Michael Silverman is my new hero of the week.
Via Life, Law, Gender.
Michael Silverman is my new hero of the week.
Via Life, Law, Gender.
When discussing what he calls “covering” (the pressure to assimilate into the privileged “default” ways of acting, thinking, etc), the Harvard law professor and queer theorist Kenji Yoshino makes this observation:
Who wants to be a stereotype? Who wants to live in a box? But, of course, right, I mean if we just live our lives inverting stereotypes about our group, we’re just as controlled by those stereotypes as a photograph is controlled by its negative. Right? If we just reverse every single term of the stereotype then we’re just as controlled by the stereotype.
Hear the entire lecture over at blackfeminism.org.
It has come to my attention recently that the term “choice feminism” is gaining popularity in the feminist blogsphere, used by feminists on feminists. This has got to stop. Why? Simply put, there are some words that should not be in the feminist lexicon. “Choice feminism” is one of them and I’m going to tell y’all why.
First, some backstory. One of the widely accepted terms that feminists do not lob at each other is “feminazi”. There are a few reasons for this. Firstly, the term was
coined popularized by Rush Limbaugh specifically to discredit feminists. [Note: the term was actually coined by Tom Hazlett. I apologize for my mistake.] Through its usage, it has gained enough popularity to be listed in dictionaries such as Dictionary.com.
Secondly, because it is used to describe “extreme feminists” — which is itself a very subjective term — it is commonly used to reinforce the strawfeminist version of femiism: that we’re all angry, hairy legged, militant man-haters. For reasons like these, if feminists use that rhetoric against each other, we all lose, so, as a matter of principle, most of us don’t use it.
Now, as for “choice feminism” let’s first look at the origins. Linda Hirshman — who I have criticized for her anti-feminist rhetoric — coined the term specifically to create this pretend group of feminists who she could then attack.
So, parallels to the term “feminazi”. Created with the intention of discrediting certain feminists? Check. Is a term that no feminist self-identifies as, but rather is designed to create a strawfeminist that can be used to attack anyone who disagrees? Check. The popularization of it is contributing to the bad rap that feminists get? Well, no hard evidence on that one, but I personally think so.
Not to mention that the terminology tars with a rather large brush — to those unfamiliar with the nuances of the word, it is all too likely that they’d assume that any feminist advocating free choice as a driving factor of feminism is part of this crazy “choice feminism” that so many feminists have been ragging on.
The bottom line is that we don’t need any more terms used to attack feminists by creating these imaginary groups that don’t really exist. We don’t need to give our opponents more fodder, or give non-feminists yet another reason to distance themselves from us. And we most certainly don’t need any more divisive tactics.
So, I’ll say it again, if you’re a feminist who uses “choice feminism” please drop it from your lexicon. You’ll be doing us all a big favor.
So, as y’all should know by now, I currently live in Japan, but I consider my home area to be the Washington and British Columbia areas. My mom lives there and she recently e-mailed me a news article about the formation of GLBT Month in Jefferson County. The reason she did this was because of one letter to the editor that angered her very much.
In a nutshell, Connie Rosenquist, the letter writer, is angry over Jefferson County’s decision to have a GLBT Month. My mother said that most of the responses to the original article were positive, but this negative one pushed her buttons for a reason she couldn’t name. I read it and knew immediately what it was; it was the same attitude that opponents of this proclamation in the original article expressed. An attitude that oppression activists are intimately familiar with.
I’m talking about privilege.
In this case, the ability to believe that one’s privileged state is the “default” and therefore see any attempt at equality as the non-privileged groups to get “special” rights, or to see them as trying to shut you out of “your” community. I’ve taken this on from the perspective of helping potential allies, but now I want to examine exactly why these attitudes are actually harmful to the expressed goals of equality, neutrality, and inclusion.
â€œWhile I do agree we donâ€™t want discrimination, I donâ€™t believe it exists in the county,â€ he said, pausing as a handful of people present who opposed the proclamation applauded.
â€œI donâ€™t believe government should be taking a position on any lifestyle,â€ Rodgers said.[From Gay pride proclamation stirs controversy by By Kasia Pierzga]
The position that conservatives like Rodgers and Rosenquist are coming from is founded on the notion that society, as it is right now, is neutral. For those of us who fight oppression, this assumption is obviously fallacious — if one could major in fighting oppression, the idea that we live in a neutral society would be debunked in Privilege 101. But, for the majority of people, this idea remains unquestioned until they find that rights that matter to them come into question. And even then, the connection might not be made unless they happen upon an article, discussion, or class and the idea is not only brought up but done so in a way that resonates with them.
