Oppressive terminology [Archive]

'Discourse Unlimited'

11th June 2005, 18:23

Against "races"
nigga
nigger

I've never used those words "offensively" in my life (though I've had to quote them in essays), nor have I heard them used in such a way by anyone I know. Yet they appear all too frequently in rap music - at least, the stuff I've heard - as a familiar term of address between hip-hopping comrades. ( :P )

Has the meaning of the word changed? - I would argue: yes.
So, is it "safe" for me to use the word? - No, of course not!
And why should this be the case?

Why indeed? I think it's because of context, and the immutable nature of words. This is why "gay" can appear on a banner as a wholly positive term (i.e. "Gay Pride"), and also be used in an insulting fashion - "Don't be so f***ing gay!" It's why a black man can say: "What's up, niggah?". And why I (whitey) can't. Plus, people can interpret words in any number of ways.

Taboos of this kind only encourage racist / homophobic ( / any other prejudice you can name) behaviour. By attaching a "negative" connotation to a word, you increase its "insulting potential". Of course, those of us who would never dream of using "racist language" (most of the people on this board, I would imagine) still won't - but anyone wishing to do so finds their "power" enhanced...

Incidentally, I find that (ignorant) people often use "comrade" in this way - as if to say: "Hah! Red scum! Your brothers in the Soviet Union doing ok? Take your Bolshie nonsense elsewhere!" You get the idea. :)

MarxItUpSome

11th June 2005, 18:30

Originally posted by 'Discourse Unlimited'@Jun 11 2005, 05:23 PM

Against "races"
nigga
nigger

I've never used those words "offensively" in my life (though I've had to quote them in essays), nor have I heard them used in such a way by anyone I know. Yet they appear all too frequently in rap music - at least, the stuff I've heard - as a familiar term of address between hip-hopping comrades. ( :P )
I think that this usage of the word "nigger" (or "nigga") came about because of the negative conotations it had - it was a symbol of oppression and so was used by the oppressed for comradeship and the knowledge that there were others like you who were badly treated and you could take comfort in knowing you were not alone.

redstar2000

11th June 2005, 20:33

It seems to me that the words "****" and "dick" are unnecessarily gender-specific...the word "asshole" is gender-neutral and conveys the same meaning, as do other words -- bastard, turd, shit, fuck, etc.

There's no legitimate use of the words "slut", "whore", "*****", "skank","puta", etc. that I can think of. They convey misogynism, no matter how they're used.

"Queer" is acceptable to a wide part of the gay community. (There's even an academic field called "Queer Studies".)

"Faggot" and "fag" are not acceptable.

Even though the word "nigger" is widely used among some younger black people, I think over-all it is unacceptable.

"Nigga", on the other hand, seems to be "ok"...but not if used by people who are not black. Caution is advised!

"Negro" is, by now, archaic...I can't even remember it being used except possibly in a History thread about W.E.B. DuBois.

From the posts made by our U.K. comrades, I gather that "paki" is unacceptable; the acceptable word is "Pakistani".

So the words that seem to cause problems on this board are

****
dick
slut
whore
*****
skank
puta
faggot
fag
nigger
paki

We are presently discussing in the CC the possible use of the "bad word filter" to remove these words whenever someone posts them...and possibly replacing them with the phrase "[sexist/racist term deleted by RevLeft]".

And additional words may be added if they emerge as problems.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

RedStarOverChina

11th June 2005, 21:02

It seems to me that the words "****" and "dick" are unnecessarily gender-specific...

Now you are talking. Then pray tell, why did I get a warning for implying "suck my dick" when I didn't even know the person I was arguing with was a girl?

bed_of_nails

11th June 2005, 21:17

I have to admit I am offended by not even a slap on the wrist of Cthenthar when he referred to people (including females) as ****s.

I dont think "lady" is a sexist term at all. Would someone explain to me how the term "lady" is sexist?

I learned several new words from this thread though.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th June 2005, 21:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 07:33 PM
It seems to me that the words "****" and "dick" are unnecessarily gender-specific...the word "asshole" is gender-neutral and conveys the same meaning, as do other words -- bastard, turd, shit, fuck, etc.

I don't see what the problem is here; both words are taboo references to genitalia, it's not as if only male or female genitalia are taboo. I use either word randomly when insulting someone, so I don't see where discrimination comes in.

From a linguistic/aesthetic viewpoint, **** and dick are better insults because they are 'plosive' - the words actually have force behind them when spoken, whereas with arsehole you have to roar the word to really show your disapproval.

11th June 2005, 22:35

Elect Marx

11th June 2005, 22:49

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 11 2005, 09:37 AM
I agree with Black Dagger, we really can't say that "gay" or "lesbian" are inherently offensive terms.

I think they shold be taken off that list.
Well, "inherently," wasn't really a part of the initial idea but this is a good point.

So I have added "* = contextually dependent" to help; these are words that depend on usage.

Black Dagger

11th June 2005, 22:52

if you're going to ban "****"...like to not ban "dick" as well woudl be sexism against males??

We should ban, 'cracka' too i suppose? :P

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th June 2005, 22:54

I still find the idea that using the word '****' can mysteriously turn me into a raging misogynist ridiculous - I use the word almost everyday and I don't think about it once.

Elect Marx

11th June 2005, 22:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 03:35 PM
'****' is so much more offensive of an insult then 'dick' though...'dick' is very mild, probably more mild then 'asshole', but '****' is among the most offensive insults. If "dick" refers to male genitals i think "pussy" is closer to a 'female equviolent to 'dick'.' I'm not sure if any insult describing male genitals is as offensive as '****' but 'prick' is probably closer in severity then 'dick.'

there was a "curb your enthusiasm" episode about this :-p.

Its just so way too PC to want to ban the word "dick" if you're going to ban "****"...like to not ban "dick" as well woudl be sexism against males??
I see your point but really, the reason "****" is often considered unacceptable is because it has been used to reduce a person in a sexual way just as other words basically dehumanize people to a greater or lesser extent.

Of course, dick, or **** could be meant otherwise but so could gay.

EXAMPLES:

These people are ****s!

These people are gay!

In both circumstances gender or sexual orientation may not be intended but gay is considered unacceptable.
Perhaps dick, is just a "lesser" slur but when is it okay?

The idea is that we should set standards.

Elect Marx

11th June 2005, 23:03

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 11 2005, 03:52 PM

if you're going to ban "****"...like to not ban "dick" as well woudl be sexism against males??

We should ban, 'cracka' too i suppose? :P
I don't need that word :P So fine by me.

Black Dagger

11th June 2005, 23:03

I personally don't have a problem with 'dick', there's just no historical or social weight to its 'opression'.

I still find the idea that using the word '****' can mysteriously turn me into a raging misogynist ridiculous - I use the word almost everyday and I don't think about it once.

Using the word '****' does not make you a misogynist, the point of this thread/filter is filter out words that really offensive/prejudiced, can you not see that '****' is both of those? That is all that is required, you can still use it in real life, we can't censor your personal speech- yet!

LSD

11th June 2005, 23:18

So I have added "* = contextually dependent" to help; these are words that depend on usage.

Exactly.

The use of gay to refer to someone who is actually homosexual is not insulting. But using the word gay as a nagative adjective as in "that's so gay" is.

Likewise, although you don't see it as much, for adjectives related to any other group. Like saying "he's Jewy" to mean cheap or "he's a womany" to mean weak.

Of course these are words which we cannot block out like we can with inherently offensive terms like "fag" or "****". It, as you say, all depends on context. So even if we adpot some sort of automatic replacement scheme, we'll still have to look out for the thing that it can't catch.

I guess that just means we're not out of a job yet! :lol:

Joseph

11th June 2005, 23:48

:D Wow... you guys are good at this.... too good to be novices... where did you get all your practice?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

11th June 2005, 23:57

Using the word '****' does not make you a misogynist, the point of this thread/filter is filter out words that really offensive/prejudiced, can you not see that '****' is both of those? That is all that is required, you can still use it in real life, we can't censor your personal speech- yet!

I've yet to see a rational explaination as to exactly why **** is degrading to women while dick/prick isn't degrading to men - I don't feel degraded when people use taboo names for my genitalia as an insult, so why should women?
One is only chained by words if they let themselves be chained.

12th June 2005, 00:23

Well reminding someone of their status in a socially more powerful group is never degrading even if its insulting. I don't think for instance that a white person can be degraded by "whitey" the same way a black person can be degraded by "nigger" or that a straight person can be degraded by "breeder" the way a gay person can be degraded by "faggot."

To "degrade" someone is to literally reduce their grade, to lower their status, which is percisely why words that refer to whites, straights, males, anglo-saxons, upper classes, educated people, ect. are not as offensive.

And in this specific case, the words are just not used in the same way, if someone calls someone a 'dick' they're not trying to cause as much offense as if they call someone a '****.' Probably a fairly equally offensive thing to call a guy would be "cocksucker."

bed_of_nails

12th June 2005, 00:31

Nobody has answered my question though.

How is "lady" offensive?

12th June 2005, 00:48

it could be condecending if used as an adjective or if "young" or "old" were in front of it?

Joseph

12th June 2005, 00:53

How about "you suck!"... a lot of people consider this derogatory against gay people.

12th June 2005, 00:57

lol gay people aren't the only people who 'suck'

I think 'suck' is really pretty abstract now though cause you can say things like "that sucks" "this sucks" ect. Its not personified the way the other words are...its like a milder version of 'fuck' which is also used mostly abstractly.

In fact can "suck" ever refer to oral sex if its not made more specific? Two guy's say "we sucked" they mean "we were loserly" not "we went down on each other" lol.

aztecklaw

12th June 2005, 01:09

Undocumented immigrant - a very neutral term that wouldn't suggest anything but does identify them easily.

Illegal Alien - a very, very negative term to use and causes an instant reaction of bad and negative feelings.

12th June 2005, 01:18

but not all 'illigal aliens' are 'undocumented immigrants.'

apathy maybe

12th June 2005, 04:04

The way you use words attaches meaning to those words. Words do not mean anything more or less then what you read into them.

The only trouble is when either, a word is used in one way and is interpreted another way (Olmarxo, I think, used the word gay), or is understood perfectly well by both sides to be offensive (you fucking dickhead loser ****).

However, there are some words that have a history of offensive usage, though are now sometimes used in a way that is not meant offensively. These words should not be used unless it is clear that no offence is meant.

A note on automatic changing of words, you don't really want to do it I don't think. It can have unforseen consequences. (The following is a deliberate example.)

Originally posted by BOFH

"Well let's see." >clickety< "Ah-ha! Your first hit was in a message to me, using the word 'bloody' which has a score of five. That in itself isn't offensive, until you used the word 'shit', which is 80 and meant an instant rejection."

"Where?" the Boss asks, as the PFY brings up the message concerned.

"I didn't say shit, I said 'finish it'."

"Sneaky, but we noticed it anyway."

encephalon

12th June 2005, 05:01

'****' is so much more offensive of an insult then 'dick' though...'dick' is very mild, probably more mild then 'asshole', but '****' is among the most offensive insults. If "dick" refers to male genitals i think "pussy" is closer to a 'female equviolent to 'dick'.' I'm not sure if any insult describing male genitals is as offensive as '****' but 'prick' is probably closer in severity then 'dick.'

there was a "curb your enthusiasm" episode about this :-p.

Its just so way too PC to want to ban the word "dick" if you're going to ban "****"...like to not ban "dick" as well woudl be sexism against males??

Why is "****" so much more offensive than "dick"? Because of social standards, no more. "****" is a mutation of the latin "cunnus" and greek "chonnos." It has become a "dirty word" solely because the lower classes used it in medieval europe. That's how most cuss-words develop: they're considered "uncouth" by the upper classes and therefore not fitting for discussion, sooner or later becoming completely taboo. And if we are basing the offensiveness of the word on social standards alone, we'd have to ban a lot more than body parts.

It seems to me that the words "****" and "dick" are unnecessarily gender-specific...the word "asshole" is gender-neutral and conveys the same meaning, as do other words -- bastard, turd, shit, fuck, etc.

Is not bastard specific to actual bastards in the same manner dick is to male and **** is to female?

I am not offended in the slightest by the overall use of "****" or "dick." The former can be used in a misogynistic manner, in the same way "lady" can be misogynistic, but RZ's post was not.

If we're going to base it solely on the fact that it is a gender-specific body part, then shall we get rid of all gender-specific language? Because the same principle applies if the word is only a body-part expletive and not by nature an oppressive term.

Is it insulting? Of course it's insulting to be called a taboo body part. That's why people use it. Is it oppressive? I see no reason to believe so, and nobody has stated a reason.

People are just throwing out expletives that are merely insulting to the receiver rather than state particular reasons why such words would be oppressive. I would agree with 90% of those already stated, but banning body parts just because they're gender specific? I think that's going too far.

Palmares

12th June 2005, 07:43

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+Jun 12 2005, 06:17 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ Jun 12 2005, 06:17 AM) I have to admit I am offended by not even a slap on the wrist of Cthenthar when he referred to people (including females) as ****s. [/b]
Errrr... I don't remember ever using that term at RevLeft. encephalon tells me you may have mistaken me for RedZeppelin.

Originally posted by [email protected]
I dont think "lady" is a sexist term at all. Would someone explain to me how the term "lady" is sexist?

I love the wiki!

Wikipedia
Non-sexist language guidelines forbid its use to refer attributively to the sex of a working person, as in lady lawyer and lady doctor. Many find these to have a condescending nuance not shared by female lawyer or woman doctor (should the sex be relevant at all); compare poetess for a similar problem.

Some advocates of non-sexist language recommend not using the word at all, whereas others permit its parallel use in the same circumstances in which a man would be called a gentleman or lord (for example, titling washrooms Men and Ladies would be considered sexist, but using either Men and Women or Ladies and Gentlemen would be acceptable; as is landlady as the parallel of landlord.)

I think there is also a bearing in it being sexist as related to traditional gender roles, in that a lady also refers to a woman who needs to be looked after by a man: old-fashioned-ness.

Elect Marx

12th June 2005, 09:00

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe+Jun 11 2005, 09:04 PM--> (Apathy Maybe @ Jun 11 2005, 09:04 PM) The only trouble is when either, a word is used in one way and is interpreted another way (Olmarxo, I think, used the word gay), or is understood perfectly well by both sides to be offensive (you fucking dickhead loser ****). [/b]
No; he said "fag."

Warning Log
OleMarxo:
verbal warning - posting "fags" - The Best of Ian (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=32501&st=20) - 313C7 iVi4RX

I am trying to log (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36480) these instances so people know the facts.

Raisa

12th June 2005, 10:57

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 11 2005, 12:05 PM
I don't know about that one though and, discuss...

Black Dagger

I refer to myself as heterosexual when it comes up; I use scientific terms because they apply and are inclusive; though I could also use LGBT.
Right; this is the point of discussion. I would assume this means using "lady" in a derogatory way...

When can you use Lady in a derogatory way?!!!

Raisa

12th June 2005, 10:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 11:53 PM
How about "you suck!"... a lot of people consider this derogatory against gay people.
I think it is derogatory against vacuums, and should be filtered.

COme on yall, vacuums do so much for us :(

Elect Marx

12th June 2005, 11:26

PLEASE READ THIS EVERYONE!

Originally posted by Cthenthar+Jun 12 2005, 12:43 AM--> (Cthenthar @ Jun 12 2005, 12:43 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
I dont think "lady" is a sexist term at all. Would someone explain to me how the term "lady" is sexist?

I love the wiki!

Wikipedia
Non-sexist language guidelines forbid its use to refer attributively to the sex of a working person, as in lady lawyer and lady doctor. Many find these to have a condescending nuance not shared by female lawyer or woman doctor (should the sex be relevant at all); compare poetess for a similar problem.

Some advocates of non-sexist language recommend not using the word at all, whereas others permit its parallel use in the same circumstances in which a man would be called a gentleman or lord (for example, titling washrooms Men and Ladies would be considered sexist, but using either Men and Women or Ladies and Gentlemen would be acceptable; as is landlady as the parallel of landlord.)[/b]

RevolverNo9

12th June 2005, 12:53

Well yes okay, it may sometimes be slightly condescending to refer to a woman professional as a 'lady doctor' (though the only examples of this that come to my mind is a mother to her child on American TV). So is young man in the same way. Neither term is inherently oppressive. At its extreme it is just patronising. Imagine the word filter fun we'll have!

