Feministe has a good round-up of recent posts discussing male liberal bloggers who use “gendered language as insult.” She quotes Body and Soul, who (predictably) gets to the core of the issue:
Beyond that, there’s also the fact that buying into misogynist garbage — along with the gay-bashing that accompanies insulting men by associating them with women — is a great way to reinforce the right-wing view of the world: There are inherently strong people and inherently weak people, and only the strong ones count. The rest can go hang out with the lesser orders. If you’re gay or female, that would be you. And me.
The comments thread following Jeanne’s post is especially worth reading. I’d also recommend this post on Des Femmes and, indeed, everything on Des Femmes, if you’re interested in this issue.
An issue that comes up a lot is the question of satire; what about lefty bloggers who use terms like “pussy” and “bitch slap” as an ironic reference to right-wing points of view? As Atrios wrote in Jeanne’s comments:
There’s something to be said for that. In a post like this, Atrios is obviously making fun of misogyny, not endorsing it.
And as MaryBeth points out:
Well, great. Except: how the heck did this become a debate over if Atrios is a good person or not?
Look, he’s a great guy. But that’s not the point. The point is, when language like this become normalized, it’s a problem just like Jeanne says. It’s not about what I call “the politics of personal purity” – who is pure and who is not. It’s about the atmosphere created when using gendered insults like “pussy” and “bitch-slap” becomes the norm.
To see what I mean, take this Atrios post – which, as I wrote before, is obviously anti-sexist parody.
Suck it up if you’re unemployed. Pussies.
But then read some of the comments on that post left by Atrios’ readers….
guys like you are the reason this country is going to shit. you’ve been a pussy and a blowhard know it all your entire life, and now you have a voice in the form of the Unelected Fraud and his corporatist overseers.
Or, for that matter, after I debated a female blogger (Megan McArdle) on the “Majority Report” radio show, how about this appalling comment left on the “Majority Report” blog by a reader:
He OWNED HER!
Barry is the WINNER.
Smack down!
It’s not Atrios’ fault, or my fault, or Janeane Garagalo’s fault that these comments are made. But although it’s not our fault, it should be our concern. If you’re against sexism, then you have to be against the woman-excluding atmosphere these comments create – and against the way such comments seem to be becoming more common as the election heats up.
If Atrios makes an ironic anti-sexist comment on his blog – or I talk against sexism on the radio – and the comments we get indicate that some of our audience, some of the folks who think they’re on our side, don’t get it – that’s a matter of concern.
If a leftist as smart and thoughtful and not-particularly-thin-skinned like Jeanne is feeling excluded, that’s a matter of concern.
I’m not saying don’t use irony. I am saying do use thoughtfulness. If you’re gonna use such language ironically, use it in such an over-the-top fashion that no one can possibly mistake who it is you’re blasting. (Comics readers may remember when cartoonist R. Crumb did a parody comic of racist views – only it was too subtle, and some racist publications reprinted it because they thought it was supporting their views). I am saying the question we should be asking ourselves is not “am I personally pure and good of heart?” but “is what I’m doing, regardless of my good intent, contributing to the problem?” And: “Am I remaining silent when I should be objecting?”
Finally, something that isn’t the point of this discussion, but is still worth thinking about. From a conversation with a Republican operative, reported on TAPPED:
The more women feel alienated from politics, the better things will go for the GOP. And if what we want to fight that alienation – not just for electoral reasons, but because it’s the right thing to do – then the lefty blogosphere could be doing a lot better.
Here we go again, the helpless fair gender flummoxed by an electoral dilemma. “Every woman who is repelled from politics by doubts about John Kerry and disgust with George W. Bush — the “pox on both your houses” outcome — is effectively another vote for Bush.” I too am disgusted by Bush and have my doubts about Kerry. Any thinking person will have doubts about Kerry, if only for not having seen him in a position of political leadership on the scale of the Presidency. Disgust for Bush is also a given, for he’s a murderer and liar and a consummate sociopath. Now, what about that choice dictates that a woman prevaricates and finally decides to just forgo voting? And to postulate she stays home on election day because her gender is predictive of her indecisive mindset is insulting. Like I said last week, if women want to control this country they should all get together and agree on a “women vote only for women” rule and men would be permanently marginalized. We’ve had our chance and all we’ve managed to do is kill, rape and pillage. It’s your turn to lead, you just won’t organize and do it.
