An Adventure in Fence Theft

Firstly, I would like to clear up one major niggle of mine.

This isn't being "politically incorrect":

That is called "lacking empathy".

This is being "politically incorrect":

With that settled, children, I shall start.

Many of the same people who claim to be politically incorrect also chastise anybody who takes offence at their political incorrectness. I would like to offer an alternative view: being offended is often perfectly reasonable and not a character flaw. It does not mean humourless, overly sensitive or misanthropic.

So, what makes people take offence?

Okay, so not that. For the purposes of this post, I'll class something as 'offensive' if it is upsetting to, and/or reinforces stereotypes about, an individual and can be generalised to a larger group of people. The concept of offensiveness as a bad thing can be particularly powerful when referring to a group of people who have been marginalised by society. When somebody tells you to "stop being so easily offended", they are shutting themselves off from further explanation as to why they were offensive in the first place. This makes it much harder to challenge harmful attitudes among those doing the marginalising.

But hang on, "What is a marginalised group?", I hear you cry. Well...

... yeah, it's not that. A synonymous term is 'systematically oppressed'. This is an accurate analysis, but I prefer not to use it as as I feel it perpetuates the victim status of members of a group. It's personal preference. Some examples of people within marginalised groups are LGBTQ, female, black, disabled and dragons. Admittedly dragons less so, in the realms of real life... but they are more fun to draw, so I'm going to stick with dragons, (and you can't stop me)!

If you are part of a marginalised group, you may have grown up with a certain view of yourself. I have previously blogged about the negative effect language can have in these circumstances. The way you are portrayed by the media is often stereotypical.  Prejudice no longer registers, because it is so commonplace. Jibes, mockery and misinformation have become expected. You might internalise a lot of these views, and begin to believe them.

Once you become aware of this stigma, it can become infuriating to let it go unchallenged. It can feel impossible to switch off from the fact that misconceptions are so deeply ingrained in society. When one person says something offensive it isn't just one thing from one person; it a reflection and reminder of how a large number of people react a large amount of the time.

Some people are very direct in the way they communicate their resultant anger. I understand why. After all, they didn't ask to be hurt by this person, or by society, so why should this person get to chose if they are hurt? It is absolutely somebody's prerogative to express their anger. Offence does not come from a desire to play at being offended; it comes from justified frustration and feeling wounded.

I personally feel more comfortable communicating in a way that encourages discussion, rather than merely producing guilt. More than anything, I like to believe that most people have good intentions and will listen if they are made aware of the effects of their actions. Very few people want to upset others, but they simply don't see the connection between their words/actions and the continued systematic oppression of a group.

At the same time, I have the right to feel comfortable in a space. If I am doing something which is meant to be enjoyable or sociable, then I have to right to point out anything that stops me feeling that way. I try to weigh up my options, and do my best to contribute to an environment involving the least unpleasantness for everybody. I hope I get it right most of the time.

I never wish to censor anybody; I'm constantly trying to create a dialogue. For the few people who are upset by the thought of having to adjust any offensive words and actions, however, I am happy to assume that a) you are lazy, and b) it is actually you who is overly sensitive. And, to those same people, who wore the badge of "politically incorrect" with pride, and are now struggling to find a way to describe their world views - I offer a substitute:

Yours defensively,

BT

An Adventure in Implied Buts

"You're not fat... you're beautiful"

How many times have you heard that? It may seem like a compliment. Telling somebody they are beautiful - that's a good thing, right? And telling somebody they are fat - that's an insult. The problem here is with the implied 'but'.

"You're not fat - but beautiful."

The 'but' implies that fat and beautiful are mutually exclusive. Some people are fat, and telling them that they aren't achieves nothing. All a statement such as this does is reinforce the belief that fat is a Bad Thing, and that beautiful a Good Thing.

But what if somebody ISN'T beautiful?

"You're not ugly... you're awesome!"

We aren't easily fooled. There is a set standard of beauty to which we compare ourselves and others. If we don't match up, we know. And what's more, cosmetics companies know, and they profit from our insecurities and desperate need to get closer to this image of perfection.

How much money would a campaign like this make?

The message is clear. You can't be ugly and awesome. And if being fat means you can't be beautiful, then you can't be fat and awesome either. We have to be surrounded by the message that everybody is beautiful, and by extension not fat, because otherwise we can't believe that we, ourselves, might be awesome.

Frequently people are told that looks don't matter if one possesses an 'inner beauty' which 'shines through'. I find this equally problematic. I don't want any part of me to be measured by how 'beautiful' it is. Why should my personality be judged by an aesthetic quality?

