Notice for discussion of misuse of the word "rape."
Dear Blizzard,
Anyone with a subscription to the game can post on the World of Warcraft general forums. There's no "are you a decent human being" test to pass in order to gain posting privileges. While the rules state that certain words and behaviors aren't allowed, you know that some posters will break those rules. So you gave us a profanity filter.
It was one of your better ideas. Knowing your playerbase as you do, you didn't stick to the typical curse words. You also included words like "homosexual," because some of your players are homophobic douchebags. You also included obvious racial slurs, because some of your players are racist douchebags. You also included "rape."
I was glad that you chose to censor "rape." Gamers use it often as a metaphor for general in-game violence. Putting it behind the censor indicated that you didn't want it to be used that way, that you understood that to be an inappropriate and harmful use of a word with great significance to victims and their allies. It seemed as if you were exerting your influence against misogyny. I appreciated the effort; it's good to discourage the use of "rape" as a win/loss metaphor.
I've played WOW for years and visited the forums for years. "Rape" was censored to the extent that we couldn't type "grape" or "drape" or "therapist" without tripping the filter, and forum regulars knew that. It was understood that "rape" was censored.
Suddenly, it's not.
A little while ago, I noticed that "drape" and "grape" weren't censored anymore. Cool, I thought. Looks like the filter's more sensitive now, and can differentiate between "rape" and other variations.
And then I read a post where someone claimed to have been "raped by tigers" in-game.
And I noticed that the word "raped" was right there, uncensored.
You removed "rape" from the filter.
I could try to interpret this generously and assume that your reasoning was, "Hey, our players are mature and sensitive people, they don't need to be censored like this, we aren't giving them enough credit." But we both know that's not true.
No. No, your playerbase hasn't changed. The word "rape" hasn't changed. Common misuse of it hasn't changed. The only thing that's changed is your stance.
By changing your stance, you're signaling to your players that it's okay to use "rape" as a metaphor. You're letting everyone know that there's no need to be sensitive to victims.
You were doing the right thing. Then you stopped doing the right thing, turned around, and said, "LOL! Never mind! Ugh, what was up with that?! Why be so sensitive? Let's go rape some elves!"
You just gave forum posters your blessing to be more hostile to rape victims (and more hostile to populations already under threat of rape, like women and gay men and trans people, all of whom already deal with plenty of other hostile bullshit in the gaming community). You just removed that minor check that might have discouraged rape jokes and made some posters and readers think twice about rape as a metaphor. You've mentioned that only a minority of players visits the forums, but even a small percentage of people in such a popular game is a significant number of people, and those forums are busy. Even if only a small percentage of players visits the forums, turn that around: how many people reading and posting on the forums play the game? How will this new freedom to misuse "rape" affect conversations in-game?
It would be one thing if you'd never taken a stance at all. Instead, you chose to take a position and then reverse it. In that reversal, you sent a very clear message. Maybe it wasn't the one you intended to convey.
I hope that you'll reconsider.
With love,
Frank Lee
P.S. That other little problem I have still hasn't been resolved.
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Friday, December 21, 2012
Dear Good Men Project
Dear Good Men Project,
I'd never heard of you before Jill at Feministe mentioned you in a series of blog posts I linked to here. Reading those posts and hearing other people's experiences with you in comments, I came up with a cloudy but troubling idea of who you are and what you're about.
Suddenly, it became much more clear.
Jill posted a link to a Twitter conversation involving one of your people, Tom Matlack. She called him your "head honcho," and I see that he's named on Wikipedia as your founder.
Here's what he says in the middle of that Twitter conversation:
I don't think that you can get very far in a progressive conversation without examining your privilege. I don't think that a feminist man who doesn't understand what privilege is can actually be feminist.
If you haven't examined your privilege, if you haven't put forth some effort to cast a critical eye over the patriarchy and notice how you benefit from it, then you don't genuinely understand the deeply entrenched systems of oppression operating in this culture. If you don't understand how men benefit from sexism, or how white people benefit from racism, etc., you don't understand the patriarchy. Flailing around in social justice or gender studies circles without understanding the basics of the conversation generally means that you're hindering more than you're helping.
Someone who doesn't understand what "privilege" means in this context can't participate in the conversation in any meaningful, productive way.
He absolutely cannot lead the conversation.
Yet Tom Matlack is your founder.
As far as I can tell, he's male, white, and currently quite wealthy. I don't know him very well, but let's say for the sake of argument that he grew up cis and straight. As a man, he benefits from sexism. As a white person, he benefits from racism. As a cis person, he benefits from transphobia. As a straight person, he benefits from homophobia. And when a feminist in a conversation on gender says the word "privilege," his immediate response is: I grew up poor. I wasn't wealthy. As if the advantage of wealth is the only advantage of importance. As if the economic class we're born into is the only privilege of relevance.
He has no idea, then, how being white has helped him in life. How being a man has been a benefit. How being cis and/or being straight is an advantage in a transphobic, homophobic society. (That's not even to get into TAB privilege, thin privilege, and the rest.)
If you don't understand privilege, you don't understand oppression. If you don't understand the kyriarchy, you don't understand what progressives are fighting for, or why. How can you ask what it is to be a good man if you don't understand what being a man means in the patriarchy? How far can that conversation among men progress if you don't begin with a fundamental understanding of your own shared privilege?
It's a truth that the patriarchy hurts men, too. Yet a man who doesn't realize that he benefits from the patriarchy by virtue of his very maleness is ignorant and needs to approach gender studies from the very beginning. A man who doesn't know how he benefits from sexism doesn't know what sexism is.
Your founder isn't at the "What does it mean to be a good man?" portion of the conversation. He's at the "What does it mean to be a man?" portion.
What sorts of men is the Good Men Project for? How can you invite all kinds of men to the conversation if you don't understand the dynamics of oppression? If Tom Matlack doesn't understand his own white privilege, how does he include men of color? How does he reach out to them to share their experiences and discuss their issues if he doesn't understand racism?
Let's go back to the tweet I quoted above. During Tom Matlack's conversation with other feminists, he said something which drew Sarah J. Jackson (@sjjphd) into the discussion. It does not thrill me to notice that while the other ongoing conversations overlap, his conversation with Sarah J. Jackson involves no one else. I wish that she didn't have to go it alone, that others had spoken up with her as they supported each other.
For context, she's a woman of color who describes herself on Twitter as an "Asst. Prof. Researching & Teaching about Media Narratives of Race, Gender & Political Protest." Here's the comment she replied to and their ensuing conversation.
She shouldn't have to work this hard to communicate with someone who considers himself a feminist ("@jennpozner I didn't take it personally. I consider myself a feminist. But apparently that word has many meanings.") and a tireless worker on issues of racism. He should be her ally. She starts off with "please" and spends the entire conversation offering him cookies. She points out, for the record, that she's a person of color who studies race. She explains all of her points in a way that anyone who's written about race should easily grasp. Yet he doesn't seem to hear a word she says. He has his "own views," and he clings to them until he exhausts her and she gives up.
He doesn't know what privilege is, and he doesn't seem to care. When a member of a marginalized population asks him to reconsider his analogies, he defends himself and argues back without seeming to accept anything she says. Not once does he agree with any of her points. Instead, he implies that he's doing the real work while she's not ("the real stuff not judgment" in a conversation where he clearly feels judged), he directs her twice to read his work (when she's already praised his project), he calls her comments "demeaning," and he says, literally, "You have no idea what you are talking about."
He doesn't know the basics of gender studies. He doesn't know the basics of racism. He doesn't know what "privilege" is (either the word itself or the general concept). He doesn't respond well to criticism.
How can the Good Men Project progress when the man at the top thinks that he knows it all already and isn't open to learning?
As I said earlier, if you want talk about what it means to be a good man, you need to start by talking about what it means to be a man. Part of being a man in a patriarchy means benefiting from sexism. Understanding how you benefit from sexism means understanding privilege. You have to start somewhere; try these two posts by Liss at Shakesville.
A final tweet from Tom Matlack:
With love,
Frank Lee
I'd never heard of you before Jill at Feministe mentioned you in a series of blog posts I linked to here. Reading those posts and hearing other people's experiences with you in comments, I came up with a cloudy but troubling idea of who you are and what you're about.
Suddenly, it became much more clear.
Jill posted a link to a Twitter conversation involving one of your people, Tom Matlack. She called him your "head honcho," and I see that he's named on Wikipedia as your founder.
Here's what he says in the middle of that Twitter conversation:
@sjjphd my privilege? I grew up with nothing. My parents didn't have enough money. You have no idea what you are talking about.He's speaking with feminists in a conversation relevant to gender studies, and he doesn't understand what the word "privilege" means in that context.
I don't think that you can get very far in a progressive conversation without examining your privilege. I don't think that a feminist man who doesn't understand what privilege is can actually be feminist.
If you haven't examined your privilege, if you haven't put forth some effort to cast a critical eye over the patriarchy and notice how you benefit from it, then you don't genuinely understand the deeply entrenched systems of oppression operating in this culture. If you don't understand how men benefit from sexism, or how white people benefit from racism, etc., you don't understand the patriarchy. Flailing around in social justice or gender studies circles without understanding the basics of the conversation generally means that you're hindering more than you're helping.
Someone who doesn't understand what "privilege" means in this context can't participate in the conversation in any meaningful, productive way.
He absolutely cannot lead the conversation.
Yet Tom Matlack is your founder.
As far as I can tell, he's male, white, and currently quite wealthy. I don't know him very well, but let's say for the sake of argument that he grew up cis and straight. As a man, he benefits from sexism. As a white person, he benefits from racism. As a cis person, he benefits from transphobia. As a straight person, he benefits from homophobia. And when a feminist in a conversation on gender says the word "privilege," his immediate response is: I grew up poor. I wasn't wealthy. As if the advantage of wealth is the only advantage of importance. As if the economic class we're born into is the only privilege of relevance.
He has no idea, then, how being white has helped him in life. How being a man has been a benefit. How being cis and/or being straight is an advantage in a transphobic, homophobic society. (That's not even to get into TAB privilege, thin privilege, and the rest.)
If you don't understand privilege, you don't understand oppression. If you don't understand the kyriarchy, you don't understand what progressives are fighting for, or why. How can you ask what it is to be a good man if you don't understand what being a man means in the patriarchy? How far can that conversation among men progress if you don't begin with a fundamental understanding of your own shared privilege?
