminism is about fucking awareness and talking about it and doing shit.
And that's dead?
"In countries that provide more help to people and to families, women are still unequal, but there's a lot less stress."
I'm speechless. What trash! How poorly researched!
Moreover, I just don't understand why they needed to make a female specific website...if they are not a specifically feminist website and not focusing on fashion or parenting...well, what the heck are they? It sounds like their editorial board has no clear concept.
It seems like they are trying to cash in the popularity of websites like feministing and bitch, but are doing a poor job of it.
Also, their snarkiness makes the feministing commenting section seem like a walk in the park! LOL
Dear Susannah Breslin,
Like Monty Python plague victims, I am not dead yet. Neither is feminism. But if it makes you feel better to believe that you've witnessed an attack of the feminist undead, then so be it. I will be more than happy to be accused of conducting rituals to enable Simone de Beauvoir and Sojourner Truth to rise up from the grave. But no, I'm not "over it" yet.
P.S. Did you really just use the word "retarded" as an insult in 2009? I thought prejudice against the disabled was dead? Didn't we kill it already? Yeah, I know, you mean it in its etymological sense of undeveloped, right? Sure.
I have not clicked on any of those links, nor do I plan to. The less page views, the quicker it goes away...
:)
why is it so hard to find anything on the Internet worth a shit?
thanks for the heads up...I'll be avoiding this silly sounding site.
From "The Trouble With Jezebel" article on the site:
"But unregulated sexual life also exposes women to the strong men around them, and here, the most visible of the Jezebel writers reflect the risks of liberation."
I just have to say WOW. They don't just insinuate that women should never leave the home, they out and out proclaim that violence against women is directly caused by our freedom to walk down the street without a male escort! That's some serious Victorian era garbage right there. I guess we need those old "regulations" that made it illegal for women to own property or vote. Then we'd be safe because as we all know, it was only after suffrage in 1920 that rape and physical assault came into existence.
"the risks of liberation" makes her sound *concerned*
thanks for this detailed commentary. I was also disappointed by the site, and a bit weirded out that women's commentary should be separated from the regular slate site. Is regular slate for dudes now?
I have no problem with feminist criticism or debate but that site was just some warmed over bullshit. (Damn listen to me sounding all card-carrying and shit :)
I kind of agree about the requiring perfection part. I've seen a lot of feminists (even on this site) seem to require perfection from real women and fictional characters. If they don't meet this they are anti-feminist.
I just read the XX site today, and I had to stop after I read an article criticizing women who stay in abuse relationships. Admittedly, I am over sensitive on this issue because I just left an emotionally abuse marriage as of 2 years ago.
I'm ok, now, but at the time that I left him, I had no job, no money, I felt worthless, and stupid. The only reason I was able to wake up and do what I had to do was because of my kids. I realized I was putting them in the same crappy position that I had grown up in.
Ok, back on topic. The woman who wrote the article took a very hard stance. She seemed to be saying, what losers these women are to let some guy do that to them. Along with the old, "oh, you're only letting them treat you like dog poop," attitude. She did not seem to have any understanding that abuse is gradual, and in many cases, witnessed, so the victim my not even realize it's abuse. Not because they're stupid, but because abuse is mostly about manipulation, especially mentally.
*Sorry, I meant not witnessed.
Well I personally am not disappointed in the website at all. Feministing used to be a daily read for me, but I am getting increasingly bored with the, I'll say it, tired arguments over and over. There is no atmosphere of healthy debate on Feministing - just knee-jerk rage and the same old rantings. I have never posted in the comments because I have noticed that those with dissenting views (even exceedingly polite dissent) are shouted down, or their posts simply get removed. Jessica, you are an extraordinarily talented writer and very insightful, but you need to stop hating on this site. The thing about "lame" is a perfect example of why Feministing is "tiresome".
Well if finding ableist language unacceptable makes me "tiresome," so be it. There's a difference between healthy debate and hating, as I tried to point out in the post and here in comments.
If having your ableist privilege called out is so unacceptable to you...well, don't let the door hit ya where the gods split ya, as they say.
Seriously, how difficult could it possibly be to think of another way to negatively characterize something than just saying "lame"? Hhere, have a list of other things you can call it: crappy, weak, pathetic, sucky, fail, made of fail, sad, shitty...honestly, excising "lame" from your vocabulary takes all of half a second to choose your favorite alternative and run with it. Defending use of an ableist slur is privilege in action and linguistic laziness besides.
