iamabutchsolo:

I have seen some conversation about the term Special Snowflake. Well, I never thought that a Special Snowflake is someone who is going to great lengths to be an individual. That would just make everyone a Special Snowflake every day and that’s just too easy. I didn’t realize that others definition deviated

Here’s my definition:

A Special Snowflake is someone who thinks that they are being different, and being an individual, when really they’re thoughts and/or actions are upholding an often oppressive status quo that is widely accepted by the majority.

For example, a girl who say that “all women are bitches, rude, catty, always PMSing, but I’m different cause all my friends are guys and I’m cool and I’m not over dramatic or emotional.” <—- I call that a case of being a Special Snowflake because that girl thinks her point of view makes her an individual, when it’s really just internalized sexism which validates misogynistic roles and stereotypes. Teenagers who believe that they are individuals by saying that they all other teenagers are stupid and only care about sex or that they’re all rude, etc. are Special Snowflakes because that’s not news. You’re not being an individual by treating the group that you are in autonomously and complaining that everyone is a stereotype except for you, you’re just enforcing the status quo. And that is the core of being a Special Snowflake.

And really, I think that’s a more appropriate definition. I don’t care if someone really wants to differentiate themselves and be individuals, but I do care when people are trying to be “different” when they’re just relishing in widely-accepted oppression.

(Also, I have not found sufficient evidence to conclude that the term “Special Snowflake” is being used en masse to dismiss non-binary or disabled people, but that is another issue I suppose.)

(Source: daughterofmulan)

I felt compelled to comment on this post by madamethursday because I think the subject is interesting (and because I’m probably one of those grammar prigs s/he lambasts).

In my opinion, there’s a difference between posting a little graphic that bemoans the fact that many people mix up their/they’re/there and reposting someone’s personal commentary or story in order to nitpick about grammar or spelling. A BIG difference. The latter is definitely an aspect of the ‘tone’ argument and dismissive in a particularly shitty way. The former is not.

So I agree that going all Grammar Police on people—when it’s not your job to do so—is not only snotty, but a form of derailing.

BUT, there is a reasonable reason for the language rules that the OP decries: we use language is to communicate. Grammar and spelling rules ease communication. It would be difficult to get ideas across, particularly abstract and subtle ideas, if we were each using idiosyncratic versions of English.

An English teacher—a good one, anyway—isn’t trying to make people feel stupid, ashamed, or marginalized by teaching ‘correct’ grammar and spelling. They’re trying to give students the best tools to communicate in particular settings (formal, professional, academic). You have plenty of opportunities outside of formal education to learn slang, Ebonics, regional idioms, tech speak, and other forms of ‘incorrect’ English. You don’t have very many opportunities to learn ‘correct’ English outside of school.

Sure, you can argue that this is oppressive language policing, but the reality is that we live in a world where using ‘correct’ English in particular situations still matters. It is what it is. Fighting the power is one thing; surviving in the here-and-now is another.

So while I agree that ‘correct’ English has privileged class connotations, as well as a history of imperialism, sexism, ableism, and so on, I don’t think simply criticizing language rules for these sins is enough. Sometimes you have to speak the oppressor’s language in order to get through to them. Personally, I advocate giving marginalized peoples as many tools (including languages) as possible.

I also think the OP is vastly overestimating how much control language authorities have on enforcing usage rules these days. The U.S. isn’t France—oftentimes, the editors of Merriam-Websters and the MLA are frantically trying to catch up with a language that’s constantly, rapidly evolving.

The way we speak and write English changes all the time, which is why there are constantly new editions of dictionaries, style guides, and grammar books being published.

Why? Because the language authorities want to stay relevant. The rules they put in place are oftentimes the result of reviewing popular language use. I assure you that they don’t just sit in book-lined studies sipping sherry and pulling definitions and guidelines out of their asses. They’re trying their best to domesticate the unruly shape-shifting beast that is English so that we can use it to till our postmodern fields and harvest our feminist crops…

(Um, ignore that last metaphor.) But yeah—the problem isn’t that ‘proper’ English exists. The problem is people being assholes about it.

Disclaimer: I’m a well-educated U.S. academic and former editor with all the privilege these roles entail. I’m also fairly well-versed in postcolonialism, feminism, etc. and have studied language theory…all of which makes me disinclined to take an extreme position on either side. What’s wrong with moderation?

thefeministhub:

About a week ago, we got a submission here at TFH that I need to address. I don’t like to “call out” our readers, but I think this was mostly our mistake for publishing the submission without comment.

I understand that people need things to make them feel good about what we are doing in our feminist circles. However, we can not do it on the backs of those who are marginalized. We must use the strides that we have made. Using marginalized people takes us backward, using what we have actually done pushes us forward. Feminism has a long, sad history of inequality and exclusion. Let’s stop it now.

If someone with a disability says something you think is awesome and progressive, do you think it is awesome mostly because they have a disability or because of what they said? Assuming that people with disabilities don’t know as much as those without, or that they can not be completely aware of what they are saying, is ableist, condescending, oppressive, and completely dehumanizing. 

Oppression porn is using other people’s circumstances to make you feel good about yourself. It has expanded from what we often refer to as “poverty porn”, when we objectify those living in poverty for our own purposes: to raise money, to feel pity, to feel better about ourselves, to pat ourselves on the back for whatever difference we feel we are making. It is also extensively used in reference to those with disabilities. 

It needs to stop. It needs to stop with us. 

We must not use other people’s circumstances to make ourselves feel better. In doing so, we further stigmatize, marginalize, and oppress the group that we are using. It is objectification, and it is wrong. 

-Mel