It's a truth that the patriarchy hurts men, too. Yet a man who doesn't realize that he benefits from the patriarchy by virtue of his very maleness is ignorant and needs to approach gender studies from the very beginning. A man who doesn't know how he benefits from sexism doesn't know what sexism is.
Your founder isn't at the "What does it mean to be a good man?" portion of the conversation. He's at the "What does it mean to be a man?" portion.
What sorts of men is the Good Men Project for? How can you invite all kinds of men to the conversation if you don't understand the dynamics of oppression? If Tom Matlack doesn't understand his own white privilege, how does he include men of color? How does he reach out to them to share their experiences and discuss their issues if he doesn't understand racism?
Let's go back to the tweet I quoted above. During Tom Matlack's conversation with other feminists, he said something which drew Sarah J. Jackson (@sjjphd) into the discussion. It does not thrill me to notice that while the other ongoing conversations overlap, his conversation with Sarah J. Jackson involves no one else. I wish that she didn't have to go it alone, that others had spoken up with her as they supported each other.
For context, she's a woman of color who describes herself on Twitter as an "Asst. Prof. Researching & Teaching about Media Narratives of Race, Gender & Political Protest." Here's the comment she replied to and their ensuing conversation.
@hugoschwyzer do you assume all black people are felons since they commit more crimes on average than white people? http://t.co/nhVHnbfv
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 08:20:33 AM PST
@TMatlack This analogy is SO spurious. Please don't use it tom argue ur point if u want POC to have any part in what ur doing. @hugoschwyzer
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 09:36:51 AM PST
@sjjphd @hugoschwyzer groups aren't guilty. Individuals are.
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:13:18 AM PST
@TMatlack men=historically privileged, POC=historically oppressed. Comparing stereotypes 2 make point=inaccurate, unproductive, & ingnorant.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:22:56 AM PST
@TMatlack It's cool 2 get caught up in a heated debate but using false racial hyperbole in it? Your privilege is showing & I know ur better.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:25:04 AM PST
@TMatlack And that's with all due respect to the arc of what you're doing at GMP. Sensational & spurious discourse helps nothing.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:26:56 AM PST
@sjjphd calling all men rapists or all POC criminals equally sexist/racist IMO. I am a white man. Does that make me guilty ?
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:27:36 AM PST
@TMatlack It is NOT equal because -isms have 2 do w/ the structural power grps historically & contemporarily have over others.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:30:16 AM PST
@sjjphd my privilege? I grew up with nothing. My parents didn't have enough money. You have no idea what you are talking about.
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:32:50 AM PST
@TMatlack Last time I checked men weren't continuously structurally disenfranchised. You're def guilty of is a lack of racial sensitivity.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:33:13 AM PST
@TMatlack I was talking about white privilege Tom, it exists and even poor white people can experience it.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:34:17 AM PST
@sjjphd btw if you actually look at my writing I have been the taking most on GMP about race and sex tracking, the real stuff not judgement
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:35:07 AM PST
@TMatlack As a POC who wants 2 support what ur doing at GMP I was simply requesting u not use racially insensitive language to make a point.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:36:10 AM PST
@sjjphd read my work on race, prison etc before you go calling me racist please.
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:37:08 AM PST
@TMatlack I know! Which is why I was suprised u made the comparison u did. I know u know better. Why the defensiveness?
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:37:33 AM PST
@TMatlack HOLY SHIT I DID NOT CALL YOU A RACIST. I said the racial comparison is spurious, which it is. Your defensiveness is shocking me.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:39:06 AM PST
@TMatlack & it is possible 4 ppl not 2 be racist & still be capable of saying less than accurate/sensitive things re race. #thoughtyoudcare
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:43:44 AM PST
@sjjphd I was being sensitive to the many black men in prison who feel they were a victim of racism.
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:47:52 AM PST
@TMatlack Um? That's not how it came across. It seemed u were comparing black oppression 2 stereotyping of men. Not the same but #Igiveup
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:50:49 AM PST
@TMatlack 4 the record I greatly respect what u do. Sad u can't hear from a POC & some1 who studies race that ur comparison was problematic.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 10:53:58 AM PST
@sjjphd I don't believe I ever criticized *you*. You tried to educate me on race/gender which I find demeaning since I have my own views.
TMatlack 15/Dec/2011 10:58:29 AM PST
@TMatlack U find fact men aren't oppressed grp & black ppl are, & my trying 2 alert u in good conscience abt prob w/ comparison demeaning?
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 11:42:43 AM PST
@TMatlack #Icantanymore but hope ppl read ur friend Steve's & my pieces on having convos abt race: http://t.co/1h7Pxyci http://t.co/Q2q87X5GThe entire back-and-forth echoes countless conversations playing out all across the sphere of feminism and social justice. She points out that his language is harmful to a marginalized population. She takes pains to compliment him, to soften her critique, to make it a point to acknowledge his efforts. He replies with ignorant statements. She tries to educate him and explain what she means (all knowledge he should already have). He doesn't thank her, doesn't agree with her, but instead explains that he's already got all of this stuff down pat and has been doing the real work on these issues all along ("the real stuff not judgement"). He plays the "I'm not racist" game. He continues to insist that he's done nothing wrong, that he's entirely in the right, and that he can't be educated. She continues to try to explain while still offering compliments. He refuses to listen ("I have my own views"). She gets tired. He stops responding. She gives up.
sjjphd 15/Dec/2011 11:44:27 AM PST
She shouldn't have to work this hard to communicate with someone who considers himself a feminist ("@jennpozner I didn't take it personally. I consider myself a feminist. But apparently that word has many meanings.") and a tireless worker on issues of racism. He should be her ally. She starts off with "please" and spends the entire conversation offering him cookies. She points out, for the record, that she's a person of color who studies race. She explains all of her points in a way that anyone who's written about race should easily grasp. Yet he doesn't seem to hear a word she says. He has his "own views," and he clings to them until he exhausts her and she gives up.
He doesn't know what privilege is, and he doesn't seem to care. When a member of a marginalized population asks him to reconsider his analogies, he defends himself and argues back without seeming to accept anything she says. Not once does he agree with any of her points. Instead, he implies that he's doing the real work while she's not ("the real stuff not judgment" in a conversation where he clearly feels judged), he directs her twice to read his work (when she's already praised his project), he calls her comments "demeaning," and he says, literally, "You have no idea what you are talking about."
He doesn't know the basics of gender studies. He doesn't know the basics of racism. He doesn't know what "privilege" is (either the word itself or the general concept). He doesn't respond well to criticism.
How can the Good Men Project progress when the man at the top thinks that he knows it all already and isn't open to learning?
As I said earlier, if you want talk about what it means to be a good man, you need to start by talking about what it means to be a man. Part of being a man in a patriarchy means benefiting from sexism. Understanding how you benefit from sexism means understanding privilege. You have to start somewhere; try these two posts by Liss at Shakesville.
A final tweet from Tom Matlack:
it's the good "mens" project. women are welcome but the point is to inspire men to be good.Like many others, I would be very happy to have more good men around. Most of us would be glad to help. Many of us have been trying to help. And when we try, bringing our experience and expertise and years of study to the table, we're told things like, "You have no idea what you're talking about." Is that really what a "good man" would say?
With love,
Frank Lee
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Dear Blizzard
Note for racial slurs.
Dear Blizzard,
I'm having some trouble with your customer service.
The other day, I was wasting time on the World of Warcraft website. I decided to see what was going on in the PVP world and which classes were on top. Looking over the top-ranked teams and players, I noticed something deeply unpleasant.
I contacted customer service. (I'll post my initial complaint in full here, in the interest of accuracy. I'll break it up into paragraphs for easier readability. Names in bold if you want to skim.)
My support ticket received a reply (my emphasis in bold):
I waited.
I checked the PVP pages again.
The names were still there.
I re-opened the ticket, keeping it simple:
The link I supplied at the very beginning of my first ticket was not to the armory. I didn't have to "hunt" through anything to see those names. They're showcased by you in the main body of your website. They're the top-ranked PVP teams and players featured in the PVP section under "community." I didn't look them up; you showed them to me. You offered them for all of the world to see as the kinds of players we should strive to emulate and overcome.
I don't blame the Game Masters specifically. I don't blame Pyroidia or Mykyroro for their poor customer service. I blame you and the corporate policies you set in place and the corporate culture you establish.
You should have a watchdog system set up to catch at least some of the worst names. While I agree with encouraging the use of the "right-click to report" feature, you should allow GMs to accept other kinds of reports as well. If someone with an atrocious name runs past me in-game and disappears or logs out before I finish right-clicking and reporting, I should still be able to report that name. How many reports does it take to get a GM's attention? Names with obvious racial slurs should only have to be reported once before you take action. I don't believe that your GMs have poor reading comprehension; I believe that they're rushed, harried, overworked, and too intently focused on closing tickets to be effective at their jobs, and I can only guess that it's because you're emphasizing closed ticket rates over genuine customer service. Do you see why that's maybe a problem?
You rely on your players to clean up the game for you instead of taking an active approach to it yourself. You install a new feature and then won't allow any other method of communication to be used. You set up RP naming conventions and then don't enforce them, and when we ask you to, we're ignored.
In the last GM's message to me, I was instructed to "hit the Need more help button below." Handy advice, but that proved to be impossible. Someone closed my ticket so that I cannot reply or re-open it. If I want any hope of action on your part, I'll have to start all over from the beginning. Is that really the best method of customer service? Discouraging us until we give up?
I don't know what happened to the first GM's efforts to help. I don't know why the conversation deteriorated to accusations of "armory hunting."
I do know that "team nignig" is still proudly listed as a highly ranked team, though. I suppose that's not a problem, right? According to your GMs, you need "the opinion of a realm itself" to decide whether a name's inappropriate or not, and you couldn't possibly tell, without taking a realm-wide poll, whether or not the name should be changed.
That's the worst of this. The racist, misogynistic element of gamer culture is loud and proud. You know that it's a problem, and I would hope that you would want to counteract it, to make cleaning it up a priority. The more welcoming gaming is to more kinds of people, the more subscribers you'll gain, right? But when staring proof of it right in the face, when being asked to clean it up, your employees are too busy insisting on irrelevant protocol to help.
That leaves the racism and misogyny of gamer culture featured on your website for all to see. Because as far as you're concerned, properly filling out form 32, section B, paragraph 5 is more important than censoring racial slurs.