When Marx was a [CENSORED: SEXIST, OPRESSIVE, BOURGEOIS FILTH] he aligned himself with the Young Hegelians

Lets face it, being called a dick is considerably less offensive then being called an arsehole. And any man who claims to feel his sex opressed by such a term is a liar. The currency of **** has nothing to do with its gender reference. A man gets offended by being called a ****, because it's probably the most caustic, personal one-word insult we have.

And yes it is offense when 'gay' is used as derogatory slang. However, people trying to protect the gay community from terms such as gay and queer (lesbain someone said? When is that offensive?) are often subconsciously allowing patriarchy by proxy and, at it's worse, self importance.

It rather reminds me of all those chauvanist Troyskyists in the 70's who ordered other women to join a women's group! How can they not be aware of the irony! All reminds me of that passage in Monty Python and The Quest for the Holy Grail... ("You were in great perilous danger." "Oh I don't think I was!" "Yes you were, perilous danger.")

Just be careful about letting legitimate objections turn into arrogant impositions. Just hope no-one from the UK smokes fags here...

Hiero

12th June 2005, 13:45

The word '****' has sex context when used. Although the word '****' can mean a vagina, at least in Australian society in a age group from say 14 to 30 i have noticed this word is most used only from males and directed to males and is rarely used in front, directed to or pruduce from a women.

It hardly makes sense though using the word '****' to mean someone is acting like a vagina, it is used mostly to say someone is being a prick.

On the word Nigger or Nigga if you believe there is a differece, Chuck D in one of his speaches said that at no one point black people decided to just turn the word around and use it in the African American community. I dont know which speach but at the end of one of the songs on Fine Arts Militia first cd it has the bit of the speach where he says that.

Sir Aunty Christ

12th June 2005, 17:10

I personally have never referred to a woman as a ****, because it just doesn't seem right. I do agree - mainly through talking with women - that it is one of the most offensive words.

I don't think gay is offensive. If you say for example, "He is gay" That's true in the context that even homosexuals use the word. But if you say, "He is a gay," I think that is more offensive because of the inclusion of the word "a" it's as if you're saying that homosexuals are a different species. As for "lesbian", well, lesbians call themselves lesbians.

Holocaustpulp

12th June 2005, 22:03

"Suppressing" the bourgeois during the dictatorship of the proletariat is not the right terminology, though it is used by Marx. The proper term is "defend against" the bourgeois, as the socialist movement (being the majority) would indeed need to denfend the revolution.

I can't think of any others right now.

- HP

RedSkinheadUltra

13th June 2005, 05:59

Banning words? :o

Oppressive terminology? :huh:

What the hell is this thread? :(

Elect Marx

13th June 2005, 06:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 10:59 PM
Banning words? :o

Oppressive terminology? :huh:

What the hell is this thread? :(
Did you READ it?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th June 2005, 06:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 04:59 AM
Banning words? :o

Oppressive terminology? :huh:

What the hell is this thread? :(
It's an example of how screwed up the modern left is, to the extent that they argue over words.

Instead of banning racists, we wrangle over terminology.

Elect Marx

13th June 2005, 06:27

Originally posted by NoXion+Jun 12 2005, 11:23 PM--> (NoXion @ Jun 12 2005, 11:23 PM)
[email protected] 13 2005, 04:59 AM
Banning words? :o

Oppressive terminology? :huh:

What the hell is this thread? :(
It's an example of how screwed up the modern left is, to the extent that they argue over words.

Instead of banning racists, we wrangle over terminology. [/b]
Wheren't you the one dispution the difference between racism and racialism? :unsure:

RedSkinheadUltra

13th June 2005, 06:30

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Jun 13 2005, 05:21 AM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Jun 13 2005, 05:21 AM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 10:59 PM
Banning words? :o

Oppressive terminology? :huh:

What the hell is this thread? :(
Did you READ it? [/b]
You find nothing odd, not to say disturbing, about going into excruciating detail on what words should be deemed "acceptable" and "unacceptable."

Words do not oppress. Banning expressions or terminology does not solve the problem.

That's like saying outlawing drug use and criminal activity will prevent it from happening.

We should be looking at he root cause of these problems and figure out how they can be solved.

Elect Marx

13th June 2005, 06:34

Originally posted by RedSkinheadUltra+Jun 12 2005, 11:30 PM--> (RedSkinheadUltra @ Jun 12 2005, 11:30 PM)
Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 13 2005, 05:21 AM

[email protected] 12 2005, 10:59 PM
Banning words? :o

Oppressive terminology? :huh:

What the hell is this thread? :(
Did you READ it?
You find nothing odd, not to say disturbing, about going into excruciating detail on what words should be deemed "acceptable" and "unacceptable."

Words do not oppress. Banning expressions or terminology does not solve the problem.

That's like saying outlawing drug use and criminal activity will prevent it from happening.

We should be looking at he root cause of these problems and figure out how they can be solved. [/b]
I agree; I think you missed the point of this thread. We are trying to determine what statements are offensive and show why.

RedSkinheadUltra

13th June 2005, 06:40

I'm with George Carlin on this one. :lol:

Palmares

13th June 2005, 06:40

Though banning such words has been mentioned, it is not, in itself, the reason for this thread.

For the most part, I see the reason for certain words being oppressive is related to them having a historical context of oppression. They are not intrinsically oppressive, but their history cannot simply be ignored or divorced from it.

RedSkinheadUltra

13th June 2005, 07:59

I'd just hate to see this forum turn into something similiar to that "other forum" where loons spell like this:

"AmeriKKKa is oppressive. The U$ labor aristocracy..." and so on.

People should be free to express themselves with the words they wish. It matters much more what the context is and what the person's intention is.

Palmares

13th June 2005, 08:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 04:59 PM
It matters much more what the context is and what the person's intention is
But they are not the only factors, thus they should not be treated only by those factors.

Hiero

13th June 2005, 08:26

Whats wrong with a bit of linguistics?

RedSkinheadUltra

13th June 2005, 08:26

I said that's what is most important. You can't judge someone simply for the words they use if you don't know their intention.

It's impossible and, more importantly, wrong to expect people to bite their tongue in fear they MIGHT offend SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE.

Words should not been seen as being oppressive or non-oppressive.

People demand words to be changed all the time and the problem is never solved, it is evaded. Replacing things with softer sounding or neutral terms is pointless and irritating as hell.

RedSkinheadUltra

13th June 2005, 08:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 07:26 AM
Whats wrong with a bit of linguistics?
Nothing. I'm fascinated by linguistics but this seems like hysterical leftism.

(Don't get me wrong. I'm just offering my opinion; I'm not shaking my fists in the air over this.) ;)

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

13th June 2005, 09:53

I'm with RedSkinHeadUltra on this one.

And I never proposed to replace the word 'racism' with 'racialism' - I used to want to differentiate between the two, but I now I recognise racialism as simply a more eloquent form of racism.

Elect Marx

13th June 2005, 11:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:26 AM
I said that's what is most important. You can't judge someone simply for the words they use if you don't know their intention.
That is really part of the point of this thread.

It's impossible and, more importantly, wrong to expect people to bite their tongue in fear they MIGHT offend SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE.

Words should not been seen as being oppressive or non-oppressive.

People demand words to be changed all the time and the problem is never solved, it is evaded. Replacing things with softer sounding or neutral terms is pointless and irritating as hell.

Now where did this come in on this thread? An oppressive word is one people rightfully assosite with roots in oppression. I suspect people are injecting their own agendas in these posts and I really don't want to see this topic diverted.

*Hippie*

13th June 2005, 13:22

As a woman, I feel "****" is the most degrading word to be called. Slut, whore, ***** are used so often they just don't carry the same weight.
I had an abusive boyfriend once who called me a "****" when he was angry and on one of his drunken rages. When someone speaks to you that way, it is degrading.
Some people may not like to see certain words which would bring back a memory of a time when the word was meant to degrade them.

redstar2000

13th June 2005, 14:52

Regrettably, the proposal to filter out at least some of this oppressive language is trailing in the CC vote (13-20) at this writing...and looks like it will be defeated.

Hippie's post is instructive; the use of a certain word may not feel oppressive to you...but there are obvious oppressive effects on others.

Namely, the targets of those words.

Originally posted by RedSkinheadUltra
It's impossible and, more importantly, wrong to expect people to bite their tongue in fear they MIGHT offend SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE.

It's not merely a matter of "offending" someone; I'm sure my sometimes scathing criticism of another's political views are often highly offensive to them...and I don't give a rat's ass.

This is different...and I think you know damn well it's different.

The casual use of words that are known to be degrading to entire groups is indefensible by anyone with leftist aspirations.

The filter would have eliminated a lot of that crap...and forced the person who used such language to stop and think about what they really wanted to say.

Instead, this shit will keep coming up...and then we'll hear all the usual excuses -- I was just joking, I didn't mean it that way, everybody in my sub-culture uses the word all the time, and so on.

In my view, an altogether very depressing situation. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Sir Aunty Christ

13th June 2005, 15:12

I think it's a good thing that the filter does not look as if it will come about, not because of issues of free speech, even though there are, but because a lot of "oppressive" words can have a totally different. meaning. For example what if someone's name is Dick? Or the word fag? That word can be used as slang for a cigarette. And the word faggot can mean in Britain:

"a ball of seasoned chopped liver, baked or fried."

There are probably a lot more example which I can't think of and maybe I'm nitpicking but the point is that I don't feel a filter could discriminate properly about context.

Black Dagger

13th June 2005, 17:58

but because a lot of "oppressive" words can have a totally different. meaning. For example what if someone's name is Dick?

There are some words, ****, whore and yes, fag/faggot that rarely have 'a totally different meaning'. Dick was not one of these core words.

Or the word fag? That word can be used as slang for a cigarette.

True, but its just as easy to say cig etc, i don't see why that would be so hard to correct, nor does that particular usage come up very often on these boards (only once that i can recall).

And the word faggot can mean in Britain:

"a ball of seasoned chopped liver, baked or fried."

That usage sounds arhaic, and i doubt very much it would ever be used in that context on the board, which after all is where the filter is being applied.

There are probably a lot more example which I can't think of and maybe I'm nitpicking but the point is that I don't feel a filter could discriminate properly about context.

There are some words for which there is no appropiate context, ****? faggot? The filter would target those types of words.

Bugalu Shrimp

13th June 2005, 19:07

If I am enraged to the point of swearing at someone and call them a "****" or "Twat" - the recipient of this insult would never be a women. A woman I'd call a Cow or Witch.

Sir Aunty Christ

13th June 2005, 19:20

Originally posted by Bugalu [email protected] 13 2005, 06:07 PM
A woman I'd call a Cow or Witch.
Which is another thing, how would a filter differentiate between context for these words which are perfectly normal - although maybe not in the context Bugalu Shrimp is talking about?

romanm

13th June 2005, 20:13

The Maoist Internationalist Movement has done great work in this area. If you go to the web page (check sig) and search, you can find some good articles.

Elect Marx

13th June 2005, 20:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 01:13 PM
The Maoist Internationalist Movement has done great work in this area. If you go to the web page (check sig) and search, you can find some good articles.
Really? Thanks; but I looked around a little and couldn't find it. Could you link us?

guerillablack

14th June 2005, 01:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:59 AM
I'd just hate to see this forum turn into something similiar to that "other forum" where loons spell like this:

"AmeriKKKa is oppressive. The U$ labor aristocracy..." and so on.

People should be free to express themselves with the words they wish. It matters much more what the context is and what the person's intention is.
and waht forum is this?

'Discourse Unlimited'

14th June 2005, 23:40

It's impossible and, more importantly, wrong to expect people to bite their tongue in fear they MIGHT offend SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE.

Words should not been seen as being oppressive or non-oppressive.

People demand words to be changed all the time and the problem is never solved, it is evaded. Replacing things with softer sounding or neutral terms is pointless and irritating as hell.

I agree. I think part of the fuss about 'offensive terminology' is indeed "hysterical leftism", as someone put it. (I forget who...) Political correctness (a related term?) is monstrous, and I can't stand it. I read somewhere that there was a proposal afoot to ban crosses on tombstones, for fear that Muslims might be offended. The same thing happened to "Hot Cross Buns" at Easter-time. (Perhaps religious examples aren't the best to use - but they're easy to find, and the principle is the same!) It's ludicrous!!

Words are, in fact, just words. Context is all. "Motherfucker" has often been used as a casual substitute for "Why, you rogue!" over here (U.K. - don't know about America), but think what the word implies! I've even heard it used in an 'admiring' fashion... * Occasionaly. The rest of the time, it's a hideous insult. So... So what? They're words, nothing more!

Besides, "ban" (or strongly discourage) the use of a particular word, and another will spring up. It'll mean the same thing - so we'll ban that... Yada yada yada.

That usage [faggots] sounds arhaic, and i doubt very much it would ever be used in that context on the board, which after all is where the filter is being applied.

Actually, it isn't. I used to stack "Mr. Brain's Pork Faggots" in the freezers at work. They sold really well - and they're damn tasty, too. Second point - yeah, fair enough. :)

* - Has anyone else ever come across casual swearing? I'm sure it can't just be me... :P Seriously though, back home, my nominal 'boss' at work referred to anyone who arrived late (male, female, whatever) as a "lazy ****". '****' could be replaced with 'tosser', 'git', 'bastard', 'fuck' - you get the idea. In this context, they all mean the same thing!

romanm

15th June 2005, 01:19

In response to guerrillablack:

Black Panther and Maoist spellings are encouraged at:

It's Right To Rebel Forums marxleninmao.proboards43.com

romanm

15th June 2005, 01:27

You find nothing odd, not to say disturbing, about going into excruciating detail on what words should be deemed "acceptable" and "unacceptable."

Words do not oppress. Banning expressions or terminology does not solve the problem.

That's like saying outlawing drug use and criminal activity will prevent it from happening.

We should be looking at he root cause of these problems and figure out how they can be solved.

Just so everyone is aware. "RedSKINHEAD", a chauvinist and a Trotskyist, he actually supported the banning of Black Panther spellings on the fascist e-g forums, he joined in attacking the Maoists and anti-fascists forces. He mocked Black Panther spellings along with the rest of the rabid racists over there. In addition when the Maoists and other forces exposed the fascism on e-g, he sat on the sideline contributing nothing to the struggle. He would rather attack the Black Panther spellings than fight fascism, tells you how out of wack his priorities are. Soon after their spelling were banned, the Maoists who exposed fascism fascism over there were banned aswell. All the while Skinhead was snickering with his new found fascist buddies.

In any case, just a heads up.

Vallegrande

15th June 2005, 02:03

About the word ****, I learned that this word was used as a complement (long time ago). Same thing with fag and gay, and all these other words that used to have no negative meaning.

apathy maybe

15th June 2005, 06:50

Me. I am going to go and find some faggots, stack 'em all up and burn them when I next go camping. 'Cause I like a good fire.

Then I'm going to ring my mate Dick and persade him that ****ries are bad things and should be abolished.

Then I'll go and look at some Homo sapien neanderthalensis skulls in my local museum.

Then I call Whitey and Blacky (my dogs) and go for a walk.

Then I'll smoke some weed in a boong.

Then I'll nip 'round to my local shop and buy some Coon Cheese.

(I don't even know what skank and puta mean!)

Elect Marx

15th June 2005, 09:22

I am getting really tired of the topic of censorship being mangled in with this thread; if people don't want to address the initial subject; the thread can always be split.

EnragÃ©

15th June 2005, 22:13

why cant i bloody call some girl a chick? Fuck, most of them like it :P

bed_of_nails

15th June 2005, 23:57

Skanking is also a form of dance.

romanm

16th June 2005, 01:14

Amerikkka
Wimmin
Womyn
United $nakes
u$
u$a
KKKanada
I$rael
persynal
humyn
Bu$h
Wa$hington
Koncentration Kamps
uncle $am
Eng(poundsign)and

These are a few I have seen.

Elect Marx

16th June 2005, 05:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:13 PM
why cant i bloody call some girl a chick? Fuck, most of them like it :P
Not any I've ever known...

EnragÃ©

16th June 2005, 13:16

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Jun 16 2005, 04:03 AM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Jun 16 2005, 04:03 AM)
[email protected] 15 2005, 03:13 PM
why cant i bloody call some girl a chick? Fuck, most of them like it :P
Not any I've ever known... [/b]
well, NOT when you use it in a demeaning way, but you dont have to say it like that. I dont mean like "whoa, that chick's got nice tits" cuz thats just sexist.

