Holy mother of God *is horrified*

[elspethdixon]

Oh my God, every time I wincingly look back at the ongoing Cultural Appropriation bitchfight of doom, it gets worse. I'm not otherwise going to get involved, but here, I just couldn't help myself.

So, for those, like me, who hadn't seen or heard about Teresa Hayden's post wherein she expresses her anger over people badmouthing her husband (at least, that's what I assume she was doing from the descriptions - I haven't read any of the stuff involving him, either, but apparently he said things that offended people, refused to appologize when called on it, and then deleted his journal because people were yelling at him): Holy fuck, she calls fans of color and those who support them nithings.

In terms of offensiveness, as a former student of old English? Fuck, people, that's, well, not as horrible as the other n-word (which, please God, I hope no one's actually said), but it's pretty god-awful. Like, enough that I was reduced to staring at my computer screen in horror.

She has basically stated that all the people who disagree with her husband (including but not limited to, fans of color) are hateful, malicious, deformed, insane, sexually deviant, possibly cannablistic, sub-human or less-than human things. Because that's what that word means. It means monster. It means Not-a-Person. It means Grendal in Beowulf, the Ring-Wraiths in LotR, the in-bred, cannabalistic degenerate monsters in Lovecraft's "The Lurking Fear."

That's what she's saying fans of color are. Maybe she doesn't really know what the word means and implies, but even if she just thinks it's an old spelling of "nothing" that would be offensive all on it's own.

And to think I used to respect her so much...

ETA: Apparently, there are differences between the Old Norse and Old English definitions, with the Norse one being a far worse insult and the Anglo-Saxon version being a little less on the digusting monster side and more on the outlaw side (see the discussion of several people with more expert knowledge than me in comments). Both versions are still insults, though.

Comments

[tavella.livejournal.com]

OED: "[a] draggle-tailed person; a woman whose skirts are wet and draggled, or whose dress hangs about her untidily and dirty; a slut"

Cassell's Dictionary of Slang: "draggle-tail n. 1 a prostitute, thus draggletailed, draggled, promiscuous, a general abusive term."

Francis Grose's Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue: "DRAGGLETAIL or DAGGLETAIL. One whose garments are bespattered with dag or dew: generally applied to the female sex, to signify a slattern."

I think it's pretty clear who "fully understands" the words involved.

[laura-holt-pi.livejournal.com]

Draggle-tailed can also refer to male clothing. I have heard it used so.

I know it's a nice feeling to be able to get all offended over words, but it's not really sensible, especially when your overreaction to those words is based on misunderstanding.

[tavella.livejournal.com]

You know, I think this post sums up the quality of the debate quite well.

laura_holt_pi arrives to inform us that the criticisms are totally wrong and should quiet down because we are criticizing words we "don't fully understand".

I then triply source that every single point laura_holt_pi made about draggletail is wrong: it is a noun. It does mean slut. And while it may occasionally have been used about a man, it is a gendered insult primarily aimed at women.

She then blankly ignores this and repeats "your overreaction to those words is based on misunderstanding"

Here from Metafandom

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It does seem like the defenses of words people "don't understand" is just repeating the idea that first caused offense. Whether you add a sexual connotation to "draggle-tailed" or the monster connotation to "nithing" they're all expression the same thing, aren't they?

Draggle-tailed refers to the hem of one's clothing dragging in the gutter. "Nithing" separates the person from the cultured people indoors.

So there's the one side who are out in the gutter being loud-mouths, and they're bothering the cultured, educated people who are trying to have an actual conversation with their opinions. And only the cultured people know the "correct" meanings of their insults, which are apparently just bad enough to show how clever and witty the cultured person is, but not bad enough that the person insulted has a right to accuse them of being vulgar. Even if the person knows that these words have historically meant slut, sexually promiscuous, disgusting and less-than-human--well, they're still showing how uneducated they are for not realizing what definition is correct. So even if you look up the word in a dictionary you're still just showing how incapable you are of following the conversation.

[skywardprodigal.livejournal.com]

Could she and Carol Thatcher be pulling from the same meta-narrative?

[elspethdixon.livejournal.com]

I'm beginning to realize that many people(well, many white people, at least) pull from the same narrative in these situations.

1. Get offended and insist you've gone nothing wrong
1a. Get explanation of what you've done
2. Insist explanation is wrong
2a. Get more explanations + public censure as you make yourself look worse and worse
3.'Recant' and offer an apology that isn't actually an apology, like "I'm sorry anyone was silly enough to be offended by X offensive thing." Present yourself as the victim in the situation.