Bidisha; Casual sexism is nothing but misogyny

[Widerstand]

[QUOTE=bcbm;1822318]its still "pc."[/quoite]

Right. Point taken.

as for *****, i don't really care to discuss this. it'll just go around in circles and i don't care that much tbh.

Yeah, I much agree.

[9]

That's definitely not the meaning of the word I'm used to. As far as I'm concerned, a ***** is a person who well, *****es - eg. is picky about a lot of stuff, complains over minor details, stirrs up drama and makes a fuss.

Yes, someone who 'acts like a *****' - i.e. like a woman. Which is a statement about how women are perceived to act: "picky about a lot of stuff, complains over minor details, stirrs up drama and makes a fuss", and is only degrading/devaluing as an insult by virtue of the fact that it compares someone to a woman. I'm not saying its an important point of debate, and I'm not at all interested in getting into a long-drawn-out argument about language, but I don't understand how the connotations of the insult can fail to even register.


Anyway. Look, I don't agree with the article (although a couple of the observations come sort of close to hitting a point, but mostly just remain treading around the periphery), which is too caught up in a liberal, middle class perspective to really resonate in a meaningful way imo. I think it is childish and counterproductive to blame double standards and unequal division of domestic labor (etc.) on individual male "woman-haters". These are not "individual attitudes" (and overwhelmingly they are unconscious and often don't involve "hatred" at all); they are broad social and cultural attitudes - to which no one, male or female, is immune - that reflect underlying material realities. To then blame individual men (as "woman-haters") essentially for being in a marriage/family, which almost by definition means having a wife that does a disproportionate amount of domestic labor because that has (explicitly or implicitly) been a mainstay of the institutions of marriage and family for as long as they have existed as institutions, accomplishes absolutely nothing except to immediately put people on the defensive when they might otherwise have been receptive to constructive criticism. Blaming social oppression on 'bad individuals' only serves to obscure and conceal the real root of the problem.
It doesn't mean that we should abstain from addressing bigoted attitudes, but rather, that we can't address bigoted attitudes effectively if we completely misunderstand the root causes for them.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

They have starbucks in England now too?

There may be a cultural barrier here, but I can happily remember several times when I was hanging out with some of my friends as us just a group of girls talking (to express context I will keep the words exactly the same and not drop the vernacular which I usually do to sound smarter.) These are several quotes from in a room with no guys:

"Girl, you lookin ugly."

"*****, you got me twisted."

Were these quotes sexist. They were said with out any guys in the room amongst several girls.

[Adi Shankara]

I think it is childish and counterproductive to blame double standards and unequal division of domestic labor (etc.) on individual male "woman-haters". These are not "individual attitudes" (and overwhelmingly they are unconscious and often don't involve "hatred" at all); they are broad social and cultural attitudes - to which no one, male or female, is immune - that reflect underlying material realities

What if the woman in the relationship actually wants to be doing all the domestic housework, and being the "retro-housewife"? what if that is her forte, what she sees as her ideal occupation, is to be a homemaker?

I am by no means saying we should enforce this lifestyle on everyone, but to imply that none at would want to live like this is kind've a stretch.

also, don't forget, there are men who want to be stay-at-home dad's too, and many are these days. while they are still prevalent in society, this narrative just doesn't work these days.

"Girl, you lookin ugly."

"*****, you got me twisted."
.

of course not, the reason being is...well...um....sexism is apparently okay when it's done amongst the sex in question...

(And no, it's not like the word "Nigga"; that word was turned around and has been used in a friendly fraternal manner for many years amongst African Americans; I don't see anyone calling each other "*****" in a friendly manner, unless in a tongue in cheek way).

[9]

What if the woman in the relationship actually wants to be doing all the domestic housework, and being the "retro-housewife"? what if that is her forte, what she sees as her ideal occupation, is to be a homemaker?

I am by no means saying we should enforce this lifestyle on everyone, but to imply that none at would want to live like this is kind've a stretch.

also, don't forget, there are men who want to be stay-at-home dad's too, and many are these days. while they are still prevalent in society, this narrative just doesn't work these days.



of course not, the reason being is...well...um....sexism is apparently okay when it's done amongst the sex in question...