Fuck sexism :angry: :P

C_Rasmussen

24th June 2005, 01:35

What the fuck is wrong with the term lady? I think you guys are a bit to strict. Seriously one would think that the word lady would be respectful.

Raisa

24th June 2005, 07:24

Originally posted by Bugalu [email protected] 13 2005, 06:07 PM
If I am enraged to the point of swearing at someone and call them a "****" or "Twat" - the recipient of this insult would never be a women. A woman I'd call a Cow or Witch.
See thats the thing. I dont see why you got to call anyone anything.

This is the internet. And this is an educational messageboard. That shit is stupid.

Take it outside.

Vallegrande

24th June 2005, 08:59

I've been looking at the history of **** and it used to not have negative meaning to it, until a few hundred years back, when it started referring to prostitution, etc.

An interesting thing I learned is how **** was hidden in a phrase. For instance, "cunning stunts" can be changed to "stunning ****s", or "cunny funts", etc.

Bugalu Shrimp

28th June 2005, 13:40

Originally posted by Raisa+Jun 24 2005, 06:24 AM--> (Raisa @ Jun 24 2005, 06:24 AM)
Bugalu [email protected] 13 2005, 06:07 PM
If I am enraged to the point of swearing at someone and call them a "****" or "Twat" - the recipient of this insult would never be a women. A woman I'd call a Cow or Witch.
See thats the thing. I dont see why you got to call anyone anything.

This is the internet. And this is an educational messageboard. That shit is stupid.

Take it outside. [/b]
:blink: I've never called anyone any of those things on an internet message board. I'm civil in cyberspace. And rarely in real life am I driven to spout obscenities. So.. What are you on about duck?

Vallegrande

28th June 2005, 19:27

When sudden events happen, we can't help saying what comes to the top of our head, like all those four letter words. Like when I see Bush on stage, I can't help thinking "you mother__ucker, coc__suckin', dirty son of a B___!!!".

Events like Bush's speeches, etc., make me combine words together to fit the way I feel about the situation.

JazzRemington

28th June 2005, 19:34

I try not to use oppressive phrases and wha tnot, but sometimes when I get mad my anger gets the best of me.

coda

5th July 2005, 06:27

<<****' is so much more offensive of an insult then 'dick' though...'dick' is very mild, probably more mild then 'asshole', but '****' is among the most offensive insults. If "dick" refers to male genitals i think "pussy" is closer to a 'female equviolent to 'dick'.' I'm not sure if any insult describing male genitals is as offensive as '****' but 'prick' is probably closer in severity then 'dick.'

there was a "curb your enthusiasm" episode about this :-p.

Its just so way too PC to want to ban the word "dick" if you're going to ban "****"...like to not ban "dick" as well woudl be sexism against males??>>>

I didn't read the whole thread here, so if this has already been covered...

"dick" always has meant ignorance.. someone who has a moment of extreme lack of knowledge.
"Pussy" means wimp or wuss.. someone without much courage..
"prick" means jerk .. someone who goes out of their way to be obnoxious and offensive.
"asshole" means jerk also, but they can't help it like "prick'" can, they are born that way and probably will never change.

it's better to be a dick than an asshole, however, as dicks have their moments when they aren't dicks.. but asshole will always be assholes, there's no changing that.

personally, I would rather be called "****" than any of the above. "****" for me has always been a great compliment. It's usually used as the last ammo and in my experience it's the sign that the name-caller has conceded and is going to bed and the "****" has won that round.

Vallegrande

5th July 2005, 19:33

We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit! - Team America
I just had to put that in there.

Sir Aunty Christ

8th July 2005, 15:08

After a run in with some stupid spammers I've realised that the word "spastic" is personally offensive.

Vallegrande

8th July 2005, 20:07

"
****" for me has always been a great compliment.
lol yeah, its true though that word used to be a compliment, historically.

coda

9th July 2005, 03:16

hey, forget historically -- it's a compliment right now!! :)

I think scumbag is the worst to call someone -- the cesspool of life.

Black Dagger

9th July 2005, 13:01

what about douche bag? That's probably one of my more common insults :P

jvs

22nd July 2005, 13:44

there seems to be a huge absense of racist terms against people of middle eastern descent. these are very common with recent terrorist attacks. i have included a list below which should be considered oppressive terminology.

Trigger Nigger
Dune Coon
Raghead
Teatowel Head
Terrorist
Osama
Suicide Bomber
Rock Thrower

Mujer Libre

31st July 2005, 10:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 12:35 AM
What the fuck is wrong with the term lady? I think you guys are a bit to strict. Seriously one would think that the word lady would be respectful.
Well considering that we're a revolutionary leftist forum, using a term that implies class is a bit um... stupid.

And the fact that "lady" is supposed "respectful" is a bit of a clue. It's rooted in old-school gender roles and such. Certain behaviours are referred to as "ladylike." Quite patronising really.

Vallegrande

1st August 2005, 04:21

The only time I have heard 'lady' was when my dad got pissed at a driver ahead of him. "Hey lady!"

C_Rasmussen

4th September 2005, 23:25

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+Jul 31 2005, 09:28 AM--> (Mujer Libre @ Jul 31 2005, 09:28 AM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 12:35 AM
What the fuck is wrong with the term lady? I think you guys are a bit to strict. Seriously one would think that the word lady would be respectful.
Well considering that we're a revolutionary leftist forum, using a term that implies class is a bit um... stupid.

And the fact that "lady" is supposed "respectful" is a bit of a clue. It's rooted in old-school gender roles and such. Certain behaviours are referred to as "ladylike." Quite patronising really. [/b]
Quite uppity if you ask me <_<.

slim

5th September 2005, 18:23

Im wondering if "pleb" is an insult or not? It is offensive to call someone a plebian but in Rome there was a certain pride in being a pleb.

This could also be seen with the "N" word where some black people call eachother the word. Is it right to accept the word that some call eachother or is it also wrong and among the list of words not to be said?

Organic Revolution

5th September 2005, 22:09

ive heard that eskimo is a derogatory term, is this true?

Seeker

5th September 2005, 23:47

I think the native peoples of Alaska (and at least some parts of Canada, if not all) prefer to be called by their tribal name - Inuit.

Bannockburn

6th September 2005, 03:16

ive heard that eskimo is a derogatory term, is this true?

Yes. So is Indian, or wagon burner.

Ownthink

6th September 2005, 23:59

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2005, 04:33 PM
Less of the sexist pejoratives please!
Maybe if I didn't see another member of the CC use that same word, I would've thought it wasn't allowed.

That's about as "sexist" as calling a guy a dick.

Still, it's your rules, but as I said, I will obey them, but only if everyone else does (as in you don't warn others for using that language but you warn me? No.)

EDIT: Turns out the CC member who said that word also happens to be a female, and she obviously doesn't find it "sexist", as she posted THIS...

"...And so many of the people in the arena here, you
know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she
chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

Heartless fascist *****"

Whatever.

EDIT AGAIN: Turns out you guys happen to like that word, because I just found a Mod using it. Hah, and I get a warning, but he/she doesn't?

"... Yes I did it myself.
All that big thick beautiful greek hair. I chopped the ***** off!"

Won't be tolerated? My ass.

Whatever.

Xvall

7th September 2005, 00:33

I say ***** all the time and get away with it, though it's usually hurled at males. I don't think Ownthink meant it in any derogatory way.

coda

7th September 2005, 00:43

Somebody posts with the name "*****brew"

More Fire for the People

7th September 2005, 01:35

*****'s Brew is an album by Miles Davis.
I also disagree that "*****" is derogatory towards sex as any gender can be called a *****.

bed_of_nails

7th September 2005, 01:42

If "*****" is on the sexist terms, then "****" and "Twat" have to be on there also.

Commie Girl

7th September 2005, 02:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:00 PM
If "*****" is on the sexist terms, then "****" and "Twat" have to be on there also.
:angry: Uh...definately!

Xvall

7th September 2005, 02:56

Likewise, we must provide equal defense of both sexes. Cock, Dick, and like terms also need to be prohibited.

praxis1966

7th September 2005, 02:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 06:51 PM
I say ***** all the time and get away with it, though it's usually hurled at males. I don't think Ownthink meant it in any derogatory way.
Exactly. As in the sentence, "Right now TAT's acting like a little *****." Which, he is! :lol:

bed_of_nails

7th September 2005, 03:16

Originally posted by Commie Girl+Sep 6 2005, 07:03 PM--> (Commie Girl @ Sep 6 2005, 07:03 PM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 07:00 PM
If "*****" is on the sexist terms, then "****" and "Twat" have to be on there also.
:angry: Uh...definately! [/b]
Sveral members in the CC have been using these words, and TAT called me a **** in one of our arguments. I think its horrible with all of our double-standards.

I really do hate sexism, and would be extremely happy to see these words added to the "dirty dozen".

EneME

7th September 2005, 03:56

wrong thread..oops :wacko:

bed_of_nails

7th September 2005, 05:36

I still dont see how "lady" is oppressive. I use it when I mean respect for someone of the opposite gender.

bombeverything

7th September 2005, 05:54

I don't really like it but I think that is personal. I guess it depends on how you say it.

bed_of_nails

7th September 2005, 06:07

I dont see how it is sexist in any sense. To me it merely defines gender and respect.

praxis1966

7th September 2005, 06:22

Gay and lesbian definately need to be removed from the list. Hasn't anyone here ever heard of the Gay and Lesbian Coalition? It's only the single largest gay rights organization in the U$. Negro probably should go as well, if for no better reason than it would make it impossible to quote any civil rights activist who did his/her work prior to 1970. I find the prospect of being forced to censor Malcom X, one of my personal heroes, highly offensive.

Dick, **** and ***** should definately be examined on a case by case basis. Dick is mostly harmless, I don't know anyone who would be seriously offended by being called one. My girlfriend calls me a "sexy *****" all the time. Remind again as to why that makes her a sexist? And ****, well, that's a bit trickier. Most of the time it is pretty sexist, but in certain punk circles it's as acceptable to call your friends ****s as it is 'dude' or 'brah' in Hawaii. Besides, I've often been known to greet my friends with, "What's happenin' **** rag?" They usually respond with the customary, "Nothin' much, shit stain." It's just fucking around.

Finally, except in the case of certain racial and homophobic slurs, I think all bets are off when the person is obviously joking. There's nothing worse than a bunch of self-righteous tight asses getting their bollucks in a twist over something that was clearly to be taken cum grano salis.

Edit: Oh, and putting 'lady' on the list... How ridiculous.

Elect Marx

7th September 2005, 06:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 11:40 PM
Gay and lesbian definately need to be removed from the list. Hasn't anyone here ever heard of the Gay and Lesbian Coalition? It's only the single largest gay rights organization in the U$.
Did you read "* = contextually dependent?"

Negro probably should go as well, if for no better reason than it would make it impossible to quote any civil rights activist who did his/her work prior to 1970.

Why would this apply to quotes?

praxis1966

7th September 2005, 09:11

Did you read "* = contextually dependent?"

I did, and I still fail to see how they are any worse than "homosexual." According your list, the word homosexual's absence would suggest it is somehow preferrable to "gay" or "lesbian." I would argue, however, that people who are of the homosexual persuasion would actually prefer to be called gay or lesbian. Furthermore, these terms are no more offensive when used derrogatorily than the word homosexual. Consider the following statements:

1) "All you gays and lesbians should just be shot."
2) "All you homosexuals should be shot."

Both examples are highly offensive, and in neither case are the words in question the offensive bit. The point is that the words 'gay' and 'lesbian' are never insulting to gay or lesbian people, even in the worst of contexts.

The only time they are viewed as insulting is by heterosexuals accused of homosexuality, as in the sentence "You are so gay." The only person who could possibly take offence to this is someone who is heterosexual and falling victim to latent homophobia.

Incidentally, you have missed a couple of phrases that I think just about any decent person would find offensive. Those being "pillow biter," "muff diver," and "leg licker."

Why would this apply to quotes?

I don't know, but nobody said it wouldn't either. At any rate, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the rest of my post.

rioters bloc

7th September 2005, 09:25

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 7 2005, 03:48 PM

Negro probably should go as well, if for no better reason than it would make it impossible to quote any civil rights activist who did his/her work prior to 1970.

Why would this apply to quotes?
guessing what praxis meant was that civil rights activists before the 1970s would have used negro to describe african american people. hence if you wanted to quote their work, youd have to use negro. and banning it would make that impossible.

queer is not offensive. most gay/lesbian/transexual people i know prefer the word queer to homosexual. we have a queer collective at uni. there are queer clubs around too. its all encompassing - for anyone who doesn't feel that they are 100% hetrosexual. so even if you're bicurious, you can identify with being queer. as someone mentioned, it also expands the context to be about culture and identity and love as well as just sex.

Elect Marx

7th September 2005, 09:51

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 7 2005, 02:43 AM
guessing what praxis meant was that civil rights activists before the 1970s would have used negro to describe african american people. hence if you wanted to quote their work, youd have to use negro.
Right; but that is a quote, not a statement by a member. Also you have to take the context into consideration as always; this is completely irrelevant as such.

banning it would make that impossible.

What is your point? Where was that EVER suggested in the explaination of the thread?

queer is not offensive. most gay/lesbian/transexual people i know prefer the word queer to homosexual. we have a queer collective at uni. there are queer clubs around too. its all encompassing - for anyone who doesn't feel that they are 100% hetrosexual. so even if you're bicurious, you can identify with being queer. as someone mentioned, it also expands the context to be about culture and identity and love as well as just sex.

Same thing; I've heard the term applied to allies too... I feel like people keep exhuming the horse that I've fossilized with lead shot :wacko:

Elect Marx

7th September 2005, 10:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 02:29 AM

Did you read "* = contextually dependent?"

I did, and I still fail to see how they are any worse than "homosexual." According your list, the word homosexual's absence would suggest it is somehow preferrable to "gay" or "lesbian." I would argue, however, that people who are of the homosexual persuasion would actually prefer to be called gay or lesbian. Furthermore, these terms are no more offensive when used derrogatorily than the word homosexual. Consider the following statements:

The only time they are viewed as insulting is by heterosexuals accused of homosexuality, as in the sentence "You are so gay." The only person who could possibly take offence to this is someone who is heterosexual and falling victim to latent homophobia.
How often do you hear: "Fucking homosexual!"
No; other terms are generally used and I have heard gay/lesbian used to demean people.
In the case that it is used to belittle a heterosexual person, that is quite offensive because you are effectively making those terms into slurs by making "people who are of the homosexual persuasion," out to somehow be lesser persons.

No terms are inherently oppressive. If I called you a "cat!" it wouldn't mean anything. It takes a history of using the term to dehumanize and these terms have been so used recently, where they are now used positively or not.

1) "All you gays and lesbians should just be shot."
2) "All you homosexuals should be shot."

Both examples are highly offensive, and in neither case are the words in question the offensive bit. The point is that the words 'gay' and 'lesbian' are never insulting to gay or lesbian people, even in the worst of contexts.

I disagree; though I can't say personally, I think it is likely that people chose the terms that are more personal to them because they want to claim identity.
In this case "All you gays and lesbians should just be shot" is a more personal attack and I think I would be (even if slightly) more offended. "Homosexuals," seems more sterile, like a propaganda line but to identify people more, really cuts to the bone and gives the impression of considering the actual implications. “Fag,” or another “classically” derogatory slur would denote more hatred.

Incidentally, you have missed a couple of phrases that I think just about any decent person would find offensive. Those being "pillow biter," "muff diver," and "leg licker."

Okay, I'll add them.

The Feral Underclass

7th September 2005, 10:19

Capitalism as an economic system may not have existed for very long but as a subjective force in the world it seems as if it has existed forever and holds god like sway of people. The vast majority of people in the industrial world and even in the developing world see the status quo as fact.

The hammering home of bourgeois justifications for the existence of capitalism, the increased alienation caused by work and the "brain washing" of consumerism has effected the human psyche almost beyond reproach.

The ruling class have the monopoly of power on ideas. Take nazi Germany as an obvious example. Hitler and the nazi leadership took a very sensitive subject, the role of Jewish people in society, and used it as a means of scapegoat and a pretext for a campaign of psychotic hate.