When I was receiving inpatient treatment for anorexia, a lot of time was dedicated to reassuring patients that they were smaller than they perceived themselves to be.

"You aren't fat".

Of course this is often necessary, especially in early stages of recovery. Even as I write this, I admit that I am guilty of asking for reassurance that I am not fat. Forgive me, reader, for this hypocrisy. I'm working on it.

Treating disturbed body image by pretending that the Feared Thing won't happen, when it might, doesn't work.  It is more sensible to teach people that the Feared Thing isn't all that scary. Let me demonstrate.

It's the difference between this:

And this:

Or, alternatively this:

And this:

It's the difference between telling somebody that that they aren't getting fatter, (which, when you are putting on weight as part of treatment, is a misnomer), and telling somebody that there is no shame in being fat anyway. There is no such thing as a fat person or a skinny person. There are just people, with different, fluctuating bodies. Body shaming has no place in treating eating disorders.

What we need to hear, what everybody needs to hear more of, is this.

"You can be fat AND beautiful. You can be a great person and NOT beautiful. You can be fat and living a healthy lifestyle. You can be fat, not beautiful, not healthy and STILL BE a great person. There is no correlation between a person's size and a person's entitlement to a good life on this planet."

We need to stop conflating meanings. More to the point, we need to stop making unsubstantiated connections between separate personal attributes.

Let's stop trying to convince everybody that they are beautiful, that they aren't fat, and instead try to convince them that it doesn't matter.

Not yours... mine,

BT

An Adventure in Normality

I often wonder how strangers view me. I imagine it's something like this.

Okay, so the hair colour is wishful thinking.  Additionally, in my own mind I look far more awkward and far less desirable, but I'm trying to shelve the Beaver of Half-Truths for now.

I try not to give too much thought to how strangers view me. On the other hand, acquaintances, friends and people who have the ability to make an impact on my life are much more important.

I love people. I'm recovering from social anxiety disorder, and actually being able to socialise is a recently discovered joy. I cannot describe how freeing it feels to have an open conversation with somebody, despite how difficult I still find it.

Presenting myself to other people, however, does not come without its perils.

I sometimes wonder how acquaintances view me. I imagine it's something like this.

Developing a closer relationship with a person involves filling in a lot of those gaps.  It may seem like I tend to focus conversation on the distinguishing parts of my life, but if I don't explain the context of my words and actions then I risk being misunderstood. I risk being perceived as lazy, rude and a liar.

We all make assumptions. It is easiest to assess a social situation (and, from an evolutionary perspective, to judge if people are dangerous), if you have a 'standard' model with which to compare others. The issue is that if I asked most people, out of context, to imagine the standard model of a human being - it would probably look a lot like this.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't describe me. If people try to gage my personality by matching me up to those traits, then I come off pretty badly. More pressingly, I come off as incredibly boring.

Imagine we live in a world were everybody owns a unicorn; it's your mode of transport, it's your main source of support and you're its companion. At the age of 5, as oft happens, your unicorn turns into a dragon. I'm sure this is a scenario we can all relate to.

People generally don't have a problem with dragons. They're a bit afraid of them, because they are so used to unicorns and  have heard that dragons can be unpredictable, but social acceptance is on the up. There are also laws in place to make sure that dragon owners aren't discriminated against.

Still, you feel lonely, and as if your identity as a dragon owner is invisible and invalid. You are made to feel like The Other; as though you are not only a deviation, but a deviant.

You are alienated from peers.

You are alienated from learning.

You are alienated from the media.

You are alienated from popular opinion.

This is why we need women's and black history months - because white men are disproportionately visible throughout taught history.  This is why we need LGBTQ pride events - because straight people have never been told they should feel ashamed of being straight. This is why we need 'reasonable adjustments' for disabled people - because the able bodied live in a world that was built with them in mind.

It's not the fault of the D-Os that all the parking spaces are for unicorns. It is not unreasonable to request that parking spaces cater for all mythological creatures.

Speaking as somebody who has grown up with white privilege, I used to think that the best way to tackle racism was to be 'colour blind'. I would go to great lengths to describe the physical appearance of a person without mentioning skin colour, and would try to view all people through my own lens. After all, I am human, my experiences are human experiences, therefore other people must be coming from the same human point, right?

I now realise that by doing this was white washing all the experiences of black people. I was assuming that my lens - my white lens - was the neutral human one.

By not viewing black people as black people, I was, by default, trying to view them as white.