Some parts of this make sense, some of it doesn’t. If you say someone “isn’t a real man” you aren’t necessarily calling him a woman. It’s often about the maturation of a male. A “Man” is just as often in contrast to a “boy”. This doesn’t seem to be the case in this instance, but it’s not always a gender issue, but an issue of responsibility. In that way George Bush is not a “Real” Man.
Soul, you’re still advocating rigid gender norms. “Real” men do this, or don’t do that. In relation, there would be prevailing norms for women also. All of these assumptions and the language used to communicate them run the risk of alienating people who would otherwise be in agreement.
Barry, while I agree that language is important, personal experience has led me to the conclusion that it’s only a fraction of the problem, and one I have little interest in unless backed up by action. I’ve run across men who have the feminist rap down so well, and yet when the time comes to back up those words, they fall down flat. And then there are those who may not consider every utterance (and hence may offend at times), yet act in thoroughly egalitarian fashions.
So while as a gender anthropologist, I know I should be demanding the eradication of sexism right down to the smallest pronoun, frankly, I’m in such fucking despair over the state of real life politics, battles we women thought we fought and won decades ago, that I just can get worked up over desfemmes and others swatting at fleas. Yes, they’re annoying fleas, perpetuate a nasty tradition, and are obviously part and parcel of why women can’t break the political, let alone, blogging glass ceiling, but they’re still fleas when I have a T-rex chewing on my leg.
No one says that a cowardly woman is not a “real woman”–that’s because there’s not a rigid separation between adult woman and child girl. Childishness is a positive trait in a grown woman as far as some people are concerned.
And steve, your loathing is showing–might want to make sure everything is buttoned properly.
If politicians quit speaking to men altogether or only did so in the most condescending way possible and instead addressed only women in language and concerns and imagery, I have a funny feeling you’d be the first to whine.
Steve:
1. Ampersand dismantled the “There are no obstacles in the way of getting all women to vote for female politicians” thing several posts ago, and anyway, it’s irrelevant to this issue.
2. There is nothing in that Tapped quote that implies that women are “flummoxed.” Instead, it says that if women can’t stand either candidate, they will not vote for either candidate. That isn’t indecisiveness; it’s frustration. Your attempt (and it is yours, not Tapped’s) to tar women who refuse to vote for this reason as “the helpless fair gender” is pretty obnoxious and makes no sense, since some men who don’t like Bush or Kerry won’t be voting, either. (Perhaps you would recommend that we simply vote for a female candidate?)
Hearing all this discussion about calling people pussies, I just shake my head and say:
“People who call people pussies must be real jerk-off’s”
Or dickheads, wankers, numb-nuts, have dicks for brains, or….
Opps. I don’t usually use such language!
Really, I’m glad steve keeps bringing this up. Without a man to tell us, it would have never occured to feminists to try to create some amount of political organization to better women’s lives. And it’s so easy, too! The only thing stopping us was not being smart enough to know that we needed to organize.
sorry, but even the “real man” remarks are alienating. the culture which gave rise to such remarks treats gender as an absolute binary: if you’re not a “real man” then you MUST be a woman, which to them is far worse.
i don’t see this as swatting at fleas. language shapes culture. i have a hard time believing a man is really egalitarian, and not just playing at feminism just to get laid (or get approval, or get votes, or whatever) when he can’t do something as simple as watching his mouth.
You can certainly be vitriolic without being sexist, or even using sex-specific insults.
George W. Bush is a COWARD for deserting his post in the Texas Air National Guard.
Jenna and Barbara Bush should enlist if they support their father. And not as some REMF – as a B11 (infantry), if they can hack it.
If they don’t enlist, they’re hypocritical cowards.
While we’re being gender-neutral, let’s compare Randi Rhodes’ service record to Dick Cheney’s. Randi Rhodes was named “Outstanding Airman” for one year when she served in the Air Force in the late 1970s. Dick Cheney had other priorities when he was called for Vietnam.
Just because you’re neutral doesn’t mean ya can’t be brutal.