Idea's on racism, sexism and homophobia are the same, and throughout history have been defined by our ruling class. From the slave trade to the present day, from the biblical attitudes towards the role of women in society until the present day and the progressed quasi-religious repression of same sex attractions, have all contributed to our present day attitudes.

Are we all aware of this? Are we all safe from it? In my opinion no. Our attitudes towards black people, women and gay people have come through centuries if not millennia of human history, changing politics, philosophical and economic attitude. We simply cannot expect people to not harbour racist, sexist or homophobic attitudes no matter how blatant or latent. Regardless of how "progressive" people believe they are, people still have these societal prejudices and attitudes.

These attitudes, covertly and overtly take many different forms. There is of course race politics. The far-right take oppressive attitudes towards anything that goes against the biblical and economically prominent status quo. These fucknuts are obvious.

What is of more concern is the covert attitudes, which are far more dangerous and far more harder to fight against. The reason for this difficulty is because it is generally accepted by many people, especially those who control the monopoly of power. The word is a patriarchal world, dominated by white heterosexuals. Although nobody claims to be a racist, sexist or homophobe many bosses may not want to employ a black person, someone may cross the road because they see a black person coming and fear (thanks to the media) they may be robbed. Wives are at home cooking their husbands meals while men masturbate to naked pictures of women being groped. A person may tell a joke about how all homosexuals are paedophiles or sex mad or say "i'm not a homophobe, I just don’t want them round me."

A man might call a woman a "*****" or have preconcieved idea's about what a woman should do in a relationship. These attitudes are programmed into people at birth, so whether or not people want to think them, they do because it's "normal."As is being said in this thread. It's ok to say "*****" because everyone says it. It's interesting to identify that the people in the thread argueing for that are all men.

These things are general within society. It is generally accepted as the norm and so when someone says "*****", "paki, queer" or laughs at the picture of a famous rock band groping a naked woman with smiles on their faces it is not associated with these historical facts. Why would it be? It requires people having to think of the implications of material society and how many people honestly do that. It is not identified as oppression. But as the norm. Something which shouldn't be taken seriously etc.

It's complete bollocks!

The use of language and the subtle, "ironic" highlighting of differences between races, sexes and orientations contributes to the status quo attitudes, of which is controlled and exploited by the ruling class, who can pick up and use these things to further their agenda.

People should try and stop doing it, and to question other people when they do it. The recognition that saying, "*****", "queer" or "paki" is as bad as putting magazines for gay people on the top shelve with the pawn, or refusing to discuss black history in high schools or getting turned on at the portrayal of women being dominated, for "fun", will force people to realise that these differences are detrimental to our liberation as human beings. Yes, it's that fucking serious.

How can women, black people or gay people truely be free while segragation in language still exists? There is not one word used to descrbe a white, straight man in a derogative or pejorative sense.

Surely we should be offering an alternative? Sometimes, I find it difficult to determine what that alternative is.

Elect Marx

7th September 2005, 10:25

Great post TAT; I couldn't agree more.

How can women, black people or gay people truely be free while segragation in language still exists? There is not one word used to descrbe a white, straight man in a derogative or pejorative sense.

Surely we should be offering an alternative? Sometimes, I find it difficult to determine what that alternative is.

I would say that there simply is NO REASON to identify people this way to demean them.
I happen to be that "alternative," anyway; I don't fit into the most ostracized minority groups. Though I am a commie, a loner, a weirdo and a thousand other terms someone could attack me with.
I say, why not use terms that don't denote bigotry or make your point clear if you must for context sake.

I don't call people "****s," "dicks" or any of those. I could always call someone and idiot, an asshole or a multitude of other hollow offensive words but, mostly, I try to logically prove they are wrong or just deal with the issues at hand. The reason the slur terms are so offensive is BECAUSE they demean a specific group of people.

rioters bloc

7th September 2005, 11:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 06:29 PM

The only time they are viewed as insulting is by heterosexuals accused of homosexuality, as in the sentence "You are so gay." The only person who could possibly take offence to this is someone who is heterosexual and falling victim to latent homophobia.

theres a movement by the queer collective at uni to reclaim the term 'gay' :)

http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/7269/sogay8vt.jpg

praxis1966

7th September 2005, 20:22

Rioter's bloc has hit on a bit of what I was intending to say. Gay and lesbian people, not the moneyed elite as TAT suggested, in the U$ have defined the terminology and it's that they want to be called either gay or lesbian. I have at least three gay friends that I've spoken to about the subject, and they all agree that the PC term of their preference is in fact 'gay'. I spoke to another one of my friends about it, and he said he preferred the term flamer, but he's really 'over the rainbow'.

How often do you hear: "Fucking homosexual!"

No, but it's always used in the context "homosexuality is an afront to God" by the Christian right. If I had to wager, I'd bet that has something to do with it.

At any rate, it can't be helped if the only people (with the exception of rioter's bloc) are arguing about this are male. It also can't be helped that the last two members who I've seen use the word '*****' in anger around here were both female. I know I used it, but I was just trying to get a rise out of TAT and was obviously joking.

There is not one word used to descrbe a white, straight man in a derogative or pejorative sense.

You've just gone too far with that one. Let me educate you, son.

Cracker
Whitebread
Wonderbread
Honkey
Whitey
Redneck
White Trash
Trailer Trash
Breeder

And that's just to name a few. If you want to get ethnically specific, here you go.

Kraut
Daygo
Whap
Guinny
Kike
Mick
Muck
Paddy
Frog
Lymie

The list goes on and on, disproving your assertion that there is segregation in language.

praxis1966

8th September 2005, 09:51

Sorry for the double post, but I'm really getting sick and tired of the double standard around here. It's the favorite hobby of certain people to brand others sexist and homophobic, whilst allowing gross misconduct in the form of reverse prejudice go unchecked. This comment was made by a (female) mod, no less.

Men seem to be all about the chase and you'll probably end up ruining the relationship you have now.

I don't think I need to tell you that this is an obvious case of sexism, implying that it is in men's nature to unfaithful. While it may seem small to you, it most definately qualifies as a bigotry of sorts.

I am really fucking sick and tired of how often people go out their way to make selective prosecutions around here, especially since this is far from the first time this has happened. It used to be one of Senora Che's favorite pastimes to make blanket statements (all men do this, boys are this way) and when anyone disagreeed with her, she cried chauvanism.

The point is this: You guys going on about "oppressive language" need to get your house in order. It isn't the words, it's the attitude. You can be a raging bigot and all the censorship in the world isn't going to make any difference.

The Feral Underclass

8th September 2005, 10:45

Praxis, I'm interested to know why you haven't attempted to refute or at least addressed my argument?

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th September 2005, 13:37

I am really fucking sick and tired of how often people go out their way to make selective prosecutions around here, especially since this is far from the first time this has happened.

I second that.

C_Rasmussen

8th September 2005, 21:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 09:09 AM

Men seem to be all about the chase and you'll probably end up ruining the relationship you have now.

I don't think I need to tell you that this is an obvious case of sexism, implying that it is in men's nature to unfaithful. While it may seem small to you, it most definately qualifies as a bigotry of sorts.

Well that mod whoever she may be does have a point. Granted even though I'm a guy and am not like that I will agree that most guys are like that. I don't blame her for saying what she said.

Elect Marx

8th September 2005, 21:16

Originally posted by praxis1966+Sep 8 2005, 03:09 AM--> (praxis1966 @ Sep 8 2005, 03:09 AM) ...all the censorship in the world isn't going to make any difference. [/b]
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP.

Can't you people get it through your thick skulls? Damn it!

Oppressive terminology about terminology not about censoring, a discussion thread! I just wanted a fucking discussion!

Here is a refresher:

Originally posted by [email protected]
On this board, it is evident that many members are not aware of which words are oppressive, and for which reasons they are so.

So I quite broadly ask: which words are oppressive? And why?

me
We can likely omit obvious/self explanatory terms/phrases; I will start a list (with previous contributions) to be discussed...

If you want to bicker about censorship, start your own thread or I can split one off for you <_<

Elect Marx

8th September 2005, 21:24

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen+Sep 8 2005, 02:26 PM--> (C_Rasmussen @ Sep 8 2005, 02:26 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 09:09 AM

Men seem to be all about the chase and you'll probably end up ruining the relationship you have now.

I don't think I need to tell you that this is an obvious case of sexism, implying that it is in men's nature to unfaithful. While it may seem small to you, it most definately qualifies as a bigotry of sorts.

Well that mod whoever she may be does have a point. Granted even though I'm a guy and am not like that I will agree that most guys are like that. I don't blame her for saying what she said. [/b]
No; she doesn't. This sort of "battle of the sexes" shit really pisses me off.
We are people, not generalizations and anyone that can't treat everyone with respect and as the individuals we are; can fuck off.

This isn't helping women and it isn't helping men; this is called fractionalization, splitting us all apart. I don't care if most women are obsessed with pop culture for example; I don't say women are vain wanna-be pop stars. I think we can agree that would be incorrect and stated in pure STUPIDITY; Fuck double standards.

C_Rasmussen

8th September 2005, 22:18

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Sep 8 2005, 08:42 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Sep 8 2005, 08:42 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:26 PM

[email protected] 8 2005, 09:09 AM

Men seem to be all about the chase and you'll probably end up ruining the relationship you have now.

I don't think I need to tell you that this is an obvious case of sexism, implying that it is in men's nature to unfaithful. While it may seem small to you, it most definately qualifies as a bigotry of sorts.

Well that mod whoever she may be does have a point. Granted even though I'm a guy and am not like that I will agree that most guys are like that. I don't blame her for saying what she said.
No; she doesn't. This sort of "battle of the sexes" shit really pisses me off.
We are people, not generalizations and anyone that can't treat everyone with respect and as the individuals we are; can fuck off.

This isn't helping women and it isn't helping men; this is called fractionalization, splitting us all apart. I don't care if most women are obsessed with pop culture for example; I don't say women are vain wanna-be pop stars. I think we can agree that would be incorrect and stated in pure STUPIDITY; Fuck double standards. [/b]
I can understand where you're coming from there but really even though it MAY be a generalization you do have to admit for the most part its true. I mean there's some good and some bad in both genders. The way I see it is this, there are some "players" in the male gender but there are some real honest ones but I suppose that the bad outways the good. The same holds true for the female gender, there are some superficials fuckers who act like as you put it "vain pop-stars" but there are some nice caring ones. Well once again the number of good ones is outnumbered. I agree I don't like it but there ain't much we can do. Ya know what I mean?

Elect Marx

8th September 2005, 22:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:36 PM
I can understand where you're coming from there but really even though it MAY be a generalization you do have to admit for the most part its true.
No, I don't. All I know is that many men are not monogamous and I do not even know that to be a majority; the generalization is completely unfounded.

I mean there's some good and some bad in both genders. The way I see it is this, there are some "players" in the male gender but there are some real honest ones but I suppose that the bad outways the good. The same holds true for the female gender, there are some superficials fuckers who act like as you put it "vain pop-stars" but there are some nice caring ones.

You are not taking into account that people are socialized into gender roles. You cannot ignore the nurture factor.

Well once again the number of good ones is outnumbered. I agree I don't like it but there ain't much we can do. Ya know what I mean?

I do but don't let yourself be defeated so easily. We can do something and that is not let people make baseless generalizations unopposed. More than this; if they say "men" and not "most men," their statement is blatantly false and we can call them on it.

C_Rasmussen

8th September 2005, 23:33

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Sep 8 2005, 10:07 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Sep 8 2005, 10:07 PM)
[email protected] 8 2005, 03:36 PM
I can understand where you're coming from there but really even though it MAY be a generalization you do have to admit for the most part its true.
No, I don't. All I know is that many men are not monogamous and I do not even know that to be a majority; the generalization is completely unfounded.

I mean there's some good and some bad in both genders. The way I see it is this, there are some "players" in the male gender but there are some real honest ones but I suppose that the bad outways the good. The same holds true for the female gender, there are some superficials fuckers who act like as you put it "vain pop-stars" but there are some nice caring ones.

You are not taking into account that people are socialized into gender roles. You cannot ignore the nurture factor.

Well once again the number of good ones is outnumbered. I agree I don't like it but there ain't much we can do. Ya know what I mean?

I do but don't let yourself be defeated so easily. We can do something and that is not let people make baseless generalizations unopposed. More than this; if they say "men" and not "most men," their statement is blatantly false and we can call them on it. [/b]
1. Ok so I worded it wrong my bad.

2. Yes I'm well aware of the gender role crap. Trust me if you knew my family you'd know what I mean.

3. Alright I understand now. I wish if people would say something they wouldn't say ALL (insert word here) but just most (or least). Thanx for clearing that up.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

9th September 2005, 01:18

You've just gone too far with that one. Let me educate you, son.

Cracker
Whitebread
Wonderbread
Honkey
Whitey
Redneck
White Trash
Trailer Trash
Breeder

To be perfectly honest, none of those offend me. Their just words, for fuck's sake. Also you forgot Goyim and Paleface.

MoscowFarewell

10th September 2005, 06:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 10:12 PM
I still find the idea that using the word '****' can mysteriously turn me into a raging misogynist ridiculous - I use the word almost everyday and I don't think about it once.
Same here. That word with the word prick are my top two insults. **** is sharp and to the point and prick leaves a lingering hatefulness.

rioters bloc

10th September 2005, 08:39

i use prick when i dont want to say dick because there are little kids around

i use ****, but scarcely - not because i find it offensive but because some other people find it REALLY, REALLY offensive

even if its not directed at them

praxis1966

10th September 2005, 11:46

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 8 2005, 05:03 AM
Praxis, I'm interested to know why you haven't attempted to refute or at least addressed my argument?
Did you even bother to read my second to last post? What I was trying to say was that since your whole argument is based on the fact that white, male, heterosexuals have a monopoly on bigoted/oppressive terminology, and that is clearly not the case, your whole argument is null and void in my mind.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP.

I stand corrected, and I must admit that I haven't read the entirity of the thread. That was a point that was cleared up earlier on, I'm certain. Apologies.

To be perfectly honest, none of those offend me. Their just words, for fuck's sake. Also you forgot Goyim and Paleface.

I forgot 'roundeye' as well. I alluded to this earlier, but let me restate. It's not the words themselves I find offensive, it's the mentality of the person who uses them that's disgusting.

The Feral Underclass

10th September 2005, 14:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 12:04 PM
since your whole argument is based on the fact that white, male, heterosexuals have a monopoly on bigoted/oppressive terminology, and that is clearly not the case, your whole argument is null and void in my mind.
That's not what I argued though. I argued that the riling class was white, male heterosexuals and that they have a monopoly on idea's which reflect into status quo language and that people don't realise it as oppressive language because it's the status quo.

Simple enough for you?

Don't Change Your Name

10th September 2005, 16:31

This thread sucks.

You all sound like my mother.

Words can be used in a lot of ways, some of them can be offensive, but it's not the words themselves which are offensive: saying "gay" to a gay is not an insult unless the one saying that is not aware of the fact the other individual likes people from the same sex or (s)he (usually he) is trying to use it to "lower the status" of that person.

I also agree about the double standards. Saying "men are rubbish because they are <adjective>" is "ok", saying "women are rubbish because they are <adjective>" is "being a sexist pig". Insulting women does not necessarily meaning "women are a bag where I put my sperm and if they dont act like that I will insult them".

And it doesn't matter, because the person saying "fag" or "nigger" will continue to use it away from this forum, and the message will be the same even without using those words, because when people use those words they aren't usually leftists, but a bunch of argument-less reactionary retards...

WHAT? Oh, I used "retard" as an insult! SO FUCKING WHAT!?! I'm surprised nobody mentioned this, but such words can be "oppressive" or "denigrating" against people who have Down syndrome or whatever. But guess what? I don't care. And you know why? Because when one uses such a word like "retard" or "*****" (especially in the context most people here would use them), it's not because one is actually "discriminating" in anyway people who can really be "defined" like that, but because one knows that the other person will find it offensive since one is treating them like they were like that, not the people who is actually "retarded" or whatever. For a straight conservative male, then, being called "gay" is offensive because of what it implies. In a way, that's what insults are all about, in some way. So, if I say to a conservative straight male that he is a "gay", gay people shouldnt be the ones getting offended, the person who I called "gay" should. Telling someone who is gay that he is "gay" is a meaningless, unless it is used as an insult. But in the case I mentioned I'm not calling them like that. The hypothetical conservative straight male will get pissed off, which is my point.

