hector_rashbaum: nicole anderson, b&w, big hair (nick bw)
This trainwreck, specifically the part starting here, left me wanting to organize my thoughts on reclamation a bit more.

I think of myself as a dyke. Generally, outside my own head, when I use "dyke" I'm talking about things I do which fit into stereotypes about non-porno lesbians - shaving my head was dykey, sports bra + ribbed tank + scuzzy jeans is a dykey outfit, etc. - but I identify as "dyke" more than "lesbian". Or, not necessarily more, but in a different way - when I'm just talking about my sexuality in a more straightforward, matter-of-fact way, I use "lesbian", but when I'm talking about it as a source of pride, as a challenged way of being that I don't feel any shame for and don't believe I should, I'm a big ol' dyke.

It's not an accident the derogatory term is the one I use when I'm talking about pride, about shame, about lesbianism as politically and morally charged. It's me very actively saying "not only will I not hate myself for the thing you hate me for, I will be proud of it".

Reclamation is taking a slur and turning it into a positive identifier, taking the power out of the hands of the bigots who spew hate speech and claiming it for one's own. It's taking someone's weapon and knocking it out of his hand. If someone wants to make me feel hated, scummy, worthless, it's telling him he has to find another goddamn way because calling me a dyke just doesn't do that anymore.

It does the opposite.

*

What happens all too often with reclamation is a backlash from Well-Meaning [insert privileged group] People, who are so sensitive and open-minded that the use of a slur offends them regardless of context. So, of course, because it makes the Well-Meaning Privileged uncomfortable, it just shouldn't be used at all. The intentions of the Well-Meaning Privileged are good, I don't use "Well-Meaning" sarcastically, but you know what they say about good intentions.

When you, Well-Meaning Straight Person, tell me I cannot call myself a dyke, you're disarming me, taking one of the few defense tactics I have and asking me to set it aside, leave myself open, in deference to your misplaced discomfort. Because I am far more likely to defer to Well-Meaning Discomfort than the bigot is, and when I set my weapon down he will be right there to pick it back up. And when he uses it, you will be uncomfortable.

Your discomfort is that of someone standing too close to a gun when it goes off, it's temporary deafness and ringing ears. You're not the one with the bullet wound.

OOC vs AU

Jun. 1st, 2008 05:46 am
hector_rashbaum: nicole anderson, b&w, big hair (happy sav)
So the random bout of insomnia that hit me tonight doesn't exactly have me jumping for joy...but being up at fuck o'clock gave me the chance to see/participate in a really good discussion about deliberate OOC, AU vs OOC, and a little about using what you do see to keep your character IC in situations you don't see here @ [livejournal.com profile] fanficrants (flocked, open membership).

This is one of those rare topics in fandom I can't see myself really getting tired of discussing. Much as I dislike/disagree with every "deliberate OOC is justifiable" argument I've seen, I'm fascinated by what the existence of the mindset says about the different ways to define what is fanfic and what isn't. And that's aside from the different ways people define OOC itself - someone in one thread apparently considers it OOC anytime the character deviates from canon, ie once a character has changed/grown as a result of your plot, he's OOC regardless of how well you presented his change/growth.