How Sexually Violent Language Perpetuates Rape Culture and What You Can Do About It

[Sinister Intents]

http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/02/sexually-violent-language/

I liked this article a lot! I wanted to see what people had to say.

[ColumnNo.4]

Rubbish. The word origin argument can to utilised to condemn certain language as well as defend it.

[Sinister Intents]

Rubbish. The word origin argument can to utilised to condemn certain language as well as defend it.

I disagree, language gets shaped by the culture which gets manipulated by the bourgeoisie by use of the media, school and so on. Language does shape how we think because from a young age we're being molded by individuals into who they want us to be before we're even thinking about who ww are. We got taught who we are instead of deciding it for ourselves, children also learn their gender and people prepare for the assigned gender before they're born.

I agree with the article wholeheartedly because of the individuals who get given deciding factor.

Edit: I freaking hate when I'm typing up a post and my dad won't stop talking to mev about business shit,

[ColumnNo.4]

I would bet the vast majority don't even think of phrases such as "fuck off" in a litteral sense. Regardless of the definition the term "faggot" is now derogatory and we should not use it. Words have definitions however as languages change those words meanings do as well.

[Rosa Partizan]

I don't see a problem with many of those expressions, especially with that "force" thing. Also, I've never thought of "suck it" as something you mostly say to females, maybe because I'm no native speaker, but I've seen it plenty of times in both gender contexts. What disturbs me a lot and what is used frequently in Germany is to say you raped someone when you defeated them, especially in sports context like football. After the 7:1 win of Germany over Brasil this year, some people on my facebook list shared several status updates that contained such languages, and I deleted them from my list, because I'm very sensitive about rape vocabulary and everyone might be sensitive about other words, but I just fail to see the problem with stuff like suck/fuck it, force, hit on someone etc.

[Zanthorus]

I'm sure there's a doctorate out there for the intrepid researcher who inquires into the relationship between the beliefs of people who promote this kind of word policing and practitioners of voodoo and sympathetic magic.

If I was being ungenerous I might suspect that this kind of thing sells to people who feel guilty about not doing anything in the real world, so they feel compelled to reassure themselves that they're fighting the good fight by policing what they say and sharing videos on the internet. Whatever's going on doesn't have much to do with Marxism anyway.

[ColumnNo.4]

I hear the phrase "suck it" utilised more between men in competition. I hear the term "raped" utilised quite commonly when describing an overwhelming victory. I believe it started among the gaming community.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The article sounds like an excerpt from a self-help book for trendy liberals. It's bad.


I'm sure there's a doctorate out there for the intrepid researcher who inquires into the relationship between the beliefs of people who promote this kind of word policing and practitioners of voodoo and sympathetic magic.

I would draw the parallel to Novalis and his "philosophical" magic - change your inner perception and the external world will change. In this case: change how you speak and that will do... something.

Which is not to say that some of our linguistic habits don't reveal worrying assumptions, but these habits arise from the material facts of structural oppression, not the other way around. People say "fuck it" as an expletive because fucking has been viewed as a violent penetrative act (and words like "fucking", "futuire" and so on are all derived from terms for beating, if I'm not mistaken) in certain cultural contexts - but (1) people that say it don't necessarily share that view (just as people who say "good god" are not necessarily theists), and (2) the actual violence in sex and society will not go away if we use different terms.

[Rosa Partizan]

The article sounds like an excerpt from a self-help book for trendy liberals. It's bad.



I would draw the parallel to Novalis and his "philosophical" magic - change your inner perception and the external world will change. In this case: change how you speak and that will do... something.

Which is not to say that some of our linguistic habits don't reveal worrying assumptions, but these habits arise from the material facts of structural oppression, not the other way around. People say "fuck it" as an expletive because fucking has been viewed as a violent penetrative act (and words like "fucking", "futuire" and so on are all derived from terms for beating, if I'm not mistaken) in certain cultural contexts - but (1) people that say it don't necessarily share that view (just as people who say "good god" are not necessarily theists), and (2) the actual violence in sex and society will not go away if we use different terms.

I believe that, too. I think we form the language according to the way we "need" it, in the way we perceive our environment. That explains semantics and why it is in constant change, why words and meanings just die and why new words and meanings arise or shift of meaning or blahblah etc.

[consuming negativity]

Also, I've never thought of "suck it" as something you mostly say to females, maybe because I'm no native speaker, but I've seen it plenty of times in both gender contexts.

Ask yourself what "it" is, and why we would tell them to "suck it" after, for example, beating them in a video game or something else wherein we have established superiority. It is casting the person in the role of a woman or homosexual and using it in the context of their submission as a means of degradation. The language is disgusting and sexist.

[ColumnNo.4]

Ask yourself what "it" is, and why we would tell them to "suck it" after, for example, beating them in a video game or something else wherein we have established superiority. It is casting the person in the role of a woman or homosexual and using it in the context of their submission as a means of degradation. The language is disgusting and sexist.

Or perhaps simply asserted dominance in a sexual manner. Not everything is pertaining to women and LGBT people.

[Rosa Partizan]

Ask yourself what "it" is, and why we would tell them to "suck it" after, for example, beating them in a video game or something else wherein we have established superiority. It is casting the person in the role of a woman or homosexual and using it in the context of their submission as a means of degradation. The language is disgusting and sexist.

I'm not saying it's cool to talk like that, but I don't think that we will change any material conditions in our world by erasing every expression that could be remotely sexist. This whole text is a great example of academic identity politics libfem individualist blahblah. Pretty sure the author's whining about cultural appropriation, too, and feels they contributed to a better world when releasing such essays. Heaven forbid we started caring about things that could REALLY change something.

[consuming negativity]

Or perhaps simply asserted dominance in a sexual manner. Not everything is pertaining to women and LGBT people.

Who performs oral sex on a penis (ie. sucking)? Not straight men or lesbians. :glare:


I'm not saying it's cool to talk like that, but I don't think that we will change any material conditions in our world by erasing every expression that could be remotely sexist. This whole text is a great example of academic identity politics libfem individualist blahblah. Pretty sure the author's whining about cultural appropriation, too, and feels they contributed to a better world when releasing such essays. Heaven forbid we started caring about things that could REALLY change something.

You're right - it's the opposite. The words are reflective of our underlying beliefs. When we change those beliefs we won't talk like this anymore because we'll realize that the phrases are discriminatory and thus not in tune with our values. It's not "academic identity politics". Nor is it whining. It's the actual on-the-ground change that you claim you are in favor of. You want to change the superstructure? You change the people in it. You get them to recognize when their behavior is incongruent with their beliefs so they can fix it. What else is there?

[ColumnNo.4]

I'm not saying it's cool to talk like that, but I don't think that we will change any material conditions in our world by erasing every expression that could be remotely sexist. This whole text is a great example of academic identity politics libfem individualist blahblah. Pretty sure the author's whining about cultural appropriation, too, and feels they contributed to a better world when releasing such essays. Heaven forbid we started caring about things that could REALLY change something.

I completely agree. The nitpicking of essentially everything has become faddish and extremely irritating.

[consuming negativity]

I completely agree. The nitpicking of essentially everything has become faddish and extremely irritating.

"Essentially everything" (see: don't tell people to suck your dick or that you're going to fuck them as a form of insult).

Well, pack it up everyone. I guess we better just throw out the dictionaries now that our language has no use! The social justice warriors have ruined it for us again!

God damn, this is still RevLeft, right? I thought I mistyped and ended up on Reddit's MRA subreddit again. If you can't even be bothered to give a shit about what you say that comes directly out of your mouth, you should stop trying to bring about a revolution, because clearly it's just not worth the effort to make even the most menial changes to your habits.

[Lily Briscoe]

People generally don't like being told how to speak, though, and it doesn't actually accomplish anything (let alone alter structural oppression) aside from breeding resentment over something completely superficial and allowing you to pat yourself on the back and feel superior.

As long as we live in a sexist society, it's going to be reflected in casual expressions etc.

[Rosa Partizan]

"Essentially everything" (see: don't tell people to suck your dick or that you're going to fuck them as a form of insult).

Well, pack it up everyone. I guess we better just throw out the dictionaries now that our language has no use! The social justice warriors have ruined it for us again!

God damn, this is still RevLeft, right? I thought I mistyped and ended up on Reddit's MRA subreddit again. If you can't even be bothered to give a shit about what you say that comes directly out of your mouth, you should stop trying to bring about a revolution, because clearly it's just not worth the effort to make even the most menial changes to your habits.

it's completely okay to discuss it, you can discuss basically anything, why not talk about this text, too, at least in order to deconstruct it with arguments. What bothers me is this whole development feminism is taking, namely a disproportionate concentration on topics that won't result in any structural and material change. They talk about language (this is even more prevalent in Germany), cultural appropriation, cisqueerheterotrans-stuff and how to name what, but when you go ahead with stuff like "okay ladies, let's talk about structural oppression within porn and prostitution" they go like #notallporn. Why is that? Why is the worst thing you can be in third wave feminism a prude or not language-aware or wearing a bandana or whatever? Get what I mean?

[Redistribute the Rep]

God damn, this is still RevLeft, right? I thought I mistyped and ended up on Reddit's MRA subreddit again.

Whining about "SJWs" is not exclusive to MRA sites. It's become rather 'faddish', as some might say.

[ColumnNo.4]

"Essentially everything" (see: don't tell people to suck your dick or that you're going to fuck them as a form of insult).

Well, pack it up everyone. I guess we better just throw out the dictionaries now that our language has no use! The social justice warriors have ruined it for us again!

God damn, this is still RevLeft, right? I thought I mistyped and ended up on Reddit's MRA subreddit again. If you can't even be bothered to give a shit about what you say that comes directly out of your mouth, you should stop trying to bring about a revolution, because clearly it's just not worth the effort to make even the most menial changes to your habits.

Another example of generalising. Nowhere did I refer to MRA's or not being bothered about what comes out of ones own mouth. I hear more *****ing about certain words or phrases than I do gender based wage inequality.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

People generally don't like being told how to speak, though, and it doesn't actually accomplish anything (let alone alter structural oppression) aside from breeding resentment over something completely superficial and allowing you to pat yourself on the back and feel superior.

As long as we live in a sexist society, it's going to be reflected in casual expressions etc.

And, I mean, often (although I wouldn't go as far as to say "usually") there's no ill intention behind the term. People using terms like "fag" might annoy me, but I'd rather have someone say that they don't have anything against fags than read a fifty-page execrable academic essay on the morality of homosexuality. Language policing accomplishes nothing, and it's just a way for people to feel smug and superior, when often they buy into some pretty shitty notions themselves.

[ColumnNo.4]

And, I mean, often (although I wouldn't go as far as to say "usually") there's no ill intention behind the term. People using terms like "fag" might annoy me, but I'd rather have someone say that they don't have anything against fags than read a fifty-page execrable academic essay on the morality of homosexuality. Language policing accomplishes nothing, and it's just a way for people to feel smug and superior, when often they buy into some pretty shitty notions themselves.

Not only but it tends to come predominantly feminist and left identifying individuals and paints leftism and feminism in a bad light or at least off putting to those taking an interest in either.

[Rosa Partizan]

Not only but it tends to come predominantly feminist and left identifying individuals and paints leftism and feminism in a bad light or at least off putting to those taking an interest in either.

on the other hand, I don't think that feminist and leftist ideas have to be modified to be attractive, like, in feminism "hey guys, join us, we like you! we even shave and put on make up and stuff!!"

[consuming negativity]

People generally don't like being told how to speak, though, and it doesn't actually accomplish anything (let alone alter structural oppression) aside from breeding resentment over something completely superficial and allowing you to pat yourself on the back and feel superior.

Nobody is telling anyone how to speak. In fact, if you actually think women and non-gender-conforming and trans and bisexual or homosexual people are shit, then I think you should say exactly that, so I can first try to change your mind and THEN if I don't, cut you out of my life so I don't have to deal with such ignorance. The article is written for an audience that is interested in changing themselves. If you don't want to change, then don't. Forever take it personally that someone is pointing out your mistakes, as if they do it because they want to sit and masturbate to the power they get from writing articles on the internet... rather than, you know, simply wanting to point it out so people can read it and go "oh okay, good point" and act on that.

I get that you're not speaking from yourself, but in the end, someone who doesn't want to see the good in it simply won't, and there's not much that can be done about that. They won't be taken into feminism just because we decide to play into their reactionary bullshit; a person interested in feminism will come find it for themselves. Through, for example, articles like this which make them think and get curious.


it's completely okay to discuss it, you can discuss basically anything, why not talk about this text, too, at least in order to deconstruct it with arguments. What bothers me is this whole development feminism is taking, namely a disproportionate concentration on topics that won't result in any structural and material change. They talk about language (this is even more prevalent in Germany), cultural appropriation, cisqueerheterotrans-stuff and how to name what, but when you go ahead with stuff like "okay ladies, let's talk about structural oppression within porn and prostitution" they go like #notallporn. Why is that? Why is the worst thing you can be in third wave feminism a prude or not language-aware or wearing a bandana or whatever? Get what I mean?

Everything is surface and all of it leads back to the same conclusions. Why do you want to talk about it within porn and prostitution, but not within language? Maybe you just don't really want to think about the way you do language, but for some reason, porn really bothers you. Perhaps because you can actually see the violence being played out, and it is actually careers, and it is just more... emotionally forward? But at the end of the day it all goes back to the same underlying cause; and the more we are aware of just how transcendent this stuff is and how it, like a fucking virus, touches and ruins everything we do, we can begin to root it out and replace it with more appropriate actions that better reflect our beliefs. The surface level shit is both more practical and more easily accessible, and thus will always be the majority of everything. Most people simply aren't interested in deep thought and critical analysis. But we can't force them to like it or read it or actually want to understand. That's why you gotta seek out people (like on RevLeft) who can actually understand the mechanisms behind everything and who find it interesting to talk about.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Good politics, I think, often has an "angular" quality - it's striking, it might offend you, and it makes you think. So I don't have anything against being a bit off-putting at first (indeed, I think my one claim to fame is having raised being off-putting to an art form) - but language policing, generally speaking, rarely makes people think, it's just ritual denunciation of certain words without regard for context, and if someone is a confirmed reactionary, even the most arduous "social justice warrior" attack will just... force them to reformulate their ideas in "acceptable" language.

[ColumnNo.4]

on the other hand, I don't think that feminist and leftist ideas have to be modified to be attractive, like, in feminism "hey guys, join us, we like you! we even shave and put on make up and stuff!!"

Absolutely not however extreme practices such as word policing are fairly new. I don't think feminism or leftist ideas would bend to accept theories favouring inequality or maintaining of the patriarchy.

[Rosa Partizan]

Everything is surface and all of it leads back to the same conclusions. Why do you want to talk about it within porn and prostitution, but not within language? Maybe you just don't really want to think about the way you do language, but for some reason, porn really bothers you. Perhaps because you can actually see the violence being played out, and it is actually careers, and it is just more... emotionally forward? But at the end of the day it all goes back to the same underlying cause; and the more we are aware of just how transcendent this stuff is and how it, like a fucking virus, touches and ruins everything we do, we can begin to root it out and replace it with more appropriate actions that better reflect our beliefs. The surface level shit is both more practical and more easily accessible, and thus will always be the majority of everything. Most people simply aren't interested in deep thought and critical analysis. But we can't force them to like it or read it or actually want to understand. That's why you gotta seek out people (like on RevLeft) who can actually understand the mechanisms behind everything and who find it interesting to talk about.