Or do you think that "purpledrank is fo nagas" genuinely refers to the in-game humanoid and "iwnaputmybeefintourtaco" is a compliment?
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear Blizzard,
I'm having some trouble with your customer service.
The other day, I was wasting time on the World of Warcraft website. I decided to see what was going on in the PVP world and which classes were on top. Looking over the top-ranked teams and players, I noticed something deeply unpleasant.
I contacted customer service. (I'll post my initial complaint in full here, in the interest of accuracy. I'll break it up into paragraphs for easier readability. Names in bold if you want to skim.)
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/pvp/arena/rampage/3v3
On this page, there are several arena team names which are completely inappropriate and break naming regulations. Rank #21 "iskall suk my deek" from Illidan, rank #22 "purpledrank is fo nagas" from Illidan, rank #23 "We pop Cherrys" from Kirin Tor, and rank #28 "iwnaputmybeefintourtaco" from Stormreaver. While you're posting highly ranked teams for the world to admire, please make sure that they're not a disgrace and embarrassment to the entire community.
In the 2v2 bracket, rank #8 "shat on ur face" from Stormreaver, rank #18 "Helen Keller VS Traffic" from Stormreaver, rank #18 "cap yo shiz" from Kirin Tor, rank #24 "DAYUM DATASS" from Stormreaver, rank #35 "team nignig" from Stormreaver, and rank #44 "naga needs points" from Illidan.
In the 5v5 bracket, rank #22 "Shytsnmasterbations" from Stormreaver and rank #35 "Fandom Ruckin Comp" from Illidan.
On the "Rated Battlegrounds" page, there is #9 Jackslowfuk from Blackrock and #15 Rapiesroofie from Mannoroth, not to mention all of the player names listed which end in "LOL" or otherwise break the game's naming conventions. Please enforce your own rules for your own game.Then I wrote this post.
My support ticket received a reply (my emphasis in bold):
Hey there!
Sir Game Master Ranlim here. I hope this message reaches you in good spirits!
Thank you for taking the time to submit a petition about those arena teams names. At Blizzard, we encourage and appreciate the role of the gaming community in keeping World of Warcraft a safe and enjoyable environment for all participants. ^_^
I want to let you know I am going to be personally investigating this mere moments from now! Following said investigation, I will take all necessary and appropriate actions to address this matter, as determined by our policies (which you can see here: https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/policy).
With the release of Patch 4.3.4 there is another way to report violation that will also provide a detail contextual report that will assist us to take appropriate action on them. This can be done by using the in-game right-click report option.
To report bad language, a bad name, spamming, or cheating:
1. Right-click the player's name in chat.
2. Select Report Player For
3. Select the appropriate category for your report.
To report a bad name or cheating you may also right-click report using the player's portrait. To report a player this way:
1. Right-click the player's portrait
2. Select Report Player For
3. Select the appropriate category for your report.
Thanks again for your help! It means a lot to us. <3
Regards,Great, I thought. Ranlim's on it. He'll take care of it.
Game Master Ranlim
Customer Services
Blizzard Entertainment
www.blizzard.com/support
I waited.
I checked the PVP pages again.
The names were still there.
I re-opened the ticket, keeping it simple:
They're still there.I came back later. The names were still there. I checked my ticket. (Emphasis mine.)
Helllo :)
Once again we will need you to do this below in order to action these players as we do not take action on names like this and it needs to be sent in differently.
Please do the following for the names bellow.
To report bad language, a bad name, spamming, or cheating:
1. Right-click the player’s name in chat.
2. Select Report Player For
3. Select the appropriate category for your report.
To report a bad name or cheating you may also right-click report using the player's portrait. To report a player this way:
1. Right-click the player’s portrait
2. Select Report Player For
3. Select the appropriate category for your report.
While no response to the report will be possible, rest assured that we will investigate and take appropriate action to address the issue as they come in.
Game Master Pyroidia"Right-click the player's name in chat?" "Right-click report using the player's portrait?" Those are in-game actions only; my problem is with names listed on the website. I made that clear; my initial complaint begins with a link to the arena teams page. At this point, I began to doubt the sincerity of that soothing "rest assured that we will investigate and take appropriate action to address the issue as they come in." I was not assured.
Blizzard Entertainment
Please read my initial ticket more carefully. These are names on the website. I cannot right-click to report names featured on the website; I am not in-game. The first CSR who replied to the ticket claimed to be looking into it. What happened to that?As you can imagine, after that your customer service representatives began to read more closely and provided more accurate replies. (Emphasis mine.)
Greetings!
If you encounter such names in the game itself, negatively effecting your gameplay experience, please report them to us.
We cannot accept such reports from examinations of the armory. The opinion of a realm itself, and players who encounter such names from within the game are the required impetus for our investigation into whether a name is requiring a change or is a vioaltion.
An additional technical reason for this workflow, is the beta functionality of the armory itself. It is not updated regulary or instantly (even requiring actual characters to log into the game before an update occurs often times), meaning such reports via 'armory hunting' are at times out of date or innacurate.
Thank you for your time and patience. Should you need further assistance, please hit the Need more help button below. For any game play questions, please consider visiting our official game forums.
We now have a one stop shop for all your customer service needs. Ever need to review how a petition was handled? Submit one out of game? Stop by your new 'Support' section of Bnet today to see all the new features available!
Game Master MykyroroOops! No, instead, I was accused of "armory-hunting."
Customer Services
Blizzard Entertainment
The link I supplied at the very beginning of my first ticket was not to the armory. I didn't have to "hunt" through anything to see those names. They're showcased by you in the main body of your website. They're the top-ranked PVP teams and players featured in the PVP section under "community." I didn't look them up; you showed them to me. You offered them for all of the world to see as the kinds of players we should strive to emulate and overcome.
I don't blame the Game Masters specifically. I don't blame Pyroidia or Mykyroro for their poor customer service. I blame you and the corporate policies you set in place and the corporate culture you establish.
You should have a watchdog system set up to catch at least some of the worst names. While I agree with encouraging the use of the "right-click to report" feature, you should allow GMs to accept other kinds of reports as well. If someone with an atrocious name runs past me in-game and disappears or logs out before I finish right-clicking and reporting, I should still be able to report that name. How many reports does it take to get a GM's attention? Names with obvious racial slurs should only have to be reported once before you take action. I don't believe that your GMs have poor reading comprehension; I believe that they're rushed, harried, overworked, and too intently focused on closing tickets to be effective at their jobs, and I can only guess that it's because you're emphasizing closed ticket rates over genuine customer service. Do you see why that's maybe a problem?
You rely on your players to clean up the game for you instead of taking an active approach to it yourself. You install a new feature and then won't allow any other method of communication to be used. You set up RP naming conventions and then don't enforce them, and when we ask you to, we're ignored.
In the last GM's message to me, I was instructed to "hit the Need more help button below." Handy advice, but that proved to be impossible. Someone closed my ticket so that I cannot reply or re-open it. If I want any hope of action on your part, I'll have to start all over from the beginning. Is that really the best method of customer service? Discouraging us until we give up?
I don't know what happened to the first GM's efforts to help. I don't know why the conversation deteriorated to accusations of "armory hunting."
I do know that "team nignig" is still proudly listed as a highly ranked team, though. I suppose that's not a problem, right? According to your GMs, you need "the opinion of a realm itself" to decide whether a name's inappropriate or not, and you couldn't possibly tell, without taking a realm-wide poll, whether or not the name should be changed.
That's the worst of this. The racist, misogynistic element of gamer culture is loud and proud. You know that it's a problem, and I would hope that you would want to counteract it, to make cleaning it up a priority. The more welcoming gaming is to more kinds of people, the more subscribers you'll gain, right? But when staring proof of it right in the face, when being asked to clean it up, your employees are too busy insisting on irrelevant protocol to help.
That leaves the racism and misogyny of gamer culture featured on your website for all to see. Because as far as you're concerned, properly filling out form 32, section B, paragraph 5 is more important than censoring racial slurs.
Or do you think that "purpledrank is fo nagas" genuinely refers to the in-game humanoid and "iwnaputmybeefintourtaco" is a compliment?
With love,
Frank Lee
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Dear Blizzard
Racial slurs to follow.
Dear Blizzard,
The "player versus player" aspect of World of Warcraft involves a large portion of the playerbase. The game's best PVP players are involved in internationally broadcast championships. PVP is an important enough part of the game that there's a section of the website dedicated to it.
If you click that link, it'll take you to lists of the most highly ranked PVP players and teams.
A few of the team names listed today:
A couple of the more egregious player names:
Playing on an RP server and running into characters named "Huntard" and "Monkslol" is bad enough. Seeing "team nignig" on the game's website is a disgrace.
I wish that you respected your game enough to ensure that its rules weren't broken.
I wish that you respected WOW's community enough to help us fight this kind of behavior.
Please, at least respect your reputation enough to take action. Add something behind the scenes to flag names with certain letter combinations. Become more assertive about responding to reports. Read what's posted on your own website.
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear Blizzard,
The "player versus player" aspect of World of Warcraft involves a large portion of the playerbase. The game's best PVP players are involved in internationally broadcast championships. PVP is an important enough part of the game that there's a section of the website dedicated to it.
If you click that link, it'll take you to lists of the most highly ranked PVP players and teams.
A few of the team names listed today:
iskall suk my deek(For anyone reading over my shoulder, "naga" is a kind of water-dwelling humanoid creature in the game. It also just happens to sound similar to a racial slur.)
purpledrank is fo nagas
We pop Cherrys
iwnaputmybeefintourtaco
shat on ur face
Helen Keller VS Traffic
cap yo shiz
DAYUM DATASS
team nignig
naga needs points
Shytsnmasterbations
Fandom Ruckin Comp
A couple of the more egregious player names:
JackslowfukI would guess that these lists are automatically generated, but it would behoove you to keep an eye on them. This is a public website, the face of World of Warcraft and Blizzard Entertainment.
Rapiesroofie
Playing on an RP server and running into characters named "Huntard" and "Monkslol" is bad enough. Seeing "team nignig" on the game's website is a disgrace.
I wish that you respected your game enough to ensure that its rules weren't broken.
I wish that you respected WOW's community enough to help us fight this kind of behavior.
Please, at least respect your reputation enough to take action. Add something behind the scenes to flag names with certain letter combinations. Become more assertive about responding to reports. Read what's posted on your own website.
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear Parks and Recreation
Dear "Parks and Recreation,"
Something pretty terrific happened in the TV world this week.
