is sexism more tolerated that racism?

Rhinocerous Surprise

angelica wrote:

Rhino '08!! Worldwide!!! Spread the crabs!!

Oh. wait.

They said I was unelectable.







They were right.

angelica

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

There are so many ways of taking words - bastard really means illegitimate child, but it's associated with men, just like bitch really means female dog, but is associated with women. We can't be too focused on making the words we use are offensive to no one, it's just not natural. The most we can do is make sure we don't intend to offend the people we talk to, and if we do offend, apologise.

And conversely, realise, that if someone says something that offends us in this way - ie. bitch being a very accepted, yet very sexist term - a lot of the time, it's probably unintentional.

Exactly!!!

angelica

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

There are so many ways of taking words - bastard really means illegitimate child, but it's associated with men, just like bitch really means female dog, but is associated with women. We can't be too focused on making the words we use are offensive to no one, it's just not natural. The most we can do is make sure we don't intend to offend the people we talk to, and if we do offend, apologise.

And conversely, realise, that if someone says something that offends us in this way - ie. bitch being a very accepted, yet very sexist term - a lot of the time, it's probably unintentional.

I particularly like the point that we make sure we don't intend to offend. Once we step into offensive intent...there's no justification. Whether we offend the person, the gender, or whatever....we create our own hole for ourselves, to which there is no justification to get out of.

We're all wounded in one way or another. It's key to own our wounds, and seek to heal them. I agree, the focus is not on living in a restricted way, but rather to seek not to offend, and to apologize when we do. That kind of approach speaks volumes from far away!

Rhinocerous Surprise

angelica wrote:

I particularly like the point that we make sure we don't intend to offend. Once we step into offensive intent...there's no justification. Whether we offend the person, the gender, or whatever....we create our own hole for ourselves, to which there is no justification to get out of.

We're all wounded in one way or another. It's key to own our wounds, and seek to heal them. I agree, the focus is not on living in a restricted way, but rather to seek not to offend, and to apologize when we do. That kind of approach speaks volumes from far away!

It's human nature to mess up - we can't fix that. The most we can do is make sure we don't mess up too bad.

(But are we even allowed agree on this? )

angelica

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

(But are we even allowed agree on this? )

(I'm not sure....it could be a double whammy...from both a gender standpoint [which we can rise above with our obvious humanitarian-beyond-gender approach], and from the run of the mill "we-can't-have-the-minority-in-terms-of-social-standing-agree-on-anything-without-attempting-to-mock/shame-them-for-it standpoint")

DixieN

Sexism is a lot more readily acceptable. It permeates everything...and to complain is to show that you're a controlling bitch. That's why, now that Hillary is out of the race, Hillary warmed-over insults are being lobbed at Michelle Obama. They're exactly the same types of insults and stereotypes used against both women. So, you can get away with implying that a competent woman is an angry bitch (so be afraid, be very afraid) just for being competent in a way you could never generally imply and get away with if the implications were that the woman was that way because she's black. The current insults about Michelle are the same as the Hillary ones, except that Michelle, according to the slurs, is angrier than Clinton...and you can lie about Michelle calling people Whitey in a way that you couldn't really lie about Clinton. I'm personally surprised the Photoshops haven't worked overtime to take Clinton away from the urinal and replace her Michelle already. Come on swift boaters...kinda slow, ain't cha?

The Republicans aren't going to let anything stop them. Nothing is off limits. Swift boats are going to be mostly covert...so that people's in boxes clog up with one volley of lies after the next. (We were recently treated to the "Obama wants to change the national anthem to the Coca-Cola jingle" lie sent by a credulous friend of the family's. The sexist and racial innuendo is already pouring out the gates. I expect it to continue at a good clip until long after the race is decided, especially if the race is decided for Obama.

Racist, sexist...it's all out there and will be used against us all. Again, the tactics are fear tactics. Be afraid of this woman. Be afraid of this Black woman. Be afraid of all Black people. Be afraid of this Black man--he's an accommodating Muslim. Just lie after lie. If a racial slur is deemed too low to go, a sexist one will work just fine in its place. Didn't you know Barack isn't the real candidate in this race? It's really Michelle because he's so pussy whipped. You know who really runs the place in a black household, right?

