You are viewing shweta_narayan

 
 
20 August 2014 @ 07:17 pm
Let's talk about category structure and oppression!  
This has been a v long-brewing post; I've been meaning to make it, or something like it, since 2009. Many thanks to rose_lemberg, Arachne Jericho, sovay, and elsmi for helping me finally get it together in a coherent fashion. Any errors or problems are my doing, not theirs.

Editing to add: reblogging this/sharing it on any forum is totally okay!

---

We tend to have this idea that categories, like "bird" or "food" (or like "human" or "white", which is what this is all really about) are like solid boxes. Entities are either in them or out of them, with a clear and unchanging boundary, and everything inside is an unsorted & equal jumble, and everything outside ditto.

This notion gets strongly underscored by our cultures, so it can be hard to ... er... unpack. But the fact is, cognitive categories aren't actually like boxes. They have internal structure, and fuzzy boundaries (which people can draw in different places, and move depending on context), and these things matter hugely in how we think about and deal with oppression.

I'm going to start by talking about research on the category "bird", because there's been a lot of it (c.f. Eleanor Rosch's work in the 70s and early 80s, which kicked it off), and it's pretty neutral so it'll be easier/less triggery for people to think about the category structure.

So! The "bird" category has (somewhat culture specific) internal structure. For example, most Americans will agree that a robin is a better example of a bird than an albatross, and an albatross is a better bird than an ostrich. (And while bats are not birds, they are better birds than horses are, and horses are better birds than refrigerators are; so the gradations continue to some extent outside the category boundary).

This internal category structure has a number of cognitive effects/characteristics:

1) If you ask people to just write down as many birds as they can, they'll list the more prototypical (category-central) ones first. More peripheral members of the category do not come to mind at first.

2) In reaction time tasks where people are asked to respond yes or no depending on whether or not a presented item is a bird, people will press yes faster, with fewer errors, for prototypical birds.

3) The structure that emerges from these two experimental measures matches the structure that emerges if you just ask people to rank birds in order of which ones are the "best" birds. Once you ask people to structure their categories they have really strong, consistent, and replicable intuitions about that structure.

4) People's idea of similarity is asymmetric: they will, for example, say that albatrosses are more like robins than robins are like albatrosses.

5) People reason from the prototype to the whole category, but not the other way around. So, for example (according to experimental results), people reason that if all the robins on an island caught a disease, the ducks would catch it too; but not vice versa.

6) People's use of linguistic hedges (really, sort of, technically, etc) is based on prototypicality too. So you can say an emu is technically a bird, but you can't say a robin is technically a bird.

7) Over time, some characteristics can become more prototypical. Others can't. The US adoption of the eagle as a standard animal has made it a more prototypical bird; and the hooked beak has become a more prototypical characteristic than it used to be. But yeah, eagles can still fly. An emu is never going to be a prototypical bird.

This is all pretty innocent when it comes to birds! But there is evidence that this sort of category structure is everywhere in human cognition (e.g. people will say 4 is a better even number than 1374.) Now, robins excluding emus from the bird-category, or claiming to understand how emu-ness works because of their experience as robins, might sound like the stuff comic strips are made of; the human dynamics are less funny, and far more harmful to their targets.

So, moving domains to socially relevant categories:

1) Able neurotypical not-fat not-poor straight cis white anglophone American Christian men are considered to be prototypical humans (prototype here = privileged default). So. If you ask people to think of famous people, they will think first of famous able neurotypical not-fat not-poor straight cis white anglophone American Christian men. And their exceptions will normally fall outside this prototype in only one or two ways.

This is how a lot of casual erasure happens. (btw it's also what's happening when editors "just happened to think of" a lot of poets/writers/artists who aren't marginalized, and when poets/writers/artists "just happened to think of" prototypical characteristics to portray.)

2) If someone is not an able neurotypical not-fat not-poor straight cis white anglophone American Christian man, it will generally take people longer to categorize them as human. And the further they are from this prototype the longer it will take to make the judgment. Now, if people take that extra time, we're probably good; but do they? When they sort resumes / run job interviews, when they're trigger-happy cops, etc?

3) (horrific examples tw) Consider the structure of the category "American citizen", which often gets treated as either-or. But the prototypical citizen is white, abled, and Christian (at least). Consider who counts: who gets protected under US law. And consider whose ID gets checked, who gets stop & frisked. Whose mass incarceration and state-sanctioned murder is business as usual. Who gets called "an illegal", or told to "go back home", regardless of their actual documentation. Who gets demands for their birth certificate once elected to high office. Whose languages are considered ok if spoken in the US, whose accent if they're speaking English.