Who said I don't wanna think about about language? Part of my studies is about linguistics and I'm a feminist, so it's just a logical consequence I thought about it. But I came to the conclusion that people define language and not vice versa. How will structural violence and oppression stop or at least decrease when we don't say "fuck it" anymore? Now ask this same question for porn and prostitution and I'm pretty sure you see the difference.

[consuming negativity]

Who said I don't wanna think about about language? Part of my studies is about linguistics and I'm a feminist, so it's just a logical consequence I thought about it. But I came to the conclusion that people define language and not vice versa. How will structural violence and oppression stop or at least decrease when we don't say "fuck it" anymore? Now ask this same question for porn and prostitution and I'm pretty sure you see the difference.

Well of course people define language; that's the problem. We also define porn and prostitution and the rest. There is nothing inherently wrong with speaking, or watching people have sex, or having sex with someone. The problem is when we speak and by doing so we are saying things we don't mean, or when we watch porn and by doing so are supporting a shitty industry, or when we have sex with someone but we're doing so in a system wherein sex has become monetized. That gives us one of two options: we either change ourselves at the base, or we change the superstructure to better suit our beliefs. It's a lot easier to stop using certain language than it is to change the entire porn industry or to get rid of coercion in sex when it is a direct effect of our capitalist economy. I don't think we will ever achieve what you and I both want to achieve without a lot of serious work: but what we can easily achieve is by altering the way we speak. It's easy, and it doesn't do much, but it's still worth it. Don't you think so?

I mean, I'm aware that language is living and it tends to evolve; like how "bye" comes from "goodbye" which comes from "god be with you". Do you think that's what's going to end up happening? We end up keeping on saying these things but we forget the real meanings, like we have? I dunno, I'd just prefer that some words and phrases and such didn't get revamped. I need to be able to say goodbye, but I don't really need to be able to insult people like that; there are plenty of other, good ways to insult people if I really, really just need to be able to do so. There is no need for "the n-word" or "the b-word" or these other terms we use, so why not just stop saying them? Or why not at least try to change them so that we're not saying something completely different than what we're trying to? You said yourself that it's not okay to say them, so what's the problem? I don't think this article's existence or lack thereof really has any effect on how much more intelligent discourse is out there around topics that you'd prefer get more attention. It's sort of like saying the news would be better if they stopped covering celebrities, as if there isn't a reason why they're being covered; except this information is at least useful and interesting to people who haven't heard it before.

[Illegalitarian]

it's completely okay to discuss it, you can discuss basically anything, why not talk about this text, too, at least in order to deconstruct it with arguments. What bothers me is this whole development feminism is taking, namely a disproportionate concentration on topics that won't result in any structural and material change. They talk about language (this is even more prevalent in Germany), cultural appropriation, cisqueerheterotrans-stuff and how to name what, but when you go ahead with stuff like "okay ladies, let's talk about structural oppression within porn and prostitution" they go like #notallporn. Why is that? Why is the worst thing you can be in third wave feminism a prude or not language-aware or wearing a bandana or whatever? Get what I mean?

It's not nitpicking for the sake of nothing though, it's nitpicking for the explicit purpose of merely demonstrating how normalized sexist and misogynistic behavior is in something so prevalent as our every-day conversations.

I do think some feminists have this tendency to get too focused on the details, which leads to trying to cure the symptoms instead of the disease, but for the most part it's prove a point, and it's been pretty successful.

[Rosa Partizan]

you're up to some other line of argumentation, I guess. You somehow imply that those gender libfem queer blogger blah blah people would like to change the whole system, but start with language, because this is something they can get started with. This would also imply that they understand underlying structures of violence and oppression, but they don't. Instead, they invent "feminist porn" and "sexwork" because they're not ready to move away from an individualist perspective. The only people who benefit from this are johns, pimps, porn consumers and the sex industry.

[ColumnNo.4]

It's not nitpicking for the sake of nothing though, it's nitpicking for the explicit purpose of merely demonstrating how normalized sexist and misogynistic behavior is in something so prevalent as our every-day conversations.

I do think some feminists have this tendency to get too focused on the details, which leads to trying to cure the symptoms instead of the disease, but for the most part it's prove a point, and it's been pretty successful.

Explain to me how phrases such as "fuck off" and "suck it" are uniquely sexist or misogynistic?

[Lily Briscoe]

If you don't want to change, then don't. Forever take it personally that someone is pointing out your mistakes

I don't think they're 'mistakes'. Saying "fuck this" or "I have to force myself to x, y, and z" (to use an example right out of the article) is not even an example of 'sexist language' in the first place. Even if you could make a reasonable case that expressions like this did have sexist baggage, though, I don't think someone would be 'making a mistake' by using them. What's important is the intent, not the words and phrases themselves divorced from their context.

Like I said, as long as we live in a sexist society, everyday speech is going to reflect that in all sorts of ways. Trying to sterilize language isn't going to change the nature of the world we live in, it's just another way for academics to set themselves apart from regular people.

...as if they do it because they want to sit and masturbate to the power they get from writing articles on the internet... Pretty much.

[Lily Briscoe]

you're up to some other line of argumentation, I guess. You somehow imply that those gender libfem queer blogger blah blah people would like to change the whole system, but start with language, because this is something they can get started with. This would also imply that they understand underlying structures of violence and oppression, but they don't. Instead, they invent "feminist porn" and "sexwork" because they're not ready to move away from an individualist perspective. The only people who benefit from this are johns, pimps, porn consumers and the sex industry.

What on earth does porn and prostitution have to do with this discussion?

[Rosa Partizan]

What on earth does porn and prostitution have to do with this discussion?

I was writing about that in some former post, namely how libfems and all this queer gender blogger scene would rather talk about language and how that is super problematic while ignoring societal phenomena where you see way more drastic manifestations of violence and oppression.

[consuming negativity]

you're up to some other line of argumentation, I guess. You somehow imply that those gender libfem queer blogger blah blah people would like to change the whole system, but start with language, because this is something they can get started with. This would also imply that they understand underlying structures of violence and oppression, but they don't. Instead, they invent "feminist porn" and "sexwork" because they're not ready to move away from an individualist perspective. The only people who benefit from this are johns, pimps, porn consumers and the sex industry.

Sex workers are workers, though. I mean, yes, people being given a shitty choice where they have to become prostitutes despite not wanting to because of the money is obviously really awful. But until we actually get rid of capitalism, it would at least be better for the people who are sex workers if they could do their work in decent conditions and without risk of STDs or having to deal with assholes mistreating them. That's the really insidious part of it for me - by making things better for the workers we make the sex industry seem less and less like the awful thing it actually is. We sanitize and in a way, whitewash the crimes by improving conditions and giving cursory reforms to a fundamentally awful system. But the alternative is to abandon the real victims in the name of saving them. Perhaps this sounds ridiculous to you, as someone who works with persons who face this in their day-to-day realness. I do not under any circumstances mean to accuse you of abandoning anyone or anything ridiculous like that, so please don't take that from my post. But I genuinely believe that these things are beneficial, even if they are stupid, misguided, wrong, or sanitization efforts of something fundamentally unsanitary. At least it is a step forward, rather than looking down on them and saying "we don't even care because you're undesirables and deserve to suffer". I mean, that sounds like a ridiculous bottom line, but still most people actually do look down on sex workers and really don't give a fuck about their health or livelihood at all. And I know that you're well aware of this stuff.


I don't think they're 'mistakes'. Saying "fuck this" or "I have to force myself to x, y, and z" (to use an example right out of the article) is not even an example of 'sexist language' in the first place. Even if you could make a reasonable case that expressions like this did have sexist baggage, though, I don't think someone would be 'making a mistake' by using them. What's important is the intent, not the words and phrases themselves divorced from their context.

Like I said, as long as we live in a sexist society, everyday speech is going to reflect that in all sorts of ways. Trying to sterilize language isn't going to change the nature of the world we live in, it's just another way for academics to set themselves apart from regular people.
Pretty much.

The "force myself" thing was stupid, yes. But "fuck this" is saying what? You're saying you want to fuck it and it is violent - it is using sex as a weapon. The meaning of the words is important to understand even if we don't change it; as Illegalitarian said, it at the very least shows us just how deeply misogyny runs in our society. Yes, everyday speech will continue to reflect the society and the people who form it, but we don't have to settle for less than we are capable of. Intelligent people should be different from people without intelligence; people who are learned should be different from people who are not, at least in some ways, or else intelligence and knowledge are completely useless. But we know that they are not. Yes, as a status symbol or a way to look down on people, it is wrong; but in the context of simply bettering oneself there is nothing wrong with doing that. You can take it how you want, but you can't prove anything about her intentions or my intentions or anyone else's intentions: assume the negative all you like. I can't think for you.

[Illegalitarian]

you're up to some other line of argumentation, I guess. You somehow imply that those gender libfem queer blogger blah blah people would like to change the whole system, but start with language, because this is something they can get started with. This would also imply that they understand underlying structures of violence and oppression, but they don't. Instead, they invent "feminist porn" and "sexwork" because they're not ready to move away from an individualist perspective. The only people who benefit from this are johns, pimps, porn consumers and the sex industry.

You're painting a false narrative though, or rather, ignoring the third wave narrative which of course focuses on institutionalized sexism, structural oppression of other kinds, etc.

Just because it reaches out to those individual points to shed light on how widespread institutionalized misogyny is doesn't mean that the movement has lost its vision of the larger picture.

[Rosa Partizan]

Sex workers are workers, though. I mean, yes, people being given a shitty choice where they have to become prostitutes despite not wanting to because of the money is obviously really awful. But until we actually get rid of capitalism, it would at least be better for the people who are sex workers if they could do their work in decent conditions and without risk of STDs or having to deal with assholes mistreating them. That's the really insidious part of it for me - by making things better for the workers we make the sex industry seem less and less like the awful thing it actually is. We sanitize and in a way, whitewash the crimes by improving conditions and giving cursory reforms to a fundamentally awful system. But the alternative is to abandon the real victims in the name of saving them. Perhaps this sounds ridiculous to you, as someone who works with persons who face this in their day-to-day realness. I do not under any circumstances mean to accuse you of abandoning anyone or anything ridiculous like that, so please don't take that from my post. But I genuinely believe that these things are beneficial, even if they are stupid, misguided, wrong, or sanitization efforts of something fundamentally unsanitary. At least it is a step forward, rather than looking down on them and saying "we don't even care because you're undesirables and deserve to suffer". I mean, that sounds like a ridiculous bottom line, but still most people actually do look down on sex workers and really don't give a fuck about their health or livelihood at all. And I know that you're well aware of this stuff.


It's 2 a.m. and I gotta get up in 5 hours and I'm getting a bit sick of typical anticapitalist arguments like "every job is forced labor" to trivialize prostitution and stuff, so if you're really interested in some thorough radfem answers why prostitution can't be compared to other work under capitalism and many more, I highly recommend this article (http://feministcurrent.com/7758/arguing-against-the-industry-of-prostitution-beyond-the-abolitionist-versus-sex-worker-binary/). In general, feministcurrent is an intellectual oasis among all of this libfem-poledancing-"It's my choice"-femporn-bullshit.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Some people feel genuinely uncomfortable when certain words are used, they're not "policing language" for the sake of feeling "superior" as some in this thread have suggested. Whenever my friends say something they don't like is "gay" or "retarded", I usually point it out, but in a joking or sarcastic tone since I know they didn't intend it that way. Nobody in this thread has suggested rounding up offenders and throwing them in concentration camps as some of the other posters would have you believe (ok, maybe that was an exaggeration, but "language policing", seriously?). You can politely point it out, that's not "restricting people's language" or "telling them what to say", just say how their words have effects on people and they probably won't even mind. Sheesh, some of the strawmen and overreactions in this thread look like they came from Reddit or a youtube comments section.

And, to the people saying "we live in a (sexist/homophobic/whatever) society anyway so it doesn't matter whether people use the words or not." Well maybe it would be just a little bit easier for women and gays to live in a sexist society if they could go one day without being reminded of how who they are is degrading and an insult. Did you ever think about that? I don't fucking care if the speaker didn't have bad intent or if saying something bad is gay is "just indicative of a homophobic society, the person didn't really mean it!" Well the discussion isnt always about the person saying it, how about its about the person who can't just go about their business without being constantly reminded of how 'bad' and degrading it is to be gay?

And, to the people saying we should be talking about more important issue: alright. Just don't use the fact that there's more important issues as an excuse to continue using your reactionary language because you're lazy or apathetic. I would think for people who are going to address more important issues like wage inequality its a fucking prerequisite to at least try not to use prejudiced language or defend people who do against the imaginary "language police."

[Rosa Partizan]

Some people feel genuinely uncomfortable when certain words are used, they're not "policing language" for the sake of feeling "superior" as some in this thread have suggested. Whenever my friends say something they don't like is "gay" or "retarded", I usually point it out, but in a joking or sarcastic tone since I know they didn't intend it that way. Nobody in this thread has suggested rounding up offenders and throwing them in concentration camps as some of the other posters would have you believe (ok, maybe that was an exaggeration, but "language policing", seriously?). You can politely point it out, that's not "restricting people's language" or "telling them what to say", just say how their words have effects on people and they probably won't even mind. Sheesh, some of the strawmen and overreactions in this thread look like they came from Reddit or a youtube comments section.

And, to the people saying "we live in a (sexist/homophobic/whatever) society anyway so it doesn't matter whether people use the words or not." Well maybe it would be just a little bit easier for women and gays to live in a sexist society if they could go one day without being reminded of how who they are is degrading and an insult. Did you ever think about that? I don't fucking care if the speaker didn't have bad intent or if saying something bad is gay is "just indicative of a homophobic society, the person didn't really mean it!" Well the discussion isnt always about the person saying it, how about its about the person who can't just go about their business without being constantly reminded of how 'bad' and degrading it is to be gay?

And, to the people saying we should be talking about more important issue: alright. Just don't use the fact that there's more important issues as an excuse to continue using your reactionary language because you're lazy or apathetic. I would think for people who are going to address more important issues like wage inequality its a fucking prerequisite to at least try not to use prejudiced language or defend people who do.

no one was advocating for using certain slurs. All I said was there's a disproportionate amount of attention on this within this feminist blogger scene. The use of language also depends on who you're talking to. To me, it matters if you say "retarded" within a discussion with friends who you consider very smart and aware of ableism or if you go like "wow that professor is so retarded" to 100 strangers at a party. When you take a closer look, it's sad indeed that gay and retarded are synonyms of "bad", so you wouldn't want to enforce this notion by using it publicly, because you can't expect the vast amount of people to be aware of the connection between language and society.

[Illegalitarian]

It's 2 a.m. and I gotta get up in 5 hours and I'm getting a bit sick of typical anticapitalist arguments like "every job is forced labor" to trivialize prostitution and stuff, so if you're really interested in some thorough radfem answers why prostitution can't be compared to other work under capitalism and many more, I highly recommend this article (http://feministcurrent.com/7758/arguing-against-the-industry-of-prostitution-beyond-the-abolitionist-versus-sex-worker-binary/). In general, feministcurrent is an intellectual oasis among all of this libfem-poledancing-"It's my choice"-femporn-bullshit.

