The word "chick"

[Vinny Rafarino]

Some folks here think that it is.

How about the words "dude", "bloke" or "bird"?

Who here supports this insane notion and why?

[spartan]

I certainly dont think these terms are sexist in anyway! You have to wonder what are the mentalities of people who are so sad as to think of terms like these as sexist?

[Jazzratt]

No it's not sexist, some people are just stupid. They generally tend to be the same people who believe that the word "****" is sexist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:06 pm
No it's not sexist, some people are just stupid. They generally tend to be the same people who believe that the word "****" is sexist.

Rosa "threatened" to "report me to the CC" if I used the word again.

Sshe just loves that bureaucratic crapola.

What a joke.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Apparently, I have bruised this sexist pig's male ego so much that he has to start a thread on it!

I certainly regard this word as demeaning and sexist.

And, to a genuine comrade, that would be enough, one would have thought.

So the other comrades who have posted here need to take that into account.

[spartan]

Rosa i personally as a male do not find these terms offensive and i cant understand why anyone else would find them offensive. Perhaps you could tell us why you as a female find these terms offensive? I have no problem with any person who wound find such terms offensive i just cannot understand why they would find these terms offensive? And why these certain terms could be a potential problem for people who find them offensive? Also why should someone who does not find such terms offensive be labeled as Sexist or a Chauvinist?

[Great Helmsman]

It seems very patriarchal and condescending. Communists oppose gender oppression, and the use of derogatory slang towards females does nothing but enforce it. I feel the same way about men who refer to mature women as 'girls'.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Ring around the Rosie
I certainly regard this word as demeaning and sexist.

We already know what you think and some, perhaps most, of us reject the idea.


Apparently, I have bruised this sexist pig's male ego so much that he has to start a thread on it!

Does that mean that you think the rest of the lot are "sexist" as well because they share the same opinion?

I'm sure that's gonna just break everyone's hearts in two.

Majority rules...unless you're a trot; then fantasy rules.

In any case, I started this thread because I was generally concerned if the board itself shared your rather unique opinion on the subject.


And, to a genuine comrade, that would be enough, one would have thought.

To a genuine "comrade" sure.

To someone I consider to be useless and antiquated...So Sorry! :lol:

[Jude]

okay, thats different, but i don't think that "chick" is sexist, depending on who its used to describe...

[counterblast]

Did you use it to marginalize her? If you said something like "I was debating with a chick socialist, who got offended" where you otherwise would've said "I was debating with a socialist who got offended", it could definately have discriminatory connotations.

It's similar to someone saying: "I want you to meet my friends: Paul, Steve, Dave... and my black friend Robert."

[spartan]

counterblast

It's similar to someone saying: "I want you to meet my friends: Paul, Steve, Dave... and my black friend Robert."
:lol: I have never heard someone saying that when they are introducing one of their friends who happens to be black! But i understand what you are saying.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 09:19 pm
I certainly regard this word as demeaning and sexist.

And, to a genuine comrade, that would be enough, one would have thought.


But Rosa, as many of us have lately found out, Vinny is not a genuine comrade.

[Comrade Rage]

How is Vinny not a comrade? At first I had a bad opinion of him, but now I realize he is just thought-provoking and funny.

And btw, I say chick all the time. It's a part of working-class vernacular.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z, that is one thing we can agree on.

It is also why I'd like him booted off the board.

And Comrade C: jusy because you use it all the time, does not make it non-sexist.

You'll be saying next that the many other things that are part of 'working class vernacular' are also OK.

Would you say that of 'w*p' or 'ni**er'?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Rosa
Would you say that of 'w*p' or 'ni**er'?

When have I used those words? Also I am curious why a rather mild word such as chick, which is used as a generic term for women, is being equated with some of the worst racial pejoratives in the American vocabulary?

Also, what exactly do you think is wrong with Vinny?

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+September 17, 2007 07:11 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ September 17, 2007 07:11 pm)
Rosa
Would you say that of 'w*p' or 'ni**er'?

When have I used those words? Also I am curious why a rather mild word such as chick, which is used as a generic term for women, is being equated with some of the worst racial pejoratives in the American vocabulary?

[/b]
Those "racial pejoratives" have been used, and are still used by some (that is racists), as "generic terms" for certain "races" of people.

What makes a 'chick' "mild"? What is a "mild" word"?

I don't know if chick is innately sexist but is often used in a manner the objectifies (the bodies) of adolescent girls or young women. 'Dude' really doesn't have the same meaning in regards to boys or men...probably because men are not historically oppressed on the basis of sex.

[synthesis]

Good God, who fucking cares? It is truly appalling that something like this is actually stressed over with all the other shit going on right now... it's like those Christians who used to write angry letters to public figures who used the word "Zounds!" as an interjection, furious over the reference to "God's wounds." Move the fuck on to real issues.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by DyerMaker+September 17, 2007 08:01 pm--> (DyerMaker @ September 17, 2007 08:01 pm) Good God, who fucking cares? It is truly appalling that something like this is actually stressed over with all the other shit going on right now... it's like those Christians who used to write angry letters to public figures who used the word "Zounds!" as an interjection, furious over the reference to "God's wounds." Move the fuck on to real issues. [/b]
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mellow: :) :D :P :lol:

That's what I'm talking about!


Pawn Power
What makes a 'chick' "mild"? What is a "mild" word"?
I mean mild like an every day word being mild. For instance bollocks is a milder word than shit. I also use Knock Off as a milder version of Fuck off.

Example:

Your last post was a load of bollocks.

KNOCK OFF! :angry:

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:01 pm
Good God, who fucking cares? It is truly appalling that something like this is actually stressed over with all the other shit going on right now... it's like those Christians who used to write angry letters to public figures who used the word "Zounds!" as an interjection, furious over the reference to "God's wounds." Move the fuck on to real issues.
Are "real issues" ever explored or resolved on online forums? While I think that sexism is a "real issue" it doesn't mean that it is soley over word use. I think "activist" often do spend too much organized time of "anti-oppressive language." Nevertheless, language is often indicative of a more material problem- and it is that problem which should be addressed not the language.

Hashing this lanuage shit out online is probably better then using organizing time.

[Pawn Power]

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+September 17, 2007 08:05 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ September 17, 2007 08:05 pm)


Pawn Power
What makes a 'chick' "mild"? What is a "mild" word"?
I mean mild like an every day word being mild. For instance bollocks is a milder word than shit. I also use Knock Off as a milder version of Fuck off.
[/b]
If you live in England... ;)

With that definition "nigger" and "fag" would be fine as well depending on place and time.

The comminality of the word (or "mildness" as you say) does not make the word anyless sexists, racist, homophobic, "offensive" or whatever and moreover it varies between populations and locations.

Is using "gay" as a derogative materially oppress gay people...probably not. Is it homophobic...,maybe. Is it indicative of larger socital sentiments...probably.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade C:


When have I used those words? Also I am curious why a rather mild word such as chick, which is used as a generic term for women, is being equated with some of the worst racial pejoratives in the American vocabulary?

Did I say you had?

But, your defence of VR was, so it seems, that the word he used is part of the 'vernacular of the working class'.

The point is that they use other offensive words (like the ones I mentioned).

But, I take it you would not defend anyone here who used such words on that same basis.

So, why defend him that way?

What is wrong with him? He is a racist and sexist pig, just for starters.

And it is no use your posting temrs like 'b*llocks'; what has this got to do with sexism?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


Good God, who fucking cares? It is truly appalling that something like this is actually stressed over with all the other shit going on right now... it's like those Christians who used to write angry letters to public figures who used the word "Zounds!" as an interjection, furious over the reference to "God's wounds." Move the fuck on to real issues.

I can't imagine you saying the same things if he had used racist terms.

Why then is it acceptable for him to use sexist language?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Rosa Luxembourg
Why then is it acceptable for him to use sexist language? My entire point is that chick is NOT a sexist term. It is slang for woman. It seems to me that that was the basis for this thread. I draw the line at 'c*nt'. I don't like that word, but 'chick' is in a different league.


And it is no use your posting temrs like 'b*llocks'; what has this got to do with sexism?Both words have nothing to do with sexism.


What is wrong with him? He is a racist and sexist pig, just for starters.Identify the cases where he has stated racist and/or sexist opinions (and not just offended your sensibilities), and I'll change my opinion of him.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Some words, "chick" included, may or may not be discriminatory depending on who is using them and in what context. But a good general rule is: If you used a word to refer to a person and that person thinks it was offensive, then it really WAS offensive and you should apologize.

Or, at least, that's how you should behave with anyone you consider a friend or a comrade. Vinny is obviously not included in either category.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Comrade Crum+--> (Comrade Crum)Identify the cases where he has stated racist and/or sexist opinions (and not just offended your sensibilities), and I'll change my opinion of him.[/b]
Here's (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=70405&hl=&view=findpost&p=1292378204) one.

Originally posted by [email protected]
"Sorry Led, I prefer to fight reactionary thought, not pussy foot around it."

Here's (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=70616&hl=&view=findpost&p=1292375010) another that was directed towards me, not that I took it to heart.

VR
"Don't worry, we all know you won't answer.

Pussy."
This raises the question--is "pussy" sexist?

Edit:
Alleged sexism underlined.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Comrade C:


My entire point is that chick is NOT a sexist term. It is slang for woman. It seems to me that that was the basis for this thread. I draw the line at 'c*nt'. I don't like that word, but 'chick' is in a different league.

Unless you are a woman, who are you to judge?


Identify the cases where he has stated racist and/or sexist opinions (and not just offended your sensibilities), and I'll change my opinion of him.

The sexist stuff is right in front of you.

His racist attiude is in his avatar.

You need to open your eyes.

[synthesis]

We are truly in deep shit when harmless colloquialisms are somehow transformed into grounds for yet another useless fragmentation of a weakened movement that has been splintered millions of times in the past.

It's been pointed out before that language is just a tool for expressing thought, opinion and emotion. It is as superficial as anything "superficial" could be used to describe and to focus on language over the underlying issues shows an extreme lack of perspective and analysis.

I mean, really. "Chick"? It's like someone saying "black guy," it's an inherently neutral colloquialism that can be used for expressing bigoted opinions - like pretty much every other word in the dictionary.

Seriously, if you have to crusade against a word, why do I never heard complaints about "vagina"? It's derived from "scabbard" or "sheath" in Latin; I think if I were a woman I would find that far more offensive than "chick".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thankyou for that RevOlt.

The man is a sexist, racist pig and deserves the boot.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


I mean, really. "Chick"? It's like someone saying "black guy," it's an inherently neutral colloquialism that can be used for expressing bigoted opinions - like pretty much every other word in the dictionary.

You are not a woman, so who are you to decide what women regard as sexist?

We do not let racists tell us what is acceptable language for them to use.

Nor do we allow white people to decide what racial minorities find offensive.

Same here.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 04:54 am
DM:


I mean, really. "Chick"? It's like someone saying "black guy," it's an inherently neutral colloquialism that can be used for expressing bigoted opinions - like pretty much every other word in the dictionary.

You are not a woman, so who are you to decide what women regard as sexist?

We do not let racists tell us what is acceptable language for them to use.

Nor do we allow white people to decide what racial minorities find offensive.

Same here.
Precisely. Whether a word is offensive or not depends entirely on the opinion of the people the word refers to. Women must judge if "chick" is offensive, black people must judge if "black guy" is offensive, and so on.

Having said that, I do believe that socialist unity is extremely important and we should not reject any person or group from the movement unless their actions are truly intolerable and are seriously harming the prospects for revolution. Vinny probably qualifies, but I have not paid enough attention to his posts to pass good judgement.

[synthesis]

I feel like I'm talking to Bill O'Reilly here, you are just repeating the same code words over and over without actually addressing anything.

Usage of the word "chick" is equitable with the stereotype that black men have big dicks. It's disrespectful, but seriously, people are dying out there. Cops are killing unarmed civilians for running stop signs and to suggest that this kind of bullshit is anywhere close to meaningful right now is offensive to victims of truly harsh oppression.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 18, 2007 08:20 am--> (counterblast @ September 18, 2007 08:20 am) Did you use it to marginalize her? If you said something like "I was debating with a chick socialist, who got offended" where you otherwise would've said "I was debating with a socialist who got offended", it could definately have discriminatory connotations.

It's similar to someone saying: "I want you to meet my friends: Paul, Steve, Dave... and my black friend Robert." [/b]

Exactly; if the term is being used to demean or belittle a woman as 'merely' a 'chick' - than yes, of course it's sexist.


Originally posted by dyer+--> (dyer)Good God, who fucking cares?[/b]

Obviously some women (and less insensitive men) on this board.


Originally posted by dyer
Move the fuck on to real issues.

See, you don't have to agree with the idea that 'chick' has sexist connotations - but acting like a complete fucking pig is not endearing anyone to your position.


[email protected]
Cops are killing unarmed civilians for running stop signs and to suggest that this kind of bullshit is anywhere close to meaningful right now is offensive to victims of truly harsh oppression

And the majority of the worlds poor are women, what is your point?

In reality no one is suggesting that the use of 'chick' is equivalent to state murder; you're simply attempting to downplay the significance of this issue.

I guess my next question is why?

I mean, you clearly don'tcare that a woman has taken issue with your position; though to be honest (given your posts so far in this thread) that is hardly a surprise. After all, discussing sexism is not a "real issu[e]" :rolleyes:


Comrade Crum
And btw, I say chick all the time. It's a part of working-class vernacular.

You've got to be kidding me?

Yeah, it's 'just a part of working class vernacular', like 'faggot' i suppose?

Defending reactionary attitudes, chauvinism or prejudice because they are supposedly 'a part of the working class' is a time-honoured cop-out; as if associating something with the working class automatically makes it acceptable or good. Unfortunately, in reality, working class folks (like all folks) are raised with the prejudices of this age - and that's something working class revolutionaries need to combat if we're going to unite people as a class regardless of sexuality, race etc.

The way to build solidarity and class unity is not by belittling women (half of our number ffs) - when the issue of sexism is raised for discussion.

[Mujer Libre]

I'm actually with Rosa on this one, and I have no problem with the word ****, although it's not something I usually use as an insult.

The thing is that, as a woman, I know that 'chick' is used to trivialise women's opinions and the infantilise women. A man will typically dismiss a woman's opinions because she's "just a chick" or refer to chicks in the process of treating women like objects. When a guy uses the word, I basically instantly bristle.

And the way I see it, as 'leftist' men you should all listen to what women say about what we find sexist or belittling. I don't see enough of that happening here, rather there's a lot of defensiveness, which is almost never a good sign.

[synthesis]

The thing is that, as a woman, I know that 'chick' is used to trivialise women's opinions and the infantilise women. A man will typically dismiss a woman's opinions because she's "just a chick" or refer to chicks in the process of treating women like objects.

Can words besides "chick" be used for the same purpose?

Can the word "chick" ever be used without those connotations behind it?

[synthesis]

What I'm getting at is that the true adversary here is the trivialization of women's opinions, as you put it, and attacking people for simply using a word regardless of the context you mentioned is certainly not doing anything for the cohesiveness that the radical left is completely lacking today.

Has the virtual elimination of the n-word from the American vocabulary done anything to actually change racist opinions? It just makes them more covert and harder to challenge.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by DyerMaker
Can words besides "chick" be used for the same purpose?
Obviously, but does it make 'chick' any better?

Of course not.


Can the word "chick" ever be used without those connotations behind it?

Well yes, but it isn't. Does this question have a point?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 02:49 am
His racist attiude is in his avatar.

His avatar isn't racist in the least.

[spartan]

Rosa

Unless you are a woman, who are you to judge?
Now that is Sexism if i ever saw it!

[Invader Zim]

Please do correct me if I am mistaken and based on my highly meagre Spanish it might well be, but the term 'chick' is derived from the Spanish word 'Chica', which translates to girl.

So on that basis is the term 'girl' now offensive?

Of course the term is a result of borrowing the vernacular of different peoples who make up the same culture, the melting pot as it was called in the USA. the same is actually true of the term 'nigger', which is of course derived from the Italian word 'Negro' which translates directly to 'Black'*. However the term 'chick' has not come to imply subhuman inferiority, as 'nigger' did, in order to excuse the moral travesty that was slavery.

So, comparing the term 'chick', or the vast majority of other slang terms for that matter, is highly ignorant as it utterly ignores just why the term 'nigger' became to mean what it does.


Originally posted by counterblast
His avatar isn't racist in the least.

I should bother discussing that with Rosa, she has already had her say on that discussion and the majority disagreed with her; which should be the end of the story.

EDIT; I would like to make a correction here. The Italian word is the similar nero, in Portuguese and Spanish the word is negro.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by spartan
Now that is Sexism if i ever saw it!
Yeah, poor men, they have it so hard. Those mean women never stop oppressing them. :rolleyes:

[spartan]

Invader Zim:

Please do correct me if I am mistaken and based on my highly meagre Spanish it might well be, but the term 'chick' is derived from the Spanish word 'Chica', which translates to girl.

So on that basis is the term 'girl' now offensive?

Of course the term is a result of borrowing the vernacular of different peoples who make up the same culture, the melting pot as it was called in the USA. the same is actually true of the term 'nigger', which is of course derived from the Italian word 'Negro' which translates directly to 'Black'. However the term 'chick' has not come to imply subhuman inferiority, as 'nigger' did, in order to excuse the moral travesty that was slavery.

So, comparing the term 'chick', or the vast majority of other slang terms for that matter, is highly ignorant as it utterly ignores just why the term 'nigger' became to mean what it does.
That is a great post.

Mujer Libre:

Yeah, poor men, they have it so hard. Those mean women never stop oppressing them.
Please dont be Sexist.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+September 18, 2007 01:32 pm--> (Mujer Libre @ September 18, 2007 01:32 pm)
spartan
Now that is Sexism if i ever saw it!
Yeah, poor men, they have it so hard. Those mean women never stop oppressing them. :rolleyes: [/b]
Well, i think it obvious that is not what he meant. But nice attempt at a strawman anyway.

But anyway, having added my tuppence above, i would like to add that just because the word is not as bad as 'nigger', i don't feal that in some contexts it could not be used in a sexist manner. However, as nobody has yet to show us exactly what context it was used in, I don't see how we can make a hard and fast judgement.

So, Rosa or Vinnie, if you would care to enlighten us...?

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by spartan
Please dont be Sexist.
Please don't be ridiculous.

And IZ, what else could he mean? He stated that Rosa's argument in favour of autonomous decision-making regarding potentially discriminatory language was "sexism." This means that this poster thinks that that action is oppressive of men. And this is in a patriarchy- i.e. this poster thinks that women making autonomous decisions is comparable to thousands of years of patriarchy!

That's just ridiculous. I think some men here need to face up to their own privileged position in society.

[Invader Zim]

And IZ, what else could he mean?

He is obviously saying that it is a ridiculous notion that men are apparently incapable of spotting bigotry not directed at them personally.

I very much doubt he was passing comment upon the nature of discrimination as contrasted between men and women as your strawman implied.



That's just ridiculous. I think some men here need to face up to their own privileged position in society.

Indeed, but that does not mean that stating that men are not capable of spotting or understanding sexism is any less ludicrous. It would be like claiming that hetrosexual person is inacapble of understanding that the term 'fag' has insulting connotations.

Perhaps 'sexist' is the wrong word, but it is condescension certainly.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by IZ
He is obviously saying that it is a ridiculous notion that men are apparently incapable of spotting bigotry not directed at them personally.
There's quite a significant difference between spotting obvious bigotry and making the more subtle judgements about how language affects women. (Now I think you're the one setting up a strawman to defend) I think the authority to speak on the latter relies on the experience of being a woman- and spartan is denying that this is the case.

He was actually defending comrade crum who decided to draw the line for acceptable language where *he* chose, disregarding the wishes of women. I think that's the crux of the problem, when women's ideas about their own oppression/liberation are disregarded.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 18, 2007 01:01 pm
And IZ, what else could he mean? He stated that Rosa's argument in favour of autonomous decision-making regarding potentially discriminatory language was "sexism." This means that this poster thinks that that action is oppressive of men. And this is in a patriarchy- i.e. this poster thinks that women making autonomous decisions is comparable to thousands of years of patriarchy!

That's just ridiculous. I think some men here need to face up to their own privileged position in society.
While men, in general, are in a privileged position in our patriarchial society, that doesn't mean they, too, do not constantly suffer from gender oppression caused by the strict roles of masculinity.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


Now that is Sexism if i ever saw it!

How can my pointing out that a male cannot possibly know what it is like to be a woman on the receiving end of abuse possibly be sexist!?

If a black or a gay comrade said the same as I have just done (that those who are not in those groups are in no position to know what memebers of those groups find offensive), you'd be in deep trouble calling him/her a racist/homophobe.

Same comment applies to IZ.

Counterblast:


His avatar isn't racist in the least.

It sterotypes all Arabs as bombers.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Counterblast:


While men, in general, are in a privileged position in our patriarchial society, that doesn't mean they, too, do not constantly suffer from gender oppression caused by the strict roles of masculinity.

Sure, oppression takes different forms, but that does not alter the fact that it is up to women what they find offensive (when it comes from men), not anyone else.

[Invader Zim]

How can my pointing out that a male cannot possibly know what it is like to be a woman on the receiving end of abuse possibly be sexist!?

It's not, as such, rather it is just condesending because it implies that we ignorant men are utterly without a shred of empathy.

But it doesn't really matter, because that point is a total red herring anyway. What matters is whether the term 'chick' is 'sexist', and it would seem the majority thus far think it would depend on the circumstanse.


but that does not alter the fact that it is up to women what they find offensive (when it comes from men)

So, a woman can pick and choose, from what is largely percieved as inoffensive vernacular, a word and decide that word is offensive if uttered by a man to a woman? That man automatically becomes a 'sexist', despite being utterly unaware of this fact?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenste[email protected] 18, 2007 02:44 pm
Counterblast:


His avatar isn't racist in the least.

It sterotypes all Arabs as bombers.
I'm Arab, and I don't percieve it that way at all.

I view it as a mockery of those Islamic extremists/terrorists, who would punish people for merely showing imagery of Allah or acting against Islamic law. No one should have to conform to the laws of a god they don't believe in, whether it be a cartoonist in Denmark, or a woman in Beirut.

[synthesis]

If people really, truly, deeply wish to avoid actually making a point here, I won't force you to. Here's the thing: if I know and respect somebody as a person, and they express discomfort with something I say then I will not say it around them any more.

But that does not change whatever other opinions I have that may be the basis of the things I say. If someone just expresses offense that I have said I've been "gypped" out of something (I don't say that) then out of respect for them I will not say it any more; I haven't learned that the very use of the word itself reinforces cultural stereotypes about Gypsies.

This has not been done here. You can "bristle" all you want but this is the Internet and nobody really cares about anyone else's opinion. So good luck with whatever you're trying to do.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 17, 2007 05:02 pm


It is also why I'd like him booted off the board.





Good luck.

Several antiquated chicks and dudes have tried that before to no avail.

I'll probably be here long after you decide that being on-line is interfering with you selling glossies on the street corner.

Perhaps your cult may even order you to stop posting. :lol:

In any case what about all the rest of the folks here you now claim are "sexists" like Dyernmaker and Jazzrat among many others?

Does your crusade include them or is it just me you want off the board? I suppose their brand of "sexism" is okay for you.

Face it, your bullshit campaign is simply a vendetta against me solely because I can get under your skin!

And I will continue to do so until you relics are lost to the ages for good!



And Comrade C: jusy because you use it all the time, does not make it non-sexist.

Just because you say it's sexist doesn't make it sexist.

Get over yourself Rosa, you don't make the rules no matter how perfect you think you are for the job.



Now, the only way the word chick would be sexist is if you said something like "chicks can't drive" or she won't be any help to us because she's just a chick."

Not when you say something like "I love having tons of sex with chicks".

Get it yet Rosasaurus?

edit for spelling

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Counterblast:


I'm Arab, and I don't percieve it that way at all.

Other Arabs do.

Some Arabs supported the invasion of Iraq; does that make it OK?


I view it as a mockery of those Islamic extremists/terrorists, who would punish people for merely showing imagery of Allah or acting against Islamic law. No one should have to conform to the laws of a god they don't believe in, whether it be a cartoonist in Denmark, or a woman in Beirut.

In his case it is sterotypical of all Arabs, including you.

In the context of the imperialist invasion of Iraq, and possibly other Arab/Persian lands, the cartoon incident is racist. It is all part of the long-term demonisation of 'inferior races' in order to justify the robbery of their wealth.

I am surprised I have to point this out.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VR:


Several antiquated chicks and dudes have tried that before to no avail.

Please keep repeating this sexist (and ageist) abuse, it will make my task so much easier.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 09:32 am


Please keep repeating this sexist (and ageist) abuse, it will make my task so much easier.
You're pathetic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VR:


You're pathetic.

And you're on the way out, if I have anything to do with it.

Have a nice fume...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by rosa
And you're on the way out, if I have anything to do with it.

I guess that means a lot of people are "on the way out" since they feel the same way as I do.

Because the lord of the realm "Rosasaurus" deems it so...off with their heads!!!

:lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Vinny won't be booted off the board if I have anything to say about it. You clearly have a personal thing against him Rosa.

Now, I don't use the word chick, but lots of people do, and how they use it (Which is almost univerally the important thing), they use it simply as a slang term for females. The reason words like nigger and spic are unacceptable is because they are used in denigration of people of a certain race, implying that said people are inferior due to their race.

As for me not being able to say whether the word chick is sexist due to being male, how much more ridiculous can you get? That's like saying I can't possibly say if the word nigger is racist or not due to not being black, when I obviously can see it as a racist term.

In other words, get a fucking grip. Whatever happened to tackling important issues like the still-present pay gap between males and females? That has a real material effect upon womens' wellbeing unlike slang terms in common use.

[TC]

As with most things it depends on context and usage.


To use a feminine diminutive term (such as 'chick', 'miss', 'missy', 'sweetheart', 'doll', 'honey', etc) to condescend or patronize is sexist because it characterizes someone's sexual status as a lower social status.

In fact its sexist in precisely a way that "*****" is not. This is because to demean someone as a "chick" is to characterize them as a silly, giggly, stupid young girl, whereas to insult someone as a "*****" is to characterize them as a disagreeably assertive female; the former characterization is strongly gendered, a characterization that would not be applied to a male in a parallel situation, the later is a characterization that would be applied to a male with different terms.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Vinny won't be booted off the board if I have anything to say about it. You clearly have a personal thing against him Rosa.

So, you are Ok about his use of offensive/sexist language toward female comrades?

But, you'd be telling a different story if he had used openly racist language.

Why is this different?


Now, I don't use the word chick, but lots of people do, and how they use it (Which is almost univerally the important thing), they use it simply as a slang term for females. The reason words like nigger and spic are unacceptable is because they are used in denigration of people of a certain race, implying that said people are inferior due to their race.

Once more, you are not a woman, and so you are in no position to judge what women take as offensive/sexist.


As for me not being able to say whether the word chick is sexist due to being male, how much more ridiculous can you get? That's like saying I can't possibly say if the word nigger is racist or not due to not being black, when I obviously can see it as a racist term.

You know 'n*gger' is racist because black people stood up in the 1950's and told us white people they wanted its use stopped.

You were not born knowing this was a racist word. You had to be told, and by black people.

Same here; female comrades find the word he used demeaning and sexist.

Now that, if I may say so, should be enough for you.

Or do you no want to defend an oppressed group?

You wax very indignant over homphobic language, etc.

But, here you do the opposite.

Why?

And you can see how stupid he is getting:


Because the lord of the realm "Rosasaurus" deems it so...off with their heads!!!

It's personal with him, not me.

[Forward Union]

"Babe, Chick, Dude" etc are all sexist in certain contexts.

I know a couple who regularly refer to each other as "babe" ...this clearly isn't an example of patriarchy in action. Banning it or accusing Revolutionary leftists of sexism because they use these phrases is, in my opinion, another brain dead example of liberal infiltration/influence in our movement. We've managed to address reformism and pacifism. But Political correctness seems to be running rampage.

http://onthepharm.net/media/2007/political%20correctness.jpg

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosie
Why is this different?


Why can't you just come to grips with the fact that the majority of people disagree with you?

Are you going to try and "ban everybody"?

And they say "Stalinists" are purge happy; they have obviously never seen a Trot backed into a corner.

They're like rats. :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Urban:


I know a couple who regularly refer to each other as "babe" ...this clearly isn't an example of patriarchy in action. Banning it or accusing Revolutionary leftists of sexism because they use these phrases is, in my opinion, another brain dead example of liberal infiltration/influence in our movement. We've managed to address reformism and pacifism. But Political correctness seems to be running rampage

As with Noxion, you are very sharp in the way you deal with homphobic and racist language, but not over a blatant use of sexist abuse.

You do not appeal to 'context' when dealing with hompohobes or racists.

Why then over this?

And, just as we rely in black and gay people to tell us what they find offensive, you should rely on female comrades to tell you what they regard here as offensive/demeaning/sexist.

You can see that several female comrades here agree with me.

Why are you not defending us?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

See what I mean about stupid and abusive:


And they say "Stalinists" are purge happy; they have obviously never seen a Trot backed into a corner.

They're like rats.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Il Pagliaccio
This is because to demean someone as a "chick" is to characterize them as a silly, giggly, stupid young girl, whereas to insult someone as a "*****" is to characterize them as a disagreeably assertive female

Say who?

You?

I said something like "this chick is going to lecture me on ballbreaking when she herself issue death wishes to me"

Or something like that.

What if it was a man and I said "this dude is going to lecture me on ballbreaking when he himself issues death wishes to me"

It's still classification of gender but in this case no one would bat an eyelash.


That's the way the Lennies and Marxists roll I guess.

I want to give a shout out to all my homies and peeps in this thread.

You chicks, dudes, birds, and blokes know who you are.

Word.

[Invader Zim]

It's personal with him, not me.

And you're on the way out, if I have anything to do with it.

This is getting out of hand.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The evidence just keeps stacking up:


You chicks, dudes, birds, and blokes know who you are.

This RevLefter just cannot stop shooting his mouth off.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 06:07 pm
The evidence just keeps stacking up:


You chicks, dudes, birds, and blokes know who you are.

This RevLefter just cannot stop shooting his mouth off.
What for adding the terms 'bloke', 'bird' and 'dude'? :unsure:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IZ:


And you're on the way out, if I have anything to do with it.

This is getting out of hand.

Why do you think I referred it to the CC -- so we could decide.

Any of the hardcore anti-racists and anti-homphobes there who defend this foul-mouthed excuse for a lefty will of course have to defend their discrimination against female comrades, and explain why they are so hot on one form of abuse, but turn a blind eye to another.

And it's not 'getting out of hand'; I simply mean that I will argue my corner in my usual forthright manner, and argue for the obvious conclusion.


What for adding the terms 'bloke', 'bird' and 'dude'?

He clearly thinks it's amusiong to use abusive language of any and all kinds.

And, remarkably, one or two here find this clown to be a good advert for RevLeft!

[Invader Zim]

Why do you think I referred it to the CC

Hmm, let me see; because it failed last time and now you are looking for another way of getting the guy ousted? Close?


will of course have to defend their discrimination against female comrades

With all due respect, I don't think they will be defending him against anyone but you, on this matter.




He clearly thinks it's amusiong to use abusive language of any and all kinds.

'Bloke', 'bird' and 'dude' are not, and never have been, abusive language; at least where I come from.

[spartan]

Surely restricting Vinny is an extreme abuse of power? I hope i dont get restricted for suggessting this :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IZ:


Hmm, let me see; because it failed last time and now you are looking for another way of getting the guy ousted? Close?

What failed last time?

[We need to discuss this in the CC!]

So, your argument seems to be: since it failed last time, he has a carte blanche to say whatever he likes. And anyone who tries to pull him up for his abusive behaviour will be ignored/given a hard time, and told that it' just 'personal'.

Is that it?


With all due respect, I don't think they will be defending him against anyone but you, on this matter

Well you can see that several female CC members here agree with me, and one or two male CC members; so do not count your chickens...


'Bloke', 'bird' and 'dude' are not, and never have been, abusive language; at least where I come from.

Once more, what female comrades find abusive/sexist is not for you to judge.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


Surely restricting Vinny is an extreme abuse of power? I hope i dont get restricted for suggessting this

You would not be saying that if he had used racist or homophobic language.

Why is this any different?

[spartan]

Rosa:
You would not be saying that if he had used racist or homophobic language.

Why is this any different?
I suppose it depends on who finds the term's bird, bloke, chick and dude offensive or sexist and why those people find it offensive and sexist? Because personally depending on how it is said i do not find these terms offensive or sexist and from reading how Vinny has posted these terms i personally do not think that he is being deliberately offensive or sexist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 10:30 am


Why is this any different?
Because you are clearly in the minority and are clearly wrong.

Get over yourself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


I suppose it depends on who finds the term's bird, bloke, chick and dude offensive or sexist and why those people find it offensive and sexist? Because personally depending on how it is said i do not find these terms offensive or sexist and from reading how Vinny has posted these terms i personally do not think that he is being deliberately offensive or sexist.

As I have said many times, unless you are female, you cannot possibly decide what is or is not counted as offensive/demeaning/sexist by female comrades.

You can see from the above, that the vast majority of female comrades who have posted here agree with me.

Now, that should make you at least stop and think.

[Invader Zim]

What failed last time?

You ask that, when i think it is obvious you know what i am refering too, and then ask me not to answer here? Which is it?



So, your argument seems to be: since it failed last time, he has a carte blanche to say whatever he likes.

No my argument is that you failed to get your way last time, and now are simply trying another tack to achieve the same result. Indeed you more or less admitted it, despite your back-peddling earlier, in this thread that you are a veritable crusade against him.



Well you can see that several female CC members here agree with me, and one or two male CC members;

And who would they be?


and one or two male CC members; so do not count your chickens...

Ah, so they are allowed to confirm your theory that the word is indeed sexist, but other men are not aloud to contend that it is not? I see...



Once more, what female comrades find abusive/sexist is not for you to judge.

But you can judge that the terms 'bloke' and 'dude' are offensive?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosasaurus
You can see from the above, that the vast majority of female comrades who have posted here agree with me.

All of which would probably die of laughter if a man asked them not to call them "dude" because it was sexist.

How's the weather on Neptune?

[spartan]

Rosa:
As I have said many times, unless you are female, you cannot possibly decide what is or is not counted as offensive/demeaning/sexist by female comrades.
Come on Rosa that statement is sexist saying that men cannot decide what is or is not offensive just because the term in question relates to a woman. So by that belief men would not be allowed to have an opinion on a matter just because the matter is about a slang term used to describe women? Now that is sexist!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by revolting
This raises the question--is "pussy" sexist?

The last I heard it was already debated here and found to not be sexist.


In any case who cares what you think?

You're just another kid that would sell out his own mother to see me banned regardless of the issue.

Because you're a pussy.

Here's a list of folks that dear leader Rosa has deemed as "sexist":

Raf
Jazzrat
Spartan
Rybin
Comrade Crum
Dyermaker
Invader Zim

Did I miss anyone Rosa?

If I did make sure to add them to your purge list.

[synthesis]

The problem here is that people feel like they're entitled to more than they are. Me listening to an opinion and giving it careful consideration is being sensitive. Me nodding my head like a robot and acquiescing to an opinion striking me as bullshit oversensitivity (which may or may not come from a woman) would be idiocy.

I am astounded that this person is a moderator. I'm struggling to understand the people who thought: "Hey, you know what we need more of? Fragmentation!"

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 18, 2007 11:04 am--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 18, 2007 11:04 am)
revolt
This raises the question--is "pussy" sexist?

The last I heard it was already debated here and found to not be sexist.
[/b]
By women?

In any case who cares what you think?
I didn't say it was sexist or not. I merely raised the question, again.

You're just another kid that would sell out his own mother to see me banned regardless of the issue.
I didn't say I want you to get banned, nevertheless over a word that has some controversial implications. Anywho, nice job of pulling out my crystal ball.

Because you're a pussy.
I smell jealousy.

I'm quite proud of my femininity, thank you very much.

[Vinny Rafarino]

By women?

By the board.


I'm quite proud of my femininity, thank you very much.

The word "pussy" in this case is not a reference to a vagina but a reference to you being a wimp.


I didn't say I want you to get banned, nevertheless over a word that has some controversial implications. Anywho, nice job of pulling out my crystal ball.

If that's true then I stand corrected.

I'm sure time will tell if I'm right or wrong.

Whether you join the ban-wagon or not; I don't think there will be a short supply of people that hop on it that themselves use the words chick, bird, bloke and dude or a regular basis.

They are just too cowardly to admit it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by dyer
I am astounded that this person is a moderator. I'm struggling to understand the people who thought: "Hey, you know what we need more of? Fragmentation!"

If it wasn't for RS2000's praise for this person, I doubt she would be.

I'm sure he would have changed his opinion of her once she started showing her true "trot colours".

All she want to do is create a "land of Rosa" where she will reign supreme.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 18, 2007 11:41 am
The word "pussy" in this case is not a reference to a vagina but a reference to you being a wimp.
Then why not simply call me a wimp when the word pussy really doesn't imply it, or at least shouldn't? Are female reproductive organs really a symbol of weakness?

By the board.
That's meaningless unless the 'victims', i.e. women of the board, determined it to not be sexist.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 18, 2007 09:57 am
"Babe, Chick, Dude" etc are all sexist in certain contexts.

I know a couple who regularly refer to each other as "babe" ...this clearly isn't an example of patriarchy in action. Banning it or accusing Revolutionary leftists of sexism because they use these phrases is, in my opinion, another brain dead example of liberal infiltration/influence in our movement. We've managed to address reformism and pacifism. But Political correctness seems to be running rampage.
100%. I don't think anyone's arguing that it's OK to demean women, merely that there are bigger problems in the world than the political incorrectness of fellow leftists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IZ:


You ask that, when i think it is obvious you know what i am refering too, and then ask me not to answer here? Which is it?

Well, you raised this here, so what's your problem?


No my argument is that you failed to get your way last time, and now are simply trying another tack to achieve the same result. Indeed you more or less admitted it, despite your back-peddling earlier, in this thread that you are a veritable crusade against him

The thread you are referring to (in the CC) was not mine.

And it seems to me that you are quite happy now to issue this abusive clown with a carte blanche, and, as I predicted, give me hard time for being abused by him and then complaining about it.


And who would they be?

Read the thread. You can't expect me to do everything for you.


Ah, so they are allowed to confirm your theory that the word is indeed sexist, but other men are not aloud to contend that it is not? I see...

Are you being deliberately stupid?

These male comrades have responded to the reaction of women (and not just at RevLeft) that this word is sexist.

I never argued that men cannot agree with women, only that they cannot judge contrary to them


But you can judge that the terms 'bloke' and 'dude' are offensive?

I didn't.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


Come on Rosa that statement is sexist saying that men cannot decide what is or is not offensive just because the term in question relates to a woman. So by that belief men would not be allowed to have an opinion on a matter just because the matter is about a slang term used to describe women? Now that is sexist!

I did not say that men cannot decide, only that they cannot judge that if women find a word sexist, then those women are wrong.

Now what is sexist about that?

You will be telling me next that if I point out that men cannot decide for a woman whether she has an abortion, that that is being sexist!

How can a man decide if a term is abusive to a woman, if that decision goes against what she feels?

Are you saying that women invent feelings of hurt and abuse when they are abused?

[Invader Zim]

The thread you are referring to (in the CC) was not mine.

It was yours as much in you were in favour of what turned out to be the losing side.


give me hard time for being abused by him and then complaining about it.


Rosa, you haven't even seen a "hard time" or "abuse" for that matter, if you think my skepticism of your position is a "hard time" or that the term 'chick' is "abuse". If you do, grow a thicker skin, and that is about all there is to say on the matter.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And the evidence keeps stacking up:


You're just another kid that would sell out his own mother to see me banned regardless of the issue.

Because you're a pussy.

Here's a list of folks that dear leader Rosa has deemed as "sexist":

IZ: here is your carte blanche for you, and while he abuses at will, you sit on your hands.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


I don't think anyone's arguing that it's OK to demean women, merely that there are bigger problems in the world than the political incorrectness of fellow leftists.

If he used just one term of racist or homophobic abuse, would you be saying this?

I think not.

But, when he uses sexist lanaguge, that, apparently, is fine by you.

And would you use the right wing term 'political correctness' is somone were to complain about the use of racist or homophobic language?

Again, I think not.

So, why the selective blindness here?

[spartan]

Rosa:
I did not say that men cannot decide, only that they cannot judge that if women find a word sexist, then those women are wrong.
You said:
As I have said many times, unless you are female, you cannot possibly decide what is or is not counted as offensive/demeaning/sexist by female comrades.
Wish to retract that statement?

Now what is sexist about that?
You tell me?

You will be telling me next that if I point out that men cannot decide for a woman whether she has an abortion, that that is being sexist!
I would never do such a thing!

How can a man decide if a term is abusive to a woman, if that decision goes against what she feels?
So every single womans feelings should be taken into consideration? Well what if a majority of women found these terms to be unoffensive and not sexist? What about there feelings?

Are you saying that women invent feelings of hurt and abuse when they are abused?
Not that it is important but i am sure some women do and some women dont just like some men.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

even liberals scorn the use of these words while conservatives and other mysoginistic paternalists embrace them. Radicals oppose these words, it's obvious.

[Herman]

One of the fashionable trends i'm noticing is the fact that we accuse socialists of sexism when we all have been taught within the boundaries of a bourgeois society. You don't become a perfect socialist in one day.

Now the term "Chick" might be offensive, but to simply call a person sexist for using that word, especially when that person did not mean to degrade the woman in any way is going too far. The solution, if you will, is to patiently tell the person that the term used has a sexist connotation. I believe Tragic did the right thing and was the only one to precisely explain why the term might be offensive to women.

I myself have never used the term, because it seems your typical bourgeois college kid slang word, "Hey man, I saw 5 chicks in a row, they were all like hot and stuff".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


Wish to retract that statement?

No, because when I said:


As I have said many times, unless you are female, you cannot possibly decide what is or is not counted as offensive/demeaning/sexist by female comrades.

That was aimed at male comrades who were deciding for female comrades what they should or should not find offensive, and they had decided that a term we find offensive wasn't.

So, no inconsistency here.

Don't you think you should put your energies into defending an oppressed group rather than defending a sexist pig?


I would never do such a thing!

I know, and that is the point; one you judge 'sexist' the other you would never do.

So, if I say that no man can decide for a woman what she regards as abusive, you say this is sexist.

Then, if someone says that no man can decide for a woman which pregnancies she should keep, you would say (presumanby) that that is not sexist.

So, in one case: a man deciding for a woman is sexist, according to you, but in the other case of a man deciding for a woman it is not, again according to you.

Who is being inconsistent now?


So every single womans feelings should be taken into consideration? Well what if a woman finds these terms to unoffensive and not sexist?

Would you even begin to argue that way over, say, racist terms -- for example that 'n*gger' is not racist if we can find one or two Afro-Americans who do not mind this word, and who even use it in one another?

No, you would not; so why here?

I find this word sexist and offensive, so why are you giving me a hard time too?

It seems to me that far from you taking not 'every womsn's feelings into consideration', you do not want to take any woman's feelings into consideration, not the least mine.


Not that it is important but i am sure some women do and some women dont just like some men.

In that case, are you saying that I am?

[Enragé]

i say chick all the time to female friends of mine

i dont mean it as offensive, i just like the word, and no-one i've called chick has ever been offended by it.
So, i'll just keep saying it.

to me, its just the female equivalent of "dude"

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 18, 2007 08:02 pm
It's not "considered inoffensive vernacular".. It's pretty regularly assumed to be derogatory.


chick –noun
1. a young chicken or other bird.
2. a child.
3. Slang: Often Offensive. a girl or young woman.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Perhaps like a vast host of other terms it is, but as you pointed out it is not always deemed to be so. Indeed, it is so often not considered sexist that there is an entire genre of post-feminist literature dubbed 'chicklit', as opposed to male equivilent 'ladlit'. Indeed plenty of women refer to themselves as 'chicks' and do not resent it when men do.

And unlike terms such as 'nigger', it is not because the word is being reclaimed.


i say chick all the time to female friends of mine

Well apparently you are a dirty sexist no better than a white man who proclaims black people to be 'niggers'.

[synthesis]

And would you use the right wing term 'political correctness' is somone were to complain about the use of racist or homophobic language?

As I stated in one of the numerous analogies I have provided but apparently have been ignored by you... someone noting that, say, a racial penis joke made them feel uncomfortable is perfectly acceptable, but for them to show the level of self-righteous divisiveness about it that you have shown here would probably disgust me, too.

The problem is that you claim to speak for all women here when it is more likely that you have been assisted by the most vocal few, and that the rest who just don't care simply aren't saying anything in this thread. What you are really angry about is that people are not respecting you and this is probably because you are not acting in a manner worthy of respect.


You will be telling me next that if I point out that men cannot decide for a woman whether she has an abortion, that that is being sexist!


Dude, you are fucking insane.

[Enragé]

Well apparently you are a dirty sexist no better than a white man who proclaims black people to be 'niggers'.

no because when i say nigger to a black man he will be offended by it

when i call my female friends chick they arent offended by it, the word has acquired a different meaning, even if its just among my circle of friends.
Hysteria is actually a reference to women as well if im not mistaken, but it has lost that meaning. So, by the same pc bullshit reasoning whereby im not allowed to call my friends chick, you should start a fuckin crusade against the word hysteria

see the nonsense in that?
now get over yourself

im not sexist, never have been, never will be, and i will continue calling my female friends chicks when i feel like it, for the same reason i call my male friends dude from time to time

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NKOS, but what if told you I found it offensive, demeaning and sexist when used against me?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 08:55 pm
NKOS, but what if told you I found it offensive, demeaning and sexist when used against me?
Well, if I may answer for him on that one, I wouldn't use it to you. However Vinnie by doing so is not being sexist, he is being an asshole. And being an asshole is hardly an ideological fault worthy of either restriction of a banning. If I restricted everyone I thought was an asshole most of the board, myself included would be restricted.

[acornsr4squirrels]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 06:53 pm
I never argued that men cannot agree with women, only that they cannot judge contrary to them
What? Are you serious?

Maybe I've misunderstood you... but I swear it sounds like you just said that men can agree with women all they want, but they're not allowed to disagree....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


The problem is that you claim to speak for all women here when it is more likely that you have been assisted by the most vocal few, and that the rest who just don't care simply aren't saying anything in this thread. What you are really angry about is that people are not respecting you and this is probably because you are not acting in a manner worthy of respect.

Where have I said I speak for all women?

But, I do speak for myself, and, as it is becoming increasingly apparent, for other female comrades here: we find this word demeaning and sexist.

Now, it is not possible for you to speak for us, so that puts us ahead on points.

And don't you think you should be using your time and energy defending us, and not this sexist pig?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IZ:


Well, if I may answer for him on that one, I wouldn't use it to you. However Vinnie by doing so is not being sexist, he is being an asshole. And being an asshole is hardly an ideological fault worthy of either restriction of a banning. If I restricted everyone I thought was an asshole most of the board, myself included would be restricted.

I say he is being sexist toward me; who are you to tell me otherwise?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 09:02 pm
IZ:


Well, if I may answer for him on that one, I wouldn't use it to you. However Vinnie by doing so is not being sexist, he is being an asshole. And being an asshole is hardly an ideological fault worthy of either restriction of a banning. If I restricted everyone I thought was an asshole most of the board, myself included would be restricted.

I say he is being sexist toward me; who are you to tell me otherwise?
A person with a mind and opinion of my own. And what of other women who contradict you, or think it comes down to context? Who are you to tell them they should not be able to hold an opinion on the matter?

Indeed a person could say just about anything which you could claim to be 'sexist' have that person restricted because nobody else is apparently allowed to challenge that opinion. Its just silly.


Maybe I've misunderstood you... but I swear it sounds like you just said that men can agree with women all they want, but they're not allowed to disagree....

I see someone else has noted the paradox.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 07:55 pm
NKOS, but what if told you I found it offensive, demeaning and sexist when used against me?
well zim already said it, i wouldnt use it against u,probably not even when you're around

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by rev0lt+September 18, 2007 11:48 am--> (rev0lt @ September 18, 2007 11:48 am)
Then why not simply call me a wimp when the word pussy really doesn't imply it, or at least shouldn't? Are female reproductive organs really a symbol of weakness?
[/b]

Because the word pussy in this context has nothing to do with the vagina and the board has already voted that the word is not sexist.


That's meaningless unless the 'victims', i.e. women of the board, determined it to not be sexist.

I'm sorry you don't agree with board policy. Perhaps you would be happier posting elsewhere; perhaps somewhere "man free". :lol:

I think we're really missing the point here: the point that Rosasaurus has completely disregarded board policy in order to further her own agenda.

A very common practice for a Leninist and not in the least surprising.

The fact is that the board has, to my knowledge, never voted that the word "chick" is sexist and is therefor "ban worthy.

She will undoubtedly claim that that the word is absolutely sexist no matter the context much like the word "nigger" is racist no matter the context.

I'm sure that if you ask everyone here if the word nigger is racist not one person would deny it.

That however is not the case with "chick"; many people have denied its inherent "sexism" and therefore it's not "absolutely sexist".

If the board voted that the word is "sexist" then I would stop using it; until then it's not up for debate.

The fact that Rosa wants to bend the rules and board policies to suit her own personal agenda should really open your eyes to what she's all about.

Rules only matter to her when it's suits her purpose otherwise they can simply be tossed aside.

Leninism at it's best. :lol:


CDL
It's not "considered inoffensive vernacular".. It's pretty regularly assumed to be derogatory.

It appears your understanding of the written word is unusual.

Look up the word "often" and "offensive".

Neither of them mean "sexist".

By this crazy rational we can also ban the use of the word "girl" while were at it.

It's cool to say "girl walked by" - that's alright but what if you said the "It's only a silly girl that walked by".

Uh-oh.

