Six truth punches that changed the way I look at things forever

(trigger warning: rape and sexual abuse, racism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia)

Beans on toast; sunshine; Take Me Out -- sometimes the simplest of things are the best things.

I read a lot of stuff on the Internet. It's both important and enjoyable for me to read about politics, sexism, racism, ableism, body image issues and similar issues that fall under the umbrella of "social justice" – it helps to educate me and encourages me to adjust my thoughts and behaviours in order, as I have previous put it, to not be dick. I've read so many incredible lengthy pieces of writing (whether blogging or journalism*), which I frequently bookmark or email to people to spread them around.

But sometimes, it only takes one sentence to absolutely transform the way I think about something, or to sum up an issue to perfection. Often referred to as a Truth Bomb, my preferred nomenclature is the Truth Punch – something that comes out of the blue, punches you smack between the eyes, and leaves you dazed, cartoon birds circling your head. And afterwards, everything looks a bit different; things have shifted, become more clear.

I thought I'd collect up six examples of times I've read a sentence or thought, and felt like I've been knocked for six.

ONE

(source)

Nobody deserves to be sexually assaulted in any way, regardless of how they're dressed. By stating that a woman is in any way responsible for being attacked because of her clothing choices, not only are you insinuating that she invited a violent sexual act upon herself (NO), you're insulting men, too -- suggesting that, in the face of a short skirt or low-cut top, they become physically unable to resist turning into a monster and attacking someone.

No. People are raped because someone decided to rape them, and while in a world that is already broken, keeping oneself safe is key, teaching women how to "not get raped" is ridiculous when it's not paired with explicitly teaching people to "not rape". If a person is going to rape someone, and decides to choose their victim based on the length of their skirt, then they will find someone to rape. If you're promoting changes to women's behaviour to "prevent" rape, you're really saying "make sure he rapes the other girl". The culture in which anybody thinks it's okay to sexually attack someone is the thing that needs to be changed, not the height of the victim's heels.

TWO

(source - though I'm 99% sure this isn't the original source, I just can't find the real one)

Ah, the Friendzone. A concept made up by guys (and perpetuated by everyone) who were super pissed that someone they were nice to didn't give them unfettered access to her pants. Oversimplified, yes, but that's the jist of it. The concept of the friendzone is 99% bullshit – if someone doesn't want to be with you, despite you being a nice person, that is not their fault. They're not into you in that way, so quit being an butthole about it.

While this applies to relationships between people of any gender identity, it's most frequently found between guys and girls, and as the latter, I can assure you that it's extremely creepy and disappointing to think that the only reason a guy would want to be friends with me is as a means to an end – that end being getting his end away. Women are not vending machines that you put kindness coins into until sex falls out. Just because you're a nice person to someone (shock horror, a friend!), doesn't mean they owe you anything: sex, eternal love, nada.

THREE
Annoyingly, I don't have an image for this one (my perfectionist heart is crying a bit) as I can't recall the exact phrasing, but the quote was something along the lines of:

As a white person, saying "I don't see race" is basically saying "I wish everyone was white".

It is, of course, an admirable ideology to be anti-racist, but saying "I don't see race/I wish we lived in a world where people don't see race" is crazy problematic. It comes from a place of erasure rather than equality; it says, "I wish you didn't have the qualities that make you different from me", suggesting that the victim is the person who should have something changed about them in order to make everything okay. For white people to reach equality with people of colour, we shouldn't be ignoring race. Instead, we should be making the time to understand and appreciate the differences, learning about the issues that have lead to the imbalance of power between racial and ethnic groups, and making the effort not to treat someone differently because you don't share a skin colour (like it's actually an effort - it's just 'being a decent human')**. Kerry Washington sums it up here; erasing someone's culture and history is not cool.