Yes, pathetic is one of my favorites. I have to say it was very educational for me to see this pointed out on this blog and other feminist blogs like Shakesville. To me, it's similar to other words that my friends and I openly used when we were kids but stopped once we grew up and learned a few things about the world....like calling people "retarded." But I think we'll get more awareness out there that using words like lame is similarly marginalizing and inappropriate.
Heh, it was in fact Shakesville that pointed out "lame" as ableist to me as well. Here's hoping EVERYONE grows out of it eventually. And sooner rather than later.
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?
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"?
Just would like to remind folks to not derail; thanks.
And this wasn't directed to one person in particular, FYI
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.
“It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.”
I have never even considered the connotations of the word lame in that sense, and I'm not convinced based on the links anyone has provided that it's ever been used as a generally negative word interchangeably with "lame" as in physically impairing as opposed to the word "retarded" "gay" which have obvious, hurtful meanings intentionally, directly linked to their original uses. I won't post here anymore because I don't feel like I've seen anything but arguing and nitpicking, but I've always tried to be PC and thoughtful about these things, and I find myself very turned off by being policed for using a word that most people my age would ONLY have heard used to mean that something is uncool (not even 'dysfunctional,' which is it's apparent original meaning).
Then GO AWAY
For God's sake GO AWAY.
Any so-called feminist who uses the word PC is out to me anyway.
you know, i have had my own mental disgreements with you, but damn did you take the words right out of my mouth.
WHY THE FUCK IS ANYONE DEFENDING THEIR RIGHT TO USE AN ABLEIST TERM, ESPECIALLY ON A FEMINIST SITE.
we are not all about "PC garbage" but i thought a site debating about issues of marginalized groups might have had a tad more respect for others. is it just OK to say this because you're able-bodied, and you've never had an experience with someone disabled who might be hurt by this? would it be ok to use an "outdated" term for POC? no? it would still be racist and offensive, and time doesn't take away all connotations or offenses? ok then. stop it.
Wow, this site sounds like warmed-over shit.
But y'know what? I wouldn't have gone and given it a chance anyway, cause any site that claims to be "feminist," or even "woman oriented," and yet names itself for the genetic representation of female (XX) clearly has such a limited view of gender it's not going to be worth my time anyway. Fuck their quietly anti-trans shit.
Thinking back to the discussion of male feminists here the other day: the Slate site further underscores the bullshitness of the canard that feminism pits all men against all women. I was reluctant to address this at my place because I'm not female by any standard, and I can't really say much more specific than "this is fail." But it's edifying to read the thoughts of people more attuned to these things than I.
My partner, who is female did address this, taking on the infighting thing that I really don't think I'm in a good position to observe.
And without using the word "lame." Or "retard," which means she's ahead of Susannah Breslin.
THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED - NO HATE SPEECH OR PERSONAL ATTACKS.
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
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.
Wow, seriously? You deleted that comment? It was polite and did not attack anyone, and didn't even refer to anyone specific. Why did you delete this one and not my one lower down that says basically the same thing? Why didn't you delete the one that I quoted above that says the same thing?
I get that some people have complained that they don't like some of the comments here, but I think you're responding in the wrong way. Trying to censor anything that might conceivably upset anyone leaves us with nothing. The censorship quotient has really gone up around here recently (for example, I'm surprised you closed comments on the FGM thread without even posting an acknowledgment of it in that thread, and a lot of polite comments have been deleted lately. I also wrote a community post that never got posted, with no explanation why-- and it was only saying that abortion should be legal.) If polite and interesting conversations around here keep getting shut down, I'm probably going to stop checking this site. It makes it simultaneously frustrating and boring.
I wonder what your reaction would be if you woke up and found that all of your "friday feminist fuck you" posts had been deleted due to offensive, vulgar, sex-negative language and direct attacks on people and groups.
... 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.
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.
"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.
"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."
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.
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.
Anyone with enough computer skills to read this blog has enough skills to google the term "ableist" if they are unfamiliar with it. I can't think of a nicer way to call someone out on oppressive language than the way I did it.
Which other blog do you prefer?