It only seems trivializing because you appear to hold pretty sex-negativist views, to be frank.


No one is arguing that working at Mcdonalds is just as bad as being sold to an Albanian mobster as a pet, but both jobs consist of the same class relations and exist due to the same material conditions. Only by abolishing the base can we abolish sex work, as all "work" would be abolished and thus sex work would be reduced to, well, sex, for pleasure or any other purpose a person would want it.

[ColumnNo.4]

Some people feel genuinely uncomfortable when certain words are used, they're not "policing language" for the sake of feeling "superior" as some in this thread have suggested. Whenever my friends say something they don't like is "gay" or "retarded", I usually point it out, but in a joking or sarcastic tone since I know they didn't intend it that way. Nobody in this thread has suggested rounding up offenders and throwing them in concentration camps as some of the other posters would have you believe (ok, maybe that was an exaggeration, but "language policing", seriously?). You can politely point it out, that's not "restricting people's language" or "telling them what to say", just say how their words have effects on people and they probably won't even mind. Sheesh, some of the strawmen and overreactions in this thread look like they came from Reddit or a youtube comments section.

And, to the people saying "we live in a (sexist/homophobic/whatever) society anyway so it doesn't matter whether people use the words or not." Well maybe it would be just a little bit easier for women and gays to live in a sexist society if they could go one day without being reminded of how who they are is degrading and an insult. Did you ever think about that? I don't fucking care if the speaker didn't have bad intent or if saying something bad is gay is "just indicative of a homophobic society, the person didn't really mean it!" Well the discussion isnt always about the person saying it, how about its about the person who can't just go about their business without being constantly reminded of how 'bad' and degrading it is to be gay?

And, to the people saying we should be talking about more important issue: alright. Just don't use the fact that there's more important issues as an excuse to continue using your reactionary language because you're lazy or apathetic. I would think for people who are going to address more important issues like wage inequality its a fucking prerequisite to at least try not to use prejudiced language or defend people who do.

Again the notion that the phrases provided as examples are inherently sexist, misogynistic or homophobic. No, the term "raped" shouldn't be utilised nonchalantly however "fuck off", "suck it" and similar phrases are not uniquely sexist, misogynistic or homophobic.

Feminists of old will converse with you about gender based wage inequality, traditional gender roles, and so on, the feminists that speak up in my classes ***** about the utilisation of certain terms. The impact on society is not equal. Feminism and leftist ideology is not a Che shirt.

[Illegalitarian]

no one was advocating for using certain slurs. All I said was there's a disproportionate amount of attention on this within this feminist blogger scene. The use of language also depends on who you're talking to. To me, it matters if you say "retarded" within a discussion with friends who you consider very smart and aware of ableism or if you go like "wow that professor is so retarded" to 100 strangers at a party. When you take a closer look, it's sad indeed that gay and retarded are synonyms of "bad", so you wouldn't want to enforce this notion by using it publicly, because you can't expect the vast amount of people to be aware of the connection between language and society.

But again it's not as if attention is only put on this issue, those same bloggers pay just as close attention to very important details as they do the minute strategies, most of the time.

What does it matter, wrt the use of "retarded"?

[consuming negativity]

It's 2 a.m. and I gotta get up in 5 hours and I'm getting a bit sick of typical anticapitalist arguments like "every job is forced labor" to trivialize prostitution and stuff, so if you're really interested in some thorough radfem answers why prostitution can't be compared to other work under capitalism and many more, I highly recommend this article (http://feministcurrent.com/7758/arguing-against-the-industry-of-prostitution-beyond-the-abolitionist-versus-sex-worker-binary/). In general, feministcurrent is an intellectual oasis among all of this libfem-poledancing-"It's my choice"-femporn-bullshit.

That article is wonderful and articulates where I stand pretty much perfectly. If you agree with it then you agree with me. So what are we arguing about? :rolleyes:

Have a good sleep. Or, well, what's left of it to be had.

[Rosa Partizan]

It only seems trivializing because you appear to hold pretty sex-negativist views, to be frank.


No one is arguing that working at Mcdonalds is just as bad as being sold to an Albanian mobster as a pet, but both jobs consist of the same class relations and exist due to the same material conditions. Only by abolishing the base can we abolish sex work, as all "work" would be abolished and thus sex work would be reduced to, well, sex, for pleasure or any other purpose a person would want it.

yeah, great, I see you didn't read the article and you fell for the libfem trap that calls radfems "sex-negative". If sex-negative means to be criticial of the way women are commodified and objectified, critical of the whole sex industry, critical of how words like "choice" and empowerment are used in a way they mostly serve men, then I love to be sex-negative. What else would you like to assume about me? Manhating, prudish? Cause I get that a lot, I love it.

[Redistribute the Rep]

no one was advocating for using certain slurs.

But they defend people who do against the boogeyman "language police". That such a strawman was constructed is confusing at best and quite concerning at worst. By the way, I wasn't addressing you or your points that a disproportionate amount of feminist bloggers focusing on this topic. Like I said, if people want to shift the focus of the blogosphere or whatever they can do it without overreacting and whining about how "SJWs" have ruined everything and want to take away people's freedom of speech, that's just counterproductive


Again the notion that the phrases provided as examples are inherently sexist, misogynistic or homophobic. No, the term "raped" shouldn't be utilised nonchalantly however "fuck off", "suck it" and similar phrases are not uniquely sexist, misogynistic or homophobic.

If you honestly can't understand why 'suck it' is sexist and homophobic, I can't help you. It's already been explained by another user. I'll give you a hint: 'it' does not refer to a clitoris.


Feminists of old will converse with you about gender based wage inequality, traditional gender roles, and so on, the feminists that speak up in my classes ***** about the utilisation of certain terms. The impact on society is not equal. Feminism and leftist ideology is not a Che shirt.

Nobody implied the impact on society is equal. What I did say, however, was that one can address more important issues without defending the use of preejudiced language and constructing strawmen "language police SJWs" to defend people from. The last part about the Che shirt is irrelevant and sounds more like a pre planned quip you came up with rather than something that actually fits in this discussion

[Illegalitarian]

yeah, great, I see you didn't read the article and you fell for the libfem trap that calls radfems "sex-negative". If sex-negative means to be criticial of the way women are commodified and objectified, critical of the whole sex industry, critical of how words like "choice" and empowerment are used in a way they mostly serve men, then I love to be sex-negative. What else would you like to assume about me? Manhating, prudish? Cause I get that a lot, I love it.

It's not a "libfem" trap, your position came off as against sex-negative because of what seemed like anti-porn sentiment for the sake of being anti-porn rather than a serious objection to this and "sex work" based on the objectification and misogynist attitudes taken towards women that tends to be prevalent, as if all-porn is a part of the same institution and is not capable of not objectifying women or being misogynistic.

That sort of deflection is an extreme case of barking up the wrong tree, if you're trying to paint me as some anti-fem git who holds to the old "pole dancing is EMPOWERMENT" line :rolleyes:

[ColumnNo.4]

But they defend people who do against the boogeyman "language police". That such a strawman was constructed is confusing at best and quite concerning at worst. By the way, I wasn't addressing you or your points that a disproportionate amount of feminist bloggers focusing on this topic. Like I said, if people want to shift the focus of the blogosphere or whatever they can do it without overreacting and whining about how "SJWs" have ruined everything and want to take away people's freedom of speech, that's just counterproductive



If you honestly can't understand why 'suck it' is sexist and homophobic, I can't help you. It's already been explained by another user. I'll give you a hint: 'it' does not refer to a clitoris.



Nobody implied the impact on society is equal. What I did say, however, was that one can address more important issues without defending the use of preejudiced language and constructing strawmen "language police SJWs" to defend people from. The last part about the Che shirt is irrelevant and sounds more like a pre planned quip you came up with rather than something that actually fits in this discussion

The first portion of your retort doesn't pertain to me because I didn't mention the "blogosphere".

The term "suck it" does not discriminate and can be levied by either sex against another of the same or opposite sex.

If you think Freudian-like analysis of peoples word usage is worth dedicating energy to then issues such as gender based wage inequality, LGBT inequality, etc. are going to take significantly longer to overcome. Whinging about words may make one feel smarter or superior but it's nothing more than a fad that will fizzle out, nothing more.

[consuming negativity]

The first portion of your retort doesn't pertain to me because I didn't mention the "blogosphere".

The term "suck it" does not discriminate and can be levied by either sex against another of the same or opposite sex.

If you think Freudian-like analysis of peoples word usage is worth dedicating energy to then issues such as gender based wage inequality, LGBT inequality, etc. are going to take significantly longer to overcome. Whinging about words may make one feel smarter or superior but it's nothing more than a fad that will fizzle out, nothing more.

Where do you think the words "moron" and "lame" and such came from? They were scientific words used to describe levels of cognitive deficiency in mentally retarded persons. Now we can't even say "mentally retarded" and I think the new terminology is "intellectually disabled". Why? Because you fatherfuckers can't help but to use people as insults. It's really not just the words - it really is the meaning behind them. They won't go away because the entire point is to degrade people by calling them the names of people who society considers to be less than equal.

Now shut up and suck my clit. :rolleyes:

Because anyone has ever said that seriously ever. :glare:

[ColumnNo.4]

Where do you think the words "moron" and "lame" and such came from? They were scientific words used to describe levels of cognitive deficiency in mentally retarded persons. Now we can't even say "mentally retarded" and I think the new terminology is "intellectually disabled". Why? Because you fatherfuckers can't help but to use people as insults. It's really not just the words - it really is the meaning behind them. They won't go away because the entire point is to degrade people by calling them the names of people who society considers to be less than equal.

Now shut up and suck my clit. :rolleyes:

Because anyone has ever said that seriously ever. :glare:

The term "simple" is still utilised to describe someone with cognitive deficiency, tantrums aren't thrown over that term, yet. Again, it's the fad of being politically correct. I'll provide the recent example of having someone ***** at me for utilising the term "third world" when discussing the exploitation of certain countries. Priorities.

Oh, and explain to me what the women that have utilised the phrase "suck it" are referring to and if they're sexist for doing so?

[consuming negativity]

The term "simple" is still utilised to describe someone with cognitive deficiency, tantrums aren't thrown over that term, yet. Again, it's the fad of being politically correct. I'll provide the recent example of having someone ***** at me for utilising the term "third world" when discussing the exploitation of certain countries. Priorities.

Oh, and explain to me what the women that have utilised the phrase "suck it" are referring to and if they're sexist for doing so?

"Politically correct" is not actually a thing. It's what white people call when they don't want to admit what they said was racist and that they should stop saying it. Like, seriously. This isn't about politics. It is actually, seriously about people using language that they shouldn't be using, that degrades other people who should not be degraded.

I won't pretend to speak for people who I can't speak for. But even if we pretend that reality is different and that "suck it" ever refers to female genitalia, it's still sexually violent and still not an okay thing to say.

[Redistribute the Rep]

The first portion of your retort doesn't pertain to me because I didn't mention the "blogosphere".

I was talking to Rosa in the first part.


The term "suck it" does not discriminate and can be levied by either sex against another of the same or opposite sex.

So calling someone you don't like "gay" isn't homophobic because... It can be used against straight people? Who they are is an insult, how the fuck is that not homophobic? Telling someone to suck it is meant to degrade them by lowering them to the status of a woman or gay person. This has already been explained to you.


If you think Freudian-like analysis of peoples word usage is worth dedicating energy to

Elaborate on how it's "Freudian". Again, it seems more like you're trying too hard to use your pre made, witty quips than actually engage in a discussion and address the points people have actually made.


then issues such as gender based wage inequality, LGBT inequality, etc. are going to take significantly longer to overcome.

Why don't you go back and read my posts? I never said these issues shouldn't be addressed. Seriously, go back and read my posts and address what I really said instead of arguing against the imaginary person you day dreamed about having an argument against.


Whinging about words may make one feel smarter or superior but it's nothing more than a fad that will fizzle out, nothing more.

I've already addressed this point as well. No, it isn't 'whining' when somebody, say a gay person, dislikes the fact that they can't go about their business without being reminded that their sexuality is a degrading insult. And it's not done to make someone feel superior, they're just tired of being constantly reminded of society's shitty views of them.

[Lily Briscoe]

I hear more *****ing about certain words or phrases than I do gender based wage inequality.



Feminists of old will converse with you about gender based wage inequality, traditional gender roles, and so on, the feminists that speak up in my classes ***** about the utilisation of certain terms.


I'll provide the recent example of having someone ***** at me for utilising the term "third world" when discussing the exploitation of certain countries.
You're trying a bit too hard here. I get the reaction, but it's a little immature and it isn't doing your argument any favors.

Anyway, I'm out of the discussion at this point because it's really, really boring and has been done to death.

[ColumnNo.4]

"Politically correct" is not actually a thing. It's what white people call when they don't want to admit what they said was racist and that they should stop saying it. Like, seriously. This isn't about politics. It is actually, seriously about people using language that they shouldn't be using, that degrades other people who should not be degraded.

I won't pretend to speak for people who I can't speak for. But even if we pretend that reality is different and that "suck it" ever refers to female genitalia, it's still sexually violent and still not an okay thing to say.

If you want to fight for fads then you're welcome to those infantile battles. I can tell you know no one will be standing with your ranks in a couple of years because of will have moved on to the next hip social movement.

[Loony Le Fist]

I won't pretend to speak for people who I can't speak for. But even if we pretend that reality is different and that "suck it" ever refers to female genitalia, it's still sexually violent and still not an okay thing to say.

I have been told exactly this by a cis woman: suck it. Would qualification be needed in the context of the sexual heat of a situation?

[consuming negativity]

If you want to fight for fads then you're welcome to those infantile battles. I can tell you know no one will be standing with your ranks in a couple of years because of will have moved on to the next hip social movement.

http://i.imgur.com/Agci8.gif

Can someone just restrict this shithead already?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Oh, and explain to me what the women that have utilised the phrase "suck it" are referring to and if they're sexist for doing so?

When somebody tells someone to suck their dick, they obviously don't mean it literally. They're asserting their dominance and putting someone in a subservient place. So yes, women can tell people to suck their figurative dick. They're not actually saying that literally. Just like how men don't actually mean they literally want their dick sucked. Because they're using it to degrade someone. I couldn't possibly put it any simpler.

[Loony Le Fist]

When somebody tells someone to suck their dick, they obviously don't mean it literally. They're asserting their dominance and putting someone in a subservient place. So yes, women can tell people to suck their figurative dick. They're not actually saying that literally. Just like how men don't actually mean they literally want their dick sucked. Because they're using it to degrade someone. I couldn't possibly put it any simpler.

I've heard it said this way too.

I'm curious. Why do you think it's considered more degrading to suck a dick than a pussy?

[Sinister Intents]

When somebody tells someone to suck their dick, they obviously don't mean it literally. They're asserting their dominance and putting someone in a subservient place. So yes, women can tell people to suck their figurative dick. They're not actually saying that literally. Just like how men don't actually mean they literally want their dick sucked. Because they're using it to degrade someone. I couldn't possibly put it any simpler.

Yeah, but I've experienced a few girls in High school getting harassed sexually with shit like that. Where I witnessed a kid named Andrew telling a girl to suck his dick and she'll get her book back or something similar. I try to avoid saying things like suck my dick and such. Sometimes it seems like gender is literally everywhere with masculinity being asserted as dominant and men gaining privilege to say terrible things. I've attacked such speech and received the most daft justifications for men saying terrible and rapy things

[Redistribute the Rep]

I've heard it said this way too.

