But If We Started Dating It Would Ruin Our Friendship... [Archive]

Random Precision

14th June 2009, 04:23

Oh my non-existent deity. So fucking true.

But If We Started Dating It Would Ruin Our Friendship Where I Ask You To Do Things And You Do Them
By Kimberly Pruitt
The Onion
June 9, 2009

I really like you. I do. You're so nice, and sweet, and you listen to all my problems and respond with the appropriate compliments. But, well, I don't really see a relationship in our future. It would be terrible if we let sex destroy this great friendship we have where I get everything I want and you get nothing you want. Don't you think?

I knew you would understand. You always do.

We're so perfect as friends, you know? I can tell you anything, and you know you can always come to me anytime you need to hear me ***** about work or how ugly I feel. You wouldn't want to ruin a friendship like that just so you could be my boyfriend, and have me look at you with desire and longing in my eyes, if only once—would you? Of course not. Well, if we started dating, it would only complicate this wonderful setup I've got going here.

It's just... you're like my best friend, and I would hate for something you desperately want to change that. I mean, sure, we could go on some dates, maybe mess around a little and finally validate the six years you've spent languishing in this platonic nightmare, but then what? How could we ever go back to the way we were, where I take advantage of your clear attraction to me so I can have someone at my beck and call? That part of our friendship means so much to me.

No. We are just destined to be really, really good friends who only hang out when I don't have a boyfriend, but still need male attention to boost my fragile and all-consuming ego.

Anything can happen once you bring romance in. Think about how awful my last relationship was at the end, remember? The guy I'd call you crying about at 3 a.m. because he wouldn't answer my texts? The guy I met at the birthday party you threw me? I had insanely passionate sex with him for four months and now we don't even talk anymore. God, I would die if something like that happened to us.

Plus, ick, can you even imagine getting naked in front of each other? I've known you so long, you're more like a brother that I've drunkenly made out with twice and never mentioned again. It'd be way too weird. And if we did, then whenever you'd come shopping with me, or go to one of my performances or charity events, or take me for ice cream when I've had a bad day at work, you'd be looking at me like, "I've seen her breasts." God, I can't think of anything more awkward that that.

Oh, before I forget, my mom says hi.

Anyway, you would totally hate me as your girlfriend. I'd be all needy and dramatic and slowly growing to love you. If I was your girlfriend, I would never be able to tell you all about the other asshole guys I date and pretend I don't see how much it crushes you. Let's never lose that. That's what makes us us.

Don't worry. You're so funny and smart and amazing, any girl but me would be lucky to date you. You'll find someone, I know it. And when you do, I'll be right by your side to suddenly become all flirty and affectionate with you in front of her, until she grows jealous and won't believe it when you say we're just friends. But when she dumps you, that's just what we'll be.

Best friends. Friends forever.

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/but_if_we_started_dating_it

Prairie Fire

14th June 2009, 07:05

Bilan

14th June 2009, 07:19

PF, The Onion is a satirical newsource. It is not serious.

Bilan

14th June 2009, 07:24

Also, amusing. I think everyone's been there. Though, it never really made sense.

Blackscare

14th June 2009, 07:51

New Tet

14th June 2009, 08:04

Oh yes, the rallying call of the "oppressed" amercian male, manipulated and used by his vicious matriarchal over-lords.:rolleyes: (I'm aware that this is written by a womyn, but it is obviously written for a male audience, and apparently strikes a cord.)

I expected better from you, RP.

This is weird. I guess men just have a different sense of humor...
But wait a minute! That can't possibly be true!

After all, how many times have I read that same story written by a woman[!]?

Dorothy Parker, for example, created characters very similar to the voice in the Onion's ironic satire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Parker

Pogue

14th June 2009, 12:51

jake williams

14th June 2009, 16:03

Random Precision

14th June 2009, 18:56

Oh yes, the rallying call of the "oppressed" amercian male, manipulated and used by his vicious matriarchal over-lords.:rolleyes: (I'm aware that this is written by a womyn, but it is obviously written for a male audience, and apparently strikes a cord.)

I expected better from you, RP.

I posted it because I've actually been on the other side of that sort of twisted, dishonest relationship. I blame myself much more for it than the woman I was "involved" with. To be sure there is a lot of hyperbole in the (satirical) column.

Believe me, it is just as twisted and dishonest on the man's side as it is on the woman's. Here is that side:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/friends.png

Pirate turtle the 11th

14th June 2009, 19:10

This is why you choose shortly after meeting a girl if you want to try and date them or just be friends so if its the former you can avoid the friend zone.

New Tet

14th June 2009, 19:22

I posted it because I've actually been on the other side of that sort of twisted, dishonest relationship. I blame myself much more for it than the woman I was "involved" with. To be sure there is a lot of hyperbole in the (satirical) column.

Believe me, it is just as twisted and dishonest on the man's side as it is on the woman's. Here is the that side:
[...]

Agh, you disappoint me! Just when I thought I had found someone with as much disdain and fear of wymun as I have you turn out to be a castrati!

P.S. I expected better from you, RP.

Pogue

14th June 2009, 19:30

I posted it because I've actually been on the other side of that sort of twisted, dishonest relationship. I blame myself much more for it than the woman I was "involved" with. To be sure there is a lot of hyperbole in the (satirical) column.

Believe me, it is just as twisted and dishonest on the man's side as it is on the woman's. Here is the that side:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/friends.png

haha thats so true

Wanted Man

14th June 2009, 19:32

New Tet: I agree, we need more raw chauvinism and misogyny on this forum. :tt2:

The satire piece and the comic are both pretty good.

ZeroNowhere

14th June 2009, 19:34

So apparently when males are 'dishonest', they're still telling the complete truth? In which case only womin tell lies?

New Tet

14th June 2009, 19:50

New Tet: I agree, we need more raw chauvinism and misogyny on this forum. :tt2: [...]

Maybe too much to ask, but can we bring 'em here and put 'em out of their misery? I mean the raw chauv & miso?

New Tet

14th June 2009, 19:52

So apparently when males are 'dishonest', they're still telling the complete truth? In which case only womin tell lies?