FOUR

(source)

This comes from the incredibly erudite and excellent Ali, whose blog you should all go and read because she's super rad. My mad skillz have allowed me to highlight the section that hit hardest, the Truth Punch: When I hear skinny girls obsessing about their weight, all I hear is "I don't want to turn into you". I don't have a commentary on this, because I haven't thought or read enough about body shaming and its surrounding issues to write one, but it shocked me into realisation, and really made me think about the very personal effect of the way I, and the rest of the world, see and talk about our bodies.

FIVE

(source)

It's really the first sentence of this passage that, for me, is the actual Truth Punch, but it's all good. I won't go into too much detail on this one, because I've covered it already in my previous post, but it hardly takes explaining, really. Political correctness isn't an assault on your free speech, it's adjusting your language to not marginalise people – it's evening the score. The defensive "oh it's political correctness gone mad!" is just a reaction to being calling out on linguistic bullshit. Politically correct is just a term assholes came up with so they can dismiss people who have the nerve to want to be respected. It's not imbalancing something that's already equal, it's redressing an imbalance that already exists. Nothing is lost - equality is gained.

SIX

(source, but again I don't know if this is the original artist!)

This one is a pictorial Truth Punch rather than a written one, but its excellent simplicity works just the same. This is occasionally a more controversial opinion to hold, because the consequences appear to negatively affect those in a position of privilege (they don't in reality, but they appear to). Equality isn't just about giving everybody the same chances; it's about redressing imbalances that are so ingrained in our society that we don't see them any more. It's not enough to open things up, in my opinion - concentrated effort should be made to gain ground for marginalised groups, whether they be ethnic groups, the disabled, those who have changed gender, whatever.

This often leads to people in positions of privilege claiming that they are 'victims' of affirmative action, that they missed out on something because of box-ticking and filling quotas. I call bullshit - I doubt any sensible person would give an opportunity to someone less worthy because they have to make numbers. We still live in a meritocracy, and people gain based on what they have to offer. But if two people are in exactly the same position? Well, if a small amount of box-ticking is what it takes to equalise a vastly unequal society, then so be it. I happen to think the burden is on those of us in positions of power and privilege to even the score. (Obviously this is a tricksy subject, though, so commentary and response are welcomed.)

***

So, there they are. Six quick shocks to the system that made me rethink, re-evaluate and adjust my system of belief. Extended commentary and discussion is great, but occasionally, simplicity is key.

*A distinction it seems odd to even make.
**Among other things, of course. That simple shift in behaviour isn't going to solve racism.

Baby's second conference - and now for something completely different

(I started writing this at the conference itself, then added to it on the coach ride home, before finishing it in dribs and drabs over the subsequent weeks. Basically, any 'I just did [x]' phrases are probably bogus.)

I've just got back from the 3rd i-Mean Language and Identity conference in Bristol (told you), and it's been quite the i-opener for me (don't worry, I hate myself for that pun just as much as you do). My first conference was for postgrads, so on a personal level this was a step up in the terrifying stakes, being my first 'grown-up' conference - the postgrads were so lovely, and these were Proper Academics that might rip me to shreds and tell me I suck! Throw in the fact that this was the first time I'd written a paper especially for the conference itself rather than presenting previously completed research, and it's unsurprising that I didn't sleep the night before.

Of course, I needn't have worried, because everybody has been wonderful, supportive and keen, even when I managed to talk about a graph that wasn't even on screen at the time. I'm beyond grateful (and still a little staggered) that people were happy to listen to me waffle for half an hour, and I'm even more grateful to Chris for agreeing to run the survey with me and present alongside me. It's been an awesome introduction to my eventual PhD work, and a great reminder that this is definitely what I want to be doing.

But beyond that, i-Mean has been a delight in an unexpected way. With the theme of 'identity' being such an abstract concept in the first place, it's unsurprising that the talks have been varied, but the sheer diversity of approaches, specialties and ideologies has been a particular delight. I saw several talks that were directly related to my sphere of research (Emma Moore, Julia Snell, Mercedes Durham, Fernanda McDougall, and Devyani Sharma to name just a few), but the majority of my time was spent meandering between talks which have no direct practical similarity to my stuff, but which captured my interest and curiosity.

