When men interject on Women's speech

[Invader Zim]

And people wonder why there are so few of us women on here...

Now that is an interesting question, because as i recall several of the strongest female posters being driven away, by none other than the board administration, one was banned, another suspended and a third removed from the CU for laughably petty reasons.

And surely, you should be critical of 555 for effectively using gender, and the charge of sexism, in plainly inappropriate malicious manner to attack members she feels are not 'onside'. A prime example being her treatment of skinz, who had the audacity to question whether a comment was sexist, whom she accused of being part of a 'boys club', in fact the same one you are now accusing me of being part of. Well, you know, it's news to me. The fact is (as a result of the internets relative anonymity, how little we actually communicate on this board and just how little I care) until this thread I didn't realise you were female.

That was no big deal, but you should have left it as an "oops, okay" and moved on.

Sorry, but no. Nothing in my opening posted warrented the abusive shit I received in return, and if you re-read my second post you will note that I wasn't at all hostile in my responce and asked only that 555 drop her attitude. And in my third post I did effectively say "oops, okay" and "move on". To quote myself, again:

"Going through what? A discussion on a healthy way people can view them selves and others? If Esperanza Xochitl, 555 or yourself have an issue with that or take offense, then quite frankly there isn't a lot to say. I didn't post anything intended to be offensive, abrasive or even judgemental, if you take it that way then like I said; there isn't a lot to say."

Yet this was ignored and the hostility continued. Sorry, but at as I noted earlier "As far as I'm concerned, this drama isn't my problem or responsibility."

[Tim Cornelis]

And people wonder why there are so few of us women on here...

This has nothing to do with gender. Invader Zim and 555 are fighting over words, semantics. Just because a one is a woman and the other a man does not mean it has anything to do with gender. They simply disagree, but gender is unnecessarily dragged into it simply because they both have a different gender.

Invader Zim disagrees with 555 because of what she said, why should that matter in regards to women as a whole? Can't a woman and man simply disagree without gender having anything to do with the disagreement?

Just because a man has a dispute with a woman does not mean gender plays any role, it could that they just... disagree.

The problem is 555 introduced gender into the mix, completely unnecessary.

Invader Zim merely expressed discomfort with the word "prize", he didn't mean anything by it other than being constructive. Mari3L replied respectfully, and it was a proper rebuttal. It could have been left at that, but 555 decided that Invader Zim should be denounced for his gender.

Gender is not relevant. At least not in this discussion. Indeed, gender divides the left (and the working class) and that is exactly what 555 did by unnecessarily dragging in 'gender':

I think you dont understand the concept of putting your needs above his after being a battered woman. Sorry, but it was for her consumption not yours or any other male who is going to dissect what one woman says to another.

What if Invader Zim was actually a woman and said exactly the same thing, would it matter? Would it make a difference? NO, because gender is irrelevant here.

Thats what happens when men try to inject what they think women should be saying to each other.

Again, unnecessarily dividing people based on gender.

And even the title (I assume was changed) is completely uncalled for:

When men interject on Women's speech

[Hit The North]

Yes, but i'm not a proponent of discourse theory mumbo jumbo. If context gives language meaning, 'grow some balls' is not necessarily a sexist phrase. It's figurative language for 'have some courage', and could very well continue to be used in a society of sexual equality. Yes, clearly the reference to masculine genetalia has its roots in real-life patriarchy - or, more specifically, in the notion that positive attributes such as courage, strength, leadership, etc. are mainly the preserve of males - but language ultimately has nothing to do with producing or reproducing male social dominance. To change the patriarchal status quo, women do indeed need to grow some balls, as do men - not change their linguistic mannerisms to suit the social-etiquette requirements of the pomo speech police.

So you recognise the material and ideological practices that give the metaphor meaning, but you choose to reject the notion that language acts back to reinforce or normalise those practices? Fair enough. You are free to treat language in an innocent and uncritical manner if you want to. However, my comment was directed to 555 who, I believe, does take these issues seriously.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

So you recognise the material and ideological practices that give the metaphor meaning, but you choose to reject the notion that language acts back to reinforce or normalise those practices? Fair enough. You are free to treat language in an innocent and uncritical manner if you want to. However, my comment was directed to 555 who, I believe, does take these issues seriously.

