Calling adult females "girls"

[Sam_b]

They are twenty and nineteen. They are not 'girls'.

[precarian]

They are twenty and nineteen. They are not 'girls'.

Twenty and nineteen is very young, in the grand scheme of things. Is there an officially-designated cut-off point where words like "girl" or "boy" can no longer be used?? Your post is hardly indicative of someone with anything insightful to add to this discussion.

[Sam_b]

Twenty and nineteen is very young, in the grand scheme of things.

'Girl' is often used by men to diminish their roles and portray them as weaker. It's nonsense gender marking and should be cut out. Quite frankly fucking irrelevant whether or not it fits in your 'grand scheme of things'.

EDIT: You even fucking qualify it as 'young' in your OP which makes your use of 'girls' even more redundant than it already is.

[precarian]

'Girl' is often used by men to diminish their roles and portray them as weaker. It's nonsense gender marking and should be cut out. Quite frankly fucking irrelevant whether or not it fits in your 'grand scheme of things'.

Jesus fucking Christ..

[The Feral Underclass]

Twenty and nineteen is very young, in the grand scheme of things. Is there an officially-designated cut-off point where words like "girl" or "boy" can no longer be used?? Your post is hardly indicative of someone with anything insightful to add to this discussion.

Would you call a twenty year old man a boy? "Girl" is a term used by men to patronise and infantilise women.

[Sam_b]

Maybe you see issues of gender as flippant as warranting the contentless response you make above precarian, but I assure you they are very real and important to a lot of people, and maybe you should actually think about how you address women in future.


I would have said "young boys"

Straight up lie alert.

[precarian]

'Girl' is often used by men to diminish their roles and portray them as weaker. It's nonsense gender marking and should be cut out. Quite frankly fucking irrelevant whether or not it fits in your 'grand scheme of things'.

EDIT: You even fucking qualify it as 'young' in your OP which makes your use of 'girls' even more redundant than it already is.

Focus on the use of descriptive language instead of the issue at hand. Good one. If they were male, I would have said "young boys" - were you never described as such when you were in your late teens?? They are young. They are facing a 25 year sentence. This is the issue. I'm not interested in your petty snarkiness.

[precarian]

Would you call a twenty year old man a boy? "Girl" is a term used by men to patronise and infantilise women.

Yes I would. In fact, I do! It was not meant to be patronising, so I apologise if you perceived it as such.

[Sam_b]

I wasn't going to actually make a response to this, but to be honest I'm pretty sick and tired of men fucking failing to get the message, in particular in a political context of the past number of years where (at least some sections of) the left are actually taking notice around the issues of gender, sexuality and language. It's all about privilege and power.


Focus on the use of descriptive language instead of the issue at hand

Language is important, I thought this was painfully obvious. By taking male chauvenistic traits and using the term 'girls', which actually fits in very well to an argument I do not subscribe to (to spell it out, the argument is that we don't support/not support these women because they are on the end of a miscarriage of justice, but because they are weak, helpless 'girls') you make it an issue. Issues which involve why much of the left don't 'get it' when it comes to things like liberation. Issues about why old white men dominate politics.


They are young. They are facing a 25 year sentence.

Yes, and everything you say still doesn't make them 'girls'.


I'm not interested in your petty snarkiness.

Those among us who still have no intention of addressing their privilege don't like being called out, we can see it again here.

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes I would. In fact, I do! It was not meant to be patronising, so I apologise if you perceived it as such.

I'm sure it wasn't meant to be patronising, but it is. Women are often infantilised and belittled in this way. We must be careful not to speak about women in a way that reinforces the patriarchal attitudes that women are vulnerable and weak.

[precarian]

I'm sure it wasn't meant to be patronising, but it is. Women are often infantilised and belittled in this way. We msut be careful not to speak about women in this way as it only reinforces patriarchal attitudes that women are vulnerable and weak.

That is quite an assumption to make. Obviously this is open to debate - Which women see it as infantilising and belittling? All women?? Or those who adhere to a particular political outlook? Indeed, taken to an extreme, anything could be described as offensive under these conditions.

In all my life I've never heard anyone describe "girl" as an offensive term - not within the leftist milieu, not amongst left-leaning friends, not amongst the general public.

It is ridiculous to attribute malice to an innocent phrase merely because "some people" interpret it to be offensive.

Anyway, this is really not the issue I can on here to discuss. As you have recognised I did not intend to offend, so I'm leaving it at that.

(I shall not deign to indulge the passive-aggressiveness of "Sam_b")

[Polaris]

That is quite an assumption to make. Obviously this is open to debate - Which women see it as infantilising and belittling? All women?? Or those who adhere to a particular political outlook? Indeed, taken to an extreme, anything could be described as offensive under these conditions.

In all my life I've never heard anyone describe "girl" as an offensive term - not within the leftist milieu, not amongst left-leaning friends, not amongst the general public.

The point is not whether an individual woman or certain demographic of women is offended by your terminology (although that would be a nice thing to consider next time). It is that use of the term 'girl' furthers the patriarchal stereotype of women, that they are weak, naive, and otherwise helpless. And this is not open for debate, it is fact.

That you have never encountered someone who has called you out on it further proves the strength of society's patronization of women.

Edit: Here's a nice article that supports this: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/2/21/girl-woman-around-language/

[Sam_b]

Which women see it as infantilising and belittling? All women?? Or those who adhere to a particular political outlook? Indeed, taken to an extreme, anything could be described as offensive under these conditions.

It doesn't matter if some or all believe so. You don't do it. (Here's a good example, by the way (http://amicaecuriae.com/2012/08/01/dont-call-me-girl-im-a-woman/)). If men are to be allies then they don't use behaviour and language that belittles women and is often designed to enforce patriarchy and gender roles.


In all my life I've never heard anyone describe "girl" as an offensive term - not within the leftist milieu, not amongst left-leaning friends, not amongst the general public.

It's not like the 'leftist milieu' isn't dominated by men, though. It certainly is. When the whole show is run by men it is often harder for women to get their voices heard. That or maybe you should be pro-active and start reading up on feminism, listening to women and so on.


It is ridiculous to attribute malice to an innocent phrase merely because "some people" interpret it to be offensive.

Unless you're now disputing that the term isn't patronising and offensive? Again though as a man it is not up to you to make the rules about how woman want to be referred to, and what they do and do not identify with.


I shall not deign to indulge the passive-aggressiveness of "Sam_b"

I'm not passive.

I'm also not interested in apologism and excuse making for basic tenants of decency.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I might even believe that this is about gender politics, if not for the fact that all of the people who have posted to denounce precarian for their horrifying misogyny - you know, something that never happens and is never tolerated on RevLeft - hadn't completely ignored the stereotype of hysterical women contained in the Daily Hail article. So, what are you hiding, comrades? Why focus on this instead of the main issue?

[precarian]

It doesn't matter if some or all believe so. You don't do it. (Here's a good example, by the way (http://amicaecuriae.com/2012/08/01/dont-call-me-girl-im-a-woman/)). If men are to be allies then they don't use behaviour and language that belittles women and is often designed to enforce patriarchy and gender roles.

You've provided me with a link to an obscure Australian blog.

Again: Who decides what "belittles" women?? I'd wager the vast majority of women do not find the word "girl", when applied to someone in their late teens, remotely offensive.

Indeed, some would contend that things like glamour modelling is "anti-woman" whereas others would not. Some feminists would argue for the introduction of gender-neutral pronouns into common speech. The point is that what considered "offensive" or "oppressive" in this regard is, of course, relative.

On whose say so must I adhere to your stringent rules regarding the use of the English language? Neither you, nor any of your friends, are the authority on such matters.


It's not like the 'leftist milieu' isn't dominated by men, though. It certainly is. When the whole show is run by men it is often harder for women to get their voices heard. That or maybe you should be pro-active and start reading up on feminism, listening to women and so on.

Passive-aggressiveness again. Obviously masculine barbarians like me, who use words like "girl", don't "listen to women." I'll crawl back into my cave and self-flagellate.


Unless you're now disputing that the term isn't patronising and offensive? Again though as a man it is not up to you to make the rules about how woman want to be referred to, and what they do and do not identify with.

Yes, and it's not up to you either! Nor is it appropriate for a particular minority of feminists to decide what everyone else should think either. It is pertinent to note that, in fact, the majority of the population do not conform to your notion of what is "patronising and offensive."


I'm not passive.

I'm also not interested in apologism and excuse making for basic tenants of decency.

Are you the supreme arbiter of decency??

[Sam_b]

Are you for real?

We have a duty to try and make the left as accessible for all irregardless of gender/sexuality/ethnicity/disability and so on. When people are challenged on their assumptions we get into dialogues about facing up to our own prejudices and privileges. The 'main issue' (gender isn't a 'main issue' anymore?) should also be why there are next to no women on Revleft; which in some ways can be seen as reflective of the left in general.


omething that never happens and is never tolerated on RevLeft

Aye right so when someone starts trying to do stuff about it this gets trotted out as if it's some sort of reason not to continue.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It's fucked up that 2 people of any age and gender face 25 years in jail over cocaine smuggling. I think that the actions of Peruvian law enforcement should be criticized.

It doesn't change the fact that calling them "young girls" and highlighting the fact that they are going "hysterical" plays on certain gender tropes. This is like the RevLeft version of "beautiful young white 15 year old raped and kidnapped" ... it's terrible when anyone is raped and kidnapped, but why is it a bigger deal when the victims of this kind of oppression are attractive white people? How many poor Peruvian prole men sent to Latin American jail every year for the same crime as these girls? I'm not saying that the OP is doing that but clearly the Daily Mail is to sell some papers.

[precarian]

The point is not whether an individual woman or certain demographic of women is offended by your terminology (although that would be a nice thing to consider next time). It is that use of the term 'girl' furthers the patriarchal stereotype of women, that they are weak, naive, and otherwise helpless. And this is not open for debate, it is fact.

That you have never encountered someone who has called you out on it further proves the strength of society's patronization of women.

Edit: Here's a nice article that supports this: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/2/21/girl-woman-around-language/


Is it really "fact?" Or is it actually opinion?? It is, indeed, not "fact" that it "furthers the patriarchal stereotype of women" - Only certain people, who adhere to a particular sociological point of view, would view it in such a manner. Many others would not.

[Sam_b]

You've provided me with a link to an obscure Australian blog.

I gave you a link to a good argument, that happens to be written by a woman. Maybe if you happened to read things about feminism and things written by women rather than use 'obscure blog' as a complete deflection then this wouldn't have happened.


Again: Who decides what "belittles" women??

Women do. This has been said several times now.


I'd wager the vast majority of women do not find the word "girl", when applied to someone in their late teens, remotely offensive.

Which has got nothing to do with it whatsoever. We don't take fucking polls so men can say what the hell they want . You're now arguing for your right to use words which have been shown to you (without any actual rebuttal) to be belittling to women.


Indeed, some would contend that things like glamour modelling is "anti-woman" whereas others would not. Some feminists would argue for the introduction of gender-neutral pronouns into common speech. The point is that what considered "offensive" or "oppressive" in this regard is, of course, relative.

Aye, and the point is to hear the arguments that women make for and against it. Women choose what they wish to be identified as. Once you hear that it doesn't mean you kick up a fuss because you're called out on it.


On whose say so must I adhere to your stringent rules regarding the use of the English language? Neither you, nor any of your friends, are the authority on such matters.


It's not about the English language as much as it is not using enabling language so that woman are seen as weak, vulnerable and below men. You don't seem to get that.


Passive-aggressiveness again. Obviously masculine barbarians like me, who use words like "girl", don't "listen to women." I'll crawl back into my cave and self-flagellate.

I don't mean to be passive-aggressive. If you are going to be so flippant about issues such as gender I'll in fact be pretty direct in wanting you to either learn or get the fuck out.


Nor is it appropriate for a particular minority of feminists to decide what everyone else should think either.

You're about two paragraphs away from the 'feminist conspiracy' aren't you?

I wish Revleft silly season would end soon as I'm sick of explaining the fucking obvious to idiots. Take your complex with you on the way out.

I've said my bit and have stuff to do. Hopefully some of the sensible types that posted in this thread will continue if necessary.

[precarian]

I gave you a link to a good argument, that happens to be written by a woman. Maybe if you happened to read things about feminism and things written by women rather than use 'obscure blog' as a complete deflection then this wouldn't have happened.

Women do. This has been said several times now.
Which women?? Where is this representative of the views of "all women" to be found?? How do we gauge the opinion of said collective consciousness?? Is it not the case that, in fact, what is deemed "offensive" and oppressive", in this regard, is totally arbitrary??