(Non-Americans, when we talk about American privilege, we need to understand that it does not apply equally to all people with US citizenship; it applies only to the people who get counted as "proper" Americans, according to this category structure & the context.)

3b) (Horrific example tw) Where you draw the category boundary can be person and culture specific. Which is okay with birds, you'll only annoy scientists if you decide an emu isn't a bird, but what about the category "human". What about the people who decide that if you're Black, or disabled, or a trans woman or all three, then you've fallen outside the human category and your murderer isn't really a murderer? The murderers who call their Black victims “it”? The settler laws about Aboriginal Australian people, that only recently categorized them as human?

3c) This also applies for categories like whiteness. Who counts as white depends on who's drawing the boundary, where, when, for what purposes. I think we do need to talk about which people's whiteness is marginal/conditional and can be revoked by category-central white people. We can't do that, however, without also talking about how people in these groups benefit from conditional/marginal whiteness, by mostly gaining white privilege while denying whiteness whenever questions of race/racism come up. I am suspicious of people who will only talk about how their whiteness is marginal when other people are talking about racism.

3d) Obviously I could go on, but consider also the category of English. Whose English counts as actual English? And within that, whose is proper English?

So yeah (3) tl;dr: This is how a lot of active casual bigotry happens.

4) Am albatross is more like a robin than a robin is like an albatross; a queer WOC is more like a cishet white man than a cishet white man is like a queer WOC. Which characters in stories count as "relatable"?

Everyone is expected to relate to a cis straight white anglophone American man. We're all like them, they're just (default, category-central) people after all! But they're not like us. We're the albatrosses, here. How can the poor robins be expected to relate to us? This is why they think it's so ludicrous that they should be expected to read about marginalized characters (who are nothing like them!!) but think it's normal and fine that marginalized people should be expected to read about category-central characters.

Conversely, it's also why they think they know our experience perfectly well and can talk over us; after all, we're just like them, except in a few (stereotyped) ways. They're default people! Unlike us.

5) (Horrific example tw) While people know perfectly well that diseases will spread from category-central members of humanity to peripheral ones, they often don't realize it goes the other way too. In the 80s, a lot of people thought AIDS was a "gay disease" - it wouldn't hit straight people! (And bi/pan/polysexual people don't exist after all, c.f. the erasure caused by (1)). Sooo yeah, they didn't care, till it did start hitting a lot of straight (white) people.

6) (TERF warning.) Consider how some TERFs say, "Of course I think trans women are women! - Technically. But like, not real women."
So long as they can make that linguistic hedge in some form - so that they're not actually expected to treat trans women as fully women, as fully human - they're fine with it. This is part of how they contradict themselves so blithely without hitting cognitive dissonance.

This is one method of moving the goalposts. Our understanding of categories is fluid and context-dependent, and we shift from thinking about the prototype to the whole category and back more than we normally consciously realize, and we can use the same word, often, to refer to either; and oppressors can use that to pretend they're speaking in good faith and being "reasonable", while in fact they're changing their definitions on the fly to suit their convenience.

7) Consider whiteness again. Within a US context, some groups (e.g. white Jewish Americans) have become more white than they historically were, and benefit from co-signing whiteness. They are still not category-central; their inclusion may still be marginal; but by default, they are now on the inside of the category boundary. Whereas other groups (e.g. South Asian Americans) do not get to cross the line no matter how strongly they buy into whiteness, because Blackness, and therefore darkness, is an exclusionary feature. But what that means, too, is that South Asian Americans do get privileged over other groups, most notably Black Americans, and need to understand that the power dynamics of whiteness do not end at the boundary of whiteness.

For more central but still not default people (both within and outside the category!), aligning with & co-signing the category-center brings clear advantages. That's not true for people who are always, definitionally, excluded.

I'm going to start my wrap-up by talking a bit about derailing (getting in before defensive-privileged-commentors do so, haha). Often it works by changing the category under discussion – forcibly redrawing the boundary, and thereby changing the center of the category & what's being talked about. Example that I see all the time: “Trans women are awesome!” gets derailed with “ALL women are awesome!” By making the category “all women”, the derailer does not merely extend the statement to more people. No, by changing the category and evoking the new category's cisnormative prototypes, they change the subject entirely – recentering themselves and pushing trans women off to the margins.