The fact is the phrase means absolutely nothing on it's own as with any phrase it is shaped by context. It's shaped by who's saying it, what they are getting at with it and who they are directing it at.
For example, if I refer to myself as a cold-hearted ***** that would be different than some guy using that exact same phrase to refer to me. Like when my mom told me I was being a *****, my view was she has a point. When my dad called me a slut, I took offense even though it wasn't far from the truth.
Now 555 was saying something to me about an aspect of my life that she is well aware of and well informed and had prior knowledge of the entire situation leading up to this so she felt (understandably so) like Zim's injection into the conversation and criticism of her comforting me was uncalled for. She was (quite understandably) heated over that. She bit back as most of us would and what she said was quite based out of common language in the US. I know my homegurls and I told each other to grow a pair in conversation many times and it has absolutely nothing to do with the original meaning.

[Vanguard1917]

So you recognise the material and ideological practices that give the metaphor meaning,

And i recognise that words and phrases have the capacity to evolve beyond their original meanings and connotations. Case in point: the offending post, by a woman, in this thread.

However, my comment was directed to 555 who, I believe, does take these issues seriously.

Then you'd be right to point out an inconsistency (assuming it exists).

[Frank Zapatista]

The fact is the phrase means absolutely nothing on it's own as with any phrase it is shaped by context. It's shaped by who's saying it, what they are getting at with it and who they are directing it at.
For example, if I refer to myself as a cold-hearted ***** that would be different than some guy using that exact same phrase to refer to me. Like when my mom told me I was being a *****, my view was she has a point. When my dad called me a slut, I took offense even though it wasn't far from the truth.
Now 555 was saying something to me about an aspect of my life that she is well aware of and well informed and had prior knowledge of the entire situation leading up to this so she felt (understandably so) like Zim's injection into the conversation and criticism of her comforting me was uncalled for. She was (quite understandably) heated over that. She bit back as most of us would and what she said was quite based out of common language in the US. I know my homegurls and I told each other to grow a pair in conversation many times and it has absolutely nothing to do with the original meaning.

You're right, it's all about context. In this context there was a woman telling a man to grow a pair (to act in a masculine manner) in the context she used it, it was offensive. The phrase has no other meaning than "act in a stereotypically male fashion" so even according to your examples laid out, it was sexist. When she (a woman) said it to a man, the context she was using it in was more than laid out.

[Frank Zapatista]

She bit back as most of us would and what she said was quite based out of common language in the US. I know my homegurls and I told each other to grow a pair in conversation many times and it has absolutely nothing to do with the original meaning.

Common language in the US, yes, much like calling someone a faggot or a pussy. The previous point by vanguard also applies here (that the phrase could supposed by used in a gender equal society). Often the argument for using the word faggot is that they arent using it to refer to homosexuals but rather in a similar manner as pussy or the phrase in question (informing someone they are acting outside of the gender norms). Would you say its okay to use this phrase in those circumstances? All your previous arguments still apply. Could the word faggot be used in a post-revolutionary society? What if its used the way it commonly is now?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

You're right, it's all about context. In this context there was a woman telling a man to grow a pair (to act in a masculine manner) in the context she used it, it was offensive. The phrase has no other meaning than "act in a stereotypically male fashion" so even according to your examples laid out, it was sexist. When she (a woman) said it to a man, the context she was using it in was more than laid out.

The fact is, women are a historically oppressed group that are still systematically oppressed to this day. Men are the ones who in this sense dominate the world. The power dynamics are two very different things. I know I'm coming off like a borderline feminist separatist here but I believe this perspective has some merit.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Common language in the US, yes, much like calling someone a faggot or a pussy. The previous point by vanguard also applies here (that the phrase could supposed by used in a gender equal society). Often the argument for using the word faggot is that they arent using it to refer to homosexuals but rather in a similar manner as pussy or the phrase in question (informing someone they are acting outside of the gender norms). Would you say its okay to use this phrase in those circumstances? All your previous arguments still apply. Could the word faggot be used in a post-revolutionary society? What if its used the way it commonly is now?

It is soooo pussy that I got to have such a great time with my friends bringing in the new year!

I'm not a gay man, seeing how I'm a woman who prefers to be called a dyke as opposed to gay...