Leslie Knope refused to call someone a bitch.
Once you've advanced your feminism game, it's easier. Once you've eschewed those words, you don't find them on the tip of your tongue anymore. And some of us never used them to begin with.
But for most of us, we go through a phase (sometimes a long phase) where we find it hard not to slip from time to time. That word is just so fitting and it's just so cutting and you're really pissed off and you know it's wrong but in this one case it seems so, so right.
For some people, the word is "bitch." For others, it's something else. You know that you shouldn't say it, but it pops out from time to time. It's hard to give up; nothing else says what you mean in quite the same way.
But it's important for us to stand firm. It's important for us not to fall into the easy insults the patriarchy so eagerly recommends.
That's why I love this moment so much. For one, it rings so true. That's a real moment, a recognizable moment I know so many of us have echoed. For another, Leslie doesn't give in to temptation. She fights it. She stays true to her principles.
It's easy to have those moments of weakness. I'm proud of Leslie for standing strong, and I'm proud of "Parks and Rec" for giving us this win.
With love,
Frank Lee
Something pretty terrific happened in the TV world this week.
Leslie Knope refused to call someone a bitch.
"I need to protect a sweet couple from a sex-crazed librarian who makes me question my stance on using the b-word. I dunno, maybe just this once. No, Leslie, fight it. FIGHT IT."Part of being a feminist means checking your language. Our culture inundates us with negative stereotypes and negative terms for women. Being a feminist means policing our language to scrub it of those themes and terms.
Once you've advanced your feminism game, it's easier. Once you've eschewed those words, you don't find them on the tip of your tongue anymore. And some of us never used them to begin with.
But for most of us, we go through a phase (sometimes a long phase) where we find it hard not to slip from time to time. That word is just so fitting and it's just so cutting and you're really pissed off and you know it's wrong but in this one case it seems so, so right.
For some people, the word is "bitch." For others, it's something else. You know that you shouldn't say it, but it pops out from time to time. It's hard to give up; nothing else says what you mean in quite the same way.
But it's important for us to stand firm. It's important for us not to fall into the easy insults the patriarchy so eagerly recommends.
That's why I love this moment so much. For one, it rings so true. That's a real moment, a recognizable moment I know so many of us have echoed. For another, Leslie doesn't give in to temptation. She fights it. She stays true to her principles.
It's easy to have those moments of weakness. I'm proud of Leslie for standing strong, and I'm proud of "Parks and Rec" for giving us this win.
With love,
Frank Lee
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Dear Cameron Diaz
"I think every woman does want to be objectified. There's a little part of you at all times that hopes to be somewhat objectified, and I think it's healthy."Dear Cameron Diaz,
-Cameron Diaz
Let's jump right into this.
I think every woman does want to be objectified.It's nice of you to begin with "I think," as if you're merely stating a humble opinion. However, following it up with such a blanket statement encompassing "every woman" was a mistake. You do not get to announce that the desire to be objectified is some universal experience which all women share.
There's a little part of you at all times that hopes to be somewhat objectifiedYou keep backing away (just a little part of you, just somewhat) and then going full tilt ("at all times," as if this is a constant, eternal, never-ending state). At all times? Women wish to be objectified while at work, while driving, while walking the dog, while shopping for new tires, while brushing their teeth, while cutting onions, while on the toilet. AT ALL TIMES. IT MUST HAPPEN UNCEASINGLY.
I think it's healthyI don't. You know what I think? I think that it makes women sound needy. Also shallow, vain, desperate for validation and approval, and so on. Is that how you want people to think of you? Is that how you think of women? Is that a natural, healthy state you genuinely believe every woman enjoys?
Here's what you didn't say:
I think that most women enjoy feeling attractive.
I think that many women appreciate getting some flirtatious sexual attention and sincere compliments, and I think that's normal.Here's what you communicated to me:
The patriarchy has taught me to work to attract, and place value upon, the male gaze. Instead of questioning that, I accept it wholeheartedly as a healthy feature of my womanhood.
I think very little of myself and/or very little of other women.
I don't know what "objectified" actually means.
I, like all women, want to be treated like an object, not like a full human being. That's healthy. It would be unhealthy to hope to be treated like a human being at all times, the way that men do.If you enjoy feeling attractive, good for you! If you enjoy the flattery and compliments you receive from your friends and partners, great! If you'd rather be viewed as an object, lacking in autonomy, not a person with your own ideas and personality and desires but a mere thing to be used and owned, you might want to consider why that is. And you also might want to stop assuming that all other women feel just the same way.
A lot of women fight hard to be viewed as people, as not less-than. When you say things like that, you make their work that much more difficult.
With love,
Frank Lee
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Dear YouTubers
Discussion of rape culture ahead.
Dear YouTubers,
I spend a lot of time on YouTube, and I've noticed that people have this habit of making comments about "raping" the replay button.
It's not funny, it's gross, but I bicker with myself over how to respond. Is an explanation of why not to use rape as a metaphor too long for a YouTube comment? Should I just step in with a mild, "hey, not cool?"
While I was on YouTube yesterday, I found someone named AfizaFarhana setting a great example.
It's a simple thing, but I found it encouraging. It's nice to know that other people are stepping up, and it's nice to see that she got so much support (and no push back, at least that I saw).
When we point out that someone's speech is hateful or harmful, it's not our job to make it palatable. We don't have to be sweet or witty or graceful about it. The problem isn't our approach, it's whatever the other person said in the first place. But I'm not socially adept at all times (understatement of the year) and I'm not always in the mood for a fight. Sometimes I just want to make my point and get out. It's nice to pick up examples of how to word my comments for maximum effectiveness and minimum engagement.
What's your go-to wording when you speak up?
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear YouTubers,
I spend a lot of time on YouTube, and I've noticed that people have this habit of making comments about "raping" the replay button.
It's not funny, it's gross, but I bicker with myself over how to respond. Is an explanation of why not to use rape as a metaphor too long for a YouTube comment? Should I just step in with a mild, "hey, not cool?"
While I was on YouTube yesterday, I found someone named AfizaFarhana setting a great example.
‘Rape’ the replay button is not so healthy anyway...it's crime...just try ‘refreshing’ your relationship with this MV...XDThe last time I checked, she had 58 "likes."
It's a simple thing, but I found it encouraging. It's nice to know that other people are stepping up, and it's nice to see that she got so much support (and no push back, at least that I saw).
When we point out that someone's speech is hateful or harmful, it's not our job to make it palatable. We don't have to be sweet or witty or graceful about it. The problem isn't our approach, it's whatever the other person said in the first place. But I'm not socially adept at all times (understatement of the year) and I'm not always in the mood for a fight. Sometimes I just want to make my point and get out. It's nice to pick up examples of how to word my comments for maximum effectiveness and minimum engagement.
What's your go-to wording when you speak up?
With love,
Frank Lee
Friday, August 17, 2012
Dear President Obama
"It's kind of a weird superpower, but if I had something that I could immediately wish for, I would love to be able to speak any language," the president said.Dear President Obama,
"Now, that's a weird superpower—it might not come in handy to rescue folks from a burning building," he added. "But I've always wished that whatever country I went to, wherever I met somebody who spoke a different language, that I could right away speak their language."
Some of the qualities I wish for most in a president are also the qualities I appreciate in anyone. Empathy, for example. A desire for inclusiveness. An interest in other people and the variety of human existence.
Your preferred superpower is a beautiful wish that says a lot of terrific things about you. You want to understand people. You want to connect with them, and you want to do it on their terms.
What says more about wanting to understand someone than speaking their language? That's our go-to phrase for communication! That's how we illustrate that someone doesn't get us: we're not speaking the same language.
You and I have had our disagreements in the past, but you do have many of the qualities I wish every president had. This was a lovely, smart answer to a cliched question. Thank you.
With love,
Frank Lee
Friday, August 10, 2012
Dear Mitt Romney
"We had a moment of silence in honor of the people who lost their lives at that sheik temple. I noted that it was a tragedy for many, many reasons. Among them are the fact that people, the sheik people, are among the most peaceable and loving individuals you can imagine, as is their faith."Dear Mitt Romney,
—Mitt Romney
I would like someone running for President of the United States of America to be a good orator. A skilled public speaker. Someone who doesn't make embarrassing gaffes, particularly in regards to a domestic terrorist act.
I would like someone running for POTUS to be well-educated enough to know the correct terms for various types of citizens, including religious minorities.
You're running for POTUS right now. At this very moment! I would like you to be smart as well as sensitive to the issues affecting your people.
One of the problems relevant to this very terrorist act is the conflation of people of color. The conflation of religious groups. If you're an angry white man with notions of white supremacy and Christian supremacy filling your head, you might not know the difference between Muslim and Sikh. You probably don't care. You're full of fear and hate and everything the patriarchy's been pumping into you since birth, and you're ready for action. You don't care who that action hurts. They're people of color who dare not to be Christian, and that's enough for you. Muslim, Sikh, what's the difference? Sikh, sheik, what's the difference? They're not like you, right? They're interchangeable and incomprehensible anyway.
What you said fed right into that. It rang those very same bells.
Maybe you spoke out of ignorance, but this isn't the time for ignorance. This isn't a time for insensitivity. This isn't a time for mistakes and gaffes. This is a time when it's very important to get it right, as right as we can.
I hope that you become a compassionate, thoughtful man and a silver-tongued orator, and I wish you well in the pursuit of that goal. But I hope that someone who's already a step ahead of you in the not-being-racist department becomes the next POTUS.
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear Fatherly Car Owner
I like lipstick around my dipstick.Dear Fatherly Car Owner,
-Car decal
Because a child's car seat and toys were seen in your backseat, I'm going to assume that you're a father. Maybe your situation differs from my assumption, which is the risk we take when we make assumptions, but until new information comes in I'll just go ahead and consider you a father.
A car is a very visible accoutrement. A car is often considered a status symbol. Our bumper stickers and other car accessories are one-glance messages we project to the world. People often use bumper stickers to promote ideas and messages; it's a way both of signal boosting and of advertising something about oneself. What's your political affiliation? What's your favorite dog breed? Which organizations do you belong to? What has your child achieved lately? It's all right there on your rear bumper.
What do you want the world to know about you?
"I like lipstick around my dipstick."
So, you have a penis. You like to get head. You like to get head specifically (as heteronormativity rears its ugly head and I continue to make assumptions) from women who conform to the patriarchy's exacting beauty standards.