Yes, only men are truthful. Ask Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of that worthy lineup.

bcbm

14th June 2009, 20:15

How many different spellings of "woman/women" can we get in this thread?

Sorry, I meant wimmin.

Incendiarism

14th June 2009, 22:21

Back in my sexy years(roughly 17-19), many of the girls I met were initially attracted to me. The article and comic stand as testament, in my humble opinion.

Wanted Man

14th June 2009, 22:23

How many different spellings of "woman/women" can we get in this thread?

Sorry, I meant wimmin.
Stop dehumanising our whammin.

Pirate Utopian

14th June 2009, 23:25

I only write "women" as wopeople cause I am more revolutionary than thou!

JimmyJazz

14th June 2009, 23:51

This forum really is misogynistic, not so much by the joke Onion articles that get posted, but the inevitable shouting down of any female posters who take offense.

Anyway, I thought it was a funny article, reminded me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31035

gorillafuck

15th June 2009, 00:09

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 02:08

Men, women (not womyn) are all manipulative fucks. That's the point. Our insecurities lead us to use each other, and destroy any real chance of a relationship. I've been in a few of these types, they never end well. However, in my opinion the worst ones are where you love some one, an not like in the way above, but actually do sincerely love them, but they don't give you the time of day. Invisible, knowing they don't know, and not telling them because you know they won't feel the same. They're not manipulating you, because they are oblivious that you want to be more then just friends. You look at the guys and gals they date, and think, I could do better, but know they feel quite differently. Those are far worse in my opinion.

Love,
Captain Jack

which doctor

15th June 2009, 02:16

alcohol is about the only possible solution for this sort of problem

get drunk, inhibitions are lowered, responsibility is mitigated. if things don't work out as planned you can always blame the booze.

black magick hustla

15th June 2009, 02:18

tbh its not that females are manipulative. i dont know if it is because of society or whatever they tend to be more intuitive than men and this understanding of emotions seems like manipulation to some people. some females date assholes but i think it has to do with the fact that assholes are more confident than a lot of doormats.

marmots few cents on the issue

also it seems a lot of females are less shallow than males. i remember TC saying that this is a sexist assumption or w/e. i dont think its sexist and i think its true. i am not particularly good looking nor i dress that swell but i am doing damn fine. i am a very interesting and charming fella with lots of confidence. also very few people intimidate me - women or men. i think thats what makes me stand out from other people.

Black Dagger

15th June 2009, 06:44

I think it was actually written by a woman, not a womyn.

That's not original, funny or really called for? Like you enjoy provoking and mocking women who use feminist spellings? Congrats, waive your dick around while you're at it bro.

This forum really is misogynistic, not so much by the joke Onion articles that get posted, but the inevitable shouting down of any female posters who take offense.

^^^^^.

Using language like that just makes people that don't already support feminism think you're crazy.

Err what? I dunno ay, i don't see what is remotely 'crazy' about political or other deliberate misspellings? It's quite a common feature of language generally, some of us view language as something more than just cookie-cut pages on a dictionary. Especially in this context, when the language play is a linguistic reference to something as significant as feminist ideas, but yeah 'lol feminists'.

I never get tired of hearing that record play on RL :rolleyes:

Prairie Fire

15th June 2009, 07:41

H-L-V-S

I think it was actually written by a woman, not a womyn.

New Tet:

...wymun...

bcbm:

How many different spellings of "woman/women" can we get in this thread?

Sorry, I meant wimmin.

This Charming man:

Stop dehumanising our whammin.

Pirate Utopian:

I only write "women" as wopeople cause I am more revolutionary than thou!

Captain Jack:

...women (not womyn)...

When I write big posts explaining Marxism-Leninism in detail, everyone gives me positive rep and "thanks", and the issue of my spelling variant never comes up.

When I write something related to gender inequality, my spelling variant is the first thing they use to put me in my place.

I'm unpleasantly surprised to see that some of the people here taking a chauvenist line are not the usual suspects for this sort of thing.

The article that prompted my reply is undisputably written for a male audience. The gender roles in the narrative are well defined as males and females, "boyfriends" and "girlfriends".

I took issue with the outlook, and very few people made an effort to even address what I actually said (except for RP, who was the initiator of the thread). Instead, I got "the stick", deluged in ad hominem attacks about my spelling variant.

I saw this reaction coming, but I still had to say something.

illan

15th June 2009, 07:43

So far as using the term womyn/womin/womon is concerned, I hardly think that its going to change social relations - but no one claims it is. Its point is to challenge patriarchal language/thinking, regardless of what the etymology of the word is. Frankly, someone (and I mean mainly men or as the case may be on this forum, little boys) trying to correct a womyn's spelling and point out that 'no, honey, its not spelt like dat!!!', comes across as obnoxious and dismissive. Sure, the usage can be silly in situations, but its probably lamer for you to come in as the Grammar Police (TM) and make sure that everyone follows the 'correct usage' of words so as to not stray into dangerous grounds which upset public opinion (how's communism doin' in that regards lately?). Certainly on this forum all you're doing is defending the overwhelming male majority. Thanks for proving how l33t & [email protected] ya'll are!

illan

15th June 2009, 07:54

Using language like that just makes people that don't already support feminism think you're crazy. I'm a communist. Which means I'm considered, by default, a mass murderer (or a supporter of mass murder), a racist (dunno, where that comes from, but it comes all the same), a baby killer, a man hater, a satanist, a hedonistic slut or whatever-the-fuck someone wants to put on the name of communism. None of them are true (well maybe except for one). Using the term 'womyn' is hardly going to fuck up my reputation (lmao!) and nor should someone conform to standard opinion in order not to be labeled 'crazy.' But what would you know, you're a useless liberal.

bcbm

15th June 2009, 08:00

When I write something related to gender inequality, my spelling variant is the first thing they use to put me in my place.

I don't really give a shit how you spell anything nor did I criticize anything you said because I don't really care about the article. I just noticed a few new spellings i hadn't seen before from other people and it seemed funny to have so many in one thread. Wasn't trying to offend, sorry.

Glenn Beck

15th June 2009, 08:07

When I write big posts explaining Marxism-Leninism in detail, everyone gives me positive rep and "thanks", and the issue of my spelling variant never comes up.