I'm curious. Why do you think it's considered more degrading to suck a dick than a pussy?

Well, when people constantly say to suck their dick after they've beat you at something or humiliated or degraded you, it becomes pretty clear which one is more degrading according to society

[Illegalitarian]

Explain to me how phrases such as "fuck off" and "suck it" are uniquely sexist or misogynistic?

Fuck off isn't, but "suck it" is specifically meant to signify dominance over someone in a violent, sexual manner and is clearly meant to imply that someone is a woman or is a homosexual which means they should be subservient to the person using the phrase.

Just because women use it doesn't mean it isn't problematic language born out in a misogynistic context. Your argument is essentially derivative of angsty white people saying things like "WELL HOW COME THEY CAN USE THE N WORD AND WE CANT". It's context blind nonsense.

[ColumnNo.4]

I was talking to Rosa in the first part.



So calling someone you don't like "gay" isn't homophobic because... It can be used against straight people? Who they are is an insult, how the fuck is that not homophobic? Telling someone to suck it is meant to degrade them by lowering them to the status of a woman or gay person. This has already been explained to you.



Elaborate on how it's "Freudian". Again, it seems more like you're trying too hard to use your pre made, witty quips than actually engage in a discussion and address the points people have actually made.



Why don't you go back and read my posts? I never said these issues shouldn't be addressed. Seriously, go back and read my posts and address what I really said instead of arguing against the imaginary person you day dreamed about having an argument against.



I've already addressed this point as well. No, it isn't 'whining' when somebody, say a gay person, dislikes the fact that they can't go about their business without being reminded that their sexuality is a degrading insult. And it's not done to make someone feel superior, they're just tired of being constantly reminded of society's shitty views of them.

Then I'll leave the response to Rosa.

I never referred to the term "gay" individually or at all.

You've utilised the phrase "pre-made, witty quips" twice too many and I've grown bored of it so I'm not bother with your response.

What myself and at least one other person here are arguing is that this issue has taken precedence over serious issues and has become the modus operandi of the new left or new feminist movement. Whinging about the utilisation of the term "third world" doesn't change the condition of those existing within the same way whinging about the utilisation of the phrase "suck it" doesn't change the prevalence of sexual assault, rape, etc.

[Loony Le Fist]

Well, when people constantly say to suck their dick after they've beat you at something or humiliated or degraded you, it becomes pretty clear which one is more degrading according to society

Definitely. I acknowledge that this is the case according to society. I was just curious to read your thoughts on what might motivate that distinction.

[ColumnNo.4]

Theres a difference between the phrases "suck it" and "suck my dick", one tends to be used to place emphasis on victory while the other tends to be an alternative to "fuck off". The phrase "suck my dick" shouldn't be utilised because it's rude, crude and generally impolite.

[Sinister Intents]

Then I'll leave the response to Rosa.

I never referred to the term "gay" individually or at all.

You've utilised the phrase "pre-made, witty quips" twice too many and I've grown bored of it so I'm not bother with your response.

What myself and at least one other person here are arguing is that this issue has taken precedence over serious issues and has become the modus operandi of the new left or new feminist movement. Whinging about the utilisation of the term "third world" doesn't change the condition of those existing within the same way whinging about the utilisation of the phrase "suck it" doesn't change the prevalence of sexual assault, rape, etc.

Are you one of those manarchist/MRA types? What's your problem with feminism?

[ColumnNo.4]

When somebody tells someone to suck their dick, they obviously don't mean it literally. They're asserting their dominance and putting someone in a subservient place. So yes, women can tell people to suck their figurative dick. They're not actually saying that literally. Just like how men don't actually mean they literally want their dick sucked. Because they're using it to degrade someone. I couldn't possibly put it any simpler.

Yes, so it's not sexist, it's degrading.

[Loony Le Fist]

Yeah, but I've experienced a few girls in High school getting harassed sexually with shit like that. Where I witnessed a kid named Andrew telling a girl to suck his dick and she'll get her book back or something similar. I try to avoid saying things like suck my dick and such. Sometimes it seems like gender is literally everywhere with masculinity being asserted as dominant and men gaining privilege to say terrible things. I've attacked such speech and received the most daft justifications for men saying terrible and rapy things

That was totally sexual harassment in the case of Andrew.

I was curious if you feel there might be exceptions when it might be appropriate to use that phrase. Would it be okay in a sexual situation when it is being used in a very literal sense? Do you find the act of fellatio itself degrading?

[Sinister Intents]

Theres a difference between the phrases "suck it" and "suck my dick", one tends to be used to place emphasis on victory while the other tends to be an alternative to "fuck off". The phrase "suck my dick" shouldn't be utilised because it's rude, crude and generally impolite.

"Suck it" equating victory? So the dominators reward is a cock sucking? You're gross. I hate both and I'd like women to be treated equally and phrasings to represent equality abd not rapy male dominance

[ColumnNo.4]

Are you one of those manarchist/MRA types? What's your problem with feminism?

It has nothing to do with feminism but the new feminist, it's somewhat hard to place a word on it. The issue has to do with the fad of claiming every word and phrase to be sexist or misogynistic and placing utmost importance on it. If this were a thread about the same issue only pertaining to language in general the terms would be "third world", "bums", etc.

[Sinister Intents]

That was totally sexual harassment in the case of Andrew.

I was curious if you feel there might be exceptions when it might be appropriate to use that phrase. Would it be okay in a sexual situation when it is being used in a very literal sense? Do you find the act of fellatio itself degrading?

I feel in the case of a comfortable sexual relationship where its loving and or consensual some dude could say that without it being wrong. I wouldn't call it degrading unless its made that way by someone. My girlfriend does fellatio for me because she wants to and I never ask or tell her to. I preform oral for her to and our sex life is very loving and consensual

[ColumnNo.4]

"Suck it" equating victory? So the dominators reward is a cock sucking? You're gross. I hate both and I'd like women to be treated equally and phrasings to represent equality abd not rapy male dominance

Again, assuming these phrases are exclusively utilised by men. And the phrases "suck it" and "suck my dick" have never been synonymous anywhere I've ever been. I've had men as well as women tell me to "suck it" if I happened to have lost a round in a competition and I've had both men as well as women tell me to "suck my dick" when they've disagreed with me, we been engaged in argument or something of the like.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Again, assuming these phrases are exclusively utilised by men. And the phrases "suck it" and "suck my dick" have never been synonymous anywhere I've ever been. I've had men as well as women tell me to "suck it" if I happened to have lost a round in a competition and I've had both men as well as women tell me to "suck my dick" when they've disagreed with me, we been engaged in argument or something of the like.

Then what does "it" refer to?

[Sinister Intents]

It has nothing to do with feminism but the new feminist, it's somewhat hard to place a word on it. The issue has to do with the fad of claiming every word and phrase to be sexist or misogynistic and placing utmost importance on it. If this were a thread about the same issue only pertaining to language in general the terms would be "third world", "bums", etc.

Oh yeah? Well you're on a revolutionary left forum with radical feminists and not liberals. What we're asserting is thst aspects and contexts of language and culture are sexist because of cis-hetero-patriarchal class relations. The old white men at the top in the USA have a deciding factor in culture because they've the economic influence with their bourgeois families to shape society to their own ends through force. It has everything to do with feminism you're just being a poop

[ColumnNo.4]

Then what does "it" refer to?

You tell me. If a women tells me to "suck it" is she implying she has a penis and is demanding I suck it?

[Illegalitarian]

Again, assuming these phrases are exclusively utilised by men. And the phrases "suck it" and "suck my dick" have never been synonymous anywhere I've ever been. I've had men as well as women tell me to "suck it" if I happened to have lost a round in a competition and I've had both men as well as women tell me to "suck my dick" when they've disagreed with me, we been engaged in argument or something of the like.

Where have you been? I have literally never heard the argument that "suck it" is different from "suck my dick", and such antecdotes of "well women say it too sometimes" doesn't make it any less sexually charged or misogynist by nature.

[Illegalitarian]

You tell me. If a women tells me to "suck it" is she implying she has a penis and is demanding I suck it?

Yes. Not literally, but the penis represents a power relation where the person being told to suck the penis is in submission while the person saying it has all the power. It is explicitly sexual and explicitly derived from a misogynistic context

[Sinister Intents]

You tell me. If a women tells me to "suck it" is she implying she has a penis and is demanding I suck it?

Usually that makes me think suck my dick. It couldn't be anything other than a phallus. Context may make it a straw, but usually this makes me think of phalluses

[ColumnNo.4]

Oh yeah? Well you're on a revolutionary left forum with radical feminists and not liberals. What we're asserting is thst aspects and contexts of language and culture are sexist because of cis-hetero-patriarchal class relations. The old white men at the top in the USA have a deciding factor in culture because they've the economic influence with their bourgeois families to shape society to their own ends through force. It has everything to do with feminism you're just being a poop

Sometimes words and phrases are simply that, not some clandestine attempt at oppression. These words and phrases continue to be labeled as "sexist" and "misogynistic" however they're words utilised by both sexes.

[Sinister Intents]

Sometimes words and phrases are simply that, not some clandestine attempt at oppression. These words and phrases continue to be labeled as "sexist" and "misogynistic" however they're words utilised by both sexes.

Which doesn't chsnge the fact it reflects oppression! Sexism hurts both men and women. What next? Are you gonna argue transwomen aren't women? These phrasings reflect and show the pervasiveness of oppression that has lasted centuries!

[consuming negativity]

Sometimes words and phrases are simply that, not some clandestine attempt at oppression. These words and phrases continue to be labeled as "sexist" and "misogynistic" however they're words utilised by both sexes.

this might be a shock to you but women are not immune to being sexist

[Illegalitarian]

"Saying the N word isn't racist, they call each other the N word all the time, why can't I say it?"

:rolleyes:

[Redistribute the Rep]

You tell me. If a women tells me to "suck it" is she implying she has a penis and is demanding I suck it?

See post #55. Actually, just go back and read the whole thread. ALL of your points have been thoroughly debunked multiple times. You don't even address people's refutations your points, you just keep repeating the same things.

[ColumnNo.4]

I never disagreed that these phrases weren't sexually charged, they most certainly are. Neither do I disagree that the phrase "suck it" isn't referring to a penis, I'm stating that the two phrases aren't synonymous and I've never had anyone utilise them interchangeably.

I can see where you're coming from with the power relation to sucking a penis however this can be applied to several other phrases as well, all of which at utilised by both sexes. If any argument should be made against these phrases it should be that they're sexually charged and are quite unbecoming.

That being said the issue myself and at least one other person took with this critique of words and phrases is that it's taking precedence over more serious issues and continues to do so because it's become hip to do so. The other person taking issue referred to the proliferation of blogs dedicated to this fad.

[Sinister Intents]

I never disagreed that these phrases weren't sexually charged, they most certainly are. Neither do I disagree that the phrase "suck it" isn't referring to a penis, I'm stating that the two phrases aren't synonymous and I've never had anyone utilise them interchangeably.

I can see where you're coming from with the power relation to sucking a penis however this can be applied to several other phrases as well, all of which at utilised by both sexes. If any argument should be made against these phrases it should be that they're sexually charged and are quite unbecoming.

That being said the issue myself and at least one other person took with this critique of words and phrases is that it's taking precedence over more serious issues and continues to do so because it's become hip to do so. The other person taking issue referred to the proliferation of blogs dedicated to this fad.

Way to miss the point "But blacks use the N word too"

Who is this other individual?

[ColumnNo.4]

this might be a shock to you but women are not immune to being sexist

Then it's not sexist, it's degrading. Regardless of the sex of the individual receiving the phrase they are being reduced to a subservient position. The issue isn't one of sexism or misogyny but dominance.

[Sinister Intents]

Then it's not sexist, it's degrading. Regardless of the sex of the individual receiving the phrase they are being reduced to a subservient position. The issue isn't one of sexism or misogyny but dominance.

It is sexist because of that and its degrading!

[Illegalitarian]

And as it was told to this other person, that is a false narrative. The ebil libfem bloggers focus just as much on the wider issue of institutional oppression of women as they do sexism in every other facet of our lives such as language, consumer choices, etc.

This is about as frustrating as listening to people complain and rant on about the "lifestylists", as if one cannot live a lifestyle in accordance with their principles and also engage in direct action or hold to the idea that a workers revolution will be the only way to bring forth a communist society.

I'm still befuddled that you've never heard the two used interchangeably and that you're holding to the claim that they're not synonymous... the "it" in suck it is referring to a dick, it is literally the same exact phrase used in the same exact context with the same, sexist origin.


Yes, such a phrase could be used by both sexes... it is dominantly used in one context, though, and by one specific gender, and for one specific purpose.

[Illegalitarian]

Then it's not sexist, it's degrading. Regardless of the sex of the individual receiving the phrase they are being reduced to a subservient position. The issue isn't one of sexism or misogyny but dominance.

It's sexist and degrading.


I'm terribly confused by your insistence upon the notion that because women use it too sometimes that somehow means it's not sexist, as if women using it automatically means it isn't sexist because no woman ever would use self-degrading language.. I'm assuming you're not familiar with the concept of internalized oppression?

[ColumnNo.4]

It is sexist because of that and its degrading!

Sexism- Prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.

A woman telling me to "suck it" is not discriminating against me, it's asserting dominance, the same way a male telling me to "suck it" is.

[Sinister Intents]

Sexism- Prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.

A woman telling me to "suck it" is not discriminating against me, it's asserting dominance, the same way a male telling me to "suck it" is.

Its dominance created by the patriarchs, women have internalized sexism because we're all inundated with gender and sex roles quite literally at birth. Parents anticipate a gendered result and the first years of children's development lead the child to learning gendered and sexed views, thus internalizing it. It's the equivalent of a women saying suck my dick because she's exerting male dominance and oppression in that case. Its a result a patriarchy and rape culture. It is sexist. How do you think this affects transgender individuals? Why cant you see what I can see

[consuming negativity]

around and around and around in circles

i think it's time to just agree to disagree

[Sinister Intents]

around and around and around in circles

i think it's time to just agree to disagree

I prefer bombardment

[ColumnNo.4]

Its dominance created by the patriarchs, women have internalized sexism because we're all inundated with gender and sex roles quite literally at birth. Parents anticipate a gendered result and the first years of children's development lead the child to learning gendered and sexed views, thus internalizing it. It's the equivalent of a women saying suck my dick because she's exerting male dominance and oppression in that case. Its a result a patriarchy and rape culture. It is sexist. How do you think this affects transgender individuals? Why cant you see what I can see

That's reaching awfully far just to make a complaint against juvenile, knuckle dragger phrases such as "suck it" and "suck my dick".

[Sinister Intents]

That's reaching awfully far just to make a complaint against juvenile, knuckle dragger phrases such as "suck it" and "suck my dick".

