I must say, this makes me rather angry. The "Bingo" thing is mostly fine, although there are a few gems there too, but the Clippy is utterly insulting.
I dare say, I'm about as clued on the subject as any mostly-cisgendered person _might_ be. I am generally polite, respect people's self-identifications, am supportive to my friends and considerate of strangers. This tells me that I oughtn't be allowed to have opinions, or dare claim that I'm not phobic, or even talk about trans issues.
Excuse me? Is it priviledged of me to think that it isn't in one's best interests to universally tell the rest of the world to fuck off? Maybe I _shouldn't_ try to correct the utterly clueless when they hit the rest of the bingo. Maybe I _shouldn't_ use my priviledge in trying to explain to the ignorant that the transgendered are not scary weirdo freaks (and probably be labeled a scary weirdo freak by association in the process).
Yeah, I understand, there's plenty out there to be pissed off at. This, however, lumps me into the same bucket as some very disgusting behaviors, all on the basis of the biological accident that my identification happens to mostly match my body. My apologies for my utter lack of a sense of humor.
Is it priviledged of me to think that it isn't in one's best interests to universally tell the rest of the world to fuck off?
yes.
This, however, lumps me into the same bucket as some very disgusting behaviors, all on the basis of the biological accident that my identification happens to mostly match my body. My apologies for my utter lack of a sense of humor.
actually, you have cis-gendered privilege, the flaw in your thinking is that all sins of cis-gendered privilege are being laid at your feet.
rather than focusing on and dealing with those cis-gendered privileges you do participate in, you're avoiding your privilege altogether by focusing on the cis-gendered privileges you don't think apply to yourself.
that is cis-gendered privilege behavior. it's what privileged behavior looks like in general.
omg, you have privilege. that's not the end of the world. what are you going to do about your privilege?
I am going to do is exactly what I have been doing - which is live my life, be good to my friends, make use of any priviledge I have to the fullest extent to which it doesn't impinge on others, fight for it in the ample variety of contexts in which I am not the priviledged group, and bitch like hell when broad generalizations are made by _anyone_.
I believe that you are missing my point. My point isn't that I am denying the priviledge. My point is that the link in question ascribes a variety of behaviors to all priviledged individuals, and that is what I am annoyed by.
I read it as mapping out a set of common pitfalls that members of the priviledged class need to be mindful of, ones that are so commonplace that they're suitable for buzzword bingo. The implication (to me) is that clueful others will make fewer of these mistakes and make them less often, to the point that they do not serve as callers for the buzzword bingo, and the complaint is directed at those who still do say these things. That is, that recognizing that you don't say these things 'ought' to signal that you're not its target ...
... but the fact that it struck you as an accusation that all cisgendered people do these things, means that there's a communication glitch somewhere, and it would be wise for me to sit back and examine the situation without knee-jerk defensiveness, to try to figure out whether the problem was unclear speech on the part of the original poster, distorted hearing at your end, or distorted hearing on my end, misinterpreting the OP's intent before deciding to amplify the message. If the brunt of the problem is the first or the third of those, then finding a clearer way to communicate the message I {intended to communicate} / {thought I was communicating}, is just a matter of effective communication, irrespective of the privilege issues.
And that's what I'm trying to back up far enough to do (even though you've already let me off the hook).
I think my trouble is exactly in the notion of "recognizing that you don't say these things 'ought' to signal that you're not its target". I am fully willing to believe that it was intended thusly, and that the vast majority of readers took it that way.
I, however, know I tend to very (perhaps overly) literal, and focus on what such things say, as opposed to mean to say. I am willing to allow that my hearing is distorted, in as far as I consider the written as the entirety of the statement, and dismiss the implied "in the cases in which it applies", "present company excepted, of course" and so on. To me, the disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises have to be both explicit and meaningful to "count". I suppose, whether it's my failing or the message's can be considered a matter of opinion.
Well, there was a reason (caution mostly) that I put 'ought' in scare-quotes ...
And the phrase "present company excepted, of course," is a bit of a red flag, which is why, when I realized my gut-reaction was to say pretty much that, I figured I should stop and think. If I'm going to call others on the times when the phrased is used to mean, "but please don't get mad at me for saying it because you're not like The Rest Of Them [because I know you and that makes you human to me]" -- which isn't always what it means, but it's used that way often enough to be careful around it -- then when I catch myself saying it I'd better be completely certain that wasn't how I meant it.
