The question was whether the word "*****" is sexist.
The definition of the word, as a slang word, is disparaging towards women, and, when applied to men, implies a negative, female-oriented characterization of that man. That is a fact. If you disagree with that, you are wrong. If you use the word differently, you're not using the word as it is defined and that's unrelated to whether or not the word is sexist.
Whether or not you are offended by such words, use them incorrectly, or whatever else is irrelevant and a strawman.
Words are amorphous and have different meanings. Just look up *** and see all of the uses for it, even though it's most commonly used for gay men. Just because Merriam-Webster lists those definitions as disparaging towards women doesn't mean those are the only definitions. Look up ***** in urbandictionary.com to see how people are using it, and how many votes they're getting that agree with the usage. Also not to mention that the definitions listed on MW might be outdated, people certainly don't use ****** to mean a bundle of sticks anymore. I agree with the above posters, just because a word is gender specific doesn't make it sexist.
Ah, but what makes a class receive such a neutral value? Semantically, you can't say that a doctor or writer has a null/neutral value... their contribution is built into their name.
But BS didn't say null/neutral value. He said neutral value. "Dr." is a netural value. It is not a null value.
It is netural because it has neither a positive nor a negative connotation. It is not a null value because it conveys information about the subject.
Likewise: "woman" is a neutral value because it contains neither positive nor negative connotation. "Woman" is not a null value because it also conveys information about the subject.
Sex, though, is a specifically neutral value, and that is what I'm targetting: calling someone out on their alleged gender-defined characteristics is the fine point of semantics that we're really addressing.. and it's sexist, so if you want to carry the conversation to include "dick" ... I'm all for it (although
Agreed, Sex is a specifically netural value. But then, as I outlined above, so is "Doctor" and so is "Nurse" etc.
Your basic argument boils down to the following: Any gender specific words are sexist. Period.
The word "*****" is not sexist in that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex.
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing for the use of the word, or that its a "good" word to use. I'm just arguing that it's not sexist.
But BS didn't say null/neutral value. He said neutral value. "Dr." is a netural value. It is not a null value.
It is netural because it has neither a positive nor a negative connotation. It is not a null value because it conveys information about the subject.
Alright, I was probably jumping the gun on 'null' value but it can't be a neutral value because doctors don't naturally occur.
If I want to be a doctor/writer, what steps do I have to take?
Whereas if I am born a woman, there are no steps to take to become a woman. Correct?
Likewise: "woman" is a neutral value because it contains neither positive nor negative connotation. "Woman" is not a null value because it also conveys information about the subject.
Then why is it not discriminatory to apply a value? When you say '*****' you mean 'something something woman', when really it's the 'something something' you care about.. implicating 'woman' on the end of it is not needed.
Consider: The phrase "beat you like a red-headed stepchild" is racist, because it refers to actions that would be taken against a person of Irish ancestry that you haven't quantified. In this example, it's simply more acceptable to beat the Irish because, ostensibly, they're Irish; same thing here. You imply characteristics without quantifying why those characteristics are more relevant than any other... otherwise, the phrase itself wouldn't even bother to exist. Nobody says 'beat you like a blonde' because that doesn't have any (relevant) racial connotations.
Agreed, Sex is a specifically netural value. But then, as I outlined above, so is "Doctor" and so is "Nurse" etc.
Your basic argument boils down to the following: Any gender specific words are sexist. Period.
The word "*****" is not sexist in that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex.
No, no, I'm arguing that any negative gender-specific word is sexist, or rather I'm open to that possibility but we haven't broken into it yet. It's an important distinction: I would not for instance consider the phrase "you have a nice ******" sexist even though it's sex*-specific.. I don't care if it discriminates, I just care that it doesn't imply more than what is actually being said. This isn't a war against oppression (a word I've studiously avoided until now), it's an attempt to make people realize that they're adding context to an attack word that can have a larger impact than they think.
And yes, "you have a nice ******" was really the best example I could come up with.
*- sudden change in modifier used to denote that I don't really want to get into the sub-debate here about women who don't have a ******.
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing for the use of the word, or that its a "good" word to use. I'm just arguing that it's not sexist.
My apologies for rolling my point into your "end of post disclaimer", I know I hate it when people do this to me, but then why defend it regardless of the connotations? It's never been my point that negative words don't have a purpose, just that with the shockingly large number of negative words out there it seems such an easy thing to let this one go.