Which has got nothing to do with it whatsoever. We don't take fucking polls so men can say what the hell they want . You're now arguing for your right to use words which have been shown to you (without any actual rebuttal) to be belittling to women. You showed me it from a particular point of view. I'm sorry, but an Australian legal blog does not constitute an absolute tenet of the faith! Many leftists - including, shock horror, women! - will have a variety of views on what is offensive to them.



Aye, and the point is to hear the arguments that women make for and against it. Women choose what they wish to be identified as. Once you hear that it doesn't mean you kick up a fuss because you're called out on it.Which women?? The ones who adhere to a particular strand of sociological leftist thought?? Again, there is no collective female conciousness which can decide whether innocently-used phrases amount to a grand offence against "decency." Your argument is totally specious.



It's not about the English language as much as it is not using enabling language so that woman are seen as weak, vulnerable and below men. You don't seem to get that.Who sees women as weak and vulnerable!? You speak about these notions in the abstract! This is totally subjective! Many women, as I've said a million times, do not arrive at this conclusion. A minority cannot possibly dictate the hidden meaning behind certain words and phrases, nor can they castigate those who do not conform to their perception of said terms. It is not possible in a free society.



I don't mean to be passive-aggressive. If you are going to be so flippant about issues such as gender I'll in fact be pretty direct in wanting you to either learn or get the fuck out.Agree with what I'm saying or "get the fuck out." This about the level of certain people in leftist circles. And you wonder why the left is in the gutter??


You're about two paragraphs away from the 'feminist conspiracy' aren't you?

I wish Revleft silly season would end soon as I'm sick of explaining the fucking obvious to idiots. Take your complex with you on the way out.

I've said my bit and have stuff to do. Hopefully some of the sensible types that posted in this thread will continue if necessary.I think it is you who has a "complex", dear boy. That much is evident.

Attribute to me a view, which conforms to your stereotype of those who disagree with you, in order to discredit them. Classic.

How mature you sound. In fact, I believe it pertinent to label you a "boy" after reading your irritable and abusive last stand!

[Sam_b]

I think it is you who has a "complex", dear boy. That much is evident

Like I said, done arguing with idiots, but nice to see you've moved on to ageism now!


innocently-used phrases

Doesn't really work outside of the 'white straight men of the left' club.

[precarian]

Like I said, done arguing with idiots, but nice to see you've moved on to ageism now!

:lol: Unbelievable. Because ascribing immaturity to the young is "ageism." You're beyond parody.


Doesn't really work outside of the 'white straight men of the left' club.

See above. Either way, I've no desire to keep you as a virtual pen pal so I shan't be responding any further.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Are you for real?

We have a duty to try and make the left as accessible for all irregardless of gender/sexuality/ethnicity/disability and so on. When people are challenged on their assumptions we get into dialogues about facing up to our own prejudices and privileges. The 'main issue' (gender isn't a 'main issue' anymore?) should also be why there are next to no women on Revleft; which in some ways can be seen as reflective of the left in general.

[...]

Aye right so when someone starts trying to do stuff about it this gets trotted out as if it's some sort of reason not to continue.

And do you think this ridiculous form of kotobagari is a solution? The problem is not with RevLeft per se, but the material circumstances in communist and leftist organisations - women being forced to act like secretaries, to make tea and food, every complaint by women being dismissed out of hand and so on. Focusing on words - and note that words are important, but engaging this is a bit more involved than writing down a list of "bad words" and going ballistic on anyone who uses them - enables certain organisations to present themselves as more feminist than Zetkin, even though they treat their female members like shit.

The "main issue" I referred to is obviously the main issue mentioned in the article - you know, the point of the thread, that few people seem willing to engage? Of course the article itself is shit, it comes from the Daily Mail, what do you expect? Criticising the ideological form that the news item takes in the article is an interesting exercise - there are obvious hints of sexism, racism, and so on, but also a though-guy "law and order" sensibility. But that should supplement discussion of the issues the article raises, not replace it. I suspect people have pounced on precarian because the topic is uncomfortable to them, and to the organisations they support or are part of.

And, yes, it is possible for someone to use the term "girl" in this sense without sexist intention. Many women are offended by it, but I think most would recognise that no offence was meant - this usage, I think, should be corrected, but without this ridiculous internet drama.

As for sexism and such things being tolerated on RevLeft, my point was simply that rules are being applied inconsistently, and with an obvious agenda.


It's hard to have sympathy for people who do incredibly stupid things solely for personal monetary gain. Two young British women busted trafficking drugs out of Peru who expect special treatment is quite bourgeois.

Who said they should receive special treatment? We should agitate for the release of all proletarians and poor people imprisoned by the bourgeois state for "drug crimes". Again, the choice to highlight this case was made by the Daily Hail, not by me or the OP. All people who are incarcerated because they participated in the cultivation or sale of substances that the good bourgeois state, in its infinite wisdom and benevolence has decided to ban, should be freed.

[Quail]

Which women?? Where is this representative of the views of "all women" to be found?? How do we gauge the opinion of said collective consciousness?? Is it not the case that, in fact, what is deemed "offensive" and oppressive", in this regard, is totally arbitrary??
There isn't a collective "women's perspective" (just as there is no such thing as a "gay people's perspective" or a "black people's perspective") but I really don't see how this is relevant. Does every single person in a marginalised group have to find a word offensive for it to be treated as offensive? Surely if there are a significant number of women explaining on the internet why they find being called a girl offensive, that's a sign that maybe you should be questioning your use of it.


You showed me it from a particular point of view. I'm sorry, but an Australian legal blog does not constitute an absolute tenet of the faith! Many leftists - including, shock horror, women! - will have a variety of views on what is offensive to them.
Not sure what you mean by "tenet of the faith" but anyway I'm still not sure why "some people don't find it offensive" is an argument. If you're talking to a woman and you're not sure whether or not she'll be offended by being called a girl, it would seem to make sense to go with the option that you know won't be offensive. Two people have posted articles by women explaining why they feel girl is an offensive way to refer to them and you've just ignored them because "other people might not find it offensive."


Which women?? The ones who adhere to a particular strand of sociological leftist thought?? Again, there is no collective female conciousness which can decide whether innocently-used phrases amount to a grand offence against "decency." Your argument is totally specious.
It's not about calling women girls being "an offence against decency" though. It's about calling women girls perpetuating damaging patriarchal stereotypes and gender roles. There exist anti-feminist women (and female MRAs), but that doesn't mean that because some women uphold patriarchy we should stop challenging it. You may as well be arguing that some proletarians don't see themselves as being oppressed so we shouldn't go on strike.


Who sees women as weak and vulnerable!? You speak about these notions in the abstract! This is totally subjective! Many women, as I've said a million times, do not arrive at this conclusion. A minority cannot possibly dictate the hidden meaning behind certain words and phrases, nor can they castigate those who do not conform to their perception of said terms. It is not possible in a free society.
!
Society in general? "You throw/punch/kick like a girl," for example, is a common insult linking being a girl with being weak. I honestly think you must be rather dense if you can't see how referring to women in their twenties as girls patronises and infantilises them.

(For the record I'm a 23 year old woman and I wouldn't appreciate being called a girl.)

[precarian]

And, yes, it is possible for someone to use the term "girl" in this sense without sexist intention. Many women are offended by it, but I think most would recognise that no offence was meant - this usage, I think, should be corrected, but without this ridiculous internet drama.

As for sexism and such things being tolerated on RevLeft, my point was simply that rules are being applied inconsistently, and with an obvious agenda.

Yes, it appears to be beyond many leftists to actually use a bit of discretion in these matters. I'd contend that it's a major reason why the overwhelming majority of the population give the lefty-activist scene a wide berth!

It's impossible to engage with people who are locked into this ultra-vigilant outlook. You can't keep on the right side of them. They take a perverse pleasure in pulling folk up over trivial things and seeking offence where none is intended, in order to use the "transgressor" as a punching bag to assuage their own guilt.

Of course, the offending person is then hung out to dry since, in the activist ghetto, an accusation of having been "offensive" is akin to a charge of fucking witchcraft in 17th century Salem.

The average person in the street wouldn't be able to say more than a few sentences to a privilege theory-adherent without falling afoul of their speech code - which indicates how much contact they've actually had with working class people!

As for the lad "Sam_b", I've been reading this forum for a while and I don't think I've ever seen him contribute anything of any value. Most of the chap's posts seem to be confrontational and snarky digs at other posters. Thankfully, most other contributors do not seem to behave in this manner.

[Bea Arthur]

Down with the Peruvian prison industrial keeping these two young women locked up in inhumane conditions! Shame on the original poster for calling two young women "girls"! It is a highly sexist use of language.

[Quail]

It's impossible to engage with people who are locked into this ultra-vigilant outlook. You can't keep on the right side of them. They take a perverse pleasure in pulling folk up over trivial things and seeking offence where none is intended, in order to use the "transgressor" as a punching bag to assuage their own guilt.
I don't think people take a perverse pleasure in calling people out on stuff. It can get pretty tiresome, especially on a leftist forum where people should know better.


The average person in the street wouldn't be able to say more than a few sentences to a privilege theory-adherent without falling afoul of their speech code - which indicates how much contact they've actually had with working class people!
It's not a "speech code" - language is genuinely important because it shapes the way we understand things. I hold leftists to a higher standard than the average person because as a leftist you want to create a free and equal society. You can't do that if you don't take feminism, anti-racism, etc. seriously. Someone on the street, you don't know what their politics are, what ideas they've come across, so you pick your battles and don't jump down their throat every five seconds.

[precarian]

There isn't a collective "women's perspective" (just as there is no such thing as a "gay people's perspective" or a "black people's perspective") but I really don't see how this is relevant. Does every single person in a marginalised group have to find a word offensive for it to be treated as offensive? Surely if there are a significant number of women explaining on the internet why they find being called a girl offensive, that's a sign that maybe you should be questioning your use of it.

...or maybe we should question why they find it offensive?? These people are not infallible. Just because someone declares something "offensive" does not mean that we should automatically take their word for it.



Not sure what you mean by "tenet of the faith" but anyway I'm still not sure why "some people don't find it offensive" is an argument. If you're talking to a woman and you're not sure whether or not she'll be offended by being called a girl, it would seem to make sense to go with the option that you know won't be offensive. Two people have posted articles by women explaining why they feel girl is an offensive way to refer to them and you've just ignored them because "other people might not find it offensive."


It's not about calling women girls being "an offence against decency" though. It's about calling women girls perpetuating damaging patriarchal stereotypes and gender roles. There exist anti-feminist women (and female MRAs), but that doesn't mean that because some women uphold patriarchy we should stop challenging it. You may as well be arguing that some proletarians don't see themselves as being oppressed so we shouldn't go on strike.

...and there exist feminist women who would not view my words as offensive! I'm not repeating myself. We'll be here all day "debating" this. I'd rather speak about the plight of Melissa and Michaella, to be honest.



Society in general? "You throw/punch/kick like a girl," for example, is a common insult linking being a girl with being weak. I honestly think you must be rather dense if you can't see how referring to women in their twenties as girls patronises and infantilises them.

Is this the protocol on here? Abuse those with whom you disagree? Immaturity and irrationality is evidently not confined to the right..

Have you not heard "you punch/kick like a woman" before!? The two terms are essentially interchangeable. One of the "offenders" is nineteen, by the way. "Patronising and infantilising" - nonsense on stilts! This is becoming tiresome. Subjectivity - and the notion that what you say doesn't necessarily "go" - is obviously a concept which will not be entertained here..

(For the record I'm a 23 year old woman and I wouldn't appreciate being called a girl.)[/QUOTE]

You are not "all feminist women." Calling someone of that age a "girl" might be a bit of a stretch. Use a bit of prudence here. Maybe we can ask Melissa Reid, the nineteen year old, if she's grossly offended by being referred to as a girl?? I'm sure she has more pressing concerns, at present.

[RedBen]

I hold leftists to a higher standard than the average person because as a leftist you want to create a free and equal society. You can't do that if you don't take feminism, anti-racism, etc. seriously.

most well written response, thank you.

[Sam_b]

in the activist ghetto

Real activists don't try to equate such instances to the historical meaning of 'ghetto', since we don't wish to dilute the term and the significance of segregation or the Holocaust.