On the other hand, I am saying that I thought there was an implied "in the cases in which it applies" that you didn't hear. It may take reactions from more people to figure out whether that was clear enough to reasonably expect it to have been heard most of the time or a generally unclear message.
"To me, the disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises have to be both explicit and meaningful to 'count'."
Out of curiosity, do you think there's a language/culture reason for that, or it's just a personal idiosyncracy, or something else, or is that not a question you've really felt the need to explore?
To me, the disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises have to be both explicit and meaningful to "count".
that is one of the other privileges.
a privileged group is granted the position of "normal". when something doesn't match "normal" it is marked. also, the presumption is that something that is unmarked only refers to "normal".
from the point of the underprivileged group why should unmarked language only refer to the "norm"? why should marked language only refer to deviations from the "norm"?
and ironically, but not contradictorily, generalities about the "norm" are acceptable with out "disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises" as long as they are flattering, but "disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises" are requested when the generalities are not. the problem isn't the generalities, but the valence of the generalities.
the ability to "require" and "define" the parameters of the discussion is privilege.
"from the point of the underprivileged group why should unmarked language only refer to the 'norm'? why should marked language only refer to deviations from the 'norm'?"
Oh! Izzat why, when I used the term 'neurotypical' (that I'd picked up in conversation with someone with Asperger's), in a conversation with somebody who hadn't been part of the earlier conversations, I got a scowl and a disapproving comment about the coinage? Because it marked the norm? And is that why some people react to 'cisgendered' as though it were derogatory or accusing instead of descriptive? (But why is 'heterosexual' okay in that regard?)
I disagree. I think stupid, jerkful generalizations are stupid and jerkful no matter what priviledge level of the group they apply to.
To take a different context, examine the statements:
All gay men are effeminate. Some gay men who wear pink tutus and mascara are effeminate. All straight men are assholes. Some straight men who swear are assholes.
The first item of each pair is ludicrous, and deserves being slapped down on account of stupid. The second is narrower, and calls for at least some consideration before potential dismissal.
Likewise, here I believe we have the statements: All cisgendered people are ignorant and should be mocked. versus Some cisgendered people who are ignorant should be mocked.
It is the ability of every human being, when engaging in discourse, to specify what they are talking about. It is not an attribute of priviledge, but in my opinion, every person's obligation. Yes, such specification is largely necessary when the generality is unflattering, but the ability to be unflattering is _not_ exclusive to priviledge.
The short version of my gut-reaction to your complaint is, "Well it's not meant to include you, 'cause you're cool and clueful." But wow, when I type that aloud it sounds ... just like unsatisfactory responses I've gotten in other situations when I've complained about feeling unfairly categorized.
Which is a warning sign for me.
I think I might get away with that excuse on the grounds that someone like you would already have passed the point where you would have turned the paperclip off. But that's still a bit glib. And you're probably not in the mood for glib.
I do have what I think are better reasons than that for excusing this (and for "why it really doesn't apply to you"), but I'm going to sit back and chew on them a while first, to make sure that I'm not just reacting to your criticism with reflex defensiveness.
'Cause as much as there is out there to be pissed off at, I don't want to drive away allies or friends, and I consider you both.
I will say this much now, for the record: I personally do not wish to silence clueful cisgendered people from speaking up, and I consider your having gotten that message to be unfortunate, something I'd like to rectify.
Actually, you telling me personally so on the basis of your observation of my behavior is fine. I appreciate your position, and am willing to take your blame for my actions - such as having this conversation now.
However, I stand by the notion that you accusing me as a member of a group that includes me, on the basis of observation of other members is not fine.
Not exactly, though I can certainly see how what I wrote can be read that way. My intent here was closer to a combination of, "I'm sorry that reminding you how people similar to you make my life miserable alienated a personal friend who I know isn't part of my problem and attempts to contribute to the solution," and, "Pissing off allies and would-be allies sucks, and I wonder whether I can call allies on the times they screw up tactfully enough not to drive them away, while avoiding hitting the people who don't deserve that criticism in the spillover fire."
