Argumentative thoughts on sex, gender, and kink by a pair of Bad Feminists.
Install Theme
It probably comes as no surprise that I really hate the term “fee-fees.” For those of you more fortunate than I, “fee-fees” is a disparaging term that SJ folks throw around. It means “feelings” and is usually used in the context of “I don’t care about your fee-fees,” or “oh no, your precious fee-fees!” or other statements of obvious merit and discursive might. 
So this is bad. Obviously, there’s that whole thing where I don’t think that scorn and derision belong in discourse. I also have more specific objections to this issue. 
 It erects a dangerous double standard.
First, imagine that you’re new to this whole SJ deal. You read some blog where someone is calling the depiction of people of color, or women, or trans* people problematic, zie is demanding that things be changed, zie is angry, vociferous. And you disagree with zir course of action, finding it problematic or offensive and zie strikes back, “Oh, your precious fee-fees. Go away.”
What can you do but be confused? Why is it the case that the feelings of women, of trans* folks matter, but yours don’t? If I were in this position, I’d probably come to the conclusion that, weirdly, social justice puts the feels of certain groups on pedestals at the expense of others. That it’s this thing that actually generates inequality. Being who I am, I’d disagree with that very strongly, call bullshit, and leave. 
I think these attitudes absolutely scare off the uninitiated and likely give them negative ideas about what social justice is.
Secondly, I think that the attitudes embodied by “fee-fees” actuallydo generate inequality. When you repeatedly tell certain groups (ex. straight, white, cis men) that their feelings don’t matter and that their voices aren’t welcome just because of who they are, you silence them and create a space in which they experience something that feels, or at least looks, like oppression. Even when oppression is tiny, it’s still not a good thing. 
These double standards are bad news and I think they’re to be avoided at most costs. 
 It Undermines This Whole SJ Deal
Feminism and social justice are built on notions that feelings and lived experiences matter. They are important and are to be respected. If they weren’t, then then there wouldn’t be a need to eliminate hate speech, slurs, and negative stereotypes so long as they only harmed feelings.
If there is any reason why your feelings unequivocally matter and mine do not, then I actually don’t know why we’re doing this. I can’t wrap my head around the notion that, for reasons beyond their control, anyone matters more than anyone else. I don’t know what the point is unless it’s to make the world a better place for everyone. And, frankly, two wrongs do not and will never make a right.
The attitudes that cause terms like “fee-fees” are pretty much exactly as harmful and problematic as the attitudes that we’re fighting against.
-Rust

It probably comes as no surprise that I really hate the term “fee-fees.” For those of you more fortunate than I, “fee-fees” is a disparaging term that SJ folks throw around. It means “feelings” and is usually used in the context of “I don’t care about your fee-fees,” or “oh no, your precious fee-fees!” or other statements of obvious merit and discursive might. 

So this is bad. Obviously, there’s that whole thing where I don’t think that scorn and derision belong in discourse. I also have more specific objections to this issue. 

It erects a dangerous double standard.

First, imagine that you’re new to this whole SJ deal. You read some blog where someone is calling the depiction of people of color, or women, or trans* people problematic, zie is demanding that things be changed, zie is angry, vociferous. And you disagree with zir course of action, finding it problematic or offensive and zie strikes back, “Oh, your precious fee-fees. Go away.”

What can you do but be confused? Why is it the case that the feelings of women, of trans* folks matter, but yours don’t? If I were in this position, I’d probably come to the conclusion that, weirdly, social justice puts the feels of certain groups on pedestals at the expense of others. That it’s this thing that actually generates inequality. Being who I am, I’d disagree with that very strongly, call bullshit, and leave. 

I think these attitudes absolutely scare off the uninitiated and likely give them negative ideas about what social justice is.

Secondly, I think that the attitudes embodied by “fee-fees” actuallydo generate inequality. When you repeatedly tell certain groups (ex. straight, white, cis men) that their feelings don’t matter and that their voices aren’t welcome just because of who they are, you silence them and create a space in which they experience something that feels, or at least looks, like oppression. Even when oppression is tiny, it’s still not a good thing. 

These double standards are bad news and I think they’re to be avoided at most costs. 

It Undermines This Whole SJ Deal

Feminism and social justice are built on notions that feelings and lived experiences matter. They are important and are to be respected. If they weren’t, then then there wouldn’t be a need to eliminate hate speech, slurs, and negative stereotypes so long as they only harmed feelings.

If there is any reason why your feelings unequivocally matter and mine do not, then I actually don’t know why we’re doing this. I can’t wrap my head around the notion that, for reasons beyond their control, anyone matters more than anyone else. I don’t know what the point is unless it’s to make the world a better place for everyone. And, frankly, two wrongs do not and will never make a right.

The attitudes that cause terms like “fee-fees” are pretty much exactly as harmful and problematic as the attitudes that we’re fighting against.

-Rust

  1. bigtallhouse reblogged this from echoboots
  2. ofthespiae reblogged this from thegreenwolf and added:
    Pretty much agreed, as well. It’s that sort of counter-productive attitude designed to discourage any actual dialogue...
  3. 3geek14 reblogged this from echoboots and added:
    I only care about the part in which the feelings of marginalized groups don’t matter more than the feelings of those...
  4. msmatcha reblogged this from inurashii and added:
    {inurashii reblogged a post about “fee-fees”, basically a term used to deride feelings and devalue human experience.}...
  5. echoboots reblogged this from inurashii and added:
    Yes! This! I think civility is extremely important for any form of reasonable discourse about social issues, because...
  6. thegashlycrumbdalton reblogged this from thegreenwolf and added:
    Actual adults created the word “fee-fee?” It sounds like something four-year-olds who don’t have fully developed...
  7. thegreenwolf reblogged this from arinwolfe and added:
    Yeah, that’s about my thought on the matter.
  8. the-brain-fuckler reblogged this from thegreenwolf and added:
    This isexactlyhow I feel. Tumblr ‘social justice’ is sooo fucking divisive. Divide and conquer.
  9. inurashii reblogged this from genderfight and added:
    This is pertinent to the discussions I’ve been having lately about how it is and isn’t okay to treat allies, where the...
  10. gyrwolf reblogged this from equuslupus
  11. arinwolfe reblogged this from thegreenwolf and added:
    This is a thing? Seriously, this is a thing? I’m kinda offended it exists. How about you have fuck offs? THIS IS THE...
  12. equuslupus reblogged this from thegreenwolf
  13. blackwithstarlight reblogged this from thegreenwolf
  14. protomage reblogged this from thegreenwolf
  15. wide-worlds-joy reblogged this from thegreenwolf
  16. googlin13 reblogged this from genderfight
  17. boudreau reblogged this from genderfight
  18. genderfight posted this