Oversensitivity, Sumo suits, and Queen's
I wrote a post about a story in the news today, but opted to put the post in the UWaterloo community instead. It's about the student union at Queen's apologizing for something they shouldn't have. I encourage you to read it and comment there.
Ugh, I'm still angry, even though I wrote the post. I think the thing bothering me is the following.
Two or three years ago, some magazine printed the word "Va jay jay" on its cover. And someone in the Imprint office was (*gasp!*) offended. "Why are they using a euphemism for vagina?" she demanded. "It's like they're ashamed to use the word." I pointed out that it probably wasn't shame that prevented the use of the word "vagina" - twas supposed to be a fun magazine cover. "But they wouldn't have an objection to printing 'penis'!" she said. I agreed that they wouldn't, but also pointed out that they wouldn't actually print penis. They would likely print terms like "cock" or "prick" or "big john" or "moisture-seeking meat missile" instead.
But she was not deterred. She was so outraged, she wrote a letter to the editor about the "sexism" in their magazine cover.
Fast forward to last weekend. A bunch of us from the office were at the Vagina Monologues, which is supported by the on-campus women's centre. And at the table, along with all this other women-positive gear, they were selling "I heart my vee jay jay" buttons.
I pointed this out to the person who was so angry a couple of years ago. Her response was, "Yeah, well, I still don't like the word."
And that is the problem with oversensitivity. You'll have one person who brands themselves feminist, or Christian, or culturally aware, or whatever, and take it upon themselves to speak for the whole group. They will take their own personal preferences (such as distaste for the word "v jay jay") and claim that those preferences are those of the whole group (even when they're not - see "women's centre selling v jay jay buttons"). It's bad when errant complainants are heeded.
In my example, the claim that "va jay jay" was anti-women was treated as fact, even when that was demonstrably false. In the news story, that the sumo suits are "anti-Japanese" is being treated as fact. Is that claim false? Yes.
I'm not saying all complaints are invalid. A person receiving a complaint should think through the grievance, with both the possibility of discarding or heeding the complaint. And if a lot of people are complaining, there's a greater chance (but far from certain) that the complainers are onto something. But your default assumption should be that people are full of shit. Lone crazy complaints should be ignored.
Or not. Hey, Queen's, I'm complaining here. Bring back the sumo suits.
Ugh, I'm still angry, even though I wrote the post. I think the thing bothering me is the following.
Two or three years ago, some magazine printed the word "Va jay jay" on its cover. And someone in the Imprint office was (*gasp!*) offended. "Why are they using a euphemism for vagina?" she demanded. "It's like they're ashamed to use the word." I pointed out that it probably wasn't shame that prevented the use of the word "vagina" - twas supposed to be a fun magazine cover. "But they wouldn't have an objection to printing 'penis'!" she said. I agreed that they wouldn't, but also pointed out that they wouldn't actually print penis. They would likely print terms like "cock" or "prick" or "big john" or "moisture-seeking meat missile" instead.
But she was not deterred. She was so outraged, she wrote a letter to the editor about the "sexism" in their magazine cover.
Fast forward to last weekend. A bunch of us from the office were at the Vagina Monologues, which is supported by the on-campus women's centre. And at the table, along with all this other women-positive gear, they were selling "I heart my vee jay jay" buttons.
I pointed this out to the person who was so angry a couple of years ago. Her response was, "Yeah, well, I still don't like the word."
And that is the problem with oversensitivity. You'll have one person who brands themselves feminist, or Christian, or culturally aware, or whatever, and take it upon themselves to speak for the whole group. They will take their own personal preferences (such as distaste for the word "v jay jay") and claim that those preferences are those of the whole group (even when they're not - see "women's centre selling v jay jay buttons"). It's bad when errant complainants are heeded.
In my example, the claim that "va jay jay" was anti-women was treated as fact, even when that was demonstrably false. In the news story, that the sumo suits are "anti-Japanese" is being treated as fact. Is that claim false? Yes.
I'm not saying all complaints are invalid. A person receiving a complaint should think through the grievance, with both the possibility of discarding or heeding the complaint. And if a lot of people are complaining, there's a greater chance (but far from certain) that the complainers are onto something. But your default assumption should be that people are full of shit. Lone crazy complaints should be ignored.
Or not. Hey, Queen's, I'm complaining here. Bring back the sumo suits.