That's the one thing you want the world to know about you. You like patriarchy-conforming women to suck your dick.
Not that you're a father, not that you're a member of some club, not that you passed some milestone in life, not that you want to promote a cause. No, what you're most proud of is the pleasure you get in having women (certain kinds of women, mind you) give you head.
Here's the thing, Daddy Driver. If we all lived in a happy void where nothing we do affects each other, I would look at that decal and think that if that's the most important thing complete strangers should know about you, you lead a very small, sad life. That would be the end of it.
However, what we do actually does affect each other. The things we say can sometimes fall in line with other messages and reinforce existing ideas.
There are ideas, for example, that women are only good for sex, only good for pleasing men, naturally subservient to men, and so on.
If you love and respect women, your car might boast messages like: "I love women!" "I love smart women!" "I love confident women!" If your sexual needs have to be a factor, you could advertise: "Assertive women turn me on!" "Funny women = hot women!"
But you aren't talking about women, really, at all. You're talking about an anonymous pair of lips coated in patriarchy-conforming lipstick. You've reduced women to one specific body part. A body part you're co-opting for your sexual pleasures. You don't care what a woman says with her mouth; you aren't interested in her thoughts, her opinions, her personality, her jokes, her wit. You just want a sexual orifice, and she'd better make sure that it meets your patriarchal standards.
Your reinforcement of misogynistic notions communicates to the world that women are for sex, that women are a mere collection of useable body parts, that women had better meet patriarchal standards or they'll find themselves not even worthwhile for the one purpose you allow them.
When did you get this decal? When did you decide to plaster this particular message on your car? Before your daughter was born? After? Before her mother was pregnant? After? I picture you seeing the decal in a store somewhere and giving a good chuckle and deciding to make that purchase; I picture you slapping it on your car window. Should I picture a happy daughter playing in the backseat? A pregnant woman waiting for you in the passenger seat?
The daughter's there now. The sticker's there now. She's going to see it. What will she think of it? The people who see your car at work, in public parking lots, in your driveway; your friends and neighbors, strangers, what do they think of it? What do they learn from it? I wonder if you've pictured your daughter bringing boy friends home. The boys notice your decal, and look at your daughter, and snicker, and those ideas you're reinforcing churn...
I hope that your opinions mature soon. I hope that your daughter finds a thoughtful, caring father in you. I hope that you scrape off that decal and learn to view your daughter and all women with a more respectful eye.
Maybe your daughter will join a club or join a team or get on the honor roll, and you can brag about that to the world, instead.
With love,
Frank Lee
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Dear Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Dear Joseph Gordon-Levitt,
Congratulations on your latest movie!
You said something really stupid recently.
"Pretty girls aren't usually funny."
I wonder how you expected Emily Blunt, the "pretty girl" in question, to reply to that. Your comment was intended as a compliment, I assume. Did you want her to laugh? To thank you?
What you told Emily Blunt is, "I'm surprised that you're so funny! I really expected you to be humorless, witless, and dull, like most good-looking women, but you actually have a sense of humor! Wow, you're really different from other pretty girls. It must be great to be so special!"
This is not a genuine compliment. It's an insult. A compliment would be, "You're very funny." Or, "You're very pretty." Or, "You're funny and pretty." If you said it in a way that makes being pretty a good thing, and being funny a good thing, independent of each other and not in relation to anyone else, that would be best.
If it's rare for a woman to be both pretty and funny, what does that mean?
If we define pretty as "equipped with a set of natural features aesthetically pleasing to the current culture," then that's genetics. You're saying that people with a certain set of natural, physical traits share a certain personality trait. That's usually a bad road to travel. See racism for many egregious examples.
If we define pretty as "well-groomed and hip to current aesthetic trends," then that's a matter of taking care with her appearance and following fashion. People who put effort into their appearance tend not to be funny? Because they're so busy checking up on style trends that they aren't interested in honing their wit? Is this true only of "pretty girls" or of other kinds of people as well, like men?
Good-looking people are dull? Boring? Assholes? Pretty girls look great but have no personality to speak of? Pretty girls are decorative? Self-absorbed?
Being pretty takes a lot of work. More for some than for others, but there's a lot of cost and effort and knowledge which goes into it. It can be absorbing, and because all of that energy goes into one's own appearance, it comes across as self-absorbing. Why would women go to all of that trouble? Why would women put so much energy into their appearance? Perhaps because the patriarchy demands it of them and punishes them if they don't.
And so they do it. And get called self-absorbed, self-centered, vapid, dull, witless, humorless, lacking in personality. Pretty girls aren't usually funny.
Pretty girls lack personality. Do you know what women with "too much" personality are called? Bitches. Do you know what ugly women are called? Cows, dogs, ugly bitches. Do you know what funny women are called? Nonexistent. Article after article, male comedian after male comedian, will tell you that women aren't funny. Women aren't naturally funny. Women are lousy comedians.
Funny women are exceptions to the rule. Exceptional women. Like pretty-and-funny girls, they're the special exceptions which prove the rule.
When you compliment an exceptional woman, you're putting down all other women. You're saying something rude and noxious about all other women. And you expect her to nod and smile and agree that she's not like those other women, those petty or mean or stupid or vapid or humorless or slutty or prudish or terrible other women.
That's a lousy thing to ask of someone. That's a lousy view to hold of an entire half of humanity. That's misogynistic bullshit. Don't say that shit and expect us all to laugh and smile and enjoy the compliment. It's not a compliment, it's a goddamned insult to all of the women she knows, all of the women in the room, all of the women in the world.
What was your point? That ugly women are funny? That funny women are ugly? That no women are funny?
For the record, Emily Blunt is 29. She's not a "girl."
Please understand that someone's appearance and someone's personality are separate, independent things. People can be pretty and funny, or pretty and dull, or ugly and funny, or ugly and dull, or handsome and compassionate, or lovely and mean, or any combination of traits. This is true of all people, and so it is true of women. It is also true of girls, because women and girls are people, and people come in many, many varieties.
Good luck in your career, and please be more aware of the many attractive, funny women around you. There are a lot of them.
With love,
Frank Lee
Congratulations on your latest movie!
You said something really stupid recently.
"Pretty girls aren't usually funny."
I wonder how you expected Emily Blunt, the "pretty girl" in question, to reply to that. Your comment was intended as a compliment, I assume. Did you want her to laugh? To thank you?
What you told Emily Blunt is, "I'm surprised that you're so funny! I really expected you to be humorless, witless, and dull, like most good-looking women, but you actually have a sense of humor! Wow, you're really different from other pretty girls. It must be great to be so special!"
This is not a genuine compliment. It's an insult. A compliment would be, "You're very funny." Or, "You're very pretty." Or, "You're funny and pretty." If you said it in a way that makes being pretty a good thing, and being funny a good thing, independent of each other and not in relation to anyone else, that would be best.
If it's rare for a woman to be both pretty and funny, what does that mean?
If we define pretty as "equipped with a set of natural features aesthetically pleasing to the current culture," then that's genetics. You're saying that people with a certain set of natural, physical traits share a certain personality trait. That's usually a bad road to travel. See racism for many egregious examples.
If we define pretty as "well-groomed and hip to current aesthetic trends," then that's a matter of taking care with her appearance and following fashion. People who put effort into their appearance tend not to be funny? Because they're so busy checking up on style trends that they aren't interested in honing their wit? Is this true only of "pretty girls" or of other kinds of people as well, like men?
Good-looking people are dull? Boring? Assholes? Pretty girls look great but have no personality to speak of? Pretty girls are decorative? Self-absorbed?
Being pretty takes a lot of work. More for some than for others, but there's a lot of cost and effort and knowledge which goes into it. It can be absorbing, and because all of that energy goes into one's own appearance, it comes across as self-absorbing. Why would women go to all of that trouble? Why would women put so much energy into their appearance? Perhaps because the patriarchy demands it of them and punishes them if they don't.
And so they do it. And get called self-absorbed, self-centered, vapid, dull, witless, humorless, lacking in personality. Pretty girls aren't usually funny.
Pretty girls lack personality. Do you know what women with "too much" personality are called? Bitches. Do you know what ugly women are called? Cows, dogs, ugly bitches. Do you know what funny women are called? Nonexistent. Article after article, male comedian after male comedian, will tell you that women aren't funny. Women aren't naturally funny. Women are lousy comedians.
Funny women are exceptions to the rule. Exceptional women. Like pretty-and-funny girls, they're the special exceptions which prove the rule.
When you compliment an exceptional woman, you're putting down all other women. You're saying something rude and noxious about all other women. And you expect her to nod and smile and agree that she's not like those other women, those petty or mean or stupid or vapid or humorless or slutty or prudish or terrible other women.
That's a lousy thing to ask of someone. That's a lousy view to hold of an entire half of humanity. That's misogynistic bullshit. Don't say that shit and expect us all to laugh and smile and enjoy the compliment. It's not a compliment, it's a goddamned insult to all of the women she knows, all of the women in the room, all of the women in the world.
What was your point? That ugly women are funny? That funny women are ugly? That no women are funny?
For the record, Emily Blunt is 29. She's not a "girl."
Please understand that someone's appearance and someone's personality are separate, independent things. People can be pretty and funny, or pretty and dull, or ugly and funny, or ugly and dull, or handsome and compassionate, or lovely and mean, or any combination of traits. This is true of all people, and so it is true of women. It is also true of girls, because women and girls are people, and people come in many, many varieties.
Good luck in your career, and please be more aware of the many attractive, funny women around you. There are a lot of them.
With love,
Frank Lee
Monday, July 16, 2012
Dear Readers of Feminist Blogs
Dear Readers of Feminist Blogs,
Hi! Feminist blogs are great! I'm glad that you read and enjoy them, and I hope that you continue to learn and comment and support feminism.
I've been reading feminist blogs for years now, long enough to feel confident commenting on certain recurring themes.
Sometimes a post receives some criticism.
Here are a few of the problems with that.
1.) You're treating having your sexism pointed out to you as worse than having said something sexist. The blogger said something sexist, people pointed that out, and now you're criticizing them as if they're the problematic element here.
2.) You're generalizing as if all critics are equal. Even if it's not your intention, it sounds as if you're lumping the person in example #1 with the person in example #4.
3.) You usually make it sound as if the commenters find some joy in pointing these problems out. You often make it sound as if feminists derive some sort of pleasure in attacking each other.
