But If We Started Dating It Would Ruin Our Friendship...

[Il Medico]

When you wrote this, which head were you thinking with?

I was being my statical ass self to prove a point. I usually refrain from low blows like that. I also regret that you would think my comment was merely motivated by a macho sense of male superiority. However Bilan, you don't know me well enough, so I forgive you.

[Wanted Man]

Anyway, I thought it was a funny article, reminded me of this:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31035

That one was pretty funny too. It reminded me of a pretty recent experience, actually, and put a different light on it. So let's hope there won't be anyone taking offense at this evil piece of oppressive satire too (see below).

As for the discussion that has developed, well, I'm certainly not going to be apologetic about the fact that I think "womyn", "wimmin", etc. is ridiculous. The reasons for this have been summed up all over this forum millions of times. For example, how there's no scientific proof that the language we use now is "oppressive". What someone said about how the word "man" is really still in there, but just with a different vowel. Or gonzeau, about how it's an utterly idealist way to deal with oppression.

There is plenty of principled criticism of this usage to be found just about anywhere on the left. So it's not really surprising that it's going to be satirised when someone seriously uses it in Chit Chat, in a thread that deals with satire in the first place. The original post satirised some things that a lot of people probably have experience with, it's not supposed to be some serious statement about how "feminists are oppressing us American men" or whatever.

What I personally find offensive, is when people rail against this kind of satire as if it perpetuates oppression. Of course, it does the contrary, it exposes the often ridiculous social norms that exist in society in a pretty funny way, and makes us think. I have a feeling that a lot of people are not interested in dealing with oppression itself, but in simply trying to sweep any thought or discussion of it, including satire, under the rug, just to be safe.

I also don't think PF was "shouted down" unfairly. Her own first post in this thread basically consisted of a strawman of the article and a personal attack on RP.

[Module]

In reference to some of the posts being made in this thread, no, language is not irrelevant. Language is a big part of our culture and reflects and informs the sexism that exists within it. Language is a major part of how human beings communicate with one another and therefore a major part of how social structure is established within the consciousness of individuals. With what language we communicate with does effect how the message is recieved. It sends a very clear message itself.
When some feminists use the spelling 'womyn', instead of 'woman', it is to draw attention to certain features of our language which are taken for granted. Their being taken for granted is evident in Captain Jack's claim that to change the spelling is to replace 'patriarchy' with 'matriarchy'. Erm, no, it isn't. To remove the word 'man' from 'woman' is not 'anti-man', it's 'anti-patriarchy'. Whether it is the result of sexism that the word 'woman' contains 'man', or that the word 'man' has come to mean 'male' instead of 'human' (which I think is more likely), it is clear that something is amiss. It doesn't mean that this particular instance needs a change of spelling to make it more equal. I doubt any user of the word would claim that as their intention. The spelling of 'man' and 'woman' is, I would say, now irrelevant to modern day sexism. But it's used to draw attention to certain aspects of our culture, of which language is a very meaningful part, which most don't consciously think about. It gets people thinking. That is certainly something useful.
I do think it's far too easy for some men to brush off alternate spellings of the word 'woman' as stupid, silly or irrelevant. This disregard of sexism in language is an easy-win battle for chauvinistic men. As PF pointed out, it's used to disregard the wider and more important message that woman are trying to send.
The same thing happens when feminists take issue with using the word 'he' to describe an unknown human being, though clearly there is a more obvious problem with that. The criticisms are made in the same vein. 'That's so stupid, nobody thinks about that' or 'You're such a nit-picker, you don't have any important arguments to make'. They're little things people take for granted, and people don't want to have to go through the stresses of reconsidering something they thought had escaped criticism. Like the naughty little boy whose stash of Snickers bars was discovered after he already had to give up having chocolate cake for breakfast thanks to his mum who is 'soooo unfair!!'.
Personally, PF, I don't like the use of the word 'womyn' but I won't explain myself here because I don't want some arsehole adopting my perfectly reasonable argument as an excuse to keep ridiculing the people who do use it.

[Invader Zim]

That's not original, funny or really called for? Like you enjoy provoking and mocking women who use feminist spellings? Congrats, waive your dick around while you're at it bro.

The old english word for 'woman' was 'wyfman', the prefix 'wyf' indicating that the individual is female, the 'wo' being a mutation from the origional 'wyf'. 'Man' actually translates to 'person', rather than the common understanding of the term. 'Wyf' of course meant 'wife', thus 'wo' actually means 'wife'. So a woman was called a 'wife person'. So it is somewhat amusing that this limited minority of 'feminists' who employ 'womyn' are actually retaining the patriarchal part of the word which suggests that their purpose in society is to act as wives and altering the part of the word which indicate that they are people.