When I write something related to gender inequality, my spelling variant is the first thing they use to put me in my place.

I'm unpleasantly surprised to see that some of the people here taking a chauvenist line are not the usual suspects for this sort of thing.

The article that prompted my reply is undisputably written for a male audience. The gender roles in the narrative are well defined as males and females, "boyfriends" and "girlfriends".

I took issue with the outlook, and very few people made an effort to even address what I actually said (except for RP, who was the initiator of the thread). Instead, I got "the stick", deluged in ad hominem attacks about my spelling variant.

I saw this reaction coming, but I still had to say something.

It's certainly cowardly to ignore your points in favor of mocking your idiosyncratic spelling, but I'm surprised someone of your materialist bent would favor such seemingly idealist ways of fighting oppression, especially given that such a response is basically inevitable.

I also dislike that you singled out american males as opposed to males in general.

THAT IS SO TRUE! Amen brother! American males are so terribly oppressed by these stereotypes :crying::crying::crying:

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 08:14

*To PF*
I really have no problem with what you said. It is a narrative describing a common romantic situation, just from the perspective of the female taking advantage of the male. RP also posted a comic showing the other side. There is nothing sexist about perceptive. Nor did the OP suggest that this was always the case. Also you assumption that I would thank you for a post on Marxist-Leninism is completely wrong, I would probably spend around an hour writing a in-depth counter argument. I am a writer by profession and dislike any improper spelling of words. I would have reacted in the same way if you had said 'dawg' or the like. I by no means harbor grudges against Feminism. I personally consider my self a Feminist (as in I support gender equality). I am sure most commenters you listed held similar reasons, or were just being arses. I apologize if I offended you. However, I would like to stress the point that this is a rather meaningless form of protest that really proves nothing. It is the literary equivalent of burning bras. It is hopelessly idealist way of getting your point across and really doesn't do it all that well.

With much love comrade,
Captain Jack

illan

15th June 2009, 08:16

It's certainly cowardly to ignore your points in favor of mocking your idiosyncratic spelling, but I'm surprised someone of your materialist bent would favor such seemingly idealist ways of fighting oppression, especially given that such a response is basically inevitable. Just because something is 'fought' in the context of words doesn't make it 'idealist' and therefore useless. Challenging the use of the word 'nigger' is certainly bound up in trying to change language norms. That doesn't make it useless or ineffective - language, being so integral to society, is bound to represent certain class interests. Challenging prevailing terms is part of that struggle for a revolutionary & just society.

Bilan

15th June 2009, 08:17

When I write big posts explaining Marxism-Leninism in detail, everyone gives me positive rep and "thanks", and the issue of my spelling variant never comes up.

Well, sure. The different spelling of women in there isn't important: what is is what you're actually saying. To mention it there would be to trivialise everything you're saying.

When I write something related to gender inequality, my spelling variant is the first thing they use to put me in my place.

This isn't really about gender inequality, though. Gender inequality underlies human relationships, sure, but that's not what is being referred too. This joke paper is referring to something most people experience in relationships: i.e. when a person is attracted to another, and the other insists on staying 'just friends'. I know few people who haven't been through that, girls or boys, and all that's being done is that it's being mocked.
As for the spelling, well, the spelling is relatively minor. Language isn't the basis of patriarchy, nor well altering it have any affect whatsoever. I doubt most people even take any notice of how woman is spelt, let alone feel any need to change it. The liberation of women arises from a structural change, not a linguistic one (And I'm well aware that you're well aware of that).
The changing of spelling is really rather pointless.

Further, it's not worth getting so riled up about. People here are evidently just being smart arses. There's little more to it. How we spell a word doesn't change how we react to what it's referring to: those of us who still spell it 'women' don't reject womens liberation necessarily, but just simply think it's a bit silly to spell it 'wimmin'/'womyn' etc.

I'm unpleasantly surprised to see that some of the people here taking a chauvenist line are not the usual suspects for this sort of thing.

What is chauvinistic about it?

The article that prompted my reply is undisputably written for a male audience. The gender roles in the narrative are well defined as males and females, "boyfriends" and "girlfriends".

So? There's not 'gender roles' as such, but simply the mention of 'boyfriends' and 'girlfriends' - these don't necessarily require any specific roles, though some do. It almost sounds like you're implying that anyone who has had a boyfriend or girlfriend is OK with gender roles, which is a gross distortion of relationships - but I presume that's a misunderstanding on my part.

illan

15th June 2009, 08:21

*To PF*
Also you assumption that I would thank you for a post on Marxist-Leninism is completely wrong, I would probably spend around an hour writing a in-depth counter argument. As they say, talk is cheap. And you're one of the biggest dickheads on this forum, so your talk is even cheaper.
I am a writer by profession and dislike any improper spelling of words. Grow the fuck up, and stop being so full of yourself, you asshole.
I would like to stress the point that this is a rather meaningless form of protest that really proves nothing. It is the literary equivalent of burning bras. It is hopelessly idealist way of getting your point across and really doesn't do it all that well. When females burn bras, it was never intended to overthrow society. It was a symbolic gesture - and they knew it. And far from being meaningless, its one of the most enduring images of the sexual revolution. So please, stop being a complete fuckwit and read book or two hundred.

Glenn Beck

15th June 2009, 08:23

Just because something is 'fought' in the context of words doesn't make it 'idealist' and therefore useless. Challenging the use of the word 'nigger' is certainly bound up in trying to change language norms. That doesn't make it useless or ineffective - language, being so integral to society, is bound to represent certain class interests. Challenging prevailing terms is part of that struggle for a revolutionary & just society.