You cat's need to get a grip on reality. I would start with turning your backs on pathetic relics like Rosa who feel it's solely up to them to decide what's "right or wrong".

Fuck her and her precious "vanguard".


I say he is being sexist toward me; who are you to tell me otherwise?

"I say" - "I say" - "I say"

That's all it's ever about: you, you you.

Well you are wrong.

As usual.

[synthesis]

And don't you think you should be using your time and energy defending us, and not [Vinny Rafarino]?

Why should I? Because you're a woman? I thought chivalry was supposed to be chauvinist ;)

Seriously, though, you've already told me that my opinion is inherently irrelevant to you, so why should I return a favor that was never done for me?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by cdl
As for origins, the word chick was first used in Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis in 1927, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary.

Here's the original passage: "He had determined that marriage now would cramp his advancement in the church and that, anyway, he didn't want to marry this brainless little fluffy chick, who would be of no help in impressing rich parishioners. But that caution he had utterly forgotten in emotion, and her question was authentically a surprise, abominably a shock."

Here's another version:

Chick - c.1320, abbreviation of chicken (q.v.), extended to human offspring (often in alliterative pairing chick and child) and used as a term of endearment. As slang for "young woman" it is first recorded 1927 (in "Elmer Gantry"), supposedly from U.S. black slang, in British use by c.1940, popularized by Beatniks late 1950s. Chicken in this sense is from 1711. Sometimes c.1600-1900 chicken was taken as a plural, chick as a singular (cf. child/children) for the domestic fowl.

As you can see there are many variations of the word and its usage. To simply say that it's "always sexist" is just stupid.

99 percent of the people that use this word have never even heard of "Elmer Gantry" .

I'm sure that the beat generation didn't either; it was a simply a term in a speciific style of speech.

Like Jive.

It's a slang word for "woman" nothing more; how that woman decides she is going to be affected by the word is her own self-conscious problem.

No wonder the "left" never does anything meaningful; they're too busy squawking like parrots about the wrong shit.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 09:51 am
As with most things it depends on context and usage.


To use a feminine diminutive term (such as 'chick', 'miss', 'missy', 'sweetheart', 'doll', 'honey', etc) to condescend or patronize is sexist because it characterizes someone's sexual status as a lower social status.

In fact its sexist in precisely a way that "*****" is not. This is because to demean someone as a "chick" is to characterize them as a silly, giggly, stupid young girl, whereas to insult someone as a "*****" is to characterize them as a disagreeably assertive female; the former characterization is strongly gendered, a characterization that would not be applied to a male in a parallel situation, the later is a characterization that would be applied to a male with different terms.
This is a good post I overlooked in the earlier debate, this is how things should be discussed.

But to address your point: as you have noted, it depends on the context. "Chick" implies two things: femininity and youth. So at times it is perfectly applicable, other times it will be denigrating.

It's the same with "*****." It's used as you stated - sometimes. But a lot of the time, it refers to female dogs, with the idea that female dogs are generally more tame than their male counterparts. So in this context saying "that's my ***** over there" is a lot more demeaning than "that's my chick over there."

As I've been saying all along, words stand for ideas and mean whatever you want them to. The ideas themselves can survive under a new set of euphemisms without anything having changed except the language.

[Invader Zim]

Incidentally the term 'Chick' is still used in this country as a term of affection for children.

Also from the wiki page on 'chick': -


# Slang, denoting a young (Spanish Chica = girl) and/or attractive woman (may be considered derogatory).

May be, not universally.

that should be end of.

[LSD]

Beyond the question of whether this particular word is offensive (which is, quite frankly, an incredibly stupid debate), I think there's something rather interesting going on here. And that is that in attempting to prove her case that Vinny is a sexist, Rosa has revealed a disturbingly subjectivist paradigm of sexism that warrants some examination.

I don't mean to pick on Rosa in particular, but I think she's unknowingly speaking on behalf of a rather large segment of the left which treats issues of social discrimination and exploitation as if they were matters of personal taste instead of institutional constructs.

This isn't restricted to sexism, of course, you see it in anlysis of racism, homophobia, and even transphobia (something I'll address below), but since this is the most blatant I've ever seen it expressed, I'm going to jump in here.


Originally posted by NKOS+--> (NKOS)when i call my female friends chick they arent offended by it[/b]

Originally posted by [email protected]
NKOS, but what if told you I found it offensive, demeaning and sexist when used against me?

By this line of argumentation sexism is merely that which is percieved to be sexism, meaning that if I found the word "human" sexist, no one would be entitled to contradict me.

Not only does that undermine the entire point of this board, namely to debate issues of politics, but it also effectively renders sexism a meaningless concept since apparently anything could be "sexist" so long as someone judges it to be so.

And while there can be no doubt that a significant aspect of sexism is the offense that it can cause, to reduce sexism and patriarchy to hurt feelings misses entirely just what it is that makes sexism so pervasively destructive.

A word is not sexist merely by virtue of being offensive or otherwise not liked, it's sexist by virtue of its perpetuating sexist social values and in doing so, perpatuating the institutions of patriarchy.

As TC rightly points out, sometimes the word "chick" does exactly that; othertimes it does not. It really depends on the context in which it is used. That's not unique, of course, the same is true for other words, most obviously the word "gay".

Outside of certain contexts, the word "gay" is not homophobic as it does not perpatuate homophobia. And no matter how offended some hypothetical homosexual might be at the word, that offense cannot in and of itself constitute grounds for finding the word discriminatory.

Certainly we cannot take political action based solely on such offense. People get offended by all sorts of things, usually justified in their own minds by appeals to things like "sexism" or "racism" or "homophobia".

But we don't act against all offenses, we act against those which are a part of actual social oppression.

Now, this case might qualify. I'll be honest, I didn't read Vinny's original post, but the notion that he could make a sexist comment doesn't particularly shock me.

But the critical issue here is to recognize that regardless of what Vinny did or did not post and what word he did or did not use, sexism is not merely that which offends women. It's certainly not merely that which offends one particular one!


Rosa
I say he is being sexist toward me; who are you to tell me otherwise?

We're who we've always been, the rest of the world. More specifically, that rest of the world which rejects your exclusive right to declare what is and what is not oppressive language.

You certainly have the right to say what offends you, but sexism, again, is about a hell of a lot more than offense. And the fact that you consider a statement sexist cannot in and of itself be taken as proof that it somehow "must" be.

Remember, the Christian right considers the gay rights movement to be "anti-marriage". I've even heard the word "anti-straight" thrown around. But those assertions, like yours, don't amount to squat.

Sexism, racism, homophobia, all the rest, they are objective entities. They can be defined, identified, and addressed all outside of the confines of any one persons' emotional universe.

***

This thread reminds me of a few recent posts in which members, quite seriously, attempted to assert all sorts of ridiculous ideas regarding "tolerance". Specifically, I'm reminded of a certain CC thread in which it was honestly proposed that retiscence to date a transexual automatically made one a bigot.

Such a notion is ludicrous at face, but this poster was absolutely serious in his proposition that anyone not attracted to transexuals was a "transphobe" through and through.

It didn't matter that that person wasn't actually against transexuals, it didn't even matter that they supporter all political transexual rights; all that mattered was that they contradicted this poster's conception of moral "tolerance".

Something not that far away from Rosa's notion of personalized "sexism".

All in all, it speaks to a disturbing trend among the left to veer away from objective materialist leftism towards a more moralistic emotion-driven agenda. Something which will rot the left from within.

We can condemn the right for its intolerance and conservative moralism, but when we are guilty of just as blatant moralism ourselves, those condemnations are hollow platitudes.

We need to recognize that fundamental to the leftist agenda is the understanding that our personal morals and ethics and, yes, even offenses end at our skull; they have no business interfering in the lives of others.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 18, 2007 07:37 pm
Of course, LSD is right in that Rosa's subjectivism on the question of sexism in general is wrong; but that's not really what this thread is about in the main, is it?
That was always what this was about. Sometimes people just don't recognize that they are in a bubble where a word that might cause personal offense ('chick') is equivocal to a word evoking hundreds of years of atrocity (the n-word).

This subjectivism is the cause of the bubble world, and when compounded with self-righteousness and oversensitivity it will only avoid total rejection when it is expressed on an Internet forum populated with people willing to be bullied out of their opinion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 04:54 pm

Vinny won't be booted off the board if I have anything to say about it. You clearly have a personal thing against him Rosa.

So, you are Ok about his use of offensive/sexist language toward female comrades?
It would depend on how he used the word now, wouldn't it? Take for instance the word "woman". Inoffensive on it's own, one would think, but depending on it's context it can be just as demeaning as the word "slut".

Eg. "Your opinion doesn't count, you're just a woman".

Notice that that sentence didn't have to use "sexist language" in order to be sexist. Using the word "chick" instead of "woman" wouldn't have made it any better or worse, it's still sexist no matter how you cut it.


But, you'd be telling a different story if he had used openly racist language.

Why is this different?

Because, as I just explained to you, the word "chick" in of itself is not offensive in it's common usage, it's offensiveness is defined by it's context.

While "chick", as commonly used, is simply a slang term for a member of the female gender, words like "nigger", "spic" and "coon" are in all practical terms never used in a neutral or positive context.



Now, I don't use the word chick, but lots of people do, and how they use it (Which is almost univerally the important thing), they use it simply as a slang term for females. The reason words like nigger and spic are unacceptable is because they are used in denigration of people of a certain race, implying that said people are inferior due to their race.

Once more, you are not a woman, and so you are in no position to judge what women take as offensive/sexist.

This what logicians call an "ad hominem" - fallaciously discrediting an argument based on the nature of the person making it rather than attacking the argument itself.

You're effectively dismissing my argument because I'm male. Now, I am fully aware that males as a group are not oppressed, but in this exact instance you are being sexist towards me by doing so. But, I suppose that being a member of a non-oppressed group that makes me as an individual an acceptable target for sexism right?

Have you no intellectual honesty?



As for me not being able to say whether the word chick is sexist due to being male, how much more ridiculous can you get? That's like saying I can't possibly say if the word nigger is racist or not due to not being black, when I obviously can see it as a racist term.

You know 'n*gger' is racist because black people stood up in the 1950's and told us white people they wanted its use stopped.

You were not born knowing this was a racist word. You had to be told, and by black people.

Same here; female comrades find the word he used demeaning and sexist.

Now that, if I may say so, should be enough for you.

Or do you no want to defend an oppressed group?

People can take offense over anything for the silliest of reasons, and until I see a significant majority of women, not just on this board but in real life, objecting to words like "chick", then I will take it as word demeaning to women.

I was also born into this world not knowing about the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, but that red herring does not stop me as a thinking adult from realising what terrible crimes they are.

Please don't belittle the achievements of black people in the 1950s by comparing their struggle with what amounts to squabbling over semantics on this board. It does not reflect well on you as it makes you look like some kind of opportunist, hijacking some other people's political struggles for your own personal ends.

As for defending an oppressed group, practise what you preach. I have not seen nowhere near as much indignation from you over the still-present issues of pay inequality that I mentioned earlier, compared to this game of petty semantics.


You wax very indignant over homphobic language, etc.

But, here you do the opposite.

Why?

I have spent the majority of this post and the one before it explaining to you. You responded with ad hominems and red herrings.

Now, would you care to actually address my points and not simply dismiss them because I happen to have a dick, two balls and a lack of eostrogen?


And you can see how stupid he is getting:


Because the lord of the realm "Rosasaurus" deems it so...off with their heads!!!

It's personal with him, not me.

He's not the one threatening administrative action over a personal difference. He's merely being cheeky.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 19, 2007 03:37 am
Of course, LSD is right in that Rosa's subjectivism on the question of sexism in general is wrong; but that's not really what this thread is about in the main, is it?
The title of the thread is "The word "chick": is it sexist?"

Obviously the answer is, inherently, no the word is not sexist; unless placed into a context that makes it so.

I don't know what illusions which you have been labouring under throughout this thread, but I hope thats put you right.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


Why should I? Because you're a woman? I thought chivalry was supposed to be chauvinist

I am sorry, I thought you were a lefty, committed to fighting in defence of members of the oppressed.

Perhaps you aren't?

--------------------------------------

IZ:


A person with a mind and opinion of my own. And what of other women who contradict you, or think it comes down to context? Who are you to tell them they should not be able to hold an opinion on the matter?

As I noted above (you really must try to keep up!), if you could find one or two Afro-Americans who were OK with the word 'n*gger', would that make its use non-racist?

And, whenever we have debated the use of racist or homophobic language, when have you ever asked such questions?

The issue is, therefore, and once more, why are you so strict over racism and homophobia, but quite OK with sexism?


I see someone else has noted the paradox.

I see you are still failing to keep up, for I answered that bogus objection earlier:


Spartan:


Wish to retract that statement?

No, because when I said:


As I have said many times, unless you are female, you cannot possibly decide what is or is not counted as offensive/demeaning/sexist by female comrades.

That was aimed at male comrades who were deciding for female comrades what they should or should not find offensive, and they had decided that a term we find offensive wasn't.

So, no inconsistency here.

Don't you think you should put your energies into defending an oppressed group rather than defending a sexist pig?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IZ:


Incidentally the term 'Chick' is still used in this country as a term of affection for children.

Also from the wiki page on 'chick': -

# Slang, denoting a young (Spanish Chica = girl) and/or attractive woman (may be considered derogatory).

May be, not universally.

that should be end of.

Yes, that is exactly how this sexist pig was using it:


The chick who issues wishes of death is lecturing me on "bluster and abuse".

So, it's not the end.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LSD:


I don't mean to pick on Rosa in particular, but I think she's unknowingly speaking on behalf of a rather large segment of the left which treats issues of social discrimination and exploitation as if they were matters of personal taste instead of institutional constructs.

Thank you for that well-argued post, however, I must take you up on one of your overall premises.

Not every judgement an individual makes is subjective. Now, if you were to argue for that conclusion, that all such judgements were subjective, then we would have to say that anything you said, no matter how well is it was backed-up by evidence and authority, was 'subjective'.

So, you are going to have to relax the constraints on what you regard as 'subjective'.

But, as hard as I tried, I could see no clear attempt on your part to do that.

In which case, the suspicion must be that this is your own subjective opinion, and hence no more nor no less valid than mine.

Moreover, even assuming some criteria or other were forthcoming on the distinction between the 'objective' and the 'subjective' (and good luck finding one; philosophers and scientists have been looking for one for quite some time, and to no avail), this would no affect my point.

Your argument seems to be that my characterisation of sexism is 'subjective' and ignores how such things are socially-constructed.

Well, what we now require is some non-question-begging way to distinguish the two. For if you cannot, your case against me falls.

But even if that could be done (and good luck on that one too), what makes you think that my view is not also socially-constructed?

I learnt to use this word ('sexism') in social circumstances not of my own choosing, and I did not invent this word, nor its offensive connotations. Also, having read relevant literature, I discovered that other women considered the word 'chick' offensive, So, my application of this word is socially-driven too. It is also constructed by women's oppression, something about which rather too many comrades here are rather relaxed. Indeed, they defend one of the board's very worst sexist pigs.

Now, as the above debate shows, the majority of men here do not think this word offensive. To quote Mandy Rice Davis: "Well, they would, wouldn't they?"

The view of sexism held by these male comrades is no less socially-constructed by patriarchal society than is my contrary view. They take the view that they do because their perception of women (even on their own admission) is coloured to such an extent that they regularly use this word, and can see no problem with it. Indeed they go further and attack anyone who challenges their patriarchal views.

I am sure you know enough about the modern feminist movement to know that it started out as a separate movement in the later 1960's and early 1970's mainly because of the sexist attitudes of male lefties.

There was a time in the 1970's when if you used the word 'chick' to a feminist, you could expect a slapped face. But you guys have been brought up alongside today's wishy-washy post-feminists, who, it seems have allowed you all to fall back into bad habits.

Looks like we have got to fight that battle all over again.

One would have thought that some of you men would stand up and be counted as real comrades, and defend another comrade who has been abused in this way.

Or have us women got to do all by ourselves again?

Now, I do not disagree with much of what you said, but I hope the above puts you straight on my views, and why I hold them for non-'subjective' reasons.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IZ:


The title of the thread is "The word "chick": is it sexist?"

Obviously the answer is, inherently, no the word is not sexist; unless placed into a context that makes it so.

I don't know what illusions which you have been labouring under throughout this thread, but I hope thats put you right.

Once more, you are in no position to judge.

[spartan]

Rosa:
Once more, you are in no position to judge.
And why exactly is he in no position to judge? And please dont say it is because he is male as this would be the most sexist statement ever and much more sexist than anything Vinny has ever said!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


It would depend on how he used the word now, wouldn't it? Take for instance the word "woman". Inoffensive on it's own, one would think, but depending on it's context it can be just as demeaning as the word "slut".

Eg. "Your opinion doesn't count, you're just a woman".

Notice that that sentence didn't have to use "sexist language" in order to be sexist. Using the word "chick" instead of "woman" wouldn't have made it any better or worse, it's still sexist no matter how you cut it.

Here is that sentence (but as my post above have shown he has used it in this thread too in a thoroughly sexist manner):


The chick who issues wishes of death is lecturing me on "bluster and abuse".

Here is a compendium of his more recent abuses:


Several antiquated chicks and dudes have tried that before to no avail.

And I will continue to do so until you relics are lost to the ages for good!

And they say "Stalinists" are purge happy; they have obviously never seen a Trot backed into a corner.

They're like rats.

You chicks, dudes, birds, and blokes know who you are.

You're just another kid that would sell out his own mother to see me banned regardless of the issue.

Because you're a pussy.

Fuck her and her precious "vanguard".

Now, not all of these are sexist (I will defer to you guys on what you think of 'dudes' and 'blokes'), but some of them are, and all of them are offensive, and would have earned him a couple of warning points in the old system.


Because, as I just explained to you, the word "chick" in of itself is not offensive in it's common usage, it's offensiveness is defined by it's context.

While "chick", as commonly used, is simply a slang term for a member of the female gender, words like "nigger", "spic" and "coon" are in all practical terms never used in a neutral or positive context.

Well, neither is 'n*gger' in some circumstances -- for example when you use it above, or when Afro-Americans use it on each other.

So, once more, why are you strict in one case, but bend over backwards to be accommodating here?

Is it because of what I posted in my reply to LSD:


Now, as the above debate shows, the majority of men here do not think this word offensive. To quote Mandy Rice Davis: "Well, they would, wouldn't they?"

The view of sexism held by these male comrades is no less socially-constructed by patriarchal society than is my contrary view. They take the view that they do because their perception of women (even on their own admission) is coloured to such an extent that they regularly use this word, and can see no problem with it. Indeed they go further and attack anyone who challenges their patriarchal views.

I am sure you know enough about the modern feminist movement to know that it started out as a separate movement in the later 1960's and early 1970's mainly because of the sexist attitudes of male lefties.

There was a time in the 1970's when if you used the word 'chick' to a feminist, you could expect a slapped face. But you guys have been brought up alongside today's wishy-washy post-feminists, who, it seems have allowed you all to fall back into bad habits.

Looks like we have got to fight that battle all over again.


This what logicians call an "ad hominem" - fallaciously discrediting an argument based on the nature of the person making it rather than attacking the argument itself.

Well, you are no logician, if you do not mind me saying that. The above 'fallacy' is what we call an 'informal fallacy'. In other words it is not strictly one at all, it is just an unfair argumentative move, in many cases.

And it is not difficult to see why: if you want to show that someone is arguing inconsistently, or duplicitously, or from ignorance, then you 'argue to the man' -- ad hominem.

So, when George W Bush complains about the use of 'force for political ends', it is to the point to argue back that he has no room to talk.

And, when a man presumes to tell us women what we find offensive, it is to the point to tell him he cannot possibly know this unless we tell him. So, there is no way that a male judgement here can outweigh a female one.


Please don't belittle the achievements of black people in the 1950s by comparing their struggle with what amounts to squabbling over semantics on this board. It does not reflect well on you as it makes you look like some kind of opportunist, hijacking some other people's political struggles for your own personal ends.

You miss the point: you were not born knowing that 'n*gger' was racist, nor was I, nor was any other non-black. It took the struggle of black Americans (and others) to make it so.

Similarly, as I pointed out to LSD, it took the struggles of feminists in the 1960's and 1970's to expose the use of such words as sexist. And some of our worst enemies were male lefties like you.

And I alleged earlier you were being quite relaxed over this example of sexism, in contrast to the way you almost spit blood at the slightest hint of, say, homophobia.

And, now you very kindly provide me with more proof:


He's not the one threatening administrative action over a personal difference. He's merely being cheeky.

Yes, in that case, the very next homophobe here will merely be being 'ironic'.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:11 am
Rosa:
Once more, you are in no position to judge.
And why exactly is he in no position to judge? And please dont say it is because he is male as this would be the most sexist statement ever and much more sexist than anything Vinny has ever said!
Oh for fucks sake shut up!

There's nothing even marginally sexist about what Rosa said so asserting otherwise only makes you look foolish.

In fact, in your vocal ignorance you've illustrated Rosa's point; many men do lack a sophisticated understanding of sexism. Even worse are men who are proud of this ignorance or make a mockery of women's oppression with claims of 'reverse sexism!' in response to something completely innocuous (see: your posts goading Rosa as an 'anti-male sexist').

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BGM: thanks for those words of support!

It's good to see that there are still few males lefties around who understand the nuances of sexism (which are often harder to spot than those of racism, since it is, perhaps, the oldest and most pervasive form of oppression).

[spartan]

Rosa has stated that he can not have an opinion on the matter because he is a man! How is that not sexist?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


Rosa has stated that he can not have an opinion on the matter because he is a man! So you shut the fuck up!

You are starting to sound incoherent comrade.

I'd cut your losses while you are behind, if I were you.

[spartan]

Rosa:
I'd cut your losses while you are behind, if I were you.
:lol: There are no losses to be cut from where i am sitting comrade.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by LSD
I didn't read Vinny's original post, but the notion that he could make a sexist comment doesn't particularly shock me.

And why is that?

Do I have a "long history" here of making sexist comments?

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by spartan+September 20, 2007 02:00 am--> (spartan @ September 20, 2007 02:00 am) Rosa has stated that he can not have an opinion on the matter because he is a man! How is that not sexist? [/b]
That is not what Rosa said.

Rather, Rosa made the point that women are in a better position than men to judge what is sexist and what is not (given that women are the subjects of sexism, that is only logical).

I.E.


Rosa

You are not a woman, so who are you to decide what women regard as sexist?

We do not let racists tell us what is acceptable language for them to use.

Nor do we allow white people to decide what racial minorities find offensive.

Same here.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what is actually sexist about Rosa's comment? As opposed to merely repeating the accusation over and over.

Would you cry 'heterophobe!' if a gay member suggested that gay people are in a better position than heteros to judge what is homophobic?

Or perhaps you think that it makes sense that a man should dictate to a woman what is offensive to women?

P.S.

If you're anarchist (which according to your profile and custom title you are), why is your avatar a cut of some ridiculous soviet propaganda poster? And why name yourself after a highly authoritarian and hierarchal nation (sparta)?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by bgm+--> (bgm)Perhaps you'd like to explain what is actually sexist about Rosa's comment? As opposed to merely repeating the accusation over and over.[/b]

Are you blind?

Because is quite clearly states that men are non capable of figuring out for themselves what is sexist because they don't have the same plumbing!

"Who are we" says this "revlefter".( :lol: )

Apparently not much in her opinion!


Would you cry 'heterophobe!' if a gay member suggested that gay people are in a better position to judge what is homophobic?

No I would tell that fool that he or she is not solely privy to what's considered discrimination and that I have never needed to suck a cock in order to figure out that homophobia is wrong.


rosasaurus
I am sorry, I thought you were a lefty, committed to fighting in defence of members of the oppressed.

We are committed to fighting in defense of the oppressed. We are not committed to fighting in defense of those that wish upon their magic stars at night that they could be the ones doing the oppressing.

That means you.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 20, 2007 02:44 am--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 20, 2007 02:44 am)
Originally posted by bgm+--> (bgm)Perhaps you'd like to explain what is actually sexist about Rosa's comment? As opposed to merely repeating the accusation over and over.[/b]

Are you blind?

Because is quite clearly states that men are non capable of figuring out for themselves what is sexist because they don't have the same plumbing!

"Who are we" says this "revlefter".( :lol: )

Apparently not much in her opinion! [/b]
That is the same strawman Spartan has been using - i addressed it in my last post.

Also, that's a peculiar line of argument to take given, one of rosa's last post was:


[email protected]
It's good to see that there are still few males lefties around who understand the nuances of sexism (which are often harder to spot than those of racism, since it is, perhaps, the oldest and most pervasive form of oppression).

???


raf
No I would tell that fool that he or she is not solely privy to what's considered discrimination and that I have never needed to suck a cock in order to figure out that homophobia is wrong.

No one has suggested that men are incapable of identifying or understanding sexism.

[Vinny Rafarino]

That is the same strawman Spartan has been using - i addressed it in my last post.

Also, that's a peculiar line of argument to take given, one of rosa's last post was:

Right.

"Strawman".

Get a grip.


No one has suggested that men are incapable of identifying or understanding sexism.