Can anyone spell 'iryny'?

[Black Dagger]

IZ, you're not telling me anything i haven't heard before.

[New Tet]

H-L-V-S


New Tet:

When I write big posts explaining Marxism-Leninism in detail, everyone gives me positive rep and "thanks", and the issue of my spelling variant never comes up.

When I write something related to gender inequality, my spelling variant is the first thing they use to put me in my place.

I'm unpleasantly surprised to see that some of the people here taking a chauvenist line are not the usual suspects for this sort of thing.

The article that prompted my reply is undisputably written for a male audience. The gender roles in the narrative are well defined as males and females, "boyfriends" and "girlfriends".

I took issue with the outlook, and very few people made an effort to even address what I actually said (except for RP, who was the initiator of the thread). Instead, I got "the stick", deluged in ad hominem attacks about my spelling variant.

I saw this reaction coming, but I still had to say something.

Call me ignorant, but I have yet to find a way to combat satire seriously without inviting "the stick".

[Invader Zim]

IZ, you're not telling me anything i haven't heard before.

I was attempting to show that mockery is precisely what is called for when dealing with the tiny minority of feminists who actually employ terms such as 'womyn', not only because it shows that they are utterly disconnected from those they claim to be trying to liberate, but also because the term 'womyn' doesn't actually make any sense if you look at it.

[Jazzratt]

I was being my statical ass self to prove a point.

The point you proved is that you're an unreconstructed ape.

I usually refrain from low blows like that.

But if you were being your "statical ass" self doesn't that indicate you're at least prone to that.

I also regret that you would think my comment was merely motivated by a macho sense of male superiority.

Of course it wasn't, I mean who could possibly interpret this:

Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly.

As being motivated by a macho sense of male superiority.

I think it bears repeating:

Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly.

I mean jesus next you'll be telling us that PF's brain is going to overheat if she keeps trying to join in the men's conversation about english.

And just once more, so that it sinks in how much of a pillock you are:

Listen honey, to be frank, you look silly.

I also regret that you would think my comment was merely motivated by a macho sense of male superiority.

However Bilan, you don't know me well enough, so I forgive you.

I think you're confused about who oes apology to whom and who owes forgiveness to whom.

[Invader Zim]

Instead, I got "the stick", deluged in ad hominem attacks about my spelling variant.

How can they be ad hominems if the content of your post was attacked?

[NecroCommie]

You posted the "lolwut"-pear!!!
You are soooooo awesome!! I owe you some rep for that...

[New Tet]

The point you proved is that you're an unreconstructed ape.
But if you were being your "statical ass" self doesn't that indicate you're at least prone to that.
Of course it wasn't, I mean who could possibly interpret this:
As being motivated by a macho sense of male superiority.
I think it bears repeating:
[Honey]
I mean jesus next you'll be telling us that PF's brain is going to overheat if she keeps trying to join in the men's conversation about english.
And just once more, so that it sinks in how much of a pillock you are:
[HONEY!]
I think you're confused about who oes apology to whom and who owes forgiveness to whom.

Being the Latino macho-man that I am (prone to fear of articulate, assertive women and frequent attacks of gay panic) I warn all you guys out there: Throw a "honey" my way and I will bloody your nose!

[ZeroNowhere]

What the hell.

So far as using the term womyn/womin/womon is concerned, I hardly think that its going to change social relations - but no one claims it is. Its point is to challenge patriarchal language/thinking, regardless of what the etymology of the word is. Frankly, someone (and I mean mainly men or as the case may be on this forum, little boys) trying to correct a womyn's spelling and point out that 'no, honey, its not spelt like dat!!!', comes across as obnoxious and dismissive.

All attempts at unjustly portraying people as patriarchal and/or patronising are to be treated without mercy, as it is petit-bourgeois and characteristic of middle class Amerikkkan whites.

[Bilan]

I was being my statical ass self to prove a point. I usually refrain from low blows like that. I also regret that you would think my comment was merely motivated by a macho sense of male superiority. However Bilan, you don't know me well enough, so I forgive you.

I was implying you were being an asshole when you said it, and that it was disgustingly patronizing.
That sort of behaviour isn't appropriate on here, by any means. Let this be the end of it.

[Il Medico]

The point you proved is that you're an unreconstructed ape.

Well that's not very nice.