We need to fight back against Republicans and their lies. It was "fun" for some of you when the "gun" was turned against a candidate you didn't like--Hillary--but, it's not going to be so much fun now that these lying liars are going to come after your favored candidate and his wife. Every time you see a racist or sexist chain email show up in your mail box, you need to do something about it. A good place to go: snopes.com. Then you can look up individual lies as necessary. Counter the lies. Doing nothing, in my opinion, is just helping these lies propagate.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/459/

A lot of people bought the pack of lies about Clinton hook, line and sinker. Let's not do the same with the Obamas.

Specifics

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

I can see how women might take bitch a little more personally then men really intend. But if bitch is unacceptable, is bastard? That's gotta be equally disrespectful to a lot of men.

Yes..:)

But seeing as the major percentage of men are fucking assholes that don't give a toss about anyone, who cares.

Can you call me sexist for saying that seeing as im a man?..;)

Rhinocerous Surprise

Specifics wrote:

Yes..:)

But seeing as the major percentage of men are fucking assholes that don't give a toss about anyone, who cares.

Can you call me sexist for saying that seeing as im a man?..;)

Yes, even though I'm a man too, and fully agree with you.

Specifics

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Yes, even though I'm a man too, and fully agree with you.

well ok then....:)

_

Collin wrote:

scb wrote:

When you refer to the “someone” who wrote in this thread that men can’t be the victims of sexism, you’re referring to me. Only – I said this already but I’ll say it again – I did not say that men can’t be the victims of sexism. I simply acknowledged the existence of a theory which says that oppression=prejudice+power. Please stop misquoting me.

scb wrote:

am merely acknowledging the theory that sexism=prejudice+power and therefore men are incapable of being the victims of sexism.

Okay - I think this is going to be the 3rd or 4th time I've explained this, but here goes again: Acknowledging a theory and subscribing to it are entirely different things. I acknowledged a theory; I did not say I subscribe to it. The theory I acknowledged is: "sexism=prejudice+power and therefore men are incapable of being the victims of sexism." Seriously - what part of this do concept (of me acknowledging a theory) do you not understand? If I WRITE IT IN ALL CAPS or s p e l l - i t - m o r e - s l o w l y will that help you get it?

Collin wrote:

I think by giving the word bitch as sexist connotation that isn't there, you are the one who is perpetuating sexism.

Huh? As far as I can tell, that doesn't even make sense.

I think you're just trying to find ways to keep arguing with me. You can keep this up all you want, but I'm not going to go out with you no matter how hard you try.

Specifics

Collin wrote:

I disagree and I don't feel like repeating my arguments.

Your arguments is about there being no sexist connotation to the word bitch.

bitch = female dog

people generally see animals as a lower form of life.

Collin

angelica wrote:

I particularly like the point that we make sure we don't intend to offend. Once we step into offensive intent...there's no justification. Whether we offend the person, the gender, or whatever....we create our own hole for ourselves, to which there is no justification to get out of.

We're all wounded in one way or another. It's key to own our wounds, and seek to heal them. I agree, the focus is not on living in a restricted way, but rather to seek not to offend, and to apologize when we do. That kind of approach speaks volumes from far away!

That's sort of my whole point inre: the word bitch.

That there is a difference between sexism and just insulting someone who is female.

From what I gathered here any insulting word that is feminine is sexist no matter what context it is used in. I disagree with that, I say someone can insult a woman from plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with gender even if they use a feminine word, which I explained, merely acknowledges gender just like we acknowledge gender in non-insulting speech (waiter - waitress).

Like Rhino said, if you believe that then bastard is sexist too, also in whatever situation it is used. I wonder how this thread would have turned out if the original poster had said that sexism is more tolerated than racism and gave as example the acceptance of the word bastard in society compared with the acceptance of the word nigger.

I think the idea that insulting women (even with gender words) is automatically sexism is ridiculous. Just like I believe that the word bastard is also not sexist.

We were never talking about whether insulting in general is acceptable or not. That's a different discussion.

What also pissed me off is that some people had the nerve of comparing what women are going through now (in the US, or Western world) and what black people went through during slavery. That is preposterous!

