Survey: What does “^^” mean to you?


Please answer the following questions in the comments.

I need a lot of answers to make the survey representative so please help me with sharing this link!

(1) Do you use this smiley? “^^
(1 a) If you don’t, why?
(2) In which situations do you/people you know use this smiley?
(3) If you associate a certain mimic or gesture with this smiley which one would that be? (Feel free to link to pictures to illustrate them.)

Thanks for your help and please, spread the word!

PS: I will write about the purpose of this survey as soon as it’s over.

18 Quote of the Week 51

[…] parents, when your children don’t want to hug or kiss your friends or siblings, DO NOT MAKE THEM DO IT. Really. I hate when friends or relatives make their kids do this–I always say, “Please don’t make them kiss or hug me if they don’t want to. It’s okay with me if they want to keep their distance or if they don’t want to touch me.”

If my niece or nephew do not want to hug or kiss me, that is okay. It is not rude to not want to hug or kiss me for any reason at all. Even if they are huggy and kissy with everyone else, they don’t have to be with me. I ask them if I can give them a hug or a kiss, and I say, “It’s okay to say no, I won’t be hurt.”

[Eltern, wenn eure Kinder eure Freunde oder Geschwister nicht umarmen oder küssen wollen, ZWINGT SIE NICHT DAZU. Wirklich. Ich hasse es, wenn Freunde oder Verwandte ihre Kinder dazu bringen, das zu tun – ich sage immer: “Bitte bringt sie nicht dazu, mich zu küssen oder umarmen, wenn sie das nicht möchten. Es ist in Ordnung für mich, wenn sie auf Distanz bleiben wollen oder mich nicht berühren möchten."

Wenn meine Nichte oder mein Neffe mich nicht umarmen oder küssen wollen, ist das okay. Es ist nicht unhöflich, mich nicht umarmen oder küssen zu wollen, egal aus welchem Grund. Sogar wenn sie alle anderen gerne küssen und umarmen, müssen sie das nicht bei mir tun. Ich frage sie, ob ich sie umarmen oder küssen darf und sage: “Es ist okay, nein zu sagen, das tut mir nicht weh."]

Sheelzebub at Captain Awkward

Comment Policy

The following rules will probably be incomplete. Therefore, I immediately point you to rule number 1.

(1) It is me, Zweisatz, and only me who decides which comments will be published. No matter what you try, if I do not like a comment, it will not appear.
(2) No sexist, racist, hetero-sexist*, classist, cis-sexist*, anti-muslim, ableist (which includes negative references to mental illnesses and neuro atypical people) language or statements criticizing a certain body type or shape – be it slim, fat or triangular.
(3) Although I appreciate politeness and respectful discourse, sometimes you are allowed to use caps *gasp* and always swear words that do not break other rules of this comment policy. (The more privileged you / your statements are, the less likely that I will let you write aggressively.)
It is forbidden to directly insult other commenters.
(4) If a comment would be totally okay if it was not for statement X or word Y, I will only edit this part or send it back to you so that you can correct it, if you like.
(5) Troll comments will be deleted. Nothing new here.
(6) Derailing and straw man arguments (i.e. pseudo-discussions that have nothing to do with the content of the article or argumenting with statements which actually no one made) will be punished.
(7) I call it “You make Harriet J sad.”
(8) New: Words like “idiot” or “stupid/dumb” cannot be used as insults on this blog. The existence or absence of intelligence do not reflect on the correctness or value of an idea or a person.
(9) And finally: yes, I decide which comments get through.

Final statement: I know I still have to learn a lot and that is why I would be pleased if you told me when I have fucked up. But only, if you still have the spoons.

These guidelines can and probably will be updated from time to time.

*Formerly known as “homophobic” and “transphobic”. Replaced because of ableist implications.

“I would much rather call it … humanism!”

Deutsche Version

Privilege Denying Dude (a meme, a white young man with crossed arms) saying 'Feminism is too divise, I'm a humanist'

Privilege Denying Dude knows what’s the deal.

There are people (oftentimes, they identify as male) who think feminism should change its name. Because in a way, they can relate to what feminists say, but the label sounds so … women-centric? And they feel kind of excluded or something. That is why they would like to have more of an umbrella term like “humanism” – after all, the “male side” of gender essentialism, i.e. topics like emasculation and the “act like a man” box hurt them, too.

Let me tell you, why this demand is wrong on so many levels.