Then why is it not discriminatory to apply a value? When you say '*****' you mean 'something something woman', when really it's the 'something something' you care about.. implicating 'woman' on the end of it is not needed.
Just because it's not "needed" does not make the word sexist. Just because there are other descriptors that could function in it's place rather than the gender specific term doesn't make the gender specific term sexist.
Consider: The phrase "beat you like a red-headed stepchild" is racist, because it refers to actions that would be taken against a person of Irish ancestry that you haven't quantified. In this example, it's simply more acceptable to beat the Irish because, ostensibly, they're Irish; same thing here. You imply characteristics without quantifying why those characteristics are more relevant than any other... otherwise, the phrase itself wouldn't even bother to exist. Nobody says 'beat you like a blonde' because that doesn't have any (relevant) racial connotations.
But, there's a disconnect here: "beat you like a redheaded step child" has a racist origin. From its inception it meant something radcist.
"*****" doesn't. ***** means "female dog". So, when describing someone as acting like a "*****" someone was describing them as acting like a "female dog" -- there was no racism or sexism involved.
No, no, I'm arguing that any negative gender-specific word is sexist, or rather I'm open to that possibility but we haven't broken into it yet. It's an important distinction: I would not for instance consider the phrase "you have a nice ******" sexist even though it's sex*-specific.. I don't care if it discriminates, I just care that it doesn't imply more than what is actually being said. This isn't a war against oppression (a word I've studiously avoided until now), it's an attempt to make people realize that they're adding context to an attack word that can have a larger impact than they think.
And you're right! It IS adding context to an attack word. But that doesn't make the attack word sexist! That's where you're stumbling.
My apologies for rolling my point into your "end of post disclaimer", I know I hate it when people do this to me, but then why defend it regardless of the connotations? It's never been my point that negative words don't have a purpose, just that with the shockingly large number of negative words out there it seems such an easy thing to let this one go.
Because I find it extremely irksome when people throw around words like "sexist" and "racist" in the improper manner.
"Quit acting like a *****"
"Thats ***** work"
"You whine like a *****"
those are sexist
"Hey *****"
"Man this job is a *****"
"Yeah, shes my *****"
those arent sexist
In my views..
Your categorizatoin... is off.
If anyway to use it is sexist "She's my *****" is absolutely in that category.
Likewise, "You whine like a *****" isn't sexist at all -- its telling someone they whine like a female dog (you ever hear a dog whine? yea... really annoying). That's probably the least sexist way to use the word.
Sure, but for the life of me I cannot fathom any way in which this is relevant.
Because it means a woman has somehow 'earned' the ability to be called out for being a ***** by not doing anything. Again, if a person decides to call a woman a '*****,' the woman is caught in a catch-22, unable to argue their innocence because that's what a '*****' would do; there's a flagrant double-standard based on nothing but gender; no actions need to be taken to accomplish the goal of being a '*****'.. in fact many '*****es' are renowned for their lack of goal accomplishment.
Just because it's not "needed" does not make the word sexist. Just because there are other descriptors that could function in it's place rather than the gender specific term doesn't make the gender specific term sexist.
I believe you're wrong. If I were to start referring to 'annoying people' as 'bLatches' wouldn't you be offended?
...although this example might be skewed somewhat due to the intricacies of your moniker.
Please do note: for example purposes only, I do not consider bLatch an annoying person.
But, there's a disconnect here: "beat you like a redheaded step child" has a racist origin. From its inception it meant something radcist.
Well, according to Wikipedia ***** has been used as a derogatory term for a woman since the 14-1500's, and also according to Wikipedia the Irish Diaspora didn't begin until the 1700's at least, so how is this an issue? '*****' has 300+ years on 'redheaded stepchild', was well-worn as slang when 'RHSC' was born.
Besides which, origination is hardly the standard for applying to derogatory terms: there was no real connotation to '******' (for black people, since the auto-censor is working overtime this thread :)) or '******' (for homosexuals) either when those terms were created.
"*****" doesn't. ***** means "female dog". So, when describing someone as acting like a "*****" someone was describing them as acting like a "female dog" -- there was no racism or sexism involved.
Pure, unadulterated equivocation. The term has developed since its inception, and you know it. Again, I don't care about what it originally was used for, I care about its use now.
And you're right! It IS adding context to an attack word. But that doesn't make the attack word sexist! That's where you're stumbling.
No, I get your point, and I disagree, because that added context is an additional attack.