Not All Men” works in sort of the opposite way. By creating this hypothetical subcategory of Not-All-Men and forcing attention to it, it derails discussion away from, & attempts to undermine statements about, the category as a whole.

So! When talking to other people, in fandom and outside it, we need to be aware of category-centrality as well as membership. Especially because categories like whiteness are not boxes, but rather spectrums, with a central core of “real”, unarguable members, and an uneven periphery of conditional members, who can get kicked out by the category center as convenient, but still benefit from some or all of the privilege most of the time. Understanding this helps us understand the mechanics of derailing, and the mechanics of marginalization/exclusion done by not-central members to even-more-non-central members, as well as the mechanics that central members use against us all.

----
 
 
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 94 comments — Leave a comment )
hrjhrj on August 20th, 2014 08:34 pm (UTC)
Yay for cognitive analysis! Glad you had the wherewithal to put this together.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 20th, 2014 08:36 pm (UTC)
It only took me 5 years :D
and yes! yay cog ling! I wish I could share all its tools but in the meantime I shall share what analysis I can find spoons for.
Emberemberleo on August 20th, 2014 09:11 pm (UTC)
*Stands up, clapping furiously*

Fantastic! Thank you so much for writing this! I must share it with all the peoples!

Also, thank you especially for pointing out that recentering a statement can be erasive if done in the wrong direction. I am in the habit of recentering statements of certain kinds, especially when they're derogatory towards one category. (e.g. "Women are so emotional." "PEOPLE are emotional. It's not just women.") but it's important for me to remember that in some contexts that's counterproductive and harmful.

--Ember--
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 20th, 2014 09:23 pm (UTC)
<3
I am glad it's helpful :)

Also YES that kind of recentering is such a good thing! And, huh, I don't think I ever thought of it as similar to the bad-recentering before? I guess the difference is in what the initial statement is doing - is it celebrating a marginalized group, from within, or is it a statement from outside a group that stereotypes them? In the first case, recentering is derailing, and in the second, it's a way to combat the stereotype...
(no subject) - emberleo on August 20th, 2014 09:28 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - shweta_narayan on August 20th, 2014 09:32 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - emberleo on August 21st, 2014 12:57 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - nellorat on August 25th, 2014 12:37 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - emberleo on August 25th, 2014 10:22 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - nellorat on August 26th, 2014 04:40 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - emberleo on August 26th, 2014 09:23 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - nellorat on August 28th, 2014 07:14 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - emberleo on August 28th, 2014 09:04 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - nellorat on August 28th, 2014 09:36 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - emberleo on August 28th, 2014 09:56 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - emberleo on August 28th, 2014 09:05 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - nellorat on August 28th, 2014 09:39 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - hrj on August 20th, 2014 09:55 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - shweta_narayan on August 20th, 2014 10:15 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - hrj on August 21st, 2014 03:27 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - shweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 11:01 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - nellorat on August 25th, 2014 12:40 pm (UTC) (Expand)
The Green Knightgreen_knight on August 20th, 2014 10:54 pm (UTC)
Thank you so much for sharing this; especially the assymetric nature of it; this is a tremendously useful mental model.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 10:51 am (UTC)
Thank you for reading! :) All else aside, I would really love to see a day when most of our field knows that casual erasure and faux-objective ideas about relatability are artefacts of human cognition rather than good ways to approach things.
Sherwood Smithsartorias on August 20th, 2014 11:10 pm (UTC)
Oh, such a good post. I have to read it a few more times. Much thinkage ensuing. Thank you!
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 10:52 am (UTC)
Thank you for reading! :)
There's more I could say of course but it was already 2k words long, which is a lot to ask people to read online...
(no subject) - sartorias on August 21st, 2014 01:02 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - shweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 01:20 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Lila Ralstonunhappytriad on August 20th, 2014 11:39 pm (UTC)
Wow. A tremendous amount to think about here. This conceptualization does a great job of explaining a wide variety of things that happen. I must continue to ponder this.
Lila Ralstonunhappytriad on August 21st, 2014 01:29 am (UTC)
Is it OK if I reblog as well? Tumblr and LJ? I have tiny flists on both, alas, but some of my contacts have many contacts.
(no subject) - shweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 10:54 am (UTC) (Expand)
A. A. McNamaraaamcnamara on August 20th, 2014 11:57 pm (UTC)
Such a good post! Have reblogged it on tumblr. Thank you, this gives me lots of stuff to think about.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 11:08 am (UTC)
Thankyou! :) The more people think about this the better I figure :D
Chomijichomiji on August 21st, 2014 12:49 am (UTC)

May I reblog on my DW/LJ?

shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 11:10 am (UTC)
Absolutely! I wrote it to be helpful & I'm v much in favour of it being as helpful as possible :)
Brackett: thoughtfulaliseadae on August 21st, 2014 01:30 am (UTC)
This is an excellent post. May link and/or reblog?