I saw the very brave Nicola Puckey talk about metalcore fan identities and conflict in YouTube comments (particular props to her for voluntarily venturing into the cesspit of the Internet). Kay Richardson examined  Bigotgate and the political onstage/offstage persona; Yukiko Nishimura explained the employment of emoticons as a kind of 'virtual make-up' employed by Japanese bloggers to index a cutsey/kawaii identity; while Douglas Ponton talked on the distance-closeness aspect of the British Royal family in the media. All brilliant; all utterly unrelated to my field.

It's easy to get tunnel vision when you have a particular research interest, and of course having a dedicated focus is by no means a bad thing. But this weekend it's been lovely to dabble in wider areas of interest; to learn not to benefit my own work, but for the sake of learning.

I've also discovered failsafe areas of study where, even though I'm not working on the field myself, I'm especially keen to go along and soak up the research of the people who are. I suppose it's looking at my general interests through a linguistic lens (and in doing so, combining everything I love!). It seems to boil down to:

- Politics. There was a fantastic plenary by Ruth Wodak on the tightening grip that linguistic proficiency has on national identity, and how linguistic policing is more and more a part of citizenship issues, particularly in the UK. I think any investigation of language and politics just gives me more ammo to throw at people who say "it's only a word, stop getting so OTT about it" -- language IS politics, guys. I have a funny feeling my own PhD might get a bit ~social justice...and I'm quite looking forward to it.

- Feminism/gender issues. Well, naturally. i-Mean had a great wealth of language, gender and sexuality talks, and I wish I could have seen more.

- The Internet. Being On The Internet, watching talks about Internet linguistics is simultaneously fascinating ("ooh, I've seen people do that!"), embarrassing ("oh god, I do that!") and occasionally frustrating ("that's not what we do!"). If I hadn't fallen in love with variationist sociolinguistics, I think I'd definitely have gone into looking at language on the Internet. It's SO interesting. For now, I have to settle for blogging emotively on the subject.

- Sport. This is a surprising one, for me. I'm not hugely sporty, but I'm a keen spectator. I watch a lot of football in particular (owing to my dad's subtle indoctrination, of course - I still avoid red clothing unconsciously); despite the foulness that often surrounds it, the game and the culture fascinate me. I went to the National Football Museum in April, and it was so interesting to look at it all historically, and be able to appreciate the camaraderie and team spirit it fosters as well as analyse the abusive and sensationalist culture it perpetuates. There were a couple of sport and language talks at i-Mean, and they were incredibly interesting, too.

That last point brings me to the one thing that will most make me adore any talk anybody gives: enthusiasm. Kieran File from the University of Wellington gave a cracking talk about the linguistic makeup of post-match interviews, the performance of media identity by sportspeople, and how this differs between sports and cultures. It was my favourite talk of the conference. The linguistic content itself was stellar, but it was File's enthusiasm for sport, linguistics and the combination of the two that made me love it so much. He was so excited to have interviewed so many of his sporting heroes, and he'd taken something he loved and turned it into his bread and butter - that's basically the dream!

This is why I read people's dissertations, watch TED talks, and listen rapt when anybody starts talking about their work, no matter what it is. If someone is passionate about what they do, then it's a joy to listen to them talk about it. I refer to my favourite Road Dahl quote yet again:

“I began to realise how important it was to be an enthusiast in life. He taught me that if you are interested in something, no matter what it is, go at it full speed ahead. Embrace it with both arms, hug it, love it and above all become passionate about it. Lukewarm is no good. Hot is no good, either. White hot and passionate is the only thing to be.” -- RD, My Uncle Oswald

So, yeah. Thanks i-Mean 2013 - it was a blast!