This isn't Heathers or Mean Girls or Jawbreaker or why in the world have I seen so many similar movies? This is real life. Picture it: the USA, 2012. A tired woman comes home at the end of a long day. Maybe she has dinner to make or kids to tend to or a dog to walk. Worn out from another day dealing with the racist asshats at work, she sits down for a moment to drink tea and catch up on her favorite feminist blogs. Ah, feminist blogs. Sometimes she learns from them and broadens her perspective, gaining new insight and greater empathy. Sometimes she laughs and nods and cries in solidarity with her fellow feminists. Sometimes she feels a spark of fury and is moved to fire off a nasty letter to whichever treacherous douchebag has proven anti-feminist lately.
But what's this? Instead of a post she can learn from or challenge herself with or recognize herself in, she finds the same bullshit racism she's been dealing with all week at work! The same fatphobia she contends with every time her friends get together. The same homophobia which keeps her away from family get-togethers. What the hell?
Maybe she posts some kind, polite comment to nudge the blogger in the right direction. (Example #1.)
Maybe she's fed up and impatient. Maybe she's genuinely angry or hurt or disgusted. Maybe she posts something a little less kind and a little less polite. (Example #2.)
Those are both valid responses. If a blogger has legitimately pissed her off and said something harmful, she has the right to express her disgust.
I don't for a second defend threats, violent imagery, or slurs. And there's something to be said for reading and commenting in good faith. If you've been reading a blogger for a while and think that you know her stance, and then she surprises you with something *ist, try asking her what she meant by that or saying "Here's how this comes across to me" to give her a chance to explain. If you're new to a blogger, you could take the time to familiarize yourself with her material before commenting, "First-time reader here, I'm not sure that I get what you mean by [phrase]."
Bloggers make mistakes all of the time. We're all working on bettering ourselves. We're all at different places on our feminist journeys, so we'll naturally have some friction as people ahead on one path urge the rest to catch up. But when we insult each other, even unintentionally, we have to give each other room to react to that insult.
"You're all being mean" often comes across as a tone argument, as if someone said something *ist and we simply weren't polite enough in pointing it out. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar! Great, I'll take that advice the next time I'm trying to catch flies. I'm not here for fly-catching, I'm here for feminist politics and solidarity and teaspoons and photos of cute pets. I'm here to learn and grow and challenge myself and become a better person and improve people's lives. We're gathering together to accomplish something, and promoting *ist ideas works against our goals. Yes, that makes us impatient. It's bad enough to have to deal with that shit in the rest of our lives, but I would hope that I can come to a feminist community and not be confronted with it. At least when I am confronted with it, I should be able to point it out without being criticized.
I don't point that shit out for my own amusement. I don't point it out to score points. I point it out so that the blogger can work on whatever oppressive, prejudiced, hateful notions she's internalized. I point it out because I know that there are people watching in silence, because I know that someone's already closed the browser and walked away, because I know that shit like that alienates people. I point it out because if no one speaks up, the people watching in silence think that no one knows and no one cares. I know. I care. I point it out so that you understand that when I fuck up, I want you to point it out to me, too. I want to work on myself and challenge myself to be a better person. Don't you want that, too? Isn't that what we're here for?
If I say something *ist, I want you to tell me, so that I know to work on it. If you let it slide, I'll end up saying it again, and I'll keep hurting people, and I don't want to do that. I like to think that other feminists feel the same way.
The next time you see feminist commenters pointing out a blogger's *ist language, stop to consider why they're pointing it out. What do they object to? If they think that the post is *ist and you don't, what's different about your experiences and theirs that might make you disagree? If you think that the blogger has a history of being great about *ist issues and this is post is an aberration, point it out in a "my history with this blogger leads me to give her the benefit of the doubt" way, not a "how dare you be so mean, her post was perfect and you're destroying feminism" way.
If you think that people are going overboard, be specific. "I agree that the post is questionable, but threatening sexual assault is completely out of line" is a good way to start. When your complaint is too general, you're lumping example #1 in with example #4, which makes it seem as if anyone who spoke up in any way is an abusive asshat.
It can be hard to speak up. It can be hard to point out anyone's problematic wording. It can be hard to speak out on a well-known blogger's home turf. It can be hard to find the right words to criticize someone who's supposed to be on your side. Pointing this stuff out semi-anonymously on-line can give us the tools we need to confront assholes in real life. Sometimes it's easier to close the browser and walk away. We're tired and we're aggravated and we deal with enough of this shit. If I want someone to stop being *ist, it's because I still have hope that she can change. Some people no longer have that hope at all.
I try to give my fellow feminists the benefit of the doubt. I try to trust that they mean well, they want to improve, and they would rather have an inclusive community than an exclusive one. I hope that you'll believe the same of me in return.
With love,
Frank Lee
TL;DR When commenters point out a blogger's mistakes, responding with "you're all being mean!" is a tone argument and fails to address the problem of harmful, alienating language. If you want commenters to extend the benefit of the doubt to bloggers, you should extend that to the commenters as well and understand why they're so fed up.
Hi! Feminist blogs are great! I'm glad that you read and enjoy them, and I hope that you continue to learn and comment and support feminism.
I've been reading feminist blogs for years now, long enough to feel confident commenting on certain recurring themes.
Sometimes a post receives some criticism.
Example #1: Your language here is pretty transphobic. Here's a link to some educational material.If you've been around feminist blogs long enough, you've seen a blogger post something *ist. Some people point it out in the comments. Other people comment in her defense. Eventually someone comes along and says something to the effect of, "You're all mean and hateful! This is why people are afraid to post around here! This is why we can't have nice things!"
Example #2: I don't come here for this bullshit transphobic garbage.
Example #3: You're a terrible human being and I wish violence upon you.
Example #4: [slur] [slur] [threat of physical harm] [slur] [threat of sexual assault]
Here are a few of the problems with that.
1.) You're treating having your sexism pointed out to you as worse than having said something sexist. The blogger said something sexist, people pointed that out, and now you're criticizing them as if they're the problematic element here.
2.) You're generalizing as if all critics are equal. Even if it's not your intention, it sounds as if you're lumping the person in example #1 with the person in example #4.
3.) You usually make it sound as if the commenters find some joy in pointing these problems out. You often make it sound as if feminists derive some sort of pleasure in attacking each other.
This isn't Heathers or Mean Girls or Jawbreaker or why in the world have I seen so many similar movies? This is real life. Picture it: the USA, 2012. A tired woman comes home at the end of a long day. Maybe she has dinner to make or kids to tend to or a dog to walk. Worn out from another day dealing with the racist asshats at work, she sits down for a moment to drink tea and catch up on her favorite feminist blogs. Ah, feminist blogs. Sometimes she learns from them and broadens her perspective, gaining new insight and greater empathy. Sometimes she laughs and nods and cries in solidarity with her fellow feminists. Sometimes she feels a spark of fury and is moved to fire off a nasty letter to whichever treacherous douchebag has proven anti-feminist lately.
But what's this? Instead of a post she can learn from or challenge herself with or recognize herself in, she finds the same bullshit racism she's been dealing with all week at work! The same fatphobia she contends with every time her friends get together. The same homophobia which keeps her away from family get-togethers. What the hell?
Maybe she posts some kind, polite comment to nudge the blogger in the right direction. (Example #1.)
Maybe she's fed up and impatient. Maybe she's genuinely angry or hurt or disgusted. Maybe she posts something a little less kind and a little less polite. (Example #2.)
Those are both valid responses. If a blogger has legitimately pissed her off and said something harmful, she has the right to express her disgust.
I don't for a second defend threats, violent imagery, or slurs. And there's something to be said for reading and commenting in good faith. If you've been reading a blogger for a while and think that you know her stance, and then she surprises you with something *ist, try asking her what she meant by that or saying "Here's how this comes across to me" to give her a chance to explain. If you're new to a blogger, you could take the time to familiarize yourself with her material before commenting, "First-time reader here, I'm not sure that I get what you mean by [phrase]."
Bloggers make mistakes all of the time. We're all working on bettering ourselves. We're all at different places on our feminist journeys, so we'll naturally have some friction as people ahead on one path urge the rest to catch up. But when we insult each other, even unintentionally, we have to give each other room to react to that insult.
"You're all being mean" often comes across as a tone argument, as if someone said something *ist and we simply weren't polite enough in pointing it out. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar! Great, I'll take that advice the next time I'm trying to catch flies. I'm not here for fly-catching, I'm here for feminist politics and solidarity and teaspoons and photos of cute pets. I'm here to learn and grow and challenge myself and become a better person and improve people's lives. We're gathering together to accomplish something, and promoting *ist ideas works against our goals. Yes, that makes us impatient. It's bad enough to have to deal with that shit in the rest of our lives, but I would hope that I can come to a feminist community and not be confronted with it. At least when I am confronted with it, I should be able to point it out without being criticized.
I don't point that shit out for my own amusement. I don't point it out to score points. I point it out so that the blogger can work on whatever oppressive, prejudiced, hateful notions she's internalized. I point it out because I know that there are people watching in silence, because I know that someone's already closed the browser and walked away, because I know that shit like that alienates people. I point it out because if no one speaks up, the people watching in silence think that no one knows and no one cares. I know. I care. I point it out so that you understand that when I fuck up, I want you to point it out to me, too. I want to work on myself and challenge myself to be a better person. Don't you want that, too? Isn't that what we're here for?
If I say something *ist, I want you to tell me, so that I know to work on it. If you let it slide, I'll end up saying it again, and I'll keep hurting people, and I don't want to do that. I like to think that other feminists feel the same way.
The next time you see feminist commenters pointing out a blogger's *ist language, stop to consider why they're pointing it out. What do they object to? If they think that the post is *ist and you don't, what's different about your experiences and theirs that might make you disagree? If you think that the blogger has a history of being great about *ist issues and this is post is an aberration, point it out in a "my history with this blogger leads me to give her the benefit of the doubt" way, not a "how dare you be so mean, her post was perfect and you're destroying feminism" way.
If you think that people are going overboard, be specific. "I agree that the post is questionable, but threatening sexual assault is completely out of line" is a good way to start. When your complaint is too general, you're lumping example #1 in with example #4, which makes it seem as if anyone who spoke up in any way is an abusive asshat.
It can be hard to speak up. It can be hard to point out anyone's problematic wording. It can be hard to speak out on a well-known blogger's home turf. It can be hard to find the right words to criticize someone who's supposed to be on your side. Pointing this stuff out semi-anonymously on-line can give us the tools we need to confront assholes in real life. Sometimes it's easier to close the browser and walk away. We're tired and we're aggravated and we deal with enough of this shit. If I want someone to stop being *ist, it's because I still have hope that she can change. Some people no longer have that hope at all.
I try to give my fellow feminists the benefit of the doubt. I try to trust that they mean well, they want to improve, and they would rather have an inclusive community than an exclusive one. I hope that you'll believe the same of me in return.
With love,
Frank Lee
TL;DR When commenters point out a blogger's mistakes, responding with "you're all being mean!" is a tone argument and fails to address the problem of harmful, alienating language. If you want commenters to extend the benefit of the doubt to bloggers, you should extend that to the commenters as well and understand why they're so fed up.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Dear Bloggers
Dear Bloggers,
Hi!
You work hard. You put a lot of time and care into your posts.
Well, some of you do, anyway. Some of you are a little slapdash about the whole thing.
But most of the bloggers I read are compassionate, thoughtful people who have interesting, important ideas to communicate. You put effort into your posts.
Once in a while, someone will point out a flaw. You'll edit your post. Everyone continues on merrily.
But you don't leave a note. You don't say, "Oh, thanks, got it," in comments. You don't add an "edited for [reason]" to the post. You don't strike through the part meant for removal. Not that you have to do all of that every time, but any of that would be helpful.
Here's why.
Scenario one: typos.
Your sentence: Rescue dogs are some best pets.
My comment: Thanks for a great post! Minor note, but I think that you left "of the" out of your line about rescue dogs?
You edit your post: Rescue dogs are some of the best pets.
You leave no "thanks" or "got it" in comments. You leave no "edited to add words I left out" or "edited for clarity" in the post.
You're busy. You're not thrilled to have made a mistake. I get that. I see it as an issue of common courtesy. Basic politeness. Someone helps you out, you acknowledge it.
Here's something you may not have considered. Your post had a simple error, a misspelling, an odd glitch in structure. Someone gave you a hand and helped you to improve it for better readability. (I'm assuming here that these are polite corrections made in a kind effort to help you out and not coming from jackasses priding themselves on being pedantic. Go with me.) Then you made the change and left them hanging. Now their comment is sitting out there for everyone to read, but the problem's been fixed and their comment left unacknowledged. Now they look foolish; the post is fine! What are they even talking about? People coming along behind them start to question that commenter's reading comprehension.
Do you see where I'm going with this? She helps you out and you leave her hanging in return. If nothing else, throw a quick "got it" in comments or "edited for clarity" to the post.
Scenario two: genuine fuck-ups
Your sentences: Which is stupid, right, because everyone knows that only women can wear pink! So I told Steve, "No way, bro!"
My comment: What's with the gender essentialism here? Only women can wear pink?
You edit your post: Which is stupid, right? So I told Steve, "No way, bro!"
You leave no acknowledgement in comments. You leave no acknowledgement in the post. You edit that shit out like a ninja and keep going like nothing happened.
First, as above, that leaves me hanging. Now people come along post-edit and wonder what the hell I'm even talking about. They get confused. They turn on me for harassing you about gender essentialism when your post is fine. Now I have to defend myself and explain, and the conversation becomes even more about your wording than it would have if you'd just acknowledged the problem in the first place.
Second, when you won't acknowledge that you've messed up it seems like you want to pretend the whole thing never happened. Nothing to see here, folks! But something did happen. You furthered a harmful idea. You promoted the patriarchy's very hurtful agenda. You made an otherwise ordinary post into a hostile space. Whoever commented on it, and whoever read it before you got around to editing it, had to deal with that. We had to trip over your bullshit and figure out what to do with it. Some of us commented on it, some of us tried our best to ignore it, some of us closed the browser and cried or yelled or let it roll around in our thoughts all day. You're responsible for that. The least you can do is acknowledge it.
I'm not demanding abject apologies. I'm asking for a note: "Edited for gender essentialist wording." Strike through the offending part and add in a better explanation.
If you think that you've done nothing wrong and the people pointing it out are pedantic, demanding jackasses, leave the post as it is. Post in comments, "The post stands, I don't care about gender essentialism, I'm not interested in making this an inclusive community." Let us know where you stand.
Watching your language can be annoying. Sometimes you have a great, descriptive phrase in mind and you realize that it's ableist and you think, "Ugh, come on, it's just this once! Everyone says it! Any other wording will be too awkward!" Well, too bad. Being considerate with your language and not alienating readers with your ableist terminology is more important than coming up with a nifty metaphor. Is being a good writer important to me? Absolutely. Is being a good person important to me? Yes, even more.
Does a "good writer" rely on ableist phrases and sexist turns of phrase and racist slurs? I would spend more time on that thought, but I'm drifting from my topic!
Stealth-editing your sexism away indicates that you want to pretend it was never there in the first place. Which leads me to believe that you'd rather sweep it under the rug than actually work on it. Which makes me wary. We're all sexist to one degree or another, because we all live in a sexist culture. We're steeped in sexism throughout our lives. That's why we have to examine our ideas and consider our words and at least try not to make it worse. Maybe we can even make it better.
Sometimes you don't want to do your self-exam in public. I get that. But you fucked up in public.
Admitting that you messed up isn't fun. Admitting that you hurt or disgusted or angered someone is hard, especially when you didn't mean to do it. But please make the effort. In the long run, it builds a better community, and that's what we all want.
With love,
Frank Lee
P.S. Trying to turn it around and blame the commenters for pointing out your shit is not the way to go. If they approached the issue bluntly or impatiently instead of sweetly, there's good reason for that. As I've said before, some commenters are assholes. Some commenters are great people who don’t have a lot of patience for someone thoughtlessly tossing out sexist remarks.
Hi!
You work hard. You put a lot of time and care into your posts.
Well, some of you do, anyway. Some of you are a little slapdash about the whole thing.
But most of the bloggers I read are compassionate, thoughtful people who have interesting, important ideas to communicate. You put effort into your posts.
Once in a while, someone will point out a flaw. You'll edit your post. Everyone continues on merrily.
But you don't leave a note. You don't say, "Oh, thanks, got it," in comments. You don't add an "edited for [reason]" to the post. You don't strike through the part meant for removal. Not that you have to do all of that every time, but any of that would be helpful.
Here's why.
Scenario one: typos.
Your sentence: Rescue dogs are some best pets.
My comment: Thanks for a great post! Minor note, but I think that you left "of the" out of your line about rescue dogs?
You edit your post: Rescue dogs are some of the best pets.
You leave no "thanks" or "got it" in comments. You leave no "edited to add words I left out" or "edited for clarity" in the post.
You're busy. You're not thrilled to have made a mistake. I get that. I see it as an issue of common courtesy. Basic politeness. Someone helps you out, you acknowledge it.
Here's something you may not have considered. Your post had a simple error, a misspelling, an odd glitch in structure. Someone gave you a hand and helped you to improve it for better readability. (I'm assuming here that these are polite corrections made in a kind effort to help you out and not coming from jackasses priding themselves on being pedantic. Go with me.) Then you made the change and left them hanging. Now their comment is sitting out there for everyone to read, but the problem's been fixed and their comment left unacknowledged. Now they look foolish; the post is fine! What are they even talking about? People coming along behind them start to question that commenter's reading comprehension.
Do you see where I'm going with this? She helps you out and you leave her hanging in return. If nothing else, throw a quick "got it" in comments or "edited for clarity" to the post.
Scenario two: genuine fuck-ups
Your sentences: Which is stupid, right, because everyone knows that only women can wear pink! So I told Steve, "No way, bro!"
My comment: What's with the gender essentialism here? Only women can wear pink?
You edit your post: Which is stupid, right? So I told Steve, "No way, bro!"
You leave no acknowledgement in comments. You leave no acknowledgement in the post. You edit that shit out like a ninja and keep going like nothing happened.
First, as above, that leaves me hanging. Now people come along post-edit and wonder what the hell I'm even talking about. They get confused. They turn on me for harassing you about gender essentialism when your post is fine. Now I have to defend myself and explain, and the conversation becomes even more about your wording than it would have if you'd just acknowledged the problem in the first place.
Second, when you won't acknowledge that you've messed up it seems like you want to pretend the whole thing never happened. Nothing to see here, folks! But something did happen. You furthered a harmful idea. You promoted the patriarchy's very hurtful agenda. You made an otherwise ordinary post into a hostile space. Whoever commented on it, and whoever read it before you got around to editing it, had to deal with that. We had to trip over your bullshit and figure out what to do with it. Some of us commented on it, some of us tried our best to ignore it, some of us closed the browser and cried or yelled or let it roll around in our thoughts all day. You're responsible for that. The least you can do is acknowledge it.
I'm not demanding abject apologies. I'm asking for a note: "Edited for gender essentialist wording." Strike through the offending part and add in a better explanation.
If you think that you've done nothing wrong and the people pointing it out are pedantic, demanding jackasses, leave the post as it is. Post in comments, "The post stands, I don't care about gender essentialism, I'm not interested in making this an inclusive community." Let us know where you stand.
Watching your language can be annoying. Sometimes you have a great, descriptive phrase in mind and you realize that it's ableist and you think, "Ugh, come on, it's just this once! Everyone says it! Any other wording will be too awkward!" Well, too bad. Being considerate with your language and not alienating readers with your ableist terminology is more important than coming up with a nifty metaphor. Is being a good writer important to me? Absolutely. Is being a good person important to me? Yes, even more.
Does a "good writer" rely on ableist phrases and sexist turns of phrase and racist slurs? I would spend more time on that thought, but I'm drifting from my topic!
Stealth-editing your sexism away indicates that you want to pretend it was never there in the first place. Which leads me to believe that you'd rather sweep it under the rug than actually work on it. Which makes me wary. We're all sexist to one degree or another, because we all live in a sexist culture. We're steeped in sexism throughout our lives. That's why we have to examine our ideas and consider our words and at least try not to make it worse. Maybe we can even make it better.
Sometimes you don't want to do your self-exam in public. I get that. But you fucked up in public.
Admitting that you messed up isn't fun. Admitting that you hurt or disgusted or angered someone is hard, especially when you didn't mean to do it. But please make the effort. In the long run, it builds a better community, and that's what we all want.
