Is this sexist?

[Jazzratt]

Of course I will be a candidate in the next "electoins" [sic], I am one of the members who argued for keeping the current rules and guidelines and have consistently argued for enforcing them in a non-biased manner.

If you can show me where I have broken them since the last vote on the matter, I'll consider it, but you can't so kindly stop trolling.

He wasn't accusing you of not supporting the guidelines, he was pointing out your unerring ability to completely ignore them whilst still crusading for their ever more draconic application.

And you have the ovaries to call others hypocritical.

[Led Zeppelin]

He wasn't accusing you of not supporting the guidelines, he was pointing out your unerring ability to completely ignore them whilst still crusading for their ever more draconic application.

I know, I already replied to that: "If you can show me where I have broken them since the last vote on the matter, I'll consider it."

Maybe you're up for it?


And you have the ovaries to call others hypocritical.

Oh wow, hinting at me being a girl because I call others (rightly) hypocritical. :rolleyes:

I guess Rosa wasn't so wrong about you being a sexist after all.

[Jazzratt]

I know, I already replied to that: "If you can show me where I have broken them since the last vote on the matter, I'll consider it."

Are you saying that so we can't bring up the tides of flames you made in the thread itself?



Oh wow, hinting at me being a girl because I call others (rightly) hypocritical. :rolleyes:

Are you deliberately misreading me or something? Is describing someone as having the balls to do something an implication they're a man? Are you a stupid pillock?


I guess Rosa wasn't so wrong about you being a sexist after all.

Nope, but I clearly overestimated your intelligence. Munter.

[Led Zeppelin]

Are you deliberately misreading me or something? Is describing someone as having the balls to do something an implication they're a man?

Haha, what a pathetic defence you have, not surprising though coming from you.

I won't even dignify it with a response, at least now members can call you a sexist and be right.

[bezdomni]

Is describing someone as having the balls to do something an implication they're a man?
Yeah, LZ is being a total girl for calling you out on your sexism. He must have no balls.

Fucking femininazi...am I right guys?

[Jazzratt]

Yeah, LZ is being a total girl for calling you out on your sexism. He must have no balls.

Fucking femininazi...am I right guys?

Have people given up on teaching reading comprehension is schools or what?

I wasn't saying he had no balls, you stupid prick, I was saying that saying someone is sexist because they describe someone as "having the ovaries" to do something outrageous is inane. If I had used the sentence "and you have the balls to call others hypocritical" would you fuckwits be raising the same stupid shit storm?

Led Zeppelin


Haha, what a pathetic defence you have, not surprising though coming from you.

I won't even dignify it with a response, at least now members can call you a sexist and be right.

Why don't you go fuck yourself with a razorblade, ****?

[Led Zeppelin]

I wasn't saying he had no balls

Erm, yeah you did, when you said "ovaries" instead of "balls" here: "And you have the ovaries to call others hypocritical."

Forgetting that little Freudian slip already?

[Forward Union]

I've split this thread because these posts focus specifically on Jazzrats comment

[Black Dagger]

Can everyone please try to reply to one another without the flames?

[Jazzratt]

Erm, yeah you did, when you said "ovaries" instead of "balls" here: "And you have the ovaries to call others hypocritical."

Forgetting that little Freudian slip already?

Oh for fuck's sake I give up.

In your delusional fantasy land it was already decided long ago that I hate women so why I should argue with you is beyond me, but for the benefit of those reading (or at least those that have more than a couple of neurons still firing): the point of saying "and you have the ovaries to x" is not to emasculate anyone, simply to use a word other than balls or guts.

[Luís Henrique]

In a perfect society, "you have the balls" and "you have the ovaries" wouldn't be much different. I suspect people will at some time stop equating moral resolve or cynical hipocrisy with sexual organs. Of both sexes.

But we live in a society in which women (and effeminate men) are strongly discriminated against. So I would say that "you have the ovaries" shouldn't be used, unless the context makes it clearly OK (a discussion between women, or a conversation between people really close to each other, for instance).

Luís Henrique

[Lector Malibu]

I really don't feel that when Jazzratt used that terminology he was being sexist in any way shape or form.

I feel it is the case that some posters do not get along for whatever reasons, so now instead of the flaming they are lobbing morality and ethical standards shells at in this case Jazzratt.

Say you did not like the statement because it ticked you off , but trying to burn Jazzratt at the stake for being a sexist is pretty low and completely unfounded

[Martin Blank]

In a perfect society, "you have the balls" and "you have the ovaries" wouldn't be much different. I suspect people will at some time stop equating moral resolve or cynical hypocrisy with sexual organs. Of both sexes.

But we live in a society in which women (and effeminate men) are strongly discriminated against. So I would say that "you have the ovaries" shouldn't be used, unless the context makes it clearly OK (a discussion between women, or a conversation between people really close to each other, for instance).

I generally agree. It was clear that the use of the term "ovaries" was meant to be degrading (just like so many here, including Jazzratt, use the term "****" in the same way). This is sexism and misogyny -- a reinforcement of sexual stereotypes of women as less than or beneath men in the social hierarchy. And it should not be tolerated here.

[Kami]

It was meant to be taunting, yes, but there was absolutely no sexist, bigoted or misogynistic intent behind it. The arbritrary choice of female organ rather than male should really not cause such a ruckus.

just like so many here, including Jazzratt, use the term "****" in the same way
I've done this one elsewhere; it's worth noting that in Britain, the word "****" does not carry the same meaning as it does in America when used as an insult; it's strictly a non-gender specific term.

[Led Zeppelin]

In your delusional fantasy land it was already decided long ago that I hate women

No it wasn't. In fact, when Rosa accused you of being one when she took a statement of yours out of context I asked her to stop doing it.


Say you did not like the statement because it ticked you off , but trying to burn Jazzratt at the stake for being a sexist is pretty low and completely unfounded

Who is trying to burn Jazzratt at the stake? There's no thread to take action against him in the CC, nor here.

Anyway, that statement had some sexist connotations, as Luis and CommunistLeague rightly pointed out, but I don't believe Jazzratt consciously said it to be sexist. Saying something like that is common in society, for example when guys call each other "pussy" they are saying something sexist, but most of them aren't aware of it, however it means that for a man to be a woman is something to be ashamed of.

We are progressives here though, so we should not use terminology which has sexist connotations.

[TC]

While I would normally think that if SovietPants accuses someone of sexism, they're probably sexist...i think Jazzrat was actually being stupid rather than sexist.

By saying "And you have the ovaries to call others hypocritical." he was trying to generalize the phrase "having the balls/cojones", where testicles are equated with gall, brazenness, daring, etc into a cutesy, 'look at how gender neutral I am' expression whereby 'ovaries' could be substituted for them in the expression as you might substitute nuts or stones for 'balls.'

He wasn't being sexist...he was being stupid.

Of course ovaries are not interchangeable with balls in the expression, the entire point of the expression is to suggest that the person being remarked on is assertive enough and masculine assertion is symbolically typified by having large balls. There is no female equivalent because femininity isn't associated with being assertive and in any case ovaries are internal its rare to be able to remark on their size. (consider that all external sex organs both male and female have many slang terms to describe them but as far as I know there aren't any slang terms for internal sex organs, either male or female...I mean, whats a rude word for cowper's gland or fallopian tube? there isn't one is there).

[TC]

I generally agree. It was clear that the use of the term "ovaries" was meant to be degrading (just like so many here, including Jazzratt, use the term "****" in the same way). This is sexism and misogyny -- a reinforcement of sexual stereotypes of women as less than or beneath men in the social hierarchy. And it should not be tolerated here.

No its really not clear that that was the intent...I think the intent was to be cute and somehow politically progressive, making a phallocentric expression into a gynocentric one.

[Led Zeppelin]

No its really not clear that that was the intent...I think the intent was to be cute and somehow politically progressive, making a phallocentric expression into a gynocentric one.

If he didn't know the gender of the person he was saying it to, you would have a good point, but a male saying that to another male has the obvious meaning of reducing the other male to the level of a female, which is considered lower, particularly when comments are made to be offensive or insulting, which was certainly the case here.

[Herman]

I generally agree. It was clear that the use of the term "ovaries" was meant to be degradingThe same must apply to saying "balls" then?


But we live in a society in which women (and effeminate men) are strongly discriminated against. So I would say that "you have the ovaries" shouldn't be used, unless the context makes it clearly OK (a discussion between women, or a conversation between people really close to each other, for instance).No, everyone should be able to say "ovaries" instead of "balls" if they want to. It doesn't matter whether we say it now or in 500 years time, saying that you have "ovaries" instead of "balls" is not sexist or misogynist in anyway.


for example when guys call each other "pussy" they are saying something sexist,Just like guys call each other "dicks", "dickheads", "dickwads" or "cocks", right? Isn't that sexist too? In fact, there are more insults related to male genitalia than female genitalia. I'd say that saying "pussy" or "****" is far less sexist than the words I have mentioned.