Prove it. I think I have way more experience in this than you. That's not saying I'm better, that's saying you haven't really analyzed these situations. Is it okay to call a woman a *****? A transwoman a tranny or trap? Quit ignoring my questions

[ColumnNo.4]

Prove it. I think I have way more experience in this than you. That's not saying I'm better, that's saying you haven't really analyzed these situations. Is it okay to call a woman a *****? A transwoman a tranny or trap? Quit ignoring my questions

I'm not disagreeing with your statement, I'm stating that it's reaching awfully far for the sole purpose of complaining about insignificant phrases. And the phrases previously discussed are not the same as blatantly derogatory terms for LGBT individuals. Doesn't the term "trap" refer to a transgendered individual who is "passable"?

And I haven't ignored your questions, the majority of my dialogue had been in response to your posts.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm not disagreeing with your statement, I'm stating that it's reaching awfully far for the sole purpose of complaining about insignificant phrases. And the phrases previously discussed are not the same as blatantly derogatory terms for LGBT individuals. Doesn't the term "trap" refer to a transgendered individual who is "passable"?

And I haven't ignored your questions, the majority of my dialogue had been in response to your posts.

What I'm trying to assert is that most definitely language is used in some terrible ways. When making a rape joke, you're trivializing rape, making light of it and ignoring the horror that it is. To state that phrasings likesuck it and suck my dick aren't related is missing the point a bit. It doesn't have to be blatant to be sexist, it can be made very vague or be very vague. Sexism and the oppression of women and the LGBT community is reflected through language. Language abd our cultures, unique as they may be, function like a lens. It reflects abd highlights problems and issues inherent in our society. Men are upheld as the strong ones and women the weaker ones. Phrasings and words do hold meaning and can most definitely hurt regardless of what you think. The patriarchy asserts itself as dominant and through that men get their privilege and this privilege gets reflected in a multitude of ways

[ColumnNo.4]

What I'm trying to assert is that most definitely language is used in some terrible ways. When making a rape joke, you're trivializing rape, making light of it and ignoring the horror that it is. To state that phrasings likesuck it and suck my dick aren't related is missing the point a bit. It doesn't have to be blatant to be sexist, it can be made very vague or be very vague. Sexism and the oppression of women and the LGBT community is reflected through language. Language abd our cultures, unique as they may be, function like a lens. It reflects abd highlights problems and issues inherent in our society. Men are upheld as the strong ones and women the weaker ones. Phrasings and words do hold meaning and can most definitely hurt regardless of what you think. The patriarchy asserts itself as dominant and through that men get their privilege and this privilege gets reflected in a multitude of ways

I don't disagree that words carry weight, what I disagree with the importance placed on the issue. The term "nigger" is, without a doubt, derogatory however it's trivial in comparison to race based income inequality. No, derogatory terms shouldn't be used, other terms or phrases shouldn't be either, however the exorbitant amount of energy expended on word policing should be focused on eliminating serious inequalities.

[Sinister Intents]

How do you feel about the word b-i-t-c-h? I see you've used it a few times, hows that not sexist? Is restricting abortion not sexist? Is calling a women a **** not sexist?

Oh am I just *****ing?

Edit: I can edit my posts too! Don't think k didn't see your sexist bullshit :mad:

[ColumnNo.4]

How do you feel about the word b-i-t-c-h? I see you've used it a few times, hows that not sexist? Is restricting abortion not sexist? Is calling a women a **** not sexist?

Oh am I just *****ing?

Well the literal definition of a "*****" is a female canine animal. Now obviously the word has taken on several definitions to include "incessant complaining", "subservience" and "meanness" to name a few. People utilise the term when describing both sexes, for example both a man or woman can "*****" about something or be a "*****" when it comes aversion to doing something dangerous.

[ColumnNo.4]

How do you feel about the word b-i-t-c-h? I see you've used it a few times, hows that not sexist? Is restricting abortion not sexist? Is calling a women a **** not sexist?

Oh am I just *****ing?

Edit: I can edit my posts too! Don't think k didn't see your sexist bullshit :mad:

What are you referring to, my minor editing from "person" to "individual" and things of that nature?

[Sinister Intents]

Well the literal definition of a "*****" is a female canine animal. Now obviously the word has taken on several definitions to include "incessant complaining", "subservience" and "meanness" to name a few. People utilise the term when describing both sexes, for example both a man or woman can "*****" about something or be a "*****" when it comes aversion to doing something dangerous.

Tell me something I don't know anymore. Don't think anyone didn't see you using that word in a sexist way either! I think you're an inconsistent communist or maybe a troll and you may not actually be a commie! Are you gonna deny the sexist nature of language? Language continues to show various ways its used for oppression, calling a women a ***** is the verbal equivalent of putting her in her place. You're denying sexism because you're justifying your own and I don't think you like that thought of losing your cushy cis male privilege

[Sinister Intents]

What are you referring to, my minor editing from "person" to "individual" and thing of that nature?

Don't lie to cover your tracks.

[Illegalitarian]

Well the literal definition of a "*****" is a female canine animal. Now obviously the word has taken on several definitions to include "incessant complaining", "subservience" and "meanness" to name a few. People utilise the term when describing both sexes, for example both a man or woman can "*****" about something or be a "*****" when it comes aversion to doing something dangerous.

Absolutely not.

Both men and women refer to either women as *****es, or men who are perceived to be acting in a way received as femininely, since ***** is synonymous with woman as a slur.

The trope of the loud, nagging woman is why ***** can also mean complaining, subservience also being compared with womanhood there which makes ***** just as sexist.


Coward, complainer, weak, subservient.. all things considered to be "womanly" in our society and thus the reason the word "*****" is used in these contexts, because the word is objectively a synonym for woman to people who use it.

[ColumnNo.4]

So you're claiming that my use of the phrase "*****ing" is synonymous with calling you a "*****"?

[Sinister Intents]

So you're claiming that my use of the phrase "*****ing" is synonymous with calling you a "*****"?

Look at illegalitarians post and you'll have your answer. *****ing often gets associated with women because the feminine is frowned upon in patriarchy. Am I a ***** to you?

[ColumnNo.4]

Absolutely not.

Both men and women refer to either women as *****es, or men who are perceived to be acting in a way received as femininely, since ***** is synonymous with woman as a slur.

The trope of the loud, nagging woman is why ***** can also mean complaining, subservience also being compared with womanhood there which makes ***** just as sexist.


Coward, complainer, weak, subservient.. all things considered to be "womanly" in our society and thus the reason the word "*****" is used in these contexts, because the word is objectively a synonym for woman to people who use it.

What state or country do you people live in that these terms are utilised to describe solely one sex? Where I live the terms "*****" and "*****ing" are utilised to describe both sexes and the definitions vary depending on context. Apply your own definitions, at this point I couldn't care less.

[ColumnNo.4]

Look at illegalitarians post and you'll have your answer. *****ing often gets associated with women because the feminine is frowned upon in patriarchy. Am I a ***** to you?

Did I say you were, anywhere?

[Sinister Intents]

What state or country do you people live in that these terms are utilised to describe solely one sex? Where I live the terms "*****" and "*****ing" are utilised to describe both sexes and the definitions vary depending on context. Apply your own definitions, at this point I couldn't care less.
New York and its thr exact same way which chsnges nothing I or Illegalitarian has said, except maybe your lack of reading a post to comprehend it. You're seeming like a blatant troll. I think you'd call me a ***** and I thibk you'd mean it in the context that you're thinking you're somehow putting me in my place. I love how you're ignoring history and denying sexism in its many contexts

[Illegalitarian]

What state or country do you people live in that these terms are utilised to describe solely one sex? Where I live the terms "*****", "*****ing" are utilised to describe both sexes and the definitions vary depending on context. Apply your own definitions, at this point I couldn't care less.

Look up every definition you can find and I promise you that you'll see something akin to "an insult, most commonly used against women, or to denote someone acting as such". It's your experience that is outside of the norm, and your definition that is not accepted by pretty much anyone else on earth that I know.


Yes, to the definitions do vary. When applied to a woman, it means they're being bossy, mean, etc, and when a applied to a man, it's meant to imply that he's acting like a woman. Again, an observable objective fact that ***** is not a gender neutral term in any of its contexts.

[ColumnNo.4]

New York and its thr exact same way which chsnges nothing I or Illegalitarian has said, except maybe your lack of reading a post to comprehend it. You're seeming like a blatant troll. I think you'd call me a ***** and I thibk you'd mean it in the context that you're thinking you're somehow putting me in my place. I love how you're ignoring history and denying sexism in its many contexts

So now the issue is what you think I would call you in an imaginative scenario?

[ColumnNo.4]

Look up every definition you can find and I promise you that you'll see something akin to "an insult, most commonly used against women, or to denote someone acting as such". It's your experience that is outside of the norm, and your definition that is not accepted by pretty much anyone else on earth that I know.


Yes, to the definitions do vary. When applied to a woman, it means they're being bossy, mean, etc, and when a applied to a man, it's meant to imply that he's acting like a woman. Again, an observable objective fact that ***** is not a gender neutral term in any of its contexts.

Rape is an act most commonly perpetrated on women, regardless of that fact it isn't inherently sexist or misogynistic because it's perpetrated on both sexes. Therefore it's an issue of dominance and should be addressed as such.

[Sinister Intents]

So now the issue is what you think I would call you in an imaginative scenario?

I think you're just hiding it, after all you backtracked and covered up sexist shit you've said. Are you a sock and a troll? You seem like you're a troll. Maybe you're legitimate. What about the word c-u-n-t?

[Sinister Intents]

Rape is an act most commonly perpetrated on women, regardless of that fact it isn't inherently sexist or misogynistic because it's perpetrated on both sexes. Therefore it's an issue of dominance and should be addressed as such.

It occurs in nature, but it often is hideously sexist and misogynistic in our privileged little society. Its perpetuated on women and men just get a slap on the wrist for perpetuating it and many men have really fucked up ideas of what consent is. Who are the dominators? Men! Men with gendered privilege and a culture that treats women like sex objects and child rearers

[ColumnNo.4]

I think you're just hiding it, after all you backtracked and covered up sexist shit you've said. Are you a sock and a troll? You seem like you're a troll. Maybe you're legitimate. What about the word c-u-n-t?

The term "****", eh. I had an interesting discussion with someone about this word but since I live in a country where it isn't often used I haven't really given it much thought.

[Sinister Intents]

The term "****", eh. I had an interesting discussion with someone about this word but since I live in a country where it isn't often used I haven't really given it much thought.

Fair enough I suppose. I've only ever heard used in as disgusting of ways as racist hate spew like "nigger" "kike" and so on. In the US its connotation is heavier than the British usage which I still dont like considering I hear it used in a hateful manner

[ColumnNo.4]

It occurs in nature, but it often is hideously sexist and misogynistic in our privileged little society. Its perpetuated on women and men just get a slap on the wrist for perpetuating it and many men have really fucked up ideas of what consent is. Who are the dominators? Men! Men with gendered privilege and a culture that treats women like sex objects and child rearers

I don't disagree that men tend to get a slap on the wrist for it. That being said it's also perpetuated by men on men. Rape isn't a man or woman's issue, it's an issue in general. The focus should be on what in society is teaching males at an increasingly younger age that rape is acceptable. Is it television, is it videogames...?

[ColumnNo.4]

Fair enough I suppose. I've only ever heard used in as disgusting of ways as racist hate spew like "nigger" "kike" and so on. In the US its connotation is heavier than the British usage which I still dont like considering I hear it used in a hateful manner

I hear it spewed at both sexes. My mum has called me as well as my younger sister "****s". When the term "****" is utilised in public it's typically complimented by a cacophony of gasps.

[Loony Le Fist]

You tell me. If a women tells me to "suck it" is she implying she has a penis and is demanding I suck it?

It depends on the context. If it seems to be in rejection of what you are saying, I would take it in the virtual penis way. In a sexual context I would be inclined to think she means something else and that you ought to be quick about it. :laugh:

[Sinister Intents]

I don't disagree that men tend to get a slap on the wrist for it. That being said it's also perpetuated by men on men. Rape isn't a man or woman's issue, it's an issue in general. The focus should be on what in society is teaching males at an increasingly younger age that rape is acceptable. Is it television, is it videogames...?

Yeah. From my perspective rape and culture surrounding raoe arise from the treatment abd view of women in society. It starts off when children are young and they're being molded into individuals by society and their parents. Stereotypes of men and women get created and perpetuated through the school system and through the media. The common view is that women are weak and vulnerable and slutty while men are strong, better at tasks, and so on. Women get viewed and treatex like sex objects from a young age. Women get cat called, men say sexual things about them, and if they object that makes them a ***** and don't know what they're complaining about. A quick glance at porn will yield you how women are extremely sexualized to the point where they serve the role as the object to sayisfy the man. In university greek culture a thing amongst men is to get laid often like its some kind of game. The men will try to have sex with the women through various means which may involve drugging them. Looking at advertising in general and it isn't hard to find examples of how women are infantilized and sexualized. Rape culture is perpetuated by those in control of the media which directly affects society in a way where gender and sex norms are perpetuated and reinforced. Things get normalized from a young age so the issue at hand people become numb to because its so engrained culturally speaking. It arises from how women are viewed upon by society as weak, vulnerable, sex objects, but there is still so much more to it I cannot get to in such a short amount of time

[Rosa Partizan]

It's not a "libfem" trap, your position came off as against sex-negative because of what seemed like anti-porn sentiment for the sake of being anti-porn rather than a serious objection to this and "sex work" based on the objectification and misogynist attitudes taken towards women that tends to be prevalent, as if all-porn is a part of the same institution and is not capable of not objectifying women or being misogynistic.

That sort of deflection is an extreme case of barking up the wrong tree, if you're trying to paint me as some anti-fem git who holds to the old "pole dancing is EMPOWERMENT" line :rolleyes:

oh I see, the usual #notallporn-whining. When I talk about porn, I mean the commercialized industry that makes up the vaaaast majority of what you see on the internet, be it the so-called "amateur" porn (which is mostly not amateur at all) or the high gloss movies that Jenna Jameson etc used to make. Guess what, Jenna Jameson, the "queen of porn" recently talked about how young girls are treated in porn. Sasha Grey, who always praised herself for loving what she does and how she really wanted to become a porn star, confessed how her ex-boyfriend coerced her into porn. So surprise much wow! Why don't young feminists talk about that? Why do they prefer to object like "there's feminist porn, so don't be so prude!!!!!!!"? As if I'm talking about EVERY movie depicting sex that was ever made. The same way I don't talk about every guy on this planet when I say "men rape women" or "men are a threat to women's safety". Why does always someone have to derail this discussion like "Oh wait, I know a black transgender making politically correct porn!!!"?!?! I don't care lulz. I'm not interested in people having swinger parties at home and filming it, go ahead, do whatever turns you on and what everybody agrees on. You know that's not the problem I'm referring to.

[ColumnNo.4]

Yeah. From my perspective rape and culture surrounding raoe arise from the treatment abd view of women in society. It starts off when children are young and they're being molded into individuals by society and their parents. Stereotypes of men and women get created and perpetuated through the school system and through the media. The common view is that women are weak and vulnerable and slutty while men are strong, better at tasks, and so on. Women get viewed and treatex like sex objects from a young age. Women get cat called, men say sexual things about them, and if they object that makes them a ***** and don't know what they're complaining about. A quick glance at porn will yield you how women are extremely sexualized to the point where they serve the role as the object to sayisfy the man. In university greek culture a thing amongst men is to get laid often like its some kind of game. The men will try to have sex with the women through various means which may involve drugging them. Looking at advertising in general and it isn't hard to find examples of how women are infantilized and sexualized. Rape culture is perpetuated by those in control of the media which directly affects society in a way where gender and sex norms are perpetuated and reinforced. Things get normalized from a young age so the issue at hand people become numb to because its so engrained culturally speaking. It arises from how women are viewed upon by society as weak, vulnerable, sex objects, but there is still so much more to it I cannot get to in such a short amount of time

While I agree that school doesn't depict women in strong roles in history I do think television and film have come a long way. They're nowhere near where they should be however they're a far cry from the television and film I grew up on.