I suppose...still I don't see how you can compare replacing the word "man" in all contexts not referring specifically to a male human with the very same word just with a different vowel to advocating social disapproval of a racial slur. I suppose my gripe with "womyn, wimmin" and all that jazz is that 1. I'm not convinced that the language it seeks to replace is indicative of or contributing to sexism and 2. It fails to actually reform the english language to be gender neutral and simply uses an idiosyncratic spelling of the word "man", for all intents and purposes the word "man' is still in there

Glenn Beck

15th June 2009, 08:27

I am a writer by profession and dislike any improper spelling of words.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s238/bradly2795/lol_wut.jpg?t=1245050820

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 08:45

*To illian*
Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly. I do not patronize you because you are a woman, but because you either can't spell (considering you misspelled words like doing and that) or you purposefully misspell things to piss people off. This shows a complete lack of maturity, which is by no means a positive aspect for a person who has to make sensible arguments to an already skeptical public. Supporting the misspelling of a word to feminize it, goes against the idea of gender equality by supporting the idea that words with men/man in them are inappropriate and must be changed. You are simply replacing what you see as patriarchal language with matriarchal language, which is not helping the cause of gender equality and is rather sexist. Doing such by no means makes you "hardcore", nor does criticizing one for doing so make you a reactionary or fake. I also would like to add that I prefer the term 'Grammar Nazi' (it makes me sound more authoritarian). And calling Hammer and Pickle a useless liberal, is neither justified or appropriate. Nor is your constant use of foul language, especially considering you know no one on this forum. I personally take insult to your terminologies, that you use so wonderfully to paint such an accurate picture of me:rolleyes:. I believe I speak for most when I say that blatant insults like that are unwelcome on this forum.

Love,
Captain Jack

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 08:46

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s238/bradly2795/lol_wut.jpg?t=1245050820
Oh, now you just being an arse! :laugh:

Bilan

15th June 2009, 08:50

*To illian*
Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly.

When you wrote this, which head were you thinking with?

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 08:56

When you wrote this, which head were you thinking with?
I was being my statical ass self to prove a point. I usually refrain from low blows like that. I also regret that you would think my comment was merely motivated by a macho sense of male superiority. However Bilan, you don't know me well enough, so I forgive you.

Wanted Man

15th June 2009, 12:01

Anyway, I thought it was a funny article, reminded me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31035
That one was pretty funny too. It reminded me of a pretty recent experience, actually, and put a different light on it. :lol: So let's hope there won't be anyone taking offense at this evil piece of oppressive satire too (see below).

As for the discussion that has developed, well, I'm certainly not going to be apologetic about the fact that I think "womyn", "wimmin", etc. is ridiculous. The reasons for this have been summed up all over this forum millions of times. For example, how there's no scientific proof that the language we use now is "oppressive". What someone said about how the word "man" is really still in there, but just with a different vowel. Or gonzeau, about how it's an utterly idealist way to deal with oppression.

There is plenty of principled criticism of this usage to be found just about anywhere on the left. So it's not really surprising that it's going to be satirised when someone seriously uses it in Chit Chat, in a thread that deals with satire in the first place. The original post satirised some things that a lot of people probably have experience with, it's not supposed to be some serious statement about how "feminists are oppressing us American men" or whatever.

What I personally find offensive, is when people rail against this kind of satire as if it perpetuates oppression. Of course, it does the contrary, it exposes the often ridiculous social norms that exist in society in a pretty funny way, and makes us think. I have a feeling that a lot of people are not interested in dealing with oppression itself, but in simply trying to sweep any thought or discussion of it, including satire, under the rug, just to be safe.

I also don't think PF was "shouted down" unfairly. Her own first post in this thread basically consisted of a strawman of the article and a personal attack on RP.

Module

15th June 2009, 12:14

In reference to some of the posts being made in this thread, no, language is not irrelevant. Language is a big part of our culture and reflects and informs the sexism that exists within it. Language is a major part of how human beings communicate with one another and therefore a major part of how social structure is established within the consciousness of individuals. With what language we communicate with does effect how the message is recieved. It sends a very clear message itself.
When some feminists use the spelling 'womyn', instead of 'woman', it is to draw attention to certain features of our language which are taken for granted. Their being taken for granted is evident in Captain Jack's claim that to change the spelling is to replace 'patriarchy' with 'matriarchy'. Erm, no, it isn't. To remove the word 'man' from 'woman' is not 'anti-man', it's 'anti-patriarchy'. Whether it is the result of sexism that the word 'woman' contains 'man', or that the word 'man' has come to mean 'male' instead of 'human' (which I think is more likely), it is clear that something is amiss. It doesn't mean that this particular instance needs a change of spelling to make it more equal. I doubt any user of the word would claim that as their intention. The spelling of 'man' and 'woman' is, I would say, now irrelevant to modern day sexism. But it's used to draw attention to certain aspects of our culture, of which language is a very meaningful part, which most don't consciously think about. It gets people thinking. That is certainly something useful.
I do think it's far too easy for some men to brush off alternate spellings of the word 'woman' as stupid, silly or irrelevant. This disregard of sexism in language is an easy-win battle for chauvinistic men. As PF pointed out, it's used to disregard the wider and more important message that woman are trying to send.
The same thing happens when feminists take issue with using the word 'he' to describe an unknown human being, though clearly there is a more obvious problem with that. The criticisms are made in the same vein. 'That's so stupid, nobody thinks about that' or 'You're such a nit-picker, you don't have any important arguments to make'. They're little things people take for granted, and people don't want to have to go through the stresses of reconsidering something they thought had escaped criticism. Like the naughty little boy whose stash of Snickers bars was discovered after he already had to give up having chocolate cake for breakfast thanks to his mum who is 'soooo unfair!!'.
Personally, PF, I don't like the use of the word 'womyn' but I won't explain myself here because I don't want some arsehole adopting my perfectly reasonable argument as an excuse to keep ridiculing the people who do use it. ;)

Invader Zim

15th June 2009, 12:53

That's not original, funny or really called for? Like you enjoy provoking and mocking women who use feminist spellings? Congrats, waive your dick around while you're at it bro.

The old english word for 'woman' was 'wyfman', the prefix 'wyf' indicating that the individual is female, the 'wo' being a mutation from the origional 'wyf'. 'Man' actually translates to 'person', rather than the common understanding of the term. 'Wyf' of course meant 'wife', thus 'wo' actually means 'wife'. So a woman was called a 'wife person'. So it is somewhat amusing that this limited minority of 'feminists' who employ 'womyn' are actually retaining the patriarchal part of the word which suggests that their purpose in society is to act as wives and altering the part of the word which indicate that they are people.

Can anyone spell 'iryny'?