If he didn't know the gender of the person he was saying it to, you would have a good point, but a male saying that to another male has the obvious meaning of reducing the other male to the level of a female, which in general society is considered lower, particularly when comments are made to be offensive or insulting, which was certainly the case here.

No, he was clearly trying to use "ovaries" in the same way as "balls", in order to put them in the same level and connotation. If you can't read between the lines, that's your problem.

[Led Zeppelin]

Just like guys call each other "dicks", "dickheads", "dickwads" or "cocks", right? Isn't that sexist too? In fact, there are more insults related to male genitalia than female genitalia. I'd say that saying "pussy" or "****" is far less sexist than the words I have mentioned.

I didn't realize men, i.e., humans with "dicks" and "cocks", were an oppressed gender?

Maybe I missed something?


No, he was clearly trying to use "ovaries" in the same way as "balls", in order to put them in the same level and connotation.

They're not on the same level, if they were it would be pointless to replace it. It was obviously done to be more insulting and denegrating, which means that having "ovaries" is considered to be lower than having "balls".

Seriously, this isn't rocket-science.

[Kami]

but a male saying that to another male has the obvious meaning of reducing the other male to the level of a femaleOnly if you feel that female is at a level lower than male. Considering it's Jazzratt, who for quite some time had his gender on the board set as female, this is rather unlikely.

EDIT: same goes for your comment on "ovaries" being lower than "balls". It only has any meaning if you assign some sort of value to one over the other, and I see no indication of that value being applied. That you seem to think this is a given is rather worrying

[Herman]

I didn't realize men, i.e., humans with "dicks" and "cocks", were an oppressed gender?

Maybe I missed something?You missed male homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals. They're all facing discrimination for their sexual orientation and have a penis and scrota (or might like to have them).


They're not on the same level, if they were it would be pointless to replace it. It was obviously done to be more insulting and denegrating, which means that having "ovaries" is considered to be lower than having "balls".Again, it wasn't. If you could read what he actually said, you'd understand that he wasn't calling you a "girl". It isn't pointless to replace it, since Jazzrat wanted to give them equal value. If you cannot see this, then that is your problem. You're simply giving "ovaries" a moralistic value because such organs normally belong to women. If you accepted gender equality as an ideal, you'd give both words equal value, while at the same time understanding that women face fierce discrimination around the globe.

[Martin Blank]

No its really not clear that that was the intent...I think the intent was to be cute and somehow politically progressive, making a phallocentric expression into a gynocentric one.

If it was a one-off comment, I would tend to agree. But Jazzratt has a bad habit of using sexist and misogynistic language. Personally, I don't care if there is a perception that "c*nt" is seen as a "non-gender-specific" term in Britain. They say the same thing about "b*tch" here in the U.S.

But it doesn't make it any more true.

[Led Zeppelin]

You missed male homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals. They're all facing discrimination for their sexual orientation and have a penis and scrota (or might like to have them).

Yes, this is why saying "eat dick" to someone is homophobic, not sexist.


You're simply giving "ovaries" a moralistic value because such organs normally belong to women. If you accepted gender equality as an ideal, you'd give both words equal value, while at the same time understanding that women face fierce discrimination around the globe.

You must be having a hard time living in the real world.

In there, where the rest of us live, referring to men as "girly" or "feminine" is a way to demean them and to add strength to insults, so when a person replaces the word "balls" in the common phrase "do you have the balls for it?" with "ovaries" and says that to a male, it is obviously done as a way to add an additional factor to the insult; sexism.

I don't believe it was done with the thought: "Oh hey, I'm going to replace the word balls with ovaries to make it funnier, without implying that he's a girl of course, I just want to be cute."

I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously if you believe that.

EDIT: I did however say this in my last post:


Anyway, that statement had some sexist connotations [...] but I don't believe Jazzratt consciously said it to be sexist. Saying something like that is common in society, for example when guys call each other "pussy" they are saying something sexist, but most of them aren't aware of it.

I am merely talking about the statement itself having sexist connotations, I'm not saying that Jazzratt is a woman-hating rabid sexist or anything.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't believe it was done with the thought: "Oh hey, I'm going to replace the word balls with ovaries to make it funnier, without implying that he's a girl of course, I just want to be cute."

No, it is said because it is the "natural" thing to do: call a man a woman when you want to insult him: puss, ****, *****, maricas, maricón, sissy, etc. It doesn't require any actual thinking, it is "automatic" - the automatic sexism of the dominant ideology.

Luís Henrique

[Led Zeppelin]

No, it is said because it is the "natural" thing to do: call a man a woman when you want to insult him: puss, ****, *****, maricas, maricón, sissy, etc. It doesn't require any actual thinking, it is "automatic" - the automatic sexism of the dominant ideology.

Yeah, I agree, I had made that clear in my previous post, should've made it more clear in my next.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You can't win with these psuedofeminists, seriously. They elevate genitalia to the status of holy symbols - use words like "cock", "dickhead" and "cumstain" and you're being "phallocentric"... Use words like "****", "pussy" and "twat" and you're an EVIL SEXIST who HATES WOMEN! :rolleyes:

I thought one had to hold reactionary positions about the place of women in society order to be sexist, but the pseudofeminists think using genitalia-based insults alone make you a misogynist. Forget about "unimportant" things like unequal pay, allowing women the choice of a career or a life of her own over raising a family or being someone's wife, the pseudofeminists aren't interested in such petty, real-world matters. They'd much rather berate someone over the internet over their choice of insult, since it's much easier than actually doing something about real sexism in the world and it makes you look so "revolutionary" and gains some serious e-credibility with your pseudofeminist friends.

Maybe if you closeted freaks actually talked to people outside your little "revolutionary" pseudofeminist cliques, you'd see that women are just as free with the "sexist" insults as men. But then again, I'm a frequenter "dirty pubs" where people like you and Mr & Mrs Prim-and-proper are very thin on the ground, but with plenty of people who actually have more important things to do, like pay the bills and try to find a job where the boss isn't a ****. Ooops, I used a bad word in reference to an imaginary person who could be of either sex! I must be an EVIL SEXIST too right? :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

I think everyone, whether male or female, should cut down on the petty *****ing and grow some balls.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think everyone, whether male or female, should cut down on the petty *****ing and grow some balls.

Oh Noez, he is teh sexist, BAN!!11!!!one!!1!

[Martin Blank]

Oh Noez, he is teh sexist, BAN!!11!!!one!!1!

Nah, he just has a shitty sense of humor.

[Martin Blank]

They elevate genitalia to the status of holy symbols - use words like "cock", "dickhead" and "cumstain" and you're being "phallocentric"... Use words like "****", "pussy" and "twat" and you're an EVIL SEXIST who HATES WOMEN! :rolleyes:

If you're using them as a metaphor for someone who is relatively inferior, or someone worth marginalizing and dismissing, yes, it is sexism.


I thought one had to hold reactionary positions about the place of women in society order to be sexist, but the pseudofeminists think using genitalia-based insults alone make you a misogynist. Forget about "unimportant" things like unequal pay, allowing women the choice of a career or a life of her own over raising a family or being someone's wife, the pseudofeminists aren't interested in such petty, real-world matters. They'd much rather berate someone over the internet over their choice of insult, since it's much easier than actually doing something about real sexism in the world and it makes you look so "revolutionary" and gains some serious e-credibility with your pseudofeminist friends.

As if these are counterposed. Really now. That's an incredibly cheap argument.

But, now that you've opened the door NoXion, what have you done in the real world to fight sexism? I can't enter Minneapolis, Minn., because I was charged with "inciting a riot" while defending an abortion clinic. I fought for the right of women to take job positions at the rail yard I've worked for that have traditionally been held by men. Care to compare examples?


Maybe if you closeted freaks actually talked to people outside your little "revolutionary" pseudofeminist cliques, you'd see that women are just as free with the "sexist" insults as men. But then again, I'm a frequenter "dirty pubs" where people like you and Mr & Mrs Prim-and-proper are very thin on the ground, but with plenty of people who actually have more important things to do, like pay the bills and try to find a job where the boss isn't a ****. Ooops, I used a bad word in reference to an imaginary person who could be of either sex! I must be an EVIL SEXIST too right? :rolleyes:

So, because working people are still waging the battle of survival (a battle I have to fight every day), that excuses social backwardness? Hey, forget trying to change anything, just go with the flow!

Or is it something else?

Could it really be that you have no interest in dealing with these issues in a setting outside of a rarified "political" event because they wouldn't listen to you -- because they already see you as an "outsider" (in spite of your frequenting of "dirty pubs") and not as someone worth dealing with?

Or, could it be that you have yet to see how bourgeois culture reinforces social relationships?

Or, is it that you simply don't care about fighting sexism in all arenas ... or any, for that matter?


P.S.: And, in case you aren't aware, "asshole" is a pretty good way to refer to bosses. So are "shitbag" and "fuckwit". There are tens of thousands of words in the English language; go learn some of them.