But I remember one of my friends who was one of the coolest most bad ass queer anarchists I've known once said "there are people who are just gay and then there are fags, I'm a fag"

He said that implying that being a fag just makes you more awesome than if you're just gay

[Le Libérer]

The fact is the phrase means absolutely nothing on it's own as with any phrase it is shaped by context. It's shaped by who's saying it, what they are getting at with it and who they are directing it at.
For example, if I refer to myself as a cold-hearted ***** that would be different than some guy using that exact same phrase to refer to me. Like when my mom told me I was being a *****, my view was she has a point. When my dad called me a slut, I took offense even though it wasn't far from the truth.
Now 555 was saying something to me about an aspect of my life that she is well aware of and well informed and had prior knowledge of the entire situation leading up to this so she felt (understandably so) like Zim's injection into the conversation and criticism of her comforting me was uncalled for. She was (quite understandably) heated over that. She bit back as most of us would and what she said was quite based out of common language in the US. I know my homegurls and I told each other to grow a pair in conversation many times and it has absolutely nothing to do with the original meaning.

And this is why I love you, my Beauty. <3
To us!



And to hell with the attempts of male victimage that is so rampant here!

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

And this is why I love you, my Beauty. <3

Awww... You kick ass, Princess Charming! <3

[Kitty_Paine]

The fact is, women are a historically oppressed group that are still systematically oppressed to this day. Men are the ones who in this sense dominate the world. The power dynamics are two very different things. I know I'm coming off like a borderline feminist separatist here but I believe this perspective has some merit.

I'd have to agree, regardless of context and the "meaning" that's put into a word by the person saying it, calling a woman "*****" has more power and affect that calling a man "*****". Obviously the exact affect it has will differ depending on who you say it to and who is saying it, but generally speaking, this cannot be denied. And like mentioned this is due to to the word's and women's history.

While I do agree that a lot of a word's meaning comes from how it's meant and the context surrounding it, it can't be denied that certain words have underlying meaning that still follows them regardless of the circumstances. But again this also has to do with the person recieving it. Do they care? How do they personally see the word and its meaning?

Even with everything that has been said, everything comes back to how a person percieves the meaning of the word directed towards them. Words only have the power that you give them (I know, cliche, sue me), it's absolutely true. Everything you encounter goes through your own personal filter and becomes the reality that you, personally percieve and make for yourself. Everyone's is different and no one will ever see eye to eye on everything.

Given this I think in general people need to cease taking things others say so personally and also stop giving so much power to words. If this were the case I think people would get a long much better.

People say and do things because of how they percieve the world, just like we say or do something because of how we percieve it. If we did something it would be justified by how we see the world around us, just like when someone else does something its justified to them. So it's important to remember when someone else does something disagreeable that it was probably a justified act in the way they see their world. SO! Instead of jumping down their throats and getting angry with them, we should talk to them to try and understand why they did what they did. We should try and understand how they percieved the situation because who knows, maybe you'll end up agreeing with them or obtain a better understanding of their world. Then they won't seem like such bad people, and chances are you'll figure out that you're first angry reaction was unwarranted or misplaced.

- Just FYI, this wasn't directed towards anyone, just a general statement.

NOTE: As a general rule, it is never a good idea to get between two women talking, especially about men and the senistive issues that can bring. Whether it makes sense or not, or you feel you're right or justified in your action... just don't, lol.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'd have to agree, regardless of context and the "meaning" that's put into a word by the person saying it, calling a woman "*****" has more power and affect that calling a man "*****". Obviously the exact affect it has will differ depending on who you say it to and who is saying it, but generally speaking, this cannot be denied. And like mentioned this is due to to the word's and women's history.

While I do agree that a lot of a word's meaning comes from how it's meant and the context surrounding it, it can't be denied that certain words have underlying meaning that still follows them regardless of the circumstances. But again this also has to do with the person recieving it. Do they care? How do they personally see the word and its meaning?

Even with everything that has been said, everything comes back to how a person percieves the meaning of the word directed towards them. Words only have the power that you give them (I know, cliche, sue me), it's absolutely true. Everything you encounter goes through your own personal filter and becomes the reality that you, personally percieve and make for yourself. Everyone's is different and no one will ever see eye to eye on everything.

Given this I think in general people need to cease taking things others say so personally and also stop giving so much power to words. If this were the case I think people would get a long much better.

People say and do things because of how they percieve the world, just like we say or do something because of how we percieve it. If we did something it would be justified by how we see the world around us, just like when someone else does something its justified to them. So it's important to remember when someone else does something disagreeable that it was probably a justified act in the way they see their world. SO! Instead of jumping down their throats and getting angry with them, we should talk to them to try and understand why they did what they did. We should try and understand how they percieved the situation because who knows, maybe you'll end up agreeing with them or obtain a better understanding of their world. Then they won't seem like such bad people, and chances are you'll figure out that you're first angry reaction was unwarranted or misplaced.