As far as frats are concerned I'm not a member of one and have no idea where the modern frat culture stems from. I personally think frats should be done away with as they tend to cause more harm than good, same for sororities.

A course I'm taking recently touched on sex in advertising. I think advertising is well aware that sex sells and therefore it exploits the male and female form. Commodification of the human form.

What I can't figure out is what in society is teaching males at an increasingly younger age that rape is acceptable. I played American football, I participated in combat sports, I was raised on traditional hyper masculine film and the idea of accepting, let alone perpetrating, rape never once crossed my mind.

[Sabot Cat]

Rape is an act most commonly perpetrated on women, regardless of that fact it isn't inherently sexist or misogynistic because it's perpetrated on both sexes. Therefore it's an issue of dominance and should be addressed as such.

It's an issue of male dominance because most rapes are overwhelmingly committed against women by men.


I don't disagree that men tend to get a slap on the wrist for it. That being said it's also perpetuated by men on men. Rape isn't a man or woman's issue, it's an issue in general. The focus should be on what in society is teaching males at an increasingly younger age that rape is acceptable. Is it television, is it videogames...?

Media and culture which suggests women and girls as prizes, challenges, quests and decorations that men are entitled to, to start with. To ignore the reality that rape is overwhelmingly something that happens against women is to be blind to the entire issue.

[Illegalitarian]

oh I see, the usual #notallporn-whining. When I talk about porn, I mean the commercialized industry that makes up the vaaaast majority of what you see on the internet, be it the so-called "amateur" porn (which is mostly not amateur at all) or the high gloss movies that Jenna Jameson etc used to make. Guess what, Jenna Jameson, the "queen of porn" recently talked about how young girls are treated in porn. Sasha Grey, who always praised herself for loving what she does and how she really wanted to become a porn star, confessed how her ex-boyfriend coerced her into porn. So surprise much wow! Why don't young feminists talk about that? Why do they prefer to object like "there's feminist porn, so don't be so prude!!!!!!!"? As if I'm talking about EVERY movie depicting sex that was ever made. The same way I don't talk about every guy on this planet when I say "men rape women" or "men are a threat to women's safety". Why does always someone have to derail this discussion like "Oh wait, I know a black transgender making politically correct porn!!!"?!?! I don't care lulz. I'm not interested in people having swinger parties at home and filming it, go ahead, do whatever turns you on and what everybody agrees on. You know that's not the problem I'm referring to.

Yes yes it is "whining" and completely my fault that you presented your view in a holistic way that used very sex-negativist language to make a point you could have made without doing so.

Let's just not.



Rape is an act most commonly perpetrated on women, regardless of that fact it isn't inherently sexist or misogynistic because it's perpetrated on both sexes. Therefore it's an issue of dominance and should be addressed as such.


Both of those things that disproportionately apply to females and trying to apply both of them as crimes that somehow equally apply to both genders out of male rape specific contexts is pretty dishonest, neutral MRA language (re: Why not call it equalism instead of feminism?!?!)

[Devrim]

I try to avoid saying things like suck my dick and such.

You have to try? Is it difficult? I'm pretty sure I have never used this phrase in my life. It dıdn't really require any effort.


Oh yeah? Well you're on a revolutionary left forum with radical feminists and not liberals.

You could have fooled me.

Devrim

[Rosa Partizan]

This is def not a board with mainly radfems on it.

[Devrim]

This is def not a board with mainly radfems on it.

No, but I would say that probably the majority of the posters on here, certainly the American ones, are liberals.

Devrim

[Sabot Cat]

You have to try? Is it difficult? I'm pretty sure I have never used this phrase in my life. It dıdn't really require any effort.

Considering the context of this post:


Yeah, but I've experienced a few girls in High school getting harassed sexually with shit like that. Where I witnessed a kid named Andrew telling a girl to suck his dick and she'll get her book back or something similar. I try to avoid saying things like suck my dick and such. Sometimes it seems like gender is literally everywhere with masculinity being asserted as dominant and men gaining privilege to say terrible things. I've attacked such speech and received the most daft justifications for men saying terrible and rapy things.


It really looks like you're nitpicking the way SI phrased her grievances for no substantive purpose at all...

[Quail]

I'm sorry for not getting to this quicker.

ColumnNo.4 - this is a verbal warning for using prejudiced language. Illegatarian (I think) made a good post explaining why b*tch is not an okay thing to say.

I think really it depends on the context of the words being used. Some of the phrases in the article, such as "force myself," didn't strike me as particularly unacceptable to be honest. I also don't think that "go fuck yourself" is in the same boat as "suck it". I do think though that if you're repeatedly using sexist slurs in your everyday speech then you probably have some kind of subconscious sexism going on. I don't think you can just dismiss it as a symptom of a sexist society and continue to use those words - it's a symptom of how you, maybe subconsciously, view women and queer people. If you genuinely thought there was nothing wrong with being gay, for example, then you wouldn't describe something bad as "gay" because the connotation wouldn't exist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'm sorry for not getting to this quicker.

ColumnNo.4 - this is a verbal warning for using prejudiced language. Illegatarian (I think) made a good post explaining why b*tch is not an okay thing to say.

I think really it depends on the context of the words being used. Some of the phrases in the article, such as "force myself," didn't strike me as particularly unacceptable to be honest. I also don't think that "go fuck yourself" is in the same boat as "suck it". I do think though that if you're repeatedly using sexist slurs in your everyday speech then you probably have some kind of subconscious sexism going on. I don't think you can just dismiss it as a symptom of a sexist society and continue to use those words - it's a symptom of how you, maybe subconsciously, view women and queer people. If you genuinely thought there was nothing wrong with being gay, for example, then you wouldn't describe something bad as "gay" because the connotation wouldn't exist.

But connotations exist not on the level of the individual, but on the level of society. I mean, describing something bad as "gay" is perhaps different because it's a fairly recent use, but most people are taught to use certain expressions - "fuck it!" as an expletive for example - without thinking about them.

[Quail]

It depends on the word I guess. I was thinking in terms of sexist slurs specifically. I actually say "fuck it" quite a lot, not in a literal sense but just as an expletive... I don't think that's quite the same as telling someone to "get fucked" or "suck it" though.

I'm not feeling super articulate today, but my point was supposed to be that it's not actually about the words themselves, but about the underlying values and attitudes people hold. Pointing out the connotations of the words people use is a way of challenging those underlying values or at the very least drawing attention to them.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes that is true, but the reason the connotation exists and therefore people use it because they have been taught to do so is exactly the point of saying how language, and therefore behavior, contributes to the perpetuation of this socialization.

Perpetuation does not need to be a conscious thing by the way.



@Rosa

The concept of language shaping our thoughts is called somewhing like Whorfianism (or something) and the jury is indeed still out on that one although Boroditsky does very interesting research on it.

What however is not in any doubt is how language shapes how we interact, the extend & efficiency of that interaction and how we affect other people.

And if we look at language from that aspect and combine it with your position we than get exactly what is meant by perpetuation. We can also safely say that language is a reflection of who we are and our attitudes (either those we have, pretend to have or want to believe we have).

Now the article SI posted is full of questionable examples and we can certainly debate whether phrases as "forcing oneself" do what is claimed here and if they contribute to that specific aspect of society. But there are better examples.

Minding what we say and minding the words we chose & use forces (there it is again) us to become conscious of our language and our "unconscious" attitudes. This is a step into becoming aware of thought patterns that are ingrained and socialized....and therefore IMO is a necessity in changing aspects of society.

[Tim Cornelis]

Where do you think the words "moron" and "lame" and such came from? They were scientific words used to describe levels of cognitive deficiency in mentally retarded persons. Now we can't even say "mentally retarded" and I think the new terminology is "intellectually disabled". Why? Because you fatherfuckers can't help but to use people as insults. It's really not just the words - it really is the meaning behind them. They won't go away because the entire point is to degrade people by calling them the names of people who society considers to be less than equal.

Now shut up and suck my clit. :rolleyes:

Because anyone has ever said that seriously ever. :glare:

What you describe is the "euphemism treadmill". The cause is not because "Because [us] fatherfuckers can't help but to use people as insults" but because of this: "Which is not to say that some of our linguistic habits don't reveal worrying assumptions, but these habits arise from the material facts of structural oppression, not the other way around."

[ColumnNo.4]

It's an issue of male dominance because most rapes are overwhelmingly committed against women by men.



Media and culture which suggests women and girls as prizes, challenges, quests and decorations that men are entitled to, to start with. To ignore the reality that rape is overwhelmingly something that happens against women is to be blind to the entire issue.

I've actually heard statements from people who work in occupations dealing with rape claiming that male rape is even more underreported than female rape. What we can agree on is that it's overwhelming perpetrated by men.

What I'm referring to with the acceptance of rape and its perpetration against both sexes seems to be more acceptable today than it was say fifteen years ago. Perhaps the news didn't cover it as much fifteen years ago however I don't remember hearing instances of rape against classmates and teammates occurring much. The story I'm touching on is the recent one about a high school football team in which the senior players had a ritual of raping the rookie players, or something to that effect.

[ColumnNo.4]

I'm sorry for not getting to this quicker.

ColumnNo.4 - this is a verbal warning for using prejudiced language. Illegatarian (I think) made a good post explaining why b*tch is not an okay thing to say.

I think really it depends on the context of the words being used. Some of the phrases in the article, such as "force myself," didn't strike me as particularly unacceptable to be honest. I also don't think that "go fuck yourself" is in the same boat as "suck it". I do think though that if you're repeatedly using sexist slurs in your everyday speech then you probably have some kind of subconscious sexism going on. I don't think you can just dismiss it as a symptom of a sexist society and continue to use those words - it's a symptom of how you, maybe subconsciously, view women and queer people. If you genuinely thought there was nothing wrong with being gay, for example, then you wouldn't describe something bad as "gay" because the connotation wouldn't exist.

Illegalitarian claimed the three different slang definitions of "*****" were synonymous in meaning, I disagreed. Also nowhere in my posts did I admit to using any of the terms or phrases discussed in this thread. One also has to remember that for a very long time certain words were used to describe something negatively and that society taught or teaches that. An individual from my generation may utilise the term "fag" however that doesn't necessarily mean they are bigoted, they were simply raised in a time when the term was acceptable. Jonah Hill telling that paparazzo to "suck my dick, faggot" is a perfect example.

[Quail]

If said person from your generation knows what fag means and understands that using it perpetuates the oppression of queer people, yet still uses it, then yes they are being a bigot.

[ColumnNo.4]

If said person from your generation knows what fag means and understands that using it perpetuates the oppression of queer people, yet still uses it, then yes they are being a bigot.

So you would classify Jonah Hill as a sexist and a bigot due to his use of the phrase "suck my dick" and the term "faggot"?

[PhoenixAsh]

This Jonah Hill?

http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/06/04/jonah-hill-tonight-apology/

[ColumnNo.4]

This Jonah Hill?

http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/06/04/jonah-hill-tonight-apology/

Yes, that Jonah Hill.

[Sinister Intents]

So you would classify Jonah Hill as a sexist and a bigot due to his use of the phrase "suck my dick" and the term "faggot"?
I'd have to call him a bigot and I'm sure he could be sexist, but I don't really know who he is.

Yep hes definitely a bigot and I'm sure hes sexist

[ColumnNo.4]

I'd have to call him a bigot and I'm sure he could be sexist, but I don't really know who he is.

Yep hes definitely a bigot and I'm sure hes sexist

I don't necesarrily agree. One can never really know how another truly feels on a subject however I'm not so quick to write people off based on a single statement.

[Sinister Intents]

I don't necesarrily agree. One can never really know how another truly feels on a subject however I'm not so quick to write people off based on a single statement.

This is true, but prejudiced beliefs whether they're blatant or subtle are very common. I wouldn't necessarily be aggressive with an individual for it. It really depends on my mood and context

[Chomskyan]

Did anyone see that F* Feminism video or whatever on Vimeo. I loved how the people who whined about the "exploitation" of children couldn't take the time to whine about the systematic oppression and murder of women, blacks, Latinos, the poor and people around the world by the American capitalist society.

In any case, the labor movement and civil rights movement "exploited" their children in the same way that video did.

Martin Luther King said that the Bourgeoisie anywhere in the world are the same.

[Devrim]

It really looks like you're nitpicking the way SI phrased her grievances for no substantive purpose at all...

I don't think so. If people want to go back and look at what I said, it is here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2795595&postcount=122).

I think it ties in with what I was trying to say about these being liberal concerns. Everything is put upon to the individual. Things cease to be about changing society through collective effort, and become about individual consciousness raising. This is the liberalism to the core.

The fact that he has to expend effort to do it just adds comic value.

Devrim

[Illegalitarian]

Illegalitarian claimed the three different slang definitions of "*****" were synonymous in meaning, I disagreed. Also nowhere in my posts did I admit to using any of the terms or phrases discussed in this thread. One also has to remember that for a very long time certain words were used to describe something negatively and that society taught or teaches that. An individual from my generation may utilise the term "fag" however that doesn't necessarily mean they are bigoted, they were simply raised in a time when the term was acceptable. Jonah Hill telling that paparazzo to "suck my dick, faggot" is a perfect example.

I claimed that they were synonymous in the fact that in each context, the word is referring to a woman or something considered womanly. This is fact. That's all I was saying

[Devrim]

The concept of language shaping our thoughts is called somewhing like Whorfianism (or something) and the jury is indeed still out on that one although Boroditsky does very interesting research on it.

It is generally called linguistic relativity, but is also known as either Whorfianism, or the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. The Wiki page about it can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity).

It is largely discredited these days, and completely discredited in its strong forms.

It is the reason, for example, that the Turkish language having not gendered pronouns has led to Turkey being by far the least sexist society in Europe.

Not.

Devrim

[ColumnNo.4]

I claimed that they were synonymous in the fact that in each context, the word is referring to a woman or something considered womanly. This is fact. That's all I was saying

It's referring to women because that's how you're choosing to interpret it. The literal definition of "*****" is a female dog, not a woman. Now is the word utilised to describe aggressiveness, complaining or cowardess, yes. One can take issue with just about every slang term or phrase and link it to something unsavory.

[consuming negativity]

It's referring to women because that's how you're choosing to interpret it. The literal definition of "*****" is a female dog, not a woman. Now is the word utilised to describe aggressiveness, complaining or cowardess, yes. One can take issue with just about every slang term or phrase and link it to something unsavory.

Language only works because the words we use have shared definitions. For example, if I say "cat", you and I both think of cats. That's how we communicate with each other. We don't get to just pick and choose interpretations of words on an individual basis. Language is a societal phenomenon. What you're doing amounts to victim blaming - "well, if the language offends you, you should interpret it differently". It doesn't matter how you choose to take it, it is what it is, and the intentions and meanings behind it are the same to the speaker regardless.