[Herman]

In there, where the rest of us live, referring to men as "girly" or "feminine" is a way to demean them and to add strength to insults, so when a person replaces the word "balls" in the common phrase "do you have the balls for it?" with "ovaries" and says that to a male, it is obviously done as a way to add an additional factor to the insult; sexism.

I don't believe it was done with the thought: "Oh hey, I'm going to replace the word balls with ovaries to make it funnier, without implying that he's a girl of course, I just want to be cute."

I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously if you believe that.

No, he didn't try to be funny. He obviously meant to replace "balls" with "ovaries" as a way to be more... let's say, "gender-just". He did not mean to say that you're "girly". This is very clear to me, as it is clear to others. Read between the lines. Of course, this can be hard on the internet.


No, it is said because it is the "natural" thing to do: call a man a woman when you want to insult him: puss, ****, *****, maricas, maricón, sissy, etc. It doesn't require any actual thinking, it is "automatic" - the automatic sexism of the dominant ideology.

Except he didn't call Zeppelin a girl, not did he say anything "automatic", as per the words you used. How many times have you heard someone saying "do you have the ovaries to do this?".

[Lector Malibu]

Who is trying to burn Jazzratt at the stake? There's no thread to take action against him in the CC, nor here.

Anyway, that statement had some sexist connotations, as Luis and CommunistLeague rightly pointed out, but I don't believe Jazzratt consciously said it to be sexist. Saying something like that is common in society, for example when guys call each other "pussy" they are saying something sexist, but most of them aren't aware of it, however it means that for a man to be a woman is something to be ashamed of.

We are progressives here though, so we should not use terminology which has sexist connotations.


Personally I would not have used the term. I actually agree with you about not using words that we know to have degrading meanings , be it against women or homosexuals, or minorities.

I made the burning at the stake reference because I think we can all agree that Jazzratt is not a sexist.

Was his language sexist? well yes ,

But his intent was not. Therefore calling him a sexist after the fact was not really applicable.

[Awful Reality]

This is vital: Is LZ a female and if so, does Jazzrat know it?

[Led Zeppelin]

This is very clear to me, as it is clear to others. Read between the lines. Of course, this can be hard on the internet.

I don't claim I can read minds, neither should you.


Except he didn't call Zeppelin a girl

I didn't realize there were men with ovaries instead of balls.

Wow, I keep learning new amazing things from you in this thread.


This is vital: Is LZ a female and if so, does Jazzrat know it?

No I'm not and yes he does.

[Awful Reality]

No I'm not and yes he does.

Then it's clearly sexist. Why would he say something untrue (of that nature) except to be sexist?

[Module]

First let me say that I don't think Jazzratt meant it in a sexist way. I can see how people could have perceived it as him calling the other person a woman as an insult but I think it was more an attempt at gender neutrality.

You can't win with these psuedofeminists, seriously. They elevate genitalia to the status of holy symbols - use words like "cock", "dickhead" and "cumstain" and you're being "phallocentric"... Use words like "****", "pussy" and "twat" and you're an EVIL SEXIST who HATES WOMEN! :rolleyes:
So, are you saying that colloquial language doesn't reflect the values of a society? Because I think it's quite clear that it does.
Although I wouldn't say words like '****' or 'twat' because they've become, at least around here, gender neutral, the term 'pussy', for instance is generally acknowledged as referring to female genitalia, in direct relation to the context.
It's used in an emasculatory way, calling somebody a 'wimp' by referring to female genitalia. Language makes up a big part of one's culture, and this sort of language reflects and informs the culture it's a part of. It is a good example of the sexist culture in our society.
I hardly think its "pseudofeminism", as you call it, to recognise this sexism.
In fact, I'd say it was the other way around.
How can you call yourself a feminist if you don't even recognise this sort of social oppression? Language like this lowers the social position of women, by denoting femininity as a weakness, and something to be ashamed of.


I thought one had to hold reactionary positions about the place of women in society order to be sexist, but the pseudofeminists think using genitalia-based insults alone make you a misogynist. Forget about "unimportant" things like unequal pay, allowing women the choice of a career or a life of her own over raising a family or being someone's wife, the pseudofeminists aren't interested in such petty, real-world matters. They'd much rather berate someone over the internet over their choice of insult, since it's much easier than actually doing something about real sexism in the world and it makes you look so "revolutionary" and gains some serious e-credibility with your pseudofeminist friends.You are presuming that feminists who call out sexist language must do nothing else other than that. Why? You have no reason to think this whatsoever.
Why you seem to be getting so offended on this matter is confusing to me, since you're not being accused of anything.
I will say now, though, that this reflects a pretty common attitude amongst men to brush off accusations of sexism as all unreasonable, by attacking the feminists themselves as being unreasonable people.


Maybe if you closeted freaks actually talked to people outside your little "revolutionary" pseudofeminist cliques, you'd see that women are just as free with the "sexist" insults as men. But then again, I'm a frequenter "dirty pubs" where people like you and Mr & Mrs Prim-and-proper are very thin on the ground, but with plenty of people who actually have more important things to do, like pay the bills and try to find a job where the boss isn't a ****. I don't doubt that women use sexist insults.
An example, in a movie I watched a couple of days ago, 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall'.
The main male character is too scared to jump off a cliff into the water, where the female 'love interest', calls out to him "I can see your vagina from here".
Does the fact she was a girl make it okay? No...
The fact that both women and men see femininity as inferior to masculinity does not somehow mean that there is gender equality.
Pay inequalities, oppressive gender roles which rob women of choices in their lives are due to the sexist culture in which we live.
This includes language. Language is a 'real world matter'.
Nobody is denying what 'plenty of people' have to go through - does that mean, to repeat CommunistLeague, we should just excuse sexism? What about racism? Homophobia?
Should we use excuse those things because people have "better things to do"?
Most people are oppressed in other ways besides labour relations.
Are you of an ethnic minority? Are you of a sexual minority? I don't even have to ask if you're a woman because the answer's obvious.

[RNK]

Or maybe, it was a classic Jazzratt attempt to put a witty, unexpected spin on a common phrase.

And maybe, just maybe, you should take that stick out of your enormous ****.

[Lector Malibu]

Or maybe, it was a classic Jazzratt attempt to put a witty, unexpected spin on a common phrase.

And maybe, just maybe, you should take that stick out of your enormous ****.

Come on! I agree but was that necessary? Really..

[Luís Henrique]

And maybe, just maybe, you should take that stick out of your enormous ****.

Probing limits, hm?

Luís Henrique

[Dean]

I generally agree. It was clear that the use of the term "ovaries" was meant to be degrading (just like so many here, including Jazzratt, use the term "****" in the same way). This is sexism and misogyny -- a reinforcement of sexual stereotypes of women as less than or beneath men in the social hierarchy. And it should not be tolerated here.

I disagree. I've read Jazzrat's posts for long enough to know that he probably isn't trying to be sexist; he is extremely reserved when it comes to such issues, despite the argument that he is a misogynist. I think, if Jazzrat though it was sexist, even in a Freudian sense, he would have omitted the comment. That isn't to say I agree with the crass flaming, just that the intention is not sexist.

And for this matter, I highly oppose condemning anyone for Freudian slips. This is kind've the same argument I have about Cmde. Slavyanski: even if their belief or speach is indicative of some reactionary tendancy, so long as they don't actively promote such beliefs, they should not be antagonized for it. Again, I don't think this describes Jazzrat, but I can't say either way anyways. We don't know him well enough to make such assertions.

[Herman]

I don't claim I can read minds, neither should you.

I don't know what's the point of this. You've made a claim, so have I.


I didn't realize there were men with ovaries instead of balls.

Wow, I keep learning new amazing things from you in this thread.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing. He obviously didn't mean to say that you actually had "ovaries" and that you were a girl. How could you not see it? How many times have you heard someone say "do you have the ovaries to do this"? It's not an insult. It's a dare, except that instead of "balls", he said "ovaries" in order to give "ovaries" the same value as "balls".

[Led Zeppelin]

He obviously didn't mean to say that you actually had "ovaries" and that you were a girl. How could you not see it? How many times have you heard someone say "do you have the ovaries to do this"? It's not an insult. It's a dare, except that instead of "balls", he said "ovaries" in order to give "ovaries" the same value as "balls".

No, he "obviously" did not say it for that reason, in fact it's absurd if he did, because it makes no sense as an insult, which was the intent of the comment.

If you read it another way because you trust Jazzratt to not make comments with sexist connotations that is fine, that does not mean that saying that in and of itself, disregarding the person saying it, does not have sexist connotations.

And since no one here is arguing to have action taken against Jazzratt for his comment, but are merely pointing out the sexist connotations of it, you are the one who is arguing for the sake of arguing, not me.