But yeah, I mean it's really easy to take a frivolous look at things when, as a man, one isn't affected by sexism and maintains a privileged position within society. It's turned into one of these inconvenient truths where people, who are generally good on some politics, try to divert away from at the very first opportunity because they're either uncomfortable about attacking patriarchy or have very little clue because they aren't on the receiving end of it. The white men of the dinosaur left don't want to relinquish their privileged positions either.

If we've learned anything from recent years, with sharp wake-up calls around the Indian gang-rapes, Assange and his apologists, and some of the events around Occupy, it is there is a desperate need to have decent perspectives on feminism, and to ally ourselves with women and to listen to them. It's not something that can or should be swept under the carpet.

Of course, equating the goings on in Revleft and that of working-class communities makes precious little sense either, considering that working-class communities are not self-identifying and self-declaring channels for revolutionaries. There is no OI section in the area I live in. It shouldn't be seen as an excuse for us not to have higher standards.


Calling someone of that age a "girl" might be a bit of a stretch

You called someone three years younger than her a 'girl'.


Maybe we can ask Melissa Reid, the nineteen year old, if she's grossly offended by being referred to as a girl?? I'm sure she has more pressing concerns, at present.

Deflection.

[precarian]

I don't think people take a perverse pleasure in calling people out on stuff. It can get pretty tiresome, especially on a leftist forum where people should know better.

Fair enough. I certainly believe that it's a personal hobby for some, however.


It's not a "speech code" - language is genuinely important because it shapes the way we understand things. I hold leftists to a higher standard than the average person because as a leftist you want to create a free and equal society. You can't do that if you don't take feminism, anti-racism, etc. seriously. Someone on the street, you don't know what their politics are, what ideas they've come across, so you pick your battles and don't jump down their throat every five seconds.

Your idea of what constitutes "offensive language" is open to interpretation - that is my point. It isn't solely wild-eyed reactionaries who have a problem with this privilege theory-inspired Jihad against anyone who inadvertently uses one of these "banned terms."

Indeed, we also have differing views on the nature of language. I don't view trivial expressions as worthy of such intense scrutiny. It genuinely baffles me how some on the left can claim sexism to be an institutional and systemic problem - something which I agree with - whilst being absolutely fixated on the minutiae of individual conduct (particularly within the activist ghetto itself!). As leftists, we should have more pressing concerns..

[The Feral Underclass]

I might even believe that this is about gender politics, if not for the fact that all of the people who have posted to denounce precarian for their horrifying misogyny

Classic Semendyaev strawman. Build up the oppositions argument so you have something credible to attack.

No one has accused Precarian of "horrifying misogyny". All that has happened is that some people have brought into question some language that is being used, which ultimately reinforces patriarchy attitudes.


you know, something that never happens and is never tolerated on RevLeft - hadn't completely ignored the stereotype of hysterical women contained in the Daily Hail article. So, what are you hiding, comrades? Why focus on this instead of the main issue?

No one has ignored it. They have challenged it directly by engaging a user on the board who is mimicking the language within it.

The Daily Mail article is an article and Precarian is a human being that you can interact with and have, you know, a discussion with on a discussion board...As shocking as that might be.

[Sam_b]

I don't view trivial expressions as worthy of such intense scrutiny.

For the hundredth time, it doesn't matter one iota if you think it's 'trivial' or not because you are not affected by it as a man.

[Quail]

Your idea of what constitutes "offensive language" is open to interpretation - that is my point. It isn't solely wild-eyed reactionaries who have a problem with this privilege theory-inspired Jihad against anyone who inadvertently uses one of these "banned terms."

Indeed, we also have differing views on the nature of language. I don't view trivial expressions as worthy of such intense scrutiny. It genuinely baffles me how some on the left can claim sexism to be an institutional and systemic problem - something which I agree with - whilst being absolutely fixated on the minutiae of individual conduct (particularly within the activist ghetto itself!). As leftists, we should have more pressing concerns..
It's important to challenge people within the leftist movement because despite the fact that you think there are more pressing concerns, women in leftist movements are still having to put up with consistently doing the menial but necessary tasks such as taking minutes, making food, "women's work", etc. We're still often (unintentionally) excluded from meetings because of childcare issues. Women are being sexually assaulted within leftists organisations and people are siding with the perpetrators. There are a range of issues women face within the leftist movement which mean they can't organise and their voices aren't heard. If a movement excludes women because they don't feel safe, they aren't listened to or taken seriously, they're forced to do the stuff that they guys can't be bothered to do, etc., it is not a movement which will liberate women and women won't want to be part of it. That is a serious problem.


...or maybe we should question why they find it offensive?? These people are not infallible. Just because someone declares something "offensive" does not mean that we should automatically take their word for it.

Nope, nobody is infallible - however, you've been given reasons why these women find being called a girl offensive and you haven't refuted them. You've basically just implied they're over-reacting and their view isn't valid.


...and there exist feminist women who would not view my words as offensive! I'm not repeating myself. We'll be here all day "debating" this. I'd rather speak about the plight of Melissa and Michaella, to be honest.
It's possible to talk about both. Someone should probably split the thread.


Is this the protocol on here? Abuse those with whom you disagree? Immaturity and irrationality is evidently not confined to the right..

Have you not heard "you punch/kick like a woman" before!? The two terms are essentially interchangeable. One of the "offenders" is nineteen, by the way. "Patronising and infantilising" - nonsense on stilts! This is becoming tiresome. Subjectivity - and the notion that what you say doesn't necessarily "go" - is obviously a concept which will not be entertained here..

*facepalm* - Whether someone punches/kicks like a girl or a woman, being female is still being associated with being weak.


You are not "all feminist women." Calling someone of that age a "girl" might be a bit of a stretch. Use a bit of prudence here. Maybe we can ask Melissa Reid, the nineteen year old, if she's grossly offended by being referred to as a girl?? I'm sure she has more pressing concerns, at present.
First, I never claimed to be all feminist women. I'm speaking for myself. But according to you, my opinion doesn't matter because I don't speak for all feminist women (which would be pretty much impossible so I don't know whose opinion does have any value to you tbh).

Secondly, of course she has more pressing issues, but that doesn't mean we should only talk about those to avoid questioning young women being referred to as girls.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't view trivial expressions as worthy of such intense scrutiny.

That's because you clearly have no interest in being critical about your own behaviour. That's up to you. But whether you find it trivial or not doesn't alter the fact it's sexist. So just don't do it.


It genuinely baffles me how some on the left can claim sexism to be an institutional and systemic problem - something which I agree with - whilst being absolutely fixated on the minutiae of individual conduct (particularly within the activist ghetto itself!). As leftists, we should have more pressing concerns..

Because it's the minutiae of individual conduct that requires vigorous interrogation if we are to stamp out residual oppression. Otherwise men like you never fucking learn.

[precarian]

For the hundredth time, it doesn't matter one iota if you think it's 'trivial' or not because you are not affected by it as a man.


I'm affected by it because you're attempting to circumscribe my use of language, attributing a hidden meaning to a completely innocently-used word. I do not agree with your assessment of what constitutes "offense", nor do I agree that saying a common word "reinforces patriarchal assumptions" or anything of that ilk.

Since I'm posting on "your" forum, I shall endeavour to avoiding using said word in future. I will not, however, adopt your socio-political outlook. "Privilege theory uber alles" does not cut it.

If this is how you, and other leftists, converse with people in the real world, it's no wonder the left is utterly irrelevant among the actually existing working class.

[precarian]

I've renamed the thread. I also question why the Daily Mail was used as a source - surely there are better places to link to than that cesspit?

I used the Daily Mail link because it was by far the most in-depth source I could find for this story. BBC news had a few lines, Huffpost was too short and the Guardian was formulaic and boring. The Heil are usually surprisingly thorough when it comes to reporting personal "tragedy stories." Additionally, the comments section provides an accurate insight into the mindset of the "right-thinking, solidly-conservative silent majority."

[precarian]

That's because you clearly have no interest in being critical about your own behaviour. That's up to you. But whether you find it trivial or not doesn't alter the fact it's sexist. So just don't do it.



Because it's the minutiae of individual conduct that requires vigorous interrogation if we are to stamp out residual oppression. Otherwise men like you never fucking learn.

Is this how you speak to people in real life? You'd last about five minutes in a working class boozer. I've slready stated that I don't view the innocent use of certain words to be indicative of "oppression." On this we disagree. It is clear, though, that it's "my way or the highway" with adherents to privilege theory. I won't adopt your opinion because you belligerently assert it. I will, however, argue my point in a respectful manner (provided I am extended the same courtesy, which has not been the case). I shall also refrain from using said word in future, for as long as I post on your forum, in accordance with the wishes of numerous posters.

[Quail]

I'm affected by it because you're attempting to circumscribe my use of language, attributing a hidden meaning to a completely innocently-used word. I do not agree with your assessment of what constitutes "offense", nor do I agree that saying a common word "reinforces patriarchal assumptions" or anything of that ilk.
It's not just "saying a common word" - it's the context in which it's used.


Since I'm posting on "your" forum, I shall endeavour to avoiding using said word in future. I will not, however, adopt your socio-political outlook. "Privilege theory uber alles" does not cut it.
It doesn't matter "whose" forum you're posting on. The real point it, you have been given 2 explanations of why some women find being called a girl offensive, as well as a woman telling you she wouldn’t appreciate being called a girl, and completely ignored them in favour of your non-argument that "well some hypothetical women might not find it offensive so I'll say whatever the hell I like." As a leftist it is your responsibility to challenge your own views and actions, and change them if they're sexist, and in order to do that you have to actually listen to what women have to say, which you're clearly not interested in doing.

[Bea Arthur]

I'm affected by it because you're attempting to circumscribe my use of language, attributing a hidden meaning to a completely innocently-used word. I do not agree with your assessment of what constitutes "offense", nor do I agree that saying a common word "reinforces patriarchal assumptions" or anything of that ilk.

Since I'm posting on "your" forum, I shall endeavour to avoiding using said word in future. I will not, however, adopt your socio-political outlook. "Privilege theory uber alles" does not cut it.

If this is how you, and other leftists, converse with people in the real world, it's no wonder the left is utterly irrelevant among the actually existing working class.

The problem here is that your use of "girl" to refer to young women is objectively sexist. It diminishes the age of a person on the basis of that person's gender. Stop trying to defend it because it is making you look even more sexist.

[The Feral Underclass]

Is this how you speak to people in real life?

Oh, I'm sorry, do you not like having your sexist attitude challenged? But yes, this is exactly how I speak to sexist people in real life.


You'd last about five minutes in a working class boozer.

Yeah, because spirited discussion never happens in working class pubs...Ever :rolleyes: Who are you trying to fucking kid?


I've slready stated that I don't view the innocent use of certain words to be indicative of "oppression."

But they're not innocent.


On this we disagree. It is clear, though, that it's "my way or the highway" with adherents to privilege theory.

If you want to be a sexist man, then that's up to you.


I won't adopt your opinion because you belligerently assert it.

Then why not adopt it because you want to stop reinforcing sexist attitudes?


I will, however, argue my point in a respectful manner (provided I am extended the same courtesy, which has not been the case).

Your point is sexist.


I shall also refrain from using said word in future, for as long as I post on your forum, in accordance with the wishes of numerous posters.

Good. You should also stop doing it in your daily life, otherwise you are going to keep reinforcing the infantisising, patronising, belittling attitude that assumes women are meak, weak and vulnerable.

[The Feral Underclass]

It's amazing that Precarian has two women telling him that his attitude and language use is sexist and his reaction is to respond like most men do and tell them they're wrong. What would women know about sexism, right? It's not like they have to deal with it every single day of their fucking lives. No, no. Precarian. A man. He knows best.

[precarian]

It's not just "saying a common word" - it's the context in which it's used.

I don't think the context in which it was used was sexist either! It was used in a perfectly innocent context. Again, this is a personal disagreement on the agenda behind the use of a particular word. Privilege theorists do not get to define the parameters of "acceptable language."



It doesn't matter "whose" forum you're posting on. The real point it, you have been given 2 explanations of why some women find being called a girl offensive, as well as a woman telling you she wouldn’t appreciate being called a girl, and completely ignored them in favour of your non-argument that "well some hypothetical women might not find it offensive so I'll say whatever the hell I like." As a leftist it is your responsibility to challenge your own views and actions, and change them if they're sexist, and in order to do that you have to actually listen to what women have to say, which you're clearly not interested in doing.

...but those two explanations are not the final word on this debate! There might actually be - *shock horror!!* - another point of view. A bit of intellectual humility would not go a miss..

