I’ve always been uncomfortable with pigeonholing, the notion that it’s possible to completely define people by whatever groups they might belong to. It’s the basis of all bigotry and “us vs them” thinking, and those who forcibly include others in their groups are no better than those who exclude others because they belong to certain groups. In other words, I’m just as offended by women who say, “you’re a woman and so you must act in this way and accept this political dogma” as I am by men who say, “you can’t do such-and-such because you’re a woman.” Yeah, I’m a woman. I’m also human, American, mostly-Caucasian, middle-aged, brown-haired & brown-eyed, and of fairly average height and weight. My sexuality is responsive to both men and women, and I’m turned on by a lot of things lumped under the category “kink”; I also make a living providing sexual services, and I’m extremely good at what I do. I used to be a librarian, and I’m still a pretty good writer; I like a lot of different ethnic cuisines (especially Mexican, Italian, Indian and Thai) and dislike green, leafy vegetables and undercooked food. I have reasonably broad tastes in music, but there are a number of genres I can’t really appreciate; in fiction (whether written or performed) I tend to prefer fantasy, horror and speculative fiction, and I also prefer shorter stories & shows to longer ones. I enjoy animation and role-playing games (in-person, not computer-based), and I used to be considered a helluva DM.
So as you can see, there are lots of labels which could be applied to me, and lots of groups to which I might be considered to belong. I could be called a human, American, Southerner, New Orleanian, lapsed Catholic, pagan, woman, brunette, whore, courtesan, ex-librarian, writer, speaker, anarchist, radical, queer, kinkster, polyamorist, nerd, witch, bitch, mentor, healer, activist, public intellectual and many other things; some people call me ugly terms like “pervert”, “pimp” or “criminal”, while others prefer flattering ones like “heroine”, “angel” or “goddess”. But the one thing all these descriptors have in common, whether they’re objective or subjective, bland or emotive, insulting or adulatory, accepted by me or not, is that they do not define me. There is not a single one of these terms which tells you all you need to know about me, not even the ones I proudly embrace (such as “whore”). Even if you string them together (I’ve been known to refer to myself on Twitter as a “kinky bisexual whore”, and I’m generally introduced as a “sex worker, writer and activist”) it still doesn’t even come close to telling you what I’m actually like, or serving as more than an extremely general predictor of almost anything about me (other than the specific trait it denotes). The fact that I’m from New Orleans might give you a few clues about me, but it couldn’t predict the kind of movies I like; the introduction I mentioned above lets you know I’m probably very confident, but says nothing about my dietary preferences; and the fact that I’m bisexual tells you absolutely nothing other than that I wouldn’t automatically reject cuddling up with any given person on the basis of their sex.
And yet there are people who absolutely refuse to get this. I’ve run into folks who presume that because I’m a white Southerner I must be racist; others who imagine my dislike of greens carries some deeper meaning than that they shouldn’t offer me spinach at dinner; still others who declare that my love of sci-fi shows & fantasy games allows them to make predictions about my sex life and living arrangements; and many thousands who fantasize that my profession means I must either be a “victim” or an “exploiter”, or even both. Then just the other day in an exchange with Matisse, I wrote that my terms for letting women snuggle up to me are generally less strict than my terms for letting men do so because “I’m bisexual (leaning lesbian at this stage of my life) & most women don’t try to fuck me without paying“; a dude replied to this with “Oh, a lesbian”, as though that entirely summed up my personality and now he understood everything he needed to know about me. Forget the fact that “bisexual leaning lesbian for the time being” isn’t the same as “lesbian”; even if I did identify as a lesbian that still wouldn’t give you more than a small fraction of a description of my sexuality, and it wouldn’t tell you squat about any other aspect of my personality. The fact that I enjoy kissing and petting other women no more defines my “identity” than the fact that I like spicy food or the fact that I prefer fiction of the imaginative variety; it doesn’t even tell you what I don’t like because preferences aren’t necessarily exclusive (I also like kissing men, eating vanilla ice cream and some movies with absolutely no element of the fantastic). It’s simply not possible to understand any human being by knowing one fact about her, no matter what cops, politicians and tribalists may want you to believe; pigeonholes are fine for pigeons, but unsuited for people.