If my friend Billy Bob insults me and I decide to zinger him back with "You're a woman!" what is my insult? By throwing 'woman' into the mix of 'stuff I can use as insults' you imply that there are characteristics women possess that are
1. Negative
2. Unable to be possessed by non-women.
This is sexist, because 'woman' is a neutral state of being.
Because I find it extremely irksome when people throw around words like "sexist" and "racist" in the improper manner.
Yar, I suppose I find it irksome too. It's just that I also find it irksome when people don't accept that they might be doing something unsavory, like using a word in the wrong context or too flippantly.
It's just that I also find it irksome when people don't accept that they might be doing something unsavory, like using a word in the wrong context or too flippantly.
Well, right. The issue is that just because it may be asinine to say something doesn't automatically get you to racism/sexism.
We'll keep going and going but eventually we'll just start arguing about the meanings of words and what means what to whom. This is part of what I have to do for a living and I can tell you that for every meaning or dictionary someone may throw at you, you can always throw one back. Then we're start arguing about what dictionary is more appropriate (in terms of time, type of dictionary, what meaning comes first, etc. etc. etc.). Spin the wheels. Kick up the mud.
bLatch is speaking to context because context allows for the speaker's intended meaning to come through or be understood. Saying "that ***** is cute" well, it can be appropriate or not depending on context (am I talking about the westminster dog show?). The problem is where people jump to conclusions (yes, movie reference) rather than make sure they're understanding intended meanings. Alternatively, if you know a word might be offensive don't use it. Now, it is offensive for a particular reason (sexist, racist, generally asinine) or does that reason really matter all that much?
At the end of the day, calling a person a ***** is fairly asinine. Practically, at that point, does it really matter if it is sexist (unless we're going to get into some big discussion about "hate crimes")?
Because it means a woman has somehow 'earned' the ability to be called out for being a ***** by not doing anything. Again, if a person decides to call a woman a '*****,' the woman is caught in a catch-22, unable to argue their innocence because that's what a '*****' would do; there's a flagrant double-standard based on nothing but gender; no actions need to be taken to accomplish the goal of being a '*****'.. in fact many '*****es' are renowned for their lack of goal accomplishment.
See, I guess I disagree with your assessment that a women is somehow unable to argue against her being a ***** because "thats what a ***** would do". I just don't see that being true.
Objecting to being slandered isn't "*****y" under any definition of "*****y" I've heard/understood. There is no catch-22 involved. Either a person is being *****y, or a person is not being *****y.
I believe you're wrong. If I were to start referring to 'annoying people' as 'bLatches' wouldn't you be offended?
Ironically enough -- no, but thats because I stole the term "bLatch" from a name we used to call an annoying kid way back in our halo 1 days. (He named his guy BIATCH, and we said it looked like bLatch due to the font...) But I guess that's sort of an aside.
Well, according to Wikipedia ***** has been used as a derogatory term for a woman since the 14-1500's, and also according to Wikipedia the Irish Diaspora didn't begin until the 1700's at least, so how is this an issue? '*****' has 300+ years on 'redheaded stepchild', was well-worn as slang when 'RHSC' was born.
Right, but "*****" was never sexist. It was never a perjorative aginst all women, just as its not now. This is differnetiated from "red headed stepchild" which is perjorative against all Irish.
Pure, unadulterated equivocation. The term has developed since its inception, and you know it. Again, I don't care about what it originally was used for, I care about its use now.
Fair enough, lets talk about its use now, and drop everything about it's inception.
The word ***** is still used to draw a comparison to a female dog.That is why its tied to women. Not because it is "sexist".
If my friend Billy Bob insults me and I decide to zinger him back with "You're a woman!" what is my insult? By throwing 'woman' into the mix of 'stuff I can use as insults' you imply that there are characteristics women possess that are
1. Negative
2. Unable to be possessed by non-women.
This is sexist, because 'woman' is a neutral state of being.
But "woman" isn't added into the mix of things that can be used as an insult. The "woman" part isn't an insult at all!
Lets take a look at your red headed stepchild term: Should I now assume that the pejorative "RHSC" is an ageist term, becuase it has the unnecessary attack against children?
Yar, I suppose I find it irksome too. It's just that I also find it irksome when people don't accept that they might be doing something unsavory, like using a word in the wrong context or too flippantly.
Well... thats fine. But using it in the wrong context or too flippantly isn't really relevant to whether its sexist or not...
Huh? How? The "woman" part of the definition isn't an attack. There's no negative component of the "women" part.