[Sinister Intents]

You have to try? Is it difficult? I'm pretty sure I have never used this phrase in my life. It dıdn't really require any effort.



You could have fooled me.

Devrim

In the past I've said some horrible things and I've fought saying these things and don't anymore, but if I'm surrounded by people saying sexist things I unintentionally repeat it because for whatever reason I tend to talk like the people around me. I might say "son of a *****" by accident. Keep in mind I used to be intensely sexist and rather misogynistic. I also came out of liberalism and unfortunately I still have a long way to go. What's your problem?

[Sinister Intents]

I don't think so. If people want to go back and look at what I said, it is here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2795595&postcount=122).

I think it ties in with what I was trying to say about these being liberal concerns. Everything is put upon to the individual. Things cease to be about changing society through collective effort, and become about individual consciousness raising. This is the liberalism to the core.

The fact that he has to expend effort to do it just adds comic value.

Devrim

Explain to me how this applies to me exactly? I don't always catch things immediately and often miss things.

[Rosa Partizan]

I don't think so. If people want to go back and look at what I said, it is here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2795595&postcount=122).

I think it ties in with what I was trying to say about these being liberal concerns. Everything is put upon to the individual. Things cease to be about changing society through collective effort, and become about individual consciousness raising. This is the liberalism to the core.

The fact that he has to expend effort to do it just adds comic value.

Devrim

While I appreaciate your critical attitude towards individualism, there is something understandable about this stance, namely that every change has to start with yourself. It's just problematic when you start AND end there at the same time. Like, you do something you consider correct and empowering and whatsoever and you're like "if everybody acts like me, things will work out fine", while societal structures and their intersections are not touched at all.

[ColumnNo.4]

Language only works because the words we use have shared definitions. For example, if I say "cat", you and I both think of cats. That's how we communicate with each other. We don't get to just pick and choose interpretations of words on an individual basis. Language is a societal phenomenon. What you're doing amounts to victim blaming - "well, if the language offends you, you should interpret it differently". It doesn't matter how you choose to take it, it is what it is, and the intentions and meanings behind it are the same to the speaker regardless.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm staying is when people utilise certain words or phrases they're not always implying what you may think.

[PhoenixAsh]

It is generally called linguistic relativity, but is also known as either Whorfianism, or the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis. The Wiki page about it can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity).

It is largely discredited these days, and completely discredited in its strong forms.

It is the reason, for example, that the Turkish language having not gendered pronouns has led to Turkey being by far the least sexist society in Europe.

Not.

Devrim

Yes. Except that sexism in language is not dependend on pronouns.

http://www.academia.edu/3223700/How_Sexism_Operates_in_Basic_Turkish_Dictionary

or

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=daphne-revolution-demands-another-media-2011-03-30


While the theory was discredited I did specifically mention Boroditsky who revived the concept of relativity and has revived the debate about it: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/04/26/3200654.htm

[PhoenixAsh]

double.

[Illegalitarian]

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm staying is when people utilise certain words or phrases they're not always implying what you may think.

And what we're saying is it doesn't matter how you utilize it, it's a word used by the vast majority of people to either belittle women or compare others to women or 'womanly traits'.

If I call you a racial slur for black people, it doesn't matter if I actually meant to call you an ice cream cherry pop, because words usually have concrete meanings agreed upon society and no amount of wishing will change that

[PhoenixAsh]

I think it ties in with what I was trying to say about these being liberal concerns. Everything is put upon to the individual. Things cease to be about changing society through collective effort, and become about individual consciousness raising. This is the liberalism to the core.

That is an argument that cuts both ways. Individuals need to become conscious to become aware and before they can change the material conditions.

Like for example...becoming class conscious is an individual task and it is up to the individual. Yet revolutionaries spend a vast amount of time to create the basis for individual workers to become class conscious.

And while I quite agree that the material basis need to change and that individual consciousness alone isn't enough...every collective is made up of individuals. It is up to the direction these individuals take whether or not something is a liberal enterprise or a revolutionary one.

[consuming negativity]

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm staying is when people utilise certain words or phrases they're not always implying what you may think.


And what we're saying is it doesn't matter how you utilize it, it's a word used by the vast majority of people to either belittle women or compare others to women or 'womanly traits'.

If I call you a racial slur for black people, it doesn't matter if I actually meant to call you an ice cream cherry pop, because words usually have concrete meanings agreed upon society and no amount of wishing will change that


No, you guys don't understand. Most of the time, people saying "suck it" aren't actually trying to degrade women. It's just that they don't get a choice in the matter either as speaker or as listener. Just because they aren't actually trying to say the shit that they're saying doesn't change what they're saying. That's the entire point of pointing it out to them. Because when you do understand what is being said, it makes you not okay with it... if you're the type of person who isn't a bigoted shithead. The article in the OP is literally making the best assumptions about the audience: that they are simply mistaken and don't realize what it is that they're saying when they say these things. The best response is to not throw around ridiculous terms like "word police" or to act like you're being persecuted by having it pointed out to you what is being said, but to say "oh, hey, that's true" and choose words that are more conducive to the meaning you actually want. Once you see something you can't unsee it - once you recognize what is actually being said, you cannot in good faith continue to talk like that. It might be easier to continue to act like a bigot in speech, but it is not the morally or rationally appropriate choice.

[Rosa Partizan]

That is an argument that cuts both ways. Individuals need to become conscious to become aware and before they can change the material conditions.

Like for example...becoming class conscious is an individual task and it is up to the individual. Yet revolutionaries spend a vast amount of time to create the basis for individual workers to become class conscious.

And while I quite agree that the material basis need to change and that individual consciousness alone isn't enough...every collective is made up of individuals. It is up to the direction these individuals take whether or not something is a liberal enterprise or a revolutionary one.

you gotta admit that you basically said what I was saying but that I'm really too lazy (okay, let's be honest: not eloquent enough) to write it like that.

[Illegalitarian]

No, you guys don't understand. Most of the time, people saying "suck it" aren't actually trying to degrade women. It's just that they don't get a choice in the matter either as speaker or as listener. Just because they aren't actually trying to say the shit that they're saying doesn't change what they're saying. That's the entire point of pointing it out to them. Because when you do understand what is being said, it makes you not okay with it... if you're the type of person who isn't a bigoted shithead. The article in the OP is literally making the best assumptions about the audience: that they are simply mistaken and don't realize what it is that they're saying when they say these things. The best response is to not throw around ridiculous terms like "word police" or to act like you're being persecuted by having it pointed out to you what is being said, but to say "oh, hey, that's true" and choose words that are more conducive to the meaning you actually want. Once you see something you can't unsee it - once you recognize what is actually being said, you cannot in good faith continue to talk like that. It might be easier to continue to act like a bigot in speech, but it is not the morally or rationally appropriate choice.

That's exactly what I said: It doesn't matter how you're using the word, the word has a sexist meaning and by using it, you're being sexist, even if you're not trying to be.

[PhoenixAsh]

you gotta admit that you basically said what I was saying but that I'm really too lazy (okay, let's be honest: not eloquent enough) to write it like that.

eh... Ok. I'll admit you are too lazy ;)

[consuming negativity]

That's exactly what I said: It doesn't matter how you're using the word, the word has a sexist meaning and by using it, you're being sexist, even if you're not trying to be.

No. You made the implication that the intentions behind the words were purposefully sexist. And again, you're saying that they are "being" sexist by saying these things. No, they are ACTING sexist; your attitudes about women do not change just by accidentally saying something sexist. Beliefs, words, and actions are often mismatched.

Another example, since I'm having to respond again: Rosa didn't actually say the same thing PhoenixAsh said, either. It wasn't lack of eloquence, it was lack of accuracy in communication. She simply did not say the same thing that PA did and as a result, his post was more correct.

But this is precisely why it is so important to actually consider the intentions behind the actions, because the intentions matter insofar as you can ignore the actions partially or entirely if you can decipher the intentions that created them. Perhaps you meant to say what I said... or perhaps you didn't understand. I have to assume that your actions are 100% reflective of your intentions unless you convince me otherwise.

Likewise, despite all of his sexist bullshit, the guy we've been arguing with could very well not be a sexist at all. He could be lazy. He could be a troll. He could be any number of things. That's probably why Quail only gave him a verbal warning rather than getting rid of him: because you can be wrong and say wrong things even though you meant to say something else. It is easier to just condemn him to malevolence than to actually think.

[ColumnNo.4]

And what we're saying is it doesn't matter how you utilize it, it's a word used by the vast majority of people to either belittle women or compare others to women or 'womanly traits'.

If I call you a racial slur for black people, it doesn't matter if I actually meant to call you an ice cream cherry pop, because words usually have concrete meanings agreed upon society and no amount of wishing will change that

So in the case of the term "*****" you're actually changing the original definition to suit your argument. You're also choosing to ignore the fact that language changes.

[Tim Cornelis]

No one is changing the definition except you who is denying one definition, the way it is arguably (from personal experience definitely) most commonly used by far.

[Illegalitarian]

No. You made the implication that the intentions behind the words were purposefully sexist. And again, you're saying that they are "being" sexist by saying these things. No, they are ACTING sexist; your attitudes about women do not change just by accidentally saying something sexist. Beliefs, words, and actions are often mismatched.

But this is precisely why it is so important to actually consider the intentions behind the actions, because the intentions matter insofar as you can ignore the actions partially or entirely if you can decipher the intentions that created them. Perhaps you meant to say what I said... or perhaps you didn't understand. I have to assume that your actions are 100% reflective of your intentions unless you convince me otherwise.

Likewise, despite all of his sexist bullshit, the guy we've been arguing with could very well not be a sexist at all. He could be lazy. He could be a troll. He could be any number of things. That's probably why Quail only gave him a verbal warning rather than getting rid of him: because you can be wrong and say wrong things even though you meant to say something else. It is easier to just condemn him to malevolence than to actually think.

I said:


If I call you a racial slur for black people, it doesn't matter if I actually meant to call you an ice cream cherry pop, because words usually have concrete meanings agreed upon society and no amount of wishing will change that



In other words it doesn't matter if you're trying to be sexist or not, you're still being sexist in so far as you're perpetuating misogynistic language used to demean women and false notions of feminine traits. "Being" and "acting" meaning the same thing, here.

You don't have to be an MRA-tier sexist to perpetuate widespread sexist sentiment, which is arguably worse, since it is this widespread sexism in every day language etc that's so heavily perpetuated throughout society which makes negative attitudes towards women so prevailing.

[ColumnNo.4]

No one is changing the definition except you who is denying one definition, the way it is arguably (from personal experience definitely) most commonly used by far.

I've produced the definition of the word "*****". It's contradicts your definition. What's your take on the word "queer"?

[Illegalitarian]

I've produced the definition of the word "*****". It's contradicts your definition. What's your take on the word "queer"?

It's ironic that you say this right after going on about how "the meaning of words change over time".. at one point this may have been used exclusively to refer to female dogs, but the socially dominant meaning of this word is absolutely not referring to female dogs and you know it.

Let me guess, it's ok to call people "queer" as a negative word because its original definition is "strange" :rolleyes:

[ColumnNo.4]

It's ironic that you say this right after going on about how "the meaning of words change over time".. at one point this may have been used exclusively to refer to female dogs, but the socially dominant meaning of this word is absolutely not referring to female dogs and you know it.

Let me guess, it's ok to call people "queer" as a negative word because its original definition is "strange" :rolleyes:

I bring it up because it has or has had multiple definitions, one of which was derogatory, and now it's utilised differently.

[Illegalitarian]

I brin it up because it has or has had multiple definitions, one of which was derogatory, and now it's utilised differently.

Yes homosexuals took back the word queer, but used outside of referring to homosexuals as anything other than homosexuals, it's still offensive.

[ColumnNo.4]

Yes homosexuals took back the word queer, but used outside of referring to homosexuals as anything other than homosexuals, it's still offensive.

So I'm a bigot if utilise it in the sense of saying something is odd?

[Illegalitarian]

That's not even remotely what I said

[Sabot Cat]

Let me guess, it's ok to call people "queer" as a negative word because its original definition is "strange" :rolleyes:


So I'm a bigot if utilise it in the sense of saying something is odd?

I commend Illegalitarian for seeing this coming.

Anyway: you're acting in a bigoted manner if you utilise it in the pejorative sense.

[ColumnNo.4]

Same word, different definitions, different utilisations. The same with the term "*****". If I utilise it to refer to someone being mean it's not putting down women anymore than utilising the term "queer" to refer to someone who is odd is putting down someone who is LGBT.

[Sabot Cat]

Same word, different definitions, different utilisations. The same with the term "*****". If I utilise it to refer to someone being mean it's not putting down women anymore than utilising the term "queer" to refer to someone who is odd is putting down someone who is LGBT.

But queer meaning strange isn't a put down or an insult, unlike the starred out term, which is even in that context- thus it's still a pejorative, as it would be if you're calling someone who isn't LGBT 'a queer' as an insult.

[ColumnNo.4]

But queer meaning strange isn't a put down or an insult, unlike the starred out term, which is even in that context- thus it's still a pejorative, as it would be if you're calling someone who isn't LGBT 'a queer' as an insult.

People may take being called strange an insult. The term "queer" can be utilised to imply different things as can the term "*****". This is the point I'm making when I say that you can find outrage in anything.

[Sabot Cat]

People may take being called strange an insult. The term "queer" can be utilised to imply different things as can the term "*****". This is the point I'm making when I say that you can find outrage in anything.

Your argument makes perfect sense if things like 'connotation' and 'historical context' and 'fucking human beings who actually use language' didn't exist.

[ColumnNo.4]

Your argument makes perfect sense if things like 'connotation' and 'historical context' and 'fucking human beings who actually use language' didn't exist.

Words aren't black and white. The manner in which words are utilized determines their intent.

[Illegalitarian]

Words aren't black and white. The manner in which words are utilized determines their intent.

You say things like this then run in the absolute other direction with your conclusions.

The word "queer" as in strange was never used as an insult, only as a way to describe someone. Then, as homosexuals were seen as strange, the words overtime became synonymous and queer started being used everywhere to refer to someone acting in a way perceived as homosexual, in a negative light.


Just like how it's not uncommon to see younger people call something they think is dumb or odd "gay". They're calling it gay because they're equating acting odd and strange as being homosexual, because homosexuality = "dumb" or "strange".

The same exact way "*****" meaning "mean" or "whiny" or "cowardly" is because ***** started to be used as a synonym for woman as an offensive mark, and all of those characteristics are considered to be womanly, a point you've still yet to address.

I'll break it down for you as simply as I possibly can: ***** = woman and woman = whiny, naggy, loud, mean, cowardly, etc, therefore to do these things is to act like a "*****". That is the logic used, that is the origin of this word as it is used literally everywhere today, and because it's used that way literally everywhere today, no matter what context you might really mean it in, this is the meaning you are perpetuating, because as you said, words have meaning.

Go on thinking whatever you want to, but outside of gummy gummy drop drop island, you're going to probably get punched in the throat if you walk up to a group of women and go "sup *****es". Have a fun time explaining to them the finer points of language as everyone continues thinking you're a terrible person for using offensive language.

[consuming negativity]

Go on thinking whatever you want to, but outside of gummy gummy drop drop island, you're going to probably get punched in the throat if you walk up to a group of women and go "sup *****es". Have a fun time explaining to them the finer points of language as everyone continues thinking you're a terrible person for using offensive language.