In other words, saying that "A" is "X" is not an insult to "B" who really is "X", but an attempt to get "B" to become angry since he does not want to be called like that. If X = "gay", then it could mean "A" is being accused of being fake, since A is probably a, as i said, "conservative straight male", and therefore, being told is is "X" is being told he is something he is pretty much supposed to despise (being).

So, here I am defending my right to call conservative retards both "retard" and "gay", and I suggest "real "retards", and "gays" to call them like that too (not that I'm posting very frequently nowadays, anyway :P). It'll get them mad, because of the fact that such a people is usually "stigmatized"(sp?/does such a word exist?) in our society, and that's a group most people doesnt want to fall in for obvious reasons, like facing discrimination. Just use it when it's pointless to uphold a rational discussion and you're just fooling around. Yes, this is a forum in which we are supposed to actually hold "rational" discussions, but we're talking about the occasional case of a cappie spammer or whatever.

So, if you want, just ban the heavier words like "fag" or "nigger".

And btw, if "sexist pig" is allowed, then "feminazi" should be allowed too. Just mentioning this in case someone wants to ban that word.

That's all I have to say. I hope it's clear.

praxis1966

10th September 2005, 21:13

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2005, 08:39 AM
That's not what I argued though. I argued that the riling class was white, male heterosexuals and that they have a monopoly on idea's which reflect into status quo language and that people don't realise it as oppressive language because it's the status quo.

Simple enough for you?
Dude, you're essentially saying the same thing as in the statement I quoted earlier, except that now the implication is that we should make exceptions for the downtrodden. In other words, as Red Zeppelin argued in another thread, bigoted attitudes amongst minority groups and women aren't a problem because they don't work to actively oppress anyone. They are, therefore, by definition not reactionary. (If I've gotten this wrong then let me know.)

I'll tell you the same thing I told him: These sorts of attitudes are most certainly reactionary. They are a threat to working class unity as they are an internalization of the divide and conquer tactics commonly used by the elites. Therefore, these sorts of attitudes ought to be treated with the same scorn and ridicule that we treat bigotry coming from white male heterosexuals. Enough of the double standards already.

At any rate, if this mythical "they" have such a monopoly on ideas, how the fuck did we all get here?

The Feral Underclass

10th September 2005, 22:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 09:31 PM
Dude, you're essentially saying the same thing as in the statement I quoted earlier, except that now the implication is that we should make exceptions for the downtrodden.
No, that's nothing like what I said.

Status quo language is determined by the ruling status quo. In this instance the ruling status quo is white, heterosexual men. This means that, because of how history progressed, ideas, reflected into language, take on distinct forms of oppression.

Our language as a westernised society in the context of history is racist, sexist and homophobic. That means that the status quo language reflects those ideas whether we are aware of it or not. Mostly we aren't aware. Especially the "downtrodden". What ever that means?

Most working class people will make racists jokes, use homophobic slurs or have a preconceived concept of the role of women. Even the most "enlightened" humans fall into this trap. Societal conditioning is sometimes difficult to shake off.

However, it's important that it is shaken off. That we identify oppression in language and stop doing it.

Red Zeppelin argued in another thread, bigoted attitudes amongst minority groups and women aren't a problem because they don't work to actively oppress anyone. They are, therefore, by definition not reactionary. (If I've gotten this wrong then let me know.)

There aren't any commonly accepted derogative or pejorative language for white, heterosexual men.

There are certain phrases, but this can easily be argued as an expression of centuries of oppression.

They are a threat to working class unity as they are an internalization of the divide and conquer tactics commonly used by the elites.

Well no. The ruling class in the west aim their divide and conquer tactics towards white heterosexuals. They want us to oppose black people and homosexuals.

The majority of actions and language used by black people or homosexuals and even women is an expression of anger against those tactics, which seek to de-humanise and oppress these minorities.

At any rate, if this mythical "they" have such a monopoly on ideas, how the fuck did we all get here?

That doesn't make sense?

Eastside Revolt

10th September 2005, 23:46

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2005, 09:50 PM
There aren't any commonly accepted derogative or pejorative language for white, heterosexual men.
I've agreed with most of what you've had to say in this thread. The exception is when you touch on the above subject.

I have been called many times in a derogatory way: Whitey, cracker, and pig. Without people even knowing me.

Although, outside of a predominantly east-indian neighborhood, no one is going to deny me a job based on these prejudice's. They are still wideley accepted, and derogatory.

apathy maybe

13th September 2005, 04:26

I agree with praxis1966, it isn't the words themselves. It is the attitude. While there is a history of oppression to many words, such as for example ****, that doesn't mean that we have to buy into that history. Why don't we redefine words to suit our meanings. Ignore the dominant ideology and reframe the issue.

On a case of non "oppressive terminology", VSU (in Australia). This means Voluntary Student Unionism. At the moment in Australia at most Universities there is a compulsory fee taken for services. Some of this money goes to the student union (or association or guild). VSU is about stopping this money going to the union. Thus student activists have coined the term ASOL, anti-student organisation legislation, instead, in an attempt to reframe the issue.

If we do the same with words such as ****, or gay, and attempt to change the meaning then we change attitudes in society as well.

I also think that unless a word is obviously being used in a way which is designed to be derogatory (or has a history of derogatoriness which has not yet been shaken), then we should ignore it. (An example of a term that has not yet shaken its derogatoriness is "that’s gay". Unless it is used as a term of approval I think that anyone using such a term should be talked to (by example saying, "are you homophobic?").)

Nothing Human Is Alien

15th September 2005, 03:44

Please do not use inherent human traits in a derogatory phrase and thereby indirectly slur a group of people with certain innate preferences.

I actually was telling someone this today after they said "my job was gay." And we got into a big debate about how it's okay to say, doesn't mean anything because "my gay friends say it too", etc. Needless to say I was pissed.

bed_of_nails

15th September 2005, 03:50

I actually was hanging out with a pair of lesbians today when they said it about one of their classes.

I was quite shocked actually.

Nothing Human Is Alien

15th September 2005, 03:51

Black and Latino folks say nigga, but I don't know if/how that relates.

Forward Union

15th September 2005, 15:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:15 AM
"my gay friends say it too", etc. Needless to say I was pissed.
Yea I have gay/lesbian friends who use these terms, they're common in schools these days. And yes, frankly it annoys me to, I am against the use of terms like "how gay" or "that's gay" as it almost substitutes a negative term with homosexuality, leading people to the conclusion that homosexuality = bad, which we all know isn't true.

Unfortunately, in subconscious attempts to 'casualise' my language, it slips out, about once every few months, and I slap my wrist for it.

Elect Marx

16th September 2005, 08:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 09:21 PM
I actually was hanging out with a pair of lesbians today when they said it about one of their classes.

I was quite shocked actually.
Yes, some lesbian friends of mine in high school (a few years ago) would mock the usage of the phrase, in the GLBTSA (gay lesbian bisexual transgender straight alliance) group we were in, because hearing the phrase thrown around "fashionably," is so offensive.

To hear openly "non-heterosexual" people seriously use the phrase is mind-boggling, if not scary...

Lord Testicles

16th September 2005, 10:08

I also hear people say things like "my job is gay" and so on and i find it annoying if not idiotic because not only does it put homosexuals in a negative light it is impossable for your "job" to be gay.

The Feral Underclass

22nd September 2005, 15:35

I just realised a prime example of oppressive language: Invalid, to describe someone who is disabled.

James

22nd September 2005, 16:39

radio two were debating "drop out" today. Some seem to think the term (for those who choose to leave uni before getting a degree) is oppressive: or at least negative. Whereas others argued that it is simply a descriptive term for what they are doing, i.e. dropped out of university.

I suppose it would simply be better to say "left uni", as opposed to dropped out. "Dropped out" of uni sounds like someone "fell out of the bed" (negative, sort of against one's will). As opposed to got out of the bed (positive, according to one's will). Drop out sounds like failure to many, whereas in many cases this isn't so - i.e. individuals leave to pursue other careers, as opposed to left because they couldnt hack it (which is what drop out suggests to many).

To me, "drop out" suggests negative action (inability, or unwise decision).
"Left uni" is more neutral.

John Dory

27th October 2005, 18:46

the problem is being over-simplified. the answer is never censorship, that never does away with oppressive thought. it just hides it, making it harder to root it out.

Xvall

27th October 2005, 23:02

theres a movement by the queer collective at uni to reclaim the term 'gay'

Additionally, queer has since lost its negative connotations and is now used by the homosexual community as an empowering term.

The Feral Underclass

27th October 2005, 23:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:46 PM

theres a movement by the queer collective at uni to reclaim the term 'gay'

Additionally, queer has since lost its negative connotations and is now used by the homosexual community as an empowering term.
Yes, by the homosexual community. Just like "nigga/er" is used by the black community.

poster_child

27th October 2005, 23:56

Most words rely on context and meaning. Words like "nigger" and such do not ever have a an acceptable context, but words like "gay" and "dick" do. How will anyone ever be able to insult someone if they cannot use ANY words? Sure, it's never okay to use certain words, but other times, it is. It's all about context and using you own discression. We're all rather intelligent here (we're all lefties) and I think we should be treated as such. Censoring it is not a good idea. If it really becomes a problem, then it can be dealt with on a individual basis, relying on context. Or maybe just sensoring the banned members when they have demonstrated that they cannot refrain from using racist, etc. terminology maybe?

Edit: Does anyone find my picture offensive? It says "whore" in it. This is not being used in a sexist way, yet it gets the point across.

Xvall

28th October 2005, 01:19

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 27 2005, 11:29 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 27 2005, 11:29 PM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 11:46 PM

theres a movement by the queer collective at uni to reclaim the term 'gay'

Additionally, queer has since lost its negative connotations and is now used by the homosexual community as an empowering term.
Yes, by the homosexual community. Just like "nigga/er" is used by the black community. [/b]
Yeah. You seemed pretty serious. Is there some argument here?

RebelOutcast

28th October 2005, 10:39

While we're at it let's censor the word "bastard" as it _might_ offend illegitimate children.

foreverfaded

31st October 2005, 13:38

calling a male a 'pussy' is a sexist comment meaning that all woman are 'wussies'

bunk

31st October 2005, 14:28

Seriously, i don't like the way the word 'retard' is used so flippantly

Elect Marx

31st October 2005, 18:16

To those that this applies...

READ THE FUCKING THREAD

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP.
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP.
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP.

Oppressive terminology about terminology not about censoring, a discussion .

Here is another refresher:

Originally posted by Cthenthar+--> (Cthenthar)On this board, it is evident that many members are not aware of which words are oppressive, and for which reasons they are so.

So I quite broadly ask: which words are oppressive? And why?[/b]

me
We can likely omit obvious/self explanatory terms/phrases; I will start a list (with previous contributions) to be discussed...

If you want to bicker about censorship, start your own thread or I think this will be just about ready to be split off.

Elect Marx

31st October 2005, 18:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:27 AM
calling a male a 'pussy' is a sexist comment meaning that all woman are 'wussies'
Indeed, that is the underlying misogynist meaning of the usage. Though it obviously cannot hold to the same magnitude, "dick" also takes a shot at people using a prejudicial "understanding."

diamond_rabbit

6th November 2005, 04:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:36 AM
I still dont see how "lady" is oppressive. I use it when I mean respect for someone of the opposite gender.
"lady" is an oppressive term because of its classist and sexist implications. according to wikipedia, "a lady is a woman who is the counterpart of a lord; or, the counterpart of a gentleman. " both 'lady' and 'gentleman' are terms that are attached to bourgeois values.

think of how girls and young women are told to "act like a lady". or when a woman conforms to normative gender expectations, she will be called a lady. a "lady" is compliant, polite, and conforms to dominant group expectations of what a 'good' woman should be.

Comrade Marcel

6th November 2005, 07:45

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Oct 31 2005, 06:22 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ Oct 31 2005, 06:22 PM)
[email protected] 31 2005, 09:27 AM
calling a male a 'pussy' is a sexist comment meaning that all woman are 'wussies'
Indeed, that is the underlying misogynist meaning of the usage. Though it obviously cannot hold to the same magnitude, "dick" also takes a shot at people using a prejudicial "understanding." [/b]
It's also refering to female genitalia as something that is commonly thought of as submisive and objectified, i.e. "pussies get fucked". so I would ventured to say it is even more oppressive than what you described; and is a constructed term that plays in to the concept of normalcy that is taught/instilled for the capitalist/bourgeois agenda.

BTW, diamond_rabbit's post is right. I never used to think of the term "lady" as classist or sexist either, but it is. Just because you are called on something like that, doesn't mean you should feel like an asshole. I have been called on this same thing before, and the term "lame" as well. Think of the Maoist process of criticism and self-criticism. These analyzations and actions are ment to further educate and advance soldiers in the struggle.

Also, language and culture are strong implementations on the way we think and behave. No one, even the most hard core anti-capitalist/anarchists/communists/etc are completely immune to it.

I would say more, but I think this thread has gone on too long.

rioters bloc

6th November 2005, 08:30

Originally posted by Xvall+Oct 28 2005, 11:19 AM--> (Xvall @ Oct 28 2005, 11:19 AM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27 2005, 11:29 PM

[email protected] 27 2005, 11:46 PM

theres a movement by the queer collective at uni to reclaim the term 'gay'

Additionally, queer has since lost its negative connotations and is now used by the homosexual community as an empowering term.
Yes, by the homosexual community. Just like "nigga/er" is used by the black community.
Yeah. You seemed pretty serious. Is there some argument here? [/b]
hahaha

i'm confused also :P

6th November 2005, 08:37

Womyn.

Reverse sexism.

rioters bloc

6th November 2005, 08:49

:lol: so using the word womyn discriminates against men?

Yazman

6th November 2005, 10:55

so using the word womyn discriminates against men?

I'm sorry, but I just cannot take you seriously when you say "womyn", as if "women" is an oppressive term in any way, shape, or form.

Black Dagger

6th November 2005, 11:25

but I just cannot take you seriously when you say "womyn", as if "women" is an oppressive term in any way, shape, or form.

Why does it matter to you? And please don't mention anything about how it's 'improper' english- we're communists, we're meant to challenge/smash the norms of society.

Yazman

6th November 2005, 11:43

I already mentioned why. The word "women" is in no way offensive; what next, replace the word "female" with "fezbot" ? Oh no, "fezbot" would be implying they're silicon-based lifeforms, and that would be doubly oppressive wouldn't it?

Ridiculous. Challenging the norms of society does not mean making arbitrary changes to language because somebody decided that it's much easier to change the spelling of a word, than go out and effect change. Writing "womyn" instead of "women" changes nothing, and is a useless change that creates neither progress nor stagnation.

Comrade Marcel

6th November 2005, 17:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 11:43 AM
I already mentioned why. The word "women" is in no way offensive; what next, replace the word "female" with "fezbot" ? Oh no, "fezbot" would be implying they're silicon-based lifeforms, and that would be doubly oppressive wouldn't it?

Ridiculous. Challenging the norms of society does not mean making arbitrary changes to language because somebody decided that it's much easier to change the spelling of a word, than go out and effect change. Writing "womyn" instead of "women" changes nothing, and is a useless change that creates neither progress nor stagnation.
I disagree. First of all, the idea that women/woman is not sexist because the origin of the word described by another poster is null. The origin of the word "normal", for example, is that of a carpenter's tool. This doesn't change the context in which the word is used now. In the new English language, words like "woman", "human", "person", etc. is definately male centric. Just because you don't feel, doesn't mean others don't go through sexism on a daily bases because of the language.

Changing the language raises conciousness. Of course that alone is not going to change the material conditions. But, as Antonio Gramsci said, we need organic intellectuals of the proletarian class to combat the status quo and hegemony, and as I said, it plays a role in raising the conciousness of the masses, who in-turn will be much more interested in revolution.

6th November 2005, 19:44

I disagree.

Nobody cares.

In the new English language, words like "woman", "human", "person", etc. is definately male centric.

Yeah. Because people are oppressing womEn when they use these words.

Just because you don't feel, doesn't mean others don't go through sexism on a daily bases because of the language.

Well, they don't.

Changing the language raises conciousness.