Black Dagger

15th June 2009, 14:39

IZ, you're not telling me anything i haven't heard before.

New Tet

15th June 2009, 14:42

H-L-V-S

New Tet:

When I write big posts explaining Marxism-Leninism in detail, everyone gives me positive rep and "thanks", and the issue of my spelling variant never comes up.

When I write something related to gender inequality, my spelling variant is the first thing they use to put me in my place.

I'm unpleasantly surprised to see that some of the people here taking a chauvenist line are not the usual suspects for this sort of thing.

The article that prompted my reply is undisputably written for a male audience. The gender roles in the narrative are well defined as males and females, "boyfriends" and "girlfriends".

I took issue with the outlook, and very few people made an effort to even address what I actually said (except for RP, who was the initiator of the thread). Instead, I got "the stick", deluged in ad hominem attacks about my spelling variant.

I saw this reaction coming, but I still had to say something.

Call me ignorant, but I have yet to find a way to combat satire seriously without inviting "the stick".

Invader Zim

15th June 2009, 14:50

IZ, you're not telling me anything i haven't heard before.
I was attempting to show that mockery is precisely what is called for when dealing with the tiny minority of feminists who actually employ terms such as 'womyn', not only because it shows that they are utterly disconnected from those they claim to be trying to liberate, but also because the term 'womyn' doesn't actually make any sense if you look at it.

Jazzratt

15th June 2009, 15:34

I was being my statical ass self to prove a point.

The point you proved is that you're an unreconstructed ape.

I usually refrain from low blows like that.

But if you were being your "statical ass" self doesn't that indicate you're at least prone to that.

I also regret that you would think my comment was merely motivated by a macho sense of male superiority.

Of course it wasn't, I mean who could possibly interpret this:

Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly.
As being motivated by a macho sense of male superiority.

I think it bears repeating:

Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly.

I mean jesus next you'll be telling us that PF's brain is going to overheat if she keeps trying to join in the men's conversation about english.

And just once more, so that it sinks in how much of a pillock you are:

Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly.

I also regret that you would think my comment was merely motivated by a macho sense of male superiority.

However Bilan, you don't know me well enough, so I forgive you.

I think you're confused about who oes apology to whom and who owes forgiveness to whom.

Invader Zim

15th June 2009, 15:43

Instead, I got "the stick", deluged in ad hominem attacks about my spelling variant.

How can they be ad hominems if the content of your post was attacked?

NecroCommie

15th June 2009, 15:44

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s238/bradly2795/lol_wut.jpg?t=1245050820
You posted the "lolwut"-pear!!!
You are soooooo awesome!! I owe you some rep for that...

New Tet

15th June 2009, 15:58

The point you proved is that you're an unreconstructed ape.
But if you were being your "statical ass" self doesn't that indicate you're at least prone to that.
Of course it wasn't, I mean who could possibly interpret this:
As being motivated by a macho sense of male superiority.
I think it bears repeating:
[Honey]
I mean jesus next you'll be telling us that PF's brain is going to overheat if she keeps trying to join in the men's conversation about english.
And just once more, so that it sinks in how much of a pillock you are:
[HONEY!]
I think you're confused about who oes apology to whom and who owes forgiveness to whom.

Being the Latino macho-man that I am (prone to fear of articulate, assertive women and frequent attacks of gay panic) I warn all you guys out there: Throw a "honey" my way and I will bloody your nose!

ZeroNowhere

15th June 2009, 18:20

What the hell.

So far as using the term womyn/womin/womon is concerned, I hardly think that its going to change social relations - but no one claims it is. Its point is to challenge patriarchal language/thinking, regardless of what the etymology of the word is. Frankly, someone (and I mean mainly men or as the case may be on this forum, little boys) trying to correct a womyn's spelling and point out that 'no, honey, its not spelt like dat!!!', comes across as obnoxious and dismissive.All attempts at unjustly portraying people as patriarchal and/or patronising are to be treated without mercy, as it is petit-bourgeois and characteristic of middle class Amerikkkan whites.

Bilan

15th June 2009, 18:31

I was being my statical ass self to prove a point. I usually refrain from low blows like that. I also regret that you would think my comment was merely motivated by a macho sense of male superiority. However Bilan, you don't know me well enough, so I forgive you.

I was implying you were being an asshole when you said it, and that it was disgustingly patronizing.
That sort of behaviour isn't appropriate on here, by any means. Let this be the end of it.

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 18:37

The point you proved is that you're an unreconstructed ape.
Well that's not very nice.

But if you were being your "statical ass" self doesn't that indicate you're at least prone to that. Yes. However, I have made a concerted effort to avoid insulting those I disagree with on this forum.

Of course it wasn't, I mean who could possibly interpret this:

As being motivated by a macho sense of male superiority.

I think it bears repeating:

I mean jesus next you'll be telling us that PF's brain is going to overheat if she keeps trying to join in the men's conversation about english. 1. I was not talking to PF. I was addressing illian, who had previously used the comment 'honey' in accusing those who took issue with the misspelling of woman, to be chauvinist pigs. To tell the truth, it was a last minuate add, that was only put in after her rather nasty reply to my appology to PF and explaination why I critized the spelling.

And just once more, so that it sinks in how much of a pillock you are:Once again not nice, or in context since you obivouly did bother reading my other post or the post of the person I was addressing. And if it makes you feel better, I call lots of people honey, men and women. It is a term of endearment. I love and judge people for who they are, not their gender. Getting more people to share this view is not forwarded by misspelling woman.

I think you're confused about who oes apology to whom and who owes forgiveness to whom.Again, you seem to not had much context on my statement when you commented on it. This goes against your usual careful critque of others post, which I have admired in the past.

Love,
Captain Jack

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 18:44

I was implying you were being an asshole when you said it, and that it was disgustingly patronizing.
That sort of behaviour isn't appropriate on here, by any means. Let this be the end of it.
I was being a prick, I'll give you that. Apologize for the comment, I was a bit angry at the person I was addressing at the time.

ZeroNowhere

15th June 2009, 18:53

I was not talking to PF. I was addressing illian, who had previously used the comment 'honey' in accusing those who took issue with the misspelling of woman, to be chauvinist pigs.As should have been a lot more evident than it seems to be.