You're reacting on principle, and you have the principles right. I'm thinking strategy and tactics (including how to speak gently yet effectively to would-be allies-of-the-community as well as personal friends), trying to find the most effective ways to communicate without compromising those principles. (Not that I expect to get either half of that correct 100% of the time, but that's what my goal is.)
And in this particular case, I'm still working on it.
in more depth, there is a trend across all oppressions, where at some point where the oppressed person ends up holding the hand of some privileged who has become upset at having their privilege pointed out. "there. there. it's ok that you're upset that you've seen how you hurt me." there's something really messed up about that. and it happens all the time. and it's necessary for progress i suppose, but it's assbackwards.
"Pissing off allies and would-be allies sucks, and I wonder whether I can call allies on the times they screw up tactfully enough not to drive them away, while avoiding hitting the people who don't deserve that criticism in the spillover fire."
allies that get pissed of for having their privilege pointed out, are relatively useless. i do mean that. the allies doing serious meaningful work tend to be at the point they understand they have privilege, and that having their (or someone else's) privilege pointed out is not a blanket condemnation, and that it's not the end of the world.
people similar to you
male privilege is something all males have. white privilege is something all whites have (white is not a skin color or genetic). heteronormative privilege is something all heterosexuals have. etc. part of these privileges are claimed, others are granted, and other cannot be avoided. the idea that member of a privileged group is not privileged is a pernicious idea when it comes to dealing with the problems of privilege. that is to say each person in a privileged group does actually have responsibility to the effects of privilege - collectively and individually.
I get most of that (I think), though either there's a link I'm missing or a slight difference in situation here, in that the cisgender-bingo card suggests acts and utterances -- 'sins', if you will -- rather than (for the most part) examples of privilege. (Or maybe I don't get it as well as I think ...) Unless the argument is that the very act of saying any of these things aloud and not expecting the pushback is the privilege we're talking about?
(Note that I am backing up a step to leiacat's original objection, rather than addressing in this particular comment the privilege that speaking her complaint the way she did implies -- or are these fundamentally inseperable (in which case, what happens when somebody with privilege has a legitimate complaint?)?)
Is there a distinction between having privilege and acting as though you think you deserve that privilege?
Unless the argument is that the very act of saying any of these things aloud and not expecting the pushback is the privilege we're talking about?
the argument is that the very act of thinking these things - and more specifically the framework of how one views the world - is a big part of privilege. privilege is viewing the world of "normal" in terms of the privileges one has.
Is there a distinction between having privilege and acting as though you think you deserve that privilege?
one of the really sneaky things about privilege is that having it always leads to acting from privilege. sometimes the issue is acting as if you deserve the privilege, some people will argue this. but the biggest problem is that people who act from privilege don't think about it - what they/we/i do is just automatic, unthinking, unconscious, acquiescence to "how things are (supposed) to be".
one of the really sneaky things about privilege is that having it always leads to acting from privilege. sometimes the issue is acting as if you deserve the privilege, some people will argue this. but the biggest problem is that people who act from privilege don't think about it - what they/we/i do is just automatic, unthinking, unconscious, acquiescence to "how things are (supposed) to be".
Yes and no. People tend to think that the situation that they grew up in is normal or at least expected. If they are in a family where one parent beats the snot out of the other parent but still loves them. That is normal to that person and they view everything with that belief, possibly even looking for an abusive relationship (as giver or receiver) based on their world view. Just as a child who is raised in a loving home with clear and reasonable boundaries will expect that behavior to be normal. The first child may think the parents of the second are unreasonably soft/easy and the 2nd child may think that the parents of the first are cruel and heartless. BOTH are basing it on their experience whether they are privileged (the 2nd child) or not (the first child).
If a child is raised by people in an open marriage, said open marriage will be normal to the child even if they later end up in a monogamous relationship. The same is true of almost any other family unit for a child to be raised in (single parent, unmarried pair of parents, married pair of parents, grandparents, commune, etc.).
The baby that Thomas and Nancy Beatie are expecting may end up being cisgendered or may not; however I suspect that the child will end up being more understanding of gender issues than a lot of people because of the family situation. So even if the baby ends up being privileged by your definition the thoughts aren't based on being privileged but the formative environment.