(And no, it's not like the word "Nigga"; that word was turned around and has been used in a friendly fraternal manner for many years amongst African Americans; I don't see anyone calling each other "*****" in a friendly manner, unless in a tongue in cheek way).

I don't really see much to respond to here, it's just some vague nonsensical assertions that don't really have much to do with anything being discussed.

[RED DAVE]

"*****" is not as strong as the n-word, but it is used in a very similar way. It is not the same as "prick" or "dickhead": it is much stronger and more demeaning, just like "****" is much stronger than "dick."

And who decides this?

This is decided by public practice, by political struggles, etc.

I can promise you when most people say the word "*****", the last thing on their mind is oppressing and keeping women at the back of the bus.

And I can promise you that the word is demeaning, degrading and sexist.

I use the word all the time; I call male friends that (I use the Russian word "suka"), and I call women "dickheads" sometimes.

What you do with friends may be another question. But to use words such as these, especially in public, is sexism in action.

I don't see exactly how these words are so oppressive.

Okay, you don't see it. I understand that. Then it is time that you learned that to refer to a woman using a word that means a female dog and carries the connotation of being temperamental and angry is sexist.

they aren't even sexist in nature.

Nothing is sexist by nature. Sexism is socially defined.

maybe there is something I am missing here, but I just don't see it.

You are missing something here.

RED DAVE

[Adi Shankara]

Okay, you don't see it. I understand that. Then it is time that you learned that to refer to a woman using a word that means a female dog and carries the connotation of being temperamental and angry is sexist. Nothing is sexist by nature. Sexism is socially defined.

Then is referring to a man as a "prick" sexist? or a bastard?

[Hiratsuka]

Words aren't sexist. How they're used is sexist. Some words may reinforce sexist attitudes, but that is a bridge one can't easily cross. A woman who wants to stay at home and stitch may also be reinforcing general attitudes by not breaking the mold, but she should live her life as she pleases without ridicule as long as she's not intentionally trying to promote the subversion of women.

What matters, ultimately, is intent. When a white person refers to a black person by the n-word, in almost all circumstances he or she is trying to demean all African-Americans. But that may not be always the case. I've heard some white teenagers use the n-word in the company of black friends to mean "pal," and none of the parties saw anything wrong by it. An outsider has no right to interject their own perceptions into this bond the these particular white and black students share.

Similarly one should look at what someone means by all profane words.

[RED DAVE]

Then is referring to a man as a "prick" sexist? or a bastard?

Words change their meanings through time. I would say that "prick" is sexist while "bastard," by now, has lost its original meaning.

As to "*****," it has by no means lost its original meaning.

RED DAVE

[Jazzratt]

Words change their meanings through time. I would say that "prick" is sexist while "bastard," by now, has lost its original meaning.

As to "*****," it has by no means lost its original meaning.

RED DAVE

I'd disagree with you here. I don't think you could describe "prick" as being at all sexist in any kind of meaningful way. I don't think it meets one of the main criteria for sexism, that is the criterion of it reenforcing or building sexist attitudes. Unlike calling women "*****es" which can, in a wider patriarchal context, be a great way of maintaining the idea of women as "lessers" I don't think calling people pricks means we think any less of men.

Personally it wouldn't concernt me too much if it could be considered "sexist" because even as a man I feel that misandry is a negligble force in the world. Whilst a sense of self-preservation makes me stop short of actually condoning it I'm prepared to ignore most examples of what people call "misandry" as just men whining.

[Adi Shankara]

I'd disagree with you here. I don't think you could describe "prick" as being at all sexist in any kind of meaningful way. I don't think it meets one of the main criteria for sexism, that is the criterion of it reenforcing or building sexist attitudes. Unlike calling women "*****es" which can, in a wider patriarchal context, be a great way of maintaining the idea of women as "lessers" I don't think calling people pricks means we think any less of men.

Personally it wouldn't concernt me too much if it could be considered "sexist" because even as a man I feel that misandry is a negligble force in the world. Whilst a sense of self-preservation makes me stop short of actually condoning it I'm prepared to ignore most examples of what people call "misandry" as just men whining.

You think way too deeply into stupid shit. No offense, but really.

a word is just a word. it only has power when it's intended use is to offend or is used in callous ignorance. the word *****, is almost never used in a sexist context these days. its like the word "****" in the UK; I've heard that word describe Wayne Rooney more than any woman. it's just a generalized insult.

words like "whore" and "slut" I can see as sexist, but not the word *****. I say it whenever I hit my toe on something, and I promise you when I do, I'm not thinking "oh, lets oppress females more with my uncouth words that no one heard utter but me!"