A part of wanting equality for men and women is realizing women can be insulted or abused without it being sexist.

I think you are right, angelica, at some point a feminist should become a humanitarian. It isn't so much about abuse of women specifically (though that I a major problem that deserves more attention), but it is about everyone.

That's sort of what bugs me here, I think there is not sexist connotation to the word bitch to the majority of the people like there is no sexist connotation to the word bastard. I think it would be equally pointless to start directing people's attention at the "sexist" nature of the word bastard or any masculine word. At this point one should realize both men and women are affected by insults and verbal abuse, it is not sexism.

Again insults and being offensive is a different discussion.

Collin

scb wrote:

Okay - I think this is going to be the 3rd or 4th time I've explained this, but here goes again: Acknowledging a theory and subscribing to it are entirely different things. I acknowledged a theory; I did not say I subscribe to it. The theory I acknowledged is: "sexism=prejudice+power and therefore men are incapable of being the victims of sexism." Seriously - what part of this do concept (of me acknowledging a theory) do you not understand? If I WRITE IT IN ALL CAPS or s p e l l - i t - m o r e - s l o w l y will that help you get it?

scb wrote:

Words have meaning and power regardless of your intentions. This word is has an extra layer of meaning in that it references this specific gender (as a category).

That which is demeaning to women (as a category) (or any gender, one might argue) is sexist. Because the word bitch links a specific (and historically powerless) gender to a negative connotation, it is demeaning to that gender as a whole. Therefore, it is sexist.

Collin wrote:

I can call you sexist right now. "Or any gender, one might argue"? One wouldn't argue, one would naturally say this is so, by expressing doubt or uncertainty you are being a sexist (or definitely reinforcing sexism).

scb wrote:

Oh, please. I wasn’t expressing personal doubt and you know it.

I am merely acknowledging the theory that sexism=prejudice+power and therefore men are incapable of being the victims of sexism.

It would be the first time you've explained it. Here's the part I don't understand (and you don't have to answer in capitals or spell it out more slowly): do you agree with or not? If you don't then why did you cite it?

Why "acknowledge" a theory like that in this discussion as an answer to an argument if you don't believe in it.

That's like "acknowledging" a nazi theory in a thread about racism. People will naturally assume you argee with it otherwise there's no point in posting it.

I hope you can see what had me confused and I hope you can give me an answer.

Huh? As far as I can tell, that doesn't even make sense.

I think you're just trying to find ways to keep arguing with me. You can keep this up all you want, but I'm not going to go out with you no matter how hard you try.

I think it makes perfect sense.

I think the majority of the people do not feel there is a sexist connotation to the word bitch. The minority do think there is a sexist connotation to it.

My theory is if the majority of the people don't see a sexist connotation (like they don't see a sexist connotation in the word 'girl' or 'bastard' for example) in the word bitch then by giving that word a sexist connotation you are giving men more power over women. What was not sexist before is now sexist. You create and perpetuate more sexism.

Insults whether directed towards men or women are part of human communication. It's not a fun, happy, good and wonderful part of human communication but it is a part of it nonetheless. It will always suck, if someone calls you a bitch it will never be nice. It isn't nice for a guy to be called a bastard either, but it's not sexism!

Collin

Specifics wrote:

Your arguments is about there being no sexist connotation to the word bitch.

bitch = female dog

people generally see animals as a lower form of life.

If that's what you got from my posts as 'my arguments' than I don't see the point in continuing this discussion with you. Sorry.

But here's an argument for you; go to the doggie thread on the AET and ask those people how they feel about their bitches; a part of the family, man's best friend, couldn't live without my bitch

"Hey honey, could you get the..."

honey: sticky substance made by insects and used as food.

Let's look at some other terms of endearment:
bear: animal (note: not man's best friend),
sweet pea: peas are food,
baby: underdeveloped person that cannot take care of itself that needs someone to survive, it's like saying your girlfriend is not capable of surviving without your manly help,
bunny: another animal, also not man's best friend
cookie: food

Either way, that woman is a real retard. I guess that's sexist too because retard is an offensive word as well.