Also, the argument of "it's your subjective interpretation of the comment which causes you to think it was sexist" doesn't make any sense. Any person who knows English understands that when a male says to another male he has "ovaries" instead of "balls" he is saying in effect that the other man is a female, regardless of whether that was his intention or not, and I said before, it would be absurd if it wasn't because linguistically saying something like that makes no sense if it was not your intention.

fourthinternational's observation was precisely accurate: Am I a male and if so did Jazzratt know it? Yes and yes, so the conclusion is logically; "Then it's clearly sexist. Why would he say something untrue (of that nature) except to be sexist?"

That also disproves your argument of it only being my subjective interpretation, several other members have said the same thing. That doesn't make it true, but it does render that argument of yours moot.

Now, if you choose to trust Jazzratt's gender neutrality and believe that he merely replaced the word ovaries for balls, not to hint at me being female, but to place ovaries on an equal level as balls (it really amazes me how anyone can seriously believe this, but fine) then go right ahead, that does not make the comment in and of itself acceptable.

[bcbm]

No, he "obviously" did not say it for that reason, in fact it's absurd if he did, because it makes no sense as an insult, which was the intent of the comment.

No, the intent was to point out your hypocrisy and the phrase in question was just a twist on a common turn of phrase, not an attempt at calling you a girly pussy or some rubbish like that.

Even if you don't buy that interpretation, it is just as valid as yours. Nothing in the comment really inherently suggests an insult or not, I suppose, but that is where we fall back on what we know about Jazzratt, for example that he likes to twist common phrases and is not a sexist. So, we can follow this to its logical conclusion...

[Martin Blank]

I disagree. I've read Jazzratt's posts for long enough to know that he probably isn't trying to be sexist; he is extremely reserved when it comes to such issues, despite the argument that he is a misogynist. I think, if Jazzratt though it was sexist, even in a Freudian sense, he would have omitted the comment. That isn't to say I agree with the crass flaming, just that the intention is not sexist.

And for this matter, I highly oppose condemning anyone for Freudian slips. This is kind of the same argument I have about Cmde. Slavyanski: even if their belief or speech is indicative of some reactionary tendency, so long as they don't actively promote such beliefs, they should not be antagonized for it. Again, I don't think this describes Jazzratt, but I can't say either way anyways. We don't know him well enough to make such assertions.

I've read plenty of Jazzratt's posts, too. And what I've noticed is that he has a tendency to use references to women, their body parts, etc., when he's looking to insult, denigrate, marginalize or otherwise dismiss an opponent. It is a consistent pattern in his interactions with others here. I stress the word "pattern" because that is the key here. If these were one-off "blips" -- occasional lapses of judgment -- I could be more forgiving and would be more educational in my approach. But at some point the blips form a pattern, and that is why a comment like this is drawing the debate it is. It is, for some of us, part of a wider problem.

[careyprice31]

I really don't feel that when Jazzratt used that terminology he was being sexist in any way shape or form.

I feel it is the case that some posters do not get along for whatever reasons, so now instead of the flaming they are lobbing morality and ethical standards shells at in this case Jazzratt.

Say you did not like the statement because it ticked you off , but trying to burn Jazzratt at the stake for being a sexist is pretty low and completely unfounded

I think so too. I say that all the time 'balls' 'ovaries' 'he has no balls' ' she has no ovaries'

I dont think theres sexism in that.

[careyprice31]

You can't win with these psuedofeminists, seriously. They elevate genitalia to the status of holy symbols - use words like "cock", "dickhead" and "cumstain" and you're being "phallocentric"... Use words like "****", "pussy" and "twat" and you're an EVIL SEXIST who HATES WOMEN! :rolleyes:

I thought one had to hold reactionary positions about the place of women in society order to be sexist, but the pseudofeminists think using genitalia-based insults alone make you a misogynist. Forget about "unimportant" things like unequal pay, allowing women the choice of a career or a life of her own over raising a family or being someone's wife, the pseudofeminists aren't interested in such petty, real-world matters. They'd much rather berate someone over the internet over their choice of insult, since it's much easier than actually doing something about real sexism in the world and it makes you look so "revolutionary" and gains some serious e-credibility with your pseudofeminist friends.

Maybe if you closeted freaks actually talked to people outside your little "revolutionary" pseudofeminist cliques, you'd see that women are just as free with the "sexist" insults as men. But then again, I'm a frequenter "dirty pubs" where people like you and Mr & Mrs Prim-and-proper are very thin on the ground, but with plenty of people who actually have more important things to do, like pay the bills and try to find a job where the boss isn't a ****. Ooops, I used a bad word in reference to an imaginary person who could be of either sex! I must be an EVIL SEXIST too right? :rolleyes:

wow, i agree with this one. I use the words b***h and slut all the time. I use slut to refer to James Bond. I think men and women can be sluts and b***hes. I dont think im an evil reactionary sexist because i use those words.

actually in my family, slut is actually a greeting. Its my uncle's way of greeting his friends and family. He'll say like "hey, slutty" and not just him most of us use it as a friedly greeting to each other. It will sound weird to outsiders who arent used to us because its a family thing.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think so too. I say that all the time 'balls' 'ovaries' 'he has no balls' ' she has no ovaries'

I dont think theres sexism in that.

Good job missing the point.

Saying "she has no ovaries" is saying it to a woman, and saying "he has no balls" is saying it to a man, it is stupid and silly but necessarily sexist.

Saying "he has ovaries instead of balls" is hinting at the man being a woman, and therefore inferior, that is the purpose of saying it; to add strength to the insult.


wow, i agree with this one. I use the words b***h and slut all the time.

And you're a girl too, so I guess it must be right!

Just as it's right to say that Jews are scum when you yourself have Jewish heritage, or that Arabs are "towelheads" when you are yourself one.

Actually, no it isn't.

Besides, that is irrelevant, when a man says "*****" or "slut" to a woman he is being sexist, and therefore it is not allowed on the forum.

[careyprice31]

you'd have to kn ow jazzratt to know what his purpose was. I dont think you can read minds, do you?

people use that kind of language all the time, are all those people sexist?

and im not missing the point i know what you mean, i wasnt born yesterday.

i think one can go too far with trying to make everyone be politically correct in their language, I think you have to more look at the person's intent rather that the word itself. words have several meanings and most of the time those slang words arent used in a sexist manner. Its like saying someone is 'retarded' which is used to mean someone is funny or goofy and doesnt have anything to do with insulting the mentally challenged.

[Kami]

Good job missing the point.

Saying "she has no ovaries" is saying it to a woman, and saying "he has no balls" is saying it to a man, it is stupid and silly but necessarily sexist.

Saying "he has ovaries instead of balls" is hinting at the man being a woman, and therefore inferior, that is the purpose of saying it; to add strength to the insult.

IT only adds strength to an insult if you place inherant value in one over the other, and I see no evidence that Jazzratt does.
If anything, asking if you have the ovaries to do something would be like saying are you woman enough?, implying a woman would be BETTER at tackling what he was saying. Certainly not sexist against women, I'm sure you'll agree.


And you're a girl too, so I guess it must be right!

Just as it's right to say that Jews are scum when you yourself have Jewish heritage, or that Arabs are "towelheads" when you are yourself one.

Actually, no it isn't.

Besides, that is irrelevant, when a man says "*****" or "slut" to a woman he is being sexist, and therefore it is not allowed on the forum.
Or maybe he's using an widely-known insult and not thinking to much deeper than that. Sometimes, an insult is just an insult, there's nothing behind it.

[Lector Malibu]

I've read plenty of Jazzratt's posts, too. And what I've noticed is that he has a tendency to use references to women, their body parts, etc., when he's looking to insult, denigrate, marginalize or otherwise dismiss an opponent. It is a consistent pattern in his interactions with others here. I stress the word "pattern" because that is the key here. If these were one-off "blips" -- occasional lapses of judgment -- I could be more forgiving and would be more educational in my approach. But at some point the blips form a pattern, and that is why a comment like this is drawing the debate it is. It is, for some of us, part of a wider problem.

CL,

I don't have access to all parts of the forum, so if I'm missing something I assure you it is not out of ignorance.

That said I really have not seen this pattern you are referring too. I have not seen a pattern of Jazzratt using sexist language openly and on a regular basis.

I know Jazzratt to flame like most of us do , myself included, from time to time. However this title of him being a sexist who repeatedly insults women really I think is unfounded.

Yes the terms used where not at all the best

But really the title that has been given to him is uncalled for

[Led Zeppelin]

you'd have to kn ow jazzratt to know what his purpose was. I dont think you can read minds, do you?

No, unlike you and some others here I don't claim I have that ability.


people use that kind of language all the time, are all those people sexist?

Maybe if you bothered to read this thread before posting in it you wouldn't have had to ask this question: "Anyway, that statement had some sexist connotations [...] but I don't believe Jazzratt consciously said it to be sexist. Saying something like that is common in society, for example when guys call each other "pussy" they are saying something sexist, but most of them aren't aware of it."


If anything, asking if you have the ovaries to do something would be like saying are you woman enough?, implying a woman would be BETTER at tackling what he was saying. Certainly not sexist against women, I'm sure you'll agree.