[Queercommie Girl]

I'd disagree with you here. I don't think you could describe "prick" as being at all sexist in any kind of meaningful way. I don't think it meets one of the main criteria for sexism, that is the criterion of it reenforcing or building sexist attitudes. Unlike calling women "*****es" which can, in a wider patriarchal context, be a great way of maintaining the idea of women as "lessers" I don't think calling people pricks means we think any less of men.

Personally it wouldn't concernt me too much if it could be considered "sexist" because even as a man I feel that misandry is a negligble force in the world. Whilst a sense of self-preservation makes me stop short of actually condoning it I'm prepared to ignore most examples of what people call "misandry" as just men whining.

Sometimes women do call ourselves *****es. I think I'm quite *****y sometimes, which is why sometimes people say they find me "annoying".

I think when a term that is objectively denigrating is used within the group that it is supposed to denigrate itself, the meaning is different as a result of the context. Consequently Chinese people calling ourselves "yellow peril" is not racist, but if a Westerner did so, it would be. There was a political novel written in mainland China which has a title literally called "yellow peril", but when this novel is translated into English, the title was changed to "China tidal wave". LGBT people calling ourselves "queer" is not the same as a straight person doing so. Black people can say to each other, "wassup, nigga" but if white people did the same it becomes different.

In short, I think men should not call women "*****es", because objectively the term is denigrating, but it's somewhat different if a woman referred to herself as a "*****".

[Adi Shankara]

Sometimes women do call ourselves *****es. I think I'm quite *****y sometimes, which is why sometimes people say they find me "annoying".

I think when a term that is objectively denigrating is used within the group that it is supposed to denigrate itself, the meaning is different as a result of the context. Consequently Chinese people calling ourselves "yellow peril" is not racist, but if a Westerner did so, it would be. There was a political novel written in mainland China which has a title literally called "yellow peril", but when this novel is translated into English, the title was changed to "China tidal wave". LGBT people calling ourselves "queer" is not the same as a straight person doing so. Black people can say to each other, "wassup, nigga" but if white people did the same it becomes different.

In short, I think men should not call women "*****es", because objectively the term is denigrating, but it's somewhat different if a woman referred to herself as a "*****".

But the word is not the same as "nigger". one was an insult used to demean an entire ethnicity and to degenerate them and belittle them completely, demoralizing their culture and their heritage.

the other is just an insult that is pretty much gender neutral these days.

[Queercommie Girl]

But the word is not the same as "nigger". one was an insult used to demean an entire ethnicity and to degenerate them and belittle them completely, demoralizing their culture and their heritage.

the other is just an insult that is pretty much gender neutral these days.

Some black people do use the term "nigger" amongst themselves in the neutral sense though, just like Chinese people use the term "yellow peril".

[Volcanicity]

But the word is not the same as "nigger". one was an insult used to demean an entire ethnicity and to degenerate them and belittle them completely, demoralizing their culture and their heritage.

the other is just an insult that is pretty much gender neutral these days.

Says who.Who decided that the term nigger is worse than any other.Its not a competition.

[Adi Shankara]

Says who.Who decided that the term nigger is worse than any other.Its not a competition.

who decides that the word "*****" is used in today's world as a demeaning word against women?

[Volcanicity]

who decides that the word "*****" is used in today's world as a demeaning word against women?

If women see it as demeaning to them then surely its demeaning.What i said was why is the term nigger more demeaning than any other,and who decided that.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

If women see it as demeaning to them then surely its demeaning.What i said was why is the term nigger more demeaning than any other,and who decided that.

I think it's more about context. Which woman gets to decide for all then? Since not all women find it offensive in every context.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Some black people do use the term "nigger" amongst themselves in the neutral sense though, just like Chinese people use the term "yellow peril".

Some mexicans will refer to eachother as "mojado" which translates into "wet" as in "wetback".

[Blackscare]

So what I've learned from this article and the thread that followed was that any insult lodged against a woman ever is sexist, and RED DAVE gets to tell me what I "can" and "can't" say no matter the context it may be in.