See, it's pointless to debate this with you because I covered all of this before. But if you narrow my all my argument to: "bitch has no sexist connotation". What can I do?

"One could argue that words don't have an inherent meaning because we use or create words to describe a reality, we link a concept, an idea or a reality to a word, however, we can also use that word to describe another reality and over time, the meaning, the semantic weight can shift from describing one 'reality' to describing another 'reality'. I do think you should only consider such a shift when the majority of language users accept this shift."

I already addressed your argument in post #105.

Specifics

Collin wrote:

If that's what you got from my posts as 'my arguments' than I don't see the point in continuing this discussion with you. Sorry.

But here's an argument for you; go to the doggie thread on the AET and ask those people how they feel about their bitches; a part of the family, man's best friend, couldn't live without my bitch

"Hey honey, could you get the..."

honey: sticky substance made by insects and used as food.

Let's look at some other terms of endearment:
bear: animal (note: not man's best friend),
sweet pea: peas are food,
baby: underdeveloped person that cannot take care of itself that needs someone to survive, it's like saying your girlfriend is not capable of surviving without your manly help,
bunny: another animal, also not man's best friend
cookie: food

Either way, that woman is a real retard. I guess that's sexist too because retard is an offensive word as well.

See, it's pointless to debate this with you because I covered all of this before. But if you narrow my all my argument to: "bitch has no sexist connotation". What can I do?

"One could argue that words don't have an inherent meaning because we use or create words to describe a reality, we link a concept, an idea or a reality to a word, however, we can also use that word to describe another reality and over time, the meaning, the semantic weight can shift from describing one 'reality' to describing another 'reality'. I do think you should only consider such a shift when the majority of language users accept this shift."

I already addressed your argument in post #105.

Ahh so its a term of endearment. why didn't you say!

Like "my bitch" or "my nigger"

i think you probably are a sexist..:) or at least an enabler.

Collin

Specifics wrote:

Ahh so its a term of endearment. why didn't you say!

Like "my bitch" or "my nigger"

i think you probably are a sexist..:) or at least an enabler.

No, I explained plenty of times already, it's an insult.

I told you I addressed it in post #105. It seems to me you're just looking for a fight. I'm sorry but I'm not interested in that.

Words don't always have a fixed meaning and words can have different meanings.

Specifics

Collin wrote:

No, I explained plenty of times already, it's an insult.

I told you I addressed it in post #105. It seems to me you're just looking for a fight. I'm sorry but I'm not interested in that.

Words don't always have a fixed meaning and words can have different meanings.

Theres a difference between looking for a fight and taking the piss..:)

you are devoting way too much mind power to defending this issue tho, it's downright suspicious!

Admit you're wrong and let the bitch rest my nigger..;)

Collin

Specifics wrote:

Theres a difference between looking for a fight and taking the piss..:)

you are devoting way too much mind power to defending this issue tho, it's downright suspicious!

Admit you're wrong and let the bitch rest my nigger..;)

I think it's quite interesting what you are saying here:

"stop thinking and accept my view as the only correct view"

Talk about suspicious behaviour, it has fascist tendencies in it!

And what is it exactly that you think I am defending?

Specifics

Collin wrote:

I think it's quite interesting what you are saying here:

"stop thinking and accept my view as the only correct view"

Talk about suspicious behaviour, it has fascist tendencies in it!

And what is it exactly that you think I am defending?

sexism, and your assumed right to be a sexist.

dog owner "i couldnt live without my bitch"

slave owner "i couldnt live without my nigger"

fascist "i couldnt live without my need to pervert reality around my own views and intelligence"

I'm done with it, you're a blatant fascist woman hater.

Collin

Specifics wrote:

sexism, and your assumed right to be a sexist.

Nowhere in this thread have I defended sexism or anyone's right to be a sexist.

What we do have is a difference of opinion about whether or not a word has a sexist connotation.

dog owner "i couldnt live without my bitch"

slave owner "i couldnt live without my nigger"

fascist "i couldnt live without my need to pervert reality around my own views and intelligence"


I'm done with it, you're a blatant fascist woman hater.

See, this only proves it's necessary to bring intelligence into this. Stupid ridiculous statements bring us nowhere.