Thank you for this.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 11:10 am (UTC)
Thank you, and absolutely :)
Rachel M Brownrachelmanija on August 21st, 2014 01:31 am (UTC)
That's really interesting. Thanks for writing it. I never thought of those issues in quite that way before, but it makes a lot of sense.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 11:17 am (UTC)
ty <3 It's p much the basic grounding of my field.
Lenora Roselenora_rose on August 21st, 2014 02:57 am (UTC)
You're being wise again.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 11:21 am (UTC)
I'm just making a good pretense of it :D It's applying some of the 101-level concepts of my field (literally! the class at Berkeley is cog sci 101) to what I'm seeing all round.
(no subject) - erikagillian on August 23rd, 2014 01:23 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - shweta_narayan on August 23rd, 2014 01:57 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - thnidu on August 24th, 2014 03:36 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - hrj on August 25th, 2014 05:23 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - thnidu on August 26th, 2014 01:24 am (UTC) (Expand)
DJ Jazzy D: beckett thoughtsdavesmusictank on August 21st, 2014 03:23 am (UTC)
This is so deep. I had to read it twice and will have to read it again. Mucho gracios for putting such a contemplative and interesting post.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 11:23 am (UTC)
Thank you for reading! :)
Romierinue on August 21st, 2014 03:46 am (UTC)
This is great. It's a concept I've run into before, but I think your bird explanation is particularly excellent, and your endpoint is important.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 11:24 am (UTC)
Thank you! But! credit where it's due, the bird stuff comes from Rosch, and the endpoint was mostly Rose's idea when I was flailing for a conclusion yesterday :D
Dash: Agendaspacehawk on August 21st, 2014 06:37 am (UTC)
Thank you for this post!
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 11:24 am (UTC)
Thank you for reading!
delectable tea, or deadly poison?genarti on August 21st, 2014 02:25 pm (UTC)
This is really fascinating, and a great post. Thank you for it.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 02:55 pm (UTC)
Thankyou for reading! :)
starcat_jewelstarcat_jewel on August 21st, 2014 04:37 pm (UTC)
I recall being taught about "connotative tagging" which seems to be a way of expressing this. For example, when most people think "bird", it comes with connotative tags like "+SMALL" and "+FLIES" and "-MEATEATER". The more of those connotative tags a particular bird has, the better a bird it seems to be. And the tags themselves tend to be ordered; for a lot of people, the #1 connotative tag on "American" is "+WHITE", with others less critical.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 04:45 pm (UTC)
Well... some of the characteristics associated with prototypicality can be expressed this way, but I think it's an inherently limiting method.

I think, like many psychological methods, it's trying way too hard to turn everything into binary features that work well on computers. So this sort of method really undersells the effect of say, the visual profile/movement profile/sort of noise we'd associate with a prototypical bird.
asakiyume: feathers on the lineasakiyume on August 21st, 2014 06:12 pm (UTC)
This led to a great discussion with my almost-17-year-old son about all kinds of things, but primarily how it's possible for A to be more like B than B is like A (your No. 4), and what this imbalance means in real life, and about how and why "Not All X" causes problems.

shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 21st, 2014 09:27 pm (UTC)
Yay!
Emilytakumashii on August 22nd, 2014 04:10 pm (UTC)
I read about this idea in one of Stephen Pinker's books about linguistics and since then I've really been surprised by how far it can get applied.

I read a book -- released just in the last couple of years -- that talked about people with "all-American looks" or "all-American names," and it really struck me it constructs a framework where some Americans are more American than other Americans -- and the author expects everybody to know what that means, even Americans whose last names are Huang or Gonzalez, and mostly everyone *does* know what that means even if they sting at the implicit exclusion.

(Incidentally, as a white Canadian living in the US, I find it a bit funny/weird that more than one sitcom has tried to wring humor out of the "this person doesn't look like a prototypical immigrant or sound like a prototypical immigrant, but they are in fact a white Canadian living in the US!" thing.)
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 23rd, 2014 01:10 am (UTC)
So much yes, "All-American" is an EXCELLENT example of this. Adjectives in general are really telling I think, but most of them are less glaring & you need to look at their patterns of application.

The sitcom thing is I think deeply rooted in the prototype, and the related stereotypes about immigrants - it's reinforcing them while pretending to undermine: "They're white! But... not... American??? So weird much funny haha!!"

Edited at 2014-08-23 01:11 am (UTC)
mzmadmikemzmadmike on August 22nd, 2014 07:40 pm (UTC)
This is America (says the immigrant) (Me, just in case you didn't get it). Therefore, the default cultural assumption will be American. In Germany, it would be German. In Argentina, Argentine.

It is an English speaking country. Therefore, the default is English---what you just wrote this post in. In Germany, it would be German. In Israel, Hebrew.

~95% of people are "cis." Ergo, since most people are, that is the common standard.

By using the term "neurotypical" (whatever that is) you accept "typical" as the baseline.

Most Americans are Christian, but making that assumption would be stupid. Tom Cruise is very visible, and not Christian. Nor is Billy Crystal. Unless someone has made a point of IDing their religion or orientation, you don't know. Most of us don't care. (Note: I am not a Christian either, since it obviously matters to you.)(I don't intend to discuss other details of my personal life with strangers.)

As to the rest, until you stop dividing people into ten (or more) categories and start looking for people as individuals, you will never get over your racism, bigotry, intolerance and unhappiness.

You have my pity.
(Frozen)(Thread) (Link)
mzmadmikemzmadmike on August 22nd, 2014 07:43 pm (UTC)
BTW, if you wish to reply, you must do so in my native language of Scots Gaelic to show respect for my heritage.
(Frozen)(Parent) (Thread) (Expand) (Link)
(no subject) - shweta_narayan on August 23rd, 2014 01:05 am (UTC) (Expand)
Arthur and Kevin's Nellorat: cowputernellorat on August 23rd, 2014 12:36 pm (UTC)
Many, many good ideas here!

I'm a little worried that the slide in paragraph four from "better example of a bird" to "better bird" could be misleading. For instance, I might find a beagle to be a better prototype dog but dislike them, while I dote on dachshunds with their weird, atypical short legs and long body.

Anyway, I wonder if you could comment on the relationship between prototypicality and value.

I'm also interested in the famous-people study/studies. Have there been similar ones with just people? In line with canonicity studies in lit., I wonder how much is testing the category of "people" and how much is testing the category of "what is taught as famous."
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 23rd, 2014 01:00 pm (UTC)
Sorry, I think my shorthand was confusing. Prototypicality isn't necessary about what we like best. It's just what we think of as the most exemplary member of the category.

[And there are actually a number of different types of prototype, which I simplified away from. It's possible that for you, daschunds are what's called salient exemplars of the category, while beagles are better archetypes. How that pertains to value depends on both the category and the type of prototype. EDITING TO ADD: I think this is wrong and elsmi's answer below is much closer to right.]

re: studies about people, I'm not sure? I don't know how such a study would be designed so that subjects' results were comparable, if it wasn't a shared pool of options (like 'famous people'). But the thing is, famous people are (salient-exemplar) prototypes of people, and how we structure the category depends very much on what we're taught, what we're exposed to, what's depicted as normal.



Edited at 2014-08-23 11:36 pm (UTC)
from elsmi - shweta_narayan on August 23rd, 2014 11:34 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: from elsmi - nellorat on August 25th, 2014 01:46 am (UTC) (Expand)
Steffirecat on August 23rd, 2014 06:23 pm (UTC)
I want to print this out and post it on my computer so I can read it every day.

(sharing all over the place)
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 23rd, 2014 07:27 pm (UTC)
thankyou :) I'm glad it's useful!
LiveJournal: pingback_botlivejournal on August 23rd, 2014 06:24 pm (UTC)
Let's talk about category structure and oppression!
User firecat referenced to your post from Let's talk about category structure and oppression! saying: [...] stick on my computer so I can read it every day. http://shweta-narayan.livejournal.com/204154.html [...]
W. Dow RiederRiderius on August 23rd, 2014 06:45 pm (UTC)
Very interesting analysis - this reads like the seed for a book, and an important one. Well done.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 23rd, 2014 07:27 pm (UTC)
Thank you! I doubt I'll ever write the book, but I can always hope someone else will...
mr profit's girl friday (and all week long): exterminate!tiferet on August 23rd, 2014 07:37 pm (UTC)
Warning: marginal whiteness talk :)

This really explains a lot of the strange stuff I've experienced. Specifically, how I often get sorted into the category that is most common in`the place where I happen to be, even though that's often the category I should stand out the most in, and how people mentally seem to erase any of the obvious things about me that don't belong in that category.

Mostly I do benefit from this, but sometimes I get punished for not doing what's expected of me because I've been taken for something I'm not.
shweta_narayanshweta_narayan on August 23rd, 2014 07:43 pm (UTC)
Yes! This is another aspect of categorization that I didn't really go into, though I guess it follows from thinking marginal members are like prototypical members - people will believe there are greater perceptual differences between entities than there are, if there's a category boundary between them; and more similarities than there are, if there's not.

The studies I know have been done on colour vision but I think it extends past that.
(no subject) - nellorat on August 25th, 2014 01:14 am (UTC) (Expand)
thnidu: Dr.Whomsterthnidu on August 24th, 2014 03:53 am (UTC)
(following firecat's pointer here)

Very, very good thoughts. I stumbled at a couple of points, though, from unfamiliarity with the lingo. I'm a linguist, so I'm always watching words, and some of these bits threw me even though I (hope I) am an ally (white cis het ). ISTM that you might want to edit a bit to make it less opaque to people not used to reading about such topics:

• (horrific examples tw)
> It took me a few moments to figure that out; I've seen "trigger warning" often enough, but not this abbreviation. For a reader who hasn't seen the term at all, the two-letter abbr. will be meaningless.

• Am albatross
→ An albatross [typo]

• a queer WOC is more like a cishet white man than a cishet white man is like a queer WOC.
> WOC = "woman of color", I presume. See "tw" above.
> I know "cis", I know "het", I know "cis het". But when the S and the H are together, "cishet" says "sish-et" to me, and I say back "Wha'?" Maybe hyphenate.

• c.f. the erasure caused by (1)
→ cf. [only one period; it's for the Latin word "confer", meaning "compare"]

• (TERF warning.)
> This one I don't know at all. See "tw", "WOC", but even more so for me. I'm still in the dark here.

—Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Whom: Consulting Linguist, Grammarian, Orthoëpist, and Philological Busybody
Editor and proofreader
StarWatcherstarwatcher307 on August 24th, 2014 05:52 pm (UTC)
.
I put "acronym TERF" in Google, and was able to read with more understanding. TW and WOC are common in some circles, but I originally learned them the same way.

I don't know how to say this without being snarky, so here goes: Sometimes the reader has to do a little work, too!

Shweta wrote a thoughtful, informative post for those who are interested. She is not obligated to explain common acronyms, or to cater to the lowest common denominator.

I'm an editor and proofreader, too -- of fanfic. Amazingly enough, I can still read "imperfect" stories (fanfic or published work -- there are mistakes in both) for the meaning and the content, without obsessing about a few typos or words I have to look up. The time and place for quibbling about HOW an author presents her work is in private, if you have that kind of relationship. Griping that a post isn't presented as you'd like comes across as pretty "privileged" of you, no matter how "respectfully" you think you've written.
.
An apology to Shweta - thnidu on August 24th, 2014 06:56 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Further words to look up - Amy Gorin on August 24th, 2014 09:10 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Re: Further words to look up - thnidu on August 25th, 2014 08:43 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Silver Adeptsilveradept on August 24th, 2014 04:01 pm (UTC)
That would explain how, despite a willingness to stop enslaving them overtly, United States society continued (and continues) to enslave minorities and women covertly. Denying them membership in the prototype makes it much easier to deny them full human rights and status.
Amy GorinAmy Gorin on August 25th, 2014 04:36 pm (UTC)
Lexicon
Our lexicon (that is, the dictionary in our heads that collects these linguistic classes) isn't handed down from on-high from the patriarchy. We create it from our life experiences, and what we see around us. The American prototypical dog is a german shepherd. In Japan it's an akita.

Modern media acts as an amplifying feedback loop, but it's getting better. Have you seen the original MASH movie? That kind of whitewashing was the situation in the 1970s. The Internet (and some explicit casting decisions in mainstream sitcoms and movies) has in fact started to address this. The folks who did Sesame Street and shows like All in the Family had social science backgrounds. Bill Cosby has a doctorate in education. None of this is a coincidence.
( 94 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>