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?!
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
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."
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 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.
I just want to apologize - I'm moderating the offensive stuff from last night and early this morning. I really hope you'll consider staying.
No snark intended!
How do you decide what is offessive? There have been times where I felt like I was being attacked in some of the comments but no one stepped in. I don't want anyone to feel like this is an unsafe place but at the same time I feel like there must be the opportunity for people who disagree with eachother to talk about it.
If there are word we can't use please post them so this doesn't happen again.
Why isn't it enough to just ask people to behave with decency and respect in response to a request that they stop using a term that is offending people? Isn't it enough for someone to tell you "This term is offensive, please don't use it"? Shouldn't the response always be "Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know, thanks for letting me know"? You don't even necessarily have to agree with whoever's complaining about anything at all, you can even roll your eyes all you want in the comfort of your own home (although a more thoughtful reaction would be better) -- all that's necessary here is a simple apology and increased sensitivity about that sort of thing.
I don't see why we should need to hammer out any "standards" beyond that, or start creating lists of banned words or something (eek); let's just be human and decent and normal about this.
I understand that not purposefully offending people is the only way that people who can disagree can reach a compromise. My point is that in some case (in my opinion this is one of those cases but I understand if someone else disagrees) instead of engaging in discussion people just say "your opinion offends me so stop it". I believe that in this particular case a word was used that meant something to someone but did not mean the same thing to the person who used it. I think that it is good to say "I am sorry that I offended you but please know that when I used "____" I mean "_____"." So when people started to explain what they meant the response felt like "It doesn't matter how you mean it, it only matters how I take it." I don't think that is the way to have a conversation. I want to be able to use words as I understand them and communicate my experience. I want everyone to be able to do that.
I really believe that no one wanted to offend anyone and that should be taken into account before we banish words.
I think that if you read my posts I try not to be dismissive. I have an opinion and I try to support it but I don't just say that something is BS or stupid.
Let's have a discussion about language! Let's talk about snark and anger and hate speech. Let's talk about how our words tell other people about what we care about and about making people feel welcome. Let's talk about respectful disagreement. But, please, let's not be so dismissive of people we disagree with.
The problem is that when you say I am sorry that I offended you but please know that when I used "____" I mean "_____". you sound like you're trying to "make excuses" or tell the speaker that they were somehow "wrong" to be offended. Just let it go -- as far as the other person's being offended is concerned, it really doesn't matter what you meant, they're already offended and there's nothing you can do about it besides apologize. So just apologize gracefully and move on with the conversation. A simple apology -- without any buts -- will amend the situation and allow both of you to return to the subject at hand respectfully.
I understand, the desire for an apology.
I am sorry. I don't mean to make excuses I mean to explain.
Now what happens the next time when my opinions are offensive. Should I defend them or just apologize and not speak anymore.
I am here because I expect people to disagree with me sometimes, and I want to talk about it. I don't just expect when people do disagree with me they either stay quiet or when I point out to them how offensive their opinions are to me they apologize and not say another word.
God, you were doing so good there at the beginning.
No one is telling you to stop speaking. They just find a certain word offensive. Arguing over your right to use that word is not some key point in continuing the original discussion, all it does is distract and further offend someone who is already offended. So just say your "I'm sorry" and then return to the actual subject at hand.
The use of the word "God" as a curse is actually offensive to me. I am sure you would like to opportunity to apologize and not do it any more. You are welcome.
Listen to yourself. You are ordering me to say I am sorry and shut up. I am sorry you were offended but instead of engaging in a conversation about our differing opinions you want to silence me.
But you are right, let's get back to the topic at hand which was originally this site that is not really made for me. I don't know who they are trying to draw but it isn't me. The next topic was that some one was offended by a word that was used and said "Please don't us that word". Then some one else said "that isn't how I meant it and I would like to keep using that word in the context that I understand it" and then the discussion went "No, I said no to that word and so it shall be law."
So then I made the point that if there are words we can't use then post a list so we all know.
I'm just wondering when they are going to hire Anne Coultier to write at XX (haha, sorry - couldn't help myself).
Serious question: How many times do I have to say I'm offended by sex negative and vulgar hate speech before you will go back and delete all posts and comments that use the phrase "fuck you" (or similar phrases)?
Let me say that more clearly.