Just because you (and some others) find it offensive, and have shown me a couple of blog posts detailing arguments in your favour stemming from a particular sociological outlook, does not mean that I should internalise your command to attribute oppressive connotations to a word that I would view as totally innocent. This is not a re-education camp! I am at liberty to disagree. What you (and those of your political persuasion) say does not automatically "go" simply because the person you're accusing is somewhat dismissive of your outlook. (The "hypothetical women" you speak of are actually the majority of the population, by the way! Certainly the majority of left-leaning women I've ever spoken to!)

If I caused you offence, I apologise. There is not much more I can do, short of changing my views so that they're in total lockstep with your own!

Do you ever wonder why so few people actually identify with the left anymore?? Bloody hell...

[The Feral Underclass]

Do you ever wonder why so few people actually identify with the left anymore?? Bloody hell...

Yeah. Most of them are women and it's because of men like you.

[Le Socialiste]

It's amazing that Precarian has two women telling him that his attitude and language use is sexist and his reaction is to respond like most men do and tell them they're wrong. What would women know about sexism, right? It's not like they have to deal with it every single day of their fucking lives. No, no. Precarian. A man. He knows best.

Knowing him, we'll just get more of the same "they're just two women, what do they know? They don't speak for everyone else" bullshit. :rolleyes:

[precarian]

It's amazing that Precarian has two women telling him that his attitude and language use is sexist and his reaction is to respond like most men do and tell them they're wrong. What would women know about sexism, right? It's not like they have to deal with it every single day of their fucking lives. No, no. Precarian. A man. He knows best.

Yes. Two women. Two!! What they say goes. There are no alternative views...and all "right thinking women" agree with these two women on revleft, of course! How dare a man (!!!!) challenge the divine wisdom of folk on here, eh!? Fucking hell..

People are allowed to disagree, by the way. You're not going to convert everyone to your particular viewpoint by battering your message into them!

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes. Two women. Two!! What they say goes. There are no alternative views...and all "right thinking women" agree with these two women on revleft, of course!

People are allowed to disagree, by the way. You're not going to convert everyone to your particular viewpoint by battering your message into them![/QUOTE]

No. You're not allowed to disagree. You're allowed to shut the fuck up and listen to what people are saying to you.


There are no alternative views.

When women tell me that things I am saying are sexist, I listen to them. I don't tell them they're wrong and get this ridiculous male-persecution complex.


How dare a man (!!!!) challenge the divine wisdom of folk on here, eh!? Fucking hell..

Yes. How dare you indeed.

[precarian]

Knowing him, we'll just get more of the same "they're just two women, what do they know? They don't speak for everyone else" bullshit. :rolleyes:

Is this not the case?? All one can do is endeavour to avoid using the dreaded offending word around people who find it offensive. Certainly many people do not subscribe to your subjective notion of what is "offensive."

This is the definition of a circular conversation. It's going nowhere - indeed, it cannot go anywhere! Rationality goes out the window in debates like these. There's nothing more to add - accept my argument (which I'm going to batter into you) or you're some sort of deviant oppressor.

[The Feral Underclass]

Is this not the case?? All one can do is endeavour to avoid using the dreaded offending word around people who find it offensive. Certainly many people do not subscribe to your subjective notion of what is "offensive."

That's because many people aren't conscious of oppression and live in a oppressive society. Most people agree that immigrants should be thrown out of the country and that austerity is a good thing.


This is the definition of a circular conversation. It's going nowhere - indeed, it cannot go anywhere! Rationality goes out the window in debates like these. There's nothing more to add - accept my argument (which I'm going to batter into you) or you're some sort of deviant oppressor.

People have provided you with several rational arguments and yo have done nothing but re-state your opinion and tell them they are wrong and said because the majority of other people do it, then it must be okay...

[Quail]

Stuff
Since you've been given a couple of explanations why some people think it's sexist to refer to grown women as girls (when generally people don't refer to men of the same age as boys), why don't you actually try to refute it instead of dismissing it because in your head only a minority of women find it offensive? Give us a paragraph detailing exactly why you think we're wrong and it isn't offensive. Because so far your only argument seems to be "well some people don't find it offensive" which isn't really an argument.

[RedBen]

why do i not have popcorn for this? i wish my sister was on here, in fact i'm going to ask 2 in particular to make accounts. both are into feminism in varying degrees. if the argument is "it's just a trivial word" it should be easy to drop current usage. there were heated responses(doesn't always help) and very eloquent ones. it's just taking more into consideration than you might normally. as a leftist i'm sure you can understand oppression precarian, let's try to just accept the general consensus and move forward no? you have actual women chiming in on this.

[Le Socialiste]

I don't think the context in which it was used was sexist either! It was used in a perfectly innocent context. Again, this is a personal disagreement on the agenda behind the use of a particular word. Privilege theorists do not get to define the parameters of "acceptable language."

It doesn't matter whether usage of the word was made 'innocently' or not. The issue isn't so much the intent (though this plays a role, too) behind the word, but the baggage it carries. Calling a woman a 'girl' is, as its been said countless times, patronizing. It has an infantilizing effect that reduces them in the eyes of men and women alike. Such is the reality of living in a patriarchal society, where phrases like "you throw/hit/etc. like a girl" contribute to the false perception of women as physically (or even mentally) weaker than their male counterparts. The fact that you've been called out by at least two women about this and still refuse to seriously reevaluate your usage of the word 'girl' in this context speaks volumes, I think.

[precarian]

People are allowed to disagree, by the way. You're not going to convert everyone to your particular viewpoint by battering your message into them!

No. You're not allowed to disagree. You're allowed to shut the fuck up and listen to what people are saying to you.



When women tell me that things I am saying are sexist, I listen to them. I don't tell them they're wrong and get this ridiculous male-persecution complex.



Yes. How dare you indeed.

How mature! So no debate?? "Shut the fuck up" and be told what you should think?? If you don't concur, you're not permitted to stand up for yourself? Just passively accept what's being thrown at you and don't take a contrary view, or you'll have gratuitous abuse thrown at you??

Again, how many working class people have you actually engaged in this aggressive manner? In person, I mean. You'd last five minutes.

[The Feral Underclass]

^He doesn't care what women think. Or at least, he doesn't care what women who tell him he's wrong think.

[Le Socialiste]

Yes. Two women. Two!! What they say goes. There are no alternative views...and all "right thinking women" agree with these two women on revleft, of course!

Hey, what do you know? I was right!

[The Feral Underclass]

How mature! So no debate?? "Shut the fuck up" and be told what you should think?? If you don't concur, you're not permitted to stand up for yourself? Just passively accept what's being thrown at you and don't take a contrary view, or you'll have gratuitous abuse thrown at you??

You've had the debate. You've chosen to ignore it and re-asserted your sexist attitude. If you don't want to listen to what is being said to you, then all you deserve is this attitude.


Again, how many working class people have you actually engaged in this aggressive manner?

Look mate, you can cut this prolier-than-thou bullshit. When people are sexist, they get called out on it. If they dig their heals in and refuse to listen, then this is the attitude they should expect.


In person, I mean. You'd last five minutes.

I can take care of myself, mate. Don't you worry about that. If a man wants to fight me because he doesn't like being told he's wrong, then I am more than happy to beat the shit out of a sexist. But what is interesting about your attitude is this masculinised passive-aggressiveness. What is it? You don't like being challenged so you wonna hit me? I wouldn't expect any other kind of response from someone like you.

[Bea Arthur]

Precarian, would you defend a white person using the N-word to refer to black people by saying that the word is no longer racist just because the person using it didn't mean to be racist? I sure hope not.

[precarian]

It doesn't matter whether usage of the word was made 'innocently' or not. The issue isn't so much the intent (though this plays a role, too) behind the word, but the baggage it carries. Calling a woman a 'girl' is, as its been said countless times, patronizing. It has an infantilizing effect that reduces them in the eyes of men and women alike. Such is the reality of living in a patriarchal society, where phrases like "you throw/hit/etc. like a girl" contribute to the false perception of women as physically (or even mentally) weaker than their male counterparts. The fact that you've been called out by at least two women about this and still refuse to seriously reevaluate your usage of the word 'girl' in this context speaks volumes, I think.

As I have said countless times, the baggage the word carries is subjective. These assertions are continually made regarding what the phrase "actually means", but there is simply no way of evaluating the effect empirically. It is not "fact" but pure hypothesis, stemming from a particular sociological viewpoint - and people are allowed to disagree with this!

"You throw/hit like a girl" is a totally different thing to using the word "girl" to describe a young female.

Again, circular argument.

[The Feral Underclass]

As I have said countless times, the baggage the word carries is subjective. These assertions are continually made regarding what the phrase "actually means", but there is simply no way of evaluating the effect empirically. It is not "fact" but pure hypothesis, stemming from a particular sociological viewpoint - and people are allowed to disagree with this!

"You throw/hit like a girl" is a totally different thing to using the word "girl" to describe a young female.

Again, circular argument.

Explain then how using a word like "girl" to describe a woman doesn't patronise, infantilize and belittle them? And also explain how those things don't reinforce patriarchal attitudes.

[precarian]

Precarian, would you defend a white person using the N-word to refer to black people by saying that the word is no longer racist just because the person using it didn't mean to be racist? I sure hope not.

Apples and oranges.

[The Feral Underclass]

This guy is a troll.

[precarian]

Explain then how using a word like "girl" to describe a woman doesn't patronise, infantilize and belittle them? And also explain how those things don't reinforce patriarchal attitudes.

It depends upon the subjective perception of the word a particular person has. It also depends upon the context the word is used in, along with the general tone of the person using it. It is not a simple "black and white" issue.

[Bea Arthur]

Apples and oranges.

How? I can see what other people in this thread are saying when they mention the absence of argument from you.


You seem to think you're excused from using a derogatorily gendered term just because you did not intend to be sexist. You as an individual don't get to determine the meanings of words. They are set by society. By employing the young woman is a girl playbook, you are being sexist. It's that simple. This is our attempt to educate you. We would do the same with a person who used the N-word to describe people of African descent if she or he was obviously not intending to be racist.

Your refusal to be educated about this is what makes you seem staunchly sexist as opposed to accidentally saying something sexist which is how you seemed before.

[precarian]

This guy is a troll.

I am not "a troll" at all. Not everyone who disagrees with the conventional wisdom of certain left-activists is a troll.

[RedBen]

someone should change junior revolutionary to "victim of misandry" under his name:laugh:

[The Feral Underclass]

It depends upon the subjective perception of the word a particular person has. It also depends upon the context the word is used in, along with the general tone of the person using it. It is not a simple "black and white" issue.

With what perception of the word and in what context could describing a woman as a "girl" not be patronising, infantilizing and belittling? With what perception of the word and in what context could describing a woman as a "girl" not reinforce patriarchal attitudes?

[precarian]

How? I can see what other people in this thread are saying when they mention the absence of argument from you.


You seem to think you're excused from using a derogatorily gendered term just because you did not intend to be sexist. You as an individual don't get to determine the meanings of words. They are set by society. By employing the young woman is a girl playbook, you are being sexist. It's that simple. This is our attempt to educate you. We would do the same with a person who used the N-word to describe people of African descent if she or he was obviously not intending to be racist.

Your refusal to be educated about this is what makes you seem staunchly sexist as opposed to accidentally saying something sexist which is how you seemed before.

I have made an argument! It has, however, been ignored because it doesn't chime with the views of people on here.

If the meaning of words is set by society, then the word "girl" is no sexist at all! The overwhelming majority of people would have no problem with what I've said.

...and what if I challenge your attempt to "educate" - ie. force me to accept your subjective view of what constitutes offence - ??

My "refusal to be educated??" What the fuck is that!? I was not informed that posters on revleft were the supreme authority on the hidden meaning behind the use of particular words.

Here is a serious question: What happens when/if the mass of people (as they are doing!) "refuse to be educated" by your privilege theory-esque polemic??

By the way, I don't think there's anyone who would use the n-word to describe a black person. It is a totally different thing, with wholly different connotations. To conflate the two is to descend into absurdity.

[The Feral Underclass]

I have made an argument! It has, however, been ignored because it doesn't chime with the views of people on here.

Just stating your opinion over and over again isn't an argument.

[precarian]

With what perception of the word and in what context could describing a woman as a "girl" not be patronising, infantilizing and belittling? With what perception of the word and in what context could describing a woman as a "girl" not reinforce patriarchal attitudes?

It depends upon whether you view the word "girl" as having particular connotations. This is totally subjective. Most people do not. Indeed, the word is used interchangeably in much of the United Kingdom - particularly when referring to younger people, which is what the two "offenders" are.