Le Libérer

15th June 2009, 19:43

This is why you choose shortly after meeting a girl if you want to try and date them or just be friends so if its the former you can avoid the friend zone.I hate to inform you of this, but women are the ones who decide if there will be friendship or sex.

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 19:51

I hate to inform you of this, but women are the ones who decide if there will be friendship or sex.
Umm... this is not always the case. Your statement assumes that it is the man going after the woman. It completely ignores the possibility of the woman wanting the man, in which case, the sex or friendship issue would be the man choice. Plus, I think comrade Joe was saying that men should either pick to go after a sexual relationship or friendship when they meet a girl or guy.

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 20:03

What the hell.
All attempts at unjustly portraying people as patriarchal and/or patronising are to be treated without mercy, as it is petit-bourgeois and characteristic of middle class Amerikkkan whites.

I agree with you. However, the assertion that all white middle class people are associated with the KKK was unnecessary. I agree that they are over privileged suburb kids who really have no perspective on class struggle. However, if they would like to engage people who know what they are talking about or are actually part of the oppressed class. Then I welcome them. However, the mudslinging is not welcomed. I completely agree.

Jazzratt

15th June 2009, 20:04

Well that's not very nice.

Nor am I.

Yes. However, I have made a concerted effort to avoid insulting those I disagree with on this forum.

I'm at a complete loss as to why you'd bother...

1. I was not talking to PF. I was addressing illian, who had previously used the comment 'honey' in accusing those who took issue with the misspelling of woman, to be chauvinist pigs. To tell the truth, it was a last minuate add, that was only put in after her rather nasty reply to my appology to PF and explaination why I critized the spelling.

Ah that's okay then, you were being a dismissive jerk to a different woman. Glad that's all sorted. Wait...

Once again not nice, or in context since you obivouly did bother reading my other post or the post of the person I was addressing. And if it makes you feel better, I call lots of people honey, men and women. It is a term of endearment.

Yes but using it in this context; directed against a woman who has a grievance with you and followed by a simple dismissal ("you look silly") it does make you look like a chauvanist dipshit regardless of intent. Also from what I understand most women find being called things like "honey", "sugar", "darling" etc by strange men to be creepy and patronising rather than endearing.

I love and judge people for who they are, not their gender. Getting more people to share this view is not forwarded by misspelling woman.

I really don't give a shit how people spell woman. Personally I don't think it's going to help much but I also recognise that it is a deliberate and (for the most part) thought out alternate spelling rather than something that should simply be dismissed as a "misspelling". So while it's a spelling I wouldn't use and wouldn't encourage others to I don't simply dismiss it out of hand.

Again, you seem to not had much context on my statement when you commented on it. This goes against your usual careful critque of others post, which I have admired in the past.

Fair enough. I still don't think anyone you've directed a post at in this thread needs your forgivness, though.

New Tet

15th June 2009, 20:05

I hate to inform you of this, but women are the ones who decide if there will be friendship or sex.

If that's true I must be a woman!

Invader Zim

15th June 2009, 20:06

I hate to inform you of this, but women are the ones who decide if there will be friendship or sex.

What, so women don't ever come onto men? And relationships, be they romantic or otherwise, aren't based on mutual input?

Pirate turtle the 11th

15th June 2009, 20:06

I hate to inform you of this, but women are the ones who decide if there will be friendship or sex.

Yes but do you know what would happen to my ego if I stopped telling myself otherwise?

New Tet

15th June 2009, 20:14

Umm... this is not always the case. Your statement assumes that it is the man going after the woman. It completely ignores the possibility of the woman wanting the man, in which case, the sex or friendship issue would be the man choice. Plus, I think comrade Joe was saying that men should either pick to go after a sexual relationship or friendship when they meet a girl or guy.

Which, at least in my addled mind, brings up a most interesting question:

What is the official Marxist position on sex?

I mean, did Lenin, Stalin or Mao, just to name a few, ever write a concise guide on how to suck and fuck in a manner consistent with socialist principles and ideals?

Well, two questions, really...

Pogue

15th June 2009, 20:15

Which, at least in my addled mind, brings up a most interesting question:

What is the official Marxist position on sex?

I mean, did Lenin, Stalin or Mao, just to name a few, ever write a concise guide on how to suck and fuck in a manner consistent with socialist principles and ideals?

Well, two questions, really...

"SEX - it's OK, says Mao, but not too often."

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 20:22

Nor am I.
Same here, but I at least try to be civil.

I'm at a complete loss as to why you'd bother...
Polite discussion goes much further in advancing your views then mud slinging.

Ah that's okay then, you were being a dismissive jerk to a different woman. Glad that's all sorted. Wait...
Yes, because I obviously completely dismissed her views, that is exactly why I bothered to write a rebuttal. :rolleyes: Also, I was using her own words to prove the point that we were not being patronizing by criticizing this rather foolish spelling of women. I used satire, which if I remember correctly was the original propose of this thread. My comment was by no means sincere.

Yes but using it in this context; directed against a woman who has a grievance with you and followed by a simple dismissal ("you look silly") it does make you look like a chauvanist dipshit regardless of intent. Also from what I understand most women find being called things like "honey", "sugar", "darling" etc by strange men to be creepy and patronising rather than endearing.
Baby, you seem to miss my point. My comment on endearment was to show I would never use such terms in a dismissive way seriously. Rather I played on her accusation that I was being chauvinistic, by faking chauvinism. I also, don't see how I am strange?

I really don't give a shit how people spell woman. Personally I don't think it's going to help much but I also recognise that it is a deliberate and (for the most part) thought out alternate spelling rather than something that should simply be dismissed as a "misspelling". So while it's a spelling I wouldn't use and wouldn't encourage others to I don't simply dismiss it out of hand.
I am not just dismissing it. Rather I am showing I disagree with it and saying why. I didn't know we weren't allowed to argue if we disagreed with a post... oh wait isn't that what we are doing now *shock*.

Fair enough. I still don't think anyone you've directed a post at in this thread needs your forgivness, though.
They may not need it, but that won't stop me from giving it. I am just one of hippie, love everyone people, what can I say.