Is that so?


Originally posted by your dear leader Rosie+--> (your dear leader Rosie)
You are not a woman, so who are you to decide what women regard as sexist?[/b]

:lol:

IUt seams your leader really ain't that "dear"; shes just another trot with delusions of being the one on the pulpit leading us "infantile males" into "Rosieville".

No thanks.

I can smell the stench from "Rosieville" at one thousand paces.

Now you can explain to me how your last comment of this:
Originally posted by bgm+--> (bgm)"No one has suggested that men are incapable of identifying or understanding sexism"[/b]

Had anything to do with my comment of this:
[email protected]
No I would tell that fool that he or she is not solely privy to what's considered discrimination and that I have never needed to suck a cock in order to figure out that homophobia is wrong.

Which was an answer to your question here:
bgm
Would you cry 'heterophobe!' if a gay member suggested that gay people are in a better position to judge what is homophobic?


Get with it BMG.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 07:27 am
DM:


Why should I? Because you're a woman? I thought chivalry was supposed to be chauvinist

I am sorry, I thought you were a lefty, committed to fighting in defence of members of the oppressed.

Perhaps you aren't?

Somehow the fact that you have found time to fill your signature with blabber about dialectics makes me doubt that you are oppressed on the same level as victims of police brutality or unfair wages, so no, I don't give a fuck about you.

And here any observer can see the mental capacity of these morons. It's like Iraq, a struggle devoid of any meaning beyond personal interest that has been blown out of proportion into a war of conflicting ideology that necessitates some sort of "you're with us or against us" bunker mentality. If you don't strictly adhere to their personal preferences then you are not a comrade, not a leftist, not a revolutionary, and overall you are a "scumbag."

I wouldn't have even said anything in the first place if I did not notice a trend in this direction across a wide swath of the left, where fragmentation over their own personal distastes and usage of words that may make people uncomfortable is more relevant than the unity of working towards a better world.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by raf+--> (raf)Is that so?[/b]

Yup:


Originally posted by rosa+--> (rosa)It's good to see that there are still few males lefties around who understand the nuances of sexism (which are often harder to spot than those of racism, since it is, perhaps, the oldest and most pervasive form of oppression).[/b]

Is a clear admission by Rosa that men are capable of identifying and understanding sexism.


"You are not a woman, so who are you to decide what women regard as sexist?" does not = "men are incapable of identifying or understanding sexism"

Rather,


Originally posted by me
Rosa made the point that women are in a better position than men to judge what is sexist and what is not (given that women are the subjects of sexism, that is only logical).

A 'better position' does not mean that men are incapable.


Originally posted by raf
Now you can explain to me how your last comment of this:

You responded to my hypothetical (which was a re-working of spartans logic applied to homophobia as opposed to sexism) by saying that:


Originally posted by raf
No I would tell that fool that he or she is not solely privy to what's considered discrimination and that I have never needed to suck a cock in order to figure out that homophobia is wrong.

I took this to be a reworking of the logic you supplied here:


Originally posted by raf
Because is quite clearly states that men are non capable of figuring out for themselves what is sexist because they don't have the same plumbing!

To which my reply was... "No one has suggested that men are incapable of identifying or understanding sexism."

Let's try this again...


[email protected]
No I would tell that fool that he or she is not solely privy to what's considered discrimination

Fine.


raf

and that I have never needed to suck a cock in order to figure out that homophobia is wrong.

Again, this is fine - i don't disagree with this sentiment... i just don't understand how this is a fair (or relevant) response to Rosa's position.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by BGM+--> (BGM)"You are not a woman, so who are you to decide what women regard as sexist?" does not = "men are incapable of identifying or understanding sexism"
[/b]

You can try and "decode" her own words into whatever "meaning" you wish.

The rest of the real world will take them at face value and save our decoder rings for real ciphers.


Again, this is fine - i don't disagree with this sentiment... i just don't understand how this is a fair (or relevant) response to Rosa's position.

Good grief.

Because you said this:
again
Would you cry 'heterophobe!' if a gay member suggested that gay people are in a better position to judge what is homophobic?

The rest of your post was just confused rabbiting.

If you can stay within the guidelines of conversation on planet Earth then I will continue to talk with you. Keeping you from getting confused is not my job.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 04:31 pm

I'm Arab, and I don't percieve it that way at all.

Other Arabs do.

Some Arabs supported the invasion of Iraq; does that make it OK?
Wow, what a terribly capitalist arguement. :rolleyes:

So you're suggesting we substite the opinions of the majority... for those of the minority?

Funny that you'd support something like that, since most Western women were opposed to the early feminist movement. Should women have waited to get rights simply because it was not the "will of the majority"? (See, I can put a spin on political situations, also!)

Shouldn't you be advocating individual rights and/or a political system based upon consensus?




I view it as a mockery of those Islamic extremists/terrorists, who would punish people for merely showing imagery of Allah or acting against Islamic law. No one should have to conform to the laws of a god they don't believe in, whether it be a cartoonist in Denmark, or a woman in Beirut.

In his case it is sterotypical of all Arabs, including you.

In the context of the imperialist invasion of Iraq, and possibly other Arab/Persian lands, the cartoon incident is racist. It is all part of the long-term demonisation of 'inferior races' in order to justify the robbery of their wealth.

I am surprised I have to point this out.

Rejection to imperialism does not excuse support of religious fundamentalism. And the only person stereotyping Arabs here is you. Not all Arabs are Muslims, and certainly not all Muslim Arabs would be offended by his avatar.

[Enragé]

By this line of argumentation sexism is merely that which is percieved to be sexism, meaning that if I found the word "human" sexist, no one would be entitled to contradict me.


No.

Its only sexism if when i say "chick" i mean it as derogatory against a woman, or women in general, and for the exact reason that she/they is/are female, i do not.
The reason i would not use the word around and especially against rosa is not because i would be a sexist if i did, its because she percieves it as sexist and would be offended by it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by NKOS
The reason i would not use the word around and especially against rosa is not because i would be a sexist if i did, its because she percieves it as sexist and would be offended by it.

Is that because your afraid of some sort of "backlash" against you perpetrated by her highness?

I'm sure a lot of young people hold their tongue when it concerns Rosa; she can be relentlessly vindictive against someone brave enough to call the dear leader out on her shit.

But she doesn't scare me.

I've been dealing with megalomaniacal Leninists like her for over two decades.

I'm old hat to their "scare tactics".

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 18, 2007 05:39 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 18, 2007 05:39 pm)
Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 10:30 am


Why is this any different?
Because you are clearly in the minority and are clearly wrong.

Get over yourself. [/b]
Duh, the minority is clearly always wrong!

Oh wait, isn't this a radical leftist site?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:31 am

Duh, the minority is clearly always wrong!

Oh wait, isn't this a radical leftist site?
Save it counterblast.

I've been a Communist since probably before you were even born.

We don't need another opinion on what this sites "supposed to be"; we've already got shitloads of them already!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 18, 2007 05:02 pm
As with Noxion, you are very sharp in the way you deal with homphobic and racist language, but not over a blatant use of sexist abuse.
I do believe I was one of the more tolerant members, when there was debate of the use of phrases like "that's gay" I argued against TATs proposal to punish people who say "that's retarded" etc. As for racism, I think "nigger" is a far more 'culturally loaded' term than say, babe.

Furthermore, even 'nigger' is acceptable in certain social contexts. For example, in conversation between two black people. Or perhaps even if a white member of revleft was to say "sup nigga" to a black member, I don't think that necessarily indicates any racism. It can however be investigated.

All these words are very ambiguous. Often used for divisive political ends. Vinny for example, likes to use them to wind up people like YKTMX, and you. And you like to use them as a means to ban or restrict people you politically disagree with. Granted, Vinny hasn't been the most reasonable person to debate.


You can see that several female comrades here agree with me. Why are you not defending us?

Because I don't think using these words inherently implies sexism on the part of the user. I know many comrades, including female comrades who use these terms haphazard. And I certainly wouldn't call them sexist. I would agree that in this instance vinny has been needlessly provocative though.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 19, 2007 06:40 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 19, 2007 06:40 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 11:31 am

Duh, the minority is clearly always wrong!

Oh wait, isn't this a radical leftist site?
Save it counterblast.

I've been a Communist since probably before you were even born.

We don't need another opinion on what this sites "supposed to be"; we've already got shitloads of them already! [/b]
Before I was born?!?

And the revolution still hasn't come?!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Urban+--> (Urban)I would agree that in this instance vinny has been needlessly provocative though.[/b]

When am I not "needlessly provocative"? If I remember right, there is no board rule against being "needlessly provocative".

As I stated before: I will continue to do so until Leninist relics such as Rosasaurus are swept under the rug for good!


CB
Before I was born?!?

Probably.


And the revolution still hasn't come

I don't hold any delusions that me being a Communist for a couple decades has had any influence on when and where the revolution wil transpire.

I'm just not that important.

Neither is anyone else.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Urban:


Because I don't think using these words inherently implies sexism on the part of the user. I know many comrades, including female comrades who use these terms haphazard. And I certainly wouldn't call them sexist. I would agree that in this instance vinny has been needlessly provocative though.

With all due respect, may I submit that you are in no position to judge what female comrades here regard as sexist language.

And, just because the word 'n*gger' is used by some Afro-American men, that would not, I hope, stop you from banning anyone who used it here to defame blacks, or another black comrade.

Indeed, as an admin, I know you could be trusted to defend such a defamed comrade.

So, defend me, please...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Counterblast:


Wow, what a terribly capitalist arguement.

Why so?

I was merely pointing out, that if you can find some people of an ethnic group who think differently from the majority, that does not make it acceptable.

If this sexist pig posted that cartoon in, say, Gaza, we all know what reception he'd receive.


So you're suggesting we substite the opinions of the majority... for those of the minority?

Quite the reverse, as the above demonstrates.

In fact, this shows that you are:


Not all Arabs are Muslims, and certainly not all Muslim Arabs would be offended by his avatar.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


Somehow the fact that you have found time to fill your signature with blabber about dialectics makes me doubt that you are oppressed on the same level as victims of police brutality or unfair wages, so no, I don't give a fuck about you.

Thankyou for being honest about the fact that you prefer to pick and choose which forms of oppression suit your taste, and are prepared to fight, and which of the oppressed you are prepared to ignore when they are attacked.

At least we now know what sort of lefty you are.

[Invader Zim]

With all due respect, may I submit that you are in no position to judge what female comrades here regard as sexist language.

And this is where you are wrong and repeatedly so, as I have pointed out we are not without either intelligence or empathy, we are well aware of what society dubs sexist; and unless you propose that we ban and restrict members based on your every whim, there has to be a line drawn; and that line has to be generally accepted terminology and context.

Indeed this board runs on loose democratic principals which entitle all of those deemed politically suitable to vote on this kind of issue. Unless you wish to restrict voting based on gender, I don't see how you can possibly think that argument holds any weight or credibility.

And not to mention other women have noted that the word requires context in order to be sexist.



And, just because the word 'n*gger' is used by some Afro-American men, that would not, I hope, stop you from banning anyone who used it here to defame blacks, or another black comrade.

Strawman, already debunked.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IZ:


And this is where you are wrong and repeatedly so, as I have pointed out we are not without either intelligence or empathy, we are well aware of what society dubs sexist; and unless you propose that we ban and restrict members based on your every whim, there has to be a line drawn; and that line has to be generally accepted terminology and context

That clearly identifies you then with this crowd, as I mentioned to LSD:


Now, as the above debate shows, the majority of men here do not think this word offensive. To quote Mandy Rice Davis: "Well, they would, wouldn't they?"

The view of sexism held by these male comrades is no less socially-constructed by patriarchal society than is my contrary view. They take the view that they do because their perception of women (even on their own admission) is coloured to such an extent that they regularly use this word, and can see no problem with it. Indeed they go further and attack anyone who challenges their patriarchal views.

I am sure you know enough about the modern feminist movement to know that it started out as a separate movement in the later 1960's and early 1970's mainly because of the sexist attitudes of male lefties.

There was a time in the 1970's when if you used the word 'chick' to a feminist, you could expect a slapped face. But you guys have been brought up alongside today's wishy-washy post-feminists, who, it seems have allowed you all to fall back into bad habits.

Looks like we have got to fight that battle all over again.

Feminists had to fight guys like you 30-40 years ago, who claimed to be on the left, and thus against oppression, but who were remarkably forgiving of sexism and sexist language, especially their own.

Looks like we count you out of that particular fight on behalf of the biggest oppressed group on the planet: women.


Strawman, already debunked.

Not so.


Indeed this board runs on loose democratic principals which entitle all of those deemed politically suitable to vote on this kind of issue. Unless you wish to restrict voting based on gender, I don't see how you can possibly think that argument holds any weight or credibility.

Democracy is also about open argument, hence I am trying to swing things in the direction I think best for this board, and the struggle in general.

If I lose this particular fight, so be it.

But do not for one minute think that your insensitve attitude is going to deter me.

Or, stop me returning to this when he comes out with some more of the same.

But, we know who you will be defending then, don't we?

Certainly not any oppressed/defamed female comrades.

[Invader Zim]

What you said to LSD was an ad-hominem, as is your responce to me, and holds no validity; it attacks not the principal but person. While you may think that ludicrous accusations of 'sexism' will scare the opposition into hiding, in my case you are sorely mistaken. I will not be scared off by such dishonest and aggressive tactics, which would better fit a bully on a playground than a debate forum.

But to get back to your argument. You claim that the word is sexist because a limited number of feminists say it is? What of the majority of women, or feminists who disagree? Why should you and a minority of other women determine what is 'sexist' and what is not? Who gives you that authority? Indeed you do not even ahve the universal opinion of women on this forum; they do not see the word as inherently sexist. To quote Tragic Clown, assuming she has not altered her opinion: -

"As with most things it depends on context and usage."

I am sorry but I reject your argument as both bogus and slightly elitist.




Feminists had to fight guys like you 30-40 years ago

'Guys' like me?

I certainly don't like the idea that you of all people, a person who doesn't even know me, thinks you have the right to label me as being similar to anybody. Indeed you are calling me a sexist because I disagree with you about the general perception of a word. I don't know what you hope to achieve by coming out with such obviously false charges, is it a message that if I don't change my tune, I will be next in the witch hunt? Is it supposed to 'scare me off' from voicing my opinion on the word 'chick', which is the same as a lot of peoples?




Looks like we count you out of that particular fight on behalf of the biggest oppressed group on the planet: women.

Well, when most women conclude that 'chick' is comparable to 'nigger' as you have claimed, I will be sure to let you know I was mistaken. Until that day, i will am afraid we are going to have to remain at odds on the issue of the 'chick' word.


Not so.

Oh so you think the term 'chick' is comparable to 'nigger'? In that case you know fuck all about slavery.




Democracy is also about open argument,

Indeed it is, and your aggressive playground bully tactics of condeming those who don't agree with your position as 'sexists' is directly contrary to the spirit of that.



But do not for one minute think that your insensitve attitude is going to deter me.

My insensitive attitude? When did I start throwing around vicious accusations of bigotry? I am sorry Rosa, but you seriosuly need to review your own spiteful commentry before passing judgement on mine.

I realise that you are pissed off that someone has had the brazen shamelessness to challenge your opinion, but is there any need for that?

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 05:24 pm
DM:


Somehow the fact that you have found time to fill your signature with blabber about dialectics makes me doubt that you are oppressed on the same level as victims of police brutality or unfair wages, so no, I don't give a fuck about you.

Thankyou for being honest about the fact that you prefer to pick and choose which forms of oppression suit your taste, and are prepared to fight, and which of the oppressed you are prepared to ignore when they are attacked.

At least we now know what sort of lefty you are.
No, I am not particularly concerned about the oppression of anti-dialecticians. Perhaps when you can show me a dialectician in police uniform putting lead in your body while you're taking out your wallet, then I will spring to your defense.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IZ:


What you said to LSD was an ad-hominem, as is your responce to me, and holds no validity; it attacks not the principal but person. While you may think that ludicrous accusations of 'sexism' will scare the opposition into hiding, in my case you are sorely mistaken. I will not be scared off by such dishonest and aggressive tactics, which would better fit a bully on a playground than a debate forum.

But, what is wrong with ad hominems?

This is what I said to Noxion about them (I think my earlier advice to you to keep up fell on deaf ears!):


Well, you are no logician, if you do not mind me saying that. The above 'fallacy' is what we call an 'informal fallacy'. In other words it is not strictly one at all, it is just an unfair argumentative move, in many cases.

And it is not difficult to see why: if you want to show that someone is arguing inconsistently, or duplicitously, or from ignorance, then you 'argue to the man' -- ad hominem.

So, when George W Bush complains about the use of 'force for political ends', it is to the point to argue back that he has no room to talk.

And, when a man presumes to tell us women what we find offensive, it is to the point to tell him he cannot possibly know this unless we tell him. So, there is no way that a male judgement here can outweigh a female one.

And you are no logician either -- or you would know all this.


But to get back to your argument. You claim that the word is sexist because a limited number of feminists say it is? What of the majority of women, or feminists who disagree? Why should you and a minority of other women determine what is 'sexist' and what is not? Who gives you that authority? Indeed you do not even ahve the universal opinion of women on this forum; they do not see the word as inherently sexist. To quote Tragic Clown, assuming she has not altered her opinion: -

You need to deal with my views not those of phantom women who cannot be called on the defend or attack your views.

And quoting TC is not more use to your case than quoting a single Afro-American would be that 'n*gger' is OK.

I have been through all this; you need to pay attention.


'Guys' like me?

I certainly don't like the idea that you of all people, a person who doesn't even know me, thinks you have the right to label me as being similar to anybody. Indeed you are calling me a sexist because I disagree with you about the general perception of a word. Just who the fuck do you think you are?

Yes, you know who you are.


Well, when most women conclude that 'chick' is comparable to 'nigger' as you have claimed, I will be sure to let you know I was mistaken. Until that day, i will am afraid we are going to have to remain at odds on the issue of the 'chick' word.

Until that point, I will simply assume that you are being ridiculous.

More invention; find one place where I have said they are at all comparable in the way you say.

What I have said is that quoting people who think 'ckick' is Ok is no more of a justification than doing the same with 'n*gger'.

I note once again, you can only make your defence of this sexist pig 'work' by invention.


Indeed it is, and your aggressive playground bully tactics of condeming those who don't agree with your position as 'sexists' is directly contrary to the spirit of that.

So, you are now blaming the victim! I fight back, and I am the one you attack not this sexist pig!

You'll be saying I am 'hysterical' next...


My insensitive attitude?

Yes, you do know who you are.


When did I start throwing around vicious accusations of bigotry? I am sorry Rosa, but you seriosuly need to review your own spiteful commentry before passing judgement on mine.

As I say, it will be 'hysterical' next.

VR has already said stuff like this:


So untwist your panties and admit your mistake.

There's nothing like a woman scorned..

You couldn't be like me even in your widest fantasies.

Fantasies I'm sure I make a nightly visit to.

In any case, don't you think the Bahamas or Tahiti would be a better place for funky lovin'?

As far as I know you've never been concerned about your reputation; at least that's the skinny from the boys in the neighbourhood.

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70844

But, that's all Ok with you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


No, I am not particularly concerned about the oppression of anti-dialecticians. Perhaps when you can show me a dialectician in police uniform putting lead in your body while you're taking out your wallet, then I will spring to your defense.

Fine, join the reactionaries.

[synthesis]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 06:48 pm
DM:


No, I am not particularly concerned about the oppression of anti-dialecticians. Perhaps when you can show me a dialectician in police uniform putting lead in your body while you're taking out your wallet, then I will spring to your defense.

Fine, join the reactionaries.
I need say no more. You have proven my point far more than I could ever hope to. Thanks for saving my time.

[Invader Zim]

Well I am going to skip most of that, only address that which is worthy of a responce and leave the rest because, as DyerMaker noted, 'you have proven my point far more than I could ever hope to.'




You need to deal with my views not those of phantom women who cannot be called on the defend or attack your views.

I have dealt with your views, and your only responce is to proclaim, rather like a moody teenager, 'You don't know how I feal!'

If we were to take your 'word' alone that the term is sexist, assuming that you do actually believe this charge, it would be a bias sample and would lead to false positives.

To paraphrase you,

'If you were any kind of logician, you would know this.' :lol:



And quoting TC is not more use to your case than quoting a single Afro-American would be that 'n*gger' is OK.

So I should reject TC's analysis of the word, but accept yours? Any good reason I should do that? What makes you think your opnion is not a biased sample?

And, as your position seems less reasonable as well as less likely, I am going to go with TC; I hope you don't mind.

Secondly if the majority of women did find the term objectionable, I am sure that even with my apparently utter lack of empathy, it would have reached my attention prior to your lone voice insisting that the word is inheretly sexist; as opposed to requiring context in order to be sexist, something I was already aware of.



I have been through all this; you need to pay attention.

If you have been through it, you were as wrong then as you are now.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 12:16 am
I was merely pointing out, that if you can find some people of an ethnic group who think differently from the majority, that does not make it acceptable.
Exactly my point...

Your objection rests on the assumption that the majority is always right. Historically, we know that this usually isn't the case.

EDIT: And the fact that you're a self-proclaimed communist and feminist should prove what I mean. Just because the majority of women wouldn't consider themselves feminists, or bacause a majority of workers wouldn't consider themselves communists, doesn't make either concept wrong.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


I need say no more. You have proven my point far more than I could ever hope to. Thanks for saving my time.

In fact, you should have said less, and made it even easier.

It was plain to see you were a reactionary on this issue from you very first few words.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IZ:


I have dealt with your views, and your only responce is to proclaim, rather like a moody teenager, 'You don't know how I feal!'

You have skipped past them, that is all; and your use of 'moody' now looks like you are working your way up to using 'hysterical'.

Perhaps you can sit on the subs bench, and take over from VR when he gets booted off?

You are a fitting understudy.


So I should reject TC's analysis of the word, but accept yours? Any good reason I should do that? What makes you think your opnion is not a biased sample?

Why won't you give them equal weight, and accept my views like you accept hers?

Answer: you are VR mark 2.


Secondly if the majority of women did find the term objectionable, I am sure that even with my apparently utter lack of empathy, it would have reached my attention prior to your lone voice insisting that the word is inheretly sexist; as opposed to requiring context in order to be sexist, something I was already aware of.

It took Rose Parks, a lone voice back in the 1950s, to stand up to the racists. [You'd probably have called her 'moody', too.]

So, in my own small way, and in no way comparable to her brave stand, I have to expose your tolerance of sexist abuse at RevLeft, along with the sexist abuse of your role model, VR, even if I am the only one.

Fortunately, I am not.


If you have been through it, you were as wrong then as you are now.

Too bad you have failed in your bid to blame this victim for the abuse she has received.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Counterblast:


Exactly my point...

Your objection rests on the assumption that the majority is always right. Historically, we know that this usually isn't the case.

So, if the majority in this instance are offended by his racism, they must be in the wrong?

What kind of sense does that make?

On that basis, you could find a few Nazis, ask them if they are offended by racism, and conclude that racism is not offensive, because the minority is always right.


EDIT: And the fact that you're a self-proclaimed communist and feminist should prove what I mean. Just because the majority of women wouldn't consider themselves feminists, or bacause a majority of workers wouldn't consider themselves communists, doesn't make either concept wrong.

I am not a feminist.

But, I am not an anti-feminist either.

[LSD]

Before I go indepth on the (what I consider at least) central issue here of subjectivist politics, I'll make a brief statement on this minor issue of the word "chick" itself.

I think enough definitions and etymologies have been posted at this point such that we all know the history and usage and denotations and connotations of the word. Somehow, though, there's still a fierce debate raging about its implications.

That's largely the case, I suspect, because few people bothered to actually sit down and think about the issue at hand. Or at the very least, read some of the thought-out posts in this thread.

The issue of language and politics and culture is a very complicated and very layered one. There are very few cases in which we can declare a word "absolutely" this or that; and so trying to reach a yes or no conclusion here is ultimately pointless.

There's an answer here, but it's not a universal one. It's the same answer that you get for most of these sorts of questions: it depends.

I, again, thank TC for making this point 7 pages back, but no one seemed to notice.

I'm reminded of a scene I saw on television a few years back, don't remember where. Some guy is roughing up a girl and she resists, his buddy laughs and says "the chick says no". They both have a good laugh over it. Then the protagonist enters and shoots the "bad guys" saying "the chick said no!"

Now, does anyone seriously propose that those two uses of the word are the same? The same words were used, but in the mouth of a rapist it was a statement of oppression, in the mouth of a liberator it was one of defiance.

Obviously the real world isn't quite so dramatical, but the point stands. When I call my girlfriend an "awesome chick" (which I actually did once ...I think), only the most puritanical anti-sex "feminist" would find something sexist in it.


Originally posted by Rosa
Not every judgement an individual makes is subjective. Now, if you were to argue for that conclusion, that all such judgements were subjective, then we would have to say that anything you said, no matter how well is it was backed-up by evidence and authority, was 'subjective'.

Obviously, and nowhere did I assert that every statement is nescessarily subjective. What I said was that every expression of emotion or of "feelin" is subjective, and I hardly see how that's a debatable point.