So, growing up in a privilege class in an environment that takes that class for granted is likely to give the privilege class viewpoint. Just as growing up in as a non privilege class is likely to give that viewpoint (and most people are going to belong to more than one class some will be mostly or all privilege (e.g. male, white, heterosexual) and some will be mostly or all non-privilege (e.g. transgendered female, bi-racial, bi-sexual). In the case of a child of abuse, some learn through friends/experience that what their 'world view' is may not be the healthiest and fairest view overall.
All of that said, if you state that 'if you have privilege you will always act from that privilege and acting from privilege means not thinking about it and making an unconscious acquiescence to "how things are (supposed) to be"' then it sounds to me that you are saying that if I am [privilege class] that I am unable to think outside of that privilege class and thus cannot have any valid contributions/opinions on [subject related to said privilege class]. By that logic Peter, Paul & Mary have no reason to think about their experiences in the March on Washington since they can't understand what the Civil Rights Movement of the Sixties was since they are white.
By the way, the response I feel your brief, snide, but (yes) useful criticism deserves is also something I want to put more thought into than what I've written in reply so far. Both in big-picture aspects and in omphaloskepsis. I see an odd sort of balancing act, wherein sometimes the correct move is to deliberately tip all the way to one side, and part of the challenge is deciding when to do that and when not to ...
... and I'm noticing recently the situations where I think and speak like a member of a privileged class in one of the contexts where I'm looking at the other side of that coin, and still figuring out what actions these observations warrant.
It's especially confusing when fairly small topic shifts within a single conversation shift the context from one where I'm a (or the) privileged speaker, to one where I'm a non-privileged speaker, and back again, as I've noticed happening a couple of times in the last few weeks.
I'm a member of enough flavors of minorities myself to know how lashing out against the associated majorities is bonding, catharsis, bringing light to the issues, all manners of worthwhile things. But even in the cases when it does not include me personally, I despise generalization. There is no way to defend yourself from it, and any attempt _will_ sound like apologetics of the priviledged. The only acceptable recourse is to shut up and take it.
You know me, so you knew enough to read what I said in the spirit of how I meant it. The previous commenter doesn't, and therefore took it, well, like it sounds.
(no subject)
I dare say, I'm about as clued on the subject as any mostly-cisgendered person _might_ be. I am generally polite, respect people's self-identifications, am supportive to my friends and considerate of strangers. This tells me that I oughtn't be allowed to have opinions, or dare claim that I'm not phobic, or even talk about trans issues.
Excuse me? Is it priviledged of me to think that it isn't in one's best interests to universally tell the rest of the world to fuck off? Maybe I _shouldn't_ try to correct the utterly clueless when they hit the rest of the bingo. Maybe I _shouldn't_ use my priviledge in trying to explain to the ignorant that the transgendered are not scary weirdo freaks (and probably be labeled a scary weirdo freak by association in the process).
Yeah, I understand, there's plenty out there to be pissed off at. This, however, lumps me into the same bucket as some very disgusting behaviors, all on the basis of the biological accident that my identification happens to mostly match my body. My apologies for my utter lack of a sense of humor.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I reserve the right to feel insulted at the generalization. You, of course, have an equal right to get equally huffy about me daring to do so.
(no subject)
rather than focusing on and dealing with those cis-gendered privileges you do participate in, you're avoiding your privilege altogether by focusing on the cis-gendered privileges you don't think apply to yourself.
that is cis-gendered privilege behavior. it's what privileged behavior looks like in general.
omg, you have privilege. that's not the end of the world. what are you going to do about your privilege?
(no subject)
I believe that you are missing my point. My point isn't that I am denying the priviledge. My point is that the link in question ascribes a variety of behaviors to all priviledged individuals, and that is what I am annoyed by.
(no subject)
... but the fact that it struck you as an accusation that all cisgendered people do these things, means that there's a communication glitch somewhere, and it would be wise for me to sit back and examine the situation without knee-jerk defensiveness, to try to figure out whether the problem was unclear speech on the part of the original poster, distorted hearing at your end, or distorted hearing on my end, misinterpreting the OP's intent before deciding to amplify the message. If the brunt of the problem is the first or the third of those, then finding a clearer way to communicate the message I {intended to communicate} / {thought I was communicating}, is just a matter of effective communication, irrespective of the privilege issues.