For what it's worth, the word "boy" is used in much the same manner here.

[slum]

the thing that really amazes me is the ability of posters like precarian to carry on extensive wars of attrition against 'privilege theory' as if every single point they have to make has not already been hashed and rehashed out in any discussion even tangentially related to feminism to the extent where every response is utterly predictable and the entire conversation reads as swiftian parody.

what is your daily workout like? do you have a secret raw egg concoction you drink every morning? did you meet old scratch at the crossroads and sell your soul for tireless persistence? how can i, too, acquire this level of unceasing energy?

for the record, i've engaged plenty of "Really Real Working Men of the Callused Hands" (or however you think of people who live in southie) about sexist language and behavior, and provided that they're not socially obligated by bizarre masculine convention when traveling in groups, or assholes, it's actually possible (wonder of wonders) to have a discussion about how infantilizing women plays into harmful stereotypes of both men and women. it's not about having an extensive background in feminist theory or even a fully articulated political understanding that sexism exists. people live in the world. they notice things.

[Bea Arthur]

It depends upon whether you view the word "girl" as having particular connotations. This is totally subjective. Most people do not. Indeed, the word is used interchangeably in much of the United Kingdom - particularly when referring to younger people, which is what the two "offenders" are.

For what it's worth, the word "boy" is used in much the same manner here.

What we've been explaining to you is that using the word girl in the context of describing adult women is sexist and cannot possibly have any other social connotation. You as an individual may disagree but this just makes you a dupe for sexist language. The connotations overwhelmingly assigned by a sexist society are clear even if you don't like them. Your unwillingness to be educated on this makes you an outright sexist.

[The Feral Underclass]

It depends upon whether you view the word "girl" as having particular connotations. This is totally subjective. Most people do not. Indeed, the word is used interchangeably in much of the United Kingdom - particularly when referring to younger people, which is what the two "offenders" are.

You've not answered my questions.

You have told me there are subjective perceptions and contexts in which using the word "girl" to describe a woman is not patronising, infantilizing, belittling and that does not reinforce patriarchal attitudes.

I am asking you to tell me what those perceptions and contexts are.

[The Feral Underclass]

What we've been explaining to you is that using the word girl in the context of describing adult women is sexist and cannot possibly have any other social connotation.

No, no. There are many perceptions, connotations and contexts. What these perceptions and connotations and contexts are, we're yet to be told...

[precarian]

the thing that really amazes me is the ability of posters like precarian to carry on extensive wars of attrition against 'privilege theory' as if every single point they have to make has not already been hashed and rehashed out in any discussion even tangentially related to feminism to the extent where every response is utterly predictable and the entire conversation reads as swiftian parody.

I know it has. If I wanted to speak about privilege theory (which folk on the left are actually allowed to disagree with, by the way) then I'd post in one of the existing threads on the subject.



what is your daily workout like? do you have a secret raw egg concoction you drink every morning? did you meet old scratch at the crossroads and sell your soul for tireless persistence? how can i, too, acquire this level of unceasing energy?


I'm merely defending my opinion. I'm going to cease now because there's nothing more I can say. This is totally detracting from the original point of the thread.


for the record, i've engaged plenty of "Really Real Working Men of the Callused Hands" (or however you think of people who live in southie) about sexist language and behavior, and provided that they're not socially obligated by bizarre masculine convention when traveling in groups, or assholes, it's actually possible (wonder of wonders) to have a discussion about how infantilizing women plays into harmful stereotypes of both men and women. it's not about having an extensive background in feminist theory or even a fully articulated political understanding that sexism exists. people live in the world. they notice things.

I am well aware that sexism exists. I simply do not agree that the use of the word "girl" to describe a young woman amounts to hideous misogyny. I'd wager that the majority of people (salt-of-t'earth working class "bloke" or not) would concur that my remark was neither offensive nor sexist. Posters on revleft, certain feminists and other leftists do not have supreme authority on this matter.

[precarian]

You've not answered my questions.

You have told me there are subjective perceptions and contexts in which using the word "girl" to describe a woman is not patronising, infantilizing, belittling and that does not reinforce patriarchal attitudes.

I am asking you to tell me what those perceptions and contexts are.

They are subjective! It is not for me to tell you what they are - it is apparent that you have a different view of what they are to myself!

Many see no problem with referring to a young woman of nineteen/twenty as a girl because they do not believe the phrase carries any oppressive/sexist connotations in this context. Simply because your subjective opinion on the matter is different doesn't make these people wrong.

[The Feral Underclass]

They are subjective! It is not for me to tell you what they are - it is apparent that you have a different view of what they are to myself!

So your answer is that you have no idea what those perceptions, connotations and contexts are? If that's the case how do you know that these perceptions and contexts and connotations don't reinforce patriarchal attitudes? How do you know that they aren't belittling, patronising and infantilizing?


Many see no problem with referring to a young woman of nineteen/twenty as a girl because they do not believe the phrase carries any oppressive/sexist connotations in this context.

Do you think reality is subjective?


Simply because your subjective opinion on the matter is different doesn't make these people wrong.

Do you think the women in this thread who are telling you that using the word "girl" to describe women is belittling, patronising and infantlizing are doing so because it's their subjective opinion, or do you think that maybe it's based on their objective experiences?

[precarian]

What we've been explaining to you is that using the word girl in the context of describing adult women is sexist and cannot possibly have any other social connotation.

Yes is can! And most people would certainly concur with this. You're "explaining" (ie. battering into me) your subjective opinion as if it were objective fact. It isn't.


The connotations overwhelmingly assigned by a sexist society are clear even if you don't like them. Your unwillingness to be educated on this makes you an outright sexist.

There is seriously no point in me continuing to argue with you people. These connotations, for the millionth time, are subjective. There's really nothing more to add - we disagree on the fundamental nature of what the phrase means/signifies.

[precarian]

So your answer is that you have no idea what those perceptions, connotations and contexts are? If that's the case how do you know that these perceptions and contexts and connotations don't reinforce patriarchal attitudes? How do you know that they aren't belittling, patronising and infantilizing?I'm certainly aware of your perception of what the term means! Others would contend that it's simply a word used when referring to a young woman.

On the latter point, I don't know this. No one can "know" it! It's impossible to evaluate such a phenomenon.



Do you think reality is subjective?Some aspects of "reality" are certainly subjective. It cannot be otherwise, or else everyone would think alike and have identical tastes.


Do you think the women in this thread who are telling you that using the word "girl" to describe women is belittling, patronising and infantlizing are doing so because it's their subjective opinion, or do you think that maybe it's based their objective experiences?It depends upon the context in which the word was used to refer to them. They may have perceived it as sexist - hell, it might have been sexist! It depends on numerous factors and personal interpretations of the situation in question.

Other people, however, might not agree that it was. Again, the notion of this particular phrase being "sexist" is absolutely subjective.

[slum]

sweet we're into full blown epistemology

stage 1: i would say the same thing about men
stage 2: "PC police" are persecutors and will never connect with the working class (who are all, mysteriously, boys down the pub)
stage 3: what can we know, really??? what is reality?

stay tuned for stage 4, total engulfment by the void

precarian i am actually sorry you are being dogpiled for this because (strangely?) language is an easier topic for people on the internet to get riled up about than huge material inequalities between men and women and the inherently oppressive location of women in class society, reproduction and the family unit, BUT this conversation is just no fun to read for the 43284792th time. it's not really personal.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm certainly aware of your perception of what the term means! Others would contend that it's simply a word used when referring to a young woman.

That wasn't an answer to my question.


On the latter point, I don't know this. No one can "know" it! It's impossible to evaluate such a phenomenon.

But you agree that the "phenomenon" exists?


Some aspects of "reality" are certainly subjective. It cannot be otherwise, or else everyone would think alike and have identical tastes.

But you accept that there is an objective reality?


It depends upon the context in which the word was used to refer to them. They may have perceived it as sexist - hell, it might have been sexist! It depends on numerous factors and personal interpretations of the situation in question.

Other people, however, might not agree that it was. Again, the notion of this particular phrase being "sexist" is absolutely subjective.

Do you agree that sexism has objective consequences? Do you agree that those objective consequence are of women feeling patronised, infantilised and belittled and therefore oppressed?

[precarian]

That wasn't an answer to my question.

I can't tell you what people might think of something that is subjective! Such is the nature of subjectivity. Listing every single position that individuals might take on this matter would be a waste of time.


But you agree that the "phenomenon" exists?

Feeling belittled and patronised by words perceived as sexist?? Yes. Of course it does. It is, however, subjective. It could not possibly be otherwise.


But you accept that there is an objective reality?

To a certain degree. What is truly "objective" can be measured empirically. Anything else is open to personal interpretation.


Do you agree that sexism has objective consequences? Do you agree that those objective consequence are of women feeling patronised, infantilised and belittled and therefore oppressed?

It depends. Institutionalised sexism, systemically limiting the prospects for women and confining them to particular gendered roles?? Sure. In many instances, this is concrete fact - eg. women receiving lower pay for undertaking the same work as men.

Feeling offended because a certain word was perceived as having certain connotations?? No. This can only be subjective. "Feelings" are not objective phenomena.

[Craig_J]

I came here looking for some debate in the situation these two females (won't use any other term in case I create a fuss) are in and I see a long debate over whether or not these females should be refered to as girls or women. Jesus christ, I'm sure anyone who's come on this forum to try and learn about leftist ideologies and perhaps become lefitst themselves would see this and think "is this really how pedantic the left are?

Embarassing to say the least. These "females" are 19 and 20. In some countries that is considered the age where they are still children, thus making them girls. In some countires they are adults, thus making them women.

I'm 19 but male and if someone calls me boy I don't fly off the wall saying they're putting me down, I couldn't care less!!! 19/20 is a very young age.

Seeing some self apointed deffender of women across the world making much ado about more or less nothing is just embarassing to see on this forum.

Can we not get back on topic? Or are we so offended by the term orginally used that we're going to make a big song and dance about it rather than trying to organise a way for us to actually offer them our support?

Unreal.

[RedBen]

we're going to make a big song and dance about it
this happens alot on here. hence my moniker under my name. there is alot of good info here though.... even if things devolve very quickly.

[The Feral Underclass]

I can't tell you what people might think of something that is subjective! Such is the nature of subjectivity. Listing every single position that individuals might take on this matter would be a waste of time.

Well, I didn't ask you to list every single position. Any perception or connotation or context would do...One of each would be acceptable...


Feeling belittled and patronised by words perceived as sexist?? Yes. Of course it does. It is, however, subjective. It could not possibly be otherwise.

Do you agree that there are structures to sexism? If so, what are those structures?


To a certain degree. What is truly "objective" can be measured empirically. Anything else is open to personal interpretation.

What does "measured empirically" mean to you?


It depends. Institutionalised sexism, systemically limiting the prospects for women and confining them to particular gendered roles?? Sure. In many instances, this is concrete fact - eg. women receiving lower pay for undertaking the same work as men.

Feeling offended because a certain word was perceived as having certain connotations?? No. This can only be subjective. "Feelings" are not objective phenomena.

I have several questions: Firstly, what is language? Secondly, what is the state of being patronised, infantilized and belittled? As in, what are those things actualised? Lastly, what is the difference between women being patronised, infantilized and belittled and women feeling patronised, infantilized and belittled?

[The Feral Underclass]

I came here looking for some debate in the situation these two females (won't use any other term in case I create a fuss) are in and I see a long debate over whether or not these females should be refered to as girls or women. Jesus christ, I'm sure anyone who's come on this forum to try and learn about leftist ideologies and perhaps become lefitst themselves would see this and think "is this really how pedantic the left are?

Unfortunately RevLeft debates aren't structured around what you do and do not find appealing. This discussion is actually about trying to understand the structures of sexism and language being fundamental to that understanding.


Embarassing to say the least. These "females" are 19 and 20. In some countries that is considered the age where they are still children, thus making them girls. In some countires they are adults, thus making them women.

In some countries it's acceptable to marry 9 year old children to grown men. In some countries it's acceptable to stone women to death for adultery. It's also acceptable in some countries to burn witches and mutilate the genitals of young girls.

Do you think that we should defend these things people do in other countries? Perhaps you think these things are not comparable to referring to women as girls and therefore of course we shouldn't defend them. In that case, don't make the argument that just because people do something in a country it is somehow justified.


I'm 19 but male and if someone calls me boy I don't fly off the wall saying they're putting me down, I couldn't care less!!! 19/20 is a very young age.