Black is not a dirty word. Likewise, disabled is not a dirty word, neither is gay, or fat or skinny or female or trans or any other adjectives humans apply to themselves. They are merely descriptors, providing a explanatory short-cut for how we relate to the world. Of course it would be nice to think that, one day, we will no longer need to label ourselves. Until then, it's important to show the world that these varied identities exist  - and that they are no less valid. Let's celebrate our different normalities rather than celebrating conformity to this idea of a 'standard' model!

Occasionally wonder how my friends see me. I hope it's something like this.

I am all of these things and more. I won't dilute my experiences. To let others assume that I am anything different - to transmogrify myself so that I can be understood next to the 'standard' model - is to do me a disservice. I am not putting a horn on my dragon and banning it from breathing fire. This is my normality. What's yours?

Yours uniquely (just like everybody else),

BT

An Adventure in Polygon Discrimination

I am a big fan of intersectionality.

If that doesn't mean anything to you, then don't worry - it didn't to me until quite recently. 'Intersectionality' is feminist jargon for 'all of us - all groups of society - we ALL need to work together to achieve equality'. As somebody who identifies as female, as queer, as crippled and mental, as well as being white, cisgendered and middle class it should be obvious why this simple, (yet oft misinterpreted) idea is so important to me.  Here is an excellent drawing by http://miriamdobson.wordpress.com to aid explanation.

I love analogies, and I love drawings, so I thought I'd take the polygon metaphor from Miriam's blog and develop it to explain another part of feminism, which I initially struggled to grasp - privilege.

You are probably familiar with the basic definition of the word 'privilege'.

A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.

In feminism, it is used extensively to refer to members of oppressed and liberated social groups. This doesn't just mean wealthy as opposed to poor, but also male as opposed to female, white as opposed to black, and countless others. As explained by the above, one can be a member of a single oppressed group as well as many liberated groups, or of many oppressed groups, or solely of liberated groups.  One might speak of lacking 'straight privilege' when they feel obliged to come out as gay, for example, while acknowledging the privilege they have of being read as the gender with which they identify.

I want to focus on two other well known social groups - the 'oppressed' triangles, and the 'liberated' squares, portrayed here on a 'Scale of Oppression'. Note the variety of colours and sized of shapes, even within the groups. Note also, my awesome paint skills.

The shapes on the right have 'square privilege'; the same privilege that the shapes on the left lack. Squares have more choice in life, are judged as individuals rather than as part of a group, and are in more positions of power. As a result, half of all polygons are limited merely because they have three points instead of four. Triangulars want this to change. Squares don't really realise they have privilege until it is pointed out to them by the triangles who have noticed how unfair it is. Heck, even some triangles don't notice how unfair it is.

At the point where Triangulars tells squares to "check" their "privilege", it's quite normal for squares to feel like they are being a accused of being deliberately oppressive. This isn't the intention of the Triangulars. Triangulars don't want squares to feel guilty or defensive. All triangles want is for squares to acknowledge that an imbalance exists, and to help them address this problem.

Unfortunately, some squares get scared that triangles will take away their privileges, and so set up 'Squarist' groups. It can be hard being a square too, they think. Does that mean squares are equally as oppressed as triangles? Not really. Oppression can only work in one direction - the scales can't be underbalanced on BOTH sides - but the negative effects of  Point-ism are felt by all polygons. What Squarists don't understand is that Triangulars are inevitably working towards the rights of squares as well.

Eventually, Triangulars make enough shapes aware of the Scale of Oppression. More triangles become Triangulars, and  more squares want to support them. Such squares become 'allies'. It's important that both Triangulars and allies continue to "check" their "privilege", even if they use it to the advantage of the triangles, otherwise the picture can look a bit like this.

From left to right: a relatively unprivileged pale blue square has "triangle" used as an insult against it; a yellow triangle isn't given help to ascend the upwards slope against oppression; a privileged green square only cares about triangles who are relatively privileged in being green; a lucky triangle pulls the step ladder away from other triangles as soon as it gets given the chance to mingle with squares; a yellow square decides that all squares are bad and need bringing down; and (if you look really closely) a white triangle masquerades pretends to have four sides in order to get the same privileges as a square.

There are alternatives to these approaches. One is called 'positive-discrimination', in which the ratio of triangles to squares in any environment is made to be representative of the percentages of triangles and squares in the average population.  This ensures that the Scale is always more of less balanced, even if somewhat artificially.

Positive discrimination is by no means an ideal solution. There is no single, ideal solution. But by working together, hopefully one day the many pointed shapes of polygon land can smash the Scale of Oppression once and for all.

Yours point-lessly,

BT