That would make sense if I was a female and he was aware of it.


Or maybe he's using an widely-known insult and not thinking to much deeper than that.

He had the intention to imply I was female/girly to add strength to the insult, but he was not aware that it was sexist, so you're right about him not thinking much deeper than that.

Separating the comment from the person using it, and judging on the comment itself, it has sexist connotations.

Whenever a guy says to another guy that he's "girly" or a "pussy" or "has ovaries instead of balls" that is the case.

[careyprice31]

No, unlike you and some others here I don't claim I have that ability.



Maybe if you bothered to read this thread before posting in it you wouldn't have had to ask this question: "Anyway, that statement had some sexist connotations [...] but I don't believe Jazzratt consciously said it to be sexist. Saying something like that is common in society, for example when guys call each other "pussy" they are saying something sexist, but most of them aren't aware of it."



That would make sense if I was a female and he was aware of it.



He had the intention to imply I was female/girly to add strength to the insult, but he was not aware that it was sexist, so you're right about him not thinking much deeper than that.

Separating the comment from the person using it, and judging on the comment itself, it has sexist connotations.

Whenever a guy says to another guy that he's "girly" or a "pussy" or "has ovaries instead of balls" that is the case.

I did read the thread. it interested me so i read the whole thing.

i dont claim either to be a mind reader. but i did grow up and go to school with and been around many people like jazzratt and i heard these words used all the time.

i think it only makes sense if someone told a guy "you throw like a girl" that equatezs girls cant throw good with an insult. I do think jazzratt was only trying to use male body parts and woman body parts the same. He just replaced balls with ovaries. If anything it seems like he was trying to be equal.

I dont claim to be able to read minds, thats just what it seems like to me.

[Wanted Man]

Wow, my little remark (which requires no justification, everybody knows that LZ flames like a maniac and is a complete hypocrite when it comes to the rules and their enforcement) has really snowballed. I'm sorry I wasn't here to fight the good fight, but a Spanish friend was having a great sangria party. A shame, because I'd love to sit up all night on the internet to fight the good fight by arguing about the sexist meaning of words with complete strangers. :( Luckily, Jazzratt and NoXion stated their cases well, there is nothing more to add.


By saying "And you have the ovaries to call others hypocritical." he was trying to generalize the phrase "having the balls/cojones", where testicles are equated with gall, brazenness, daring, etc into a cutesy, 'look at how gender neutral I am' expression whereby 'ovaries' could be substituted for them in the expression as you might substitute nuts or stones for 'balls.'

He wasn't being sexist...he was being stupid.
I think it was pretty original.

Edit: it must be said. It's absolutely hilarious that Jazzratt's language is supposed to be a sexist "pattern" and a "wider problem". This is beyond comedy, no comedian could think of something like that. You useless ****s.

[Kami]

He had the intention to imply I was female/girly to add strength to the insult
WRONG. He swapped a word with a lesser used equivilant to make the insult a little more original. There was no intention to hint you're a girl or anything like that, it was just a single word substituted to add originality (whether successfully or not is up to you). That's it.

The only possible sexism I can see here is your outright shock at the possibility of being compared to a woman, of all things (The gall!), and that is somehow insulting. Sometimes meaning is in the eye of the beholder.



Edit: it must be said. It's absolutely hilarious that Jazzratt's language is supposed to be a sexist "pattern" and a "wider problem". This is beyond comedy, no comedian could think of something like that. You useless ****s.

Agreed, I'm sat here somewhere between my jaw hitting the floor in disbelief and laughing my arse off.

[Led Zeppelin]

Wow, my little remark (which requires no justification, everybody knows that LZ flames like a maniac and is a complete hypocrite when it comes to the rules and their enforcement) has really snowballed.

Now it requires no justification does it? First you ignore my reply asking you to cite examples (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1129782&postcount=2), because you can't, and now it doesn't require any evidence at all.

Sure, if you say I flame all the time what's a little thing like facts to get in the way of that? :rolleyes:


WRONG. He swapped a word with a lesser used equivilant to make the insult a little more original. There was no intention to hint you're a girl or anything like that, it was just a single word substituted to add originality (whether successfully or not is up to you). That's it.


Your gift of reading minds is truly incredible, you might become a Jedi with that if you keep up with it, or maybe a Sith.

Us people living in the real world are going to continue ignoring your predictions however, if you don't mind.

I'll say it again, though I'm repeating myself, it is alright because you're doing the same thing:

When a guy says to another guy that he's a "pussy", has "ovaries" instead of "balls", is a "woman", a "*****", a "girl", etc. etc. he obviously has the intention of demeaning the other by implying the other is of a gender which he considers to be inferior. Any person who understands the English language and thinks a little about the meaning and intention behind the comments will understand why they have sexist connotations.

However, a person who tries to defend a member they like on a forum, and is willing to go through great lengths to justify the use of such a comment by that member, does not.

You belong in the latter category, if you hadn't noticed.

I think it's funny though how you're trying to turn it around on me and say that I am offended because I was referred to as a female, even though your original argument is that he didn't even mean that when he said it. Your mental gymnastics skills aren't impressive.

I'm not "offended" by anything anyone says on here, I simply don't care enough to be. This does not mean however that I, and other members, will tolerate sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise reactionary comments.

Anyway, why are you still whining about this? No one is arguing for action to be taken against Jazzratt or saying that he's a sexist.

[Kami]

Your gift of reading minds is truly incredible, you might become a Jedi with that if you keep up with it, or maybe a Sith.
Sorry for not clarifying; I've known the fellow for a number of years now. Mind reading is not required.


When a guy says to another guy that he's a "pussy", has "ovaries" instead of "balls", is a "woman"
Now, here's the thing; he didn't. He said, and I quote;


And you have the ovaries to call others hypocritical.
Now, I must ask you, when someone asks you if you have the balls to do something, are they literally enquiring as to whether you posses a part of the male genetalia? Or are they using the word "Balls" to refer to the qualities TC listed for us earlier (gall, brazenness, daring, etc).
So, by switching the word "Balls", which doesn't literally mean male genetalia in this usage, with the word "ovaries" is he implying you literally have ovaries, or simply picking up on the genetalia theme and running with it? It really doesn't take a linguistic genius to work that one out.

he obviously has the intention of demeaning the other by implying the other is of a gender which he considers to be inferior.
NOW who is claiming to be a mindreader? You're powers at detecting attitude towards gender amaze me!

Any person who understands the English language and thinks a little about the meaning and intention behind the comments will understand why they have sexist connotations.
Quite the opposite, there is only sexist connotations if you take it absolutely 100% literally, and don't look at the meaning or intention. He very, very obviously was not implying you were a girl.



However, a person who tries to defend a member they like on a forum and are willing to go through great lengths to justify the use of such a comment by that member, does not.

You belong in the latter category, if you hadn't noticed.
Excuse me for arguing against an unjust accusation of sexism; a fairly major charge, by my standards.


I think it's funny though how you're trying to turn it around on me and say that I am offended because I was referred to as a female, even though your original argument is that he didn't even mean that when he said it. Your mental gymnastics skills aren't impressive.
I was simply stating that maybe you need to go back and look at your interpretation of the sentence. As I said, meaning is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps it didn't have the meaning you attribute to it.


I'm not "offended" by anything anyone says on here, I simply don't care enough to be. This does not mean however that I, and other members, will tolerate sexist, racist, homophobic, or otherwise reactionary comments.
Glad to hear it.

[Led Zeppelin]

Sorry for not clarifying; I've known the fellow for a number of years now.

Yeah, thought so.

You're obviously biased in the matter. I can get some friends of mine to post on here to support my view on the matter as well, that doesn't make it right.

I like to keep it in the realm of actual meaning, and my point is that whether Jazzratt meant it to be sexist or not, it does not matter to the fact that the comment in and of itself has sexist connotations.

He didn't have that intention? Fine, maybe he did, maybe he didn't, I've already said that I don't believe he is a sexist and that he probably wasn't aware of the comment having sexist connotation, so I'm not sure why you're continuing to post about that.

If however you believe the comment in and of itself is not sexist, regardless of who says it, then we have a disagreement which is not going to be solved because you have a different perception of linguistics, its use in society, and therefore the underlying meanings behind comments.

[Kami]

Yeah, thought so.

You're obviously biased in the matter. I can get some friends of mine to post on here to support my view on the matter as well, that doesn't make it right.

I like to keep it in the realm of actual meaning, and my point is that whether Jazzratt meant it to be sexist or not, it does not matter to the fact that the comment in and of itself has sexist connotations.
And as I stated, it doesn't. since you didn't read further than the first line before latching onto something you could use, and missed entirely what I was saying;

Now, I must ask you, when someone asks you if you have the balls to do something, are they literally enquiring as to whether you posses a part of the male genetalia? Or are they using the word "Balls" to refer to the qualities TC listed for us earlier (gall, brazenness, daring, etc).
So, by switching the word "Balls", which doesn't literally mean male genetalia in this usage, with the word "ovaries" is he implying you literally have ovaries, or simply picking up on the genetalia theme and running with it? It really doesn't take a linguistic genius to work that one out.
This would apply in 99% of the cases such a phrase is used, and it is on these grounds that I argue the phrase is not sexist.

