More seriously this time:

[shirenomad]

There were some flyers up this past week on campus for a "Women's Law" event. My first instinct, on seeing those words as the headline, was that I would be unwelcome if I attended. It's for women. I am not a woman.

The event, upon closer investigation of the flyer, was about sexual assault law. Which is just as important for men. Some men (hopefully no one on campus) assault. Some men are even assaulted. Men are sometimes the one prosecuting or defending the assaulters, or sitting in judgment over them on the bench. And it's unlikely that men will ever drop below 50% of the legislators that could improve the law on the subject. In short, it's something men have an influence on and need to hear about. Why would you want to label such an important and universal topic with an exclusive label? Why would you dismiss, even subconsciously, 50% of the population from learning more on the subject? They could have led with "Law of Sexual Assault." Or "How Our Law Fails to Prevent Sexual Assault" if they wanted to be challenging. They didn't. Why?

It's for reasons like these that I want to strike this category of terms from the English language: "Feminist." "Gay Rights." "Black Pride." All of these name a specific group, and the instinctive reaction is that the members of that group are the only ones who are welcome to contribute their voice to the cause. We have groups for all of them on campus; am I going to sign up for any of them? No. Am I going to attend any of their events? If they lead their advertisements with the group name instead of the topic, very unlikely. I'll grant that the groups also serve the social purpose of letting people with similar social upbringings meet and network -- especially true for the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish orgs who can debate the more personal issue of how their faith will influence their career. But when it comes to subjects and causes that everyone should be thinking about, why be exclusive?

I'm for Equality. I'm for Equal Justice. I'm for Human Rights, Sentient Pride. Give me a group for that. Don't isolate yourself from me. Don't talk like your particular brand of equality can somehow be divided off from the others, or that only you can appreciate it. What's important is that everyone treat everyone with respect.

Comments

[kfpoore.livejournal.com]

If there was a way for me to favorite this, I would... or, quote all of it in its entirety on the bottom of all my forum signatures, emails, facebook status, and bumper sticker, I would.

I completely agree.

[tozetre.livejournal.com]

I'm so making a shirt with "Sentient Pride World Wide" on it.

[zerodotjander.livejournal.com]

While in theory I agree with you, I don't think it's very practical. It is very difficult for people in a majority to understand how people in a minority feel about discrimination, especially racism. There was actually an episode of South Park that dealt with this issue really well - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Apologies_to_Jesse_Jackson.

Discrimination encompasses much more than the overt such as the usage of slurs or open hatred. Much more important and insidious is the male Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism of America as a whole.

While the message of total equality for all and a color blind fight against racism sounds good, what it really does is homogenize the issue. The anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, anti-racism vs blacks, and anti-racism against other races are all separate issues with their own history and specific issues. As long as the basic culture of this country remains as racist as it is, you can't homogenize these issues, because the individual grievances of each group are very real and cannot be dismissed.

[chime.livejournal.com]

While I agree it's lamentable that such language seemingly excludes you and I, and I think you're correct the flyer should have had something different, I'm not sure the words for pride in certain minority groups are inherently wrong.

Taking Gay Pride as an example--when society tells gay people that they're less than (and it does; even fairly benign things accepted by liberal folk including myself as funny, such as Futurama, can have the occasional throwaway joke that implies homosexuality or somesuch is shameful), it's important for gay people, especially younger impressionable ones and such, to have some venue where they feel proud to be what they are. Not "in spite of" their gayness, but in fact because of it!

So there're Gay Pride issues and Gay Rights issues and they often overlap but not always. I don't see anything wrong with calling, say, a Gay Pride Parade a Gay Pride Parade. This type of thingy is [i]for Gay people[/i] and we straights don't have any inherent right to be represented in the name of it. Gay Rights issues are (or should be) a little less one-sided perhaps more aptly termed "sexuality/orientation equal rights", but that's also kind of a mouthful so I can sort of forgive the shorthand.

Now, if gays actively exclude straights from contributing to either kind, I will agree, they are in all likelihood being assholes.

[pretzelcoatl.livejournal.com]

...But the reason that they use the terms like the ones you mentioned isn't to make one group seem better than the other. It's to make a group which calls to attention the fact that those groups did face discrimination, and are still facing discrimination. It's not "exclusive."

I know it seems hard to understand, but you really don't understand until you start listening to the things that the groups of people you mentioned go through. And while it's nothing as severe as it was in the past -- women can vote, restrooms aren't segregated, people are more open to others coming out of the closet -- the prejudice and "Othering" is still common. People still assume the the "ordinary experience" is something that everyone goes through, and it isn't. The reason those terms are used are to promote understanding, not division.

And yes, of course, there are radical members of each of those groups, but that doesn't mean every feminist/black pride/gay pride person agrees with them. The problem is not in the person, but in society. I don't feel ashamed of being white, being male, or being straight, but I am ashamed if I get preferential treatment for being any of those. And yes, I have, and yes, it bothers me.

(As for the Women's Law thing, did you look into it at all? Just because you think you wouldn't be welcome, that doesn't mean you won't. Sexual assault is something that does happen to men, but it's more prevalent against women, and having more men aware of it can help prevent it, both from being perpetrators and being victims.)

[theotherbaldwin.livejournal.com]

It's also a little dicey that a straight, male, white is saying stuff like "I want to strike this category of terms from the English language: "Feminist." "Gay Rights." "Black Pride."

If you're not in those groups, but you're trying to dictate how they expressing things, it comes off as privileged at best, and Othering at worst.

[shadeykins.livejournal.com]

I like to lurk feminist blogs, and this came up, once, I remember... I'm going to try and find the relevant writings.