With love,
Frank Lee
P.S. Trying to turn it around and blame the commenters for pointing out your shit is not the way to go. If they approached the issue bluntly or impatiently instead of sweetly, there's good reason for that. As I've said before, some commenters are assholes. Some commenters are great people who don’t have a lot of patience for someone thoughtlessly tossing out sexist remarks.
Dear Domino's
Discussions of the rape culture and gendered slurs ahead.
Dear Domino's,
I like pizza. I enjoy a good slice of pizza. Warm and cheesy with a nice, thick crust, mmm. Great stuff!
Unfortunately, I'll no longer be purchasing any of your pizza or patronizing any of your establishments. You don't seem to want me as a customer, so I'll be spending my pizza dollars elsewhere.
Why do I believe that you no longer want my money? Your charming new ad campaign told me all about it!
It's based around the slogan "No Is the New Yes."
Let's put that idea in the context of our larger society. There's a phrase a lot of feminists and other people battling the rape culture have made well-known: no means no. This phrase (and notions of enthusiastic consent) are important because we live in a culture of rape which is hostile to consent.
That hostility to consent manifests in people not taking no for an answer.
Your mouth says no but your body says yes.
Come on, I know you really want it.
Women feel like they have to say no to keep their dignity, so you'll respect them and know they're not sluts, but they really want it, so you just have to keep going until they give in.
One person says no. The other person ignores it entirely or chooses to interpret it as "yes" or "more" or "please" or "keep going, I'll 'give in' eventually." Where "give in" might mean "stop fighting back."
You've illustrated the problem very nicely there in your new slogan. Except that it isn't new. "No Is Yes According to Rape Culture" doesn't make as catchy of a phrase, though, does it?
You're advertising pizza, rape, and hostility to consent all at once. But I don't want to promote rape or buy hostility to consent. I only want pizza. So I'll buy it from someone else.
Why would I want to pay you to promote the rape culture, anyway, when I get so much of it for free?
Please drop your ad campaign and reconsider your relationship with whoever came up with it. It's time to go back to the drawing board. Oh, and donating to a survivors' group is always a good move.
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear Domino's,
I like pizza. I enjoy a good slice of pizza. Warm and cheesy with a nice, thick crust, mmm. Great stuff!
Unfortunately, I'll no longer be purchasing any of your pizza or patronizing any of your establishments. You don't seem to want me as a customer, so I'll be spending my pizza dollars elsewhere.
Why do I believe that you no longer want my money? Your charming new ad campaign told me all about it!
It's based around the slogan "No Is the New Yes."
Let's put that idea in the context of our larger society. There's a phrase a lot of feminists and other people battling the rape culture have made well-known: no means no. This phrase (and notions of enthusiastic consent) are important because we live in a culture of rape which is hostile to consent.
That hostility to consent manifests in people not taking no for an answer.
Your mouth says no but your body says yes.
Come on, I know you really want it.
Women feel like they have to say no to keep their dignity, so you'll respect them and know they're not sluts, but they really want it, so you just have to keep going until they give in.
One person says no. The other person ignores it entirely or chooses to interpret it as "yes" or "more" or "please" or "keep going, I'll 'give in' eventually." Where "give in" might mean "stop fighting back."
You've illustrated the problem very nicely there in your new slogan. Except that it isn't new. "No Is Yes According to Rape Culture" doesn't make as catchy of a phrase, though, does it?
You're advertising pizza, rape, and hostility to consent all at once. But I don't want to promote rape or buy hostility to consent. I only want pizza. So I'll buy it from someone else.
Why would I want to pay you to promote the rape culture, anyway, when I get so much of it for free?
Please drop your ad campaign and reconsider your relationship with whoever came up with it. It's time to go back to the drawing board. Oh, and donating to a survivors' group is always a good move.
With love,
Frank Lee
Monday, July 9, 2012
Dear People Who Have Sex with Other People
Dear People Who Have Sex with Other People,
Hi! I don't actually want to speak with all of you, but I figured that if I started off with, "Dear Creepy People," some of you would think, "I'm not creepy!" and stop reading.
I just might be talking about you, though, so please follow along!
I want to talk with you about this othering, fetishizing thing you keep doing to people.
Here's what you're actually saying:
"I want to have sex with a black person because I've never done that before, and I think that it'd be sexy and exciting!"
This suggests that all X people (all black women, or all trans women, or all bisexual women, or all women with disabilities, or whichever group you're so excited about) will provide the same sexual experience.
You're treating X people (or whomever you're so excited about) as a monolith. Why do you think that sex with this "new" sort of person will be different from sex with the people you've already partnered with? What sort of experience do you believe that you're going to get, that you wouldn't get from people in other groups?
You're playing into stereotypes. You sound like people who seek out Asian women as sex partners, assuming that they'll be submissive. You sound like people who seek out Latinas as sex partners, assuming that they'll be wild in bed. You sound racist.
Maybe your last 87 partners were white women and you've never had sex with an Asian woman. Then you meet an Asian woman. Saying, "I can't wait to have sex with her, I've never had sex with an Asian woman before," makes it sound like you think there's something uniquely different about her sexual behavior because she's Asian. Try, instead, saying, "I can't wait to have sex with her, we get along so well I can't wait to see how compatible we are sexually." Or, "I can't wait to have sex with her, she's so fun and sexy, she really turns me on." Or, "I can't wait to have sex with her, she's really into [sex position] and I'd love to give that a shot."
"I want to have sex with a black person because I've never done that before, and I think that it'd be sexy and exciting!"
That's othering. Fetishizing. Exoticizing. Racist. And really creepy.
Please consider why you consider X group so sexy and exotic, so new and interesting. Please consider why you think their race (or whatever other basis you're using) dictates their sexual behavior. And if you're lacking in interactions with people from X group, maybe you should start by making friends, first.
With love,
Frank Lee
Hi! I don't actually want to speak with all of you, but I figured that if I started off with, "Dear Creepy People," some of you would think, "I'm not creepy!" and stop reading.
I just might be talking about you, though, so please follow along!
I want to talk with you about this othering, fetishizing thing you keep doing to people.
I think it’s fair to make a distinction between “I want to have sex with a person who is X because that’s new and exciting to me” and “someone from group X must be Y, therefore I want to have sex with a person from that group”I want to discuss this point in particular:
“I want to have sex with a person who is X because that’s new and exciting to me”That's creepy.
Here's what you're actually saying:
"I want to have sex with a black person because I've never done that before, and I think that it'd be sexy and exciting!"
This suggests that all X people (all black women, or all trans women, or all bisexual women, or all women with disabilities, or whichever group you're so excited about) will provide the same sexual experience.
You're treating X people (or whomever you're so excited about) as a monolith. Why do you think that sex with this "new" sort of person will be different from sex with the people you've already partnered with? What sort of experience do you believe that you're going to get, that you wouldn't get from people in other groups?
You're playing into stereotypes. You sound like people who seek out Asian women as sex partners, assuming that they'll be submissive. You sound like people who seek out Latinas as sex partners, assuming that they'll be wild in bed. You sound racist.
Maybe your last 87 partners were white women and you've never had sex with an Asian woman. Then you meet an Asian woman. Saying, "I can't wait to have sex with her, I've never had sex with an Asian woman before," makes it sound like you think there's something uniquely different about her sexual behavior because she's Asian. Try, instead, saying, "I can't wait to have sex with her, we get along so well I can't wait to see how compatible we are sexually." Or, "I can't wait to have sex with her, she's so fun and sexy, she really turns me on." Or, "I can't wait to have sex with her, she's really into [sex position] and I'd love to give that a shot."
"I want to have sex with a black person because I've never done that before, and I think that it'd be sexy and exciting!"
That's othering. Fetishizing. Exoticizing. Racist. And really creepy.
Please consider why you consider X group so sexy and exotic, so new and interesting. Please consider why you think their race (or whatever other basis you're using) dictates their sexual behavior. And if you're lacking in interactions with people from X group, maybe you should start by making friends, first.
With love,
Frank Lee
Friday, June 22, 2012
Dear English Speakers
Dear English Speakers,
Hi! I hope that everything's going well in your lives. Some of you may be busy, so I'll cut to the chase.
Language evolves over time. Some parts of it evolve quickly while some parts evolve more slowly. What's interesting is not only how language evolves but why.
For instance, the way you pronounce "Uranus."
Typically, in my own experience, people consider the correct pronunciation to be akin to "your anus." Which sounds like a reference to a private body part. Which is something most people don't discuss in general audiences.
Some people are so uncomfortable with saying "your anus" that they come up with other pronunciations. YOUR-in-us, for example.
You know what's even sillier than snickering over "your anus?" Being so uncomfortable with a homophone that you change a word's pronunciation.
Similarly, the word "pianist" used to be pronounced "PEE-an-ist." Said quickly, it could be mistaken for "penis." Uncomfortable with that, some people now say "pee-ANN-ist."
It reminds me of Victorians being so uncomfortable with limbs that they put skirts on pianos to cover the legs. To be honest, I don't know if that's something which actually happened or not. Regardless, it sounds silly, doesn't it? How foolish, to be so worried about any possible sexual association that you'd ward it off so diligently.
Pronounce it "your anus." Pronounce it "PEE-an-ist." Giggle over it if it strikes you as silly. You'll be fine.
With love,
Frank Lee
Hi! I hope that everything's going well in your lives. Some of you may be busy, so I'll cut to the chase.
Language evolves over time. Some parts of it evolve quickly while some parts evolve more slowly. What's interesting is not only how language evolves but why.
For instance, the way you pronounce "Uranus."
Typically, in my own experience, people consider the correct pronunciation to be akin to "your anus." Which sounds like a reference to a private body part. Which is something most people don't discuss in general audiences.
Some people are so uncomfortable with saying "your anus" that they come up with other pronunciations. YOUR-in-us, for example.
You know what's even sillier than snickering over "your anus?" Being so uncomfortable with a homophone that you change a word's pronunciation.
Similarly, the word "pianist" used to be pronounced "PEE-an-ist." Said quickly, it could be mistaken for "penis." Uncomfortable with that, some people now say "pee-ANN-ist."
It reminds me of Victorians being so uncomfortable with limbs that they put skirts on pianos to cover the legs. To be honest, I don't know if that's something which actually happened or not. Regardless, it sounds silly, doesn't it? How foolish, to be so worried about any possible sexual association that you'd ward it off so diligently.
Pronounce it "your anus." Pronounce it "PEE-an-ist." Giggle over it if it strikes you as silly. You'll be fine.
With love,
Frank Lee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)