![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alpharaposaWhen I was a teenager, my dad was the Conference Scouting Coordinator and head of the local NAUMS chapter and all sorts of things Scouting related. This was still a pretty new thing, so he was building groups and coalitions and having lots of meetings with folks. I came along on a lot of these, as I've always loved Scouting as well, and I found a role in the melee.
One thing was that, while the Boy Scouts were officially the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the Girl Scouts were not the Girl Scouts of America (GSA). They were the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA). Being a teenager, I found the distinction dumb, and I remarked on it to my dad.
He shrugged the question of how dumb it might be off. The important thing, he told me, is that this is all new to them, too. So, to show that we respect them and want to include them, it's important that we use the right name. We had a lot of Boy Scouts to whom BSA lingo was like breathing, but we needed to be able to show the Girl Scouts that we took them seriously and that they were important to us, too. So we had to learn and use the GSUSA lingo. To do otherwise would be rude, and would shut them out.
And we had to learn to speak Campfire Boys and Girls. And 4-H. Using the right names in the right places meant that they were welcome and important.
Now, I've twice in the past few months said something when somebody used the term 'antichoice', because those people are the sorts of people that I didn't think would want to be outright rude to others. I got nowhere in both conversations.
So, maybe this will explain. In this big social battle that goes on, using the preferred words and lingo used by the other side is like waving a flag of parley. It shows that you are interested in putting aside the fighting for a bit to discuss why we're here and what we expect to get out of this. We might not get anywhere in the discussion, but we can have it.
Using insider terms is like closing your visor and picking up your shield. Using an inflammatory term that is also used by trolls in internet fora is like picking up a sword. Both of these actions signal that you're not really interested in discussion, at least not with me.
And in that case, I'm don't want to fight in Livejournal or Twitter or Facebook or other such places. If fighting is what you want, I'll meet you at the voting booth and we can see which side prevails there.
And please don't make the mistake of thinking that because you don't mean it too horribly, it isn't rude. Imagine telling a room full of gay men that you only use 'fag' to refer to the really flamboyant gay men, and you don't mean the rest of them. You probably won't get a very good reaction from most of the room.
If you don't care about my opinions, that's fine, but be aware of the signals you send by the words you choose.
One thing was that, while the Boy Scouts were officially the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the Girl Scouts were not the Girl Scouts of America (GSA). They were the Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA). Being a teenager, I found the distinction dumb, and I remarked on it to my dad.
He shrugged the question of how dumb it might be off. The important thing, he told me, is that this is all new to them, too. So, to show that we respect them and want to include them, it's important that we use the right name. We had a lot of Boy Scouts to whom BSA lingo was like breathing, but we needed to be able to show the Girl Scouts that we took them seriously and that they were important to us, too. So we had to learn and use the GSUSA lingo. To do otherwise would be rude, and would shut them out.
And we had to learn to speak Campfire Boys and Girls. And 4-H. Using the right names in the right places meant that they were welcome and important.
Now, I've twice in the past few months said something when somebody used the term 'antichoice', because those people are the sorts of people that I didn't think would want to be outright rude to others. I got nowhere in both conversations.
So, maybe this will explain. In this big social battle that goes on, using the preferred words and lingo used by the other side is like waving a flag of parley. It shows that you are interested in putting aside the fighting for a bit to discuss why we're here and what we expect to get out of this. We might not get anywhere in the discussion, but we can have it.
Using insider terms is like closing your visor and picking up your shield. Using an inflammatory term that is also used by trolls in internet fora is like picking up a sword. Both of these actions signal that you're not really interested in discussion, at least not with me.
And in that case, I'm don't want to fight in Livejournal or Twitter or Facebook or other such places. If fighting is what you want, I'll meet you at the voting booth and we can see which side prevails there.
And please don't make the mistake of thinking that because you don't mean it too horribly, it isn't rude. Imagine telling a room full of gay men that you only use 'fag' to refer to the really flamboyant gay men, and you don't mean the rest of them. You probably won't get a very good reaction from most of the room.
If you don't care about my opinions, that's fine, but be aware of the signals you send by the words you choose.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 12:14 am (UTC)I prefer politeness and respect, from both sides, whenever possible. But sometimes polite and true do not coincide; other times polite is just not blunt enough to be understood. Finally, calling a skunk a "pretty kitty" (or calling a kitty a pretty skunk) doesn't change its nature. There are times when plain--even blunt--speech is much more effective.