That was very insightful, and yes, sometimes I do get too feisty. I base most of what I say and do as well as how I deal with situations off emotions.

NOTE: As a general rule, it is never a good idea to get between two women talking, especially about men and the senistive issues that can bring. Whether it makes sense or not, or you feel you're right or justified in your action... just don't, lol.

Well said, this is very true. The last time a man tried to get between me and one of my homegurls it did not end well for him. When I get really irritable women usually know how to talk to me in a productive way and men usually end up making the situation worse if they try to talk to me.

[Le Libérer]

My use of the term, "grow some balls" or what I usually say "Grow a nut sack" means be strong, tough, and take no shit from anyone. And in context to how I said it, was telling IZ if you are going to be hard, big man, its going to take alot more than whining with examples to compete with me. Because anyone who knows me irl, knows I am a tough *****.

I practice martial arts, own a glock, can argue and debate effectively with the powers that be. My resume of activism is a fucking dream. My tattoos alone shows I am capable of immense pain, notwithstanding enduring a broken back, cancer, and birthing four children. I have championed a hard core drug addiction and crawled out of that abyss to sobriety. I have been homeless. I am just a street kid who realized she had a brilliant mind and a body to match and with those 2 things combined I get what I want.

So yes, if you really want me to take you seriously, then dont link to my posts to prove I was a big meanie when I closed a few threads. Big fucking wah.

[Le Libérer]

That was very insightful, and yes, sometimes I do get too feisty. I base most of what I say and do as well as how I deal with situations off emotions.

Well said, this is very true. The last time a man tried to get between me and one of my homegurls it did not end well for him. When I get really irritable women usually know how to talk to me in a productive way and men usually end up making the situation worse if they try to talk to me.

This. Oh.... so this.

Our speech to each other is sometimes all we have. Men cant own that as they do everything else. Its VERY intimidating to them.

[Le Libérer]

Awww... You kick ass, Princess Charming! <3

::

[Kitty_Paine]

That was very insightful, and yes, sometimes I do get too feisty. I base most of what I say and do as well as how I deal with situations off emotions..

Now I say that in a strictly philosophical sense, putting it into the context of a "perfect world". I imagine it would require two very level headed and cooperative parties. Does this happen in real life? Maybe... every once in a while, lol. But realistically I'm simply stating we should strive for this.

I, by no means, am as calm, cool and collect as my writting may have implied. I don't deal with situations like this in the slightest, I just think about them like this before it all gets thrown out the window and I start throwing beer bottles at guys (true story).

Well said, this is very true. The last time a man tried to get between me and one of my homegurls it did not end well for him. When I get really irritable women usually know how to talk to me in a productive way and men usually end up making the situation worse if they try to talk to me.

FACT: Guys are not good at talking to girls in irritable and touchy situations.

Male thought process: I can make this better it I approach this in a logical manner...

Blah... No.

[Le Libérer]

FACT: Guys are not good at talking to girls in irritable and touchy situations.

Male thought process: I can make this better it I approach this in a logical manner...

Blah... No.

But thats just it..... who's logic is it? Certainly not ours! Know why? Because its from a male perspective, and male perspective does not define women. Therefore it just comes across as demeaning and arrogant.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Now I say that in a strictly philosophical sense, putting it into the context of a "perfect world". I imagine it would require two very level headed and cooperative parties. Does this happen in real life? Maybe... every once in a while, lol. But realistically I'm simply stating we should strive for this.

I, by no means, am as calm, cool and collect as my writting may have implied. I don't deal with situations like this in the slightest, I just think about them like this before it all gets thrown out the window and I start throwing beer bottles at guys (true story).

Wow! I can relate.

FACT: Guys are not good at talking to girls in irritable and touchy situations.

Male thought process: I can make this better it I approach this in a logical manner...

Blah... No.

I know! It drives me crazy! The best man is one who knows when to say "here is some chocolate ice cream, feel better, I'm heading out to do my own thing." and then actually give me my space. Because if they try and fix things they'll exacerbate the situation.

[Invader Zim]

and criticism of her comforting me was uncalled for.

Except I didn't 'criticise' anybody, and nor did I, as 555 stated, tell anybody how to speak to others, making that a rather moot point.