Apologies if this is somewhere else on the forum, or belongs in a different place, but:
What do you think about Huffpost's decision to rename their Gay Voices page "Queer Voices"?
After the initial announcement, a flood of complaints arose in the comments section, many saying things to the effect of "Queer is just as exclusionary as gay", or "I'm not queer, please don't force an umbrella term onto me", or even "I always considered 'queer' to be derogatory, in the same category of words as 'nigger'."
Others felt that the word was too generationally divisive (I'll come back to this later), or that reclaiming it and asserting it as the one-true-and-almighty-term was simply a "cheap thrill" (actual quote).
Many, regardless of their opinion of the word or the change, felt the decision was too unilateral, and was mostly a reflection of the editor, Noah Michelson.
Yesterday , James Peron posted an article explaining his personal contentions (you can read it yourself).
Methinks the editor got wise to his possible blunder because another article appeared today, referencing the relatively large backlash. It was probably the largest reaction I've seen on that HuffPost page for years--certainly the largest on-topic reaction.
Unfortunately, it seems the editor either misunderstood the points raised by detractors or outright ignored their concerns.
Perhaps I am not the only one that sees the double standard here?
It seems to me that the editor has told the people that disagree (but are nevertheless part of the community) to either fuck off or drop their reservations about feeling excluded by an allegedly "inclusive" word. A serious PR mistake IMHO.
About the change itself, "Gay Voices" was obviously excluding a lot of groups, but "Queer Voices" is clearly too polarizing and divisive to be the page banner.
Part of this ordeal reeks of that "I feel, therefore I am." sophism, with people rushing to co-opt another "edgy" term so they can feel special about themselves (then seeking to impose it on others). "Queer" isn't edgy per se, but using it to cover all non-straight orientations doesn't sit well with me. In the 1980s when academia started using it (queer theory, queer studies, queer musicology etc ad nauseum), it was used in a slightly different way--it had a highly specific, specialized meaning in that context. Simultaneously, "queer" had other, more informal contexts (the slur and the identity), but it seems that most of the reasoning behind the reclamation movement is being drawn from academic usage, not how people actually feel about the word and self-identify.
Of course, that's quickly gobbled up by certain mindsets and likewise perpetuated. But still, that perspective distances theory from practice in favor of the former. Of those who subscribe to that view, an alarming number seem to demand that their pontifications be accepted immediately and wholeheartedly.
Personally I dislike the term "queer" as an umbrella term for the entire movement--and I'm almost certain that no such term exists. The alphabet soup is ungainly, and "Alternative Voices" sounds too music-related. "Rainbow Voices", as suggested by James Peron, seems silly but surprisingly appropriate?
What do you think?
What do you think about Huffpost's decision to rename their Gay Voices page "Queer Voices"?
After the initial announcement, a flood of complaints arose in the comments section, many saying things to the effect of "Queer is just as exclusionary as gay", or "I'm not queer, please don't force an umbrella term onto me", or even "I always considered 'queer' to be derogatory, in the same category of words as 'nigger'."
Others felt that the word was too generationally divisive (I'll come back to this later), or that reclaiming it and asserting it as the one-true-and-almighty-term was simply a "cheap thrill" (actual quote).
Many, regardless of their opinion of the word or the change, felt the decision was too unilateral, and was mostly a reflection of the editor, Noah Michelson.
Yesterday , James Peron posted an article explaining his personal contentions (you can read it yourself).
Methinks the editor got wise to his possible blunder because another article appeared today, referencing the relatively large backlash. It was probably the largest reaction I've seen on that HuffPost page for years--certainly the largest on-topic reaction.
Unfortunately, it seems the editor either misunderstood the points raised by detractors or outright ignored their concerns.
Perhaps I am not the only one that sees the double standard here?
It seems to me that the editor has told the people that disagree (but are nevertheless part of the community) to either fuck off or drop their reservations about feeling excluded by an allegedly "inclusive" word. A serious PR mistake IMHO.
About the change itself, "Gay Voices" was obviously excluding a lot of groups, but "Queer Voices" is clearly too polarizing and divisive to be the page banner.
Part of this ordeal reeks of that "I feel, therefore I am." sophism, with people rushing to co-opt another "edgy" term so they can feel special about themselves (then seeking to impose it on others). "Queer" isn't edgy per se, but using it to cover all non-straight orientations doesn't sit well with me. In the 1980s when academia started using it (queer theory, queer studies, queer musicology etc ad nauseum), it was used in a slightly different way--it had a highly specific, specialized meaning in that context. Simultaneously, "queer" had other, more informal contexts (the slur and the identity), but it seems that most of the reasoning behind the reclamation movement is being drawn from academic usage, not how people actually feel about the word and self-identify.
Of course, that's quickly gobbled up by certain mindsets and likewise perpetuated. But still, that perspective distances theory from practice in favor of the former. Of those who subscribe to that view, an alarming number seem to demand that their pontifications be accepted immediately and wholeheartedly.
Personally I dislike the term "queer" as an umbrella term for the entire movement--and I'm almost certain that no such term exists. The alphabet soup is ungainly, and "Alternative Voices" sounds too music-related. "Rainbow Voices", as suggested by James Peron, seems silly but surprisingly appropriate?
What do you think?