The issue here isn't your argumentation, that isn't subjective, at least not any more than anyone else's is. What's at issue is your proposition that the mere condition of feeling that one is under sexist attack automatically means that sexism is going on.

And that's a very dangerous proposition since it rests entirely on the legitimacy or lack thereof of that feeling.

Look, there exist convincing arguments that the word "chick" is sexist. I'm not sure that they're entirely accurate -- that is I tend to agree with TC that like with most such words, it's really rather context-depdendent --- but there's no doubt that they exist.

The point here, however, is that it wasn't those arguments that you appealed to in your response to NKOS, rather it was your own personal feelings. Your exact words were "I found it offensive, demeaning and sexist when used against me". That's not an analysis of society, it's a statement of feeling.

Not that there's anything inately wrong with being offended, it's a part of the human condition and often an eminently useful one, but what it isn't is rational grounds for judging discrimination.

Because, again, people are offended by all sorts of things often for very personal, very subjective reasons. And while I by no means wish to belittle the very real offense that you felt reading Vinny's words, surely you must understand why that offense cannot constitute in and of itself a determination of sexism.

It's for the same reason that refusing to date a transexual does not make one a bigot. Personal feelings and emotions have no place in sociopolitical analysis. Whatever we may feel or emote, we must ensure that our judgements are based not on our intuitive reactions, but on our leveled, thought-out rational studies.

And I'm not saying that the rational conclusion to this mess isn't that "chick" is a sexist word. Again, I think it often is exactly that. Rather, my point here is to remind everyone that even when emotion is right, it's still wrong.

For the left to survive it must remain rational!


Your argument seems to be that my characterisation of sexism is 'subjective' and ignores how such things are socially-constructed.

Well, what we now require is some non-question-begging way to distinguish the two. For if you cannot, your case against me falls.

True enough, luckily that's not nearly as difficult a task as you make it out to be.

There is a difference between the philisophical challenge of seperating the objective from the subjective, and the practical dillema of identifying subjectivist "argumentation". The most obvious facet of that difference is that the latter is far easier.

I do not propose that I am able to discern in all cases and all situations the objective from the subjective, nor would I believe anyone who claimed that they could. Ambiguity and subjectivity are a part of life.

But when it comes to political anlaysis, it's actually fairly simple to figure out when someone is arguing from reason and when they're arguing from emotion. Indeed, the reason that I even jumped into this thread was that the emotionalism was not only flowing, it was overtly doing so.

Again, you were not subtle in your statements. You made an overtly subjectivist proclamation: "I say he is being sexist toward me; who are you to tell me otherwise?"

There are no two ways about that quote, you are saying in no uncertain words that your own feeling of sexism is in and of itself enough proof that sexism is occurring. I can honestly thing of no purer or more succinct example of the emotionalist subjectivist idealist line.


I learnt to use this word ('sexism') in social circumstances not of my own choosing, and I did not invent this word, nor its offensive connotations.

No you didn't, and I never suggested that you did. No woman is an island, as it were.

But we each interpet and conceptualize our reality in our own way and we each come to different conclusions thereof. Surely, if anything, this thread demonstrates this.

You take the position that "chick" is inately sexist; another woman takes the position that it is sometimes sexist, a perhaps subtle but essential distinction; and I would imagine there are women out there who wouldn't find the word sexist at all.

All of which goes to show, of course, just how subjective this whole experience is. All three of those positions can't be simultaneously correct. "Chick" is either always, sometimes, or never sexist; one of the three. But if were to adopt your attitude, we must find that it is all at the same time!

That's where rational dialogue and discussion comes in. Indeed, thats's why boards like this (and their real world counterparts) exist. So that issues like this can be addressed, and considered, and resolved.

'Cause despite what the postmodernists would have you believe, there are solid answers to these types of questions. I'm by no means proposing that I have them, I'm just contending that they do exist and can be reached if we are willing to put in the effort of discovering them.

In this case, the first step of that process must be the recognition that emotion and subjective "experience" cannot rule. Whatever conclusions we draw must be based on empircal presentable data. That data may prove that "chick" is inherently sexist, it may not. But it will do so objectively, and not based on the unverifyable, unreliable, and unapplicable feelings of any one individual.


The view of sexism held by these male comrades is no less socially-constructed by patriarchal society than is my contrary view. They take the view that they do because their perception of women (even on their own admission) is coloured to such an extent that they regularly use this word, and can see no problem with it.

No on is denying that ideas are social constructs, nor that men posting in this thread are just as shaped by patriarchal society as are the women. None of that changes the fact, however, that feeling offended does not constitute a good basis for a political paradigm.

The question of why some men don't find the word "chick" sexist is actually a different one from the question of subjectivism and political feminism. You're probably right in that many men don't acknowledge active sexism because they simply don't see it.

But that doesn't make your position any stronger. You're still claiming that "[you] found [the word 'chick'] offensive, demeaning and sexist when used against me" and that that in and of itself means that sexism is underway.

My question is what if we were to replace the word chick with another? Like say the word "woman"? Or "female"? There do exist certain self-described feminists who oppose the use of such words judging them to be intrinsically offensive.

Accordingly, is my calling those women "women" sexist? Clearly it offends them, but is that the same thing as being a sexist...?

The answer, clearly, is no. But if we were to adopt your paradigm, the paradigm of subjectivist individualist emotion-driven identity politics, we would be forced to conclude that in any case where sexism is "experienced", sexism is in fact occring.

And I would have to be labeled a bigot for daring to refer to a female as a female.

I trust the ludicrousy of this whole mess speaks for itself!


There was a time in the 1970's when if you used the word 'chick' to a feminist, you could expect a slapped face.

Is that really true?

Not having been alive at the time, I can't speak to that myself, but if so I'd say it's a rather sad example of how legitmately progressive movements can get caught up in meaningless gestural politics.

There were important struggles going on in the '70s, I can't believe that any serious revolutionary would beat a fellow worker / revolutionary for using colloquial street language.

But then the '70s did produce some of the greatest left collapses in the history of our struggle, so I suppose it's not that surprising....

[Morag]

This is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? Seven pages, because men want to continue calling women something that we don't want to be called? I agree with TC that it depends on usage and context. My sister calls me "chickie" all the time, so does my best friend, and my mother, my co-workers and my manager and my other sister, and several other of my female friends. But if any man says it to me, it's almost always in the phrase (or with the tone), "Hey, shut up, chick," or "Fuck off, chick, or "What do you know, chick?" If someone I do not know calls me chick, it is always derogatory- absolutely 100% of the time, it is derogatory, so don't be saying it isn't sexist. Now, I'd rather hear chick then pussy or **** or slut or skank or whore or ho or *****, but when a man says chick, I might as well be hearing pussy or **** or or slut or skank or whore or ho or *****, because those terms are practically interchangable in meaning. "Fuck off, *****/slut/whore/chick/****/skank." Doesn't matter what the term is, it all fits the same mysogynistic bag, although, apparently chick is milder, which means you can say it in front of children and not get reprimanded. Obviously, there are always exceptions to this, but those exceptions are context and usage.

So. Is it fair that women are allowed to determine for ourselves what is or isn't sexist, or what we would and would not like to be refered to as in any form of language, colloqual or formal? Too right it is, and anyone who says that it isn't can pretty much fuck off. If other women want to debate it with us, that'd be great; unfortunately, like many workers, many women don't realise the casual ways in which they are oppressed. But for men to tell us what is and is not offensive to us? Uh. Yeah. Piss the fuck off. Not to say that men can't learn and understand what is offensive, but they can't place their judgment above ours- that's actually really stupid, because what do you know about what makes me feel worthless? It's the same thing as men telling us what is and is not good for us, safe for us or proper for us. It all suggests we don't have the right to, or couldn't possibly..., decide for ourselves what we want to do, say, be. If women can't even tell men that we don't want to be called something, even if it is as inoffensive as a silly, piece-of-fluff bird, freshly hatched, then when can we say to men not to call us anything?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LSD, thanks gain for bringing some calm rationality to this debate, however:


Obviously, and nowhere did I assert that every statement is necessarily subjective. What I said was that every expression of emotion or of "feeling" is subjective, and I hardly see how that's a debatable point.

Well, if it is a true expression of emotion (verifiable in the usual way), why is it 'subjective'? You arte not suggesting that the various physiological goings on, on which these emotions are founded, are 'subjective' too, are you? Or the very visible manifestations of emotions (observable by any number of scientists) are 'subjective', I hope?


What's at issue is your proposition that the mere condition of feeling that one is under sexist attack automatically means that sexism is going on.

Not really, since I based this on the observations of feminists, whose views are further based on social construction admixed with personal feelings, which, I take it, is what your analysis is partly based upon too.


The point here, however, is that it wasn't those arguments that you appealed to in your response to NKOS, rather it was your own personal feelings. Your exact words were "I found it offensive, demeaning and sexist when used against me". That's not an analysis of society, it's a statement of feeling.

What would be the point of me claiming this word was offensive if I did not also say I was offended? You might like to think what NKOS and Invader Zim would have said if I complained about this word but did not say I was offended.

And, such a report is no less 'objective' than anything you have so far said.


Because, again, people are offended by all sorts of things often for very personal, very subjective reasons. And while I by no means wish to belittle the very real offence that you felt reading Vinny's words, surely you must understand why that offence cannot constitute in and of itself a determination of sexism.

You would be right to say that if that were my argument. However, I reported my reception of this word to counter the idea that men were better placed than, or even equally placed with, women to decide what constituted a sexist term. Men and women are not equally placed here. Even your own view of social construction, if I understood it aright, should tell you that.


Rather, my point here is to remind everyone that even when emotion is right, it's still wrong.

This looks 'subjective' to me.

But even if it weren't, my case is not based on emotion (even if it is informed by it), as I tried to point out in my last post, and have reiterated above.


There is a difference between the philosophical challenge of separating the objective from the subjective, and the practical dilemma of identifying subjectivist "argumentation". The most obvious facet of that difference is that the latter is far easier.

I do not propose that I am able to discern in all cases and all situations the objective from the subjective, nor would I believe anyone who claimed that they could. Ambiguity and subjectivity are a part of life.

I am sorry, but i could not see a criterion in here, even a question-begging one.

Unless you think ease of confirmation is such?

But, what is easier to confirm that one's own feelings?

And is it really the case that all objective judgements are easy to confirm?

Why then does it take science decades to confirm certain theories?

Back to the drawing-board I think.

As I said to you before, if you find a non-question-begging criterion, you will be the first person in history to do so.


But when it comes to political analysis, it's actually fairly simple to figure out when someone is arguing from reason and when they're arguing from emotion. Indeed, the reason that I even jumped into this thread was that the emotionalism was not only flowing, it was overtly doing so.

Again, you were not subtle in your statements. You made an overtly subjectivist proclamation: "I say he is being sexist toward me; who are you to tell me otherwise?"

There are no two ways about that quote, you are saying in no uncertain words that your own feeling of sexism is in and of itself enough proof that sexism is occurring. I can honestly thing of no purer or more succinct example of the emotionalist subjectivist idealist line.

But, scientists use emotion/states of mind all the time *+(the love of truth being one), and not all expressions of emotion in argument is 'subjective'.

For example:

1) NN: "Anyone who hates Bush is OK with me"

2) MM: "I hate Bush!"

3) NN: "Then let me get you a drink, comrade!"

Sure the boundaries between these term appear to be fuzzy, but that is because the terms themselves are hopelessly confused.

So, it is small wonder that we still lack a criterion, or even one that looks remotely like one.


Again, you were not subtle in your statements. You made an overtly subjectivist proclamation: "I say he is being sexist toward me; who are you to tell me otherwise?"

There are no two ways about that quote, you are saying in no uncertain words that your own feeling of sexism is in and of itself enough proof that sexism is occurring. I can honestly thing of no purer or more succinct example of the emotionalist subjectivist idealist line.

As I noted above, I used this to counter the view that men were better placed than, or even equally placed with, women to decide what constituted a sexist term.


You take the position that "chick" is innately sexist; another woman takes the position that it is sometimes sexist, a perhaps subtle but essential distinction; and I would imagine there are women out there who wouldn't find the word sexist at all.

Not so; I have never argued this. All I have argued is that VR's use of this term was.


Is that really true?

Not having been alive at the time, I can't speak to that myself, but if so I'd say it's a rather sad example of how legitimately progressive movements can get caught up in meaningless gestural politics.

Yes, and worse.

Racists and Nazis also got a pounding. Is that 'gestural' too?


There were important struggles going on in the '70s, I can't believe that any serious revolutionary would beat a fellow worker / revolutionary for using colloquial street language.

But then the '70s did produce some of the greatest left collapses in the history of our struggle, so I suppose it's not that surprising....

We beat scabs, and other rightists at certain times, why not sexist pigs?

That is mild compared to what some of our younger anarchist comrades here do/want to do to Nazis and others.

If you think this is automatically linked to failure, then can I suggest you bring this to their attention?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thankyou for those comments Morag; it is important for male comrades to hear our voices and listen to them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19, 2007 03:34 pm
Noxion:


It would depend on how he used the word now, wouldn't it? Take for instance the word "woman". Inoffensive on it's own, one would think, but depending on it's context it can be just as demeaning as the word "slut".

Eg. "Your opinion doesn't count, you're just a woman".

Notice that that sentence didn't have to use "sexist language" in order to be sexist. Using the word "chick" instead of "woman" wouldn't have made it any better or worse, it's still sexist no matter how you cut it.

Here is that sentence (but as my post above have shown he has used it in this thread too in a thoroughly sexist manner):


The chick who issues wishes of death is lecturing me on "bluster and abuse".

Here is a compendium of his more recent abuses:


Several antiquated chicks and dudes have tried that before to no avail.

And I will continue to do so until you relics are lost to the ages for good!

And they say "Stalinists" are purge happy; they have obviously never seen a Trot backed into a corner.

They're like rats.

You chicks, dudes, birds, and blokes know who you are.

You're just another kid that would sell out his own mother to see me banned regardless of the issue.

Because you're a pussy.

Fuck her and her precious "vanguard".

Now, not all of these are sexist (I will defer to you guys on what you think of 'dudes' and 'blokes'), but some of them are, and all of them are offensive, and would have earned him a couple of warning points in the old system.

None of those statements are sexist, with the possible exception of the penultimate one. But even that is a case of "ZOMG he used teh werd pussy he must fink teh womenz are inferiar!!!!1!!1!!" Of which you have no damn proof. Claiming to have some kind of special insight into someone's mind only on the basis of their choice of words is ridiculous in the extreme.

Offensive? It's not hard to see why. But I thought we were grownups on this forum with thicker skin than an eggshell. If we commenced administrative action against everyone who ever hurt someone else's feelings, we'd never have enough time to discuss more important matters than someone's bruised ego.



Because, as I just explained to you, the word "chick" in of itself is not offensive in it's common usage, it's offensiveness is defined by it's context.

While "chick", as commonly used, is simply a slang term for a member of the female gender, words like "nigger", "spic" and "coon" are in all practical terms never used in a neutral or positive context.

Well, neither is 'n*gger' in some circumstances -- for example when you use it above, or when Afro-Americans use it on each other.

Those cases are the exception, not the rule. The general rule with the word chick is that it is used simply as a slang term.


So, once more, why are you strict in one case, but bend over backwards to be accommodating here?

Because there is a considerable difference? You may personally find the word chick offensive, but that doesn't mean the rest of the female gender agrees with you.


Is it because of what I posted in my reply to LSD:


Now, as the above debate shows, the majority of men here do not think this word offensive. To quote Mandy Rice Davis: "Well, they would, wouldn't they?"

The view of sexism held by these male comrades is no less socially-constructed by patriarchal society than is my contrary view. They take the view that they do because their perception of women (even on their own admission) is coloured to such an extent that they regularly use this word, and can see no problem with it. Indeed they go further and attack anyone who challenges their patriarchal views.

I am sure you know enough about the modern feminist movement to know that it started out as a separate movement in the later 1960's and early 1970's mainly because of the sexist attitudes of male lefties.

There was a time in the 1970's when if you used the word 'chick' to a feminist, you could expect a slapped face. But you guys have been brought up alongside today's wishy-washy post-feminists, who, it seems have allowed you all to fall back into bad habits.

Looks like we have got to fight that battle all over again.

Or maybe they just realised they have more important matters to deal with than someone's choice of words. Progressive movements of all stripes overstretch themselves in the initial stages, thinking that only if they could everyone to "think right" then everything will fall into place. This is simply not the case. Material conditions and what people actually do is far more important than semantics.

I treat people as I find them, independantly of whatever is or isn't dangling between their legs. Yet because I'm reasoning against your minority view on the word "chick" (And if it isn't a minority view, where's all the fuss being made by half of the english-speaking population?) I'm somehow a raging sexist.

You see, this is the problem of semantics-based idealism - it gives compleytely the wrong picture of what's actually there.



This what logicians call an "ad hominem" - fallaciously discrediting an argument based on the nature of the person making it rather than attacking the argument itself.

Well, you are no logician, if you do not mind me saying that. The above 'fallacy' is what we call an 'informal fallacy'. In other words it is not strictly one at all, it is just an unfair argumentative move, in many cases.

And it is not difficult to see why: if you want to show that someone is arguing inconsistently, or duplicitously, or from ignorance, then you 'argue to the man' -- ad hominem.

Wrong, actually - the correct thing to do is to point out the inconsistencies, expose the duplicity, or enlighten ignorance. Ad hominem is never a valid debating tactic - it basically amounts to saying "You're wrong because you stink".


So, when George W Bush complains about the use of 'force for political ends', it is to the point to argue back that he has no room to talk.

And, when a man presumes to tell us women what we find offensive, it is to the point to tell him he cannot possibly know this unless we tell him. So, there is no way that a male judgement here can outweigh a female one.

So where are all the females telling me the word chick is sexist, apart from you and perhaps a few other on this board, who have also drunk the Kool-Aid? This is roughly 50% of the population we're talking about here, surely I would have heard it from them first?

What supreme arrogance you must have to have the presumption to speak for millions who've never even heard of you.



Please don't belittle the achievements of black people in the 1950s by comparing their struggle with what amounts to squabbling over semantics on this board. It does not reflect well on you as it makes you look like some kind of opportunist, hijacking some other people's political struggles for your own personal ends.

You miss the point: you were not born knowing that 'n*gger' was racist, nor was I, nor was any other non-black. It took the struggle of black Americans (and others) to make it so.

And you miss mine - it does not matter what we know or not know when we are born, it's what we learn that matters.


Similarly, as I pointed out to LSD, it took the struggles of feminists in the 1960's and 1970's to expose the use of such words as sexist. And some of our worst enemies were male lefties like you.

Yes, I'm one of the worst enemies of feminism, because unlike all those real sexists out there I support a woman's right to be able to do as a man does.

Wait, this is your wacko alternate reality, where wife-beaters, rapists, businesses that give unequal pay and women-hating conservatives don't exist and the only real enemy are people like me who think things that affect a woman's actual wellbeing are more important than petty semantic games.

Gotcha.


And I alleged earlier you were being quite relaxed over this example of sexism, in contrast to the way you almost spit blood at the slightest hint of, say, homophobia.

Because as I have repeatedly pointed out, "chick" in it's common usage is not in of itself sexist. It's sexism is dependant on context.


And, now you very kindly provide me with more proof:


He's not the one threatening administrative action over a personal difference. He's merely being cheeky.

Yes, in that case, the very next homophobe here will merely be being 'ironic'.

Stop making mountains out of molehills, it's making you look ridiculous.

[anarchista feminista]

This is a point I made before:

We can't exactly set individual rules for everyone, but I think it also is important to take into account how words individual affect a person. Sometimes it comes down to the interpretation, rather than what is being said. Then again, words can be misinterpreted. But what I am saying is that if someone finds the word "chick" and so on to be offensive and others don't does mean we should still try to do something about it. It may not mean a warning or anything as such or setting specific words that are "banned" but perhaps trying to remind people of why such words may be offensive.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:12 am
This is a bit ridiculous, isn't it? Seven pages, because men want to continue calling women something that we don't want to be called?

Yet more hubris. What makes you think you can speak for every single English-speaking woman on this matter?


I agree with TC that it depends on usage and context. My sister calls me "chickie" all the time, so does my best friend, and my mother, my co-workers and my manager and my other sister, and several other of my female friends. But if any man says it to me, it's almost always in the phrase (or with the tone), "Hey, shut up, chick," or "Fuck off, chick, or "What do you know, chick?" If someone I do not know calls me chick, it is always derogatory- absolutely 100% of the time, it is derogatory, so don't be saying it isn't sexist.

I'm sorry that it seems that all the men you know are grade-A assholes, but would it really change anything if they used any other word for a female?


Now, I'd rather hear chick then pussy or **** or slut or skank or whore or ho or *****, but when a man says chick, I might as well be hearing pussy or **** or or slut or skank or whore or ho or *****, because those terms are practically interchangable in meaning. "Fuck off, *****/slut/whore/chick/****/skank." Doesn't matter what the term is, it all fits the same mysogynistic bag, although, apparently chick is milder, which means you can say it in front of children and not get reprimanded. Obviously, there are always exceptions to this, but those exceptions are context and usage.

Doesn't that tell you that the tone and intent behind the words is more important than the actual words? When someone is being verbally abusive to you, the actual words used are mere colouring. It would be just as offensive if one were to say "Fuck off, woman" than if they used any other word.


So. Is it fair that women are allowed to determine for ourselves what is or isn't sexist, or what we would and would not like to be refered to as in any form of language, colloqual or formal? Too right it is, and anyone who says that it isn't can pretty much fuck off.

If it is offensive to you personally, then by all means remind someone of that, and most likely they'll stop. It's only if they continue addressing you in a manner that you don't like that you can truly know that someone is an asshole.

I know Rosa doesn't like the word chick, so I don't call her that. But if another female doesn't mind being called chick, who the hell is anyone else to say any different?


If other women want to debate it with us, that'd be great; unfortunately, like many workers, many women don't realise the casual ways in which they are oppressed.

Please quantify the oppression behind casual, non-antagonistic uses of the word "chick".


But for men to tell us what is and is not offensive to us? Uh. Yeah. Piss the fuck off. Not to say that men can't learn and understand what is offensive, but they can't place their judgment above ours- that's actually really stupid, because what do you know about what makes me feel worthless? It's the same thing as men telling us what is and is not good for us, safe for us or proper for us. It all suggests we don't have the right to, or couldn't possibly..., decide for ourselves what we want to do, say, be.

I'm not telling you what you personally find offensive or otherwise, I'm objecting to your self-assumed right to speak for all women* everywhere. You complain about us men not allowing women any autonomy, but that is quite rich in the face of you not allowing any autonomy for women except yourself. As if all other women are incapable of deciding for themselves what is and isn't acceptable, and have to be told by some kind of pseudofeminist "vanguard".

It's the feminist equivalent to Leninism.

(*Just as I would object if someone presumed to speak for all men. I'm like that)


If women can't even tell men that we don't want to be called something, even if it is as inoffensive as a silly, piece-of-fluff bird, freshly hatched, then when can we say to men not to call us anything?

Individual women can tell me whatever the hell they want, but forgive me for being skeptical when told about something that supposedly universally applies by a biased sample of the female population.

I believe women are capable of deciding for themselves what is and isn't acceptable. Do you?

[spartan]

This arguement (It is not a debate anymore) is completly out of hand and silly to say the least! I mean look at us argueing over the word (Not the context the word can be put into) chick! For fucks sake some people on here really need to experience the real world. And whilst none of the people in this arguement are wrong some people in this arguement (Well actually only one or two so you know who i mean) are definately not right and should quite frankly quit whilst they are ahead (Or should i say behind?) as they are looking rather silly now especially when compared to the well thought out responses and great posts of LSD and NoXion. Some of the politically correct individualist Feminism i have witnessed here is shocking to say the least! Add to that the unfair generalizations of men and this could be a female supremiscist forum topic! All in all the word chick on its own is not a sexist word! It is only sexist when placed in a sexist context or statement such as "That chick is so dumb just like all chicks are dumb". But what if i was to say "That chick is so smart like most chicks i know" would that be sexist? Because i dont think it would be! Go figure.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion, I have given up arguing with you.

You are a lost cause to patriarchy.

I hope you are pleased with yourself.

Spartan: you are a waste of time.

[Invader Zim]

The logician who fails to understand logic fumbles again.



You have skipped past them

Don't lie, we can simply go back to my posts and see this is not the case.


and your use of 'moody' now looks like you are working your way up to using 'hysterical'.


You would love that wouldn't you? :lol:



Why won't you give them equal weight, and accept my views like you accept hers?

Because hers is more realistic, and she isn't insulting me. At the moment I don't feal like entertaining any notions of yours. Once you show me that you are perhaps worthy of my respect again, I will consider it.



It took Rose Parks, a lone voice back in the 1950s, to stand up to the racists.

You are like Rosa Parks are you, for standing up to a guy on a message board who used the term 'chick'? Talk about mind blowing arrogance and delusions of grandeur.

You are slipping Rosa, each post you make disolving, what is now very little, credibility you have left.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

IZ, as with Noxion, I am giving up arguing with you; you are a lost cause to patriarchy.