[Kami]

You're obviously biased in the matter. I can get some friends of mine to post on here to support my view on the matter as well, that doesn't make it right.
Also, I'd thank you for not making such accusations towards my intellectual integrity. I am here, arguing my case, because I disagree with you. I was not asked to come here.

[Led Zeppelin]

And as I stated, it doesn't. since you didn't read further than the first line before latching onto something you could use, and missed entirely what I was saying;

Actually I did read it, I just found it so absurd that I didn't feel the need to respond to it.

But fine, I'll indulge you:


Now, I must ask you, when someone asks you if you have the balls to do something, are they literally enquiring as to whether you posses a part of the male genetalia? Or are they using the word "Balls" to refer to the qualities TC listed for us earlier (gall, brazenness, daring, etc).

Both. The fact that "having balls" has received an equal meaning to being brave, daring etc. is sexist in and of itself.

Obviously the phrase is rooted in the historic inequality of genders within society.

That's another matter on the phrase "you don't have the balls for it" itself though, it doesn't have anything to do with replacing the word "balls" in that sentence with "ovaries" to add another dimension to the insult, because that's what it is originally.

Even if it did have something to do with it your case would not be helped by it. Since "having balls", or rather the lack thereof, is used as an insult to hint at a person not having the bravery to do something, having "ovaries" would be regarded as even worse in the terms of the meanings given to it, rather than the actual anatomical parts. The entire argument was about the meaning given to the terms rather than the objective inferiority of ovaries to balls, I'm not sure you fully understand the concept of linguistics.

Words in insults, phrases, etc. are about meanings given to them.


So, by switching the word "Balls", which doesn't literally mean male genetalia in this usage, with the word "ovaries" is he implying you literally have ovaries, or simply picking up on the genetalia theme and running with it? It really doesn't take a linguistic genius to work that one out.

No, but it does take a mental gymnast, a rather poor one though, to get that conclusion out of a false premise.

Since your premise was wrong I won't bother replying to your conclusion from it.


This would apply in 99% of the cases such a phrase is used, and it is on these grounds that I argue the phrase is not sexist.

I wonder what the other 1% is left open for, if that is the only meaning it can have?


Also, I'd thank you for not making such accusations towards my intellectual integrity. I am here, arguing my case, because I disagree with you. I was not asked to come here.

I didn't say you were asked, I said you were biased because you're his personal friend. The fact that you're trying to argue something absurd as being valid simply reinforces my view of you only arguing out of personal feelings rather than logic.

[Kami]

Both. The fact that "having balls" has received an equal meaning to being brave, daring etc. is sexist in and of itself.

Obviously the phrase is rooted in the historic inequality of genders within society.

That's another matter on the phrase "you don't have the balls for it" itself though, it doesn't have anything to do with replacing the word balls in that sentence with ovaries to add another dimension to the insult, because that's what it is originally.Won't argue here, the original phrase is definately sexist in it's roots. except to say I do not believe that the phrase, in it's current form, refers to literal genetalia, despite that being it's original meaning. That, as you say, has nothing to do with it, it's the alteration you believed sexist.

No, but it does take a mental gymnast, a rather poor one though, to get that conclusion out of a false premise.

Since your premise was wrong I won't bother replying to your conclusion from it.
Well dodged. You accuse me of mental gymnastics!
Simple fact is, the phrase does not accuse you of having ovaries, but instead accuses you of having the traits mentioned above, using female genetalia (I wonder; do you consider the original phrase sexist if stated to a woman, not because of the obvious sexist connatations of the original phrase, but because it implies the woman posseses testes?) rather than male. that is all, and it's meaning is obvious to those with familiarity to the english language.


I wonder what the other 1% is left open for, if that is the only meaning it can have?People meaning it 100% literally, and physically claiming you have ovaries. If such exist, I left the percentile for the possibility

I didn't say you were asked, I said you were biased because you're his personal friend. The fact that you're trying to argue something absurd as being valid simply reinforces my view of you only arguing out of personal feelings rather than logic.You have the gall to acuse me of arguing the absurd, yet think it perfectly reasonable that when asked if you had the balls to do something, someone is, in part, checking if your genetalia are still present?

[Led Zeppelin]

Won't argue here, the original phrase is definately sexist in it's roots. except to say I do not believe that the phrase, in it's current form, refers to literal genetalia, despite that being it's original meaning. That, as you say, has nothing to do with it, it's the alteration you believed sexist.

It does refer to genetalia, if it didn't then it wouldn't have sexist roots.

You're contradicting yourself.


Simple fact is, the phrase does not accuse you of having ovaries, but instead accuses you of having the traits mentioned above, using female genetalia

And since the phrase in and of itself is linked to gender and genetalia it doesn't help your argument one bit.


I wonder; do you consider the original phrase sexist if stated to a woman, not because of the obvious sexist connatations of the original phrase, but because it implies the woman posseses testes?

That phrase has become as common as the word "*****" and "pussy", that does not alter the fact that it has sexist connotations.


that is all, and it's meaning is obvious to those with familiarity to the english language.

Congratulations, you just insulted several members who have English as their first language and still consider it to have sexist connotations.


People meaning it 100% literally, and physically claiming you have ovaries. If such exist, I left the percentile for the possibility

It is both physically and metaphysically hinted at when that phrase is used. Again, you don't understand the basics of linguistics. Words in insults are given meanings by society, whether you like it or not.

"Having balls" has been given the meaning "to be brave", changing the word "balls" to "ovaries" in that and saying it to a man implies that for one, they are not brave (in that regard you are correct about its abstract meaning) because society says so, and two, that they are female and therefore "inferior", because again, society says so.

There is no other reason to say that to another man besides that.

I said this a few pages ago and it still hasn't sunk in, this isn't rocket-science: why do guys call other "pussies", "*****es, "girly" etc., that is, why do they refer to other men as being female? To imply that they are of the "weaker sex" and therefore add strength to the insult, which makes the insult sexist.

[Jazzratt]

Although I've already said my piece here I'd really like to know where this idea that "ovaries" automatically implies weakness comes from? Especially as in the context I used the word it was simply an informal way of talking about a large amount of misplaced courage. But whatever, if the faux-feminists here want to crawl through the english language with a fine toothed comb trying to find any sign of heresy (er, I mean "latent sexism coming from the phrase of itself") they should feel free to.

[Led Zeppelin]

Although I've already said my piece here I'd really like to know where this idea that "ovaries" automatically implies weakness comes from?

It may not imply that to you or me, but it does in general society.

It's the same with "pussy", "*****", "girl" etc. whenever it is said to a male, the implication is that they are weaker or inferior, that's why it is used as an insult in the first place.

I was watching the movie Resurrecting The Champ the other day and the editor of a paper said to one of the journalists who was dissatisfied with the way he was criticized: "Ah come on, don't become a woman on me now."

Now, to your or me "being a woman" does not have any sexist connotation, because we don't consider women to be inferior, but that doesn't change the sexist connotations the general usage of it has whenever a male is reffered to as one as a means to insult them, right?

[RevMARKSman]

The usage of "ovaries" wasn't to exacerbate the insult, or even to insult at all. Jazzratt started out with a standard insult: "and you have the ___ to say/do that." The word "balls" is commonly used in both ameliorative and pejorative ways to mean "courage" (or even "brass nerve"), and Jazzratt was attempting to make a sort of feminist statement by using the word "ovaries" instead (as he has done in other posts). To say that using "ovaries" was meant to add to the insult is entirely nonsensical.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you're using them as a metaphor for someone who is relatively inferior, or someone worth marginalizing and dismissing, yes, it is sexism.

And if you're just calling people names? Most people (including me) don't think "aah, now what's that word that compares you to female genitalia? oh yes, ****!", they speak the first word that comes to mind depending on the situation.

Swearwords are considered offensive because society decides them to be so. "****" is offensive but "vagina" is a technical term, yet they are both names of the same thing. It's got nothing to do with being male or female (since rude words exist for both sexes) but everything to with the strange assumption that some words are "bad".

Well, words aren't magic spells or mystical curses that wield power over people - the only people are effected by words are those who allow themselves to be. Hence, if you think that "****" is a horrible, sexist word that oppresses each and every female on the planet with it's utterance, then you will (over)react accordingly. However, if one considers it simply another weapon in one's arsenal of profanity, then it has no special, mystical power apart from upsetting the straight-laced.


As if these are counterposed. Really now. That's an incredibly cheap argument.