Right, this all goes back to context. Context matters. It could be a compliment. Of course, we'd also have to get into all sorts of fun that happens as a result of generalizations (stereotyping...).
This argument back and forth is all about intent and perception (of the "aggressor" and the "victim" of language).
Is ***** defacto sexist for all circumstances? No; I don't see how you can support this being a "yes."
Is ***** sexist under some circumstances? Of course (even if the word isn't sexist in and of itself, it can be used in a sexist manner).
Fair enough -- I've been arguing that the word itself is not inherently sexist. I do agree that it can be used in a sexist manner. Lots of things can be used in a sexist manner, but that doesn't make them inherently sexist.
is not saying you whine like a dog..haha its implying that Women whine about everything and that your whining like one. If you have never heard the stereotype that women whine about everything then you should get out more.
Saying "Yeah shes my *****" isnt sexist..because your saying it to a woman. Your just calling that already female, your dog. Just like a woman could say, Yeah hes my Dog. Thats not sexist, maybe demeaning to the person, but not to the gender.
See, I guess I disagree with your assessment that a women is somehow unable to argue against her being a ***** because "thats what a ***** would do". I just don't see that being true.
The problem is, if you're called a *****, what do you argue against? You obviously can't argue against being female (or if male, it would be pedantic to do so), so you have to argue against... some sort of ill-defined fluffery that clouds around the term. If you're called something else, though, for instance being "arrogant", you can define it and therefore defend against it.
Objecting to being slandered isn't "*****y" under any definition of "*****y" I've heard/understood. There is no catch-22 involved. Either a person is being *****y, or a person is not being *****y.
Thing is, your definitions are coming from bias, and that bias is not the only way to hear '*****y'. It'd be like a black person asked about the word ******: a lot of times, they'd say "What, I don't care if you.. wait, are you white?"
Or, for the less coercive example, if your real life friends started calling you "bLatch" or your were asked to sign for a package with that name, it'd be pretty silly, right?
Ironically enough -- no, but thats because I stole the term "bLatch" from a name we used to call an annoying kid way back in our halo 1 days. (He named his guy BIATCH, and we said it looked like bLatch due to the font...) But I guess that's sort of an aside.
[...]Yea, since its a derivative of a derivative of "*****" it probably is a bit wonky to use as an example
You know, I always wondered. Thanks.
Right, but "*****" was never sexist. It was never a perjorative aginst all women, just as its not now. This is differnetiated from "red headed stepchild" which is perjorative against all Irish.
Yes, but "*****" has always been gender-specific. It gained a sexist connotation.
Fair enough, lets talk about its use now, and drop everything about it's inception.
The word ***** is still used to draw a comparison to a female dog.That is why its tied to women. Not because it is "sexist".
Okey dokey.
I'm gonna blend into the next one with the ol' [cont. below]
Huh? How? The "woman" part of the definition isn't an attack. There's no negative component of the "women" part.
It IS an attack, though, just as much as the word that rhymes with punt is, by connecting the gender (or, in the latter case, feminine anatomy) to something else.
Let's try a different tack: can a woman act in a manner that is like a male dog would act? Then why not just call them "a dog?"
But "woman" isn't added into the mix of things that can be used as an insult. The "woman" part isn't an insult at all!
Lets take a look at your red headed stepchild term: Should I now assume that the pejorative "RHSC" is an ageist term, becuase it has the unnecessary attack against children?
Well, yes, exactly.
"Red Headed" is a state of being, and not an insult.
"Stepchild" is also a state of being, and not an insult.
So why is "red headed stepchild" somehow an insult (when used in the usual mannner)? By connecting the two terms you are exponentially more insulting. Beating a child? Oh, that's -1 Karma for you! Beating a redhead? Another -1 Karma! Beating someone for whom you're only connected by marriage? -1! Beating a red-headed stepchild? ...somehow that's fine, go nuts, here's a belt.
So how is it that you can make it 'correct' to beat a stepchild ONLY when you apply the prefix "red headed" to it (or vice versa!)? It's racist to assume the nebulous quality of "red-headed stepchild", that somehow the connections make it all okay to beat them, just like it's sexist to assume the connection of "woman dog" somehow makes it more applicable in any given insult than just "dog."
Well... thats fine. But using it in the wrong context or too flippantly isn't really relevant to whether its sexist or not...
..but it is. Because if people only used '*****' when it was correct to do so, this all wouldn't be a problem in the slightest.
..but it is. Because if people only used '*****' when it was correct to do so, this all wouldn't be a problem in the slightest.