Yes, and I would suggest all of the same applies to feminists, whom, like everyone else, also do not belong in the pigeonholes in which you often place them Maggie. #justsaying
Well, I’d say the so-called “radical feminists” are more guilty of this. To me, feminism means that every woman ought to have the power and the right to choose what is best for her own life – no more, no less. So I can accept that some feminists are going to disagree on a number of things, and live different lives, that’s part of human nature. But when one group of women decide to appoint themselves the Guardians of True Womanhood, and dictate to other women how they ought to live, and declare that anyone with a penis or a Y chromosome to be the Eternal Enemy, that to me is fauxminism.
The subject is pigeonholes, not feminists radical or otherwise.
Susan, I think Rikki’s comment is in keeping with that. She’s pointing out how the more extreme political sects under the feminist banner* exhibit classic pigeonholing in how they view the world.
* = IMHO just because a group claims to be feminist doesn’t mean they are, especially when espousing dogmas and practices that conflict with the most basic ideas behind feminism.
Desmond, my comment was addressed to Maggie. It was in response to her statement: “I’ve always been uncomfortable with pigeonholing, the notion that it’s possible to completely define people by whatever groups they might belong to.” If one is against pigeonholing, then one shouldn’t pigeonhole. It seems fairly straightforward to me.
And there we have a typical authoritarian attempt to control what others are allowed to contribute and think. This is a behavior often observed among feminists and that is a large part of what makes them a problem.
Incidentally, the topic in this sub-thread _is_ also feminism, since _you_ brought it up.
Identifying people as members of an unpleasant group is not “pigeonholing”. It falls under “know who your enemy is”. Of course, there are sub-classes under “feminist”. Maggie has made that so clear, it requires extreme blindness to not see it.
What I like most about your blog is that I am regularly forced to reconsider my opinions on matters I don’t usually give much thought to. And I agree, no one should be simplified down to a label or group. We are all . . . complicated and unique. We should spend more time and effort listening to each other. Easier said than done. And being honest, I have to admit I’ve done this too often and am usually surprised when I make the effort. Thanks for the reminder.
Try well seasoned spinach with fried lardons; alternatively, in a smoothie with tomato, garlic and seasoning.
As for not ‘undercooked’ steak, I hope this doesn’t mean what I think it means.
I have no interest in “trying” green leafy vegetables; I’m 50 years old and have done just fine without them. My body clearly has no need of the nasty things. And as for undercooked steak, it means exactly what it says. I prefer my food cooked.
Yeesh! Really, korhomme. As well-intentioned as your suggestions might be, not your place. Will you next be telling me what kind of cheese to put in an omelette? As George Bernard Shaw said: “Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.”
I think the people doing this are the same that have never learned to deal with complex facts and situations. For them there is only black and white, yes and no, and simple attributes describe everything in the world completely. Dealing with complexity means dealing with incomplete information and partial understanding, and with having to change your opinions and attitudes because you may have had new insights or got additional facts.
That deeply frightens these people. They need to have a complete understanding of everything, no gray areas allowed. They need to be sure. These are, incidentally, the same people that support irrational and destructive policies and regimes, because they stop early on to actually look because they believe at that point that they have all the facts.
Of course, what it actually does is that they miss out on the best things in life, and they do not see most of what reality has to offer because they filter it out. I would not mind that these people are entirely wasting their lives, if they did not have such a massive negative impact on everybody else and if there were not so many of them.
Still, wherever possible, my advice is to ignore them as they have nothing worthwhile to contribute. While they occasionally may have an original thought, they will immediately suppress and forget it.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of “pigeonholers” in and around powerful institutions to put policies in place that make people’s lives miserable.