But, now that you've opened the door NoXion, what have you done in the real world to fight sexism? I can't enter Minneapolis, Minn., because I was charged with "inciting a riot" while defending an abortion clinic. I fought for the right of women to take job positions at the rail yard I've worked for that have traditionally been held by men. Care to compare examples?I don't claim to be some sort of crusader for female rights, but I will tell you that I treat women with the same respect that I accord to men. I don't elevate either or place them on some sort of pedestal. I just treat people with the level of respect each individual deserves.

It's easy to claim all sorts of things on the internet, so you'll forgive me if I go only by the concrete examples I can see before me on this board.


So, because working people are still waging the battle of survival (a battle I have to fight every day), that excuses social backwardness? Hey, forget trying to change anything, just go with the flow!Except that it's not "social backwardness" it's profanity which people like you choose to be more offended about than usual. I suppose it helps to keep up that "revolutionary" zeal if there's something about you that seperates you from the masses of dumb proles eh? :rolleyes:


Or is it something else?

Could it really be that you have no interest in dealing with these issues in a setting outside of a rarified "political" event because they wouldn't listen to you -- because they already see you as an "outsider" (in spite of your frequenting of "dirty pubs") and not as someone worth dealing with?Or maybe you could stop psychoanalysing a stranger over the internet, Dr Freud. I don't think armchair psychology is a recognised field of medicine.


Or, could it be that you have yet to see how bourgeois culture reinforces social relationships?Not to the degree with which you seem to think it occurs. Things have got considerably better since the bad old days and barring a resurgence of something like fundamentalist religion I do not see an end to that trend.


Or, is it that you simply don't care about fighting sexism in all arenas ... or any, for that matter?I just don't like being a patronising fuckwit towards women... chivalry is dead, haven't you heard? Women know what they want and don't need a bunch of "enlightened" men telling them that.


P.S.: And, in case you aren't aware, "asshole" is a pretty good way to refer to bosses. So are "shitbag" and "fuckwit". There are tens of thousands of words in the English language; go learn some of them.And I know quite a few of them, but people like you are ridiculously easy to offend. If I call someone "big-ears" does that mean that deep down inside I hate people with big ears?


It's used in an emasculatory way, calling somebody a 'wimp' by referring to female genitalia. Language makes up a big part of one's culture, and this sort of language reflects and informs the culture it's a part of. It is a good example of the sexist culture in our society.

No it isn't because if it was then words like "dick", "dickhead", "bell-end", "knob", "knob cheese" "scrote", "cumstain" etc etc would not exist. Sexual profanity uses both male and female genitalia.


I hardly think its "pseudofeminism", as you call it, to recognise this sexism.
In fact, I'd say it was the other way around.
How can you call yourself a feminist if you don't even recognise this sort of social oppression? Language like this lowers the social position of women, by denoting femininity as a weakness, and something to be ashamed of.No more than "dick" lowers the social position of those possessing one. Are you seriously suggesting that every time I say the word "****" another woman is fired from her job and made to be a housewife?

Also, femininity is not unique to women in this day and age, and neither is the other side of the coin, machismo. Both can be derided and/or lauded depending on one's personal view of the two, and neither is "better" than the other.


You are presuming that feminists who call out sexist language must do nothing else other than that. Why? You have no reason to think this whatsoever.
Why you seem to be getting so offended on this matter is confusing to me, since you're not being accused of anything.
I will say now, though, that this reflects a pretty common attitude amongst men to brush off accusations of sexism as all unreasonable, by attacking the feminists themselves as being unreasonable people.The reason I decry the pseudofeminists' online crusades is because that's all I see - drama after drama because someone (usually a man) with a severe spinal deficiency takes offence at something that would pass with very little comment in normal circles.

The reason I take exception to these little dramas is that they are reflective of a non-materialist attitude among psuedofeminists and the left as a whole - if only we could "talk right" then the revolutionary left/society in general would be fixed! I'm sorry, but that's bullpats. Society and mass movements are changed by the actions of the many, not the words of the few.

Hence why I consider the pseudofeminists little digital crusade unreasonable.


The fact that both women and men see femininity as inferior to masculinity does not somehow mean that there is gender equality.No, but the fact that masculinity is just as subject to ridicule means that the gender equality is closer than you think.


Nobody is denying what 'plenty of people' have to go through - does that mean, to repeat CommunistLeague, we should just excuse sexism? What about racism? Homophobia?
Should we use excuse those things because people have "better things to do"?Of course not, but I'm arguing that using words like "****" isn't sexist, no more than using "cock" or "scrote" is sexist. Sexist actions are another matter entirely.

[Martin Blank]

And if you're just calling people names? Most people (including me) don't think "aah, now what's that word that compares you to female genitalia? oh yes, ****!", they speak the first word that comes to mind depending on the situation.

Yes, and that is the problem. You are allegedly a revolutionary leftist. You are supposed to be consciously fighting for socially-progressive change. This means you are supposed to have set a higher standard for yourself, if not seeking to raise the standards among others. Making this kind of argument shows one of two things: either you're an un-serious dilettante just playing games, or you're so politically raw that you need to go back to political pre-pre-school. It's one or the other ... or both.


Swearwords are considered offensive because society decides them to be so. "****" is offensive but "vagina" is a technical term, yet they are both names of the same thing. It's got nothing to do with being male or female (since rude words exist for both sexes) but everything to with the strange assumption that some words are "bad".

Yes, this is correct. Society makes this decision, not you. You may not choose to use them in a sexist manner, but society sees it (and takes it) differently.


Well, words aren't magic spells or mystical curses that wield power over people - the only people are effected by words are those who allow themselves to be. Hence, if you think that "****" is a horrible, sexist word that oppresses each and every female on the planet with it's utterance, then you will (over)react accordingly. However, if one considers it simply another weapon in one's arsenal of profanity, then it has no special, mystical power apart from upsetting the straight-laced.

What a wonderfully Orwellian statement compared to your previous statement. On the one hand, you acknowledge that society -- a very material reality -- decides on whether these terms are sexist; on the other hand, you call this decision "mystical" and say that it is the individual's viewpoint -- an idealist concept -- that decides. Talk about repeating two mutually contradictory arguments before breakfast!

Moreover, you turn the philosophical basis for each on their heads. Material conditions and society becomes "mystical" and idealist, while what's in an individual's head becomes the materialist basis for real-world conduct.


I don't claim to be some sort of crusader for female rights, but I will tell you that I treat women with the same respect that I accord to men. I don't elevate either or place them on some sort of pedestal. I just treat people with the level of respect each individual deserves.

I make no claims to being a crusader, either. But I am a communist and I am guided by my principles and politics. What guides you other than bourgeois individualism?


It's easy to claim all sorts of things on the internet, so you'll forgive me if I go only by the concrete examples I can see before me on this board.

Did you get a package deal on bargain-basement cop-outs?


Except that it's not "social backwardness" it's profanity which people like you choose to be more offended about than usual. I suppose it helps to keep up that "revolutionary" zeal if there's something about you that seperates you from the masses of dumb proles eh? :rolleyes:

Son, I don't think you're in any position to say anything to me about what it's like to be a "prole". To begin with, you'd have to be one.

As for the rest of your comment, I'd remind you of your own words: "Swearwords are considered offensive because society decides them to be so." If society is the determinant, then such terms are reflections of material relations within that society. This means that some terms are reflective of socially progressive relations, and others are reflective of socially backward relations.


Or maybe you could stop psychoanalysing a stranger over the internet, Dr Freud. I don't think armchair psychology is a recognised field of medicine.

It's not psychoanalysis, it's class analysis. If you are from the working class (which I highly doubt), then you've already alienated yourself from them because of the ways you've presented your politics. If you are not from the working class, then most workers will see you as an "outsider" and not listen to you anyway.


Not to the degree with which you seem to think it occurs. Things have got considerably better since the bad old days and barring a resurgence of something like fundamentalist religion I do not see an end to that trend.

You betray yourself. We who are workers are still in the "bad old days", since the Civil Rights and women's movements never really benefited us. Only those from the exploiting and oppressing classes really see racism and sexism as more or less a thing of the past, with only vestiges to deal with.


I just don't like being a patronising fuckwit towards women... chivalry is dead, haven't you heard? Women know what they want and don't need a bunch of "enlightened" men telling them that.

So, the fight against sexism is just "women's work"? Brilliant.


And I know quite a few of them, but people like you are ridiculously easy to offend. If I call someone "big-ears" does that mean that deep down inside I hate people with big ears?

Silly rabbit, parlor tricks are for kids.

[Kami]

CommunistLeague; get off your bloody high horse and come down to earth. In that post, you insinuate that;
1. You are somehow more aware of NoXions political position than he is.
2. NoXion is "playing games" and/or uninformed
3. NoXion is a "bourgeois individualist".
4. Despite not knowing anything about the fellow, NoXion can't be a prole.
5. NoXion is one of the "expoiting and oppressing classes"
And, best of all, that HEalienates people!

Jazzratts first post I didn't find offensive, but that steaming pile is abhorrant.


You are supposed to be consciously fighting for socially-progressive change. This means you are supposed to have set a higher standard for yourself, if not seeking to raise the standards among others.Which, is immediately followed by...

Yes, this is correct. Society makes this decision, not you. You may not choose to use them in a sexist manner, but society sees it (and takes it) differently.Which not only reeks of intellectual eliteism, but contradicts his previous statement about setting a higher standard for oneself and others.

Did you get a package deal on bargain-basement cop-outs? This, in reference to NoXion stating he'll judge by concrete evidence rather than anecdote.

He then goes on to do "class analysis" on someone he doesn't even know the class of...


So, the fight against sexism is just "women's work"? Brilliant.Nope, he was suggesting that woman can stand up for themselves, and don't need you babying them.

[Martin Blank]

CommunistLeague; get off your bloody high horse and come down to earth.

I'll get off my high horse when you and the others stop dumping shit all over the place.

[Module]

No it isn't because if it was then words like "dick", "dickhead", "bell-end", "knob", "knob cheese" "scrote", "cumstain" etc etc would not exist. Sexual profanity uses both male and female genitalia.The fact that sexual profanity uses both male and female genitalia doesn't mean that they are both used in the same way.
You've missed the point of my example. Calling somebody a 'knob' or a 'cumstain' or any of the words you've listed isn't saying that somebody is masculine, or holds masculine qualities.
Calling somebody a 'pussy' is different from calling somebody a ... whatever the equivalent word would be in terms of 'masculinism', although as far as I am aware it doesn't even exist, or if it does it certainly isn't listed in the words you've chosen, and it is used to a far lesser extent

Similarly, calling somebody a 'dyke' is different from calling somebody a 'faggot', when used outside of the realms of known homosexuality. They both refer to those who are acting contrary to what they're gender roles dictate, and I think the following things are quite clear:
1.) Faggot is a word used far more often than dyke,
2.) It is also more socially acceptable as a genuine insult.

As mentioned by Led Zeppelin earlier on, a way to insult a man is to question his masculinity, by calling him gay, pointing out 'feminine' characteristics, by comparing him to a woman. It becomes more of an attack on his person.
The same just doesn't exist the other way around. Women don't care so much if you question their femininity because it's not considered something to be proud of. Certainly not in the same way masculinity is.

Consider, for example, the term 'cock sucker'. This can be used towards a man to undermine his masculinity, by referring to homosexuality, and putting his place sexually in that of a woman.
When it's used towards a woman, though, it's something different. It serves more to undermine her independence as a woman, and reinforce her subordination by men, subject to their perception of her as a sexual object. These don't have to be used in that literal sense, but it is those meanings which the term carries, and they are certainly used in different ways towards men and women.

To add more weight to an insult towards a man you call him gay or feminine. If you called a woman a lesbian for holding traits which aren't considered feminine you just wouldn't be taken as seriously, if at all, because femininity is not considered so much a respectable thing in our culture.


No more than "dick" lowers the social position of those possessing one. Are you seriously suggesting that every time I say the word "****" another woman is fired from her job and made to be a housewife?I don't know if you're purposefully misreading my post, but I've already said that, at least in Australia, **** is gender neutral.


Also, femininity is not unique to women in this day and age, and neither is the other side of the coin, machismo. Both can be derided and/or lauded depending on one's personal view of the two, and neither is "better" than the other.Nobody's saying femininity is 'unique to women in this day and age'.
Both can be derided and/or lauded depending on one's personal view, but I don't see how this is relevant given that people aren't islands.
They don't just make up their opinions on gender roles strictly by themselves.
The fact that both masculinity and femininity can be derided and/or lauded differently on a strictly individual basis doesn't mean that they are.


The reason I decry the pseudofeminists' online crusades is because that's all I see - drama after drama because someone (usually a man) with a severe spinal deficiency takes offence at something that would pass with very little comment in normal circles.If I saw somebody attempt to put somebody else down by saying they had ovaries, believe me, I would comment, and I would hope you'd do the same.
The fact that it's online makes no difference. If they're saying it online, they're saying it 'in real life', too.
Somebody making sexist remarks is not something that I, or you, or anybody should just tolerate, and failure to do this shouldn't just be written off by you as somebody just causing 'drama'.
That is extremely condescending of you.


The reason I take exception to these little dramas is that they are reflective of a non-materialist attitude among psuedofeminists and the left as a whole - if only we could "talk right" then the revolutionary left/society in general would be fixed! I'm sorry, but that's bullpats. Society and mass movements are changed by the actions of the many, not the words of the few.It's not a case of just 'talking right', it's about challenging social attitudes in our society, which inevitably effect all of us materially.
As I said, things like pay inequality, or constrictive gender roles, are due to negative social attitudes towards women, and femininity. If you don't acknowledge this I don't know where else you think they come from.
Change isn't just a sudden general societal movement in a certain direction.
The actions of the many don't just simply occour because many people just happen to be thinking the same way at the same time.
The 'words of a few' initiate change on an individual level, and inspire, or lead the 'actions of the many'.


No, but the fact that masculinity is just as subject to ridicule means that the gender equality is closer than you think.We're not simply talking about 'ridicule', we're talking about the general societal opinion of the two gender roles.
The male gender role is considered to be higher in worth.
A woman asserting her equality to men is looked down upon and is stepping outside her gender role. A woman who lives independently of men is stepping outside her gender role, she might be, as is often the case it seems in terms of feminists, called a lesbian.
An independent man is not called gay, because it is within acceptable gendered behaviour that he acts like an individual.
A woman, on the other hand, belongs to men. If she acts differently, she's a lesbian. Gender roles refer specifically to this relationship. Men lead, and women support them.
That is not to say that men are not oppressed by their gender roles, of course they are, everybody is. But that doesn't mean that men are oppressed equally. There are other, larger implications by these gender roles other than just being rules to be abided by.
A woman, in being a woman is less of an individual, is less powerful to create change, to command respect from the society in which she lives.
So masculine men can be ridiculed too. They are not ridiculed to the same extent.
Men are taken far more seriously than woman are, and I think that is quite obvious. How exactly do you think patriarchy manifests itself in society?


Of course not, but I'm arguing that using words like "****" isn't sexist, no more than using "cock" or "scrote" is sexist. Sexist actions are another matter entirely.Sexist actions do not just occour by themselves.
There are motives, attitudes behind them.
And once again, as I've already said, ****, cock, scrote, are not specifically sexist words.

[Luís Henrique]

And if you're just calling people names? Most people (including me) don't think "aah, now what's that word that compares you to female genitalia? oh yes, ****!", they speak the first word that comes to mind depending on the situation.

Yes; the problem is that the first word that comes to your mind depends not only on the situation, but also on the prevailing ideology.

What if the first word that came to my mind was "faggot" or "nigger"? Would it be it coming first to my mind an excuse for its use, or should I instead wonder why the hell it came to my mind first?

That's what I suggest you do: stop for a minute to darning think why does the word that denotes the feminine genitalia comes to your mind first (or even second, or twenty-seventh) when you feel the need do demean someone.

Luís Henrique

[Unicorn]

I don't really understand why a mildly sexist, insensitive comment should cause so much discussion. People are making a mountain out of a molehill. Everyone should just move on.

[Dean]

I don't really understand why a mildly sexist, insensitive comment should cause so much discussion. People are making a mountain out of a molehill. Everyone should just move on.

I was about to say the same thing. Not only is it evident that Jazzrat has an aversion to being called racist, but I don't think even the comment was really racist - those who do mostly think it represented an unconscious racism. I think we can all agree that Jazzrat does not intend to be racist.

I move that the thread be closed, since the discussion is no longer relevent.

[Martin Blank]

I was about to say the same thing. Not only is it evident that Jazzrat has an aversion to being called racist, but I don't think even the comment was really racist - those who do mostly think it represented an unconscious racism. I think we can all agree that Jazzrat does not intend to be racist.

I'll put aside what I'm seeing and figure you were meaning to say "sexist/m", not "racist/m". That said, Jazzratt's intentions -- i.e., what's in his head -- is irrelevant. It may have been an unconscious expression of sexism, but that means it is necessary to bring it forward, so that he can deal with it on a conscious level. The problem is that he is choosing to reject such a process, in favor of a defensive posture. That is a problem. At the very least, his ego is getting in the way of his development.


I move that the thread be closed, since the discussion is no longer relevent.

I suppose I can agree, since at this point we're more or less beating a dead horse, and no one is proposing any kind of administrative action at this point.

[Jazzratt]

The problem is that he is choosing to reject such a process, in favor of a defensive posture. That is a problem. At the very least, his ego is getting in the way of his development.

So you're so absolutely sure in your own correctness that you take the very fact i disagree with you to be a sign of egotism and wish to leave it at that?

And you have the ventricles to accuse me of egotism :rolleyes:

Also is my ego so huge that it's managed to blind not only myself to the obvious "fact" that my statement has oppressed women everywhere but my ego has also managed to blind Kami, NoXion, RevMARKSman, De Baron and even Dean? That must be one fucking huge ego.