Everything you said above this... irrelevant, since you jsut conceded the argument. Right here you are admitting that there are non-sexist uses. It is not a sexist term.
Everything you said can be boiled down to: "It can be used in a sexist way, and its not very well defined, therefore every use of it ever always is sexist."
Nobody has argued that it can't be used in a sexist manner. The argument is that it isn't inherently sexist, and that it can be used in a non-sexist manner.
LOLwut? Yeah, you got me, even though I never defined the number of times it was correct (which could very well be Zero). The fact that it was ever used, even once, as a non-sexist term, possibly during the Paleolithic, completely destroys me.
I don't care if you use the term. If it comes right down to it, I don't care if people use it, or whether it's sexist or not. I only care that it's a shotgun attack word that harms innocent bystanders.
I don't care if you use the term. If it comes right down to it, I don't care if people use it, or whether it's sexist or not. I only care that it's a shotgun attack word that harms innocent bystanders.
Theres no such thing as an attack word that doesn't.
Theres no such thing as an attack word that doesn't.
Indeed, but you can still hurt even if you don't see any wounds.
At this point, I'm inclined to agree to disagree, bLatch. I don't, actually never did, believe you or anyone else in this thread throws the word around, and I would like to continue to think you, or anyone else, doesn't believe I'm out there picketing to stop people from speaking as they see fit.. as long as it's understood the word is at least somewhat slanderous no matter what way it's used, I don't think we'll have much of a problem. It's either that, or we can continue slinging increasingly deep-meaning one-liners at each other.
as long as it's understood the word is at least somewhat slanderous no matter what way it's used, I don't think we'll have much of a problem. It's either that, or we can continue slinging increasingly deep-meaning one-liners at each other.
Right, I think we can all agree that the term "*****" is a slanderous term. But then, I don't think anyone was arguing that it wasn't. What it is not, however, is a sexist slanderous term. That's all I was arguing for.
My girlfriend doesn't have a problem with me calling her a ***** if I'm using it as in she's being a "jerk", but she doesn't like it if it's being used to convey ownership or submissiveness as in "she's my *****".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard, Cited from "War, Peace, and the State"
*****: if words can be so, neither inherently misogynistic nor sexist; if words in fact can be so, again, neither/nor.
Maybe this depends on a case by case basis, with the rationale as to its use being considered but then I'd be passing judgements, for what they're worth, on the basis of the rationale or something beyond the word itself.
Simply put, "*****" can be an unpleasant, foul word but it's not at all sexist or particularly untoward women (rather, users of the word are sexist and untoward women); and, hypercorrective PC police can, if you will, deal with it.
Unless you hold the mantra of "Women are *****es", the word ***** can't even begin to be compared to a racial slur, as it holds other meanings.
***** can be used in a number of fashions, unlike the term "Camel Jockey" for example, which is used specifically as a derogatory statement against a group of people. (Unless of course camel racing is a sport I'm unaware of)
If I were to call a promiscuous girl a ****, I'm not sexist, she's just a ****. If I were to call a random girl a ****, because that was my opinion of women, that would make me sexist.
You can't be racist or sexist for having harsh feeling toward an individual that happens to be in the minority, only if you hate the minority as a whole.
If I assault a black guy, It's not necessarily a hate crime, If I wasn't wearing a spooky ghost costume and burning a cross, I probably just hated that guy, not his race.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Words are amorphous and have different meanings. Just look up *** and see all of the uses for it, even though it's most commonly used for gay men. Just because Merriam-Webster lists those definitions as disparaging towards women doesn't mean those are the only definitions. Look up ***** in urbandictionary.com to see how people are using it, and how many votes they're getting that agree with the usage. Also not to mention that the definitions listed on MW might be outdated, people certainly don't use ****** to mean a bundle of sticks anymore. I agree with the above posters, just because a word is gender specific doesn't make it sexist.
But BS didn't say null/neutral value. He said neutral value. "Dr." is a netural value. It is not a null value.
It is netural because it has neither a positive nor a negative connotation. It is not a null value because it conveys information about the subject.
Likewise: "woman" is a neutral value because it contains neither positive nor negative connotation. "Woman" is not a null value because it also conveys information about the subject.
Agreed, Sex is a specifically netural value. But then, as I outlined above, so is "Doctor" and so is "Nurse" etc.
Your basic argument boils down to the following: Any gender specific words are sexist. Period.
The word "*****" is not sexist in that it does not discriminate on the basis of sex.