You don't have to endure sexism. Your point of reference and how you engage with issues concerning your gender are not relevant to people who aren't your gender.


Seeing some self apointed deffender of women across the world making much ado about more or less nothing is just embarassing to see on this forum.

Why do you think arguing against structural sexism is "much ado about nothing"? Do you even know what structural sexism is?


Or are we so offended by the term orginally used that we're going to make a big song and dance about it rather than trying to organise a way for us to actually offer them our support?

This is a message board. It's exclusive function is to debate ideas. If you don't like people debating ideas, I suggest you find a different hobby. It may be the case that you don't think that arguing against structural sexism is important and that's fine, but please don't try and belittle or dismiss those who do. You don't get to tell people how to use this board. Okay?

[hatzel]

Seeing some self apointed deffender of women across the world making much ado about more or less nothing is just embarassing to see on this forum.

Not sure if you heard but this is a left-wing forum. If you (or this precarian clown, or anybody else) fail to understand why people belonging to oppressed groups might be upset or angry to find the kind of shit they have to deal with on a daily basis proudly posted and defended on a left-wing forum - and why we therefore have an obligation to take a stand against it - then you're a lost cause...

[synthesis]

You don't have to endure sexism. Your point of reference and how you engage with issues concerning your gender are not relevant to people who aren't your gender.

I'm fully on your side here, but I think a relevant question in these types of discussions is, "would this still be a problem if patriarchy/racism was abolished?"

Just because he views it as an abstraction rather than a product of a system that oppresses people doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means he's completely ignoring context and conditions. You wind up confusing the confrontation of his abstraction with that of his understanding of the system that produces such attitudes.

It's similar to someone saying, "anyone can become rich under capitalism." Well, yes, that's technically true; anyone can theoretically win the literal or figurative lottery. But that's an abstraction, divorced from reality, and changing that person's mind means finding a way to reach that individual person rather than just scoring points with people who are already on your side. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's how a lot of these discussions turn out.

That's certainly not to say that there is no place for aggressive confrontation; the ideas almost always sink in eventually, even if it takes months or years. But if you have a lot of people "dogpiling" on the person in need of education, as slum put it, you have the numerical opportunity to use a sort of "good cop/bad cop" routine, where the person's ideas and preconceptions are confronted while still keeping them on your side in a personal sense, rather than making them feel overwhelmed by a large group of people who are highly experienced at confronting problematic mindsets, but who may not necessarily care about the outcome of that particular "educational session." You have to let people feel like they came to those conclusions themselves: leading the horse to water, so to speak.

I'm sure most people will dismiss what I've said here - perhaps rightfully - but I just have to stress that I'm only putting this out there as a means of moving the broader discussion forward and avoiding the repetition of the exact same conversation over and over and over again.

[precarian]

The level of vitriol I have experienced here is absolutely unreal. You people turn on sincere leftists like fucking wolves, and you wonder why the modern left is an intellectual dead-end and a social irrelevance!?

It is not the first time I've witnessed this aggressive behaviour from soi disant "radicals" before. There is a standard-issue way of dealing with anyone who challenges the received wisdom of certain leftists:

Rabidly attack and smear them, with the intention of shaming and ostracising them so as to ensure orthodoxy is upheld.

This type of bullying is goes unchallenged for two reasons:
1/Because the cowards amongst you will not speak up, for fear of being targetted in the same way and henceforth excluded from the relatively powerful "in crowd."
2/Because the "in crowd" of accusers, and other leftists, all actually think alike - And, of course, when everyone is thinking the same then no one is thinking at all.

This ensures that left-wing circles are thoroughly unpleasant to be in, and pathetically unintellectual to boot! Serious issues are sidelined in favour of a lengthy diatribe against "words perceived by some to have sexist connotations." How utterly degenerate!

Disagreeing with me is fine. But the hatred and arrogance of you people is something unique to a particular kind of intolerant activist. You actually think you have divine right to dictate what is correct and incorrect - highly contentious theories (not objective facts!) are to be jackbooted down on everyone and to hell with the dissenters! Shut them up and shame them into compliance - or passive-aggressively insinuate that they'll "come round" in time because, obviously, everyone not signed up to your agenda is "ignorant."

It renders any debate with you utterly impossible. Invariably, it descends into an inquisition.

Literally nowhere else is such behaviour seen as normal or civilized. Indeed, you'd last five fucking seconds if you tried this in any other arena outwith your left-activist closed shop.

In any case, it isn't me you have to convince. I will always be a leftist. I will not be cowed into acquiescence. However the ordinary man, whom you seek to "convert", will not tolerate the idiocy promoted by some on here. If you're going to force your subjective opinion upon others and mercilessly harangue those who disagree, then the working man will simply tell you to shove your politics up your arse sideways....and, indeed, this is precisely what the working class have done. You're an irrelevance and your dogmatism has been given short shrift by the masses.

Don't agree?? How many people are in your fucking groups?? Take a step back and fucking look at yourselves.

Let's have some rationality and humility for a change..

[precarian]

Bottom line: Keep going with this dogmatic idiocy if you want. The majority of intelligent people, capable of thinking for themselves, will vote with their feet.

[Sam_b]

If not being sexist is a core principle, I'm all for it to be honest. It's only 'idiocy' because you're either too proud or too arrogant to realise you're wrong on this one.

The left may be an 'intellectual dead end' because men, like yourself, have shown themselves to be unwilling to challenge their notions of gender and privilege. Though I will admit it is some achievement to go fifty or so posts saying the exact same thing when faced with arguments from multiple users. The 'vitriol' you've faced is your own making - I get the sense people were willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but then your stubbornness and chauvenism shone though.

Oh, and edit - the parroting of 'you won't last five minutes/seconds etc etc with real/genuine/common/normal working people' is getting old and shows how much you know about the people on here. It's also not an argument, as if politics somehow stops you being real/genuine/common/working class...

edit 2 - except for me of course as I conduct the liberal PC conspiracy from the West Wing of my massive mansion away from any working class people

[synthesis]

...or passive-aggressively insinuate that they'll "come round" in time because, obviously, everyone not signed up to your agenda is "ignorant."

Are you referring to me? If so, it is very clear to me that you don't understand the nature of the criticism you are receiving, which is the sole reason that you're reacting far more outlandishly than some of the people who are criticizing you in a way that I find to be counter-productive.

Personally, I'm not really concerned whether or not you come to agree with what you are being told here; I don't honestly believe that anyone else here is either. You can't change everyone's mind. What I do care about is that you actually come to understand it before rejecting it, which I think is just as much of a problem of the "correct side," or at least the approach taken here, as it is yours.

And no, you don't get to decide whether you understand something or not. It's objective. You can't just decide that you understand brain surgery and then become a brain surgeon. There are basic standards at work here.

[precarian]

If not being sexist is a core principle, I'm all for it to be honest. It's only 'idiocy' because you're either too proud or too arrogant to realise you're wrong on this one.

The left may be an 'intellectual dead end' because men, like yourself, have shown themselves to be unwilling to challenge their notions of gender and privilege. Though I will admit it is some achievement to go fifty or so posts saying the exact same thing when faced with arguments from multiple users. The 'vitriol' you've faced is your own making - I get the sense people were willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but then your stubbornness and chauvenism shone though.

Oh, and edit - the parroting of 'you won't last five minutes/seconds etc etc with real/genuine/common/normal working people' is getting old and shows how much you know about the people on here. It's also not an argument, as if politics somehow stops you being real/genuine/common/working class...

edit 2 - except for me of course as I conduct the liberal PC conspiracy from the West Wing of my massive mansion away from any working class people

This might be valid if there were any sexism here. Contending that the phrase "young girls" amounts to sexism is fucking imbecilic. Literally nobody would entertain such a notion outside of here.

I have went through about fifty odd posts saying the same thing because my point has been ignored about fifty times! If not ignored, then it has been misrepresented.

I am not "too proud" or "chauvinistic." I am simply unwilling to be harassed over trivia. Too many on here are petty and overzealous.

I genuinely do not mean this to sound "prolier than thou" but this type of trivial language-policing will not be entertained by vast majority of intelligent people.

[precarian]

Are you referring to me? If so, it is very clear to me that you don't understand the nature of the criticism you are receiving, which is the sole reason that you're reacting far more outlandishly than some of the people who are criticizing you in a way that I find to be counter-productive.

Personally, I'm not really concerned whether or not you come to agree with what you are being told here; I don't honestly believe that anyone else here is either. You can't change everyone's mind. What I do care about is that you actually come to understand it before rejecting it, which I think is just as much of a problem of the "correct side," or at least the approach taken here, as it is yours.

And no, you don't get to decide whether you understand something or not. It's objective. You can't just decide that you understand brain surgery and then become a brain surgeon. There are basic standards at work here.

Yes. Incidentally, your post was polite and fair - in contrast to many others here!

Why do you assume that I don't "understand" the subject matter? I'm well versed in the assumptions behind privilege theory, and I reject it outright. I also reject the stringent policing of individual speech which takes place solely amongst leftist activists.

You seem to assume that by "understanding" your point of view, I will somehow come to embrace it as empirically correct. This is, in fact, empirically wrong! Contentious "theories" will remain exactly that - there is no need for vitriolic denunciations of deviants who reject said theories (even folk here think they know more about it than me!).

[synthesis]

You seem to assume that by "understanding" your point of view, I will somehow come to embrace it as empirically correct.

This is exactly what I was not saying.

You don't have to accept the theories of plate tectonics and evolution, but if it is apparent to people who are well-versed in the subject that you do not understand it, it renders your objections invalid.

[precarian]

This is exactly what I was not saying.

You don't have to accept the theories of plate tectonics and evolution, but if it is apparent to people who are well-versed in the subject that you do not understand it, it renders your objections invalid.

So what is objectively correct (regarding subjective and highly contentious socio-political theories) hinges upon how far up the leftist hierarchy one is, which is denoted by how many books one has read on a particular subject??

That is insane. It's exactly what I'm getting at - you people are not some priestly cast of experts who can dictate your "correct" opinions to the uncouth deviants below you.

Effectively no one is allowed to challenge anyone who is "well versed" in a subject?? A particular political view is "correct" because the person advocating for it has read a lot about it!? Unbelievable. And they say elitism is the sole preserve of the right!?

Might as well close the forum down then. Some of us don't even have a PhD, for fuck's sake!

...and conflating privilege theory with evolutionary theory :lol: Bloody hell, c'mon now!

[synthesis]

No, it just means that you have to understand a theory in order to criticize it, or even really proclaim that you agree or disagree with it. Your understanding of it, on the other hand, has no bearing on its actual correctness.

[precarian]

I do understand it! It's not really a difficult thing to grasp! I merely do not agree with it and that, to you, amounts to "not understanding it". Because obviously if I did then I'd agree with it. Because your subjective theory is actually objectively correct..

Fuck this. I'm not interested anymore. "'Enlightened' bigotry" is an appropriate term for this kind of single-minded intellectual intolerance.

Hopefully some US posters will focus on the original post and change the direction of this thread.

[adipocere]

precarian - if it makes any difference, what seems to be a dogpile is actually just a couple of vocal people.

[synthesis]

I do understand it! It's not really a difficult thing to grasp! I merely do not agree with it and that, to you, amounts to "not understanding it". Because obviously if I did then I'd agree with it. Because your subjective theory is actually objectively correct..

Again, it's not my concern whether you agree with it or not. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that you really don't have any idea why people are criticizing your language. Therefore you feel bewildered and humiliated, like a dog that doesn't understand why its owner is rubbing its face in the puddle of piss it made on the floor.

That's the source of your defensiveness. I do think you're trying to engage with the topic in your own way, however; you could have just given up on the discussion without addressing the issue hours ago, and nobody's giving you credit for that. So, here it is. Or there it was. Whatever.

[precarian]

Again, it's not my concern whether you agree with it or not. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that you really don't have any idea why people are criticizing your language. Therefore you feel bewildered and humiliated, like a dog that doesn't understand why its owner is rubbing its face in the puddle of piss it made on the floor.

That's the source of your defensiveness. I do think you're trying to engage with the topic in your own way, however; you could have just given up on the discussion without addressing the issue hours ago, and nobody's giving you credit for that. So, here it is. Or there it was. Whatever.

I'm perfectly well aware of why they are doing it. Giving up hours ago would probably have been sensible, however.

[Taters]

Boy, remind me not to read the Daily Fail comment section...

From the Highest Rated Comments:

"Stupid girls"

"What a pair of nuggets! If they are guilty of drug smuggling they deserve no sympathy."