New Tet

15th June 2009, 20:22

"SEX - it's OK, says Mao, but not too often."

And did he talk about some people like, um, my friend, who complains that he doesn't get it often enough?

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 20:25

"SEX - it's OK, says Mao, but not too often."
Just ok? Mao sounds like he needs to get laid. Sex is fun, that is all. It makes people happy, the more the better!

New Tet

15th June 2009, 20:29

Just ok? Mao sounds like he needs to get laid. Sex is fun, that is all. It makes people happy, the more the better!

Yeah, until someone loses an eye! Libertine!

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 20:38

Yeah, until someone loses an eye! Libertine!
But, hey, if you got lose an eye, that's the way to lose it!:laugh:

ZeroNowhere

15th June 2009, 20:38

I agree with you. However, the assertion that all white middle class people are associated with the KKK was unnecessary. I agree that they are over privileged suburb kids who really have no perspective on class struggle. However, if they would like to engage people who know what they are talking about or are actually part of the oppressed class. Then I welcome them. However, the mudslinging is not welcomed. I completely agree.
To clarify, the part after the comma there was not serious.

What is the official Marxist position on sex?Fuck capitalism.

Baby, you seem to miss my point.Don't overdo it. It wasn't especially amusing the first time (though the reaction was), it shall soon become very stale.

New Tet

15th June 2009, 20:52

Fuck capitalism.

I'd rather bury it. I save the fucking for the one I love.

black magick hustla

15th June 2009, 21:21

Pogue

15th June 2009, 21:24

Marmot wins

black magick hustla

15th June 2009, 21:24

What, so women don't ever come onto men? And relationships, be they romantic or otherwise, aren't based on mutual input?

its not a question of what is ideal or not. unless you are a model or have tons of game i doubt you do most of the time the decision. the best you can do is you can pretend you dont like her that much and that you are the prize even if thats not true hah

Il Medico

15th June 2009, 22:00

Marmot, I officially love you. You made my point in three sentences! :D

Also, on the man or woman deciding whether the relationship is going to be sexually. It is both, for the most part. This of course is excluding man-man and girl-girl relationships, in which case it is a one gender issue.

Le Libérer

15th June 2009, 22:13

Umm... this is not always the case. Your statement assumes that it is the man going after the woman. It completely ignores the possibility of the woman wanting the man, in which case, the sex or friendship issue would be the man choice. Plus, I think comrade Joe was saying that men should either pick to go after a sexual relationship or friendship when they meet a girl or guy.
In either senario, its the woman who decides whether there will be the possiblity of sex. Even if she is the aggressor, the opportunity wouldnt be there had she not initiated it.

I know its a blow to the male ego and all, but women hold the trump card when it comes to sex. The only exception is rape.

Le Libérer

15th June 2009, 22:16

If that's true I must be a woman! Yeah keep telling yourself that. :lol:

redguard2009

15th June 2009, 22:20

Wow you guys need to take a chill pill and stop trying to philophise and politicize every god damned fucking thing you see.

As for the original post and the comic, HOLY HELL did that hit spot-on. I almost cried and gouged out my wrist veins with a fork and rage all over my computer reading that.

JimmyJazz

15th June 2009, 22:31

I almost cried and gouged out my wrist veins with a fork and rage all over my computer reading that.

:unsure:

gorillafuck

15th June 2009, 23:19

*To illian*
Listen honey...
WAT.

THAT IS SO TRUE! Amen brother! American males are so terribly oppressed by these stereotypes :crying::crying::crying:
If you're being sarcastic (I'm bad at detecting sarcasm online), then whatever. I just have trouble believing that an average american male is THAT much more sexist than an average, say, canadian male.

I'm a communist. Which means I'm considered, by default, a mass murderer (or a supporter of mass murder), a racist (dunno, where that comes from, but it comes all the same), a baby killer, a man hater, a satanist, a hedonistic slut or whatever-the-fuck someone wants to put on the name of communism. None of them are true (well maybe except for one). Using the term 'womyn' is hardly going to fuck up my reputation (lmao!) and nor should someone conform to standard opinion in order not to be labeled 'crazy.' But what would you know, you're a useless liberal.
I just think that in real life, using deliberate misspellings will give an immediate image that will turn people away from feminism.

And don't call me a "useless liberal". It's really a ridiculous insult.

Invader Zim

15th June 2009, 23:23

In either senario, its the woman who decides whether there will be the possiblity of sex. Even if she is the aggressor, the opportunity wouldnt be there had she not initiated it.

I know its a blow to the male ego and all, but women hold the trump card when it comes to sex. The only exception is rape.

Or maybe when a man turns a woman down? We get to say 'no' too (we also get headaches).

Module

15th June 2009, 23:31

But language is not as simple as you think. Words dont have specific meanings and in it entirely depends on the sense given to those propositions by the community. The whole silly argument of womyn collapses when you realze that there are countries with "gender neutral" words who are way more sexist than english speaking countries.I am under no illusion that language is a 'simple' thing. The point I am making is that the words one uses are in themselves a form of communication regardless of what somebody would claim the basic 'context' to be. For example, somebody saying that the use of the word 'gay' is disconnected from homophobia where it isn't used to refer to somebody who is homosexual.
On the contrary, Marmot, it's a simplification (or just a misunderstanding) to suggest that language usage is not an inherant part of the communication of information between human beings.
As for the argument of womyn collapsing because of sexist countries using gender neutral pronouns, no, I don't think that's true at all. Cultures do not form uniformly or have equivilent features to them, so it's silly to suggest that the absence of one cultural feature of Western society within a different society disproves the causes or effects of that feature.
I don't agree that the word 'woman' is relevant to modern day sexism. As I've already said. That doesn't mean that I agree that you can argue that point on the basis that language is irrelevant to social norms and structures. You can't - it isn't true.

Le Libérer

15th June 2009, 23:53

Or maybe when a man turns a woman down? We get to say 'no' too (we also get headaches).
Dont you see? We (women) allowed the answer whether it be yes or no. Getting a headache yet? :)

black magick hustla

16th June 2009, 00:12

I am under no illusion that language is a 'simple' thing. The point I am making is that the words one uses are in themselves a form of communication regardless of what somebody would claim the basic 'context' to be. For example, somebody saying that the use of the word 'gay' is disconnected from homophobia where it isn't used to refer to somebody who is homosexual.
On the contrary, Marmot, it's a simplification (or just a misunderstanding) to suggest that language usage is not an inherant part of the communication of information between human beings..