[apathy maybe]

Well, I've just finished reading this stupid thread from the start to the finish (well, most of it). What a load of rubbish.

OK, not all of it is, there is a lot of good stuff in there even. But still, a lot of rubbish too.

spartan: Please sir, stay out of the debate, you aren't adding anything to it, instead you are embarrassing yourself (if you aren't, you should be, what with your comment about "politically correct individualist Feminism". To go off on a tangent, please people, don't use "politically correct" as an insult unless you actually want to sound right-wing. From Wikipedia, Political correctness (PC or politically correct) is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. ... Conversely, the term politically incorrect is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense. ...).

OK, now to add my two bits.

Some terms can be classified as sexist without any real discussion.

In most contexts referring to women as "girls" can be considered abusive. I originally had "sexist" here, but now I'm in a quandary. Is it sexist? The reason it is offensive is because it is classifying an adult as immature, in looks and/or in mind. (Similarly, to call a man a "boy" in the same sort of contexts would surely be equally offensive.)

Using "****" as a derogatory term (and equally "dick" and other terms for genitalia) has the potential to be sexist. Personally, I like ****s and dicks, and think that they should not be used as pejoratives because they are good things. However, it depends on context. Calling a women a **** amongst a vile speel, well I'm sure we could agree it probably is sexist. "Pussy", is almost always sexist as it is used as a synonym for women and weak (as in, women are weak).


Meh, I'm actually rather confused now. This issue isn't nearly as clear cut as some people seem to think. To be sexist, a word or phrase surely should be generalising a gender (pussy for example), rather then merely offensive. So, to call a women a girl is to, perhaps, imply that all women are mentally immature?


As for the word "chick", I'm going with the general consensus. It could be sexist, it might not be. It depends. But it surely can easily be used in a sexist manner. And, it should not be used towards or about someone who finds it offensive.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+September 20, 2007 03:15 pm--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ September 20, 2007 03:15 pm) IZ, as with Noxion, I am giving up arguing with you; you are a lost cause to patriarchy. [/b]
Well I haven't finished with your allegations. You have accused me of some bullshit, that I am a liar. I think the spurious nature of your charge of patriarchy speaks for its self, so I won't bother continuing that. LSD said to post the rest of this debate in public, so I will: -

---------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by [email protected]

IZ:



All that has been exposed is your failure to quote me properly.


Yep, bang to rights there. Apologies.

But you have made other stuff up: for example, these:



But you can judge that the terms 'bloke' and 'dude' are offensive?


And:



Well, when most women conclude that 'chick' is comparable to 'nigger' as you have claimed, I will be sure to let you know I was mistaken. Until that day, i will am afraid we are going to have to remain at odds on the issue of the 'chick' word.


And:



But apparently you can legitimately speak for all women?


And:



Being white, according to your logic, I couldn't take a line at all. But that point aside


They will do for starters. None of these can be supported by anything I have said, nor be reasonably concluded from the same.


---------------------------------------------------



Yep, bang to rights there. Apologies.

Accepted

Next: -

IZ

But you can judge that the terms 'bloke' and 'dude' are offensive?

That is a question not a statement, I didn't say you do, I asked if you can.

Next: -

IZ



Well, when most women conclude that 'chick' is comparable to 'nigger' as you have claimed, I will be sure to let you know I was mistaken. Until that day, i will am afraid we are going to have to remain at odds on the issue of the 'chick' word.

If you were not trying to draw a comparison between the words, I doubt you would have brought it up. And even if I am wrong, which I doubt, that is at most an error of judgement. Hardly a lie.

Next: -

IZ



But apparently you can legitimately speak for all women?

Again a question, not a statement, thus not a lie. And secondly, if that were a statement, it would only be a reflection of my perception of your attitude; incidentally I am not the only one who has been left with that impression, to quote NoXion: -


I'm not telling you what you personally find offensive or otherwise, I'm objecting to your self-assumed right to speak for all women* everywhere. You complain about us men not allowing women any autonomy, but that is quite rich in the face of you not allowing any autonomy for women except yourself. As if all other women are incapable of deciding for themselves what is and isn't acceptable, and have to be told by some kind of pseudofeminist "vanguard".

Next: -

IZ



Being white, according to your logic, I couldn't take a line at all. But that point aside

Thats not a lie, because it is my opinion on the logical conclusion of your argument. It follows on from your logic that a man cannot pass judgement on how a woman feals about a 'term', in the same way presumably being a white man I cannot pass judgement on whether a term is racist either; because I am not black.


See, every one of your supposed examples, you owe me an apology for, just like the first one. But will you offer them up? I doubt it somehow.


PS: -


Rosa
LSD, thanks gain for bringing some calm rationality to this debate,

The only person who has chipped away from that is you with your ludicrous accusations and playground bully 'debate' tactics.

[spartan]

AM:
spartan: Please sir, stay out of the debate, you aren't adding anything to it, instead you are embarrassing yourself (if you aren't, you should be, what with your comment about "politically correct individualist Feminism".
Well i dont no what to add to that except that i am upset that i am not allowed to have an opinion on the topic. If you looked at all of that post you would have seen that i argued the point that the word chick was not sexist when not placed in a sexist context only when placed in a sexist context which it never was! But i suppose that does not matter to you as you seemed to have purposely ignored it which is a shame because it was a good post. Also she is being politically correct in the sense that she wants the word chick to be seen as sexist even when it is not in a sexist context! So she obviously wants everyone to speak politically correct language which does not care for context. But if it makes you feel better i suppose next time i wont have any sort of opinion on any sort of matter and will just follow the party line if it is to "embarrassing" to have an opinion nowadays.

[Invader Zim]

many women don't realise the casual ways in which they are oppressed.

Well lets thank our stars that they have you and Rosa here to tell them.

:rolleyes:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by LSD
I trust the ludicrousy of this whole mess speaks for itself!

I agree!

It's simply another witch hunt from a few reactionary ball breakers and as usual it's led by another oddball Leninist.

Don't worry CDL, you're not the freaky Leninist in this analogy; you're way to minuscule to be anything more than a "Marty Feldman like" lackey.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 05:35 am
So, if the majority in this instance are offended by his racism, they must be in the wrong?

What kind of sense does that make?
For the final time, insulting Islamic extremism isn't racist.

And by equating all Arabs with Islam, you're the one being racist, whether intentionally or not.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:01 pm

For the final time, insulting Islamic extremism isn't racist.

And by equating all Arabs with Islam, you're the one being racist, whether intentionally or not.
Don't bother.

This woman prefers to live on another world.

A world she where she rules with an "iron fist" and anyone that doesn't agree with her neurotic beliefs is a "racist" and faces execution.

If that doesn't work then she will move on to even greater insanity by labeling them as "sexist".

If that doesn't work she will find another label for them; probably something like "homophobia".

And so on.

[synthesis]

True that. The real problem here is not the vehement opposition to non-issues but the insistence that anyone who stands on the other side is a reactionary on the level of the Klan and the Westboro Baptist Church. There is no room for real debate here, the only hope we have is to totally subject ourselves to their every whim if we don't want to be guilty of the crime of disagreeing with the opinion of a person who may or may not be oppressed.

[synthesis]

Also, I haven't heard anyone explain how being "offended" necessarily constitutes being "oppressed". Last time I heard, we were fighting oppression, not hurt feelings.

You can choose not to be offended, not to say you should, but you cannot choose to not be oppressed. It's part of the definition. And while it's true that in a perfect world no one would have their feelings hurt, we live in an extremely imperfect world, and to equate subjective offense with objective oppression shows the level of perspective on our fucked-up world that these so-called "revolutionaries" have.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Counterblast:


For the final time, insulting Islamic extremism isn't racist.

And by equating all Arabs with Islam, you're the one being racist, whether intentionally or not.

I did not equate all Arabs with Islam.

But even if I did, that would not be racist, just an error of fact.

Nor did I claim that insulting Islamic extremists was racist.

May I suggest you get your facts right in future before you throw accusations about the place?

You are nearly as bad as these sexist-troll defenders, and their beloved 'hero'.

[Invader Zim]

You are nearly as bad as these sexist-troll defenders, and their beloved 'hero'.


Oh dear, another person disagrees with Rosa's need to tell people when they are, or are not, being oppressed. However this particular individual being of Arab ethnicity cannot be easily branded anti-muslim, thus anti-Arab and in turn a "racist". Nor can she, being a 'she', be accused of 'sexism'? I guess your typical brand of bullshit accusations for those who have the nerve to disagree with you are running dry, whats it going to be next? Homophobia or are you going to just make that leap straight to accusations of 'fascism'?




May I suggest you get your facts right in future before you throw accusations about the place?

I think that you must be a capitalist Rosa, because that is real rich coming from you.
:lol:

Incidentally, you still haven't backed up your claims that I lied; I am going to take your silence as acceptance that you admit you were wrong and were just spreading spurious bullshit in order to discredit your opponents.

[synthesis]

I did not equate all Arabs with Islam.

But even if I did, that would not be racist, just an error of fact.


"I did not equate all Africans with voodoo and black magic. But even if I did it would not be racist, just an error of fact." :blink:



May I suggest you get your facts right in future before you throw accusations about the place?

You are nearly as bad as these sexist-troll defenders, and their beloved 'hero'.



This is really getting outrageous. I am sorry that you cannot handle a taste of your own medicine, but that is another step of learning how to be a mature person. I wish you luck with this.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 20, 2007 02:11 pm
Noxion, I have given up arguing with you.
Concession accepted, Rosa. If at any time you feel you can pick up the debate again, do not hesitate.


You are a lost cause to patriarchy.

Stop talking nonsense. You're only making yourself look ridiculous.


I hope you are pleased with yourself.

I'm actually unhappy you don't have the intellectual honesty to actually address my points*, instead making baseless claims that I am "lost to patriarchy". Plus I notice you completely ignored my pointing out that painting me as a worse enemy of female liberation than wifebeaters and social conservatives is completely fucking stupid.

(*I notice that non-one else has either. Come on people, if my arguments are so flawed it should be a piece of cake to knock them down, surely? But the wall of silence indicates to me otherwise)

So what has this thread "taught" me? That casual slang is more important than actual abuse*, that most women are too stupid to realise they're being oppressed, and that offending individual women is the same as being sexist towards all of them (Hint: It isn't).

(*Because apparently it doesn't matter what context the word "chick" is used, it is eeeevil even if used in a positive or neutral context)

What a travesty.

[LSD]

However, I reported my reception of this word to counter the idea that men were better placed than, or even equally placed with, women to decide what constituted a sexist term. Men and women are not equally placed here. Even your own view of social construction, if I understood it aright, should tell you that.

Men and women are not equally "placed" to notice sexism, especially understated sexism. Men simply don't have the experience or the need to recognize or respond to sexist attacks.

That said, however, once presented with argumentation, a man is just as capable as any woman of recognizing sexism where it exists. It's just that it's far more likely that a woman will point it out to him than he will to her.

The same is obviously true in all other instances of social discrimination, those who suffer from it the most are the most skilled at reading it (for the most part). But we're all nonetheless able to see racism as racism and homophobia as homophobia even if we aren't black or gay.

The aim of communism, indeed the aim of all liberation movements ultimately, is to remove the barriers that artificially divide our society. To that end, we must reject notions of formalized gendered relations and power structures; all such structures, even those which come dressed in the clothes of "feminism".

Rationality is not a "gendered" attribute, it something that all humans posses and all are able to employ. Accordingly we are all capable of following a logical argument to its conclusion. That's why heterosexuals can recognize homophobia and white men can recognize racism and sexism.

There's less personal motivation to actually do anything about it, of course, but then that's to be expected. No one is suggesting that the feminist movement can be lead by anyone other than women.

But that doesn't mean giving up rationality and conceding to rank subjectivism! Women must lead the fight for their own liberation, but I have every right to critisize what I see as destructive choices and conceding to rank emotionalism is one of the worst mistakes a political movement can make.

Turning sexism into a synonym for "offensive" would undermine everything that the women's rights movement is and has been working for. It would reduce the struggle against patriarchy to a petty feud and only further disintegrate and already much to fractured movement.


What would be the point of me claiming this word was offensive if I did not also say I was offended?

The point would be to make a point. To make an objective statement about the universe and to identify a sexist. Your personal feelings on the matter shouldn't enter into it.

And keeping with this hypothetical paradigm, let me ask you a question, if you weren't offended, would that have meant that the word wasn't offensive? And if so, what does it say that millions of women almost certainly aren't offended by the use of that word?

Again, that's the problem of rellying on something like offense to determine sexism, it is entirely subjective to the person being offended. What offends you is different from offends what me is different from what offends my girlfriend. And neither of us is any more "right" than each other because there is no "right" when it comes to emotional responses.

Let me put this another way Rosa, if your intention was to let Vinny know that you found his choice of words offensive to you that is entirely different than saying that it was sexist.

The latter is an objective statement of political impact, the former is a subjective one of personal effect.

The reason I am posting in this thread is to make sure that the difference between those two is crystal clear to everyone here, because their conflation is one of the greatest dangers to the contemporary left.


And is it really the case that all objective judgements are easy to confirm?

Why then does it take science decades to confirm certain theories?

Back to the drawing-board I think.

As I said to you before, if you find a non-question-begging criterion, you will be the first person in history to do so.

I think you're somewhat confused here, Rosa. I never suggested that all objective statements are easy to confirm, merely that they are fairly easy to distinguish from subjective ones.

The issue of confirmation and verification is, of course, a much more involved affair and its complexity and difficulty is entirely dependent on the specific question and context within which is exists.

Indeed, the only one proposing that objective judgments are "easy" here is you; because you're the one who suggested that we can determine whether something is sexist or not solely by measuring whether or not one person (namely, you) is offended by them.

I've got to say, that is without a doubt the simplest paradigm for sociological investigation I've ever read! ...too bad that it doesn't actually work.

And, no, that's not begging the question, it's just appealing to biological fact; the emotional responses in our brains have no existence outside of our own neurons. They may relate to objective phenomenon, but by no means must they and those relations even when they do exist are often tangential to say the least.

To put it simply, Rosa, I can't know if you're genuinely offended or not, which means that your entire line of argumentation ultimately comes down to asking that we all trust that you're not just taking the shit.

And that's just not good enough.


not all expressions of emotion in argument is 'subjective'.

Not all reports of emotion are subjective, but all expressions are. And outside of rhetoric, they have no place in rational argumentation. Certainly they should not be rellied upon as foundational premises!


As I noted above, I used this to counter the view that men were better placed than, or even equally placed with, women to decide what constituted a sexist term.

Well obviously men aren't better than women at recognizing sexism. Such a proposition would be among the most despicably sexist things I've ever read. Good thing that no one in this thread suggested anything of the sort.

Insofar as equality, again while agree that women are better tuned at identifying sexism due to more experience with its many facets, that doesn't give individual women some sort of golden liscence to declare anything they want as "sexist".

There still needs to be a rational basis to a finding of sexism, otherwise we strip the word of any meaning and reduce it to a synonym for "personally offensive", something that would be an unforgivable disservice to the victims of patriarchy everywhere.


We beat scabs, and other rightists at certain times, why not sexist pigs?

Two reasons I can think of, one, the use of the word "chick" does not in fact make one a "sexist", nor comparable to a scab; and secondly, because beating people up for their choice of words contravenes every principle of a free society and what it means to be a communist.

If you want to discuss this issue further, I suggest you start a thread on the subject, or better yet, look up one of the many debates I've had on this board over the issues of free speech. I think you'll find them quite enlightening.


That is mild compared to what some of our younger anarchist comrades here do/want to do to Nazis and others.

If you think this is automatically linked to failure, then can I suggest you bring this to their attention?

Believe me I try, every chance I get. It isn't easy since so much of the "anarchist" community seems to be caught up in some macho fantasy world. But I hope that over the past few years I've managed to change at least a few minds with regards to the questions of freedom and individual rights.

Ultimately, I suppose it comes down to the same issues as our debate over subjectivity: whether any of us have the right to impose our own cognitive universe on the rest of humanity.

I trust my opinion on the subject is clear. Yours certainly is...


Not so; I have never argued this. All I have argued is that VR's use of this term was.

No, actually, you've done more than that. You've also contended that the word in itself is sexist, that anyone who doesn't agree is supporting patriarchy, that TC is wrong for claiming that it depends on context, and that you wish we were back in the 70s so radical feminists could beat all of us up.

Again, I didn't read the Vinny post in question, in all honesty I just don't feel like wading through his shit; but you've done much much more than accuse one member of being offensive, you have made a general statement with regard to the use of a word, and more importantly, you've defended an emotionalist relativist analytical paradigm for judging sexism.

I say more importantly because, in the end, I don't think this "chick" debate is at all particularly serious. It's of much greater concern to stop the spread of this cancer of moralist subjectivism that's infecting the left.

I know that there's very little I can do to reverse this trend all on my own, but hopefully I can convince at least a few people that emotion and "morality" are not can never be a substitute for reason and materialism.

That's a start.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Hey LSD you never told me why you thought that a "sexist remark" coming from me wouldn't shock you.

Why is that?

Let's review the options:

You're still in a huff because I like to poke fun at you and are still "giving me the cold shoulder". :lol:

You really don't have any evidence to support such a statement so you will remain silent.

You missed the post I made asking you to explain yourself.

I trust that you're not another one of the kids that (or scepter wielding queens of fantasy land) simply makes statements about me without presenting any facts beyond personal opinions of me so let's have the goods esse.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LSD, once more thank you for showing the other guys here how to argue; yet again, I cannot agree with all you say: :(


That said, however, once presented with argumentation, a man is just as capable as any woman of recognizing sexism where it exists. It's just that it's far more likely that a woman will point it out to him than he will to her.

I never denied this, but that does not make them equally-placed in all respects, for if a man challenges a woman on this, her word must carry more weight -- and for personal as well as socially-constructed reasons.


To make an objective statement about the universe and to identify a sexist. Your personal feelings on the matter shouldn't enter into it.

Well, we have yet to see a criterion that distinguishes the 'subjective' from the 'objective'.


And keeping with this hypothetical paradigm, let me ask you a question, if you weren't offended, would that have meant that the word wasn't offensive? And if so, what does it say that millions of women almost certainly aren't offended by the use of that word?

Of course not, but then again, I would not question another woman's claim that she had been offended.

And, before the struggles of the 1950 and 1969s, I am sure that millions of Afro-Americans were not offended by the word 'n*gger', or were given to permission by white society to be, or to express offence.

But, once the movement got into gear, the opinions of the vast majority swung over, and not just in relation to this word, but others.

Similarly, just because millions of women might not be offended by this word (but we have yet to see the data) does not make it either non-sexist, nor non-offensive.

My (very small) fight-back here is part of my attempt to be a 'tribune of the oppressed', and I would hope you'd join me in this. Certainly I have acted as a lightning rod for many comrades here who now recognise this word, or others VR used, as sexist.

And we are not going to put up with it any longer. And if anyone does not like this -- tough.

It is not every day one gets a chance to change comrades views en masse, as I seem to have done.

One has to start somewhere.


The reason I am posting in this thread is to make sure that the difference between those two is crystal clear to everyone here, because their conflation is one of the greatest dangers to the contemporary left.

I understand what you are saying, but there is an equal but obverse danger: pseudo-objectivism, especially if no one has a clue what 'objective' means.

It 'allows' communists, Marxists, anarchists, and all the rest, who think they have a 'theory' of some sort, which is 'objective' and cannot be questioned, to preach to ordinary workers (and women) -- and we all know where that leads.


I think you're somewhat confused here, Rosa. I never suggested that all objective statements are easy to confirm, merely that they are fairly easy to distinguish from subjective ones.

Well, I question that -- but further, I question the distinction itself.

I do not think you know what this distinction means (and that is not to single you out -- no one knows), so whatever you might think is easy to distinguish, it isn't what you think it is, for as yet, the terms you use have no clear meaning, or any at all.

To illustrate: suppose I said sebjective (sic) and objuctive (sic) are easy to distinguish. [These are made-up words.]

You would, I hope, ask me wtf I was on about. But, if I couldn't tell you what these two words meant, you would be right to dismiss me as hopelessly confused, at best.

I am saying the same about these terms-of-art: 'subjective' and 'objective'.

So, much of what you have said is beside the point.


Indeed, the only one proposing that objective judgments are "easy" here is you; because you're the one who suggested that we can determine whether something is sexist or not solely by measuring whether or not one person (namely, you) is offended by them.

I do not think I used the word 'objective' (except perhaps as part of a reductio). So, this is not correct either.


I've got to say, that is without a doubt the simplest paradigm for sociological investigation I've ever read! ...too bad that it doesn't actually work.

Too bad it is not mine.


Not all reports of emotion are subjective, but all expressions are. And outside of rhetoric, they have no place in rational argumentation. Certainly they should not be relied upon as foundational premises!

I am sorry -- crossed wire here: I was using the word "expression" as we do in logic to mean anything that could become the content of a proposition.

So, this response is mis-directed too -- but that is not your fault.


Insofar as equality, again while agree that women are better tuned at identifying sexism due to more experience with its many facets, that doesn't give individual women some sort of golden licence to declare anything they want as "sexist".

No one said they should, but the obverse of this is that no one has given men the right to tell a woman that 1) she has not been offended, or 2) that the offence was not caused by a sexist remark, or even 3) that that remark was not sexist.

If you want to deny women such a licence, you will have to deny its mirror image of men too -- but, in this case, with far more justification.


Two reasons I can think of, one, the use of the word "chick" does not in fact make one a "sexist", nor comparable to a scab; and secondly, because beating people up for their choice of words contravenes every principle of a free society and what it means to be a communist.

Perhaps so, but even though most sexist language is nowhere near as bad as some we could think of, we still give Nazis a thrashing if they shout 'Juden Raus', or 'Seig Heil'.

And, I take it, you are not arguing that Nazis deserve to be given a free reign to say what they like, where they like, are you?

Free speech is a right certainly, but it is not top of the list, and certainly does not outweigh all other rights.

And thank you for this:


If you want to discuss this issue further, I suggest you start a thread on the subject, or better yet, look up one of the many debates I've had on this board over the issues of free speech. I think you'll find them quite enlightening.

But, I am well aware of the issues involved.


No, actually, you've done more than that. You've also contended that the word in itself is sexist, that anyone who doesn't agree is supporting patriarchy, that TC is wrong for claiming that it depends on context, and that you wish we were back in the 70s so radical feminists could beat all of us up.

Once more, I have not argued this, and I would be crazy to do so. I would have to say that the 'Dixie Chicks' were being sexist, and anyone who bread and reared chicks on a farm was.

And, if it takes a few slaps to stop men being sexist, I think I can live with that.

Beats a sex strike --, but that is plan B. :D


Again, I didn't read the Vinny post in question, in all honesty I just don't feel like wading through his shit; but you've done much much more than accuse one member of being offensive, you have made a general statement with regard to the use of a word, and more importantly, you've defended an emotionalist relativist analytical paradigm for judging sexism.

Ok, here are a few of his choice sayings:


The chick who issues wishes of death is lecturing me on "bluster and abuse".

Several antiquated chicks and dudes have tried that before to no avail.

And I will continue to do so until you relics are lost to the ages for good!

And they say "Stalinists" are purge happy; they have obviously never seen a Trot backed into a corner.

They're like rats.

You chicks, dudes, birds, and blokes know who you are.

You're just another kid that would sell out his own mother to see me banned regardless of the issue.

Because you're a pussy.

Fuck her and her precious "vanguard".

So untwist your panties and admit your mistake.

There's nothing like a woman scorned..

You couldn't be like me even in your widest fantasies.

Fantasies I'm sure I make a nightly visit to.

In any case, don't you think the Bahamas or Tahiti would be a better place for funky lovin'?

As far as I know you've never been concerned about your reputation; at least that's the skinny from the boys in the neighbourhood.

Are you happy with any/all of these? Do any strike you as sexist?

Most of the CC agrees with me that they are.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And it still keeps satcking up:


I trust that you're not another one of the kids that (or scepter wielding queens of fantasy land) simply makes statements about me without presenting any facts beyond personal opinions of me so let's have the goods esse.

[spartan]

Rosa:
I never denied this, but that does not make them equally-placed in all respects, for if a man challenges a woman on this, her word must carry more weight -- and for personal as well as socially-constructed reasons.
I thought Feminism was about equality not female supremacy?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan -- once more, I am not a feminist.

[Black Dagger]

spartan, if you going to continue to post such provocative statements in this thread can you at least address the questions i directed at you earlier? Considering your other provocative statements?

I.E.


Originally posted by me+--> (me)


Originally posted by spartan+September 20, 2007 02:00 am--> (spartan @ September 20, 2007 02:00 am) Rosa has stated that he can not have an opinion on the matter because he is a man! How is that not sexist? [/b]
That is not what Rosa said.

Rather, Rosa made the point that women are in a better position than men to judge what is sexist and what is not (given that women are the subjects of sexism, that is only logical).

I.E.


[email protected]

You are not a woman, so who are you to decide what women regard as sexist?

We do not let racists tell us what is acceptable language for them to use.