In this case it raises consciousness about the fact that the word "men" is in the word "women". OH MY GOD OPPRESSION!!!!!!

Yazman

7th November 2005, 00:10

Comrade Marcel, it is not oppressive in any way, shape, or form simply because the word "men" happens to exist.

There are thousands of compound words out there, and thousands of prefixes and suffixes, it's a basic convention of the language.

If we start to remove every compound word that you deem to be "oppressive" because it happens to include a word you consider to be offensive, then you're essentially writing a new language.

What is this? 1984? Are we going to all start using newspeak now?

Comrade Marcel

7th November 2005, 01:08

I'm not going to reply to lazar, because his ignorance hardly merits any respect.

Yazman, it's not just because the word happends to exist, but the male centric way in which the words and language are used. It is based on the Christian concept that wimmin came from man. Man comes first and represents everything and is dominant in everything.

Even Scholastic, a capitalist corporation, acknowledges sexist language in it's books on grammar and writing in English. Revolutionary leftists should take things a step further than just forming gender nuetral pronouns and looking at the core of the language itself, including individual words.

Starting to change language doesn't equal to totalitarianistic linguistics. In 1984 the language Newspeak was developed specifically to prevent deviation from the normalcy it needed for the Insoc and Party agenda; and hold in place compulsatory obligations to and for the Party and Insoc. It created static and constricting binaries. Certain terms and concepts consequently became impossible to describe or speak of, and as a result (or at least the eventual planned result) of Newspeak it would be almost impossible to put anything anti-Insoc in to practice. This all, of course, is "theory in fiction".

Challenging sexist language and words is doing the exact opposite. It's deconstructing concepts and challenging normalcy, it's also destroying binary terms and labels that are used to catorgorize and devide, for the purpose of the dominant group (mostly white males). As you said, this won't "stop" sexism, but it does have an effect on perceptions, understanding and the practice of sexism is more likely to be challenged or not accepted by most people (especially men who are often subconciously acting sexist, who change that act because of conciousness which was raised through language). It's also a challenge to hegemony, and part of organic intellectualism that Id escribed earlier, which is necessary to combat bourgeois ideology and culture. We can also look to the cultural revolution for examples of combating bourgeois (sexist, racist, gender norms) culture.

Also, languages change overtime no matter what. There is no such thing as "proper English", only standards that vary in different English speaking nations and even in communities (if you go to different parts of Britain, the U.$., and Kanada people's English is different within those nations). Other things like slang, (pop-)culture(s), literature, socio-economic systems, etc. contribute to these differences.

I'm no Linguistics expert, though. I have a comrade in Linguistics and I'll ask her what she thinks of this next time I see her. In the meantime, you're welcome to rebuttle and I'll read it. No one is trying to force you to write a certain way, but don't expect to much respect from certain people (such as Feminists) if you won't even acknowledge sexism let alone attempt to purge it from your everyday practice.

bed_of_nails

7th November 2005, 02:22

I am going to assume that someone has already posted the dinosaur explanation link.

If you do your research properly, the terms actually came from a mixture of Latin and old English.

Comrade Marcel

7th November 2005, 03:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 02:22 AM
I am going to assume that someone has already posted the dinosaur explanation link.

If you do your research properly, the terms actually came from a mixture of Latin and old English.
As I explained, this doesn't change the actual usage, perception and modern meaning in the language.

What I seem to see is more or less a cop-out. It's like whites who want to claim they are "colour blind" and don't see race. They really don't want to see racism, and what part of dominant social-class they are part of, and their inherent privleges of that. What you comrades really don't want to see is the role of sexism in your everyday lives. How embeddd it is in your language and culture.

Black Dagger

7th November 2005, 04:10

I'm glad to see so many male comrades dismissing their conetemporaries ideas as rubbish! It's good to see feminism so respected amongst the male membership :rolleyes:

already mentioned why. The word "women" is in no way offensive;

Because you say so? It is not your place to define what is and what is not offensive to women. 'Womyn' is also about an opressed group taking control of language as a form of empowerment and a source of identity- not as historically opressed 'women', but womyn.

what next, replace the word "female" with "fezbot" ? Oh no, "fezbot" would be implying they're silicon-based lifeforms, and that would be doubly oppressive wouldn't it?

Stop being so sarcastic/abrasive- and put forth serious arguments. For a supposed communist, your belittling of feminist ideas is disgusting. :angry:

Challenging the norms of society does not mean making arbitrary changes to language

So are we not to challenge the use of 'gay' as a negative adjective either? Language, like all aspects of our society is influenced by capitalist/ruling class hegemony- language is prone to redefinition and control- words like 'communism' or 'anarchy' have been redefined by the ruling class 'culture' to mean 'one-party dictatorship' and 'chaos' respectively. Resisting the hegemony of the capitalist class is more than just action in the streets, it must also involve challenging bourgeois norms in sexuality/personal relationships, gender, and language- these are all constrained by the social and moral 'culture' created by capitalist hegemony. Challenging hegemony (and smashing it) in these areas and others will be the 'social revolution' of communist society- one that should exist side-by-side the 'political' revolution of class-war.

because somebody decided that it's much easier to change the spelling of a word, than go out and effect change.

Ad hominem. The womyn you are addressing, rioters bloc, is one of the most politically active members of this board- so for you to accuse her of not going out into the 'real' world and 'effecting change' is laughable- shall i ask, 'how much have you done for the revolution today comrade'? :rolleyes: Attacks on the person do not substitute for reasoned argument- there is absolutely no basis for you to assert that using feminist spellings of language is used by anyone as a substitute for activism.

Writing "womyn" instead of "women" changes nothing,

For you? This is language as a means of empowerment for women, a catergory you don't fall into, how can you judge so definitively whether or not this has 'effect'? At the very least it promotes dialogue on gendered language (and even the 'place' of women in society, discussions of patriarchy etc.) in society as seen by this thread and others, which is both important and progressive.

Nobody cares.

It would seem quite a few people care, hence this discussion!

Yeah. Because people are oppressing womEn when they use these words.

It's not about physical oppression and you know that.

Well, they don't.

Yup, i'm sure you're intimately aware of what it feels like to be an opressed group of which you're not apart! If a woman says that she does feel opressed, or sees in a need or has a desire to use feminist spelling, who are you to say that it's 'rubbish'?

In this case it raises consciousness about the fact that the word "men" is in the word "women". OH MY GOD OPPRESSION!!!!!!

Grow up.

If we start to remove every compound word that you deem to be "oppressive" because it happens to include a word you consider to be offensive, then you're essentially writing a new language.

How is substituing one letter in a word 'essentially writing a new language'? The word is still pronounced the same. In the US they spell colour, 'color'- is this a 'new language' or is it english? What about 'mom'? It's spelt and pronounced differently to the commonwealth 'mum', still the same language? Just because feminist spellings are not orthodox english does not mean they're 'essentially a new language'. There is clearly room in english (as demonstrated above) for variations in spelling and pronounciation of words.

Moreover, it's not as if 'womyn' is incomprehensible, so why do you care at all? In case you have not noticed i do not use feminist spellings, yet i fully support comrades who wish to, i listen to, understand, and respect that position. You on the other hand choose to belittle it, why?

What is this? 1984? Are we going to all start using newspeak now?

Slippery slope fallacy, feminist language and 'newspeak' are not in any way comparable, nor is there any chance that you getting off the back of a poster who wishes to employ feminist language on a board for revolutionary leftists will lead to a totalitarian state where the government controls language to deceive the population- i mean really.

7th November 2005, 04:43

Yup, i'm sure you're intimately aware of what it feels like to be an opressed group in society of which you're not apart! If a woman says that she does, or sees in the need in doing this, who are you to say that it's 'rubbish'?

I do know what it feels liek to be in a group that is oppressed just as much as women are, if not more so. So don't throw your fucking generalizations in my direction.

Grow up.

I was only being as childish as people that use the word 'womyn'.

How is substituing one letter in a word 'essentially writing a new language'? The word is still pronounced the same.

Might wanna change that then; you can still hear the word 'men' in there!

Comrade Marcel

7th November 2005, 05:10

Good post Black Dagger. I would ignore Lazar, as his logic is nothing better than "I don't like it and it doesn't effect me so fuck off with it".

Hardly worthy of any debate.

Black Dagger

7th November 2005, 05:15

I do know what it feels liek to be in a group that is oppressed just as much as women are, if not more so. So don't throw your fucking generalizations in my direction.

Unfortunately for the strength of your argument, being a part of an opressed group in no way allows you to feel what it's like to be a part of all opressed groups- like for example, the ones that you are not a part of. Surely that is obvious?

I was only being as childish as people that use the word 'womyn'.

Feminist spellings are childish? How? And besides, even if they were, that does not give the right to post in a childlish and dismissive manner. If it is childish, point out way in an intelligent, mature way. Protesting childishly about how someone is being childish is hypocritical nonsense.

Might wanna change that then; you can still hear the word 'men' in there!

If you're not going to respond seriously, don't bother responding at all, your posts in this thread so far have been borderline (or not) spam/trolling/provocative nonsense.

poster_child

7th November 2005, 06:14

Words alone don't oppress, in my opinion. Words are made up. They only have the meaning that WE give them. If we make something oppressive, it is oppressive. Calling someone a dick isn't oppressive... it doesn't really mean they're litterally being A DICK.. its a figure of speech and in context, not oppressive. If you say "everyone with a dick is inferior" then you're being sexist, you dig?

Yazman

7th November 2005, 08:05

I'm glad to see so many male comrades dismissing their conetemporaries ideas as rubbish! It's good to see feminism so respected amongst the male membership :rolleyes:

I am not dismissing anything, I have seen the point of view of extremist feminists and I disagree with it, and do not accept it as truth. I respect feminism. Sexism, to me, is absolutely disgusting. Extremist feminism also disgusts me, but to a much lesser degree than sexism in general, be it misogyny or misandry.

already mentioned why. The word "women" is in no way offensive;

Because you say so? It is not your place to define what is and what is not offensive to women. 'Womyn' is also about an opressed group taking control of language as a form of empowerment and a source of identity- not as historically opressed 'women', but womyn.

I wasn't defining what is and is not offensive to women. It is a shame that they are offended by words like "women", and I will gladly fight such oppression but I absolutely refuse to allow them to impose their thoughts on me through language. I really couldn't care less for gender-based terms, I prefer that we keep the english language simple by using gender neutral terms where appropriate, instead of making it unnecessarily complex by creating alternate words for every possible situation where gender differentiation might possibly be needed. Fuck that; We are all humans, gender NEUTRAL terms are what we need, not gender BIASED terms.

what next, replace the word "female" with "fezbot" ? Oh no, "fezbot" would be implying they're silicon-based lifeforms, and that would be doubly oppressive wouldn't it?

Stop being so sarcastic/abrasive- and put forth serious arguments. For a supposed communist, your belittling of feminist ideas is disgusting. :angry:

It is laden with sarcasm, yes, but there is still a serious argument being made. The idea that the word "women" is somehow oppressive because of a minor grammatical issue is silly. You're arguing semantics, it makes no difference if the word to convey femininity contains "men," "bot," "flower" or "building." The fact is, you're taking things out of context and putting ideas into things where they do not exist.

Regardless of whether you're offended by it or not, "women" is not in itself an oppressive term. The etymology of the word is not that of a christian hegemony in the dark or middle ages. In old english, the word "man" meant simply "a human," whereas "wer" and "wyf" were used to refer to male or female respectively. The word "human" comes from the middle english/french "humain", which in turn is derived from latin "humanus" which in turn is a logical extension of the "homo" root. "Man" originated as a gender neutral term and was used as such for centuries, if not almost millennia. The etymology of the word pre-dates christianity. The idea that it comes from some sexist hegemony in the middle ages (which MOST CERTAINLY did exist, I do not deny this) is ridiculous - the etymology is there and the word "man" was not even used to imply a male gender for centuries. It is only nowadays after the language has been altered by such extremist feminists that it carries the implication, because people like you have inserted your theories where they do not exist.

A good analogy would be the example of the Dogon tribe in Africa. it is now believed by many, and even within the tribe themselves nowadays that they had alien contact in the past and this is how they attained intimate knowledge of the stars without telescopes. This belief comes from examinations from a researcher by the name of Griaule who believed that the only way they could have attained such knowledge was through contact with extraterrestrials. He interpreted this into their mythology and they "agreed" and adopted it into their mythology. He probably did not even intend this to happen, but it did.

By interpreting your theories into history you are distorting the way things really happened.

Also, the 1984 analogy served a purpose. It was not to make a comparison between altering grammar and the government controlling the people. The idea of THAT analogy was to show that by arbitrarily changing words YOU deem offensive and attempting to impose them on other people, you are forcing your beliefs and attempting to restrict the way people think, through language.

Let me also make it clear that I did not mean to imply that rioters bloc is not politically active, I did not accuse her of such. It was an intentionally vague statement, and the point of it was that instead of debating semantics you could be debating much more important issues. Debate is of course quite necessary but it is ridiculous when you begin to debate trivial issues such as whether to spell it "womyn", "woman", "wimun", or whatever the hell way you want to spell it. It DOES NOT matter, especially when your logic is based on fallacy anyway. Inserting YOUR theories into the etymology of words is just historic revisionism.

Moreover, it's not as if 'womyn' is incomprehensible, so why do you care at all? In case you have not noticed i do not use feminist spellings, yet i fully support comrades who wish to, i listen to, understand, and respect that position. You on the other hand choose to belittle it, why?

Of course it's not incomprehensible but it's ridiculous! Arbitrary etymological revisionism, is quite sad and un-necessary. I have listened to, understood, and respected her position - I do not belittle it, nor have I. I have made one or two sarcastic comments of course, but not with any malicious intent, and if somebody was somehow offended by what I said, then I apologise, but my points still stand. Understanding, respecting, and listening to somebody else's viewpoint does not mean you have to agree, or have a laissez faire attitude about everything. We are communists, challenging the status quo is what we're all about. I harbour no ill will towards rioters bloc, or any extremist feminists, and while I am harshly anti-sexist, I do not agree with many extremist feminist theories. This does not mean I do not still give them the respect that humans rightfully deserve.

rioters bloc

7th November 2005, 10:38

lazar - your attitude really is very offensive, rather than trying to engage in discussion all you've done so far is flame. so like comrade marcel, i'm not even going to bother replying to your posts, mainly cos there's no substance in them and thus nothing to even reply to. except to say this

In this case it raises consciousness about the fact that the word "men" is in the word "women". OH MY GOD OPPRESSION!!!!!!

actually, it seems that at least two other board members' consciousness has been raised by my use of 'womyn' in my signature, namely drain.you and bombeverything: http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=41903&st=25 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41903&st=25)

Originally posted by Yazman+--> (Yazman)
I am not dismissing anything, I have seen the point of view of extremist feminists and I disagree with it, and do not accept it as truth. I respect feminism. Sexism, to me, is absolutely disgusting. Extremist feminism also disgusts me, but to a much lesser degree than sexism in general, be it misogyny or misandry.[/b]

extremist females? you mean those that weren't part of the bourgeois liberal feminist movement? perhaps you could clarify who 'extremist feminists' are, and why you think that they are the only ones to use womyn or wimmin. moreover, on one hand you see the use of the word 'womyn' as being 'extreme', and on the other you say it does nothing to challenge the status quo or effect real change. so which is it? if it does nothing, than why does it bother you how i choose to spell a word which describes me and is part of my identity?