This site has a regular feature called "fuck you". Your logo is a woman making the gesture for "fuck you". (You have also defended your right to call people "douche"). Your choice of logo and feature titles means that to a certain extent you've chosen to define yourselves and this blog with the phrase "fuck you". That's offensive on a lot of levels: vulgar, sex-negative, abusive language, personal attacks, etc. Presumably its supposed to be offensive. That's fine if that's what you want, but it sets a certain tone for this blog, where its natural that people will assume that offensive language is ok.
If you want this site to be a happy safe space for everyone, where nothing offensive is ever said, you might want to reconsider the tone that you yourselves are setting for the site.
Let me say this more clearly: "douche" and "fuck you" are not terms specifically targeting a particular oppressed group. There is a difference between oppressive language and vulgarity. Do you really feel victimized and marginalized because the logo girl is flipping the bird? Seriously?
Using the word "douche" as a negative thing makes it sounds like vaginas are icky and gross. That's a specific group-- women. The word douche as currently used has at least as much to do with stigmatizing vaginas as the word lame has to do with stigmatizing disabled people. And I do feel offended when people use phrases like "fuck you". If this were a site where everyone always used polite, reasonably formal language, I wouldn't be surprised at any requests not to use certain words that could be viewed as offensive. But I think its odd that on this site, some people's offense counts for more than others.
As I recall, when one of the editors last used the word douche in a post, they had to edit it later to defend why they were using a word like that on a feminist website. So I'm clearly not the only one who finds it offensive.
"douche" as an insult has the exact opposite effect that you describe. Douches are used with the understanding that vaginas are gross and smelly and unnatural- and part of the patriarchy. So perfectly reflecting something that is stupid and innapropriate.
As for "fuck you"? As others have pointed out, it does NOT address an oppressed class, so it is in NO way the same league as an ableist, sexist, or racist word. It is a matter of personal preference of the bloggers.
Well, I really don't think that lame references disabled people any more than gay references happy people. If you can tell me what the interpretation of a word should be so as to not see it as insulting, why can't I do the same? The precise meaning of douche may be cleaning the vagina in a way that is usually unnecessary (there are cases where its medically necessary to put creams and stuff there), but the way that I hear people using it is just as "ew, vaginas are gross." That may not be what you mean, but then, referencing disabled people with "lame" isn't what most people mean either.
I really think that douche is a vulgar and offensive term, as is fuck, and words like asshole and to a slightly lesser extent words like shit and screw.
lame
Adjective
1. disabled or crippled in the legs or feet
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lame
1lame Pronunciation: \?l?m\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): lam·er; lam·est
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lama; akin to Old High German lam lame, Lithuanian limti to break down
Date: before 12th century
1 a: having a body part and especially a limb so disabled as to impair freedom of movement b: marked by stiffness and soreness
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lame
lame ?/le?m/ [leym] adjective, lam?er, lam?est, verb, lamed, lam?ing, noun
–adjective
1. crippled or physically disabled, esp. in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2. impaired or disabled through defect or injury: a lame arm.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lame
Want to tell me again how lame does not reference disabled people?
the difference is that YOU don't get to decide whether a word that references an oppressed class is offensive or not. So just fucking stop. If you hate the word douche, then don't use it, and don't support those that do. But you can't argue out of offensive ableist, racist, and sexist terms.
It's beyond bananas to me to get upset over someone using the word "lame" when they are obviously not being hateful or referring to the handicapped in any way. The word has a legitimate, unoffensive use and to remove it from one's vocabulary just because it can be used offensively is nonsensical. "Honey" can be used offensively but that doesn't mean we should stop using it to refer to bee spit.
Using the word "lame" in an offensive manner is so rare that it has nearly died out, making the word all the more legitimate to use for it's other definitions as it won't be relatively long, in the grand scheme of things, before no one remembers the word was once used that way. Every time someone employs that word in an unoffensive manner they are further establishing it's offensive usage as dead.
I don't think anyone should have to stop using that word just because someone else says "please." If they were being hateful, that should absolutely not be allowed, but that was not the case. The argument that you should always stop using a word if it offends someone else is obviously ridiculous to the point where it really shouldn't even be entertained.
This train wreck of a thread is a perfect example of why I stopped reading this site. Enjoy your echo chamber.