Nor do we allow white people to decide what racial minorities find offensive.

Same here.

Perhaps you'd like to explain what is actually sexist about Rosa's comment? As opposed to merely repeating the accusation over and over.

Would you cry 'heterophobe!' if a gay member suggested that gay people are in a better position than heteros to judge what is homophobic?

Or perhaps you think that it makes sense that a man should dictate to a woman what is offensive to women?

P.S.

If you're anarchist (which according to your profile and custom title you are), why is your avatar a cut of some ridiculous soviet propaganda poster? And why name yourself after a highly authoritarian and hierarchal nation (sparta)?[/b]

And also,

Can you please explain how:


rosa
I never denied this, but that does not make them equally-placed in all respects, for if a man challenges a woman on this, her word must carry more weight -- and for personal as well as socially-constructed reasons.

What is 'female supremacy' and how is Rosa's statement an example of it?

Because i suspect that you do not understand the meaning of the phrases you are using to slander Rosa.

[spartan]

Why cant a man be able to have an opinion on the matter of a word being sexist just because he has a dangling bit of flesh between his legs? That is all i want to know! Also i believe you Rosa when you say you are not a Feminist and bgm i am sorry if my prior posts are provocative. I know it is not right but it is just the way i am.

[Black Dagger]

Can you please substantiate the (quite serious) accusations you made?


Originally posted by spartan
bgm i am sorry if my prior posts are provocative. I know it is not right but it is just the way i am.

I don't see the point in accusing someone of something if you're not going to back it up?

[Great Helmsman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:28 pm
Why cant a man be able to have an opinion on the matter of a word being sexist just because he has a dangling bit of flesh between his legs? That is all i want to know! Also i believe you Rosa when you say you are not a Feminist and bgm i am sorry if my prior posts are provocative. I know it is not right but it is just the way i am.
Your opinion really shouldn't matter because you're not the one being called the ch word. Don't impose your chauvinistic views on others, instead let women determine what is and is not appropriate to refer them as.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Are you happy with any/all of these? Do any strike you as sexist?

You're a real piece of work Rosasaurus. You're taking qoutes from me that were in direct response to your own slags and of course failing to mention it.

Just like a trot to pick and choose what to post.

I will post quotes from Rosasaurus now:

"Just so long as you are pushing up daisies...

I still careth not."

"So long as you shuffle off this mortal coil, I careth not what it does to my reputation."

Here's a good one, this is why I made the "boys in the neighbourhood comment:

I said "Shouldn't be that hard."

She said "yes, that's what those girls told me about you."

More abuse from this turd:

"Once more, if that is the price of getting you bumped off, fine by me."

A desert island for you, and the you can be alone with your true love -- you hand.

Here's some the actual thread that Rosa tried to cover up by moving it to the trash can:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292378455 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70844&st=0&#entry1292378455)

If you have any trouble wiping that egg off your face Rosie, try holding your head under water for a spell.


Here's the one that "sparked it all":


The chick who issues wishes of death is lecturing me on "bluster and abuse".

No mention of of here being silly, or "just a chick" or anything like that. Just "the chick".

You can clearly see she reaching at straws; again.

Here's a few odd ones she included in her kangaroo court "charge list of sexist remarks":


Originally posted by RAF+--> (RAF)And I will continue to do so until you relics are lost to the ages for good!

And they say "Stalinists" are purge happy; they have obviously never seen a Trot backed into a corner.

They're like rats. [Trots]

Fuck her and her precious "vanguard". [/b]

She just pissed that I dare to spit on her precious Trot-rot.

Too fucking bad Rosie.



RAF
So untwist your panties and admit your mistake.


Panties are what we call women's underpants in the USA. We also say such thing about men's underwear when they are being pussies too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, and I apologise for saying such things; there is absolutely no excuse for me to do so.

This is no excuse either: but I only said those things out of anger at your abuse of me.

That is not to justify what I said, but it does put it into some sort of context.

Now, had you apologised to me, and mended your ways, none of this might have happened, but you continued in the same vein, even when I stopped replying to you because of the continued abuse.

And, as the above shows, you are still operating from abuse-central.

[spartan]

Electronic Light:
Your opinion really shouldn't matter because you're not the one being called the ch word.
The ch word :lol: I am presuming you mean chick right? Fucking hell your treating the word chick as if it is as bad a word as nigger! How pathetic!

Don't impose your chauvinistic views on others,
First off i am not a chauvinist you ignorant fool and second i am not trying to impose any of my beliefs on anyone you got that?

instead let women determine what is and is not appropriate to refer them as.
And why exactly cant a man be apart of that decision making process? Are you some sort of female seperatist or something where there will be a seperate community of women to decide "women only" matters? Because this issue is a sexist issue this is an issue about a word and i think a man has as much right to have an opinion on this matter as a woman and if you disagree then you are no better than a reactionary!

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa
This is no excuse either: but I only said those things out of anger at your abuse of me.

Who are you trying to fool?

You have always been free with your insults to people and were in no way completely innocent of "wrong doing" in that thread.

Anyone can see that.

This "I'm just a victim" crap you're dishing out is way beneath you Rosa.


Now, had you apologised to me, and mended your ways, none of this might have happened, but you continued in the same vein, even when I stopped replying to you because of the continued abuse.

More "sweet, innocent victim of rampant abuse" crapola.

Are you going to turn on the water works next Rosa?

The worse part about your statement here is that you admit to not really being that concerned about my remarks "if I apologised to you".

If you really thought I was a sexist you wouldn't just "let the issue go" after "getting an apology.

You're way too transparent Rosa.


And, as the above shows, you are still operating from abuse-central.

When are you going to get it Rosa?

I disagree with everything that Trots like yourself stand for and will continue to call you out until your abuse of the masses is stopped.

How you "feel" about that is not my problem.

Face it, this crap is only because you don't like me personally.

I consider that to be a job well done on my part.

[Black Dagger]

Hey spartan!

Thanks for ignoring my repeated attempts to get you to back up your arguments!

You're right, rosa is definitely a sexist/female supremacist - don't worry, now that i think about it you don't even need to explain yourself! You claiming that she is is all the evidence i need.

Thanks again for participating in this discussion, i look forward to our next encounter! :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VR, as I said, I am the one apologising here, you are not.

That says it all really.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And, it just keeps stacking up:


Are you going to turn on the water works next Rosa?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+September 21, 2007 11:29 am--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ September 21, 2007 11:29 am) VR, as I said, I am the one apologising here, you are not.

That says it all really. [/b]



Rosa
And, as the above shows, you are still operating from abuse-central.

You know what Rosa? I never needed or demanded an apology because I'm not easily offended by remarks on a message board.


And, it just keeps stacking up:

Are you saying that men don't cry? :lol:

Edited to fix the quotes.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VR?

Still no apology...

[synthesis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:28 am
Why cant a man be able to have an opinion on the matter of a word being sexist just because he has a dangling bit of flesh between his legs?
Because we have had entirely different life experiences from them and therefore we can't pretend to know what they go through; that was never the question.

The question is, is it oppressive or just offensive? And if it is not oppressive, only offensive, then is the offense worth polarizing people over? That's what's being discussed.

[spartan]

DyerMaker it depends on the context the word chick is put into but Rosa seems to want to ignore that most importamt of facts/points. The fact is if i said "That chick is dumb just like every other chick" then that can be taken (Quite rightly i might add) as sexist. But what if i was to say "That chick is awesome just like most chicks" would that be sexist? No i dont think it would be. The fact is Rosa is argueing that the word chick itself on its own is sexist which is obviously wrong as it depends on the context the word is put into like that last statement of mine "That chick is awesome just like most chicks" which is obviously not sexist but try telling that to Rosa!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


Rosa is argueing that the word chick itself on its own is sexist

Where have I argued that?

[spartan]

Rosa:
I certainly regard this word as demeaning and sexist.
Emphasis on the term word in the above statement! You never said you regarded the word to be sexist only in certain contexts. No you said you found the word and only the word sexist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


I certainly regard this word as demeaning and sexist.

This was said in the context of VR's use of this word.

Nice try, only it wasn't.

[spartan]

So Rosa are you willing to clarify then that the word chick can only be sexist when placed in a sexist context? Because if yes then your whole arguement about this word being sexist no matter what the context and even comparing it to the racist word nigger! Has been pretty worthless then has it not?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21, 2007 12:00 pm
VR?

Still no apology...
Asking for an "apology" while calling me "VR" (short for "virus"). Ypou really expect me to apologise for offending a person that thinks I'm a parasite?

Wow.


In any case, I think that the real reason you want me to apologise is because you didn't think I would post all of your crazy wishes of death against me as well as truly seeing your "case" for what it is:

An attack on me that's completely personal. You know just as well as I that the phrase "The chick who issues wishes of death is lecturing me on "bluster and abuse".
is not sexist.

You have probably noticed that the only way we could even contextually call this statement is if the word chick we're absolutely regarded as sexist and that no woman would ever refer to themselves as such.

We know that many people here think that the word is not absolutely sexist and some women refer to themselves as such.

I truly don't think you thought this thing all the way through before making such a stink.

Because I'm a 40 year old man and am capable of some level of maturity if I see fit; I will ( even though you call me a "virus") apologise for some of the more colourful remarks I made in retaliation to yours.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

VR, sorry but I do not now intend these two letters to stand for Virus (I have apologised for that); if I did, I would still use ViRus, as I did before.

And you are wrong; I do not want an apolgoy from you; I was merely noting that you do not have the good grace to offer one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


So Rosa are you willing to clarify then that the word chick can only be sexist when placed in a sexist context? Because if yes then your whole arguement about this word being sexist no matter what the context and even comparing it to the racist word nigger! Has been pretty worthless then has it not?

You need to read my posts more carefully to find out what I believe instead of spending your time trying to superimpose your own ideas onto mine.

[TC]

I appreciate that some people (like LSD and Morag) understand and agree with the point I tried to make earlier, but I feel that a lot of people (including LSD) have misunderstood my conclusions as it applies to this particular case.

While it is sometimes alright in some contexts (especially among friends), characterizing someone by their demographic status can be threatening because it treats them not as a person with ideas but as a female/homosexual/African/whatever dealt with as one of a category. To debate whether or not the word “chick” is inherently or contextually sexist and whether Vinny used it in a sexist manner or not, misses the point of why I think it was clear that offense was intended: to refer to someone by their gender in argument as though relevant implies that it is relevant, and in doing so reduces them to their gender.

Vinny wrote:



This woman prefers to live on another world.

Surely no one, including Rosa, could find the word “woman” to be inherently or even contextually sexist, but the totally unnecessary reference to Rosa as a woman makes it read as if said with derision. Does anyone think that had Vinny been debating TAT he would have said “this gay prefers to live on another world” or if Vinny was debating CDL he’d have said “this African American prefers to live on another world?” Well, maybe he would have in order to be deliberately offensive if he thought he would get away with it, but he wouldn’t because he’d know that everyone would realize that he was being insulting in a homophobic or racist manner.


I haven’t changed my position that whether chick is a sexist or neutral depends on usage and context, but that doesn’t mean that usage and context are subjective and open to any number of equal interpretations, or that everyone is in an equal position to interpret them.

The relationship, including the familiarity, gender, age and social status, of the person speaking and the person being addressed, not merely the words used, are part of the context, not just the sentence structure.

For instance, if a male friend called me a “chick”, I would mildly resent it but if a professor called me a “chick” I would be enormously offended and probably quite taken aback. This isn’t unwarranted or purely subjective and a professor would know that the connotations and implications of calling a person to which they had a professional and socially superior relationship with would be very different than the connotations involved if the same term was used between friends. The practical meaning of the word (as with many) is can be different depending on the relationship of the speaker and the person being referred to.

To use another example, when close female friends call each other ‘babe’, it is meant and received as affectionate, when male friends call their female friends ‘babe’, its meant to be and typically received as being obnoxious in a cheeky way, if a male calls a woman that they have a professional or non-friendly acquaintance relationship with ‘babe’ it is almost certainty meant to be insulting in a patronizing and condescending fashion, and if a male calls a woman who he doesn’t know ‘babe’ its usually meant to be sexually provocative and often received as threatening. This is not merely a matter of the subjective feelings of the people involved in these interactions, but a fact of how the usage of the word differs in these different contexts.

Yes, Rosa’s offense at being referred to as “chick” is an emotional response and not something purely objective, but to dismiss it as simply her subjective interpretation (even if she refers to it that way herself) is to completely disregard the nuance of the word. The meaning conveyed is not simply a definition or even a fixed usage in a sentence but also a culturally understood connotation.


I personally hate the line of argument that holds that “only ‘oppressed people’ are able to validly define their own ‘oppression’”, as LSD rightly points out, if merely asserting that something was oppressive was so than ‘oppression’ would have a purely circular meaning and no material relevance. Its that kind of logic that lets rightwing Jews convince liberals that anti-zionism is anti-semitism if they say so.

But just because asserting that something is oppressive is insufficient for it to be so does not mean that everyone is equally well positioned to appreciate when something is oppressive (or, in the case of language, endorsing an oppressive ideology). If you don’t appreciate why something is offensive to someone doesn’t mean that it can just be chalked up to a difference of subjective opinion, it means that they were reacting to a connotation or implication of what was said that you can’t recognize. In that regard Rosa’s statement that men aren’t in a position to judge what women take as sexist was unfortunately phrased, and clearly sexism is not simply whatever women find offensive or claim to be sexist, but it’s also correct if taken in a different way, in that its harder for someone to accurately assess the meaning of a word or interaction in a given context, if someone has never been in that context. If you’ve been referred to as a girl with many different words in many different contexts by many different people, many of which were sexist, many of which were not, its vastly more information on which to base judgments as to which instances are sexist than if you’ve never been referred to as such.

In that sense, for Rosa to say that men aren’t in a position to tell her whether it was sexist is analogous to a native English speaker telling someone who learned English from academic study that they aren’t in a position to tell them what a particular slang term means. Although no one either individually or as a group can be taken as a sole arbiter of meaning, some vantage points when it comes to accurately assessing meaning are better positioned than others.

[TC]

“Chick" implies two things: femininity and youth. So at times it is perfectly applicable, other times it will be denigrating.
You’re missing the point. The “appropriateness” of the word doesn’t depend on its literal definition but on the specific usage given the context and relational dynamics between the person addressing and being addressed. To draw attention to someone’s femininity and youth when they’re attempting to be taken seriously and you are trying to deny them that opportunity is always sexist since femininity and youth are two related criteria by which people are often dismissed as non-serious. This is the sort of thing that Vinny frequently does.


But a lot of the time, it refers to female dogs, with the idea that female dogs are generally more tame than their male counterparts. So in this context saying "that's my ***** over there" is a lot more demeaning than "that's my chick over there."

Still, although the secondary use of ‘*****’ (as in “prison *****” or rather than “skinny *****”) has more stereotypically feminine attributes, it can be used to characterize either gender, and in fact that usage is much more commonly used referring to a male...If you say “stop being a such a *****” to a woman, it almost always means stop being overly aggressive whereas if you say “stop being such a *****” to a man, it more likely means stop being overly submissive...but you could refer to a male as being overly aggressive (“stop being such an asshole”) or a woman as being overly submissive (“stop being

But again, you miss the point. Rosa isn’t Vinny’s girlfriend, what might be acceptable or even sweet if said in the context of such a relationship is demeaning, and clearly deliberately so, given the reality of Rosa and Vinny’s interpersonal status.

To extend your example and demonstrate why its irrelevant; someone who is in a position where they can refer to a person as “my chick” is also likely to be able to discuss their sexual anatomy in graphic terms without causing offense. The same would not be true for almost anyone else.



Originally posted by Noxion

You're effectively dismissing my argument because I'm male. Now, I am fully aware that males as a group are not oppressed, but in this exact instance you are being sexist towards me by doing so. But, I suppose that being a member of a non-oppressed group that makes me as an individual an acceptable target for sexism right?

Oh please. When radical “feminists” invent non-existent cases of sexism (like say, porn, Barbie, the fashion industry, cosmetics, shaving, etc) its offensive, but when guys invent non-existent cases of sexism against themselves, its just pathetic. A lot of what passes off as “feminism” in some academic circles is just anti-male sexism, but what Rosa said doesn’t even come close to being that.

She is not dismissing your argument because you’re male, she’s aptly pointing out that as a male you are not in the same position to make such a judgment as she is, you simply haven’t been exposed to the experiences which would inform such a judgment. That’s not sexist its just a reality; when it comes to appreciating interpersonal dynamics that are difficult to quantify, it can be harder to understand all of the nuances if you haven’t experienced them (which isn’t to say that they can’t be explained and understood by someone who hasn’t experienced them directly, but that if thy try to project their own speculation its not very likely to be accurate).




And quoting TC is not more use to your case than quoting a single Afro-American would be that 'n*gger' is OK.

So I should reject TC's analysis of the word, but accept yours? Any good reason I should do that? What makes you think your opnion is not a biased sample?

I didn’t say that it was okay for anyone to use the word “chick” of anyone and I thought the context that Vinny used it in was sexist.

If the context was a girly girl 16 year old referring to one of her girly girl 16 year old friends, then it would be absurd to take that as sexist; the word isn’t inherently sexist...but that isn’t the context we’re talking about and as I said, the context matters. Words that are acceptable for teenagers to use with other teenagers they’re on good terms with are not necessarily appropriate for adults to use with other adults that they’re on bad terms with.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Thanks for the Novel Il Pagliaccio.

Did you ask another soothsayer to look into my thoughts again to see what I "was really thinking"?

Everyone knows you're not fond of me and would go to any lengths to see me "punished".

I guess I better pop on that tin-foil hat to keep you mind readers at bay from now on.


Originally posted by Il Pagliaccio+--> (Il Pagliaccio)Surely no one, including Rosa, could find the word “woman” to be inherently or even contextually sexist, but the totally unnecessary reference to Rosa as a woman makes it read as if said with derision[/b]

But if I said "this guy lives on another world" ( which I have said about men here many, many times) you would keep you big mouth shut wouldn't you?

Get lost and take your charade with you.


Rosa.
I was merely noting that you do not have the good grace to offer one.

How very "upper crust" of you to decise what is to be considered "good graces" and what's not.

Perhaps you, Chip, Buffy and I can meet at the county club for a spot of tea and a nice game of backgammon later.

Cheerio!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thank you for that intervention TC; I agree with about 90% of what you say.


In that sense, for Rosa to say that men aren’t in a position to tell her whether it was sexist is analogous to a native English speaker telling someone who learned English from academic study that they aren’t in a position to tell them what a particular slang term means. Although no one either individually or as a group can be taken as a sole arbiter of meaning, some vantage points when it comes to accurately assessing meaning are better positioned than others.

You are confusing the meaning of a word with its social import.

Hence, any man can explain to a woman what 'chick' means, but no man is in any position to tell that woman that that word is not sexist.


I personally hate the line of argument that holds that “only ‘oppressed people’ are able to validly define their own ‘oppression’”, as LSD rightly points out, if merely asserting that something was oppressive was so than ‘oppression’ would have a purely circular meaning and no material relevance. Its that kind of logic that lets rightwing Jews convince liberals that anti-zionism is anti-semitism if they say so.

I did not say that only the oppressed can do what you allege; what I said is that no man can tell a woman that a word that offends her did not do so, or that a word is not sexist when she thinks is is.

In fact, I tend to agree with your general line here; it is a real argument we have had on the left since the mid-1970s at least.

So, please do not confuse my claims with such right wing doctrines.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Stacking up higher and higher:


Get lost and take your charade with you.


How very "upper crust" of you to decise what is to be considered "good graces" and what's not.

Perhaps you, Chip, Buffy and I can meet at the county club for a spot of tea and a nice game of backgammon later.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Hence, any man can explain to a woman what 'chick' means, but no man is in any position to tell that woman that that word is not sexist.

Let's try this on for size:

Ahem...

When I said that It wasn't sexist.

That was easy. I guess I was "in the position" after all.


Stacking up higher and higher:

Are you building some other goofy-assed case against me now? What's it gonna be next time Rosa?

I should be banned because in your opinion I'm not a stuffy robotic drone?

Call for the limousine Geeves, you know how Madame Rosa so hates to be late to the ball.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Look, it's getting snow on the top:


Are you building some other goofy-assed case against me now? What's it gonna be next time Rosa?

I should be banned because in your opinion I'm not a stuffy robotic drone?

Call for the limousine Geeves, you know how Madame Rosa so hates to be late to the ball.

Stop when you hit the stratosphere....

[Vinny Rafarino]

Since Rosa's going to be playing another silly game by quoting everything I say that she deems as "evidence against me" I will put some of my favourite Rosie quotes from the recent threads here:


To put it even blunter: why should anyone listen to a logically-challenged ignoramus like you?


I refer Bozo to the comment above.


o, Bozo, I hope the pie in the face act goes well, and don't forget the whoopee cushion....


So, once again you have shown how incompetent you are even to understand simple points of logic.

I was amazed at how many of these were out there. These were hust from a couple pages of one thread.

Do we need to go on dear leader Rosa?

[Invader Zim]

Surely no one, including Rosa, could find the word “woman” to be inherently or even contextually sexist, but the totally unnecessary reference to Rosa as a woman makes it read as if said with derision.

Had Vinnie been addressing me and said, "this man is [insert insult of choice]", would you think the same thing? I think you are reading far too much into that comment; and given the now near theoretical context of the discussion I can't say I blame you. But never the less...

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Rosie
Stop when you hit the stratosphere....


Shouldn't be that hard.

All I really need to do is climb up your hair.

[TC]

Originally posted by Invader Zim+September 21, 2007 09:48 pm--> (Invader Zim @ September 21, 2007 09:48 pm)

Surely no one, including Rosa, could find the word “woman” to be inherently or even contextually sexist, but the totally unnecessary reference to Rosa as a woman makes it read as if said with derision.

Had Vinnie been addressing me and said, "this man is ", would you think the same thing? I think you are reading far too much into that comment; and given the now near theoretical context of the discussion I can't say I blame you. But never the less... [/b]
I would find it rather strange actually and I think he would be very unlikely to say that (except, maybe now to prove the point). People rarely make references to a specific person, when used as a subject of a sentence, as 'this man' or 'that man'...someone might say "i hate that man" (as the object) or "he is a mad man" but it would be rare to hear a construct like "this man lives on another planet." For that matter it would sound odd to say "this person lives on another planet", people simply don't construct their sentences that way when referring to a named individual.

People just don't refer to specific individuals, in sentences where they are the subject, by a particular characteristic of theirs [i]unless they are attempting to draw attention to that characteristic.



VR


All I really need to do is climb up your hair.


Thats one gross visual.

[synthesis]

what I said is that no man can tell a woman that a word that offends her did not do so

Here's the problem with this logic. What you are saying may be true but it just does not hold up when discussing the issue because it is not falsifiable. There is simply no possible way for me to disprove that you are offended and therefore it is entirely subjective and alien to what we are trying to do.

I mean, seriously, this is the Internet. I don't even know if you ARE a woman, I've never seen or met you and I doubt most people here have. I don't necessarily doubt your claims but people can say whatever they want on the Internet; the only thing that holds up here is logos, ethos, and pathos.

The specific problem here is that there is no way to really be clear whether you were offended by Vinny's "sexism" or just his personality. I suspected from the start that it was the latter, and if you had left it at that, you probably could have saved yourself a lot of time. But there has to be a balance, I'll leave it at that.


what I said is that no man can tell a woman... a word is not sexist when she thinks is is.

See above. There is no chance whatsoever that anyone can prove that you don't think something and therefore it is not a viable standard for discussion.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


Here's the problem with this logic. What you are saying may be true but it just does not hold up when discussing the issue because it is not falsifiable. There is simply no possible way for me to disprove that you are offended and therefore it is entirely subjective and alien to what we are trying to do.

Wht has Popper's criterion got to do with anything?

In fact: 'it is not falsifiable' is not falsifiable.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Il Pagliaccio
I would find it rather strange actually and I think he would be very unlikely to say that

TC I say that stuff all the time.


This cat this, this cat that...this dude this, this dude that.

Come on!


Thats one gross visual.

Ha! :lol:

I didn't mean that hair.

[synthesis]

Wht has Popper's criterion got to do with anything?

The same reason we stuck Religion in OI, there is no point of debate if there is no debate to be had.



In fact: 'it is not falsifiable' is not falsifiable.

Sure it is.

Give me an example of a way I could prove you were not offended.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


The same reason we stuck Religion in OI, there is no point of debate if there is no debate to be had.

That still dose not explain why this useless criterion is at all relevant to this thread.


Sure it is.

Give me an example of a way I could prove you were not offended.

That was not the challenge.

Let me repeat:


In fact: 'it is not falsifiable' is not falsifiable.

The token sentence embedded in the propositional function "'x' is not falsifiable" (viz: 'it is not falsifiable') is not falsifiable.

This, for several reasons: one being that it contains an unassigned token reflexive pronoun ('it').

But more significantly, if you assign that pronoun a reference --, say, the 'it' designates "What you are saying may be true", as it did here:


What you are saying may be true but it just does not hold up when discussing the issue because it is not falsifiable.

then the proposition "''What you are saying may be true' is not falsifiable' is not falsifiable" would only be false if ''What you are saying may be true' is not falsifiable' were itself capable of being shown false.