I wasn't defining what is and is not offensive to women. It is a shame that they are offended by words like "women", and I will gladly fight such oppression but I absolutely refuse to allow them to impose their thoughts on me through language. I really couldn't care less for gender-based terms, I prefer that we keep the english language simple by using gender neutral terms where appropriate, instead of making it unnecessarily complex by creating alternate words for every possible situation where gender differentiation might possibly be needed. Fuck that; We are all humans, gender NEUTRAL terms are what we need, not gender BIASED terms.

actually, you were:
yazman
The word "women" is in no way offensive.

what is a 'shame' is that you, as a man, are telling me whether or not i should be offended by a certain word. now this is not me being misandrous - i do not hate men, but i do hate the conventions forced upon me by male dominated society, and yes women, having been used historically to mean 'the wife of a human' [not a human herself] is oppressive to me. i am not imposing my thoughts on you any more than you are trying to suppress my thoughts, by telling me that you can't take me seriously if i use the word womyn. therefore, you're saying that if i'm to be taken seriously in this world i will relinquish my feminist values and continue to be a slave to language conventions imposed by the hegemony of patriarchy. i agree that we should use gender neutral terms where possible, but in the case of my signature this was not possible as i was highlighting the oppression of womyn, and if i'd used "person" then that wouldn't really work, would it?

again, i do not hate men, and that is not why i use the word womyn, although its an assumption that has been thrown at me before in this forum. i use womyn becuase it challenges not only patrarchy but heteropatriarchy too, the idea that not only do womyn only exist in relation to men, but as the partner of a man. which is even more oppressive towards queer womyn. thus, the word womyn has been adopted by lesbian separatists, which is maybe where youre getting all this 'extremist' bullshit from. but i'm not a lesbian separatist who hates men, yet i use the word womyn. in fact, every single one of my queer male friends, all 15 or so of them, use womyn too. are you going to say that they hate men too? :rolleyes:

"Man" originated as a gender neutral term and was used as such for centuries, if not almost millennia. The etymology of the word pre-dates christianity. The idea that it comes from some sexist hegemony in the middle ages (which MOST CERTAINLY did exist, I do not deny this) is ridiculous - the etymology is there and the word "man" was not even used to imply a male gender for centuries. It is only nowadays after the language has been altered by such extremist feminists that it carries the implication, because people like you have inserted your theories where they do not exist.

Man may have originated as a gender neutral term, but now it is gender biased - surely you can't deny that? because it specifically refers to the male gender. my question is, why did men acquire the word 'man' for themselves [which as you said traditionally meant human] and womyn were identified as a relation to man? could it be because male hegemony decided that the female was 'the other' and thus only really existed in the paradigm of men?

Let me also make it clear that I did not mean to imply that rioters bloc is not politically active, I did not accuse her of such. It was an intentionally vague statement, and the point of it was that instead of debating semantics you could be debating much more important issues. Debate is of course quite necessary but it is ridiculous when you begin to debate trivial issues such as whether to spell it "womyn", "woman", "wimun", or whatever the hell way you want to spell it. It DOES NOT matter, especially when your logic is based on fallacy anyway. Inserting YOUR theories into the etymology of words is just historic revisionism.

no, it's progression. you're right, we could be discussing much more important issues. let me remind you that you were the one who sparked this debate by saying you couldnt take me seriously if i used womyn instead of woman/women. i use womyn all the time, it feels unnatural now to type women. i use it in essays, in exams, in personal correspondence, and most people respect my decision to use this word. you were the one who decided to pick up on it and turn it into a massive etymological debate. not i. i'm actually a little shocked that this is the second or third time that someone on this forum has decided to hack on me for using the word womyn. in real life, i only come across this kind of hostile attitude from reactionaries - not implying that you are, but i guess maybe the kind of leftie activist people i hang out with have sheltered me.

The Feral Underclass

7th November 2005, 11:50

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Nov 6 2005, 09:30 AM--> (rioters bloc @ Nov 6 2005, 09:30 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27 2005, 11:29 PM

[email protected] 27 2005, 11:46 PM

theres a movement by the queer collective at uni to reclaim the term 'gay'

Additionally, queer has since lost its negative connotations and is now used by the homosexual community as an empowering term.
Yes, by the homosexual community. Just like "nigga/er" is used by the black community.
Yeah. You seemed pretty serious. Is there some argument here?
hahaha

i'm confused also :P [/b]
What's confusing?

I was reiterating Xvalls point.

rioters bloc

7th November 2005, 11:52

haha since you highlighted 'homosexual' it seemed like you were refuting a point he made or something.

Yazman

7th November 2005, 12:16

extremist females? you mean those that weren't part of the bourgeois liberal feminist movement? perhaps you could clarify who 'extremist feminists' are, and why you think that they are the only ones to use womyn or wimmin.

Extremist feminists being those who claim the most basic and prevalent division in society is that of gender. Those who advocate the replacement of the "patriarchy" with a matriarchy, eliminating supposedly "male values" and replacing them with supposedly "female values." You could also call separatist feminists extremist (including lesbian separatists, although not all separatist feminists are lesbian separatists). Each of these views I disagree with as they generally PROPAGATE gender inequality, or seek to divide genders even more. I am not concerned with gender differences or divisions in any way, shape, or form - we are all humans, gender should not be brought into the equation, just as race, religion, etc should not be brought into the equation when dealing with people.

moreover, on one hand you see the use of the word 'womyn' as being 'extreme', and on the other you say it does nothing to challenge the status quo or effect real change. so which is it? if it does nothing, than why does it bother you how i choose to spell a word which describes me and is part of my identity?

It does not bother me how you choose to spell it - it's simply a word. The word itself I couldn't care less about - what bothers me is the fact that you are propagating a theory that only serves to fragment humanity, and the left, much more than it already is. This is the LAST thing we need. I am all for gender equality, but gender equality does not mean fragmentation or further division; a much more suitable replacement for the current supposed patriarchy would be one based on equality and unity, rather than a society which propagates an "us and them" mentality by dividing men and woman on every single possible, even down to the most minute of details - gender.

You consider yourself different because you CALL yourself a "womyn." I do not consider such differences - to me, you are just another human - you are my equal, it doesn't bother me if you're black, white, male, female, american, japanese, christian, or pagan. I see you as a fellow leftist who happens to female, just as I see Malte as a fellow leftist who happens to be German, or rahul as a fellow leftist who happens to have dark skin. Just minor differences, we are all revolutionary leftists, and we are all human. Racism, nationalism, etc. all disgust me, but the main issue here is CLASS. We are all oppressed in our own minor ways, but the one thing we have in common here is that we are all part of the same boat, and it's sinking.

what is a 'shame' is that you, as a man, are telling me whether or not i should be offended by a certain word. now this is not me being misandrous - i do not hate men, but i do hate the conventions forced upon me by male dominated society, and yes women, having been used historically to mean 'the wife of a human' [not a human herself] is oppressive to me.

I was not telling you whether you should be offended by a certain word or not. You can be offended by whatever the hell you like, it is of no consequence to me beyond the words which I say to you, and our relationship as comrades in the revolutionary leftist movement. Internal, personal conflict is something we mosdefinitely do not need in here, and to that end - If I have offended you in any way, then I apologise.

My point was that I do not believe "women" to be an offensive term, as there is no logical justification for such a claim. It seems you have a problem understanding basic concepts of the english language. We have these things called homonyms, they are VERY common in the english language. Homonyms are words that either sound, or appear the same, but have different meanings. A good example is the word "fluke", which means:
-a type of fish!
-a type of worm!
-luck!
-the bottom part of an anchor!
-a type of fin!

As you can see, homonyms can have many different meanings and applications, EVEN THOUGH they sound the same. The word "fluke" is no more biased towards anchors than it is towards worms. We do not favour fish over worms because one usage is older than another! The same can apply to other words like bank, bass, bow, sewer, root, resume, record, present, polish, moped, mobile, minute, and, SURPRISE SURPRISE, the word MAN!

Let's also not forget that "women" was never used to refer to "the wife of a human" as opposed to "the human partner of another human." The word man simply became a homonym and as such, the multiple meanings of this homonym are not intrinsically linked as you seem to believe they are.

i am not imposing my thoughts on you any more than you are trying to suppress my thoughts, by telling me that you can't take me seriously if i use the word womyn.

I'm not trying to suppress your thoughts by telling you that - I'm just making you aware that I disagree with your beliefs and that we should discuss the issue in order to resolve it.

therefore, you're saying that if i'm to be taken seriously in this world i will relinquish my feminist values and continue to be a slave to language conventions imposed by the hegemony of patriarchy.

I am not saying that. What I AM saying is that you need to abandon the idea that people's perception of the world around them is dictated by language, NOT your feminist ideals, which I do support, so long as they are for gender equality and not a reactionary extremist feminist superiority movement.

i agree that we should use gender neutral terms where possible, but in the case of my signature this was not possible as i was highlighting the oppression of womyn, and if i'd used "person" then that wouldn't really work, would it?

Agreed.

again, i do not hate men, and that is not why i use the word womyn, although its an assumption that has been thrown at me before in this forum. i use womyn becuase it challenges not only patrarchy but heteropatriarchy too, the idea that not only do womyn only exist in relation to men, but as the partner of a man. which is even more oppressive towards queer womyn. thus, the word womyn has been adopted by lesbian separatists, which is maybe where youre getting all this 'extremist' bullshit from. but i'm not a lesbian separatist who hates men, yet i use the word womyn. in fact, every single one of my queer male friends, all 15 or so of them, use womyn too. are you going to say that they hate men too?

I never said that you hated men. I did say that misandry/misogyny of any kind disgusts me, but I never said you were misandrous. Don't put words in my mouth.

Man may have originated as a gender neutral term, but now it is gender biased - surely you can't deny that? because it specifically refers to the male gender. my question is, why did men acquire the word 'man' for themselves [which as you said traditionally meant human] and womyn were identified as a relation to man? could it be because male hegemony decided that the female was 'the other' and thus only really existed in the paradigm of men?

Yes, I do deny that it is gender biased, because nowadays we have such things as homonyms.

Yes, I did spark this debate but i did it on purpose because I am sick of this theory that language dictates perception. It most certainly does not.

Monty Cantsin

7th November 2005, 12:34

Yes, I did spark this debate but i did it on purpose because I am sick of this theory that language dictates perception. It most certainly does not.

It certainly does have a lot to do with how we conceptualise the world. but a better point to make is that English evolves and for the most part it doesn’t matter what ‘women’ meant five hundred years ago because it’s not the implied meaning now.

Yazman

7th November 2005, 12:53

Whether it does or not is highly debatable, Monty. Personally I reject that theory.

rioters bloc

7th November 2005, 13:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 11:16 PM
Extremist feminists being those who claim the most basic and prevalent division in society is that of gender. Those who advocate the replacement of the "patriarchy" with a matriarchy, eliminating supposedly "male values" and replacing them with supposedly "female values." You could also call separatist feminists extremist (including lesbian separatists, although not all separatist feminists are lesbian separatists). Each of these views I disagree with as they generally PROPAGATE gender inequality, or seek to divide genders even more.
considering i dont fall into any of those categories, by your terms i am not an extremist feminist. yet i use the term womyn - not, as you think, as a dividing term but as a liberating one. from my personal experiences, language is an extremely powerful tool - the reason why this thread was even made and has existed for so long was because people recognised this.

It does not bother me how you choose to spell it - it's simply a word. The word itself I couldn't care less about - what bothers me is the fact that you are propagating a theory that only serves to fragment humanity, and the left, much more than it already is. This is the LAST thing we need. I am all for gender equality, but gender equality does not mean fragmentation or further division; a much more suitable replacement for the current supposed patriarchy would be one based on equality and unity, rather than a society which propagates an "us and them" mentality by dividing men and woman on every single possible, even down to the most minute of details - gender.

equality and unity can never be achieved if you don't first recognise that perceived differences between men and womyn have resulted in the universal oppression of womyn by men. by your rationale, colonised people should passively accept their circumstances and hope to achieve equality through reforms, rather than overturn the status quo/rise up against the colonisers.

You consider yourself different because you CALL yourself a "womyn." I do not consider such differences - to me, you are just another human - you are my equal, it doesn't bother me if you're black, white, male, female, american, japanese, christian, or pagan. I see you as a fellow leftist who happens to female, just as I see Malte as a fellow leftist who happens to be German, or rahul as a fellow leftist who happens to have dark skin. Just minor differences, we are all revolutionary leftists, and we are all human. Racism, nationalism, etc. all disgust me, but the main issue here is CLASS. We are all oppressed in our own minor ways, but the one thing we have in common here is that we are all part of the same boat, and it's sinking.

i consider myself oppressed because i am a womyn in a patriarchal society. i also consider myself oppressed as a queer in a hetronormative society, and as an ethnic minority in a predominantly anglo-saxon country. the main issue here is that we can not separate forms of oppression but see them as intertwined and things which need to be abolished together. class is not the 'main issue' to me, it is one of many. i also take offence to your idea that oppression in the form of racism, sexism, hetrosexism, anti-semitism, whatever, is 'minor'.

I was not telling you whether you should be offended by a certain word or not. You can be offended by whatever the hell you like, it is of no consequence to me beyond the words which I say to you, and our relationship as comrades in the revolutionary leftist movement. Internal, personal conflict is something we mosdefinitely do not need in here, and to that end - If I have offended you in any way, then I apologise.

i'm not offended by you using the word 'woman', or anyone using the word 'woman'. what i am offended by is being told what words i can and cannot use, particularly when the word i used has often raised the awareness of the people around me. not just on this forum, but on others as well, as well as in class, among friends, etc.

My point was that I do not believe "women" to be an offensive term, as there is no logical justification for such a claim. It seems you have a problem understanding basic concepts of the english language. We have these things called homonyms, they are VERY common in the english language. Homonyms are words that either sound, or appear the same, but have different meanings. A good example is the word "fluke", which means:
-a type of fish!
-a type of worm!
-luck!
-the bottom part of an anchor!
-a type of fin!

As you can see, homonyms can have many different meanings and applications, EVEN THOUGH they sound the same. The word "fluke" is no more biased towards anchors than it is towards worms. We do not favour fish over worms because one usage is older than another! The same can apply to other words like bank, bass, bow, sewer, root, resume, record, present, polish, moped, mobile, minute, and, SURPRISE SURPRISE, the word MAN!

so the fact that 'man' being used as 'human' and 'male human' doesn't bother you at all? it doesn't seem to you unfair that a male human is seen as being the ultimate, the 'human', while a female human is seen as being secondary?

to be honest i'm seriously taken aback here. you mean to say that you advocate using the word 'mankind' to describe humanity as a whole?

I'm not trying to suppress your thoughts by telling you that - I'm just making you aware that I disagree with your beliefs and that we should discuss the issue in order to resolve it.

then how about saying that you don't agree with my beliefs rather than treating me in a condescending manner like some stupid child?

I am not saying that. What I AM saying is that you need to abandon the idea that people's perception of the world around them is dictated by language, NOT your feminist ideals, which I do support, so long as they are for gender equality and not a reactionary extremist feminist superiority movement.

and again, i disagree - language is powerful. and those who don't have access to a language, who have been denied access in the past and are still being denied access to it by not being allowed to use words which they feel comfortable with, are marginalised. fuck grand narratives which are entrenched in language, and fuck authoritarian attempts to silence those attempting to subvert these grand narratives.

I never said that you hated men. I did say that misandry/misogyny of any kind disgusts me, but I never said you were misandrous. Don't put words in my mouth.

i didn't put words in your mouth - i said that it was an accusation which has been thrown at me before for using the word womyn.

Yes, I do deny that it is gender biased, because nowadays we have such things as homonyms.

all the examples you quoted earlier were immaterial - we're not talking about bias towards worms or anchors, but rather towards one group of humans over another.

Yes, I did spark this debate but i did it on purpose because I am sick of this theory that language dictates perception. It most certainly does not.

and so you have spoken. so let's trash this thread, hey?

Yazman

7th November 2005, 13:53

equality and unity can never be achieved if you don't first recognise that perceived differences between men and womyn have resulted in the universal oppression of womyn by men.

I do recognise that such differences have resulted in such oppression, although I would not necessarily say it is universal.

by your rationale, colonised people should passively accept their circumstances and hope to achieve equality through reforms, rather than overturn the status quo/rise up against the colonisers.

Right, so you're equating cosmetic grammatical changes with overturning the status quo. LOL

i consider myself oppressed because i am a womyn in a patriarchal society. i also consider myself oppressed as a queer in a hetronormative society, and as an ethnic minority in a predominantly anglo-saxon country.

Being gay in a heteronormative society does not mean you are being oppressed; it's a fact of life that generally humans are heterosexual, thus human society for the most part will be heteronormative - Simply BEING homosexual doesn't mean you are being oppressed. If you are being downtrodden or being seen as inferior, then you are being oppressed. Also, being an ethnic minority in an anglo-saxon country does not automatically mean you are being oppressed either. If there is a lot of racism prevalent then yes, you are being oppressed, but if an anglo-saxon society develops because most people in that area are anglo-saxon, I do not see how you can fault them. There was no contact between many civilisations for centuries, can you fault them for developing the way they did? I am not defending racism here, but if a society develops independantly of others for extended periods of time, there is not much else you can expect of them. Similarly, humans generally being heterosexual, you cannot fault humanity for building heteronormative societies when heterosexuality IS the norm.