"Oh look, another 'aspiring model'"

[MarxSchmarx]

I have moved the discussion about the use of the term "girls" to discrimination and split it from the original thread
http://www.revleft.com/vb/peruvian-arrests-british-t182646/index.html?t=182646
which was about people getting arrested for drug trafficking.

[Klaatu]

So when my wife says "I'm going out with the girls tonight" she is being disrespectful to her friends? :confused:

[synthesis]

I have somewhat of a problem with the new name of this thread, as I think a lot of the source of contention originally (at least from precarian's side) was whether 19- and 20-year-olds, regardless of gender, can be completely classified as "adults," a term which implies no trace of physical adolescence. I'm not saying he was justified in that respect, and it definitely became problematic in other ways, but I think it's a little unfair to frame the entire discussion that way.

[Quail]

So when my wife says "I'm going out with the girls tonight" she is being disrespectful to her friends? :confused:
No, it's all about context.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So when my wife says "I'm going out with the girls tonight" she is being disrespectful to her friends? :confused:

No, but it's not uncommon for women to call eachother "girls" or "*****es" or to criticize or ostracizer eachother for being a few pounds over underweight or anything else. It's a sexist society. Most men who say "girls" are not intentionally trying to harm anyone - the same with women who say this. But it's an internalization of the sexism in our society.

Think about the use of "boys" when it comes to black men in the past - it's not uncommon for white people to call their male kids like, "Hey boy!" (think Homer Simpson) and so most white people (supporters of segregation or not) did not understand what the big deal is because they use it as a term of familiarity. But black people saw it - I think correctly - as condescending and dismissive to call a man you don't actually have a social relationship to "boy" - especially since young white people would still call black people their same age or maybe a little older "boy".

I read an annecdote once about a town in the south after the civil war where a young white man saw an older black man that he recognized as someone he grew up around in his home-town before emancipation. He called him "uncle" which was common for white people as a term of familiarity with older black people (who may have played a part in helping raise them) but the black man yelled at him: "I am NOT a member of your family and never was!". The white guy complained about how rude that was, but I think it's pretty easy for us today to see what the problem was.

[The Feral Underclass]

The level of vitriol I have experienced here is absolutely unreal. You people turn on sincere leftists like fucking wolves, and you wonder why the modern left is an intellectual dead-end and a social irrelevance!?

It is not the first time I've witnessed this aggressive behaviour from soi disant "radicals" before. There is a standard-issue way of dealing with anyone who challenges the received wisdom of certain leftists:

Rabidly attack and smear them, with the intention of shaming and ostracising them so as to ensure orthodoxy is upheld.

This type of bullying is goes unchallenged for two reasons:
1/Because the cowards amongst you will not speak up, for fear of being targetted in the same way and henceforth excluded from the relatively powerful "in crowd."
2/Because the "in crowd" of accusers, and other leftists, all actually think alike - And, of course, when everyone is thinking the same then no one is thinking at all.

This ensures that left-wing circles are thoroughly unpleasant to be in, and pathetically unintellectual to boot! Serious issues are sidelined in favour of a lengthy diatribe against "words perceived by some to have sexist connotations." How utterly degenerate!

Disagreeing with me is fine. But the hatred and arrogance of you people is something unique to a particular kind of intolerant activist. You actually think you have divine right to dictate what is correct and incorrect - highly contentious theories (not objective facts!) are to be jackbooted down on everyone and to hell with the dissenters! Shut them up and shame them into compliance - or passive-aggressively insinuate that they'll "come round" in time because, obviously, everyone not signed up to your agenda is "ignorant."

It renders any debate with you utterly impossible. Invariably, it descends into an inquisition.

Literally nowhere else is such behaviour seen as normal or civilized. Indeed, you'd last five fucking seconds if you tried this in any other arena outwith your left-activist closed shop.

In any case, it isn't me you have to convince. I will always be a leftist. I will not be cowed into acquiescence. However the ordinary man, whom you seek to "convert", will not tolerate the idiocy promoted by some on here. If you're going to force your subjective opinion upon others and mercilessly harangue those who disagree, then the working man will simply tell you to shove your politics up your arse sideways....and, indeed, this is precisely what the working class have done. You're an irrelevance and your dogmatism has been given short shrift by the masses.

Don't agree?? How many people are in your fucking groups?? Take a step back and fucking look at yourselves.

Let's have some rationality and humility for a change..

You haven't answered my questions. You piss and moan about people being rude to you and not engaging you properly, yet you consistently fail to properly respond to any pointed interaction with your opinions.

[The Feral Underclass]

So when my wife says "I'm going out with the girls tonight" she is being disrespectful to her friends? :confused:

Is it racist when black people refer to themselves as niggers, or is it homophobic when LGBT people refer to themselves as queers? Does it mean it is any less homophobic or racist if straight people or white people use these terms?

[The Feral Underclass]

It is interesting to note the difference between the choice of language between The Guardian, a left leaning liberal newspaper and the Daily Mail, a right-wing conservative newspaper: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/british-women-peru-court-cocaine-smuggling

[Flying Purple People Eater]

So when my wife says "I'm going out with the girls tonight" she is being disrespectful to her friends? :confused:


A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

Buddy you've either had to have not read the thread at all or purposely made this comment in order to sidestep what Sam called this Precarian guy out for in order to make such a silly comment. Your proposition is a strawman, misrepresents the point made in the original argument and derails the topic at hand.

[precarian]

You haven't answered my questions. You piss and moan about people being rude to you and not engaging you properly, yet you consistently fail to properly respond to any pointed interaction with your opinions.

I have answered you, numerous times over. It's a waste of time. There's not much I can say to your accusatory last post to me other than "acquire a fucking dictionary." My point is either ignored outright or deliberately misconstrued. You've gone over the same ground numerous times then, when we come to an inevitable irreconcilable dead-end, you seek to reconstruct the debate on your terms - then we're back to square one again. I'm not pissing anymore time away on this nonsense.

There can be no debate with people like you. You've got the divine authority to determine what constitutes "offence" and anyone who doesn't grovel instantly is immediately an oppressor who must be harangued into submission. It is the behaviour of an irrational hysteric and intellectual inadequate.

The simple fact is that you're attempting to attribute connotations to a common word when it is highly debatable whether such connotations exist...However you assert your subjective view to be factual, largely because those who adhere to your politics say so.

So, aye. No more indulging your hair-trigger sensitivity. No more listening to your aggressive, inquisitional harrying - which you appear to think amounts to civilized debate. Anyone who ascribes sexist connotations to the word "girl" is a moron, and any feminist who thinks the word is akin to "nigger" is an absolute fucking loon. In a sane environment, away from your lefty-activist comfort zone, you'd be laughed out of the place. Idiot.

[precarian]

It is interesting to note the difference between the choice of language between The Guardian, a left leaning liberal newspaper and the Daily Mail, a right-wing conservative newspaper: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/british-women-peru-court-cocaine-smuggling

Yes, the Guardian. Newspaper of the metropolitan liberal elite. That speaks volumes about the nature of your politics.

[Ned Kelly]

Obviously there are scenarios where it's inappropriate but if it's in a context where I'd call my female friends girls and I'd call my male friends lads or boys I'd say that obviously fine. All down to context and intent.

[The Feral Underclass]

I have answered you, numerous times over.

I have never asked you those questions before, so how could you have answered them numerous times?


It's a waste of time.

In other words, you can't answer them.


There's not much I can say to your accusatory last post to me other than "acquire a fucking dictionary." My point is either ignored outright or deliberately misconstrued.

Your point isn't ignored. I am asking you questions in order to understand your point. If you're unable to answer them perhaps this is an indication of the fallaciousness of your opinions.


There can be no debate with people like you.

Yet I am trying to engage you in a discussion, which you were responding to up until the point you were no longer able to justify your opinions. You have now resorted to this victim bullshit as an attempt to evade having to take responsibility.


You've got the divine authority to determine what constitutes "offence" and anyone who doesn't grovel instantly is immediately an oppressor who must be harangued into submission. It is the behaviour of an irrational hysteric and intellectual inadequate.

I am happy to be proven wrong. If you can provide legitimate justification then I have no problem conceding that you are right and I am wrong. But so far you have failed to adequately justify your opinions when they are interrogated, which incidentally is pretty much the definition of the very debate you are accusing people of not giving you.

If you want a debate then debate. Answers my questions. Justify your opinion; qualify your views. If you are not able to do that, then why should anyone accept what you are saying?


The simple fact is that you're attempting to attribute connotations to a common word when it is highly debatable whether such connotations exist...

I am not attributing connotations, I am understanding structural sexism and how men perpetuate this through their language. I am able to "measure" that "empirically" too.


However you assert your subjective view to be factual, largely because those who adhere to your politics say so.

My view isn't subjective. It is not based on my individual feelings or impressions, it is based on observing the objective consequences of structural sexism. There is a very real correlation between how women are made to feel about their gender and how that feeling actualises itself as oppression.

You have already admitted that gendered roles are an objective consequence of sexism. If that's the case, how do you envision those consequences are actualised? Is it not because women are made to believe, feel, perceive themselves as being weak, meak, nurturers, vulnerable etc? How does the concept of "gendered roles" enforce itself within society? Why is it that women still believe, feel, perceive themselves as having that particular role?

And this is the issue with your argument. You fails answer these questions. You make claims about objective consequences being these external factors, but you don't seem to understand how those external factors actualise oppression. You also fail to understand the process by which this actualised oppression legitimises itself within the structures of society.

Well, then I'll explain to you: That oppression is actualised through structural sexism. Structural sexism is oppression that layers itself into society. In other words structural sexism is the "naturalisation" or "normalisation" of gender inequality within the way we reproduce ourselves as humans. That includes language.

So, taking your example about pay inequalities: That is an objective consequence of sexism. But how is it an objective consequence? How does it legitimise and justify itself as an objective consequence? Well it does so by asserting the notion that women are nurturers and that men are leaders. As in, these objective consequences structure an ideology around it.

This ideology, used to justify and legitimise those objective consequences, also relies upon further structured, normalised, naturalised sexist interactions. Those structures, normalisation and naturalisation are then codified within things like culture and language. So you see examples of women being sexualised or dominated in advertisement in the media, you have the word "pussy" used to describe something that is weak and feeble or the word "girl" to infantilize women. These things become coded within our society and therefore reinforce the ideology that justifies and legitimises the external, objective consequences of sexism. They are directly linked. So on the face of it it seems trivial, but if you analyse the nature of sexism as a structure, you can see that these things, while appearing trivial, actually reinforce patriarchy. What I am saying isn't a subjective opinion. It is an empirical understanding of reality. You can literally map out how how these things are interconnected.

Now, you might think this analysis is just left-elitist nonsense, but all that does is limit your understanding of sexism. And that is a real issue for people on this board, because someone who actively participates in limiting their own understandings of fundamental issues like sexism are not really advancing themselves as revolutionaries (assuming that is an objective of yours).


So, aye. No more indulging your hair-trigger sensitivity. No more listening to your aggressive, inquisitional harrying - which you appear to think amounts to civilized debate.

You were perfectly happy to answer my questions before. Why have you suddenly decided to become a victim? Is it because you realise that your opinions can't stand up to interrogation?


Anyone who ascribes sexist connotations to the word "girl" is a moron, and any feminist who thinks the word is akin to "nigger" is an absolute fucking loon.

I'd rather be a lunatic than a sexist.


In a sane environment, away from your lefty-activist comfort zone, you'd be laughed out of the place. Idiot.

In the psychology world they call this projection.


Yes, the Guardian. Newspaper of the metropolitan liberal elite. That speaks volumes about the nature of your politics.

So what does it say about the nature of your politics when you link to and defend a racist, right-wing conservative newspaper like the Daily Mail?

[Rooiakker]

I can appreciate the argument of infantalism, however I personally don't mind it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I can appreciate the argument of infantalism, however I personally don't mind it.

Do you mean you personally don't mind being seen and treated as though you are a child? Or being called "girl"?

[Luís Henrique]

It's fucked up that 2 people of any age and gender face 25 years in jail over cocaine smuggling. I think that the actions of Peruvian law enforcement should be criticized.

It doesn't change the fact that calling them "young girls" and highlighting the fact that they are going "hysterical" plays on certain gender tropes. This is like the RevLeft version of "beautiful young white 15 year old raped and kidnapped" ... it's terrible when anyone is raped and kidnapped, but why is it a bigger deal when the victims of this kind of oppression are attractive white people? How many poor Peruvian prole men sent to Latin American jail every year for the same crime as these girls? I'm not saying that the OP is doing that but clearly the Daily Mail is to sell some papers.