Don't be silly. I am not misunderstanding anything, you are misunderstanding the stuff. I never said "language" is not inherent part of communication or whatever. I said that language is created as a public activity and thus, the sense of it is given by the practices of that community. If you call some black guy a nigger, that is very different from me writing nigger right now in this post which only the craziest of crazies will deem as racist. Nobody thinks about women as being sub-men when using that word.

Jazzratt

16th June 2009, 00:30

I've been following the discussion LP is having and I'm afraid to say she is wrong lest she snaps at me, but as far as I've been able to work out from social interaction and the following seems to have to occur for heterosexual sex and/or relationships - both parties (disgregarding rape because it's shit) have to be up for it. If we think of the "state up for it" as 1 and "not being up for it" as 0 we can go through this more briefly. The possibilities are as follows:

Woman 1 Man 1 = Happy sexy fun time
Woman 1 Man 0 = Woman complaining to mates at pub. No Happy Sexy Fun time.
Woman 0 Man 1 = Man complaining to mates at pub. No Happy Sexy Fun Time.

From that it can be derived that the decision is mutual. The only thing that would give a person one sex the impression that they are choosing more than a person of the other sex is if they have had more chances to reject members of the other sex (i.e met more people in an up for it state). My conclusion then is that LP has run into more men that are up for it, lucky her.

Il Medico

16th June 2009, 00:36

Woman 1 Man 1 = Happy sexy fun time
Woman 1 Man 0 = Woman complaining to mates at pub. No Happy Sexy Fun time.
Woman 0 Man 1 = Man complaining to mates at pub. No Happy Sexy Fun Time.

What about non hetero relationships?
Men 2= Happy Sex Fun Time.
Women 2= Happy Sex Fun Time.
or
Man 1, goat 1= Weird sex, maybe fun time.
Woman 1, Horse 1= Weird Sex fun Time.
I could go one, but I think I have said enough:tt2:

Pirate Utopian

16th June 2009, 00:43

Man 45 Woman 45 = Superhappy Sexy Fun Time

Il Medico

16th June 2009, 00:50

8 Men 10 Women and 2 Transsexuals = A party! :laugh:

Jazzratt

16th June 2009, 01:16

What about none hetero relationships?
Men 2= Happy Sex Fun Time.
Women 2= Happy Sex Fun Time.
or
Man 1, goat 1= Weird sex, maybe fun time.
Woman 1, Horse 1= Weird Sex fun Time.
I could go one, but I think I have said enough:tt2:

You could have read the post...

as far as I've been able to work out from social interaction and the following seems to have to occur for heterosexual sex and/or relationshipsAnyway the first two would be woman 1 woman 1 and man 1 man 1 respectively. I also assumed only one partner but it was for the sake of simplicity.

8 Men 10 Women and 2 Transsexuals = A party! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gif

You're aware that transexual and intersex are not interchangeable terms and that most transexuals are either men (ftm) or women (mtf)...

Il Medico

16th June 2009, 01:25

You could have read the post...
I did, I was just being an ass.

You're aware that transexual and intersex are not interchangeable terms and that most transexuals are either men (ftm) or women (mtf)...Yes, but women who act like men and men who act like women are always fun. I think it would be good to have one of each. That is if your into orgies.

Black Dagger

16th June 2009, 03:09

Il Medico

16th June 2009, 03:17

I don't think you understand the point of the 'womyn' thing, you've interpreted the action literally rather than politically (deliberate misspellings are rarely used strictly as replacements but to invoke a political message, or to stimulate discussion).
I know it is political, but is still rather silly and doesn't tend get people to agree with you. If it goes over this bad on Revleft, imagine how less understanding and liberal people would take it. It really doesn't help.

Black Dagger

16th June 2009, 03:38

What doesn't help, what doesn't get people to agree with you, is this:

Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly.

I don't want to be reading users mocking, patronising or belittling the spelling of others - though in this context, the problem is more with the tangible chauvinism in these words. If you are genuinely interested in persuading others to your POV on this matter then it baffles me as to why you would choose one of the least effective debating styles (mockery/paternalism). You must realise that comments like the above are basically trolling, and will only serve to embitter respondents to this thread. If you continue with that kind of stuff in future you will receive an infraction.

Also, though i don't know PraireFire very well - i doubt she cares what 'liberal people' think of her choice of words/views ;)

And just generally speaking? Get over it. I'm not trying to be confrontational but in all seriousness - why is this argument taking place at all? A female comrade uses a deliberate misspelling with feminist connotations, they are then bombarded by a bunch of male comrades delightfully informing her of the 'mistake' and why she is being 'silly' for even contemplating such a political statement. I never want to see that happen again on this site, do you not think PF is aware of the 'correct' spelling?

What exactly is gained from this pedantry? Nothing.

black magick hustla

16th June 2009, 03:41

I don't think you understand the point of the 'womyn' thing, you've interpreted the action literally rather than politically (deliberate misspellings are rarely used strictly as replacements but to invoke a political message, or to stimulate discussion).

In all due honesty, I doubt anyone outside people with heavy acquaintance with feminist theory is going to understand the "point". If I don't get the point I doubt many folks would get the point either. So the whole issue is pretty silly. It is in line with Amerikkka, Xicano, etc.

black magick hustla

16th June 2009, 03:49

And just generally speaking? Get over it. I'm not trying to be confrontational but in all seriousness - why is this argument taking place at all? A female comrade uses a deliberate misspelling with feminist connotations, they are then bombarded by a bunch of male comrades delightfully informing her of the 'mistake' and why she is being 'silly' for even contemplating such a political statement. I never want to see that happen again on this site, do you not think PF is aware of the 'correct' spelling?

:shrugs: I didn't post until des fleshed out a thoughtfoul post about the issue that I felt it would be interesting to reply. I think its a somewhat important issue to address because it betrays a wrong understanding of language.