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing for the use of the word, or that its a "good" word to use. I'm just arguing that it's not sexist.
Alright, I was probably jumping the gun on 'null' value but it can't be a neutral value because doctors don't naturally occur.
If I want to be a doctor/writer, what steps do I have to take?
Whereas if I am born a woman, there are no steps to take to become a woman. Correct?
Then why is it not discriminatory to apply a value? When you say '*****' you mean 'something something woman', when really it's the 'something something' you care about.. implicating 'woman' on the end of it is not needed.
Consider: The phrase "beat you like a red-headed stepchild" is racist, because it refers to actions that would be taken against a person of Irish ancestry that you haven't quantified. In this example, it's simply more acceptable to beat the Irish because, ostensibly, they're Irish; same thing here. You imply characteristics without quantifying why those characteristics are more relevant than any other... otherwise, the phrase itself wouldn't even bother to exist. Nobody says 'beat you like a blonde' because that doesn't have any (relevant) racial connotations.
No, no, I'm arguing that any negative gender-specific word is sexist, or rather I'm open to that possibility but we haven't broken into it yet. It's an important distinction: I would not for instance consider the phrase "you have a nice ******" sexist even though it's sex*-specific.. I don't care if it discriminates, I just care that it doesn't imply more than what is actually being said. This isn't a war against oppression (a word I've studiously avoided until now), it's an attempt to make people realize that they're adding context to an attack word that can have a larger impact than they think.
And yes, "you have a nice ******" was really the best example I could come up with.
*- sudden change in modifier used to denote that I don't really want to get into the sub-debate here about women who don't have a ******.
My apologies for rolling my point into your "end of post disclaimer", I know I hate it when people do this to me, but then why defend it regardless of the connotations? It's never been my point that negative words don't have a purpose, just that with the shockingly large number of negative words out there it seems such an easy thing to let this one go.
Sure, but for the life of me I cannot fathom any way in which this is relevant.
Just because it's not "needed" does not make the word sexist. Just because there are other descriptors that could function in it's place rather than the gender specific term doesn't make the gender specific term sexist.
But, there's a disconnect here: "beat you like a redheaded step child" has a racist origin. From its inception it meant something radcist.
"*****" doesn't. ***** means "female dog". So, when describing someone as acting like a "*****" someone was describing them as acting like a "female dog" -- there was no racism or sexism involved.
And you're right! It IS adding context to an attack word. But that doesn't make the attack word sexist! That's where you're stumbling.
Added context doesn't make it sexist!
Because I find it extremely irksome when people throw around words like "sexist" and "racist" in the improper manner.
"Quit acting like a *****"
"Thats ***** work"
"You whine like a *****"
those are sexist
"Hey *****"
"Man this job is a *****"
"Yeah, shes my *****"
those arent sexist
In my views..
Your categorizatoin... is off.
If anyway to use it is sexist "She's my *****" is absolutely in that category.
Likewise, "You whine like a *****" isn't sexist at all -- its telling someone they whine like a female dog (you ever hear a dog whine? yea... really annoying). That's probably the least sexist way to use the word.
In a tangental meta sense, I've always found it funny how much the word is used on an otherwise fairly heavily moderated forum.
WCommander EeshaBDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefBGGlissa, the TraitorBWVish Kal, Blood ArbiterRUNin, the Pain Artist
UGEdric, Spymaster of TrestWRBasandra, Battle SeraphBGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGWGhave, Guru of Spores
RGWUril, the MiststalkerGUBThe MimeoplasmUWGRafiq of the ManyWUBRGSliver Overlord
Because it means a woman has somehow 'earned' the ability to be called out for being a ***** by not doing anything. Again, if a person decides to call a woman a '*****,' the woman is caught in a catch-22, unable to argue their innocence because that's what a '*****' would do; there's a flagrant double-standard based on nothing but gender; no actions need to be taken to accomplish the goal of being a '*****'.. in fact many '*****es' are renowned for their lack of goal accomplishment.
I believe you're wrong. If I were to start referring to 'annoying people' as 'bLatches' wouldn't you be offended?
...although this example might be skewed somewhat due to the intricacies of your moniker.
Please do note: for example purposes only, I do not consider bLatch an annoying person.
Well, according to Wikipedia ***** has been used as a derogatory term for a woman since the 14-1500's, and also according to Wikipedia the Irish Diaspora didn't begin until the 1700's at least, so how is this an issue? '*****' has 300+ years on 'redheaded stepchild', was well-worn as slang when 'RHSC' was born.