You compare using "anti-choice" here to using "faggot". The latter was and is a deliberately perjorative word, a cussin' word, a word similar in emotional force to the N-word. It's a word meant to dehumanize someone, and has been used to justify everything from harassment to murder--and not only of the gay people themselves, but their straight friends, their families, even their children.
I honestly don't think that "anti-choice" has that kind of negative weight. To me it sounds more comparable to calling a gay man "homosexual". It is an accurate and somewhat pedantic descriptive phrase that is limited in scope to the issue at hand. ("Life" is a very broad word; saying you support life, from a semantic point of view, implies many things that may or may not be accurate.)
However, since you compare those two words, I must assume that you know some people who self-identify as pro-life who find the term "anti-choice" to be derogatory in some way. I'll have to keep that in mind.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 12:22 am (UTC)For a pro-life advocate, the issue never descends to the level of choice or anti-choice, in the same way that deciding whether to kill your mom is right or wrong no matter how inconvenient she is. It's obviously wrong, and saying that opposing the killing of your inconvenient mom is a matter of choice or not is absurdist.
Does that help clarify matters?
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 04:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 12:37 am (UTC)Simply using the term 'antichoice' over 'prolife' shuts my point of view out of the discussion. By your standards, they might not mean anything different, but it means a great deal to me (as
If most of the people you talk to use the same lingo, it can be hard to realize just how shocking certain terms may be to a different group. Even things which are not insulting may serve to exclude others from a conversation entirely.
In my conversations about 'antichoice', I compared it to a pro-lifer using 'prodeath'. They're both offensive. A prochoice advocate would recognize the insulting nature of 'prodeath' immediately and seek to defend themselves against it. But then these same people turned around and argued that there was nothing wrong with 'antichoice'.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 01:36 am (UTC)I've heard a lot more of the insulting and bludgeoning from the pro-life side.
But I'm not saying you're wrong that "anti-choice" has been used that way.
I still don't think it gets to the level of "faggot" though. Are the pro-choice people worrying about getting mugged or murdered or having their children harassed?
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 12:21 pm (UTC)If most of the folks you hang out with online are fellow prochoice types, you might never run into the ones who go trolling on sites where prolife types are likely to hang out. However, you might attract other types of trolls. It's easy to assume that the only rude people are the ones on the other side of the debate, if that's the only part of it you ever experience.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 07:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 07:47 am (UTC)It's just a theory; I could be wrong.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 07:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 08:18 am (UTC)I also agree that the term abortion does not startle those already engaged in the debate. However, I think there is a perception that the word itself gets people stirred up and upset, and I suspect that to some more limited degree, that is true.
Startlement is not the only way a word can garner an emotional reaction.
I do agree that the term "pro-life" benefits strongly from the constellation of related ideas implied in the word "life".
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 12:48 pm (UTC)Medically-induced abortion is sometimes the only procedure that can save a woman's life in the event of a truly tragic pregnancy problem. I would not want to outlaw it as a medical procedure. I do want it to be a "this baby is dead anyway, and the mother's in danger, something must be done" last resort for doctors. The ideal is that the doctor attempts to save both patients, but if that's not possible, then having at least one live is better than both dying.
It's elective abortion that the debate centers around for most people.
"Anti-elective-abortion" is fine.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 01:01 am (UTC)Ahem - "Choice" is a very broad word; saying you support life, from a semantic point of view, implies many things that may or may not be accurate.
You're moving the goalposts here...
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 01:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 01:19 am (UTC)As an aside, it's not even an accurate summation of the pro-life standpoint to call their position "anti-choice," as almost all the pro-life advocates I know are also pro-choice, if the choices are "don't have sex with someone you wouldn't want to have a child with" or "use birth control so you won't have a child," or even "use multiple forms of birth control if you're very paranoid."
Those are all fine choices which prevent the conception of children and allow women to pursue the different lifestyle options that are often cited as the reason for being pro-abortion (going to college, having a career, etc).
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 04:36 am (UTC)And pregnancy is not risk-free either. All our best medical care can't eliminate the possibility that if things go wrong, the woman could die. It is not fair to characterize the risks a woman takes when bringing a pregnancy to term as nothing but "inconvenience". Medical procedures with much lower risks require a patient to be informed of the risks and to sign an informed consent document.
I wanted my child, very much. For me, taking those risks was a gift of love, as I believe it was for you. In an ideal world, all pregnancies would be like that.