Yesterday a woman was murdered here in Brasília. Today, the newspapers systematically call the victim (who was 34) a "girl". The murderer (who is 33, and so, actually younger than the victim), however, is never called a "girl"; she is always referred to as a "woman".

And that is the problem, in my opinion. Calling two suspected drug smugglers "girls" is not demeaning, it is an attempt to make them look innocent. Which they may well be, I don't know the case; but that point should be made by discussing their actions, not trying to smuggle an image of harmless childhood, when we are discussing two people that could very well be dangerous criminals.

I do call mature women "girls" often, and don't intend to stop. But the context is, as I guess you may realise, completely different.

Luís Henrique

[Ocean Seal]

This is ridiculous. Its absolutely reasonable to call 19 and 20 year olds girls and boys. Do you believe that people magically become adults at age 18? Have you recently met any 18 year olds? Also I can't believe that we have a six page thread on language in one day, and when it comes to some actually pertinent issues we have trouble getting past a few posts.

[precarian]

I have never asked you those questions before, so how could you have answered them numerous times?

We've exchaged numerous posts. I've argued my point over five pages. I've regurgiataed the same point over and over and over and over. If you can't be arsed reading it, and extracting the relevant information for yourself, then I'm not going to waste my time. This is a pointless argument and we cannot possibly come to an amiable agreement. We disagree fundamentally and that is not going to change.




In other words, you can't answer them.

Wrong.




Your point isn't ignored. I am asking you questions in order to understand your point. If you're unable to answer them perhaps this is an indication of the fallaciousness of your opinions.

You're not interested in "understanding" anything. You were abusive to begin with and now you're trying to hammer your opinion home for the millionth time - I've heard your argument. I don't agree.


Yet I am trying to engage you in a discussion, which you were responding to up until the point you were no longer able to justify your opinions. You have now resorted to this victim bullshit as an attempt to evade having to take responsibility.

No, I can no longer be arsed debating with someone who has no interest in entertaining an alternative point of view. You've resorted to "victim bullshit" from your first fucking post, by the way!

You were not remotely engaging me in a rational argument. You, and your "comrades", were brow-beating me.



I am happy to be proven wrong. If you can provide legitimate justification then I have no problem conceding that you are right and I am wrong. But so far you have failed to adequately justify your opinions when they are interrogated, which incidentally is pretty much the definition of the very debate you are accusing people of not giving you.

If you want a debate then debate. Answers my questions. Justify your opinion; qualify your views. If you are not able to do that, then why should anyone accept what you are saying?

I cannot "prove you wrong" though!! Fucking hell, this is circular beyond belief. It is not possible for me to "prove wrong" your subjective definition of offence. All the appeals to "structural sexism" - referring to specific instances of language-use - as a means of objectively proving the existence of this mythical "offensiveness" are invalid. I do not recognise this paradigm as legitimate.



I am not attributing connotations, I am understanding structural sexism and how men perpetuate this through their language. I am able to "measure" that "empirically" too.

See above. "Structural sexism", as you understand it, is not an infallible doctrine! You simply cannot measure the effects of language empirically. It is absolute fucking impossible.




My view isn't subjective. It is not based on my individual feelings or impressions, it is based on observing the objective consequences of structural sexism. There is a very real correlation between how women are made to feel about their gender and how that feeling actualises itself as oppression.


...but how anyone is "made to feel" can only be subjective! What offends one person might not necessarily offend another. Some people are ultra-sensitive and are predisposed towards seeing "offence" where others see none. Some folk are far more tolerant, calm and thick-skinned. As far as you're concerned, anyone who is offended by something automatically gets to set the bar denoting what "offensive" amounts to! This is patently ludicrous.

You have already admitted that gendered roles are an objective consequence of sexism. If that's the case, how do you envision those consequences are actualised? Is it not because women are made to believe, feel, perceive themselves as being weak, meak, nurturers, vulnerable etc? How does the concept of "gendered roles" enforce itself within society? Why is it that women still believe, feel, perceive themselves as having that particular role?


I believe it is a product of property relations and the institutional . For what it's worth, I also believe that advanced capitalism is in the process of eliminating these gendered roles - just as Marx illustrated how the progress of capitalism eliminated traditional aspects of feudal society, so modern liberal capitalism is eliminating irrational traditions and assumptions about the nature of certain social groups. This would be an interesting debate for another thread so I won't expand upon it here.


And this is the issue with your argument. You fails answer these questions. You make claims about objective consequences being these external factors, but you don't seem to understand how those external factors actualise oppression. You also fail to understand the process by which this actualised oppression legitimises itself within the structures of society.

Well, then I'll explain to you: That oppression is actualised through structural sexism. Structural sexism is oppression that layers itself into society. In other words structural sexism is the "naturalisation" or "normalisation" of gender inequality within the way we reproduce ourselves as humans. That includes language.

So, taking your example about pay inequalities: That is an objective consequence of sexism. But how is it an objective consequence? How does it legitimise and justify itself as an objective consequence? Well it does so by asserting the notion that women are nurturers and that men are leaders. As in, these objective consequences structure an ideology around it.


The notion that women are nurturers does not need to be "asserted." It has been part of human societies since time immemorial. I would contend that the notion is a product of a set of material conditions which no longer exist - as was the institution of marriage and myriad other aspects of bourgeois society.

I do not, however, accept that the word "girls" carries any connotations that can be construed as sexist. It cannot be viewed within the paradigm of "structural sexism" without descending into absurdity. The intention behind the use of certain words is something that is blatantly open to interpretation



This ideology, used to justify and legitimise those objective consequences, also relies upon further structured, normalised, naturalised sexist interactions. Those structures, normalisation and naturalisation are then codified within things like culture and language. So you see examples of women being sexualised or dominated in advertisement in the media, you have the word "pussy" used to describe something that is weak and feeble or the word "girl" to infantilize women. These things become coded within our society and therefore reinforce the ideology that justifies and legitimises the external, objective consequences of sexism. They are directly linked. So on the face of it it seems trivial, but if you analyse the nature of sexism as a structure, you can see that these things, while appearing trivial, actually reinforce patriarchy. What I am saying isn't a subjective opinion. It is an empirical understanding of reality. You can literally map out how how these things are interconnected.

This is something which I totally reject. As I've said, I do not accept that ideology is used to justify anything you've mentioned. They are a hangover of property relations, the basis for which no longer exist. As far as common speech goes, just about anything could be ascribed "oppressive" connotations. The effect of said words cannot possibly be empirically measured - they are subjective. Different people react to them in different ways.


Now, you might think this analysis is just left-elitist nonsense, but all that does is limit your understanding of sexism. And that is a real issue for people on this board, because someone who actively participates in limiting their own understandings of fundamental issues like sexism are not really advancing themselves as revolutionaries (assuming that is an objective of yours).

I am happy to hear your argument. This has actually been a fairly interesting post - which begs the question "why were you initially abusive when you could have civilly posted something like this?"


You were perfectly happy to answer my questions before. Why have you suddenly decided to become a victim? Is it because you realise that your opinions can't stand up to interrogation?

I wasn't "perfectly happy" to answer them at all. I was drawn into a situation in which I could not possibly "win." One cannot argument against someone who claims that their theory gives them absolute right to declare subjective phenomena to be objective.

We fundamentally disagree here. I am not an adherent of privilege theory
so, when it comes down to it, we're always going to run up against a brick wall eventually.

Explaining your theory to me does not mean I have to accept it as empirically correct. It is not the case that those who object to said theory are just "ignorant" of it. I also tend to avoid arguing about it with "true believers" because it's totally pointless and divisive - thus why I do not post in threads about it!



I'd rather be a lunatic than a sexist.

How about trying to be neither? Maybe a bit of discretion and common sense could be used when determining what "sexism" actually amounts to, as opposed to apply your sociological outlook to every trivial real-life situation?


We call this projection in the psychology world.

I'd call it "pretty fucking accurate."


So what does it say about the nature of your politics when you link to and defend a racist, right-wing conservative newspaper like the Daily Mail?

I have already explained my reasons for linking to said reactionary rag. That you would overlook that says plenty about your approach here.

[Luís Henrique]

It is interesting to note the difference between the choice of language between The Guardian, a left leaning liberal newspaper and the Daily Mail, a right-wing conservative newspaper: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/british-women-peru-court-cocaine-smuggling

Ah, yes. That, however, has probably much more to do with the Daily Mail's xenophobia (those awful barbaric Peruvians are trying to jail our innocent little very British girls) than with its misoginy. The Guardian (albeit not being at all innocent of xenophobia and racism, as their support for the Zimbabwean White Farmers Union should remind us) is probably just not as intent to demonise the Peruvian government or legal system at this moment.

Luís Henrique

[The Feral Underclass]

This is something which I totally reject

A [straight?] man denying the existence of structural sexism is the most hilarious and tragic irony of all of this.

Well, I tried. Good luck to you, Precarian.

[precarian]

There's only so many times you debate something as trivial and outright stupid as this. Privilege theorists, however, devote copious quantities of time to uncovering "offence" where there is none and, because there is no way to "prove" their subjective assumptions wrong, any argument with them invariably goes round in circles.

It is intellectually degenerate.

What was it Nietzsche said? ''He who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself.'' Pertinent indeed.

[precarian]

A [straight?] man denying the existence of structural sexism is the most hilarious and tragic irony of all of this.

Well, I tried. Good luck to you, Precarian.

Yes, I shouldn't even speak. The opinion of homosexual women matters more. We don't debate matters on their merits in privilege theory seminars. He who wins at "oppressed minority" top trumps automatically sets the tone of the debate. They are beyond reason itself. Pure degeneracy.

Edit: Shit, I said "he" thereby reinforcing an archaic patriarchal assumption regarding the leadership role of the male species. A clear-cut example of privileged, intolerant, dismissive, Patriarchy-Nazi-Fascism. Look at me "mansplaining" as well..

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, I shouldn't even speak.

On this. We can agree.

[Quail]

Yes, I shouldn't even speak. The opinion of homosexual women matters more. We don't debate matters on their merits in privilege theory seminars. He who wins at "oppressed minority" top trumps automatically sets the tone of the debate. They are beyond reason itself. Pure degeneracy.

Edit: Shit, I said "he" thereby reinforcing an archaic patriarchal assumption regarding the leadership role of the male species. A clear-cut example of privileged, intolerant, dismissive, Patriarchy-Nazi-Fascism. Look at me "mansplaining" as well..
You're just trolling now. I suggest you take a step back from the discussion if you don't have anything more constructive to say.

[Comrade Jacob]

It is unintentionally patronising in my opinion.

[Sam_b]

The opinion of homosexual women matters more

When it comes to matters of sexism, of course it does. Why is this so difficult to understand? You are not oppressed by your gender or sexuality.

[Bostana]

'Girl' is often used by men to diminish their roles and portray them as weaker
I never thought about it that way.

[Philosophos]

Actually in Greek it's not that bad to call a woman girl or a man boy. We go and say things like: "Boy what are you up to?" "Wassup girl" nobody seems to feel discriminated or insulted. At the same time old people keep calling their relatives or young people they know boys and girls.

On the other hand if you just call women girls yeah it sure is discrimination.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

When it comes to matters of sexism, of course it does. Why is this so difficult to understand? You are not oppressed by your gender or sexuality.
This seems a weird line of logic to take. I agree that women are disproportionately affected by sexism, but how is it the case that cis-men aren't affected at all? After all, class society does not reside in a vacuum. In my opinion, the special oppression of women could not take place without men themselves becoming emotionally stunted or debased in some way. This is not to equate their suffering, but to place the problem in a holistic perspective.

If men truly undergo no oppression at all in this process, then not only are you implying that men have an objective interest in oppressing women, but also that the former are innately imbued with the hallmarks of the bourgeois family and will seek to antagonize the latter on the basis of their gender. If this is the case, then it is impossible for men and women to become equal, since they will always be in conflict with one another.

Just a tad ridiculous.

[Le Libérer]

This discussion ended tragically. I don't forsee it turning around.

Thread closed

[The Feral Underclass]

In my opinion, the special oppression of women could not take place without men themselves becoming emotionally stunted or debased in some way.

If that is the case it is not the result of prejudice and discrimination against men, since there is no structure in which men are oppressed as a gender. If it is anything, it is a residual consequence of the structural oppression of women and the nature of patriarchy.

[Sam_b]

Doesn't appear to be closed so I've done the deed.