Besides which, origination is hardly the standard for applying to derogatory terms: there was no real connotation to '******' (for black people, since the auto-censor is working overtime this thread :)) or '******' (for homosexuals) either when those terms were created.
Pure, unadulterated equivocation. The term has developed since its inception, and you know it. Again, I don't care about what it originally was used for, I care about its use now.
No, I get your point, and I disagree, because that added context is an additional attack.
If my friend Billy Bob insults me and I decide to zinger him back with "You're a woman!" what is my insult? By throwing 'woman' into the mix of 'stuff I can use as insults' you imply that there are characteristics women possess that are
1. Negative
2. Unable to be possessed by non-women.
This is sexist, because 'woman' is a neutral state of being.
Yar, I suppose I find it irksome too. It's just that I also find it irksome when people don't accept that they might be doing something unsavory, like using a word in the wrong context or too flippantly.
Well, right. The issue is that just because it may be asinine to say something doesn't automatically get you to racism/sexism.
We'll keep going and going but eventually we'll just start arguing about the meanings of words and what means what to whom. This is part of what I have to do for a living and I can tell you that for every meaning or dictionary someone may throw at you, you can always throw one back. Then we're start arguing about what dictionary is more appropriate (in terms of time, type of dictionary, what meaning comes first, etc. etc. etc.). Spin the wheels. Kick up the mud.
bLatch is speaking to context because context allows for the speaker's intended meaning to come through or be understood. Saying "that ***** is cute" well, it can be appropriate or not depending on context (am I talking about the westminster dog show?). The problem is where people jump to conclusions (yes, movie reference) rather than make sure they're understanding intended meanings. Alternatively, if you know a word might be offensive don't use it. Now, it is offensive for a particular reason (sexist, racist, generally asinine) or does that reason really matter all that much?
At the end of the day, calling a person a ***** is fairly asinine. Practically, at that point, does it really matter if it is sexist (unless we're going to get into some big discussion about "hate crimes")?
Trade/Sell me your Demonic Attorney!
See, I guess I disagree with your assessment that a women is somehow unable to argue against her being a ***** because "thats what a ***** would do". I just don't see that being true.
Objecting to being slandered isn't "*****y" under any definition of "*****y" I've heard/understood. There is no catch-22 involved. Either a person is being *****y, or a person is not being *****y.
Ironically enough -- no, but thats because I stole the term "bLatch" from a name we used to call an annoying kid way back in our halo 1 days. (He named his guy BIATCH, and we said it looked like bLatch due to the font...) But I guess that's sort of an aside.
Yea, since its a derivative of a derivative of "*****" it probably is a bit wonky to use as an example
Right, but "*****" was never sexist. It was never a perjorative aginst all women, just as its not now. This is differnetiated from "red headed stepchild" which is perjorative against all Irish.
Fair enough, lets talk about its use now, and drop everything about it's inception.
The word ***** is still used to draw a comparison to a female dog. That is why its tied to women. Not because it is "sexist".
Huh? How? The "woman" part of the definition isn't an attack. There's no negative component of the "women" part.
But "woman" isn't added into the mix of things that can be used as an insult. The "woman" part isn't an insult at all!
Lets take a look at your red headed stepchild term: Should I now assume that the pejorative "RHSC" is an ageist term, becuase it has the unnecessary attack against children?
Well... thats fine. But using it in the wrong context or too flippantly isn't really relevant to whether its sexist or not...
Right, this all goes back to context. Context matters. It could be a compliment. Of course, we'd also have to get into all sorts of fun that happens as a result of generalizations (stereotyping...).
Again, context.
This argument back and forth is all about intent and perception (of the "aggressor" and the "victim" of language).
Is ***** defacto sexist for all circumstances? No; I don't see how you can support this being a "yes."
Is ***** sexist under some circumstances? Of course (even if the word isn't sexist in and of itself, it can be used in a sexist manner).
Trade/Sell me your Demonic Attorney!
Fair enough -- I've been arguing that the word itself is not inherently sexist. I do agree that it can be used in a sexist manner. Lots of things can be used in a sexist manner, but that doesn't make them inherently sexist.
Right, that's pretty much my point on this one.
Trade/Sell me your Demonic Attorney!
"you whine like a *****"
is not saying you whine like a dog..haha its implying that Women whine about everything and that your whining like one. If you have never heard the stereotype that women whine about everything then you should get out more.