We will start with: Feminism grew and changed over several decades. It started with middle-class white women standing up for their rights. But (unfortunately sometimes not as much as necessary) intersectionality was developed.
So if I speak about feminism, I am speaking about so much more: anti-racism, anti-ableism, anti-classism etc. etc. (see my “about” page for a more elaborate list). “My” feminism tries to pay attention to every way in which people can be marginalized. But my feminism is not feminism in general, which still focuses very much on cis, able-bodied, white middle-class women. That is why some people of color prefer “womanism” or writers like s.e. smith decide to rather be allies because they do not feel included.
They felt that they are marginalized even within the feminist movement and drew the consequences. They hold feminist opinions, too, and took them with them as they created a new movement or watch feminism from the outside. Those decisions are perfectly fine. And we should work on changing feminism so as to include all the marginalized people.

A meme where you see a poorly drawn very excited white woman with a broom in her hand. The caption reads 'Include all the marginalized people.'

Include all the marginalized people!

“But if marginalized groups get ‘their own feminist ways’, why shouldn’t men get their own brand?”, I hear you say.

Well, if you honestly had this question in mind, I am very glad I do not have to talk to you because the subsequent discussion would be quite unpleasant for both of us.

First: If you are not disabled or a person of color or homo- or bi- or a- or transsexual or poor or several of these things (and some more I certainly forgot) you are not marginalized at all.
You belong to the most privileged group in the world. How dare you ask people to give up their movements’ name and agenda in order to pamper your privileged ass? Yes, this is a privileged question right there.
“But what if you are marginalized in one or more ways while identifying as male – should you be able to get your own special brand of feminism if you wish?” Yes, you should. But that’s a whole ‘nother deal.
Second: What really gets my hackles up concerning the “let’s change the name” proposal is that men are not trying to build their own movement -oh no- they are asking to change the name of an existing one that was created as a reaction to their privileges to verbally include them, privileged people. The demand alone is unworthy of discussion.

Again: Once upon a time, women did not have the same rights as men and as a reaction they started a movement to demand those rights. Now, men want to claim one of the few places which does not allow them to hijack any discussion and -once again- they try to silence women by proclaiming the importance of their issues. Does this seem familiar? Like … everyday life? (Also replace “women” with other marginalized groups and “men” with the respective majority.)

And finally: Why exactly does feminism have to change its name in order to include male problems in a sexist society? Feminists are already talking about the problems that gender binaries* evoke (*Women have to be this way and men have to be that way to make them hate each other and no, there cannot be other genders.) Feminists are well aware of these problems.
So if feminists are already considering these issues, why change anything? Why of all things change the name?
That one is easy to answer: because men cannot be expected to identify with something that has got a female label on it. Our whole society is designed for men (read any male privilege list again, if you want to contradict) and women are expected to identify with the male perspective all the time; in movies, newspapers, books and even in certain languages, like German, that have male and female names for jobs etc. and women still have to identify with the “more general” male form.
Men, on the other hand, cannot be expected to relate to “female” things and that’s why we have to change the name of a movement for the marginalized to include people on the top of the food chain … What?

So: no. My movement will not change its name, as long it’s not a change for the oppressed but for the privileged. You can now politely fuck off.

Links 12

Guitars that are women, women who are guitars [German]

A new point of view on “too few women” in several Asian countries [German]

Sexism in computer science studies [German]

“The face of the other”

People with disabilities and high pressure sales

Racism in Germany in the context of “kebab”-murders [German]

Why are the media most interested in the love life of a white supremacist woman? [German]

“How to spot mansplaining in the wild”

“The girl’s guide to staying save online

Classism and sexism in the “post-gender”, “somehow feminist” German Pirate Party [German]

17 Quote of the Week 50

I still think enforcing femininity on women is a tool abusers have created and benefited from, because it creates a situation in which women don’t feel empowered to “just say no” or “just leave” and often get severely punished for trying either tactic, and then even nice non-abusive men (for whom “no” and “I’m outta here” are tools that work pretty well, who don’t see that it’s different for women) wonder what’s wrong with women that we put up with shit we don’t want to.

[Ich denke immer noch, dass es ein von Menschen, die andere missbrauchen, geschaffenes Werkzeug ist Frauen Femininität aufzuzwingen und dass diese Menschen davon profitierten, da es eine Situation erzeugt, in der Frauen sich nicht stark genug fühlen, um “einfach nein zu sagen” oder “einfach zu gehen” und oft hart dafür bestraft werden, eine dieser Taktiken auszuprobieren und dann fragen sich nette Männer, die niemanden missbrauchen (für die “Nein.” und “Ich bin weg.” Werkzeuge sind, die ziemlich gut funktionieren und die nicht sehen, dass es für Frauen anders ist), was mit Frauen nicht stimmt und warum wir uns mit Scheiß abfinden, den wir nicht wollen.]

Jennifer Kesler at The hathor legacy

Older posts

For older posts visit my first blog.