“Words only have power if you give it to them!”
…
Ugh.
I’ve heard this tripe often enough to consider it the Asshole Apologist’s default response to name-calling—a hackneyed misconception that privileged people nonchalantly drop into the lap of the offended to shush their whimpering. It’s one of those things that is said so often, it’s become unworthy of my reaction. So when Internet outrage (and the resulting outrage over the outrage) ensued after The Onion‘s oddly malicious Quvenzhane Wallis tweet, I was not exactly surprised to see that familiar refrain repeatedly pop up in Facebook commentary. Even still, the notion rang especially hollow when applied to the verbal takedown of a 9-year-old child. Social networks, come on, enough is enough. In defense of the next defenseless fourth grader, let’s settle this now—words have always had power, and that power has never derived from the people belittled by them.
The level of self-satisfied privilege required for this warped logic to hold steady is almost enviable. The people demanding that women no longer be offended by the word “bitch,” that black people quit unfairly prohibiting white utterances of “nigga” or that NFL followers ignore the historical connotations of the word “redskin” are often the same people gifted with an uncanny and timely ability to selectively use their chosen slurs to further stigmatize people. It is an unfortunate and ironic bully tactic that strong-arms supposedly sensitive people into denying the reality of their own marginalization. This privilege demands we accept that the vitriolic homophobia intrinsic in the word “faggot” exists now only in isolated pockets, and as such we should know better than to perceive its casual users as bigots. It suggests that young black girls are no longer so devalued by society that a grown man would seriously label one a “cunt” on the biggest day of her short life. It’s pleading, “You should know me better,” ignoring that society as a whole has yet to earn that friendly familiarity, much less a stranger. It shifts all of the responsibility for conversational decorum onto the receiver, which is a bizarre victim blaming exercise that seems to apply only when privileged people want you to agree with them.
When oppressive language is spoken within a historically accurate representation of oppressor-to-oppressed, it is never the listener’s job to figure out the speaker’s intent. It is not our task to discern whether every person with a gender conformist gay joke is actually an aggressive homophobe, or just an ironic ally; whether the white comedian parroting black stereotypes is a closeted racist, or corny shock humorist; whether the male boss cracking women-in-the-kitchen jokes is a blatant sexist, or a tone-deaf innocent. Forcing the recipients of loaded language to compensate for other people’s lack of social awareness is not only unfair, it is additionally oppressive. This asinine “sticks and stones” theme that keeps getting dragged into serious conversations was meant to protect vulnerable people from the harmfulness of words, not be a license for unapologetic, unfiltered and irresponsible banter. Oh yeah, and it was meant for 5-year-olds. Be an adult.
If you can’t manage that, at the very least, stop using Twitter. And for God’s sake, leave the kids out of it.
- Ajené “AJ” Farrar
AJ has been working as an air traffic controller since 2009, after attending Old Dominion University and George Mason University as a journalism major. She currently lives in upstate New York.
Leave a Reply