Oh no! Misandry!! Supporting violence against men!!! :rolleyes:

[ColumnNo.4]

You say things like this then run in the absolute other direction with your conclusions.

The word "queer" as in strange was never used as an insult, only as a way to describe someone. Then, as homosexuals were seen as strange, the words overtime became synonymous and queer started being used everywhere to refer to someone acting in a way perceived as homosexual, in a negative light.


Just like how it's not uncommon to see younger people call something they think is dumb or odd "gay". They're calling it gay because they're equating acting odd and strange as being homosexual, because homosexuality = "dumb" or "strange".

The same exact way "*****" meaning "mean" or "whiny" or "cowardly" is because ***** started to be used as a synonym for woman as an offensive mark, and all of those characteristics are considered to be womanly, a point you've still yet to address.

I'll break it down for you as simply as I possibly can: ***** = woman and woman = whiny, naggy, loud, mean, cowardly, etc, therefore to do these things is to act like a "*****". That is the logic used, that is the origin of this word as it is used literally everywhere today, and because it's used that way literally everywhere today, no matter what context you might really mean it in, this is the meaning you are perpetuating, because as you said, words have meaning.

Go on thinking whatever you want to, but outside of gummy gummy drop drop island, you're going to probably get punched in the throat if you walk up to a group of women and go "sup *****es". Have a fun time explaining to them the finer points of language as everyone continues thinking you're a terrible person for using offensive language.

Have fun fighting over every term or phrase because you're bound to be with that idea of language. You may consider "*****" to be referring to women however women don't have a monopoly on being whiny, nagging, mean or cowardly.

[Sinister Intents]

Have fun fighting over every term or phrase because you're bound to be with that idea of language. You may consider "*****" to be referring to women however women don't have a monopoly on being whiny, nagging, mean or cowardly.

Most of your posts are in this thread. I'm not sure how I should feel about you at this time because in a way you seem as if you're just trolling, but I also think you might be legitimate. The term ***** has come to be used in a very sexist way and we all just keep going in circles with you. We're back on this square again it seems and we've been here before as well. To call a women a ***** is just as sexist as it is to call a man one. Calling a dog a *****, a female dog can be sexist as well, being like "Oh, well she's just a fucking *****." ***** has come to be very sexist.

[ColumnNo.4]

Most of your posts are in this thread. I'm not sure how I should feel about you at this time because in a way you seem as if you're just trolling, but I also think you might be legitimate. The term ***** has come to be used in a very sexist way and we all just keep going in circles with you. We're back on this square again it seems and we've been here before as well. To call a women a ***** is just as sexist as it is to call a man one. Calling a dog a *****, a female dog can be sexist as well, being like "Oh, well she's just a fucking *****." ***** has come to be very sexist.

Then by all means dedicate and endless amount of time to fighting the use of these words because I won't. I would rather be calling people out for utilising slurs than attempting to find sexism or misogyny in commonly utilised slang and phrases.

[Illegalitarian]

Have fun fighting over every term or phrase because you're bound to be with that idea of language. You may consider "*****" to be referring to women however women don't have a monopoly on being whiny, nagging, mean or cowardly.

No, they don't, but in the context of ***** being a slang word for a woman, this word is implied to denote womanly behavior when used in these contexts.You have yet to refute this, and I get the feeling you never will

[Sinister Intents]

Then by all means dedicate and endless amount of time to fighting the use of these words because I won't. I would rather be calling people out for utilising slurs than attempting to find sexism or misogyny in commonly utilised slang and phrases.

Actually I'm saying that it's pointless to continue dedicating a circular track where all progress is stagnation and no one furthering anything except seeing the shapes of how people themselves think. I'd rather we move this to a different topic than this article which I posted.

[ColumnNo.4]

No, they don't, but in the context of ***** being a slang word for a woman, this word is implied to denote womanly behavior when used in these contexts.You have yet to refute this, and I get the feeling you never will

You associate it with womanly behavior, I, and many others, don't. Both sexes whine, both sexes nag and so on. If I say "don't be a dick", I'm not being sexist or misandric, I'm telling someone not be mean about something. On a physical action note, do you think holding the door for women is sexist?

[Sabot Cat]

You associate it with womanly behavior, I, and many others, don't. Both sexes whine, both sexes nag and so on. If I say "don't be a dick", I'm not being sexist or misandric, I'm telling someone not be mean about something. On a physical action note, do you think holding the door for women is sexist?

Holding 'the door' exclusively for women is sexist, yes.

[Sinister Intents]

Holding 'the door' exclusively for women is sexist, yes.

Not quite related, but what's holding the door exclusively for your family, friends, and girlfriend? Nvm I'm tired.

I used to do that a lot when I was younger and I'd try to take care of hard tasks for 'girls' while often failing to do the task and making an ass out of myself for being a sexist prick.

What annoys me is when this exclusive door holding gets called 'chivalry' and when certain men are like I'm all chivalrous and shit and not realizing chivalry was the Christian equivalent of Shariah law

[ColumnNo.4]

Well traditionally men held the door for women. I hold the door for everyone however since the act is technically rooted in sexist culture then that must make me a sexist for perpetrating the act, regardless of the act being performed for men or women.

[Sabot Cat]

Well traditionally men held the door for women. I hold the door for everyone however since the act is technically rooted in sexist culture then that must make me a sexist for perpetrating the act, regardless of the act being performed for men or women.

I think you're grasping at straws here. Or should I say strawmen...

[Sinister Intents]

Well traditionally men held the door for women. I hold the door for everyone however since the act is technically rooted in sexist culture then that must make me a sexist for perpetrating the act, regardless of the act being performed for men or women.

What you gotta do is give the person behind you a grossed out look in the eye and close the door in their face! That'll show 'em! Don't forget it's okay to hit on girls and such and to talk about your bodily functions. Also don't forget to tell everyone about how you're the straightest man you know, and that you're so straight a pencil couldn't be that straight?

Holding doors for people is nice, but when it's exclusively for women because of the man's perceived inferiority of women, then it is sexist because he is treating her like she is incapable of performing tasks.

[ColumnNo.4]

Essentially your argument is that intent or implication is irrelevant, the fact that you said or perpetrated something means you're a sexist or misogynist. That's ridiculous.

[Sinister Intents]

Essentially your argument is that intent or implication is irrelevant, the fact that you said or perpetrated something means you're a sexist or misogynist. That's ridiculous.

You know what else is ridiculous? Spinning in circles while drunk and then explosively vomiting onto someone you're close to! Would I argue that is sexist? No! Of course not. What I am arguing is sexist is the treatment of women like they're infantile and incapable of doing their own thing, I'm arguing that women are equal to men and that perceived differences are generally bullshit perpetuated by morons.

We can keep running and spinning in circles and get nowhere and then eventually someone is going to get hurt and it's gonna be sad and funny.

[Lily Briscoe]

So has a verdict been reached yet regarding the nuances of the phrase "suck it" and it's relationship to cis-hetero-patriarchal oppression?

Discuss.

[Illegalitarian]

Well traditionally men held the door for women. I hold the door for everyone however since the act is technically rooted in sexist culture then that must make me a sexist for perpetrating the act, regardless of the act being performed for men or women.


Holding the door is a neutral act of kindness done for everyone and has no roots in sexism, so, no. The notion of chivalry is what is sexist, the notion that women exclusively must have this done for them since they're the "dainty sex" etc.



You associate it with womanly behavior, I, and many others, don't. Both sexes whine, both sexes nag and so on. If I say "don't be a dick", I'm not being sexist or misandric, I'm telling someone not be mean about something. On a physical action note, do you think holding the door for women is sexist?


It doesn't matter what you and many others thing it means or associate it with, the vast majority of people on earth associate the word "*****" with woman and thus a term contrived from that word which describes "womanly traits" is also, obviously, associated with women.

[Illegalitarian]

So has a verdict been reached yet regarding the nuances of the phrase "suck it" and it's relationship to cis-hetero-patriarchal oppression?

Discuss.

Suck it is a blatantly sexist phrase and everyone is on board with that except one guy who is just kind of plugging his ears and saying "i cant hear you lalalala language means what I want it to", so, yes.

[ColumnNo.4]

Holding the door is a neutral act of kindness done for everyone and has no roots in sexism, so, no. The notion of chivalry is what is sexist, the notion that women exclusively must have this done for them since they're the "dainty sex" etc.




It doesn't matter what you and many others thing it means or associate it with, the vast majority of people on earth associate the word "*****" with woman and thus a term contrived from that word which describes "womanly traits" is also, obviously, associated with women.

Then perhaps they're sexist in thinking "*****" is synonymous with "woman".

[Illegalitarian]

The whole world is wrong except for you. :laugh:

[Tim Cornelis]

You associate it with womanly behavior, I, and many others, don't.

Oh please, you're just playing dumb. You're getting defensive because you feel threatened in your private sphere and/or masculinity, but I don't think you even really believe half the things you said in this thread.

[Quail]

Okay, this is ridiculous. There shouldn't be pages and pages of discussion about whether or not b*tch is a sexist word, when it has been explained over and over and over again why it is sexist.

ColumnNo.4 I think you need to take a step back and have a think about what has been said, instead of going on the defensive. It's okay to be wrong, it's okay to be challenged... Think of it as an opportunity to learn. But if you continue to defend the use of sexist language then I will have to take further action because it goes against the forum rules and it's not fair on the female and queer members of this forum to have to constantly deal with basic stuff like this.

[ColumnNo.4]

Yet juvenile name-calling seems be completely appropriate during discussion. And Tim, I stand by that statement. I've never encountered anyone, Marxist, Anarchist or other, outside of this forum that made the argument that the commonly utilized words or phrases discussed in this thread are sexist or misogynistic. There have been discussions about how some of the words came to be slang implying something negative however those discussions have ended in participants listing the words or phrases that could be labeled as sexist or misogynistic and coming to the conclusion that society may just need to bin slang as a whole and focus on stemming the evolution of language.

[PhoenixAsh]

I would go a step further and say that the claim that Anarchists hold the position that ***** isn't sexist is either not true or means you haven't met any real anarchists.

[ColumnNo.4]

I would go a step further and say that the claim that Anarchists hold the position that ***** isn't sexist is either not true or means you haven't met any real anarchists.

Feel free to pop into Denver any time and take it up with them. I have constructive conversations with them so I take no issue. No, we don't agree on everything but we agree on the big issues.

[PhoenixAsh]

aha. So with Denver I think you are refering to the Denver Anarchist Black Cross?

I remember one of their female members participated in a international and national debate by writing an article about sexism in the anarchist movement in both behaviour and language. So there is your answer.

[ColumnNo.4]

aha. So with Denver I think you are refering to the Denver Anarchist Black Cross?

I remember one of their female members participated in a international and national debate by writing an article about sexism in the anarchist movement in both behaviour and language. So there is your answer.

No but I did speak with someone who was a member a while back. They seemed nice enough. We didn't discuss this issue, just the prison industrial complex.

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't see a problem with many of those expressions, especially with that "force" thing. There is no basis whatsoever to argue that the expression "Oh I forced myself to get up and go to work" has anything to do with a rhetoric of sexual violence; it's the "force oneself onto someone" that is the figurative expression (euphemistic at that), while the regular use of "force X to do Y" isn't in any way marked for sexual acts.

Next we'll hear how physics is inherently sexists cause of all that talk of force.

And nope, I won't stop saying that I (need to) force myself to do all sorts of stuff; either in English or in my first language (and I wonder who in their right mind would read off a connotation of sexually driven violence in that context).

[The Disillusionist]

I would argue that it isn't language that perpetuates rape culture, but that it is rape culture that perpetuates language. You can try to force people to not say things, but that won't affect the way they think. This preoccupation with language is superficial. Our primary concern should be the destruction of the patriarchy and our cultural association of sex and violence/power. If that ever happens, this type of language won't have any psychological foundation, in any gender context.

[Invader Zim]

Let's take some of the opening premises to this article:

"We tell people to “go f*ck themselves” when we’re angry. We’ll “tear you a new one” when we’re insulting. We “force ourselves” to do a myriad of tasks, “hit on someone” when we flirt, and tell (mostly) women to “suck it” when their power is threatening to us."


We tell people to “go f*ck themselves” when we’re angry.

Yes, but what has this got to do with violence - unless masterbation is 'violent'? Is this the 19th century?


We’ll “tear you a new one” when we’re insulting.

This has a little more validity, but clearly in virtually every application this does not actually mean that a person intends to literally 'rip' a person.


We “force ourselves” to do a myriad of tasks

How is this a remotely 'violent' comment? Does this mean that, by extention the term, 'forced my hand' relates to anything other than a card game metaphore?


“hit on someone” when we flirt,

Again, does the term 'hit' here mean something violent? If you play tennis and hit a backhand down the line and your opponent congratulates you for having 'hit the target' does that suggest violence, sexual or otherwise?


and tell (mostly) women to “suck it”First, the term 'suck' is hardly 'violent'. Second, is this term actually gendered in the respect explicity suggested by the author? The answer is that it is not.

That’s a lot of violence right there.

No, it is not 'violence' by any useful definition of the term.


You’ve probably also noticed that that’s a lot of sexual violence.

No, because the initial premise is false.


This language might, on the surface, seem unimportant or coincidental, but as any linguist (or feminist) knows, our language shapes the way (http://www.gwashingtonhs.org/ourpages/auto/2013/10/23/68598699/sci-am-2011.pdf) we see our world.

First, this is a universal appeal to an unspecified authority - and I happen to know plenty of linguists, personally, who would laugh at the above suggestions as being examples of 'sexual violence' or even sexually violent language. Second, rather than pointing us to the study which proves a causal link between language and behaviour, we instead get a couple of pages from a popular science magazine. This isn't that far removed from the bullshit arguments that violent language and depiction in films, novels and video games cause actual violence.
When we consider the fact that 1-in-3 women and 1-in-6 men (http://www.woar.org/resources/sexual-assualt-statistics.php) will be victims of sexual violence, it’s not surprising that it is a massive focal point in our speech.

The link doesn't work. But these statistics are not built on actual recorded crime or even reported crime, rather they are built on small scale statistical studies which are then used to extrapolate wider trends.

This kind of research, which takes small data sets and then extrapolates that data to cover entire societies (in this case the entire world), which results in outlandish claims like 2.5 million people in the US each year are saved from rape/murder because they used personal firearms, which is obviously untrue.


It’s not surprising that threatening sexual assault is the primary way that we engage in verbal warfare.

Another claim buiolt on a false, or at least unsupported, premise. Telling someone to 'fuck off', to call them an 'asshole', a 'wanker', or even a '****', is not a threat of 'sexual violence'. Calling a person a '****' is problematic for reasons which we need not get into here, but it is not a 'threat'.

At this point, I grow bored. Suffice to say the artile is written by an idiot - and no, that is not a threat, gendered or 'violent'. It is, however, the only reasonable conclusion to take based on the evidence presented in the article.

[The Disillusionist]

There is a two-way road between language and our perception of the world. Language shapes our perception of the world, yes, but our perception of the world shapes our language as well. I would argue that our perception of the world is the most important half of that equation, and so, while changing our use of language could be a start, it is not, and will not, be a complete solution.

But I do think that the majority of examples that have been given here shouldn't be used anymore, if not for progress then for principle (which is progress).