And that's what I'm trying to back up far enough to do (even though you've already let me off the hook).
(no subject)
I, however, know I tend to very (perhaps overly) literal, and focus on what such things say, as opposed to mean to say. I am willing to allow that my hearing is distorted, in as far as I consider the written as the entirety of the statement, and dismiss the implied "in the cases in which it applies", "present company excepted, of course" and so on. To me, the disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises have to be both explicit and meaningful to "count". I suppose, whether it's my failing or the message's can be considered a matter of opinion.
(no subject)
And the phrase "present company excepted, of course," is a bit of a red flag, which is why, when I realized my gut-reaction was to say pretty much that, I figured I should stop and think. If I'm going to call others on the times when the phrased is used to mean, "but please don't get mad at me for saying it because you're not like The Rest Of Them [because I know you and that makes you human to me]" -- which isn't always what it means, but it's used that way often enough to be careful around it -- then when I catch myself saying it I'd better be completely certain that wasn't how I meant it.
On the other hand, I am saying that I thought there was an implied "in the cases in which it applies" that you didn't hear. It may take reactions from more people to figure out whether that was clear enough to reasonably expect it to have been heard most of the time or a generally unclear message.
"To me, the disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises have to be both explicit and meaningful to 'count'."
Out of curiosity, do you think there's a language/culture reason for that, or it's just a personal idiosyncracy, or something else, or is that not a question you've really felt the need to explore?
(no subject)
a privileged group is granted the position of "normal". when something doesn't match "normal" it is marked. also, the presumption is that something that is unmarked only refers to "normal".
from the point of the underprivileged group why should unmarked language only refer to the "norm"? why should marked language only refer to deviations from the "norm"?
and ironically, but not contradictorily, generalities about the "norm" are acceptable with out "disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises" as long as they are flattering, but "disclaimers, scope-definers and social noises" are requested when the generalities are not. the problem isn't the generalities, but the valence of the generalities.
the ability to "require" and "define" the parameters of the discussion is privilege.
(no subject)
Oh! Izzat why, when I used the term 'neurotypical' (that I'd picked up in conversation with someone with Asperger's), in a conversation with somebody who hadn't been part of the earlier conversations, I got a scowl and a disapproving comment about the coinage? Because it marked the norm? And is that why some people react to 'cisgendered' as though it were derogatory or accusing instead of descriptive? (But why is 'heterosexual' okay in that regard?)
(no subject)
To take a different context, examine the statements:
All gay men are effeminate.
Some gay men who wear pink tutus and mascara are effeminate.
All straight men are assholes.
Some straight men who swear are assholes.
The first item of each pair is ludicrous, and deserves being slapped down on account of stupid. The second is narrower, and calls for at least some consideration before potential dismissal.
Likewise, here I believe we have the statements:
All cisgendered people are ignorant and should be mocked.
versus
Some cisgendered people who are ignorant should be mocked.
It is the ability of every human being, when engaging in discourse, to specify what they are talking about. It is not an attribute of priviledge, but in my opinion, every person's obligation. Yes, such specification is largely necessary when the generality is unflattering, but the ability to be unflattering is _not_ exclusive to priviledge.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Which is a warning sign for me.
I think I might get away with that excuse on the grounds that someone like you would already have passed the point where you would have turned the paperclip off. But that's still a bit glib. And you're probably not in the mood for glib.
I do have what I think are better reasons than that for excusing this (and for "why it really doesn't apply to you"), but I'm going to sit back and chew on them a while first, to make sure that I'm not just reacting to your criticism with reflex defensiveness.
'Cause as much as there is out there to be pissed off at, I don't want to drive away allies or friends, and I consider you both.
I will say this much now, for the record: I personally do not wish to silence clueful cisgendered people from speaking up, and I consider your having gotten that message to be unfortunate, something I'd like to rectify.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
However, I stand by the notion that you accusing me as a member of a group that includes me, on the basis of observation of other members is not fine.
(no subject)
because you have it, you will act from it. 99.9999% sure on this.
so you can split hair, but what are you really getting from it? are you actually not acting in a privileged way?
(no subject)
You're reacting on principle, and you have the principles right. I'm thinking strategy and tactics (including how to speak gently yet effectively to would-be allies-of-the-community as well as personal friends), trying to find the most effective ways to communicate without compromising those principles. (Not that I expect to get either half of that correct 100% of the time, but that's what my goal is.)