But ''What you are saying may be true' is not falsifiable' is itself only false if 'What you are saying may be true' is itself false.

But that you claim is not capable of being shown false.

So "''What you are saying may be true' is not falsifiable' is not falsifiable" is indeed not falsifiable, and should, according to you, be consigned to OI.

If, on the other hand, it is not the case that 'What you are saying may be true' is not falsifiable' is not falsifiable, then the original sentence 'What you are saying may be true' is falsifiable, after all -- which means you screwed up.

[Enragé]

Is that because your afraid of some sort of "backlash" against you perpetrated by her highness?

I'm sure a lot of young people hold their tongue when it concerns Rosa; she can be relentlessly vindictive against someone brave enough to call the dear leader out on her shit.

But she doesn't scare me.

I've been dealing with megalomaniacal Leninists like her for over two decades.

I'm old hat to their "scare tactics".


It's called common curtacy jackass.
Not to mention, its perfectly understandable why some people find the word chick offensive, sexist, therefore to neither insult nor give them the impression im a sexist i will not use it against or around them.

And dont give me that that pseudo-anarchist fringe sectarianist "oh look im so rebellious" attitude.

[synthesis]

I don't know why you're still talking about OI here. The reason I brought that up is because we reject God as a point of authority for the same reason we reject subjective opinions; we do not have to deny that they exist.

Honestly you were sort of babbling in your above post, and I don't have time for metaphysics so I will reduce it to very simple terms.

I do not believe that you are offended by Vinny's "sexism."

There. Your entire argument collapses. You have stated it, I do not believe it and there is no logical or ethical basis for you to respond with except that I have to believe you because you are a woman.

Well, shit, I don't believe you are a woman.

With that fact removed, your argument has absolutely no feet to stand on.

Now let's bring all of that back. I agree that you were probably put off by Vinny referencing your gender in a debate, and it is more than likely that you are a woman in real life.

The point is that your arguments have to stand on their own two feet without depending on your perspective. If your perspective is all we should need to have to agree with you then you might as well run this place. Then again, you probably wouldn't mind that too much, would you?

[Invader Zim]

I would find it rather strange actually and I think he would be very unlikely to say that (except, maybe now to prove the point).

I disagree, i use such terms all the time, both when speaking and when writing.


but it would be rare to hear a construct like "this man lives on another planet."

Not at all, like i said i regularly swap between the perople I am talking to, if you get what I mean. I will be at one point responding to a person directly in the first person, as i am to you now, and then swap to the third person and begin speaking about them, as if to an audience, rather than to them personally. It is no different from an expression such as, "dude, what have you been smoking" other than the fact that the person is speaking too you rather than about you. I haven't used their name or self appointed title, but a generic term.

So I have to disagree with you there.

As for using name over some kind of title, again i disagree. People regularly call, or reference, people by various general titles rather than their names. Now that you mention it, it does seem odd, but it is just the way people are. For example, why do blokes often call each other 'mate'? Upon reflection its seems completely irrational, but they do; myself included.

In the case of Vinnie he regularly applies such general titles, for example he often uses the term 'cats' to refer to people. Just in this case he happened to have made the error of using the term 'chick'; which, oddly enough, has caused a storm of the scale we have not seen here in a long time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


Honestly you were sort of babbling in your above post, and I don't have time for metaphysics so I will reduce it to very simple terms.

No metaphysics, just modern logic. The fact that you think it is metaphysics says it all, really.

You really must learn not to pass comment on something if you do not have the necessary technical expertise.

[LSD]

Originally posted by Rosa+--> (Rosa)And, before the struggles of the 1950 and 1969s, I am sure that millions of Afro-Americans were not offended by the word 'n*gger', or were given to permission by white society to be, or to express offence.

But, once the movement got into gear, the opinions of the vast majority swung over, and not just in relation to this word, but others.[/b]

And yet the word was equally racist before and after those opinions "swung". Their being offended didn't make it any "more" racist and their not being offended didn't make it any "less".

In other words the racism of the term was entirely distinct from the offense it caused. Once people began to understand the effect and connotations of this word, they quickly grew offended, but it was not that offense which made the word discriminatory.

Likewise, the question of whether or not the word "chick" is sexist cannot be determined by judging whether or not women are offended. A preponderance of offended women would be a good hint that sexism is involved, and it should certainly motivate us to look deeper, but it cannot in and of itself be taken as evidence of sexism.

After all, as you rightly point out, there is no nescessary correlation between offense and discriminatory language. Offense requires an understanding, stated or otherwise, that discrimination is occuring, and that is not nearly always present.

Meaning that lots of discriminatory things don't get noticed, and lots of non-discriminatory things cause offense.

Which all reiterates the point that emotional response makes a very lousy gauge of social oppression!


I understand what you are saying, but there is an equal but obverse danger: pseudo-objectivism, especially if no one has a clue what 'objective' means.

It 'allows' communists, Marxists, anarchists, and all the rest, who think they have a 'theory' of some sort, which is 'objective' and cannot be questioned, to preach to ordinary workers (and women) -- and we all know where that leads.

Except that no one is proposing that objective determinations can't be questioned, quite the contrary, by their nature objective findings invite questioning since they are founded on verifiable material phenomenon.

If I claim that "nigger" is offensive because of its historical context and both denotative and connotative meanings (a very curt summary, obviously), I am making verifiable contentions.

You can look up the history of the word, investigate the common understanding, challenge my conclusions. And you may well prove me wrong.

In this particular case I think the facts are pretty strongly on my side, but you are perfectly able to go out and confirm this for yourself.

The same is obviously not true when it comes to the contents of your brain. I can't know if you're really offended or not ...or why. And so I have nothing but your word to work with here. Hardly enough on which to base a finding of sexism or anything else.

Even if I knew you well, Rosa, I'd be retiscent to call someone sexist based on your "offense" alone. And I don't know you, neither does anyone else here. Which is why we're all so thrown by this notion that we should just "trust" your "instinct" and your "place" as a woman in society.

The fact of the matter is that this board is predicated on the notion of leftists coming together and discussing political issues, it's a little jarring to have someone propose that on as fundamental a question as sexism, there's no debate to be had, rather we should all just take the word of someone we've never met.

And it's somewhat ironic that your argument can be summed up as asking that we all have faith in your perceptions. From someone who prides herself on her mastery of logic, it's a rather tough pill to swallow.


To illustrate: suppose I said sebjective (sic) and objuctive (sic) are easy to distinguish. [These are made-up words.]

You would, I hope, ask me wtf I was on about. But, if I couldn't tell you what these two words meant, you would be right to dismiss me as hopelessly confused, at best.

I am saying the same about these terms-of-art: 'subjective' and 'objective'.

I'm somewhat warry to respond to this as I suspect that you're looking for an opening to divert this thread into a technical treatise on the finer points of logic theory, but I'll give you the bennefit of the doubt and assume that you're above such petty posturing.

When I say objective, I mean it in the common adjective sense of the word, "of or pertaining to something that can be known ... existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality".

Obviously such a notion preassumes the existence of an external material universe, but then so does this entire conversation. There were hardly be a point to a debate over sexism in a solipsistic universe.

Forget about the finer points of subjectivity, there wouldn't even be any women to be offended! :P

The opposite of objective is obviously the subjective, that which cannot be known, exiting only in relation to thought or observer.

The history of the word "chick" is therefore an objective fact, as are its commonly understood meanings. How you "feel" about the word, however, and what you think about it, are not.



Indeed, the only one proposing that objective judgments are "easy" here is you; because you're the one who suggested that we can determine whether something is sexist or not solely by measuring whether or not one person (namely, you) is offended by them.

I do not think I used the word 'objective' (except perhaps as part of a reductio). So, this is not correct either.

You didn't use the word, but you certainly made the implication.

When we speak of sexism on this board we are speaking of objective sexism, that is sexism that exists in the real world. When you propose that someone is a sexist or is making sexist comments, therefore, it is commonly understood that you are speaking in terms of that real world, and not merely the confines of your own frontal lobes.

You have contended that when a woman (namely, you) dclares a finding of sexism, no man has a right to challenge that finding. That's a pretty shocking proposition.

Not only because it virtually reduces sexism to just a synonym for bothersome, but also because it gives an enormous grant of authority to all women, including those who, to speak politely, aren't exactly mature politically.

It means that if some rightwing asshole (who also happens to be woman) proposes that legal abortion is "sexist" for some moronic reason, I have no right to challenge her! It means that I must accept her "argument" and agree that abortion is sexist.

Sorry, but you're never going to get me to agree that such a result is either feminist or communist.


No one said they should, but the obverse of this is that no one has given men the right to tell a woman that 1) she has not been offended, or 2) that the offence was not caused by a sexist remark, or even 3) that that remark was not sexist.

If you want to deny women such a licence, you will have to deny its mirror image of men too -- but, in this case, with far more justification.

You seem to be missing the point here. My objection to women declaring something to be sexist based solely on their emotional response is not them making the declaraion, but rather on what they're basing it own.

Likewise were a man to claim that a statement were not sexist based solely on his feelings, I would protest just as strongly. But if he were to offer a credible argument that, despite the offense of one particular woman, the word does not meet reasonble criteria for sexism, then he has every right to tell her she's wrong.

He derives that right not from any new licence, however, but from the common licence of logical argumentation.

Absent that, we're all lost as we all live in our own mental universes and we all have all sorts of thoughts and reactions and feelings. No one has the right to tell us that we don't feel what we feel, or aren't offended by what offends us. But when you claim that someone else is being sexist you're doing more than stating your feelings, you're stating theirs. You're making a positive claim regarding their behaviour and that requires a modicum of evidence.

After all, to Zionists, anyone against the state of Israel is an antisemite, that's how they feel about it. It offends them to hear critisisms of the Jewish state.

By your paradigm of discrimination, we are obligated to accept the following: no one has given non-jews the right to tell a jew that 1) he has not been offended, or 2) that the offence was not caused by an antisemitic remark, or even 3) that that remark was not antisemitic.

In other words, we do not have the right to tell a Zionist that critisizing Israel is not antisemitic.

That is the inevitable conclusion of your manner of thinking.


And, I take it, you are not arguing that Nazis deserve to be given a free reign to say what they like, where they like, are you?

Actually that's precisely what I'm arguing. Again, I think you'd do well to read my previous posts on the subject as you clearly don't understand my position.

Additionaly, this thread is hardly the place for a free speech debate.


I did not say that only the oppressed can do what you allege; what I said is that no man can tell a woman that a word that offends her did not do so, or that a word is not sexist when she thinks is is.

Let's break that sentence down a bit, shall we?

What TC "alleged" was that you were claiming that "only ‘oppressed people’ are able to validly define their own ‘oppression’". Accordingly we could rewrite your sentence as the following:

I did not say that only the oppressed can validly define their own ‘oppression’"; what I said is that no man can tell a woman that ... a word is not sexist when she thinks [it] is.

And since "the oppressed" can be replaced by "women" and "their own oppression" can be replaced by "sexism", that leaves us with:

I did not say that only women can validly define sexism; what I said is that no man can tell a woman that ... a word is not sexist when she thinks [it] is.

Sorry, but that reads like a contradiction to me!



Here's the problem with this logic. What you are saying may be true but it just does not hold up when discussing the issue because it is not falsifiable. There is simply no possible way for me to disprove that you are offended and therefore it is entirely subjective and alien to what we are trying to do.

Wht has Popper's criterion got to do with anything?

Don't be an ass.

You know exactly what he's trying to say and he's 100% correct. We don't know that you even are a woman, let alone an offended one. Asking us to come to a determination based on your "word" would be frankly offensive if it weren't so patently bizarre.

I've tried to be as rational and understanding as possible in this discussion, Rosa, I really have. But you're really not making it easy.

First you deny that objectivity even exists, now you're making like you don't know the common meaning of the word verifiable. That's petty pathetic sophistry, Rosa, and you're better than that.

The reason that we ask for things like evidence and logic in debates is because we all recognize, consciously or not, that subjective appeals are ultimately useless. They can be the start of a discussion, but they can never be the end.


TC
But just because asserting that something is oppressive is insufficient for it to be so does not mean that everyone is equally well positioned to appreciate when something is oppressive (or, in the case of language, endorsing an oppressive ideology). If you don’t appreciate why something is offensive to someone doesn’t mean that it can just be chalked up to a difference of subjective opinion, it means that they were reacting to a connotation or implication of what was said that you can’t recognize.

Possibly, but it could also mean that they were just offended, without any political connotations or implications involved. It really depends on the context.

The critical difference between this and what Rosa's talking about though, is that unappreciated connotations/implications can be explained, even to those not attuned to hearing them.

That's why progressive heterosexuals don't use the word "faggot"; even though we don't feel the sting ourselves, it's been explained to us why we shouldn't use it.

The same may well be true for "chick". Again I don't think it's anywhere as simple as with less grey words like "faggot" or "nigger", but I'm willing to consider the arguments. What I am not willing to accept, however, is any notion that once a woman has judged a word sexist, that's the end of the story. That my "male-ness" is somehow an unpassable barrier to recognizing when a word is discriminatory.

I'm not so naive as to think that that kind of thinking is legitimately "sexist", but I do know that it's dangerously subjectivist and an example of the kind of moralistic thinking that is rotting the modern left.

In the end, the question of whether or not "chick" is sexist is rather minor, but the issues of objectivity and materialism run far deeper. Absent a sufficient understanding of materialist thinking, we should all just turn in our red flags for crucifixes right now.

'Cause the second that "faith" of any kind replaces objective rationality, we're all lost.

[synthesis]

You really must learn not to pass comment on something if you do not have the necessary technical expertise.


It does not matter; your lecture on the philosophy of Summ Aule Assholius was totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I am curious as to why you even bother replying to your critics when you never actually address any of the points they make. I doubt you even read these posts any more, you pick the sentence that has the least to do with the subject and rant about it. When a good point is made, all I see is evasion and silly accusations.

Do you actually have the courtesy to address what I said up above or are you happy looking like an emo kid on a power trip?

I mean, really:



The token sentence embedded in the propositional function "'x' is not falsifiable" (viz: 'it is not falsifiable') is not falsifiable.

This, for several reasons: one being that it contains an unassigned token reflexive pronoun ('it').

You obviously put more effort into this post than your others but it still has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Why even bother?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


It does not matter; your lecture on the philosophy of Summ Aule Assholius was totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I am curious as to why you even bother replying to your critics when you never actually address any of the points they make. I doubt you even read these posts any more, you pick the sentence that has the least to do with the subject and rant about it. When a good point is made, all I see is evasion and silly accusations.

You can stop apologising for being out of your depth since I expected no more nor no less from you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by TragicClown+September 21, 2007 09:01 pm--> (TragicClown @ September 21, 2007 09:01 pm)
Noxion

You're effectively dismissing my argument because I'm male. Now, I am fully aware that males as a group are not oppressed, but in this exact instance you are being sexist towards me by doing so. But, I suppose that being a member of a non-oppressed group that makes me as an individual an acceptable target for sexism right?

Oh please. When radical “feminists” invent non-existent cases of sexism (like say, porn, Barbie, the fashion industry, cosmetics, shaving, etc) its offensive, but when guys invent non-existent cases of sexism against themselves, its just pathetic.[/b]

Non-existant? Just because anti-male sexism is rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Rosa said, and I quote with emphasis added: "Once more, you are not a woman, and so you are in no position to judge what women take as offensive/sexist".* If that isn't dismissing my statement because of my sex without reference to any points I made, then I'll eat my hat. If I were to dismiss someone's statement merely on the basis that they were female, I would quite rightly be called a sexist, or at the very least my statement would be called so. But reverse the situation, and all of a sudden, for no good reason at all, it ceases to be sexist. Just because I'm white doesn't mean that it is impossible for someone to be racist against me, and the same goes when it comes to my sex.


A lot of what passes off as “feminism” in some academic circles is just anti-male sexism, but what Rosa said doesn’t even come close to being that.

Granted, 99% of the time Rosa is not sexist at all but that statement, in of itself, is sexist by the simple virtue of dismissing an argument based on the sex of the person making it.


She is not dismissing your argument because you’re male, she’s aptly pointing out that as a male you are not in the same position to make such a judgment as she is, you simply haven’t been exposed to the experiences which would inform such a judgment.

That's not what she said at all. She said I was in "no position" to judge what is and isn't sexist. Not that my judgement was limited due to my lack of experience in gender oppression, which is what you are saying, but that I was incapable of passing rational judgement on the issue, which is a demonstrable falsehood.


That’s not sexist its just a reality; when it comes to appreciating interpersonal dynamics that are difficult to quantify, it can be harder to understand all of the nuances if you haven’t experienced them (which isn’t to say that they can’t be explained and understood by someone who hasn’t experienced them directly, but that if thy try to project their own speculation its not very likely to be accurate).

Harder, yes. Impossible? No. Which is what Rosa was to all intents and purposes saying.

(*Notice how Rosa conflates personal offence with sexism, thus poisoning the well)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LSD:


And yet the word was equally racist before and after those opinions "swung". Their being offended didn't make it any "more" racist and their not being offended didn't make it any "less".

This seems to me to be a very a-historical view of how these things work, and does not appear to be consistent with your earlier claims about social construction.

On your view: was this word 'racist' in some parallel universe waiting for humanity to agree -- but, coincidentally, only after the struggles of the Afro-American community?


Which all reiterates the point that emotional response makes a very lousy gauge of social oppression!

I agree, but where in anything I have said do I even imply this?


Except that no one is proposing that objective determinations can't be questioned, quite the contrary, by their nature objective findings invite questioning since they are founded on verifiable material phenomenon.

Yes, well we both know that this is what the brochure says, but in the real world class and power relations sort of screw it up.


If I claim that "nigger" is offensive because of its historical context and both denotative and connotative meanings (a very curt summary, obviously), I am making verifiable contentions.

Who can doubt this, but, as I said earlier, this looks rather a-historical to me.


The same is obviously not true when it comes to the contents of your brain. I can't know if you're really offended or not ...or why. And so I have nothing but your word to work with here. Hardly enough on which to base a finding of sexism or anything else.

Again, you are introducing an artificial dichotomy here. Clearly, we are social beings, and we can only use and understand words in historical/social contexts. In order for us to do so, there must be publicly ascertainable criteria for judging the effect of our words (or we would not have such words in the language).

In that case, if in the 10th century someone, per impossible, were to claim to be offended by the word 'n*gger' we would not be able to make sense of them.

Contrast that to the social awareness of linguistic racism consequent upon the great struggles of the 1950s etc. In those circumstances, such a claim would make sense.

And there are ways of confirming someone's feelings: social, historical and behavioural.

If this weren't the case, the vocabulary we have for our emotional lives could never have been taught nor learned.

On the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum, although you present a seemingly clear-cut case supporting the possibility of verification of publicly recorded events etc., the situation is not quite as clear-cut as you imagine.

Any evidence available/gathered has to be processed by human beings. And what they say is similarly historically conditioned, and susceptible of many and varied interpretations.

In that way, at both ends of the spectrum you present, alleged 'subjectivity' enters the picture.

You may say that at one end, the situation is clear-cut -- I say not so. Not only is empirical evidence capable of many different interpretations, at the other my feelings are capable of only one interpretation by me.

Looked at that way, I have more reason to trust my feelings than your interpretation of the data, which may change as more information arises, and may differ from the many other interpretations that could be put on it.

So, it is not a matter of one story can be verified, the other not. We are social beings, and so are constrained by many more factors than the stark 'verification or not' contrast would suggest.

Nothing could lead me to doubt my own reaction to this word (whereas there are a host of things that could lead me to doubt your data, and your interpretation of it -- even if in the end I do not do that), and although you may legitimately doubt me, you are no better placed to tell me what I felt, but certainly worse.

To generalise then: no man is better placed than a woman to tell her how she felt about the use of a certain word.

Don't get me wrong; I am not denying the things you said, merely pointing out that the contrast you drew is not as clear-cut as you seem to think.

And thus neither are the things you say relevant to the point I wished to make.


The fact of the matter is that this board is predicated on the notion of leftists coming together and discussing political issues, it's a little jarring to have someone propose that on as fundamental a question as sexism, there's no debate to be had, rather we should all just take the word of someone we've never met.

Fine, doubt all you want; but that does not affect how I received this word, and how others should or did do so.

I can only appeal to the sensibilities of other RevLefters to back me up -- or not.

But, what else is social negotiation anyway? We cannot rely on a neutral observer to help us out.


[b]And it's somewhat ironic that your argument can be summed up as asking that we all have faith in your perceptions. From someone who prides herself on her mastery of logic, it's a rather tough pill to swallow.

Not so; logic merely helps us derive conclusions. It has nothing to do with truth.

And it is not a matter of 'faith' in me. My argument wasn't: 'I am upset, please, you've got to believe me!!!'

It was: no man can tell a woman what she feels, and no man is in a better position than a woman to tell her that a certain word is sexist -- but he is certainly in a far worse position.

This does not say "No man has a right to an opinion here" or "No man can form ideas about sexism", or "No man can understand sexism" and a host of other things guys here seem to have said.

You keep confusing my views with such irrelevances.

Nor am I saying that social policy should be built on my views, but they certainly should be factored in, as with those of other women.

But, once more, this is precisely what social negotiation is all about.

Of course, in sexist class society, where men are socialised to have certain views of women, and women thus form certain views of men, all this gets highly screwed up.

But that does not mean that women's voices should not be heard: in this regard they are the oppressed group, after all, and should look to the left to help defend their interests.

That exaplains why fought this here, and not on some other board.

VR just supplied me with a good example, and opportunity.

And it seemed that no one else was prepared to push this hard, as I have done -- and thus have the required drive to ensure a win.

Plus, it has revealed to me and to others who the genuine lefties are on this issue.

Now I have spent far more time on this than I had intended.

So I will say no more on this.

However, can I thank you, yet again, for the seriousness with which you have approached this subject.

I think we would have got much further had others here, who I will not name and shame -- but they know who they are --, copied your excellent example.

Forgive me if I do not address the other excellent things you say, but I have already spent the best part of an hour on this reply.

[Prisoner]

"chick" have matter related to how you saying this word
somethimes you can say "chick" and have meaning about some girl that she is a *****
and somethimes you can mean that she is very atractive woman

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nice try Hajduk!

Suspended.

[lombas]

It's only a word.

[Socialist Dave]

I agree with you ^^

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In that case, you two will have no problems at all with racist and homophobic words.

[spartan]

A word is only offensive when placed in an offensive context! I dont care if the word was nigger (Many black people use it as a term when greeting a fellow black person) the fact is it can only be offensive when placed in an offensive context.

[synthesis]

You can stop apologising for being out of your depth since I expected no more nor no less from you.


I am curious as to why you even bother replying to your critics when you never actually address any of the points they make. I doubt you even read these posts any more, you pick the sentence that has the least to do with the subject and rant about it. When a good point is made, all I see is evasion and silly accusations.

Do you actually have the courtesy to address what I said up above or are you happy looking like an emo kid on a power trip?


Going, going, gone?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DM:


Going, going, gone?

Goodbye, don't forget not to write, and make sure you take your sexist mates with you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan:


A word is only offensive when placed in an offensive context! I dont care if the word was nigger (Many black people use it as a term when greeting a fellow black person) the fact is it can only be offensive when placed in an offensive context.

You'll be telling us that grass is green and that fire burns, next.

[spartan]

Rosa i was directing that towards lombas and Socialist Dave who think that it is only a word (No matter the context)!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I think they need to know this vital information too.

[lombas]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 05:02 pm
In that case, you two will have no problems at all with racist and homophobic words.
Indeed.

Freedom does not compromise.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by lombas+September 22, 2007 11:00 am--> (lombas @ September 22, 2007 11:00 am)
Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 05:02 pm
In that case, you two will have no problems at all with racist and homophobic words.
Indeed.

Freedom does not compromise. [/b]
Next you'll be arguing for the freedom of private property.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Iombas:


Indeed.

Freedom does not compromise.

1) 'Freedom' is not sentient, so it has no choice.

2) We do not compromise either: anyone who comes out with racist language is out of here.

3) Says who? Why is 'freedom' so important?

[Comrade Rage]

Sorry, I haven't had a chance to respond earlier.


Originally posted by Rosa
You are not a woman, so who are you to decide what women regard as sexist.
I think that even a knuckle-dragging man such as I has a good idea what sexism is.

However, if you are offended by this word I will avoid using it on threads you are commenting on.

Comrades Rev0lt and Rosa: You may have a point, although to be clear his avatar is satirizing a religion and not a race. I'm against all religions, no exception. Persecution against Islam is something I won't tolerate, but blasphemy is totally acceptable.

[lombas]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22, 2007 06:45 pm
Iombas:


Indeed.

Freedom does not compromise.

1) 'Freedom' is not sentient, so it has no choice.

2) We do not compromise either: anyone who comes out with racist language is out of here.

3) Says who? Why is 'freedom' so important?
What makes you think I would use racist language just because I say I don't care about people using it and that they have the freedom to do so if they please?

Why this pointless remark?