In other words, I’m surprised that any of us actually interact with notions of privilege and what it means in our respective societies given what we have stacked against us. I mean, who wants to think about how our society is crappy and that all of us, in our own special ways, contribute to the crappiness? I sure don’t! But I know if I don’t, not only will I suffer, but everyone else will, too. And, well, what’s worse than thinking about a crappy society is realizing that I’m willfully participating in hurting other people.
Bringing this back to privilege and the myth of a neutral culture. One of the main ideas behind the concept of privilege is that our privileged state is seen as a “default” or “neutral” state in society. In regards to feminism, the main principle is that of “male normativity” — or seeing men, and the masculine sphere, as the default human state. For racial activism, the main state is “assumption: white” — meaning that white people are seen as the default human state, and white culture is seen as the default culture. In this case, the privileged state being battled is that of heteronormativity.
When Rodgers says that he doesn’t believe that the government should be taking a position on any lifestyle, he is clearly not counting heterosexuality as a “lifestyle.” For him, and those who hold the same beliefs, heterosexuality isn’t a lifestyle, it is simply a given in life. They are heterosexual, therefore everyone must be. The people who live outside of a traditional heterosexual lifestyle can’t be doing it it because it’s their default human state, but because they choose to live a different way.
But, I mean, the government is not staying out of people’s relationships. From the foundation of the United States of America, to the laws and regulations of America’s parent countries, and even looking at the way that the institution of marriage has developed and been practiced in nations throughout history, the government has always had a stake in this area. The whole point of marriage is so that the state can confer all sorts of applicable rights to the married persons.
Not only that, but the government is clearly not even neutral on the subject of queer relationships, but there is a strong minority force, lead by Bush, is all too involved in taking a position on the “lifestyle”. To be fair, Rodgers himself may be against this, too, but the point is that attacks like the repeated attempts to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriage is a pretty clear case against the idea that our culture is neutral ground when it comes to heterosexual rights versus queer rights. Unless I missed the part where the senate voted on whether or not we should ban different-sex marriages.
In her letter, Rosenquist calls the proclamation “unnecessarily offending and dividing.” Although she does not outright state it, I think it’s safe to infer from what she does say that one reason she believes this is because having a GLBT Month seems to confer “special” rights to a group of people. But that works from the assumption that heterosexuality isn’t already privileged over non-heterosexuality. The purpose of the proclamation is not to one up heterosexuality, but rather to level the playing field.
What do I mean by that? Isn’t the playing field already level? Well, not exactly. In fact, there are several different fronts on which heteronormativity gives heterosexuality a one up on other forms of sexual expression. To name a few:
From the moment we are born until the moment we die, we are continually socialized. Girls become women while being constantly asked about boyfriends, husbands, and male crushes. Boys become men men while being constantly asked about girlfriends, wives, and female crushes. When we are taught in schools, it’s with teaching materials that reinforce “man + woman = couple.”
This doesn’t stop at grade school, but continues even into adult education. For example, in my Japanese class we watch videos that deal with a love triangle where two men like a woman they work with. The pictures our book uses sometimes depicts men and women out on dates. And, of course, in our class discussions everyone assumes everyone else is heterosexual — the women have to make example sentences about boyfriends, the men have to make example sentences about girlfriends.
Heterosexual Messages in Popular Culture:
Like the picture on the left, the assumption that all people are heterosexual is an unquestioned part of much of our popular culture. When you hear “romantic comedy” you think of a female lead who is lead through a serious of hilarious mishaps until she finds true love with her male counterpart. Action movies that have the obligatory love/lust sidestory will almost always have it set up as being the male lead getting it on with a female support character (or female lead, if the movie has that). Comics are… well, the insane amount of press that the new Batwoman is getting because she’s a lesbian (here, here, and here, to name a few) should be self evident.
And I’d say that this medium is where the queer community has made it’s largest strides in terms of combatting heteronormativity. Shows like Will and Grace, Queer as Folk, and The L Word — whether you like them or hate them — have been slowly creeping into popular culture. Sometimes even mainstream shows, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, will have queer characters. Better yet, there is some tentative evidence to suggest that this promotes tolerance, yay!
But, while we have come a long way, it’s clear (to me, at least) that we still have a long way to go. Which brings me to my last example of heteronormativity in our daily lives.
When I was talking about heteronormativity in Section 1, this is where I was focusing my efforts. Rodgers may have a point when he said that the government doesn’t have any business legislating sexuality, but making that case in terms of GLBT Month ignores the fact that the government has been in the business of legislating sexuality since before it was the American government.
Marriage laws, tax laws, inheritance laws, and up until recently sodomy laws — these are just a few ways in which the government has legislated our sexuality. And, guess what? For the most part they privilege heterosexual couples by lawfully legitimizing their union (a must have if your partner gets sick or dies) and even giving them monetary incentive in terms of tax breaks and, not as directly, cheaper insurance due to joint plans offered to people who have a legal marriage.
I’m going to go one step farther now and posit that the “neutrality” argument is a less overt way of claiming that any attempt to include the queer community in the American community is tantamount to pushing homosexuality on them. If the premise of a neutral culture were correct, then this argument would make a certain amount of sense because one set of values would get more attention than another. Even then, however, the either/or idea — that including one group means excluding the other — is a fallacious argument.
In her letter, Rosenquist employs a certain amount of the “can’t we all just get along?” rhetoric. When she calls the proclamation “unnecessarily offending and dividing,” it is apparently in the spirit of cooperation. That all of us — whether we be heterosexual or queer, conservative or progressive — can live together in a community. That’s a principle we can all get behind, right? Right?
But what kind of a community does she want us all to live in? I can’t answer that to the fullest extent, but I can extrapolate based on her letter. First of all, she believes that a community should make efforts to not offend its members or unnecessarily divide them. So far so good. But, when we get into what that seems to mean to her, things start getting hairy.
See, she feels that since the group is “self-defined by sexual practices,” GLBT Month will therefore not focus enough on the contributions of the nominees. The first problem with that argument is immediately apparent to anyone who knows what the “T” in “GLBT” stands for. That would be transgender. Until now, they have been largely excluded from the conversation — both by the Rosenquist and myself — because… well, because of a lot of reasons.
On Rosenquist’s end, I would wager that it’s because she is largely unaware of “trans issues” (I use the term very loosely), as most Americans are. For me, well, because I’m addressing the attitudes of the opponents. And also this post is long enough focusing mostly on issues of sexual orientation without getting into the diverse way that the “T” in “GBLT” interacts with the queer community. But, it’s important here because it is the most obvious way in which the queer community can be seen to be much, much more than a declaration of what genders we are attracted to.
Which brings me to my second problem with her oversimplification. It erases the fact that the reason we all have banded together is because we have been ignored, attacked, killed, deprived of our rights…. well, let’s get simple here, oppressed throughout history. Our sexual preferences may be one common thread between us, but it is not what I would call the “self-defining” feature of the queer rights movement. “The right not to be discriminated against, harassed, killed, or otherwise abused and excluded because of our sexual orientation, gender expression, sexual practices, etc.” would probably be closer to a self-defining feature, really.
And speaking of sexual practices, here’s another point I’d like to address. In her letter, she says:
Jefferson County has multitudes of ways to honor deserving people for actual contributions â€“ and which spare us details of their sexual practices.
Reading this again, I am struck by the strong implication that queer-identified people haven’t made “actual contributions.” But in the interest of time and space, I’ll gloss over that and focus on one of the most telling parts of her piece. The part where she says that Jefferson County needs to honor people in ways that “spare us the details of their sexual practices.” Which, if we go back to her inclusive community idea, pretty strongly argues for the fact that the place queer people have in her community is, at best, that of eternal silence. Because anything else — even if it’s just talking about a same-sex partner in the same way that people talk about their different-sex partners — amounts to TMI.
And, lastly, let’s examine the part where she says:
A truly â€œwelcomingâ€ community also welcomes the more conservative.
Don’t forget that all of this is in response to the government trying to be inclusive of the queer movement by giving us one month out of the year in which we are honored for our struggles and other contributions that our members have made for the community. But, apparently doing this means that Rosenquist and conservatives like her are unwelcome.
“Unwelcome, how,” you ask? Do the queers go out and beat conservatives for daring to flaunt their heterosexuality? Do we try to pass laws that criminalize their unnatural different-sex-only attractions? Do we tell them that they’re welcome in our community only if they “spare us the details of their sexual practices”?
No, no. We make them feel unwelcome because we are, by our very existence, “unnecessarily offending and dividing.” We offend them because we challenge their heretofore unchallenged idea of heteronormativity. We are divisive because we’re different. But what they don’t get — perhaps don’t want to get — is that we can’t stop being who we are.
And if that makes them feel unwelcome… well, I don’t know what to else to say.
In a move that is surprisingly good, Glamour has published an extensive and well written article that covers the governmental assault on women’s health. From the FDA to government funded abstinence only ed, the article is a long read, but well worth it.
“Abstinence is a laudable goal,” says Deborah Arrindell, vice president of health policy for the nonpartisan American Social Health Association, an STD-awareness group. “But it is not how young women live their livesâ€”the reality is that most women have premarital sex. Our government is focusing not on women’s health but on a moral agenda.” Consider this a wake-up call.[From The new lies about women’s health by Brian Alexander]
Now I just want to know why the editors thought that a naked woman’s backside was the most appropriate picture they could think of for a health related article. I mean, maybe it’s just me, but when I think “assault on women’s health” I just don’t think “woman butt.”
vegankid has an excellent post over at Ally Work debunking the myth of lazy “welfare queens”. The post traces the history of welfare, brings up statistics, cites sources… all you could want from a topic like this and more.
Here’s an excerpt:
Martin Gilens, in Why Americans Hate Welfare, finds that â€œthe belief that blacks are lazy is the strongest predictor of the perception that welfare recipients are undeserving.â€ In a mid-90s study titled â€œWhiteâ€™s Stereotypes of Blacks: Sources and Political Consequences,â€ researchers Hurwitz and Peffley found that White people agree that most Black people are lazy (31 percent), not determined to succeed (22 percent), and lacking in discipline (60 percent). It was these stereotypes that fueled the racist attacks on welfare despite the fact that at the time, the majority of welfare recipients were White wimmin. By catering to racism through imagery and rhetoric, those with the agenda of wiping out welfare could convince the largest recipients of welfare (economically-poor White people) that it was a good idea.
All to often, people (white people especially) seem to conflate issues of race with class. But, really, they aren’t the same. At all. Anyway, vegankid says it better than I ever could, so go read the post.
Via one of my friends, A Chink in the Armour is a light hearted documentary that explores the stereotypes about Asians (specifically Chinese) in North America (specifically Toronto). There was a lot of fluff in it, but I think it would make a nice segue into talking more about racism against Asians in Western culture. (Hint, hint)
So, apparently the University of Minnesota did a study that found what every American atheist, and really anyone who keeps up with the Religious Wrong, already knows: Americans hate atheists. And think that religion is the only way to have morals. Because, you know, people are only interested in being good human beings when the threat of punishment looms over them.
If you’re wondering about the snarky title to this post, however, it’s a reaction to the title that UMNnews choose to put on the piece: “Atheists identified as Americaâ€™s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study”. While the people taking the survey apparently put atheists at the bottom of their list (below “Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups”) in terms of â€œsharing their vision of American society,â€ I don’t think that’s enough to qualify us as the “most distrusted minority”.
Just a guess, but I’d say it’s less that we’re actually the most distrusted minority and more that people feel okay in admitting they are prejudiced against us. Which is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, they don’t have any reason to even pretend to respect us. On the other, they, well, don’t pretend to respect us. But, really, just because someone thinks that they aren’t prejudiced against other minorities, doesn’t mean that it’s the case. So, I’ll think I’ll bow out of the “which minority is the most distrusted” game and simply say that, you know, life isn’t as simple as one survey makes it seem.
Via Bitch | Lab
My feminist activism is far from isolating. I meet and connect with great women and men who are my peers on campus or online in the blog network. But I sometimes feel disconnected from the people beyond my immediate circle; I feel that the ways in which Iâ€™m a participant in a global world are invisible to me. In my Global Women class this quarter, my classmates and I tried to see some of those connections. As university students in the United States, we are privileged to ignore them. For my own term project, I chose look to into who grows the organic, local produce I enjoy so much. I wanted to know: who grows it, and why didnâ€™t I know already?
I live in Bellingham, a city along the Puget Sound between Vancouver and Seattle. I seldom adventure beyond walking distance of my campus and apartment, so I see little of farms and most of that is from a distance on the highway. In spring and summer, I walk downtown to purchase local produce at the Saturday Farmerâ€™s Market. The people selling the produce usually look like me, and I donâ€™t give much thought beyond the cooking I will do when I get home.
My project led me to a local group called Community to Community Development, â€œa place-based, grassroots organization committed to creating alliances in order to strengthen local and global movements towards social, economic and environmental justice.â€
How does this mission statement translate into practice? The panel I attended on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 is a good example; Iâ€™ll do my best to recount it. Pardon my slipping into pseudo-objective report mode, itâ€™s not my usual writing style but Iâ€™m also turning this in for my class. Iâ€™m not sure how â€œaccurateâ€ this account is, but this is what I interpreted from what was said.
Organization director Rosalinda Guillen led the three panelists through sharing their experiences as farmworkers in my own Whatcom County and the adjacent Skagit County. The dialogue was held at Western Washington University and attended by both students and community members. I’m using fictional names of the panelists to preserve their privacy.
The presentation was bilingual, which challenged the pervasive English norm that surrounds me. Most of the farmworkers in the area are Hispanic. Language was used that the panelists were comfortable with, and the latter two speakers chose to talk to us in Spanish.
A woman named Anna was the first panelist to speak. She began with sharing her situation: fifty years old, in her thirty-first year of marriage, a mother of three, and grandmother of three. Originally from Texas, Annaâ€™s family moved to the Skagit Valley when she was a young child and lived in labor camps for farmworkers. She began working in the labor camp at age five, and the fields at eight. When her family and their colleagues were able to find work, they were at it from dawn until dusk, seven days a week with no holidays. The labor camps were crowded–she recalled that the individual houses had bathrooms, but the camp shared communal showers. Labor camps are worse now than they were then, she said, because the same structures are used and are decaying with little or no maintenance.
Because farm work is seasonal, Annaâ€™s parents often couldnâ€™t find work and therefor relied on government assistance and help from relatives. It was a stressful time for her parents, Anna said, so she learned to be quiet and cooperative to avoid being a target. She didnâ€™t want her dad to strike her. Anna pointed out that this was a tool for survival for people in powerless situations. â€œI want to help people in similar situations,â€ she said. She now works at Group Health so she can help people from her community.
Isabela was the second panelist to speak. She moved to Yakima–a city in Eastern Washington–from Jalisco, Mexico in 1990 and sorted and packed apples, cherries, and pears. Eventually she moved to Bellingham. She is thirty-five and the mother of a young daughter; Isabela is currently unemployed and is looking for farmwork to support her family.
Isabelaâ€™s father was a bracero who, when she was a girl, traveled seasonally to the United States to find work. He lived in barracks-like with bunk-beds that housed several men to a room, and hundreds of men in each camp. Jobs typically were, she described, dawn to dusk with no holidays. Isabelaâ€™s father earned American dollars, which was more valuable than pesos, to send home to his family. Isabela feels that this little bit of extra income didnâ€™t make up for the time he missed with his family.
Isabelaâ€™s father warned her not to travel to the United States because sheâ€™d be treated so poorly as a farmworker. She pointed out that now there are more considerations being made for farmworkers, including an hourly wages being at minimum wage, which is currently $7.63 in Washington (the highest in the country). But it still isnâ€™t enough to get by, Isabela said.
Alessandra was the third and last person to speak on the panel. She moved to Bellingham, from Mexico, in 1996. She shared that she was a mother of three children–the youngest, and infant, with her at the panel. She primarily worked at a local organic farm. Crops there included peppers, eggplant, corn, carrot, broccoli, and cauliflower. She described the work as physically hard, including moving soil with wheelbarrows and transferring plants from flats into soil. One crop was harvested right after another. â€œOne must present quality work so he can get paid,â€ she said.
Alessandra said she was happy at the organic farm because she was allowed breaks and the owner was respectful in that she let Alessandra spend the time she needed being a mother, getting her children to and from school.
Alessandra was recently let go from another farm she had worked for because some of her documentation was invalid. â€œIf they only give work to people with proper documentation,â€ she said. â€œThereâ€™d be no one to do the work.â€
After the three women introduced themselves, the panel was open to questions from the audience. Some of the topics discussed included:
Workers are known by what labor camp theyâ€™re from, and people still live in the same deteriorating camps. This reminded me of well off, white family friends from Pasco who blame the â€œMexicansâ€ for ripping apart the houses the farmers are kind enough to provide. These friends donâ€™t work in agriculture. What the women told is a very different story, and I believe them.
Isabela told a story of an incident that occurred when she worked in Yakima. Apples were being sprayed outside of her packing plant when fumes came inside and made the workers feel dizzy and sick. Many had to go home sick, and others were afraid to leave. Alessandra went home sick but had to be back the next day. No incident report was filed, no doctorâ€™s visit was provided. Alessandra said she was kept ignorant of her rights.
Anna only recalled being near the planes that sprayed pesticides on fields adjacent to ones she and her coworkers were working in. She reiterated that they werenâ€™t allowed to be sick.
Raspberries as are a big crop in the area, and Alessandra reported that the roots of the plants are covered in a dust she suspects is a pesticide. Workers are provided with no masks and only cloth gloves. The dust they inhale makes the workers feel sick with constant flu-like symptoms. Alessandra used doubtful language–who knew what was going on?–but I argue that it doesnâ€™t matter if itâ€™s pesticides or not the workers are getting sick from: they should have to tolerate constant illness at work.
Supporting a family as a farmworker was tough. The children of the farmworkers no longer performed labor like they used to, according to the panelists, but many still come with their parents to the fields. This is technically prohibited, but done out of necessity, said Alessandra. When she worked on at â€œconventionalâ€ (non-organic) farms, her children were exposed to pesticides. Although none of the women had observed pesticides harming their children, the host Rosalinda pointed out that it still may be happening even if they canâ€™t see the immediate damage.
The women reported facing discrimination against their children. Alessandra couldnâ€™t find an apartment for her three energetic children, the owners of the farms she worked at refused to help her. One said his empty house needed to be remodeled, the others outright said no. Anna recalled that as a girl, public school didnâ€™t want to spend time on her because children of the farm workers are barely there. She said that was true today.
Alessandra said her children were told they had to speak English while at school. (Washington State does have an English Language Learners program.) She confronted teachers and principal. They apologized but Alessandra did not think things would change.
No daycare was provided for the farmworkers children, but the women did rely on each other for support in caring for children.
It was asked: why all women on the panel? Rosalinda replied that usually we think of workers as men. Women have different concerns that are often ignored. They bring a different perspective than the one we usually hear. The women farmworkers keep the family together, and must work full time and care for the children.
The panel ended with a discussion of the future. Alessandra said that â€œhope is goodâ€ but she didnâ€™t see how things were going to change as the rate of living rises faster than the minimum wage that traps people in poverty.
But by being there, we were moving towards change. The audience was asked to leave considering how their purchases affected the women they met that night.
Community to Community Development, by presenting such panels that open dialogues between the consumer community and farmworker community, want to educate the consumers so they will be allies when the farmworkers are ready to demand changes. The organization also wants local, family owned and sustainable systems that hold farm owners accountable.
The following day, I met with Rosalinda in her office. We reflected on the presentation. I shared how Iâ€™d just seen something I was oblivious to but realized Iâ€™d always know was there, and I thanked her for putting on a presentation that literally opened my eyes. I asked what was next. What activism was going on? What was to come?
In addition to the presentation I attended, Community to Community Development is working with farm owners to improve wages and working conditions. Beyond that, not much has been done yet. If more isnâ€™t done, things may be grim. She shared stories of racism and hate crimes–such as cross burnings–the farmworkers have faced and continue to face. The Minutemen are the latest threat–these (white, as far as I saw on their website) men want to â€œhelpâ€ border patrol keep aliens out. Rosalinda hopes that by establishing connections between the communities, weâ€™ll remember meeting Alessandra and be ready will be prepared to stand up for immigrant rights. Iâ€™m listening and ready to be an ally.
This just in… a Christian who said “Happy Holidays” was read her rights by an angry God Warrior.
dear customer: when i am ringing you up, i do not say happy holidays to upset you. i do not hate christmas. i celebrate christmas myself. i can’t WAIT til christmas comes. i am EXCITED about christmas. but you might not be, and i DON’T WANT YOU TO FEEL EXCLUDED. it’s not because i hate your holiday, your religion, your people or your general welfare. it’s the EXACT OPPOSITE. i care enough not to ass-ume that you are one thing and not another.
i am so, so fucking sick of the asinine phrase “PC”. i am not being POLITICALLY CORRECT, i am being considerate of the fact that BILLIONS OF PEOPLE DO NOT CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS. that goes for ANY term “pc” term. yeah, i say mailperson, not mailman. sometimes when i refer to god, i say she. sometimes i say he. sometimes i say (zomg!) IT. i say handicapped instead of disabled.
it’s something i learned in kindergarten.
it’s fucking called MANNERS and COMMON SENSE.[From feminist_rage post by alexstra]