Saying "Yeah shes my *****" isnt sexist..because your saying it to a woman. Your just calling that already female, your dog. Just like a woman could say, Yeah hes my Dog. Thats not sexist, maybe demeaning to the person, but not to the gender.
The problem is, if you're called a *****, what do you argue against? You obviously can't argue against being female (or if male, it would be pedantic to do so), so you have to argue against... some sort of ill-defined fluffery that clouds around the term. If you're called something else, though, for instance being "arrogant", you can define it and therefore defend against it.
Thing is, your definitions are coming from bias, and that bias is not the only way to hear '*****y'. It'd be like a black person asked about the word ******: a lot of times, they'd say "What, I don't care if you.. wait, are you white?"
Or, for the less coercive example, if your real life friends started calling you "bLatch" or your were asked to sign for a package with that name, it'd be pretty silly, right?
You know, I always wondered. Thanks.
Yes, but "*****" has always been gender-specific. It gained a sexist connotation.
Okey dokey.
I'm gonna blend into the next one with the ol' [cont. below]
It IS an attack, though, just as much as the word that rhymes with punt is, by connecting the gender (or, in the latter case, feminine anatomy) to something else.
Let's try a different tack: can a woman act in a manner that is like a male dog would act? Then why not just call them "a dog?"
Well, yes, exactly.
"Red Headed" is a state of being, and not an insult.
"Stepchild" is also a state of being, and not an insult.
So why is "red headed stepchild" somehow an insult (when used in the usual mannner)? By connecting the two terms you are exponentially more insulting. Beating a child? Oh, that's -1 Karma for you! Beating a redhead? Another -1 Karma! Beating someone for whom you're only connected by marriage? -1! Beating a red-headed stepchild? ...somehow that's fine, go nuts, here's a belt.
So how is it that you can make it 'correct' to beat a stepchild ONLY when you apply the prefix "red headed" to it (or vice versa!)? It's racist to assume the nebulous quality of "red-headed stepchild", that somehow the connections make it all okay to beat them, just like it's sexist to assume the connection of "woman dog" somehow makes it more applicable in any given insult than just "dog."
..but it is. Because if people only used '*****' when it was correct to do so, this all wouldn't be a problem in the slightest.
Everything you said above this... irrelevant, since you jsut conceded the argument. Right here you are admitting that there are non-sexist uses. It is not a sexist term.
Everything you said can be boiled down to: "It can be used in a sexist way, and its not very well defined, therefore every use of it ever always is sexist."
Nobody has argued that it can't be used in a sexist manner. The argument is that it isn't inherently sexist, and that it can be used in a non-sexist manner.
I don't care if you use the term. If it comes right down to it, I don't care if people use it, or whether it's sexist or not. I only care that it's a shotgun attack word that harms innocent bystanders.
Theres no such thing as an attack word that doesn't.
Indeed, but you can still hurt even if you don't see any wounds.
At this point, I'm inclined to agree to disagree, bLatch. I don't, actually never did, believe you or anyone else in this thread throws the word around, and I would like to continue to think you, or anyone else, doesn't believe I'm out there picketing to stop people from speaking as they see fit.. as long as it's understood the word is at least somewhat slanderous no matter what way it's used, I don't think we'll have much of a problem. It's either that, or we can continue slinging increasingly deep-meaning one-liners at each other.
Right, I think we can all agree that the term "*****" is a slanderous term. But then, I don't think anyone was arguing that it wasn't. What it is not, however, is a sexist slanderous term. That's all I was arguing for.
Maybe this depends on a case by case basis, with the rationale as to its use being considered but then I'd be passing judgements, for what they're worth, on the basis of the rationale or something beyond the word itself.
Simply put, "*****" can be an unpleasant, foul word but it's not at all sexist or particularly untoward women (rather, users of the word are sexist and untoward women); and, hypercorrective PC police can, if you will, deal with it.
I LOL'd at "slander".
***** can be used in a number of fashions, unlike the term "Camel Jockey" for example, which is used specifically as a derogatory statement against a group of people. (Unless of course camel racing is a sport I'm unaware of)
If I were to call a promiscuous girl a ****, I'm not sexist, she's just a ****. If I were to call a random girl a ****, because that was my opinion of women, that would make me sexist.
You can't be racist or sexist for having harsh feeling toward an individual that happens to be in the minority, only if you hate the minority as a whole.
If I assault a black guy, It's not necessarily a hate crime, If I wasn't wearing a spooky ghost costume and burning a cross, I probably just hated that guy, not his race.