Help Haiti auction one closes, some linkblogging

[soc_puppet]

I was totally going to do a post warning about how the main auction at help_haiti was closing soon, except A) I slept in until noon today, since school was canceled, and B) I got the closing time mixed up, not realizing it meant noon instead of midnight. W-whoops.

In any case! Bidding ended today a few hours ago. Here's something you may want to take a look at: Auction Closing Procedures. I will definitely be reading it closely myself at some point in the very near future.


In other linkblogging news: Liberal Bloggers to Obama and Dems: We Told You So


Also, while I normally have the utmost respect for Neil Gaiman, I really can't approve of his use of the word "bitch." (Trigger Warning for last link.)

Thanks to a lightbird777, I was expecting the Depp-seems-to-be-on-Team-Polanski thing. Even if I don't care much for Gaiman's solo work, however, this feels like more of a slap in the face.

Edit: Neil Gaiman, when negative reactions to his use of "bitch" were presented to him, has just said he will try to do better in the future". While he doesn't seem to feel contrite about its use in the George R. R. Martin post (where it is definitely used to mean "Someone who is at your disposal to use however you like", with the sexual implications all but out loud), it is at least slightly encouraging.

Edit 2: Aaaaand now we're moving backwards. *sigh*

-Trigger Warning-

Dear Mr. Gaiman,

On the off-chance that you are reading this post, I would like to take the opportunity to be a little clearer:

It makes me uncomfortable that you are using the term "bitch" to convey your sense of safety as a writer. As a woman, I am not afforded this same level of safety in regards to my basic personhood. There is as much as a twenty-five percent chance that I will become someone's "bitch" in my lifetime, and not in the sense you use it. It makes me cringe when I think of my friends and family members who have the same odds, or who already have been someone's "bitch".

The fact that you are comparing this to writing, or the idea that someone "has" to write something, is alienating and hurtful to me. I hope that, as someone who ostensibly makes a career out of being able to see things from the point of view of another person, fictional or otherwise, you may yet be willing to consider things from mine.

Comments

[soc_puppet]

The basic idea here is that using a feminine term to mean "something to be dominated" (here, physical domination is implied) is hurtful to all women, and perpetuates a culture in which we are marginalized. (Longer post on it here, if you've got the spoons for it.)

Here, specifically, I'm pretty sure Mr. Gaiman didn't mean to hurt anyone. Either he was speaking from unexamined privilege, or (as may be more likely, given the knee-jerk reaction) he has examined his privilege in regards to this word, and justified it to himself for any number of reasons.

In fact, it is because I think he doesn't want to hurt or offend anyone that I almost made my letter up there a closed letter in addition to/instead of an open one. (Social anxiety is winning that battle so far.) It's because I think he could easily come to understand my/our position that I even consider addressing him directly. It's because of his relatively good feminist track record that the post was made in the first place. It's because I think he might be willing to listen, which is more than I expect of people who are offensive because they mean to be.

[perrito]

I skimmed the post to get an idea of what it was about. I know very little about the feminist movement and I live in a culture that is still very patriarchal, so maybe I'm just desensitized to it, but I'm of the opinion that words have the meaning people choose to give them.

My lack of cultural context is probably affecting my view of things, but my understanding of the word 'bitch' is 'female dog' It is an insult because you are calling someone a female dog, 'Nobody's bitch' means 'Nobody's female dog' it does imply being submissive but I don't think people normally call other people bitches after considering the meaning and implications of the word. I don't think Neil Gaiman did and I certainly don't when I bring it up in jokes with friends.

I asked half-joking yesterday if 'manwhore' would've brought a less strong reaction. I mean, the man didn't mean any harm and we all know he has an excellent record with social issues, so the whole intrawebz explosion seems like a huge over-reaction to me.

[soc_puppet]

That's the original meaning of the word "bitch", yes. Cultural context definitely adds more layers, though, and I'm not sure how many of them translate exactly :|a Seeing your icon (and putting it together with the discussion up-page) is reminding me of something I could possibly use here, though.

In FMA, it is generally translated in to English that, in order to do the research he needs, Ed must become the "dog of the military". In this sense, being a dog means that he must follow all of their commands, bow to their whims, and generally do everything they say - good or bad, demeaning or not - because he is subservient to them, as a dog is subservient to its master. Additionally, because he has submitted himself to the will of the military, there is the implication that he can't say no.

The term "bitch" adds the layer of gender to it, suggesting that to submit to the will of another, or to have one's autonomy removed, is an inherently feminine. "Dog", meanwhile, has gone out of usage, perhaps even -because- it is gender-neutral.


Sadly, "manwhore" is nowhere near the same :( For one thing, there's the double-standard of men vs. women and sex: while men are encouraged to go out and have sex with as many women as possible (see: romantic "conquests", and if that isn't a deeply problematic term, I don't know what is), women are much shamed for doing much less. Also, "whore" suggests that at least the person going out and having sex wants to be doing so, while bitch/dog implies that it is something they are not in control of.


Again, I get that he didn't mean any harm, I do! But, to go back to a popular analogy from RaceFail '09 (simply because I think it will also work well here, and not because I mean to suggest that one marginalization is interchangeable with another, though if that's what I have done I apologize)...

Anyway, to get back to that analogy: If someone steps on a stranger's foot, but it was a complete accident, does that mean that the stranger's foot no longer hurts? No. It means that it was an understandable mistake. The hurt is still there, but if the person who did the stepping-on chooses, they might be able to learn from it, and avoid situations where they would step on someone else's foot in the future. They apologize and move on.

Or, as the case may be, they deny that any foot stepping-on ever took place, accidental or not, and thus the person whose foot hurts is imagining things - and besides, think of all the good things the foot-stepper-on has already done in life! That makes them a good person, who is incapable of ever treading on someone else's toes, even by accident, and there are absolutely no flaws in that logic ever ever ever.

[perrito]

I understand the meaning culture has given to the word, I don't want to go into marginalization and racism because that's a whole different can of worms, but to go with the foot stepping analogy, in this case I think the internet at large is claiming that an accidental toe-stepping broke their leg and now they will never be able to walk again. Which in my very personal and detached opinion, is very silly.

[soc_puppet]

If you got the impression that this is being blown out of proportion from my post, then I have probably screwed it all up, and would like to apologize. If you got that impression from Liss' post, however, I don't really think there's anything I -can- say. I don't personally see it anywhere in her words, but I'm not you.

The Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck: The idea is that we're used to having our toes stepped on by the world at large - by the media, by co-workers, by random people on the street - and therefore is more painful from someone whom we have come to expect the opposite from, if only because we have let our guard down.

See also: Feminists are hyper-sensitive hysterics and are looking for something to get mad about [link]. Or humorless and too-thick-skinned [link], depending on which argument is going on.

[perrito]

It was more the other post than yours, I actually appreciate your patience a lot.

I don't have time to read any of those thoroughly right now, but my impression in general is that people on the internet (not necessarily feminists) get offended very easily. Sometimes people get angry and I can understand why they're angry and support the cause (LJ trying to remove the unspecified gender option, Amazon accidentally banning books, Gerg Grunberg being a dick about Chaz Bono) but in this case I just can't understand the reaction, I'm sorry.