What you SHOULD fault and fight against is the intolerance of minorities.

class is not the 'main issue' to me, it is one of many. i also take offence to your idea that oppression in the form of racism, sexism, hetrosexism, anti-semitism, whatever, is 'minor'.

Perhaps "minor" is the wrong word to use. They are secondary issues to me - their struggles are not of any less value but I consider them secondary as they are all parts of class conflict, but we are unified in our class struggle and liberating ourselves as workers is the most important thing.

You can use whatever the hell words you want to use, it doesn't faze me. I just think your logic in making such changes to language is flawed. This however does not mean I want you to stop using such words as "womyn."

so the fact that 'man' being used as 'human' and 'male human' doesn't bother you at all? it doesn't seem to you unfair that a male human is seen as being the ultimate, the 'human', while a female human is seen as being secondary?

This is where you are missing my point. It's called a homonym. Not one of this homonym's meanings in particular is "the ultimate meaning", and a male human is NOT seen as being the ultimate just because it happens to have two meanings. Female humans are NOT being seen as secondary, and in fact even if one of this homonym's meanings was somehow an "ultimate" meaning as you seem to believe, it would be the gender neutral term. Let's also not forget that such usages of grammatical gender in the english languages roots were actually developed in matriarchal societies - if we use YOUR logic then there is a supposed "bias towards women" because they have a unique and special descriptor, whereas men are relegated to the generic term for human.

to be honest i'm seriously taken aback here. you mean to say that you advocate using the word 'mankind' to describe humanity as a whole?

Yes I do, because "mankind" is a gender neutral term. This seems to be another basic rule of the english language you seem to have missed - it's called a compound word. In this case, made up of the gender neutral term "man," and "kind." The usage of "man" to describe both humans in general and male humans is fine, because it's a HOMONYM. THE TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS ARE NOT LINKED. Same goes for other homonyms - the word "fluke" is used to describe fishes and worms, but that isn't oppressive towards worms because FISH happen to also be called that. Anchors aren't seen as "more important" than fish because they share the same cosmetic surface.

fuck grand narratives which are entrenched in language, and fuck authoritarian attempts to subvert these grand narratives.

You support such "grand narratives which are entrenched in language" by supporting the theory that language dictates reality.

all the examples you quoted earlier were immaterial - we're not talking about bias towards worms or anchors, but rather towards one group of humans over another.

They were not "immaterial", worms and anchors exist. It's called an analogy - the specifics of worms/anchors versus men/women is irrelevant, stop ignoring the point being made. Homonyms have multiple meanings - none of those meanings are somehow the "ultimate meaning" of the word. Whale fins are not the "ultimate meaning" of fluke, nor is "male human" the "ultimate meaning" of "human being."

diamond_rabbit

7th November 2005, 20:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:53 AM
Being gay in a heteronormative society does not mean you are being oppressed; it's a fact of life that generally humans are heterosexual, thus human society for the most part will be heteronormative - Simply BEING homosexual doesn't mean you are being oppressed. If you are being downtrodden or being seen as inferior, then you are being oppressed. Also, being an ethnic minority in an anglo-saxon country does not automatically mean you are being oppressed either. If there is a lot of racism prevalent then yes, you are being oppressed, but if an anglo-saxon society develops because most people in that area are anglo-saxon, I do not see how you can fault them. There was no contact between many civilisations for centuries, can you fault them for developing the way they did? I am not defending racism here, but if a society develops independantly of others for extended periods of time, there is not much else you can expect of them. Similarly, humans generally being heterosexual, you cannot fault humanity for building heteronormative societies when heterosexuality IS the norm.

What you SHOULD fault and fight against is the intolerance of minorities.

Identity categories are designed is a particular way to maintain one group's dominance over another. That is true for identity constructs being discussed on this thread, such as man/woman or hetero/homo. According to these dualistic constructions, 'man' and 'hetero' are considered normal and superior, and any person who deviates from this norm is considered somehow abnormal or pathological or inferior. According to the limitations set by this linguistic/conceptual system, oppressed groups can fight for 'equal' rights by trying to achieve the acceptable and normal status as defined by dominant group standards. We see this kind of activism in the mainstream gay/lesbian rights movement, where the activist agenda is often in many ways set by heteronormative values... for example, think of all the energies put into the fight for legal recognition of gay marriage. while this kind of normalizing of oppressed identities might elevate some to a social location closer to that of hetero, many other queers (who challenge heteronormativity on a deeper level) are left behind.

there are serious limitations set by working within hegemonic frameworks for the liberation of oppressed groups. We need to think in more revolutionary ways and not just accept that heterosexuality is naturally the norm and that this is why we live in a heteronormative society. Overthrowing the hetero-patriarchy would involve the rejection of the nuclear family, marriage, and binary constructions of gender and sexuality. Obviously, this involves questioning how language and institutional forces that create and maintain discourses (i.e. science, the church, psychiatry, etc.) naturalize these ways of being in the world. Radical queers and feminists aim to go further than being 'tolerated' or 'accepted' by the hetero-patriarchal-capitalist virus and those who defend it. in fact, for many, the 'queer' identity has been adopted as a way of saying 'i am a person who feels oppressed by and therefore rejects binary gender and sexuality.' From my perspective, 'queer' is a political position (like anti-capitalist or feminist) more than an identity based on who you sleep with. It is an identity based on an embodied and performed resistance against hetero-normativity. and it is an example of how challenging and changing language is an important part of consciousness raising. of course, as comrade marcel pointed out, we need to go further than changing words, but creating counterhegemonic ways of expressing ourselves is a critical part of working towards anti-oppressive conditions in the world.

since heteronormative values also work to support capitalism, i would venture to say that it is in all of our best interests to reflect on this (even those of you *revolutionaries* who who are adamantly defending dominant/oppressive male/hetero-centric attitudes).

i'm glad that there are some man identified folks on this site (like comrade marcel) who are solid allies. and i'm glad to see of course some fucking awesome WOMYN here too! thank you for your solid and wise arguments against those *comrades* who are defending the hetero-patriarchal virus that infects many or our lives.

diamond_rabbit

7th November 2005, 21:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:53 AM
Yes I do, because "mankind" is a gender neutral term. This seems to be another basic rule of the english language you seem to have missed - it's called a compound word. In this case, made up of the gender neutral term "man," and "kind." The usage of "man" to describe both humans in general and male humans is fine, because it's a HOMONYM. THE TWO DIFFERENT MEANINGS ARE NOT LINKED. Same goes for other homonyms - the word "fluke" is used to describe fishes and worms, but that isn't oppressive towards worms because FISH happen to also be called that. Anchors aren't seen as "more important" than fish because they share the same cosmetic surface.
I can't fucking believe that anybody on this site is defending "mankind" to refer to "human kind". this is left from the times when women were considered property of men, they weren't considered persons, they didn't have any rights, so there was no need to include them in this word. it is also a perfect example of how 'man' is considered the norm and the natural vs. 'woman' who is always measured in relation to that norm. but to bring you up to date, it has been some time now since women have been recognized as people.... this is like very basic anti-sexist lingo! i really cannot understand how anybody--but particularly a leftist--could think that refering to humans as "mankind" would be acceptable.

diamond_rabbit

8th November 2005, 01:49

i just emailed one of the moderators of this site to see if they would consider adding another gender category in member profiles... i suggested something like "gender fucker" "gender queer" or "i reject binary constructions of gender".

by the way, since my last post was a bit hostile, i want to say that i have nothing against people who use oppressive language accidentally. we all have a lot of un-learning to do, given the fucked-up world we live in. babies don't come out of the womb with a political analysis, and we are all brought up with oppressive language and identity constructs normalized in our everyday lives. my hostility was directed only to those who are actively defending oppressive language, despite having people clearly explain to them why their use of language is problematic. it is important to be open to constructive criticism as political allies to build a strong left that brings to the centre marginalized perspectives and that does not perpetuate problematic power dynamics.

rioters bloc

8th November 2005, 01:55

good work :D i've always wondered why 1. it was compulsory to reveal our gender and 2. why it was restricted to male or female. i mean in our national censuses people are given the option of 'neither', why not here?

bed_of_nails

8th November 2005, 02:59

I like how someone pointed out that "Wimmin" and all its foolish alternatives are still pronounced the same as "Women".

Personally, I shall continue losing respect for anyone who decides to use such childish and psuedo-revolutionary spelling devices.

Monty Cantsin

8th November 2005, 03:02

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 8 2005, 01:55 AM
good work :D i've always wondered why 1. it was compulsory to reveal our gender and 2. why it was restricted to male or female. i mean in our national censuses people are given the option of 'neither', why not here?
The form started as a pre-fabricated system and then adaptation are made to its style and formula so on. The reason why the gender opinion is just male/female is because no one probably thought to change it. All considered though it probably can be changed.

8th November 2005, 03:21

1. it was compulsory to reveal our gender

So you can address the person properly? Are you against the words he and she too?

Mujer Libre

8th November 2005, 06:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:21 AM

1. it was compulsory to reveal our gender

So you can address the person properly? Are you against the words he and she too?
But why is it compulsory? In addition, as has already been mentioned some people fall between the cracks of the gender binary. What happens to them?

And about your second sentence, being condescending doesn't help your point any.
diamond_rabbit has pretty much said said everything else I wanted to say.

Edit: Have any of you heard of bell hooks? And, correct me if I'm wrong, it was Marcia Langton who capitalised Aboriginal and left white uncapitalised. It's called consciousness-raising.

drain.you

8th November 2005, 07:43

i've always wondered why 1. it was compulsory to reveal our gender and 2. why it was restricted to male or female. i mean in our national censuses people are given the option of 'neither', why not here?
I've never really thought about that before but yeah, it shouldn't be complusory and people should have the right to class themselves however they want.
I've done a quick search on this particular page and the word 'she' has been used twice in quotes and once mentioned (by Lazar). We don't need to know a person's 'gender' to be able to address the person 'properly'.

8th November 2005, 08:13

We don't need to know a person's 'gender' to be able to address the person 'properly'.

So you're against using the words he and she?!!

drain.you

8th November 2005, 09:43

I never said that. I said it is not essential to know a person's gender to talk to them. We are all equal, wha does it matter?

Yazman

8th November 2005, 09:52

Exactly drain.you, it does not.

diamond_rabbit

8th November 2005, 15:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 06:59 PM
I like how someone pointed out that "Wimmin" and all its foolish alternatives are still pronounced the same as "Women".

Personally, I shall continue losing respect for anyone who decides to use such childish and psuedo-revolutionary spelling devices.
THE WAY YOU ARE FRAMING THIS ACT OF RESISTANCE IS USELESS.

the question is not about if you think using WOMYN instead of WOMAN is the best revolutionary tactic. there are infinite ways to resist hegemonic constructions of identity. we all have different ideas about how to make meaningful change and how we are willing to do so in the context of our lives.

the question is about whether or not you are a solid ally who respects the right of self-determination of oppressed individuals and groups. WOMYN is a term that signifies rejection of how the patriarchy defines WOMAN. it's not just about the spelling, it's about the meaning behind the spelling.

DON'T FUCKING TELL US HOW TO EXPRESS OUR IDENTITIES.

i will respect anybody's right to self-determination, so long as it is not oppressive towards others.

diamond_rabbit

8th November 2005, 15:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:13 AM

We don't need to know a person's 'gender' to be able to address the person 'properly'.

So you're against using the words he and she?!!

:huh: actually, lazar, i do have a problem with people being limited to these pronouns. these pronouns play a very big part in reinforcing the binary construction of gender (not only in our everyday lives, but in every second we speak/think). also, people who identify as neither she/he have developed other gender neutral pronouns to use. For example, some people use 'ze' instead of 'she' or 'he' and 'hir' instead of 'him' or 'her'.

of course, how gender is perceived or experienced does matter. the construction of gender has very real impact on all of our lives. i don't know--it might be relevant for others to know our gender identifications or it might not be. that is up for debate. but if somebody marks their gender as "gender fucker" "gender queer" or "i reject binary constructions of gender", they are probably either saying that they feel oppressed by gender categories or they understand how gender categories are oppressive and are being good allies. this is definitely relevant information to know--just as relevant as knowing whether or not the person goes through life identified (either by the self or by others) as 'female' or 'male'.

penisboy\

8th November 2005, 23:25

You're a wanker, diamond_rabbit. Get a life you fucking retard. You need to get laid or something.

some people use 'ze' instead of 'she' or 'he' and 'hir' instead of 'him' or 'her'.
Grow some balls you fucking retard.

poster_child

9th November 2005, 02:03

We're equal but DIFFERENT! By recoignizing this difference, it doesn't make someone sexist. This argument is getting rediculous.

drain.you

9th November 2005, 08:38

equal but DIFFERENT
Sounds alot like "Separate but equal".
"Separate but equal" was a policy enacted into law throughout the U.S. Southern states during the period of segregation, in which African-Americans and European-Americans would receive the same services (schools, hospitals, water fountains, bathrooms, etc.), but that there would be distinct facilities for each race. Because of racist attitudes, however, the facilities were, in fact, unequal, with poorer facilities being allotted to Blacks than to Whites. According to one account, a young boy recalled remaining late at a department store so that he could taste the "white" water — to his disappointment, it tasted the same, but the water fountain worked much better than the one designated for African Americans.
I wouldn't say we are equal but different. We are equal. End of story. Males and females may look different and be genetically different but essentially we are the same things, with the same needs and such. We are equal. People saying that we are difference is what jusitified sexism in the first place and is what kept womyn as men's property up until the last century. People should really get over appearences, for as long as we judge people like this, racism and sexism will continue.
I hate people like penisboy\, so ignorant, unopen to ideas and abusive, but good to see that penisboy\ is now banned.

diamond_rabbit

9th November 2005, 14:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 12:38 AM

equal but DIFFERENT
Sounds alot like "Separate but equal".
"Separate but equal" was a policy enacted into law throughout the U.S. Southern states during the period of segregation, in which African-Americans and European-Americans would receive the same services (schools, hospitals, water fountains, bathrooms, etc.), but that there would be distinct facilities for each race. Because of racist attitudes, however, the facilities were, in fact, unequal, with poorer facilities being allotted to Blacks than to Whites. According to one account, a young boy recalled remaining late at a department store so that he could taste the "white" water — to his disappointment, it tasted the same, but the water fountain worked much better than the one designated for African Americans.
I wouldn't say we are equal but different. We are equal. End of story. Males and females may look different and be genetically different but essentially we are the same things, with the same needs and such. We are equal. People saying that we are difference is what jusitified sexism in the first place and is what kept womyn as men's property up until the last century. People should really get over appearences, for as long as we judge people like this, racism and sexism will continue.
I hate people like penisboy\, so ignorant, unopen to ideas and abusive, but good to see that penisboy\ is now banned.
i think we are all equal and different, but our differences are not uniquely determined by the gender we are assigned at birth.

what are the 'natural' differences between men and women?

remember--not all women mentruate. not all women can or choose to have children. when you accept that transgender people can determine their gender based on how they feel spiritually and emotionally, not all women have vulvas and breasts. so, what is left in terms of 'natural' gender differences?

that being said, yes, human diversity does matter, and it should not be ignored.

for example, if a person does choose to have a baby, and 'ze' does not feel very well during pregnancy, accomodations need to be made so that ze does not have as many responsibilities and can focus on hir health issues. once the child is born, parents and other close community members should be allowed time to spend tending to the child's wellness and needs.

or if a person learns differently than most, hir learning styles should be accomodated in education, so that ze is not deprived of opportunities (mind you--under more ideal societal conditions, education would be VERY different from how it is now anyway).

or if person has an injured back and is in a situation where people are carrying heavy objects, that person should not be forced to do so.

my point is that there are dimensions of human diversity that matter and might even lead to different treatment, but that different treatment should always be based on principles of equality and justice.

the segregation of races or forcing binary gender constructions (in which normative gender roles are entrenched) onto people goes against principles of equality and justice.

p.s. yes, i'm glad to see that penis boy is banned. he didn't like the deconstruction of gender too much! HAH! but then, he didn't have too much to offer in way of intelligent or constructive arguments. i'd like to think that he was an undercover capitalist :rolleyes: but at least he was definitely an unashamed misogynist :angry: