The word '****'

[Wanted Man]

The options speak for themselves.

[Bandito]

I voted the 1st one,but since english is not my mother tongue,i'm not sure...simply because i have a weakness for brittish cursing,that is mostly cycling around the word "****":)

"The English are on a totally different level of swearing":cool:

[mykittyhasaboner]

its just a word, its not a big deal. plus you cant simply ban a word :lol:

[N3p7uN3]

its just a word, its not a big deal. plus you cant simply ban a word :lol:

There's a difference between collectively agreeing to not use a word and actually 'banning' it. It doesn't have to be banned for people to understand that someone might be offended by it.

[professorchaos]

It's just a word. We shouldn't be wasting energy on needlessly reforming language. "****" is a word with a meaning and going out of one's way to avoid its use is to limit one's vocabulary.

[communard resolution]

What about the word 'prick'? Is that sexist?

[Cybersomatix]

The term "****" in it's original use referred to a powerful woman.

It's only in its modern context that the term has had any relationship with misogyny.

This speaks more to misogynistic appropriation of the word than to any inherent misogyny in the word itself.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It refers to powerful women in a very aggressively derogatory way.

I frankly can't imagine the word being used as a compliment.

[Mujer Libre]

There should be an option that says whether it's offensive or not is based on context- which is what I would select.

[RHIZOMES]

In New Zealand it's a gender-nuetral term referring to anyone that's an asshole.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Whether or not it's offensive is really a non-issue. All insults are offensive. We're not gonna stop calling people ass-holes or shit-eaters because it's offensive. The question is whether or not it's offensive to women as a group.

[Module]

The term "****" in it's original use referred to a powerful woman.

It's only in its modern context that the term has had any relationship with misogyny.

This speaks more to misogynistic appropriation of the word than to any inherent misogyny in the word itself.

Source? I've never heard that.
:)

[Dust Bunnies]

A transsexual options are needed!

I voted the second one, banning a word is a stupid idea, freedom man!

[Mujer Libre]

Whether or not it's offensive is really a non-issue. All insults are offensive. We're not gonna stop calling people ass-holes or shit-eaters because it's offensive. The question is whether or not it's offensive to women as a group.
Clearly that's what I meant- does everything need to be spelled out?

It's not used as a gender specific insult here (usually) so is not usually offensive to women. There are, however, contexts in which I imagine it would be.

[spartan]

It's only offensive if you place it in an offensive context.

If not then it's just a word which for some has bad connotations (Derogatory to women) whilst for others it's simply a word that you use against people (Both male and female) when angry (Like arsehole, dickhead or wanker).

[Bright Banana Beard]

In my experience, it is used to degrade female, but recently it starting to us against male.

[ifeelyou]

It's just a word. We shouldn't be wasting energy on needlessly reforming language. "****" is a word with a meaning and going out of one's way to avoid its use is to limit one's vocabulary.

words profoundly shape how we view the world, how we behave, and how we relate to others and ourselves. they are not simply "words."

if u want to look more into this topic then research post-structuralist theories of discourse and performativity (i suggest Gender Trouble by Judith Butler) or the linguistic anthropological idea called the sapir-whorf hypothesis.

[communard resolution]

words profoundly shape how we view the world, how we behave, and how we relate to others and ourselves. they are not simply "words."

if u want to look more into this topic then research post-structuralist theories of discourse and performativity (i suggest Gender Trouble by Judith Butler) or the linguistic anthropological idea called the sapir-whorf hypothesis.

While I'm not a massive fan of post-structuralist theories of discourse, I believe Judith Butler argues against all censorship of language in her book 'Excitable Speech', suggesting such measures would actually result in this language being used more.

I think it depends on the context whether '****' is sexist or not, but logically it isn't more sexist than calling a man a prick, which no one bats an eyelid over. I loved how Theo, the female singer of Lunachicks, used to write '****' on her forehead just for the hell of it. The word has a cool sound to it - reclaim it from the sexists.

[Cybersomatix]

Source? I've never heard that.
:)

Actually my source is from a girl I knew who had it tattooed across her lower abdomen in old English block lettering

Google it... you'd have as much background on it as I do

Dr. Rosenpenis elaborated a little

[Jazzratt]

Words aren't sexist. The usage is.

[Zurdito]

depends on the context. if I call Gordon Brown an utter ****, I struggle to see how that's sexist.

[RoterAnarchie]

Words aren't sexist. The usage is.

exactly!
if we start making mere words 'illegal' we'll get 1984 conditions...
Our stalinists here may like that, but I prefer a world of freedom

[ifeelyou]

While I'm not a massive fan of post-structuralist theories of discourse, I believe Judith Butler argues against all censorship of language in her book 'Excitable Speech', suggesting such measures would actually result in this language being used more.

I think it depends on the context whether '****' is sexist or not, but logically it isn't more sexist than calling a man a prick, which no one bats an eyelid over. I loved how Theo, the female singer of Lunachicks, used to write '****' on her forehead just for the hell of it. The word has a cool sound to it - reclaim it from the sexists.

ur absolutely right that judith butler doesnt argue for censorship, neither do i. my point was to comment on the unfortunate belief that "words dont mean anything." the idea "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is one of the greatest myths of all times. words are EXTREMELY important.

what we say produces effects and, in my opinion, understanding and analyzing those effects will only help us be more responsible. in general i think people know what they are saying and why, but im not so sure that people know what they are saying is doing.

[communard resolution]

ur absolutely right that judith butler doesnt argue for censorship, neither do i. my point was to comment on the unfortunate belief that "words dont mean anything." the idea "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" is one of the greatest myths of all times. words are EXTREMELY important.

what we say produces effects and, in my opinion, understanding and analyzing those effects will only help us be more responsible. in general i think people know what they are saying and why, but im not so sure that people know what they are saying is doing.

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying, ifeelyou.

[ifeelyou]

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying, ifeelyou.

:)

[ifeelyou]

depends on the context. if I call Gordon Brown an utter ****, I struggle to see how that's sexist.

"****" is a reference to vagina. when we call someone a "****" we are trying to berate that person by feminizing that person. we are making it seem like being a female, or having female parts, is bad.

also, i love how the majority of men taking the survey--THOSE WHO DONT HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS OF THE WORD "****" IN THE WAYS THAT WOMEN DO--dont think its sexist. how about a little bit of empathy and compassion?

[communard resolution]

how about a little bit of empathy and compassion?

Comrade, you can call me "prick" as much as you want to. Do it NOW!

[Zurdito]

"****" is a reference to vagina. when we call someone a "****" we are trying to berate that person by feminizing that person. we are making it seem like being a female, or having female parts, is bad.

wrong. I am aware that the word is used this way in some circles in the USA, but I assure that int he UK it is overwhelmingly not used int his way, and when you call someone a ****, it has absolutely nothing to do with suggesting they are feminine. Google instances of the word being used as an insult in the UK if you like, I'm sure you will find that overwhelmingly the picture being painted of the recipient is not as "feminine", and that the people being insulted are not disproportionately "un-masculine".

[ifeelyou]

Comrade, you can call me "prick" as much as you want to. Do it NOW!

for some reason i think u missed the point i was making lol

[ifeelyou]

wrong. I am aware that the word is used this way in some circles in the USA, but I assure that int he UK it is overwhelmingly not used int his way, and when you call someone a ****, it has absolutely nothing to do with suggesting they are feminine. Google instances of the word being used as an insult in the UK if you like, I'm sure you will find that overwhelmingly the picture being painted of the recipient is not as "feminine", and that the people being insulted are not disproportionately "un-masculine".

Repost: what we say produces effects and, in my opinion, understanding and analyzing those effects will only help us be more responsible. in general i think people know what they are saying and why, but im not so sure that people know what they are saying is doing.

Repost: "****" is a reference to vagina. when we call someone a "****" we are trying [--OFTEN UNCONSCIOUSLY AND UNINTENTIONALLY--] to berate that person by feminizing that person. we are making it seem like being a female, or having female parts, is bad.

WHY ELSE WOULD IT BE SO OFFENSIVE?

Repost: also, i love how the majority of men taking the survey--THOSE WHO DONT HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS OF THE WORD "****" IN THE WAYS THAT WOMEN DO--dont think its sexist. how about a little bit of empathy and compassion?

[Zurdito]

Repost: "****" is a reference to vagina. when we call someone a "****" we are trying to berate that person by feminizing that person. we are making it seem like being a female, or having female parts, is bad.

WHY ELSE WOULD IT BE SO OFFENSIVE?



why is "arsehole", "dick" or "wanker" offensive?

[ifeelyou]

why is "arsehole", "dick" or "wanker" offensive?

for different reasons, my friend.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

for different reasons, my friend.

Such as?

If i call someone a arsehole is that to make them feel uncomfortable because they have a hole in between there arsecheeks?

[ifeelyou]

Such as?

If i call someone a arsehole is that to make them feel uncomfortable because they have a hole in between there arsecheeks?

u want me to explain why "arsehole" is offensive by analyzing "****"? they are different words.

[ifeelyou]

Such as?

If i call someone a arsehole is that to make them feel uncomfortable because they have a hole in between there arsecheeks?

why are u so committed to justifying and using the word "****"? what about it do u love so much?

[Zurdito]

for different reasons, my friend.

not in the UK, no. perhaps in yoru circles, but please do not universalise your experience to the entire english speaking world.

if you acknowledge that it si possible for the insult "prick" to exist without "masculinising" the person who call a "prick", then you accept that it's possible for the insult "****" to exist without feminizing the person beign called that.

now, it depends on context, doesn't it?

when I call George Bush an absolute **** for his disregard for the lvies of anyone who stands in the way of US capital, I can assure you that for neither me nor my intended audience is he being "feminized" in any sense...consider, if I called him a "fag" or pussy" in that context, in that exact context, would the insult work? No, because those insults are feminizing, and therefore, simply don't work in that context, where there is no suggestion of feminisation.

however in the context described, in many (most) parts of the UK, the word "****" would fit perfectly and be interchangeable with "prick" "arsehole" or "wanker", but not with "fag" or "pussy".

ok? :)

[ifeelyou]

not in the UK, no. perhaps in yoru circles, but please do not universalise your experience to the entire english speaking world.

if you acknowledge that it si possible for the insult "prick" to exist without "masculinising" the person who call a "prick", then you accept that it's possible for the insult "****" to exist without feminizing the person beign called that.

now, it depends on context, doesn't it?

when I call George Bush an absolute **** for his disregard for the lvies of anyone who stands in the way of US capital, I can assure you that for neither me nor my intended audience is he being "feminized" in any sense...consider, if I called him a "fag" or pussy" in that context, in that exact context, would the insult work? No, because those insults are feminizing, and therefore, simply don't work in that context, where there is no suggestion of feminisation.

however in the context described, in many (most) parts of the UK, the word "****" would fit perfectly and be interchangeable with "prick" "arsehole" or "wanker", but not with "fag" or "pussy".

ok? :)

im not trying to universalize anything. the only thing i try to do is understand the consequences of words, even if they are subtle. you, on the other hand, seem soooooo committed to the word "****." why?

[Kami]

also, i love how the majority of men taking the survey--THOSE WHO DONT HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCES AND EFFECTS OF THE WORD "****" IN THE WAYS THAT WOMEN DO--dont think its sexist. how about a little bit of empathy and compassion?

I love how you're taking this line despite the majority of woman replying to the poll stating it isn't sexist -.-

In addition, I didn't see you mention why it's any different from using "Prick", "Dick", etc. as insults.


"dick" is a reference to penis. when we call someone a "dick" we are trying [--OFTEN UNCONSCIOUSLY AND UNINTENTIONALLY--] to berate that person by masculinising that person. we are making it seem like being a male, or having male parts, is bad.
If your version of the above is valid, then surely this is too?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

why are u so committed to justifying and using the word "****"? what about it do u love so much?

That I should be able to use non sexist - racist etc words when i feel like without some **** bucket telling me what i should and should not say.

[ifeelyou]

not in the UK, no. perhaps in yoru circles, but please do not universalise your experience to the entire english speaking world.

if you acknowledge that it si possible for the insult "prick" to exist without "masculinising" the person who call a "prick", then you accept that it's possible for the insult "****" to exist without feminizing the person beign called that.

now, it depends on context, doesn't it?

when I call George Bush an absolute **** for his disregard for the lvies of anyone who stands in the way of US capital, I can assure you that for neither me nor my intended audience is he being "feminized" in any sense...consider, if I called him a "fag" or pussy" in that context, in that exact context, would the insult work? No, because those insults are feminizing, and therefore, simply don't work in that context, where there is no suggestion of feminisation.

however in the context described, in many (most) parts of the UK, the word "****" would fit perfectly and be interchangeable with "prick" "arsehole" or "wanker", but not with "fag" or "pussy".

ok? :)

of course context is important, but larger effects of uses of words--that have far-reaching consequences and that go beyond any single context--are equally important.

what dont u understand about that?

[ifeelyou]

That I should be able to use non sexist - racist etc words when i feel like without some **** bucket telling me what i should and should not say.

im not telling u what to say! how unfortunate that u are not interested in understanding the impacts that words have.

[Zurdito]

im not trying to universalize anything. the only thing i try to do is understand the consequences of words, even if they are subtle. you, on the other hand, seem soooooo committed to the word "****." why?

I'm not particularly committed to it, I just think you're wrong, and not making much sense. in fact, I use the word very rarely.

[ifeelyou]

i Love How You're Taking This Line Despite The Majority Of Woman Replying To The Poll Stating It Isn't Sexist -.-

In Addition, I Didn't See You Mention Why It's Any Different From Using "prick", "dick", Etc. As Insults.


If Your Version Of The Above Is Valid, Then Surely This Is Too?

They Are Different Words With Different Histories That Produce Different Effects. What Dont U Get????

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

im not telling u what to say! how unfortunate that u are not interested in understanding the impacts that words have.

and who does it have a impact on then?

[ifeelyou]

I'm not particularly committed to it, I just think you're wrong, and not making much sense. in fact, I use the word very rarely.

where am i not making sense???

[Kami]

read above. i posted and reposted several times.
and it's made no sense each time. Could you expand upon this, perhaps? or restate it?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

It does not make sense to me because it is badly written badly thought out. In other words your argument is a fuck up.

Please rephrase it.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

IVE ASKED U ALREADY WHAT UR NOT UNDERSTANDING!!! BE SPECIFIC!

Who finds the word **** offensive and why?




sounds like ur a damn fascist.


http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/picard-no-facepalm.jpg

[ifeelyou]

[QUOTE=Comrade Joe;1168672]Who finds the word **** offensive and why?

maybe the reason why u dont understand me is because i NEVER addressed it in regards to being "offensive" to anyone.

reread my postings, SLOWLY.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

[quote=Comrade Joe;1168672]Who finds the word **** offensive and why?

maybe the reason why u dont understand me is because i NEVER addressed it in regards to being "offensive" to anyone.

reread my postings, SLOWLY.

I have i dont understand.

Please explain is from scratch. The more i read your argument the more i fail to understand

[Del]

In New Zealand it's a gender-nuetral term referring to anyone that's an asshole.

I would say in NZ it is used nearly always to refer to males

[communard resolution]

ifeelyou:

I'm with you insofar as I agree that words have consequences and are 'not just words'. I understand your problems with the word **** are:

1) When used to insult a woman, the word '****' is sexist because it defines all women by their primary sexual organs.

I disagree. If someone calls me a prick, it's hardly a sexist insult to all men, is it? So this one's out, unless you provide proof how a '****' is worse than a 'prick'.

2) When used to insult a man (in the UK), the word '****' is sexist too because it aggressively 'feminises' the man and therefore implies that females are inferior.

I don't agree with this theory either, but I can't prove you wrong and am therefore taking your point into account.

Since I personally think **** is a very cool, phonetically pleasing, beautiful word that I would like to continue using in a non-sexist manner, I suggest we introduce a language reform right now, right here:

From now on, we will use both **** and PRICK gender-neutrally.

Next time you feel pissed off with a woman, I encourage you to call her a fucking PRICK. If you want to insult a man, call him a ****, even if you're American. This may initially cause some confusion and earn you funny looks. But we'll continue spreading the virus until the whole Anglophone world is clued up to the new way.

After this brief introductory phase we will use **** and PRICK interchangeably and arbitrarily. Call your boyfriend/girlfriend a **** first and a PRICK later. Then do it the other way round. And then call them an ASSHOLE on top of that.

This way, we'll completely eliminate problem 2, and we'll be able to use all those beautiful words without a hint of sexism. I swear I'm not "taking the piss", as the 'British ****s' would put it.

Hands up who's with me.

[Vendetta]

It's an insult, get over it. Meant to insult people.

[sushiosoyum]

Like any other world available to us, **** is just another word. For the word to imply sexism it would have to be placed within that context.

[communard resolution]

only the far left could have this much of a debate regarding the word "****"

I honestly haven't seen anything like this since the US congress tried to figure out the definition of pornography.

good times... keep up the revolution guys!

Aww, now don't be a spoilsport, we're having so much fun on here. You keep the revolutionary struggle going for the time being, and we'll be back when we're done with this. I hope my language reform will catch on.

[ifeelyou]

ifeelyou:

I'm with you insofar as I agree that words have consequences and are 'not just words'. I understand your problems with the word **** are:

1) When used to insult a woman, the word '****' is sexist because it defines all women by their primary sexual organs.

I disagree. If someone calls me a prick, it's hardly a sexist insult to all men, is it? So this one's out, unless you provide proof how a '****' is worse than a 'prick'.

2) When used to insult a man (in the UK), the word '****' is sexist too because it aggressively 'feminises' the man and therefore implies that females are inferior.

I don't agree with this theory either, but I can't prove you wrong and am therefore taking your point into account.

Since I personally think **** is a very cool, phonetically pleasing, beautiful word that I would like to continue using in a non-sexist manner, I suggest we introduce a language reform right now, right here:

From now on, we will use both **** and PRICK gender-neutrally.

Next time you feel pissed off with a woman, I encourage you to call her a fucking PRICK. If you want to insult a man, call him a ****, even if you're American. This may initially cause some confusion and earn you funny looks. But we'll continue spreading the virus until the whole Anglophone world is clued up to the new way.

After this brief introductory phase we will use **** and PRICK interchangeably and arbitrarily. Call your boyfriend/girlfriend a **** first and a PRICK later. Then do it the other way round. And then call them an ASSHOLE on top of that.

This way, we'll completely eliminate problem 2, and we'll be able to use all those beautiful words without a hint of sexism. I swear I'm not "taking the piss", as the 'British ****s' would put it.

Hands up who's with me.

*"When used to insult a woman, the word '****' is sexist because it defines all women by their primary sexual organs." i never said this.

"I disagree. If someone calls me a prick, it's hardly a sexist insult to all men, is it? So this one's out, unless you provide proof how a '****' is worse than a 'prick'." ITS LESS ABOUT BEING "WORSE" THAN ABOUT BEING DIFFERENT. ur comparing 2 different words that have different meanings--words that reference different things and affect people in different ways. YES, both are used to berate people, BUT being called a "prick" in a by and large patriarchal society does not carry the same meanings nor have the same punch that "****" has. they dont affect people in the same way. ur comparing apples and oranges.

*"When used to insult a man (in the UK), the word '****' is sexist too because it aggressively 'feminises' the man and therefore implies that females are inferior."

"I don't agree with this theory either, but I can't prove you wrong and am therefore taking your point into account." you dont have to agree with me :)

*"From now on, we will use both **** and PRICK gender-neutrally." the fact that u think we can just do this so easily--as in use them "gender-neutrally"--shows that u may think these problems are uncomplicated issues, maybe even trivial ones. things, unfortunately, are not as simple as u make it seem.

*id like to email u, and anyone else interested, a short essay called "NO" by linguistic anthropologist don kulick. in it he argues that even the basic word no--which we probably commonly think of as gender neutral--is actually much more complicated than what we assume, and very much gendered; indeed, kulick outlines just how uttering the very word no produces gender disparity. if, as he argues, the word no itself can affect and impact gender and gender relations, cant the word "****," a word that DIRECTLY references vagina? send me a private message if ur interested. if u do read it we can talk about it after.

*u mentioned earlier that ur familiar with post-structuralist theories of discourse, so what ive been arguing shouldnt be that unfamiliar to u. here are some books that explore similar topics, some in more direct ways than others: the history of sexuality: the will to knowlege by michel foucault; of gramatology by jacques derrida; outline of a theory of practice by pierre bourdieu; gender trouble by judith butler; excitable speech by judith butler.

*my point in responding to this thread was not to attack the word "****" per se, but rather to try to convey the idea that words are profoundly important to gender relations and can perpetuate problems that pertain to gender, even if the words are ones that we love to use and believe have little to do with issues like sexism.

[Cossack]

I feel the word is a bit offensive, but it all depends upon the context in which it is used, although yes the majority of the time the context is the same.

[Sharon den Adel]

I'm a woman, and I don't find the word offensive. I guess it does depend on the context in which the word is used, though.

[Mujer Libre]

Can people please stick to the topic and note post flames or spam.

[ifeelyou]

Can people please stick to the topic and note post flames or spam.

isnt "****" the topic?

[Mujer Libre]

isnt "****" the topic?


go fight in the "real revolution" and keep me posted.
And this is just one example of the spam posted on the last few pages.

[ifeelyou]

go fight in the "real revolution" and keep me posted.
And this is just one example of the spam posted on the last few pages.

was in response to: "Originally Posted by Cybersomatix
only the far left could have this much of a debate regarding the word "****"

I honestly haven't seen anything like this since the US congress tried to figure out the definition of pornography.

good times... keep up the revolution guys!

In any case, I think the word "****" is pretty hot in the right contexts"

when did moderators become police?

[Kami]

when did moderators become police?
What the hell are you on? It's a moderator's job to, y'know, moderate. And it's not spam since he actually posted something related to the topic in it.

Sorry for the off-topic diversion there, but really, what are the far-reaching consequences of the word **** you harp on about? I find it hard to believe the use of a single insult has as much weight as you think.

[ifeelyou]

What the hell are you on? It's a moderator's job to, y'know, moderate. And it's not spam since he actually posted something related to the topic in it.

Sorry for the off-topic diversion there, but really, what are the far-reaching consequences of the word **** you harp on about? I find it hard to believe the use of a single insult has as much weight as you think.

whats not spam??? lol

for the last time, my friend, read the thread SLOWLY

[ifeelyou]

What the hell are you on? It's a moderator's job to, y'know, moderate. And it's not spam since he actually posted something related to the topic in it.

Sorry for the off-topic diversion there, but really, what are the far-reaching consequences of the word **** you harp on about? I find it hard to believe the use of a single insult has as much weight as you think.

REPOST: "'****' is a reference to vagina. when we call someone a "****" we are trying to berate that person by feminizing that person. we are making it seem like being a female, or having female parts, is bad."

[Kami]

whats not spam??? lolThe quote you were... y'know, nevermind -.-


for the last time, my friend, read the thread SLOWLYI am no friend of yours, you ageist arsewit. You might remember me posting this:

and it's made no sense each time. Could you expand upon this, perhaps? or restate it?
you asked me to state what, so I did, so you have repeated to do what you have done the entire thread: assumed your original, indecipherable posts were sufficient, and refered me to them. If you might cease your incessant AOL-er gibberish for a moment, and take oh so much effort to restate exactly why, if such a task is not beneath you?


REPOST: "'****' is a reference to vagina. when we call someone a "****" we are trying to berate that person by feminizing that person. we are making it seem like being a female, or having female parts, is bad."You were asked why this is not applicable to words like "dick" and "prick", which do exactly the same thing (gender notwithstanding). You've given some flimsy defences about it not being comparable, when a five-year-old can see the only difference is the gender demonised. Tell me, are you actually against sexism, or only against it for a specific target?

Note the ability to edit posts, you don't need to double-post incessantly!

[ifeelyou]

The quote you were... y'know, nevermind -.-


I am no friend of yours, you ageist arsewit. You might remember me posting this:

you asked me to state what, so I did, so you have repeated to do what you have done the entire thread: assumed your original, indecipherable posts were sufficient, and refered me to them. If you might cease your incessant AOL-er gibberish for a moment, and take oh so much effort to restate exactly why, if such a task is not beneath you?

read above.

[Kami]

read above.

restating =/= quoting. THIS sort of comment is spam, for the record.

[ifeelyou]

restating =/= quoting. THIS sort of comment is spam, for the record.

"ageist arsewit" is abusive language, for the record.

[Kami]

"ageist arsewit" is abusive language, for the record.

OMG. IM SITTING HERE ARGUING WITH A 14 YEAR OLD. i give up. have a nice day.
Accurate too

[ifeelyou]

The quote you were... y'know, nevermind -.-

I am no friend of yours, you ageist arsewit. You might remember me posting this:

you asked me to state what, so I did, so you have repeated to do what you have done the entire thread: assumed your original, indecipherable posts were sufficient, and refered me to them. If you might cease your incessant AOL-er gibberish for a moment, and take oh so much effort to restate exactly why, if such a task is not beneath you?

You were asked why this is not applicable to words like "dick" and "prick", which do exactly the same thing (gender notwithstanding). You've given some flimsy defences about it not being comparable, when a five-year-old can see the only difference is the gender demonised. Tell me, are you actually against sexism, or only against it for a specific target?

Note the ability to edit posts, you don't need to double-post incessantly!

one last time, since u seem to be completely incapable of reading full threads: YES, "dick," "prick," and "****" are used to berate people, BUT in western patriarchal society--WHICH THIS IS--the word "****" has different meanings for different reasons than "prick" and "dick." in a society that in many cases puts women in inferior positions to men and which values masculinity and male bodies (INCLUDING the "dick"--just research the phallus to understand this point) in ways that it does not value feminity and female bodies, how could they mean and do the exact same things?

[communard resolution]

"From now on, we will use both **** and PRICK gender-neutrally." the fact that u think we can just do this so easily--as in use them "gender-neutrally"--shows that u may think these problems are uncomplicated issues, maybe even trivial ones. things, unfortunately, are not as simple as u make it seem.We are revolutionaries, therefore it's our job to find simple solutions to complicated issues, not the other way round. Let's leave the endless, pointless, whimsical, self-indulgent debating of imagined problems to the Cultural Studies industry and middle-class academics in their ivory towers.

Why don't you want to participate in the language reform I suggested? It's a simple and logical solution to the problems you addressed. Why just whine about words being symptomatic of patriarchal society when you can simply reclaim these words and defuse them? Have some balls, ifeelyou.


in it he argues that even the basic word no--which we probably commonly think of as gender neutral--is actually much more complicated than what we assume, and very much gendered; I'm sure Kullick had a lot of fun dreaming up his 'theory' and perhaps earned some applause from the Cultural Studies crowd, but what does that imply in practice? Should we stop using the word 'no' too?


*u mentioned earlier that ur familiar with post-structuralist theories of discourse, so what ive been arguing shouldnt be that unfamiliar to u. 'Familiar' would be overstating it, but I have been exposed to a selected few. Unfortunately so. Most of it is utter bollocks and intellectual wankery that has no relevance to the world outside of the academic subculture.


the history of sexuality: the will to knowlege by michel foucaultThis is a fantastic book that every person in the world should read, especially those on this forum who still insist homosexuality is biologically determined. Foucault was associated with structuralism, though, and hated post-structuralism. Quite rightly so.

Please support my language reform. That would make two of us. :)

[ifeelyou]

We are revolutionaries, therefore it's our job to find simple solutions to complicated issues, not the other way round. Let's leave the endless, pointless, whimsical, self-indulgent debating of imagined problems to the Cultural Studies industry and middle-class academics in their ivory towers.

Why don't you want to participate in the language reform I suggested? It's a simple and logical solution to the problems you addressed. Why just whine about words being symptomatic of patriarchal society when you can simply reclaim these words and defuse them? Have some balls, ifeelyou.

I'm sure Kullick had a lot of fun dreaming up his 'theory' and perhaps earned some applause from the Cultural Studies crowd, but what does that imply in practice? Should we stop using the word 'no' too?

'Familiar' would be overstating it, but I have been exposed to a selected few. Unfortunately so. Most of it is utter bollocks and intellectual wankery that has no relevance to the world outside of the academic subculture.

This is a fantastic book that every person in the world should read, especially those on this forum who still insist homosexuality is biologically determined. Foucault was associated with structuralism, though, and hated post-structuralism. Quite rightly so.

Please support my language reform. That would make two of us. :)

"whine"? is this not a forum to discuss the word "****"?

maybe u dont understand post-structuralism, and thats why u have problems with it. it seems like when people cant comprehend post-structuralist philosophy they have reactionary responses to it and go into attack mode.

foucault showed just how the creation and uses of words/labels/identities could influence how people behave and relate to each other. the beginning of "the homosexual," in the late 19th century, as an identity (a label/word used to define people) drastically changed how homosexuality was understood and related to. if uve TRULY read the history of sexuality: the will to knowledge and honestly grasped it u should know that he argued sodomy--with the birth of "the homosexual" in medical/scientific discourse--transformed from being understood as a sexual act into "homosexuality," understood as indicating specific kinds of people. this DRASTICALLY altered, across the globe, how same-sex desire and sexuality were related to and understood. ONE SINGLE WORD: "homosexual."

"We are revolutionaries, therefore it's our job to find simple solutions to complicated issues, not the other way round." this statement depresses me the most lol. not only is it fascist in the sense that u make it seem like u know what all "revolutionaries" want and should do, but for u to paint "revolution" as something that finds simple solutions to problems that r actually very complicated, u misrepresent the amount of work that is necessary in order to change the west. THE WEST. how is any simple solution truly going to change the ENTIRE west, or any part of it? the most bourgeois approach someone can have towards "revolution" is to assume its a simple thing; that simple solutions will solve all problems.

here is foucault's description, in the will to knowledge, of "revolution": "Just as the network of power relations ends by forming a dense web that passes through apparatuses and institutions, without being exactly localized in them, so too the swarm of points of resistance traverses social stratifications and individual unities. And it is doubtless the strategic codification of these points of resistance that makes a revolution possible..." (p. 96). does this sound like a simple solution or achievement to u?

foucault mistrusted and resisted all labels that were placed on him, including "post-structuralist" and "structuralist." he was also very critical of marxism. despite what ur saying, he did NOT "hate" post-structuralism.

why is it that "revolutionaries" such as urself dismiss feminist concerns and pretend that u have "THE ANSWERS"? i asked this question to someone else and will ask it again, why are u so committed to using "****"? what pleasure does it bring u?

Ps. its unfortunate that u wont even entertain the possibility that don kulick, a well known anthropologist and queer theorist, can offer anything to u.

Pss. rather than only try to "simply reclaim these words [as in "****"] and defuse them," why not, in addition, try to understand how they affect people--in theoretical terms, what they "do"--so that u can be an even more effective "revolutionary"?

[communard resolution]

Okay ifeelyou,

first of all I'm slightly offended that you seem think of me as stupid, reactionary, a fascist (I don't know you but something in me makes me suspect that I've done far more in my life to actively combat fascism than you have), and bourgeois (this is the most ridiculous one) but otherwise I think this argument is getting interesting. I can't go into all the points you've brought up right now as I'm splitting for a birthday party in a second, but I will to continue this soon.

Maybe in the meantime you could address what exactly you think is wrong with the language reform I suggested (so far you've only made very generalistic statements along the lines of "things are not so simple") and perhaps suggest an alternative. Maybe you could also explain what exactly are the 'far-reaching consequences' of the word '****' that you have only been hinting at - many posters have asked you to elaborate, but you failed to do so.

I'm outta here -speak soon!

[ifeelyou]

Okay ifeelyou,

first of all I'm slightly offended that you seem think of me as stupid, reactionary, a fascist (I don't know you but something in me makes me suspect that I've done far more in my life to actively combat fascism than you have), and bourgeois (this is the most ridiculous one) but otherwise I think this argument is getting interesting. I can't go into all the points you've brought up right now as I'm splitting for a birthday party in a second, but I will to continue this soon.

Maybe in the meantime you could address what exactly you think is wrong with the language reform I suggested (so far you've only made very generalistic statements along the lines of "things are not so simple") and perhaps suggest an alternative. Maybe you could also explain what exactly are the 'far-reaching consequences' of the word '****' that you have only been hinting at - many posters have asked you to elaborate, but you failed to do so.

I'm outta here -speak soon!

i dont think of u as stupid and i apologize if i gave u that impression. still, i do think ur a little reactionary, just look at what u stated about post-structuralism, academia, and an author's essay that uve never read.

fascist in the sense that u think u know what all "revolutionaries" want and should do.

bourgeois because of ur reductive understanding of what a revolution requires.

far-reaching consequences: the word "****" is a DIRECT reference to vagina, a part of the female body. with that in mind, when we use this word to make fun of someone, to attack someone, to criticize someone, etc. arent we either trying to hurt or make fun of this person, even if its done in the most innocently of playful ways, by associating this person with the female body and femininity, things that are often thought of as negative and inferior? arent we making it seem like a "****" (again, referring to vagina) is something bad? in a society that in many cases puts women in secondary positions to men, values masculinity and male bodies in ways that it does not value femininity and female bodies, and in many instances persecutes women arent these questions reasonable?

even if YOU dont mean to be misogynistic or sexist by using "****," do u honestly believe that no one else means to be? furthermore, do u honestly believe that when people hear the word "****" being used in a patriarchy, regardless of specific context and intent, that no one could be taking away from that experience, even if only in subtle ways, the idea that female bodies and femininity are bad things (refer to the above passage)? if we assume for a moment that people do take away this kind of idea and bring to memory the fact that "****" is used by so many people in so many contexts and situations, it becomes rational to suppose that masculinist and sexist conceptions of women's bodies are being perpetuated, probably unquestioned, and spreading via the use of "****"--unquestioned and spreading so much, in an increasingly globalized world, from continent to continent, that even here in the united states and other places like mexico city "****" is being used widely and seemingly without even so much of a thought to the fact that its use could be contributing to sexism, even in the least. this is what is meant by far-reaching.

let me make this clear, in no way do i think "****" should be censored nor do i necessarily entirely disagree with ur idea of language reform. im just skeptical of it because we live in a very, very gendered and deeply patriarchal society. simply believing that words are all of a sudden going to be used in a gender neutral way and all of a sudden take on gender neutral meanings, in my opinion, seems more idealistic and impractical than anything else. what i hope for is that people will become more responsible in general by critically analyzing EVERYTHING that we take for granted, including uses of words, what they mean, and, most importantly, what they do. this is one of the reasons why i find post-structuralist philosophy to be so important and useful.

[welshboy]

I personally only feel that the word **** is sexist when it is specifically used to disparage a woman because of her gender. Though I feel also that, in the UK at least, the word has lost a whole lot of it's value as an insult.
In the west of Scotland it is predominantly used by working class men to refer to one another.


'see tha' **** Jim over there? Sound lad he is' and so on. In this context it is no way sexist as it is neither negative about the person being described nor female genitalia.
Words and language are far too complicated to be described definitively as discriminatory or not.
Context counts for a hell of a lot. If I were to tell my lover that I want to 'eat her ****' or in the throes of passion were to tell her how much I love to fuck her ****, is that sexist? I think not.
Of course if I were to refer to a woman as a piece of **** then that is most definitely sexist and bang out of order. Same would go I would hope if a woman referred to a man as a piece of cock or whatever.

On the origins of the word, the most convincing thing I've read said that it is a really old word for sheath, as in for a sword, which would make sense as to how it became another word for vagina. It is either Germanic or Anglo-Saxon in origin and no I can't remember where I read it, it was a long time ago.

Oh and despite the word having lost a lot of it's power I still wouldn't say it in front of my mum. :D

[welshboy]

ur a fascist because u think u know what all "revolutionaries" want and should do.

I'm sorry but W T F ???
Saying things like that fills your argument with fail I'm afraid. How does having ideas to feed into the revolutionary movement equate with wanting to seize state power through fervent nationalism and racism?
Do you actually know what Fascism is? Beyond it being a word that you wrongly use to describe someone who asks you to tidy your bedroom?

[ifeelyou]

I'm sorry but W T F ???
Saying things like that fills your argument with fail I'm afraid. How does having ideas to feed into the revolutionary movement equate with wanting to seize state power through fervent nationalism and racism?
Do you actually know what Fascism is? Beyond it being a word that you wrongly use to describe someone who asks you to tidy your bedroom?

example of a fascist belief: "Saying things like that fills your argument with fail." things are not black and white, either-or, right or wrong, successful or a failure.

[dirtycommiebastard]

REPOST: "'****' is a reference to vagina. when we call someone a "****" we are trying to berate that person by feminizing that person. we are making it seem like being a female, or having female parts, is bad."

I agree with this point, though, ifeelyou, you need to calm down, but I understand why you are so frustrated.

[welshboy]

example of a fascist belief: "Saying things like that fills your argument with fail." things are not black and white, either-or, right or wrong, successful or a failure.

You don't actually know what fascism is do you?

Oh and Kropotesta you fucking jam rag :)
Don't click on that link folks.

[ifeelyou]

You don't actually know what fascism is do you?

Oh and Kropotesta you fucking jam rag :)
Don't click on that link folks.

im not going to even entertain this.

[welshboy]

Entertain what? You have accused folk who don't agree with you of being Fascists, or having 'fascist beliefs'. How do you expect folk to take you seriously when you do that?
Jaysus, I even agree with you that words have an impact on the way we view the world around us but that any individual word has to be taken in the context in which it is used.
I also agree that it is sexist when used in a specific context though not in others. You then proceeded to accuse me of being a fascist for pointing out that you calling CaligulaZ a fascist when he clearly is not makes you look daft. Seeing people use the word Fascist incorrectly makes me think less of those people as Fascism is a real and dangerous threat to the working class, it is not that a person merely knows 'what all "revolutionaries" want and should do.'. Whilst that may bely at worst some form of arrogance it most certainly is not fascism.
Anyway back to ****s. Do you think that the use of the word **** is sexist at all times regardless of the context it is used in? I'm particularly thinking of the example I gave of it's use as a term of endearment in the west of Scotland.

[ifeelyou]

Entertain what? You have accused folk who don't agree with you of being Fascists, or having 'fascist beliefs'. How do you expect folk to take you seriously when you do that?
Jaysus, I even agree with you that words have an impact on the way we view the world around us but that any individual word has to be taken in the context in which it is used.
I also agree that it is sexist when used in a specific context though not in others. You then proceeded to accuse me of being a fascist for pointing out that you calling CaligulaZ a fascist when he clearly is not makes you look daft. Seeing people use the word Fascist incorrectly makes me think less of those people as Fascism is a real and dangerous threat to the working class, it is not that a person merely knows 'what all "revolutionaries" want and should do.'. Whilst that may bely at worst some form of arrogance it most certainly is not fascism.
Anyway back to ****s. Do you think that the use of the word **** is sexist at all times regardless of the context it is used in? I'm particularly thinking of the example I gave of it's use as a term of endearment in the west of Scotland.

sorry but i dont feel like addressing this question again. please check out post #75. :)

[welshboy]

As far as I can see you haven't addressed it, I did read what you wrote about Foucalt, not read him so can't really comment. I'm more interested in how you see the word in the context I described.

[ifeelyou]

As far as I can see you haven't addressed it, I did read what you wrote about Foucalt, not read him so can't really comment. I'm more interested in how you see the word in the context I described.

i think it could very well produce and perpetuate sexist ideas, regardless of context

partial repost from #75.

far-reaching consequences: the word "****" is a DIRECT reference to vagina, a part of the female body. with that in mind, when we use this word to make fun of someone, to attack someone, to criticize someone, etc. arent we either trying to hurt or make fun of this person, even if its done in the most innocently of playful ways, by associating this person with the female body and femininity, things that are often thought of as negative and inferior? arent we making it seem like a "****" (again, referring to vagina) is something bad? in a society that in many cases puts women in secondary positions to men, values masculinity and male bodies in ways that it does not value femininity and female bodies, and in many instances persecutes women arent these questions reasonable?

even if YOU dont mean to be misogynistic or sexist by using "****," do u honestly believe that no one else means to be? furthermore, do u honestly believe that when people hear the word "****" being used in a patriarchy, regardless of specific context and intent, that no one could be taking away from that experience, even if only in subtle ways, the idea that female bodies and femininity are bad things (refer to the above passage)? if we assume for a moment that people do take away this kind of idea and bring to memory the fact that "****" is used by so many people in so many contexts and situations, it becomes rational to suppose that masculinist and sexist conceptions of women's bodies are being perpetuated, probably unquestioned, and spreading via the use of "****"--unquestioned and spreading so much, in an increasingly globalized world, from continent to continent, that even here in the united states and other places like mexico city "****" is being used widely and seemingly without even so much of a thought to the fact that its use could be contributing to sexism, even in the least. this is what is meant by far-reaching.

[welshboy]

But when it's used as a term of endearment and has absolutely no negative connotations? Also referring to my earlier post what about the context of two(or more) people making love where the use of the word **** in specific reference to the vagina is common.
I use the word **** in, probably, all of the different contexts and do not feel I am being sexist as the context is what matters.
(to add - would never use it in the way I posted earlier ' a nice piece of ****' or similar)
It's a great word as it has so many different uses from the term of endearment, the jocular to the insult.
I don't think we will ever agree on this as there is a large cultural difference concerning the word between us. Like has already been said in the UK it carries far less baggage than it does in the US. Here you are almost as likely to hear a woman call someone a **** as you are a man, in all of the contexts.

Nighty night (it's 2a.m. over here)

[ifeelyou]

But when it's used as a term of endearment and has absolutely no negative connotations? Also referring to my earlier post what about the context of two(or more) people making love where the use of the word **** in specific reference to the vagina is common.
I use the word **** in, probably, all of the different contexts and do not feel I am being sexist as the context is what matters.
(to add - would never use it in the way I posted earlier ' a nice piece of ****' or similar)
It's a great word as it has so many different uses from the term of endearment, the jocular to the insult.
I don't think we will ever agree on this as there is a large cultural difference concerning the word between us. Like has already been said in the UK it carries far less baggage than it does in the US. Here you are almost as likely to hear a woman call someone a **** as you are a man, in all of the contexts.

Nighty night (it's 2a.m. over here)

i understand ur point. we can peacefully agree to disagree. good night :)

[Cybersomatix]

What the hell are you on? It's a moderator's job to, y'know, moderate. And it's not spam since he actually posted something related to the topic in it.

Yeah... aside from the "this thread is pointless quip", there was also the more poignant item of the fact that the word "****" can be used in contexts where it is neither meant to offend nor insult and can actually be rather attractive.. it's all a matter of context situation and observer.

[communard resolution]

Right then, ifeelyou

I'm back from the bday party, so forgive me if there's a typo here and there, English not being my first language and all...


i dont think of u as stupid, but i do think ur a little reactionary,Now reactionary has a lot of different meanings, none of which apply to my rejection of post-structuralist theories as intellectual wankery that has never reached outside the realms of academia and has in practice never amounted to anything more than academic careers and mutual shoulder-patting. You're using catchphrases such as reactionary very liberally without knowing what they mean, and I consider it a joke I'm even defending myself against such idiotic slurs. Still, I've been more patient with you than anyone else on this thread so far, so let's continue this for a little while in the hope we can come to some sort of understanding.


just look at what u stated about post-structuralism, academiaMy criticism was that academic debate largely stays in the academic ghetto. If these issues are as important as you claim they are and not just fodder to keep the Cultural Studies industry going, how come no one ever tries to reach out for the masses and popularize them? You've been asked by several revleft members to reiterate, explain, and rephrase your concerns in your own words, but you've failed to do so. Instead, you kept pointing back to the phrases you had initially copied and pasted into this thread, regardless of what we actually wanted to know. When that failed to convince anyone, you resorted to belittling one of our comrades because of his age. I seem to remember that for some absurd reason, you called him a fascist too. In my book, that's no different to saying "you know, ifeelyou, you're just a girl - no wonder you're so stupid". Unlike you, the comrade you insulted had too much class to sink to this level and wished you to get hit by a bus instead.


, and an author's essay that uve never read. I've asked you a very straightforward question about this essay in my initial reply that you still haven't responded to.


bourgeois Much like 'reactionary', this is a slur that some people like to use very arbitrarily. Right now, I can only think of two plausible meanings of bourgeois: 1) owning means of production. I do not. 2) middle-class. I am not, but something tells me that you're a spoiled, middle-class NY/LA brat financed by mommy and daddy in her Cultural Studies endeavours. Correct me if I'm wrong.



ur a fascist because u think u know what all "revolutionaries" want and should do. No, I don't think I know what revolutionaries want to do. I do, however, think that revolutionaries should aim to find practical solutions to complicated issues - something that academia leftists are not so hot at. My initial wording (simple solutions) was unfortunate.

More importantly, though, I perceive your calling me a fascist as a massive insult - much worse than prick, ****, and all other 'sexist' terms you can think of. Do you even know what fascism means? Unlike you, I have literally spent half of my life combating fascism in practice and in theory, and I have been victim of fascist violence more than once. What have you done to fight fascism other than submitting essays on time?

Look ifeelyou, I'd really prefer to get along with you, and I actually think you've made some rather good points in regards to Foucault and language in your latest post, which was a refreshing change to the random insults you've been throwing at everybody who contradicted you before. I wouldn't mind discussing these points, but not unless you apologize to me first. I do think you owe me a big apology for the 'fascist' bit, as much as you owe an apology to the comrade that you insulted in regards to his age.

So long.

[ifeelyou]

Right then, ifeelyou

I'm back from the bday party, so forgive me if there's a typo here and there (English is not my first language).

Now reactionary has a lot of different meanings, none of which apply to my rejection of post-structuralist theories as intellectual wankery that has never reached outside the realms of academia and has in practice never amounted to anything more than academic careers and mutual shoulder-patting. You're using catchphrases such as reactionary very liberally without knowing what they mean, and I consider it a joke I'm even defending myself against such idiotic slurs. Still, I've been more patient with you than anyone else on this thread so far, so let's continue this for a little while in the hope we can come to some sort of understanding.

My criticism was that academic debate largely stays in the academic ghetto. If these issues are as important as you claim they are and not just fodder to keep the Cultural Studies industry going, how come no one ever tries to reach out for the masses and popularize them? You've been asked by several revleft members to reiterate, explain, and rephrase your concerns in your own words, but you've failed to do so. Instead, you kept pointing back to the phrases you had initially copied and pasted into this thread, regardless of what we actually wanted to know. When that failed to convince anyone, you resorted to belittling one of our comrades because of his age. I seem to remember that for some absurd reason, you called him a fascist too. In my book, that's no different to saying "you know, ifeelyou, you're just a girl - no wonder you're so stupid". Unlike you, the comrade you insulted had too much class to sink to this level and wished you to get hit by a bus instead.

I've asked you a very straightforward question about this essay in my initial reply that you still haven't replied to.

Very much like 'reactionary', this is a slur that some people like to use very arbitrarily. Right now, I can only think of two plausible meanings of bourgeois: 1) owning means of production. I do not. 2) middle-class. I am not, but something tells me that you're a spoiled, middle-class NY/LA brat financed by mommy and daddy in her Cultural Studies endeavours. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No, I don't think I know what revolutionaries want to do. I do, however, think that revolutionaries should aim to find practical solutions to complicated issues - something that academia leftists are not so hot at. My initial wording (simple solutions) was unfortunate.

More importantly, though, I perceive your calling me a fascist as a massive insult - much worse than prick, ****, and all other 'sexist' terms you can think of. Do you even know what fascism means? Unlike you, I have literally spent half of my life combating fascism in practice and in theory, and I have been victim of fascist violence more than once. What have you done to fight fascism other than submitting essays on time?

Look ifeelyou, I'd really prefer to get along with you, and I actually think you've made some rather good points in regards to Foucault and language in your latest post, which was a refreshing change to the random insults you've been throwing at everybody who contradicted you before. I wouldn't mind discussing these points with you, but not unless you apologize to me first. I do think you owe me a big apology for the 'fascist' bit, as much as you owe an apology to the comrade that you insulted in regards to his age.

So long.

"Now reactionary has a lot of different meanings, none of which apply to my rejection of post-structuralist theories as intellectual wankery that has never reached outside the realms of academia and has in practice never amounted to anything more than academic careers and mutual shoulder-patting" add "bollocks" being that u also used it in ur original post. reactionary, in addition to other meanings, refers to conservative. ur opinions on the importance of post-structuralism are EXTREMELY conservative being that u stated it never "amounted to anything more than academic careers and mutual shoulder-patting," disregarding the importance it has had and continues to have for many, many people both inside and OUTSIDE of universities.

"My criticism was that academic debate largely stays in the academic ghetto. If these issues are as important as you claim they are and not just fodder to keep the Cultural Studies industry going, how come no one ever tries to reach out for the masses and popularize them?" are we in an academic environment now? am i not having a dialogue with u using post-structuralist ideas?

"When that failed to convince anyone, you resorted to belittling one of our comrades because of his age." he was asking for clarification while never explaining what he was not understanding, i was frustrated. he also called me a "**** bag" or something to that effect, does this not matter to u?

"I've asked you a very straightforward question about this essay in my initial reply that you still haven't replied to." my answer: it is up to the person.

"bourgeois." think middle class as meaning average. ur opinion on revolution is average, common, and, not meaning to be offensive, nothing new.

"I am not, but something tells me that you're a spoiled, middle-class NY/LA brat financed by mommy and daddy in her Cultural Studies endeavours. Correct me if I'm wrong." not spoiled, not middle class, and my parents dont pay for my education.

"More importantly, though, I perceive your calling me a fascist as a massive insult - much worse than prick, ****, and all other 'sexist' terms you can think of. Do you even know what fascism means? according to the oxford american dictionary, fascism means "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization" and "(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice." at points in this thread u seemed quite intolerant of my views and of other's--for example, refer to ur statements on post-structuralism, academia, and revolutionaries.

"Unlike you, I have literally spent half of my life combating fascism in practice and in theory, and I have been victim of fascist violence more than once. What have you done to fight fascism other than submitting essays on time?" you dont know me, nor my personal history.

"Look ifeelyou, I'd really prefer to get along with you, and I actually think you've made some rather good points in regards to Foucault and language in your latest post, which was a refreshing change to the random insults you've been throwing at everybody who contradicted you before. I wouldn't mind discussing these points with you, but not unless you apologize to me first. I do think you owe me a big apology for the 'fascist' bit, as much as you owe an apology to the comrade that you insulted in regards to his age." why is it that ur not addressing other hostile people that have either insulted me, attacked me for disagreeing with them, or dismissed "****" as possibly being sexist? as a reminder, u have not answered a couple of questions that i asked u quite a while ago: why are u so committed to using "****"? what pleasure do u get from it?

unfortunately, i dont think i owe u an apology. u insulted my interests as much as i insulted u. ive used this post to address ur points (of course, if ive missed any feel free to remind me of them). just to let u know, i think ur a very intelligent person and would prefer to get along with u, too. its been interesting having this dialogue with u. i think, as was the case with another poster, we can agree to disagree :)

[communard resolution]

reactionary, in addition to other meanings, refers to conservative.No, reactionary is not the same as conservative.


ur opinions on the importance of post-structuralism are EXTREMELY conservative being that u stated'Conservative' in the sense that I don't find them important perhaps? But how does that make me a conservative? Hey, have you heard of that brand new theory known as National Anarchism? It's the latest craze, really, much newer than post-structuralism. If you don't agree with it, I will have to assume you're conservative.


it never "amounted to anything more than academic careers and mutual shoulder-patting," disregarding the importance it has had and continues to have for many, many people both inside and OUTSIDE of universities.I think what I said is the truth. If not, please elaborate to whom these theories are important outside of universities and why.


are we in an academic environment now? am i not having a dialogue with u using post-structuralist ideas?Yes, but several revleft members asked you to reword the phrases you were throwing at them and to explain how they relate to the questions they asked. In some cases you seemed too arrogant to do that, in others you seemed incapable of concisely applying your vague theoretical bits and pieces to the straightforward examples proposed. In either case, you failed to popularize your post-structuralist theories and drag them out of the academic isolation they happily inhabit.


he was asking for clarification while never explaining what he was not understanding, i was frustrated. he also called me a "**** bag" or something to that effect, does this not matter to u?
OK, the latter does matter to me, but as far as I remember he attempted to ask you the same questions over and over and in different wording, but you refused to give a clear answer?


"I've asked you a very straightforward question about this essay in my initial reply that you still haven't replied to." my answer: it is up to the person.What is up to the person? Whether to use the word 'no' or not?


"bourgeois." think middle class as meaning average. ur opinion on revolution is average, common, and, not meaning to be offensive, nothing new.To define middle class or bourgeois as "average" is a very broad definition of middle class indeed, ifeelyou. I thought it had something to do with economic means? Let's face it, you used 'bourgeois' as a random slur that had nothing to do with anything at all. Much like the 'fascists' you believe to have made out on this forum, of which there are three so far.

I fail to see how 'newness' is a key factor in evaluating theories of revolution? Are my views on revolution not hip enough to your very avant taste?

I can see without difficulty how "common" views don't appeal to the elitist revolutionary circles you consider yourself to be part of. If only everybody could be as extraordinary as you, ifeelyou.


according to the oxford american dictionary, fascism means "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization" and "(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."Good. Please point out where I have been nationalistic, extreme right-wing, or authoritarian. "Intolerant" on its own doesn't cut it: if I'm intolerant of racism, for instance, I'm hardly a fascist - am I?


at points in this thread u seemed quite intolerant of my views and of other's--for example, refer to ur statements on post-structuralism, academia, and revolutionaries.You are as intolerant of my views as I am of yours, and you've called me multiple names for holding them. Does that make you a fascist?


"Unlike you, I have literally spent half of my life combating fascism in practice and in theory, and I have been victim of fascist violence more than once. What have you done to fight fascism other than submitting essays on time?" you dont know me, nor my personal history.Of course I don't. I'm just guessing. Am I wrong?


why is it that ur not addressing other hostile people that have either insulted me, attacked me for disagreeing with them, or dismissed "****" as possibly being sexist?You've insulted them too. I think both you and and them should behave better, but that's not gonna happen if you call people like me or them fascists.


why are u so committed to using "****"? what pleasure do u get from it?I already told you: I find it phonetically pleasing, and it looks good when written - much like prick. Both words can be quite a turn-on when having sex.

DO YOU APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING ME A FASCIST OR NOT?

[ifeelyou]

i figured out how to use the quoting feature. lol


No, reactionary is not the same as conservative.

reactionary means, in part, conservative.


'Conservative' in the sense that I don't find them important perhaps? But how does that make me a conservative? Hey, have you heard of that brand new theory known as National Anarchism? It's the latest craze, really, much newer than post-structuralism. If you don't agree with it, I will have to assume you're conservative.

in parts of this thread u did not simply express that u think post-structuralism is not important; on the contrary, u berated it and criticized it while admitting that u have not read much of it. reread ur own posts.

do times not change? does revolution not call for a reevaluation? should theories not be reassessed in order to alter or abandon ineffective ones and to take up newer and perhaps more effective models? if ur answer is no to any of these questions, u r certainly conservative.


I think what I said is the truth. If not, please elaborate to whom these theories are important outside of universities and why.

oh, come on. me and, just to name a few, the people posting questions and topics about them right here on revleft. do we not count?


Yes, but several revleft members asked you to reword the phrases you were throwing at them and to explain how they relate to the questions they asked. In some cases you seemed too arrogant to do that, in others you seemed incapable of concisely applying your vague theoretical bits and pieces to the straightforward examples proposed. In either case, you failed to popularize your post-structuralist theories and drag them out of the academic isolation they happily inhabit.

i never felt too arrogant, whatsoever. i tried my best to explain myself, and i think i did a good job. u dont have to agree. ur entitled to ur opinion.


OK, the latter does matter to me, but as far as I remember he attempted to ask you the same questions over and over and in different wording, but you refused to give a clear answer?

once again, he was asking for clarification while never explaining what he was not understanding.


What is up to the person? Whether to use the word 'no' or not

yes.


To define middle class or bourgeois as "average" is a very broad definition of middle class indeed, ifeelyou. I thought it had something to do with economic means? Let's face it, you used 'bourgeois' as a random slur that had nothing to do with anything at all. Much like the 'fascists' you believe to have made out on this forum, of which there are three so far.

all u have to do is research theories of middle class. perhaps in a strictly traditional marxist analysis it can only refer to economic means. yet even so, middle class ideology, beliefs, and values are not necessarily restricted to a single economic category, especially in this day and age with things like television that transmit different kinds of values, ideologies, etc. across class distinctions.


I fail to see how 'newness' is a key factor in evaluating theories of revolution? Are my views on revolution not hip enough to your very avant taste?

repost from above: do times not change? does revolution not call for a reevaluation? should theories not be reassessed in order to alter or abandon ineffective ones and to take up newer and perhaps more effective models?


I can see without difficulty how "common" views don't appeal to the elitist revolutionary circles you consider yourself to be part of. If only everybody could be as extraordinary as you, ifeelyou.

im not elitist, at least i dont think i am nor try to be. i try not to dismiss anything. the fact that u can, in one big sweep, call post-structuralism "bullocks," while admitting that u have not read much of it, reflects that not only are u dismissive but perhaps even elitist urself. is it beneath u to actually read this type of philosophy and develop a critical opinion of it, one based on extensive experience and research?


Good. Please point out where I have been nationalistic, extreme right-wing, or authoritarian. "Intolerant" on its own doesn't cut it: if I'm intolerant of racism, for instance, I'm hardly a fascist - am I?

this is too ridiculous to address. sorry.


You are as intolerant of my views as I am of yours, and you've called me multiple names for holding them. Does that make you a fascist

if ive been intolerant of ur views it is because u have brushed off, attacked, and berated my interests without knowing much about them.

ive already explained why i referred to u as certain things and dont feel the need to explain myself again. u dont have to agree.

no, this does not make me a fascist. unlike urself, i never once claimed to know whats best for anyone. i only expressed my concerns and hopes.


Of course I don't. I'm just guessing. Am I wrong?

how can this question be answered? i dont know ur age or anything about u. likewise, u dont know anything about me. i will tell u that ive done a bit more than turn papers in on time to fight fascism. lol obviously we have different ideas of what constitutes fascism and certainly different approaches to fighting it. this is perfectly okay.


You've insulted them too. I think both you and and them should behave better, but that's not gonna happen if you call people like me or them fascists.

i will stop calling u a fascist if u stop dismissing my interests.


I already told you: I find it phonetically pleasing, and it looks good when written - much like prick. Both words can be quite a turn-on when having sex.

even though i could very easily critique this for possibly being reductive, i wont. im tired of arguing with u.


DO YOU APOLOGIZE FOR CALLING ME A FASCIST OR NOT?

do u apologize for dismissing my interests?

could we please just agree to disagree?

[communard resolution]

this is too ridiculous to address. sorry.No, what's ridiculous is the fact that you called me and two other revleft members fascists. Even if we leave aside the very specific historical meaning of fascism and choose to go by the very broad definition you transcribed from Oxford dictionary, there's no way you can defend the way you've used fascist as an insult against several people on here.

Where have I been "nationalistic, extreme right-wing, and authoritarian"?


f ive been intolerant of ur views it is because u have brushed off, attacked, and berated my interests without knowing much about them.You don't know much about my political views either, except for the fact that I believe revolutionaries should find aim to find practical solutions to complicated issues. By saying that, I also "expressed my concerns and hopes" as you put it. Unlike you, I'm not calling you a fascist for not tolerating my views.


ive already explained why i referred to u as certain things and dont feel the need to explain myself again. You have explained very insufficiently why you called me and others 'fascists' among other things. I explained to you why I find this particularly offensive, but that doesn't seem to bother you much. You are concerned about the offensive potential of the word **** and ask us for "empathy", but you think it's perfectly fine to insult people who have been subject to actual fascist violence and terror as "fascists" - a word that refers to something truly terrible and tragic? Do you not think you're being very hypocritical?

On a side-note, how about the "far-reaching consequences" of calling everybody and everything 'fascist' regardless whether it has anything to do with fascism or not until the word completely loses its meaning?


obviously we have different ideas of what constitutes fascism and certainly different approaches to fighting it. this is perfectly okay. Obviously. My approach is to fight actual fascists by a variety of means before they can advance to a position from which they can kill you and me. Your approach is to throw the "fascist" slur at anti-fascists because you disagree with them about something or other on revleft.

This conversation cannot continue if you don't apologize for calling me a fascist.

[Forward Union]

All you ****s should watch this. Especially from 7:50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojEpASQi_7o

In reality, detached from human fictional constructs, **** is a noice. Or a series of symbols. It's meaningless. It is context that invests meaning in it, and as contexts are constantly in flux, so is the meaning of the word. As the video I linked to points out, Breast was considered an innapropriate word in the 1800s. And Hysterical was an incredibly sexist word in ancient greece.

I use the term **** regularly to refer to men, women, objects, situations, and everything else. In certain conexts it also refers to part of a womans body. In the same way Dick, Cock, and Bellend refer to mens parts. I suspect these have become offensive words as a reaction to victorian moral values. As it was considered innapropriate to mention sex organs, calling someone a sex organ must have been incredibly offensive.

The fact that people have voted for 1 and 3 are proposing that the term is universally sexist, that it transends context, and that their superstitious mumbo jumbo (which was originally a racist remark, bet few of you knew that until i pointed it out) is more important than the very nature of language. Which knows no univeral norms.

[TC]

In reality, detached from human fictional constructs, **** is a noice. Or a series of symbols. It's meaningless. It is context that invests meaning in it, and as contexts are constantly in flux, so is the meaning of the word.

So what? No one is talking about using it detached from human constructs, the objection to it as sexist is only an objection within the contexts that I outlined above. No one will consider the use of the word **** in this sentence sexist for instance just like no one will find the use of the word nigger racist in the context of this sentence. While this may demonstrate that the sound '****' and 'nigger' are not inherently sexist or racist when taken out of context (as I explained earlier) it does nothing to address whether they are sexist or racist in the particular contexts they're frequently used in.

To ignore this is to almost deliberately miss the point.

[Thíazì]

I don't think any words can really be sexist in themselves. I guess '****' is more likely to be used in a sexist way than 'vagina', but that doesn't mean the word "is" sexist. '****' is just as sexist as dick, cock, tube-steak, etc.; it's what you make of it.

[communard resolution]

So what? No one is talking about using it detached from human constructs, the objection to it as sexist is only an objection within the contexts that I outlined above. No one will consider the use of the word **** in this sentence sexist for instance just like no one will find the use of the word nigger racist in the context of this sentence. While this may demonstrate that the sound '****' and 'nigger' are not inherently sexist or racist when taken out of context (as I explained earlier) it does nothing to address whether they are sexist or racist in the particular contexts they're frequently used in.

To ignore this is to almost deliberately miss the point.

One point that some users have made on this thread is that the word **** is rarely used in these sexists contexts anymore. At least in the UK, **** is one of the most frequent words you'll hear in the street, but hardly anyone will actually think of female genitalia when saying or hearing it.

Like Wat Tyler, I tend to think that the original reason for '****' being a term of abuse is because 'private parts' used to be perceived as dirty, and to a lesser extent still are by some. Prick and arsehole are terms of abuse for the same reason.

[ComradeM]

There's a difference between collectively agreeing to not use a word and actually 'banning' it. It doesn't have to be banned for people to understand that someone might be offended by it.
Agreed!

[apathy maybe]

You'll a bunch of ****s if you want to take away my right to say ****.

Oh, and I much prefer to say fuck. More versatile. E.g. If you fucking fucks want to fucking well take away my fucking right to say fuck, **** or any other fucking word, I'm going to fucking well, come down to your fucking place and beat the fucking fuck out of you. You stupid fuck.

You get the picture.

Yeah, **** can be used in a sexist manner, but if anyone claims that it always is, then they are either ignorant or stupid.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm a male and I find the word "****" derogatory and sexist, and I don't really see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Why? Simple. It is a derogatory term for the vagina. Hence when someone calls someone else a "****," they are comparing or associating them with the female genitals in a negative fashion. This, dear friends, makes it sexist.

- August

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

I'm a male and I find the word "****" derogatory and sexist, and I don't really see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Why? Simple. It is a derogatory term for the vagina. Hence when someone calls someone else a "****," they are comparing or associating them with the female genitals in a negative fashion. This, dear friends, makes it sexist.

- August

Would it be sexist if i called you a prick?

[Decolonize The Left]

The term 'cock' too is a derogatory term for a penis. Hence when someone calls someone else a 'cock' they are comparing or associating them with the male genitals in a negative fashion. This, dear friends, makes it sexist...Really, I think its short-sighted of some to assume that just because you call one women a 'bad word' that you are therefore denigrating all women.

It's not just a "bad word." You are over-simplifying. "****" is a word with a specific reference to the female genitals. Hence it may be derogatory to that single individual, but it is sexist towards all women.


When you call a man a 'cock' its not assumed that you are referring to all men as cocks. The difference is that the former refuses to accept women as individuals...

I never said that to call one woman a "****" meant that you were calling all women "****s." I did say that the word "****" referred to female genitals, and hence carried a feminine reference.


Also, some words, e.g. ***** etc are attacked by the left because they are seen to denigrate women also. But aren't the definitions of these words something to aspire to - a ***** being an independent woman who is not afraid to voice her opinion? Isn't being a ***** something good...? What we should be attacking is the notion that the term ***** should be considered an insult in the first place...

Point taken, though perhaps worthy of a new thread?

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Would it be sexist if i called you a prick?

Yes.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Well...when you are terming something 'sexist' it means that that something is sexist to all women. Nothing can be sexist just to one woman - it needs to extrapolate to all women. Using the derogatory term, ****, applied at one woman is just that - applied at one woman. Hence, it is not a reference to females generally.

I'm not sure if your claiming that I said using the word "****" was sexist to all women, because if you are, I did. Although, I just said it was sexist - so yes, I was referring to a larger group of people. What I also said is that the word was derogatory to that individual, and sexist to women in general. Are you disagreeing?


Compare it with another example, for instance 'All arabs are lazy' of course that is racist because it stereotypes all 'arabs' as lazy people with whatever intent is behind it. A statement that 'all women are ****s' would be sexist, not because of the term ****, but because of the nature of that statement - it seeks to denigrate an entire sex with disregard to individuals...

The second definition for "sexism" is: discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex (dictionary.com). How is the term "****" not sexist since it devalues a person by relating them to female genitals?


And your first point was not correct also - the term **** is more synonymous with 'asshole' than it is with 'vagina.'

Wrong. Once again, here's the actual definition - not 'what you think.'
"****:
1. The vulva or vagina.
2. Disparaging and offensive
a. a woman.
b. a contemptible person. (dictionary.com)"

Is this clear enough now?

- August

[BashTheFash]

It's my opinion that **** is not sexist but is a horrible word which I do not use (unless I'm referring to a Fascist:cool:)

[Decolonize The Left]

It's my opinion that **** is not sexist but is a horrible word which I do not use (unless I'm referring to a Fascist:cool:)

That statement doesn't make you cool, but ignorant.

- August

[BashTheFash]

That statement doesn't make you cool, but ignorant.

- August

How does that make me ignorant?

[Decolonize The Left]

How does that make me ignorant?

I posted this in regards to another member, one post above yours.

"Wrong. Once again, here's the actual definition - not 'what you think.'
"****:
1. The vulva or vagina.
2. Disparaging and offensive
a. a woman.
b. a contemptible person. (dictionary.com)""

Hopefully you can see that "****" is a derogatory term for the female genitals. Hence we you call someone a "****", you are making a sexist remark as you are negatively associating them with female body parts.

And just to be clear, it is sexist. Here's what I posted in that same reply, one post above yours.

"The second definition for "sexism" is: discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex (dictionary.com). How is the term "****" not sexist since it devalues a person by relating them to female genitals?"

Hence it makes you ignorant because you have re-iterated what I just finished rationally breaking down, and because you thought that it was cool to use a derogatory and sexist term, just because you put "fascists" in the same line. I'm opposed to fascism as much as the next person on this board, but I don't need to insult women to get my point across.

- August

EDIT: I'm sorry if I have been rude in addressing your comment. There's been a lot of arguments in the Discrimination section lately, and emotions have been hot. So I apologize if I carried that over to you.

[BashTheFash]

Sorry but I don't buy for one minute that the word **** is in anyway derogotary to women unless of course I say it to a woman.

Anyone who believes that calling somebody a **** is derogatory to women (unless as i have said it is said to a woman) is mad or far far far far far too politically correct.

If i was to say "Adolf Hitler is a ****"

Would it be derogatory to women? NO ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

It would be derogatory to;
a)adolf hitler
b)all the idiots that like him and follow his ideology i.e neo-nazis and fascists.

[Kami]

If i was to say "Adolf Hitler is a ****"

Would it be derogatory to women? NO ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

It would be derogatory to;
a)adolf hitler
b)all the idiots that like him and follow his ideology i.e neo-nazis and fascists.
Perhaps not the way I'd have put it, but this fellow has the crux of the matter. Whether ****, or any other word, is sexist depends entirely on context.

[BashTheFash]

Perhaps not the way I'd have put it, but this fellow has the crux of the matter. Whether ****, or any other word, is sexist depends entirely on context.

Absolutely agreed!!

[Decolonize The Left]

Anyone who believes that calling somebody a **** is derogatory to women (unless as i have said it is said to a woman) is mad or far far far far far too politically correct.

Actually, I'm just a person who uses a dictionary.


Whether ****, or any other word, is sexist depends entirely on context.

Wrong. And quite frankly, I'm tired of re-pasting dictionary definitions. None of you have refuted the fact that **** is a derogatory term, at all. Nor have you refuted that it is sexist, in any fashion.

You have only made unjustified claims that it depends on context. But I'm using the dictionary to show you that it doesn't. You're just saying, "well I don't think so." This is not an argument, nor is it rational.

- August

[BashTheFash]

Well look at the poll results for the women.

6 have taken it, only 1 believes the word to be sexist.

I believe that speaks for itself.

[Decolonize The Left]

Well look at the poll results for the women.

6 have taken it, only 1 believes the word to be sexist.

I believe that speaks for itself.

7 people speak for 7 people - not for the entire female community....

- August

[ships-cat]

I think the problem here is NOT with the definition/usage of the word '****', but the way that the word 'sexist' is being used.

Meow Purr.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think the problem here is NOT with the definition/usage of the word '****', but the way that the word 'sexist' is being used.

Meow Purr.

Cute kitty avatar. :D

I find that there is a problem in the definition, as several members have repeatedly argued that the term is not derogatory and sexist when it is.

The second definition of sexism from dictionary.com:
"discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex"

How does a derogatory term referring to female genitalia, which is used to devalue a person, not fall under this category?

- August

[BashTheFash]

This is the final time i'm going to post on this topic;

In my opinion the word is;

a) derogatory to the person it is being said to

b) not sexist

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Yes.

- August

Why?

I would be calling you it because it is genitalia and it has stigma left over from the victorain era.

[Sir Comradical]

Is the word 'dick' sexist?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Is the word 'dick' sexist?


No because it is either a insult of a penis

[Sir Comradical]

No because it is either a insult of a penis

explain.

[Luís Henrique]

If i was to say "Adolf Hitler is a ****"

Would it be derogatory to women? NO ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

Yes it would. It is saying, "Adolph Hitler is so bad, it can be only compared to the female genitalia".

And the female genitalia, you know, started a world war and killed 11 million people in genocidal programs.

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yes it would. It is saying, "Adolph Hitler is so bad, it can be only compared to the female genitalia".

And the female genitalia, you know, started a world war and killed 11 million people in genocidal programs.

Luís Henrique

That assumes that one is making a direct comparison, rather than say, calling him that because it's a socially recognised swearword, so much so that you can't say it on television before the "watershed", if at all.

Calling someone a "vagina" or a "donut" doesn't have the same force.

[revolution inaction]

I haven't read the thread but I notice that almost no women have vote, does this mean there are no women on revleft, or that they don't care about the word ****?
or maybe there where women but they where so offended by the word **** in a post that they left :laugh:

[apathy maybe]

I haven't read the thread but I notice that almost no women have vote, does this mean there are no women on revleft, or that they don't care about the word ****?
or maybe there where women but they where so offended by the word **** in a post that they left :laugh:

There are actually very few women on RevLeft at all. For as long as I've been around (2002), at least 70% (and I would suggest more like 90% for much of the time) of the population has been male.

There have been various threads on the matter, both in the main forums and in the CC. Basically, no one can give on compressive answer as to why there are more men then women, but I would suggest that the word "****" is only a minor part (if any part at all) (based on what some women who are around have said).

[revolution inaction]

There have been various threads on the matter, both in the main forums and in the CC. Basically, no one can give on compressive answer as to why there are more men then women, but I would suggest that the word "****" is only a minor part (if any part at all) (based on what some women who are around have said).

I agree, i don't think the word **** or any other swearing has anything to do with it.
I suspect that society considers politics to be a male thing, so less women take an interest in obviously political things.

[communard resolution]

I agree, i don't think the word **** or any other swearing has anything to do with it.
I suspect that society considers politics to be a male thing, so less women take an interest in obviously political things.


This is weird. In school, girls usually do really well in subjects such as History.

It's a real dilemma, if you ask me. And given the little knowledge we have on sex and gender, it would be a real challenge to determine how to make this forum more 'female-friendly' without falling into the usual gender stereotype traps ("women are more emotional" and bollocks like that).

[Luís Henrique]

That assumes that one is making a direct comparison, rather than say, calling him that because it's a socially recognised swearword, so much so that you can't say it on television before the "watershed", if at all.

But it is only a socially recognised swear word because the female genitalia is socially recognised as an awful thing.


Calling someone a "vagina" or a "donut" doesn't have the same force.

To me, it has, or rather, calling someone a **** has a lot less force. Maybe because I am counted among that minority of males that actually like the feminine genitalia.

Try calling Adolph Hitler for what he was - how about "genocidal murderer"? That might have actually some force, and wouldn't make you sound like a misogynistic idiot.

Luís Henrique

[communard resolution]

the female genitalia is socially recognised as an awful thing.


Sorry what???


I am counted among that minority of males that actually like the feminine genitalia.

You're kidding, right?

[Hit The North]

But it is only a socially recognised swear word because the female genitalia is socially recognised as an awful thing.



To me, it has, or rather, calling someone a **** has a lot less force. Maybe because I am counted among that minority of males that actually like the feminine genitalia.

Luís Henrique

I like the female genitalia too much to call it a **** - which is a hard, ugly word, imo - and for that reason the word has, for me, great force as an insult.

Meanwhile, my girlfriend likes to refer to her vagina as a **** which she thinks is a sexy word. However, she also throws it around as an insult (she has a mean mouth!).

Not all language use has political intent (e.g. sexism); sometimes it's emotional or aesthetic.

[Commiewithlove]

I haven't read the thread but I notice that almost no women have vote, does this mean there are no women on revleft, or that they don't care about the word ****?
or maybe there where women but they where so offended by the word **** in a post that they left :laugh:Yes I am a woman and vote,
:)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But it is only a socially recognised swear word because the female genitalia is socially recognised as an awful thing.

If that were true, then all mentions of the female genitalia (not just the naughty words) would be banned from television. As far as I am aware, this is not the case.


To me, it has, or rather, calling someone a **** has a lot less force. Maybe because I am counted among that minority of males that actually like the feminine genitalia.

So what are you saying, that most males are gay? That can be dismissed right off the bat. I use the word, yet I enjoy masturbating to pictures of women with their ****s (and other parts particular to the female form) showing. How does that square with your statement that only those who like female genitalia (and of course, the females they're attached to) don't use the word?

I use the word because it's shocking, and because it gets right up the arse of humourless prudes on both sides of the political spectrum.


Try calling Adolph Hitler for what he was - how about "genocidal murderer"? That might have actually some force, and wouldn't make you sound like a misogynistic idiot.

Maybe to you they might sound like a misogynist, but to me they sound like someone with the right idea about Hitler and the Nazis. Whether the person using that word is objectively a misogynist would depend on their views about women, not their choice of swearwords.

[Jazzratt]

I use the word, yet I enjoy masturbating to pictures of women with their ****s (and other parts particular to the female form) showing.

I bet you call people tossers and wankers too, whilst enjoying masturbation and finding nothing wrong with it.

[Luís Henrique]

So what are you saying, that most males are gay?

No. I am saying that most men think of sexual relations as an act of aggression against women.

Luís Henrique

[INDK]

It's all about usage! I voted option number 2.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No. I am saying that most men think of sexual relations as an act of aggression against women.

Luís Henrique

I was being rhetorical - notice in the following sentence I dismissed the hypothesis. Some men might think that (and I would think that the proportion varies from culture to culture), but I reckon most women try to keep their distance from such assholes.

Here I thought it was an act of mutual pleasure.

[AutomaticMan]

I'm certainly not for banning words, or censorship in any form, but I do think that ****, as an insult, shouldn't be used. I mean, if one wants to use it to actually refer to female genitals then that's cool (I've heard some female feminists say they prefer it to words like vagina used when referring to female genitals, since the vagina is typically where the man gets pleasure, etc.) but not as an insult.

Also, a lot of people are throwing around comments about whether or not it's sexist to use words like 'prick', 'dick' etc as insults. Well, it may be, but, because of the way society is organised, and the institutional Patriarchal hierarchy which places all men above all women, it's not quite as powerful. Plus, there's not the legacy of 10,000 years of Matriarchal oppression for modern men to deal with. This is just like, in my opinion, words like nigger and cracker, both shouldn't be used, but one, because of the history of racism and white tyranny, has a much more oppressive connotation.

I agree with all this, but every now and then I use the word 'twat'. Habits are hard to get out of.

[hunterkyrie]

I've never said it to another person's face. But I rarely, if ever swear at all; outside of my own home, and certainly not to people I don't know. I have, however, used the word **** several times. Both in the definition of a "terrible person" and as female genitalia.

I don't find most swear words to be extremely offensive or racist. Simply ignorant. There are so many worse things I could say in substitution other than "*****" or "****". They are catty words mostly used when drunk.
They are pointless and ignorant.

[Hawk_]

I'm going to compare it to the N word.

Women as a whole were not slaves. They were oppressed, but they were not chased down and hung. [again as a whole] African Americans were chased and hung due to their race, and were called that word. There is not oppressing history behind the word '****' like there is behind the word 'nigger'

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm going to compare it to the N word.

Women as a whole were not slaves. They were oppressed, but they were not chased down and hung. [again as a whole] African Americans were chased and hung due to their race, and were called that word. There is not oppressing history behind the word '****' like there is behind the word 'nigger'

It seems as though you do not understand the word "slave." Here's the definition:
"A person who is owned by another, as their property." (wiktionary.com)

You can see now that women have been treated as property of men for far longer than the period of slavery within the colonial US.

It seems as though you are drawing a line in the sand, and saying that beyond this line (being chased down and hung), nothing counts as "oppression." This is completely arbitrary on your part, and many women and men have argued quite eloquently that the oppression of women outdates all other forms of oppression.

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

(I've heard some female feminists say they prefer it to words like vagina used when referring to female genitals, since the vagina is typically where the man gets pleasure, etc.)

I'm not sure I understand you. Heterosexual/bisexual men (as well as homosexual women) get pleasure from the vagina no matter what it's called.

[AutomaticMan]

I'm not sure I understand you. Heterosexual/bisexual men (as well as homosexual women) get pleasure from the vagina no matter what it's called.

Well, the argument I've heard, or rather, the opinions of some feminists is that '****' is a better word to describe genitals than stuff like 'vagina', which is only one part of the genitals, and, conveniently, the part that males tend to get pleasure from. A lot of feminists want to reclaim the word **** and use it in that context. Being male, I don't feel I can say much on that particular point.

[Trystan]

It's a very, very bad word. Trust me.

[Revolution 9]

If "****" is sexist, so is "dick" and "cock."

[Big Red]

Try calling Adolph Hitler for what he was - how about "genocidal murderer"? That might have actually some force, and wouldn't make you sound like a misogynistic idiot.

Luís Henrique

what about a genocidal murdering ****?:thumbup:

[Big Red]

oh an I dont know if this is true or not, just something i heard around the grapevine and if true would be kind of interesting. i heard that **** actually was used to describe distinguished women. not sure though and quite frankly am feeling too lazy to actively look it up nor do i really care about the word enough

[Gleb]

Words are not offensive, the situation where they are used can be. Voted no.

[AAFCE]

Only if used in a sexist context, and being used on a female.

No different than Prick, being used on males.

Depends.

[Revy]

I think in the U.S. the word "*****" is used far more often towards a woman than the word "****".

[cleef]

yeh i would say its the context in which the word is used rather than it actually being said, although i have to say when you hear the word excessively it loses its taboo anyway (for me at least)

i dont get why it is this word that is deemed the most offensive though? funny how this works, people are easily happy to call someone a berk with no regrets but wont dare mention the word ****, when they actually mean the same thing (Berk is cockney rhyming slang-Berkshire hunt)

[communard resolution]

(Berk is cockney rhyming slang-Berkshire hunt)

Oh wow. Do people actually still use cockney rhyming slang? I've been living in the UK for a few years now, and I've never heard anyone use it... or I just didn't notice.

I remember there's a song by Conflict called "Berkshire Hunt" though, which never made any sense to me until now. Funny an anarcho-punk band would be too politically sensitive to say '****' but use the cockney rhyming slang instead. :)

[cleef]

Oh wow. Do people actually still use cockney rhyming slang? I've been living in the UK for a few years now, and I've never heard anyone use it... or I just didn't notice.

I remember there's a song by Conflict called "Berkshire Hunt" though, which never made any sense to me until now. Funny an anarcho-punk band would be too politically sensitive to say '****' but use the cockney rhyming slang instead. :)

i guess it would depend on where in the U.K you are living as the dialect is generally restricted to London (mostly South and East)

[Oswy]

There should be an option that says whether it's offensive or not is based on context- which is what I would select.

I agree with this. Generally it is offensive in my view but there are contexts where its meaning can be otherwise. As with all potentially offensive language, the golden rules are a) think about why you're choosing to use the word and b) don't use it in circumstances where you're not confident about the reception.

[Oswy]

If "****" is sexist, so is "dick" and "cock."

Though words have histories and so simple correspondence isn't enough of a means of evaluation. The term 'black pride', for example, is not a simple mirror of the term 'white pride'. The former is generally about resistance to, and success despite, prejudice, the latter is generally about promotion of such prejudice.

[cleef]

Though words have histories and so simple correspondence isn't enough of a means of evaluation. The term 'black pride', for example, is not a simple mirror of the term 'white pride'. The former is generally about resistance to, and success despite, prejudice, the latter is generally about promotion of such prejudice.

my understanding of it is that it comes from the name of a road in london where prostitutes worked...

[Oswy]

my understanding of it is that it comes from the name of a road in london where prostitutes worked...

I don't know, but what I meant was histories rather than origins, i.e. the way the term has come to be used and understood through general usage across the years, decades, centuries.

[cleef]

I don't know, but what I meant was histories rather than origins, i.e. the way the term has come to be used and understood through general usage across the years, decades, centuries.

yeh i understand you but what i mean is the words association with prostituion links in with the idea that you put across of why one is considered more offensive than the other

:)

[communard resolution]

b) don't use it in circumstances where you're not confident about the reception.

Yeah, it's not a good word to use when invited for dinner with the Royal Family.

[cop an Attitude]

I love saying ****, it rolls off the toungh. Its by far one of my most favorite words

[Trystan]

It was one of my favorite words. But then I saw the error of my ways and started saying "Kant" instead.

[communard resolution]

It was one of my favorite words. But then I saw the error of my ways and started saying "Kant" instead.

"Immanuel Kant" - the intellectual's cockney rhyming slang word for "****".

[Pirate Utopian]

It's funny that even in comparisment more men find offense to the word then women do.

Ya damn ****s.

[communard resolution]

It's funny that even in comparisment more men find offense to the word then women do.


Maybe it's because the word **** makes vagina sound aggressive and men are afraid of the vagina dentata castrating them. I'm pretty sure that would be Freud's take on the subject.

[timbaly]

The problem I have with the word is that it indirectly implies that there is something wrong with female genitalia. Using the word as insult is really calling someone a vagina. Though you might not even be thinking about this when you say it I think it reinforces sexism. When someone says it I think they are subconsciously saying that there is something wrong with vaginas or having a vagina.

When a male says it to a female it is the most powerful. The reason I say this is because we live in a society that is male dominated. Men hold power over women in our societies. Now, this might be more true in some places than in others. I live in the United States and it is likely more true here than it is in Western Europe. However even in Western Europe men still hold power of women in terms of social status. Men are looked at as "normal", when people envision what a Dutch, German, or South African person looks like they usually envsion a man because most of us subconsciiously view men and being male as "normal" and being "female" as a deviation. A lot of people on internet message boards tend to assume that the other users are male because once again they subconsciously assume male until told otherwise.

You can say that prick is the male equivalent of ****, but I just don't see it that way. Women do not have power and status over men. Therefore when a man is called a prick by a woman it does not have as much of a sting to it.

[DesertShark]

Obviously none of you have read ****: A Declaration of Independence by Inga Musico; an incredible book not just for women, it would do a lot of good if men read it too.

I am a woman and I voted that the word is not sexist, this is because that book changed how I think about the word. It is true that the word '****' was a term for high priestesses and women of power. Personally, I don't like the word 'vagina' because I think it undermines women. I say this because 'vagina' in Latin means 'sheath' or 'scabbard', personally my **** is not a place holder for a penis and if I was a homosexual female, the word vagina would not apply to me.


The term "****" in it's original use referred to a powerful woman.

It's only in its modern context that the term has had any relationship with misogyny.

This speaks more to misogynistic appropriation of the word than to any inherent misogyny in the word itself.
Yes! Exactly.


It refers to powerful women in a very aggressively derogatory way.

I frankly can't imagine the word being used as a compliment.
It does now, but that was because men of the church were trying to get rid of all other religions. What better way then to take terms used to describe powerful women and turn it into an insult.


"****" is a reference to vagina. when we call someone a "****" we are trying to berate that person by feminizing that person. we are making it seem like being a female, or having female parts, is bad.
Yes, this part of how it is an insult.


It's an insult, get over it. Meant to insult people.
It doesn't have to be that way or used that way.


I'm a male and I find the word "****" derogatory and sexist, and I don't really see how anyone can argue otherwise.

Why? Simple. It is a derogatory term for the vagina. Hence when someone calls someone else a "****," they are comparing or associating them with the female genitals in a negative fashion. This, dear friends, makes it sexist.

- August
Read that book! It will change how you think about the word. Like I explained before, vagina is more demeaning then ****.


Sorry but I don't buy for one minute that the word **** is in anyway derogotary to women unless of course I say it to a woman.

Anyone who believes that calling somebody a **** is derogatory to women (unless as i have said it is said to a woman) is mad or far far far far far too politically correct.

If i was to say "Adolf Hitler is a ****"

Would it be derogatory to women? NO ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

It would be derogatory to;
a)adolf hitler
b)all the idiots that like him and follow his ideology i.e neo-nazis and fascists.
It is derogatory because you assume that it is degrading to men to be referred to as a female or female parts. So just by using it, you're reinforcing the belief that a person is lesser if they have a ****.


This is the final time i'm going to post on this topic;

In my opinion the word is;

a) derogatory to the person it is being said to

b) not sexist
I just explained how it is derogatory.


I think in the U.S. the word "*****" is used far more often towards a woman than the word "****".
Yes, and in my opinion is more offensive.


The problem I have with the word is that it indirectly implies that there is something wrong with female genitalia. Using the word as insult is really calling someone a vagina. Though you might not even be thinking about this when you say it I think it reinforces sexism. When someone says it I think they are subconsciously saying that there is something wrong with vaginas or having a vagina.
Yes, exactly. And as we all know, there's nothing wrong with having a ****, it doesn't make you less of a person no matter what anyone says.

-DesertShark

[Jazzratt]

It is true that the word '****' was a term for high priestesses and women of power.

Really? That's genuinely interesting, I've not heard that before. Where/when was it used in such a manner.


Personally, I don't like the word 'vagina' because I think it undermines women. I say this because 'vagina' in Latin means 'sheath' or 'scabbard', personally my **** is not a place holder for a penis and if I was a homosexual female, the word vagina would not apply to me

This, on the other hand, is all utter bollocks. Yes the latin origin of 'vagina' may well be sheath/scabbard, but we don't speak latin and haven't done so for a considerable length of time. It's stupid to thing that to the average person 'vagina' means anything other than female genitalia and, even to people who know the etymology, that people who use the word 'vagina' are attaching connotations that don't exist in english.

[DesertShark]

Really? That's genuinely interesting, I've not heard that before. Where/when was it used in such a manner.
Prior to the 17th century, I'm waiting on the book where I read it so I can give a proper citation.


This, on the other hand, is all utter bollocks. Yes the latin origin of 'vagina' may well be sheath/scabbard, but we do n't speak latin and haven't done so for a considerable length of time. It's stupid to thing that to the average person 'vagina' means anything other than female genitalia and, even to people who know the etymology, that people who use the word 'vagina' are attaching connotations that don't exist in english.
Is it? Definitions from dictionary.com would prove otherwise. (all emphasis mine)

1.Anatomy, Zoology.
a.the passage leading from the uterus to the vulva in certain female mammals. Compare oviduct (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=oviduct).
b.a sheathlike part or organ.
2.Botany. the sheath formed by the basal part of certain leaves where they embrace the stem.
[Dictionary.com Unabridged and The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language]

1. The genital canal in the female, leading from the opening of the vulva to the cervix of the uterus.
2. A sheathlike anatomical structure.
[The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary]

1. (Anat.) (a) A sheath; a theca; as, the vagina of the portal vein. (b) Specifically, the canal which leads from the uterus to the external orifice if the genital canal, or to the cloaca
[Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary]
As you can see, it is part of the accepted meaning of the word. I agree that there a decent amount of people who wouldn't think of it in that manner, but that doesn't mean it's not part of what the word means.

-DesertShark

[Jazzratt]

Is it? Definitions from dictionary.com would prove otherwise. (all emphasis mine)

So it does. I stand corrected.


As you can see, it is part of the accepted meaning of the word.

Strictly speaking yes, but given the casual use of the word not only doesn't connote sheaths to most people who haven't spent time looking into it or even, indeed, to people who are aware of the meaning. Hell in most informal uses the word vagina is used to refer to the entirety of the female genetalia (including vulva, cervix and so on), which I notice is also not part of the definitions given by dictionary.com. Words are defined by their usage, not by their definition by academics (after all "****", presumably through usage, changed meaning through usage since the 17th century to cite a pertinent example.).


I agree that there a decent amount of people who wouldn't think of it in that manner, but that doesn't mean it's not part of what the word means.

But adding connotations to a word that aren't the intent of the speaker is stupid. I can assure you that outside of biology* lessons a few years back I've never heared the word vagina used by anyone to mean - not to put too fine a point on it - "cock-sheath".

* Interestingly it seems the only context where the meaning of vagina being "sheath" or "sheath-like" is when it is being used formally - this leads to a much more interesting set of thoughts on whether or not formal scientific (specifically biological) language has a "masculine" or phallocentric lean. Much more interesting that what you would rather call your genitals.

[DesertShark]

This is a quote from ****: A Declaration of Independence by Inga Musico (pages 5-6).

I looked up the word "****" in Barbara G. Walker's twenty-five-year research opus, The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, and found it was indeed a title, back in the day. "****" is related to words from India, China, Ireland, Rome and Egypt. Such words were either titles of respect for women, priestesses and witches, or derivatives of the names of various goddess:

In ancient writings, the word for "****" was synonymous with "woman," though not in the insulting modern sense. An Egyptologist was shocked to find maxims of Ptah-Hotep "used for 'woman' a term that was more than blunt," though its indelicacy was not in the eye of the ancient beholder, only in that of the modern scholar. (Walker, 1983, 197)

[Decolonize The Left]

Read that book! It will change how you think about the word. Like I explained before, vagina is more demeaning then ****.

-DesertShark

I cannot read the book as I do not have it in my possession - perhaps I will acquire it in the future. But for now, I wish to say that your argument that '****' meant different things back in the day is not logical.

"****" is no longer used as a positive term for women. It is a derogatory term. To use such a term when referring to someone is to associate that individual with the female genitals in a negative fashion - it is sexist.

I'm all for oppressed social groups reclaiming derogatory words - But as a male I do not feel comfortable using the word "****" and I feel that it is logical to conclude that the use of such a term is sexist.

- August

[Module]

I disagree with both of you, AugustWest and DesertShark because I don't accept the premise that the word '****' is used in reference to female genitalia specifically, and therefore in reference to the female sex or femininity.
I tend to use the word **** a lot, as do a lot of people where I live and that I know, and as a woman I don't find it even remotely offensive, or know of any women (personally) that find it offensive.
The fact that the word **** also can refer to a vagina doesn't mean that it is in all contexts, or holds those connotations.
In comparison, the word 'pussy', for instance, is a sexist word, because it is in direct reference to the vagina, and relates to 'feminine' qualities. It is used in an emasculatory way.
When you call somebody a ****, on the other hand, you are not saying they're feminine, and **** also meaning vagina is completely irrelevant to it's usage.
The word ****, in Australia, has never had any sexist connotations.
The word is not used to or by any gender specifically (that is, in it's common usage which is really all that we should care about) and doesn't refer to any 'gendered' qualities. It does not degrade women, and it's simply not a sexist word.

So, I voted 'I'm a woman; I don't think the word is sexist', (ages ago, actually, but I never posted).
**** is a great word.

[Pogue]

I think its fine to say it. But then again, I am a ****, so.

[Decolonize The Left]

I disagree with both of you, AugustWest and DesertShark because I don't accept the premise that the word '****' is used in reference to female genitalia specifically, and therefore in reference to the female sex or femininity.
I tend to use the word **** a lot, as do a lot of people where I live and that I know, and as a woman I don't find it even remotely offensive, or know of any women (personally) that find it offensive.
The fact that the word **** also can refer to a vagina doesn't mean that it is in all contexts, or holds those connotations.
In comparison, the word 'pussy', for instance, is a sexist word, because it is in direct reference to the vagina, and relates to 'feminine' qualities. It is used in an emasculatory way.
When you call somebody a ****, on the other hand, you are not saying they're feminine, and **** also meaning vagina is completely irrelevant to it's usage.
The word ****, in Australia, has never had any sexist connotations.
The word is not used to or by any gender specifically (that is, in it's common usage which is really all that we should care about) and doesn't refer to any 'gendered' qualities. It does not degrade women, and it's simply not a sexist word.

So, I voted 'I'm a woman; I don't think the word is sexist', (ages ago, actually, but I never posted).
**** is a great word.

I have never been to Australia (though I hear it's pretty cool), and have not been to a place where the word '****' was not a derogatory term. I base my argument upon personal interactions with women who find the term sexist and derogatory, as well as every dictionary I can muster at the moment:

1 usually obscene : the female genital organs ; also : sexual intercourse with a woman
2 usually disparaging & obscene : woman 1a


1. the vulva or vagina.
2. Disparaging and Offensive. a. a woman. b. a contemptible person.
3. sexual intercourse with a woman.

**** (countable (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#countable) and uncountable (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#uncountable); plural ****s (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/****s))
(UK, US, vulgar, slang (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#slang), countable (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Glossary#C)) The female genitalia (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/genitalia), especially the vulva (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulva).

So I see it as a derogatory term, and hence to use the word to refer to an individual is to negatively associate an individual with the female genitals which is sexist.

- August

[Revy]

I think it's interesting that only 8% of people that voted were female. Whoa!

But anyway, I don't use the word **** and never have. However, I always after becoming a male feminist had a problem not using the word "*****". For me, I felt it was either a gender neutral insult or the female version of "asshole", I didn't consider my use of the word to be sexist....but I stopped using it anyway.

[Jazzratt]

I think it's interesting that only 8% of people that voted were female. Whoa!

We have an astonishingly low female membership, despite trying to rectify this many times nothing seems to have helped.


However, I always after becoming a male feminist had a problem not using the word "*****". For me, I felt it was either a gender neutral insult or the female version of "asshole", I didn't consider my use of the word to be sexist....but I stopped using it anyway.

I've never heard the word "*****" be used as a gender-neutral term for a person (well, as a verb it can be applied to either gender but it still has sexist overtones) in the same way as, say, ****, asshole, prick, twat or, well, pretty much anything else.

[Shadowed Intent]

To me it is just the way it sounds that I find terrible, it really has a sense of violence when being spoken.

[iloveche]

comes from the word "ur gay"

[Module]

To me it is just the way it sounds that I find terrible, it really has a sense of violence when being spoken.
I can see how you would think that. That's how I feel about the '*****', often, when people use it.
I think, however, it depends on how it is said.

But anyway, I don't use the word **** and never have. However, I always after becoming a male feminist had a problem not using the word "*****". For me, I felt it was either a gender neutral insult or the female version of "asshole", I didn't consider my use of the word to be sexist....but I stopped using it anyway.It depends on it's usage, but I'm sure you recognise that the word is used differently to men and women, yes?
When it's used towards men it is used in an emasculatory way, to call them inferior/unassertive/feminine.
The word '*****' doesn't just mean 'asshole', but 'asshole in a typically feminine way'. Obviously not all the time it's used like that, but those are it's common connotations, like that's why gossiping negatively about people is called '*****ing'.
From what I can see the word '*****' is used to refer to a woman who thinks she is better than what she is, when a woman is called a '*****' by a man (not all of the time, but often) it is an assertion of the woman's inferiority, a lot of time it seems an assertion of the woman's inferiority because she is just a woman.
The term '*****' is used to insult women for being women, and it's used in that way also to insult men.
That's why the word '*****' is sexist. It's obviously lost a lot of it's 'oomph' nowadays heh but it is still offensive and is still a sexist word.

[Rascolnikova]

Words are their usage.

I would be happy to use "****" in a feminist context that draws on it's history, but in every day speech, the contextual undertones of misogyny associated with the word would certainly prevent me.

[gorillafuck]

A lot of people on internet message boards tend to assume that the other users are male because once again they subconsciously assume male until told otherwise.
Look at the number of females compared to males. It's not sexist to assume someone is male on a forum like RevLeft due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of us are male.

[Revolutionary Youth]

Dude, do you know that Shakespeare also made a pun on this "****"?

In "Hamlet", Hamlet said to Ophelia "Do you think I mean country matter?". Since "count" actually pronounced similar to "****", he made a fine pun indeed! Or for more specific "double entendre"! I think that's quite good when you are insulting someone! :laugh:

[Sean]

Dude, do you know that Shakespeare also made a pun on this "****"?

In "Hamlet", Hamlet said to Ophelia "Do you think I mean country matter?". Since "count" actually pronounced similar to "****", he made a fine pun indeed! Or for more specific "double entendre"! I think that's quite good when you are insulting someone! :laugh:

A better example of Shakespearian pussy jokes is in Twelfth Night, when Malvolio finds the forged letter:

"By my life, this is my lady's hand these be her very C's, her U's and her T's and thus makes she her great P's."
The word is supposed to be offensive. I've never used it to describe anatomy, only people. It's not sexist, no matter what the rest of you ****s think. ;)

[Patchd]

Does the word '****' actually posit a sexist reference to the female gender, or was it simply used as an offensive word due to its nature of being a sexual organ, something considered taboo, such as 'dick', 'nob', 'cock', 'prick' or 'bellend' is used in the same way?

[communard resolution]

Here's the world's longest list of slang terms for vagina that I found somewhere on the web. I wonder which ones are sexist and which aren't? Maybe we could start a separate thread on each one.

Disclaimer: I'm providing this list for purely educational purposes - doesn't mean I endorse these terms, neither have I invented them. If easily offended, don't read.

[Deleted]

[Pirate Utopian]

:laugh: cum crack. lolz.

[hugsandmarxism]

I only use it for Ann Coulter, who is a real ****, but other than that I hate that word. I think that it's sexism depends on it's usage, but it's just unpleasant to me. I prefer pussy. Pussy sounds nicer.

[Jazzratt]

Why the fuck did someone see fit to resurrect this? The discussion is so fucking boring.

[hugsandmarxism]

sorry about that ;)

[Killfacer]

sorry about that ;)

What evil necromancy is this?

[ls]

mods trash or lock this thread once and forall

[Dóchas]

hee hee bone polisher :laugh:

[hugsandmarxism]

Here's the world's longest list of slang terms for vagina that I found somewhere on the web. I wonder which ones are sexist and which aren't? Maybe we could start a separate thread on each one.

Disclaimer: I'm providing this list for purely educational purposes - doesn't mean I endorse these terms, neither have I invented them. If easily offended, don't read.

[...]

The person who alphabetizes this, and gets rid of the repeats, will forever have my respect. :D

[Ephydriad]

the word is a source of empowerment for me.
see **** by inga muscio.
the real sexist word we should be getting rid of is 'vagina'.
as the word has its roots in the latin for "sword sheath"
that's right -- you're meant to be sheathin' swords and that's it.
it also posits 'sword' as a powerful symbol, a power of male dominance...
now that's sexist.

[Module]

Nero the Emperor:- I would say a lot of those are 'sexist', is one respect or another.
I would also say it's totally unnecessary to post that list, so I'm deleting it. Anybody who wants to know slang terms for vagina can easily Google it (like anyone would give a shit).

This topic has been clearly discussed to death. I'm closing this thread.