Of course, in an ideal world, all sex would be consensual, an act of love (or at least good will) between people who come together as equals.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 05:23 am (UTC)* Surgery, female (tubes tied)
* IUDs, both hormone-releasing and metallic
* Diaphragms and vaginal condoms (non-hormone-aggravating)
* Birth Control pills (in so many forms now, from implants to shots to pills, that there's a delivery mechanism for everyone who can tolerate it).
This gives women four very broad options for birth control if they're going to have sex. Given that a lot of women--young girls even!--are put on birth control pills to control problems with their periods, I can't see how there's not an option to suit everyone if they're determined to be sexually active. Are there risks associated with them? Of course there are. But sex is a risky activity. Just because you want to do it doesn't mean you get to dictate to the universe that it be perfectly safe.
There are also two behavioral options:
* Abstinence (last I checked, not having sex didn't kill anyone)
* non-reproductive sex (plenty of options here, as Bill Clinton could tell us)
Last I checked, that's a lot of ways for women to control their own sexual risk factors, without requiring men to get involved with it (though men can have surgeries of their own, and can use condoms, and should because of the completely separate disease risk factors). And the types of risks are very different, so if surgery is a bad fit for you, hormones might work better; if hormones are bad, barrier methods might be better; if barrier methods are bad, you still have access to implants.
And yes, I'm aware that in the real world, not all women have consensual sex. Being on some kind of birth control is a good idea in general if you aren't prepared for any unexpected consequences.
Like I said, one can be pro-choice and anti-abortion, if the choices you support are: education to make sure young girls know how to prevent pregnancy; training and supporting young women so they won't feel obliged to give in to men who are pressuring them into sex; multiple birth control options; and post-accident options like adoption support.
Being in favor of self-defense training isn't a bad idea either. :)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 07:42 am (UTC)Especially about providing girls with skills and knowledge and social support!!!
I strongly disagree, however, about being "on" birth control as a general preventive if you're not planning on sex, however. There's too many known short-term and long-term side-effects to the ones that you can be "on" all the time for me to think it's wise to put hormones or metal bits in your body just-in-case. But I don't insist any other woman must accept my beliefs as a rule that she should follow.
As to abstinence, I know I'm bucking popular belief here, but I'm not at all sure that abstinence is something the human animal is designed to do even though some people do it successfully--heck, a few people are asexual by choice, and never want or miss that part of life. But such a huge number of people do not successfully refrain from sex despite honestly believing abstinence or monogamy is the right thing to do and despite making vows and despite all the social support for it (and social shame for being "promiscuous" or "loose") that I'm starting to think most humans are genetically programmed to have sex, at a level that trumps logic and self-control. Still, it is a viable option for some people; I'm just not sure it's a viable option for all people.
On the other hand, I definitely agree that non-reproductive sex is an important option, although it is alternately ignored and actively denigrated in our society.
Perhaps I should amend that to non-reproductive sex could be an important option, if societal taboos and attitudes could be changed so it was seen as at least as good as the reproductive act. Current attitudes about non-reproductive methods of sex range from "that's icky" through "that's not as good/not real sex/doesn't count" to "that's much more immoral than reproductive sex".
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 01:01 pm (UTC)IUDs are seriously under-promoted and under-utilized in the US. As a safe option for both hormonal and non-hormonal persistent "fire and forget" birth control, they are excellent and used everywhere throughout the world... except here. Their bad press in the US is strictly related to a single poorly-made product; modern IUDs don't deserve the reputation the Dalkon Shield gave them.
In any event, I don't see how we're disagreeing here. When the only option for women was to get married and have some guy's kids serially because she couldn't tell him 'no' when he wanted sex, then I can see how reaching for abortion, though a desperate move, seemed reasonable. In a society where women can remain single until they die without social repercussions, can have careers and lives without having to hook up with a man, and have multiple birth control options should they choose to have sex that specifically involves a man's penis in her vagina, I don't see how championing abortion has anything to do with a woman's right to choose.
Women have plenty of choices that don't involve killing a second person if they want to maintain their personal freedoms. To keep clawing at elective abortion as a "right" they require in order to be free of men makes us look like monsters... or worse, like adolescents who can't handle the freedoms we demanded society award us.
We want to be free of the tyranny of men, and to have sex whenever we want? Sure. Fine. Then let's start being serious about educating and empowering our daughters to make the right choices. But we must stop displacing the consequences of our poor choices onto innocent lives and justifying it in the name of social structures that no longer oppress us.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 07:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-28 12:13 pm (UTC)The latest 'rise' in teen pregnancies isn't actually what most people think of in terms of teen pregnancies. It's a rise in 18 and 19 year olds who are out of high school. In a sane society, we would call them 'adults'.