And in this particular case, I'm still working on it.
(no subject)
in more depth, there is a trend across all oppressions, where at some point where the oppressed person ends up holding the hand of some privileged who has become upset at having their privilege pointed out. "there. there. it's ok that you're upset that you've seen how you hurt me." there's something really messed up about that. and it happens all the time. and it's necessary for progress i suppose, but it's assbackwards.allies that get pissed of for having their privilege pointed out, are relatively useless. i do mean that. the allies doing serious meaningful work tend to be at the point they understand they have privilege, and that having their (or someone else's) privilege pointed out is not a blanket condemnation, and that it's not the end of the world.male privilege is something all males have. white privilege is something all whites have (white is not a skin color or genetic). heteronormative privilege is something all heterosexuals have. etc. part of these privileges are claimed, others are granted, and other cannot be avoided. the idea that member of a privileged group is not privileged is a pernicious idea when it comes to dealing with the problems of privilege. that is to say each person in a privileged group does actually have responsibility to the effects of privilege - collectively and individually.
(no subject)
(Note that I am backing up a step to
Is there a distinction between having privilege and acting as though you think you deserve that privilege?
(no subject)
(no subject)
Yes and no. People tend to think that the situation that they grew up in is normal or at least expected. If they are in a family where one parent beats the snot out of the other parent but still loves them. That is normal to that person and they view everything with that belief, possibly even looking for an abusive relationship (as giver or receiver) based on their world view. Just as a child who is raised in a loving home with clear and reasonable boundaries will expect that behavior to be normal. The first child may think the parents of the second are unreasonably soft/easy and the 2nd child may think that the parents of the first are cruel and heartless. BOTH are basing it on their experience whether they are privileged (the 2nd child) or not (the first child).
If a child is raised by people in an open marriage, said open marriage will be normal to the child even if they later end up in a monogamous relationship. The same is true of almost any other family unit for a child to be raised in (single parent, unmarried pair of parents, married pair of parents, grandparents, commune, etc.).
The baby that Thomas and Nancy Beatie are expecting may end up being cisgendered or may not; however I suspect that the child will end up being more understanding of gender issues than a lot of people because of the family situation. So even if the baby ends up being privileged by your definition the thoughts aren't based on being privileged but the formative environment.
So, growing up in a privilege class in an environment that takes that class for granted is likely to give the privilege class viewpoint. Just as growing up in as a non privilege class is likely to give that viewpoint (and most people are going to belong to more than one class some will be mostly or all privilege (e.g. male, white, heterosexual) and some will be mostly or all non-privilege (e.g. transgendered female, bi-racial, bi-sexual). In the case of a child of abuse, some learn through friends/experience that what their 'world view' is may not be the healthiest and fairest view overall.
All of that said, if you state that 'if you have privilege you will always act from that privilege and acting from privilege means not thinking about it and making an unconscious acquiescence to "how things are (supposed) to be"' then it sounds to me that you are saying that if I am [privilege class] that I am unable to think outside of that privilege class and thus cannot have any valid contributions/opinions on [subject related to said privilege class]. By that logic Peter, Paul & Mary have no reason to think about their experiences in the March on Washington since they can't understand what the Civil Rights Movement of the Sixties was since they are white.
(no subject)
... and I'm noticing recently the situations where I think and speak like a member of a privileged class in one of the contexts where I'm looking at the other side of that coin, and still figuring out what actions these observations warrant.
It's especially confusing when fairly small topic shifts within a single conversation shift the context from one where I'm a (or the) privileged speaker, to one where I'm a non-privileged speaker, and back again, as I've noticed happening a couple of times in the last few weeks.
(no subject)
I'm a member of enough flavors of minorities myself to know how lashing out against the associated majorities is bonding, catharsis, bringing light to the issues, all manners of worthwhile things. But even in the cases when it does not include me personally, I despise generalization. There is no way to defend yourself from it, and any attempt _will_ sound like apologetics of the priviledged. The only acceptable recourse is to shut up and take it.
You know me, so you knew enough to read what I said in the spirit of how I meant it. The previous commenter doesn't, and therefore took it, well, like it sounds.