But if you were being your "statical ass" self doesn't that indicate you're at least prone to that.

Yes. However, I have made a concerted effort to avoid insulting those I disagree with on this forum.

Of course it wasn't, I mean who could possibly interpret this:

As being motivated by a macho sense of male superiority.

I think it bears repeating:


I mean jesus next you'll be telling us that PF's brain is going to overheat if she keeps trying to join in the men's conversation about english.

1. I was not talking to PF. I was addressing illian, who had previously used the comment 'honey' in accusing those who took issue with the misspelling of woman, to be chauvinist pigs. To tell the truth, it was a last minuate add, that was only put in after her rather nasty reply to my appology to PF and explaination why I critized the spelling.

And just once more, so that it sinks in how much of a pillock you are:

Once again not nice, or in context since you obivouly did bother reading my other post or the post of the person I was addressing. And if it makes you feel better, I call lots of people honey, men and women. It is a term of endearment. I love and judge people for who they are, not their gender. Getting more people to share this view is not forwarded by misspelling woman.

I think you're confused about who oes apology to whom and who owes forgiveness to whom.

Again, you seem to not had much context on my statement when you commented on it. This goes against your usual careful critque of others post, which I have admired in the past.

Love,
Captain Jack

[Il Medico]

I was implying you were being an asshole when you said it, and that it was disgustingly patronizing.
That sort of behaviour isn't appropriate on here, by any means. Let this be the end of it.

I was being a prick, I'll give you that. Apologize for the comment, I was a bit angry at the person I was addressing at the time.

[ZeroNowhere]

I was not talking to PF. I was addressing illian, who had previously used the comment 'honey' in accusing those who took issue with the misspelling of woman, to be chauvinist pigs.

As should have been a lot more evident than it seems to be.

[Le Libérer]

This is why you choose shortly after meeting a girl if you want to try and date them or just be friends so if its the former you can avoid the friend zone.

I hate to inform you of this, but women are the ones who decide if there will be friendship or sex.

[Il Medico]

I hate to inform you of this, but women are the ones who decide if there will be friendship or sex.

Umm... this is not always the case. Your statement assumes that it is the man going after the woman. It completely ignores the possibility of the woman wanting the man, in which case, the sex or friendship issue would be the man choice. Plus, I think comrade Joe was saying that men should either pick to go after a sexual relationship or friendship when they meet a girl or guy.

[Il Medico]

What the hell.
All attempts at unjustly portraying people as patriarchal and/or patronising are to be treated without mercy, as it is petit-bourgeois and characteristic of middle class Amerikkkan whites.

I agree with you. However, the assertion that all white middle class people are associated with the KKK was unnecessary. I agree that they are over privileged suburb kids who really have no perspective on class struggle. However, if they would like to engage people who know what they are talking about or are actually part of the oppressed class. Then I welcome them. However, the mudslinging is not welcomed. I completely agree.

[Jazzratt]

Well that's not very nice.

Nor am I.

Yes. However, I have made a concerted effort to avoid insulting those I disagree with on this forum.

I'm at a complete loss as to why you'd bother...

1. I was not talking to PF. I was addressing illian, who had previously used the comment 'honey' in accusing those who took issue with the misspelling of woman, to be chauvinist pigs. To tell the truth, it was a last minuate add, that was only put in after her rather nasty reply to my appology to PF and explaination why I critized the spelling.

Ah that's okay then, you were being a dismissive jerk to a different woman. Glad that's all sorted. Wait...

Once again not nice, or in context since you obivouly did bother reading my other post or the post of the person I was addressing. And if it makes you feel better, I call lots of people honey, men and women. It is a term of endearment.

Yes but using it in this context; directed against a woman who has a grievance with you and followed by a simple dismissal ("you look silly") it does make you look like a chauvanist dipshit regardless of intent. Also from what I understand most women find being called things like "honey", "sugar", "darling" etc by strange men to be creepy and patronising rather than endearing.

I love and judge people for who they are, not their gender. Getting more people to share this view is not forwarded by misspelling woman.

I really don't give a shit how people spell woman. Personally I don't think it's going to help much but I also recognise that it is a deliberate and (for the most part) thought out alternate spelling rather than something that should simply be dismissed as a "misspelling". So while it's a spelling I wouldn't use and wouldn't encourage others to I don't simply dismiss it out of hand.

Again, you seem to not had much context on my statement when you commented on it. This goes against your usual careful critque of others post, which I have admired in the past.

Fair enough. I still don't think anyone you've directed a post at in this thread needs your forgivness, though.