…is effectively another vote for Bush…
Unfotunately, Steve, voting for Kerry is also another vote for one more wealthy, out-of-touch shithead who treats feminists like serfs. So I’ll be voting for someone not in either of the Big Two. And if that bothers you so much, perhaps you should expend at least as much time talking over Kerry’s flaws with Kerry as you are willing to spend tut-tutting at women who dare to notice the obvious: Both the major parties treat women like shit.
I don’t think anyone seriously believes that women stay home from the polls because they’re offended by a few words on one blog. However, it’s hard not to see the pattern when you see offensive language time after time on blog after blog. It’s hard not to look askance at Liberal and Lefty men when they seem to spend an awful lot of time and energy defending the use of these words, which are just as hackneyed and overused as they are aggravating to see.
It actually would cost these guys a lot less to chuck out these words in favor of something else than it does for them to spend tons of time defending them. But it starts to seem as if they really do think it’s more important to look like a strutting bad-ass than it is to be as inclusive and sympathetic as they claim the ideal of their side should be. In a world where it doesn’t take much to fuel the skepticism and apathy of the average reader (or voter), it seems more than a little short-sighted.
If it’s any consolation, however, the handful of genuinely radical sites I sometimes hang out on aren’t necessarily better in this regard. Nor does respect for women automatically indicate perfect compatibility in other areas. I know of one radical guy on one site who thinks Palestinians can do no. wrong. ever. and who latches onto every dipshit anti-Semitic conspiracy theory to come down the pike, even as he calls for the other guys on the site to treat women with more respect.
Oh, and Amp, I’d swallow the “irony” argument more if you could point me to three or four important Lefty blogs that threw the “N” word or the “K” word around with the same impunity that they do anti-woman slurs. I have yet to notice des femmes get any response for that particular question: Why is it all right to insult women in the name of irony but not all right to do the same to any group which might include men ?
That’s a question I’d really like an answer too as well.
I doubt that a few words on the blogs have anything to do with women’s lack of political participation. But the fact that we are erased from the way the media and the politicians speak about the system might have something to do with it. And that the Republicans have open contempt for women’s rights and the Democrats at best think they are a good thing but not a priority probably has a lot to do with it.
But none of that matters, because as we all know, if some group abandons the polls in large numbers it’s because there is something fundamentally wrong with them, because if they were fundamentally smart people, they would just all join together spontaneously overnight, overcoming education, family, society, and work, and just take over.
Well, I was seeing Des Femmes’s posts as maybe using other bloggers as examples, but illustrating a common social phenomenon. So no, maybe Random Male Blogger’s calling someone a “pussy” isn’t going to have an effect on any women other than those who read him, but Arnie’s use of “girly men”, coupled with the lack of any real censure follwing it, may influence lots of women.
“if some group abandons the polls in large numbers it’s because there is something fundamentally wrong with them, because if they were fundamentally smart people, they would just all join together spontaneously overnight, overcoming education, family, society, and work, and just take over.”
Oh, of course! Because we all know that the victims are *always* to blame for their own victimhood. Therefore, those who are in the groups that’s victimising them need never examine their own privilege and complicity.
I am getting sick to death of these so-called progessive men throwing these slurs about and then accusing women of being divisive for actually–gasp speaking our minds.
What’s divisive is equating anything female with weakness, or submissiveness. What’s divisive is using anything female as an insult. What’s divisive is throwing about slurs.
These guys are nuking their credibility–and they continue to destroy it by getting defensive and refusing to listen to women, the group the slurs refer to and the population these guys claim to be allied with.
Right. Sure.
And I’m oh-so-glad that some people can overlook this. But speaking our minds about it isn’t being divisive, and it isn’t–as a poster on desfemmes said–scoring points. It’s actually reaching out to them. If they meant what they said about being for women’s rights and progressive ideals, they’d actually shut up and listen. They’d be concerned about their credibility and take what we said into account. But they didn’t, and that’s pretty telling.
And yeah, we sound pissed off, but it’s not as if these guys are coming off as all that considerate, either. If you’re going to put something out there, learn that people won’t like it and will tell you so.
Let’s get real about the write-in or third party option. That option won’t win, and it’s all about winning in US politics. We aren’t a parliamentary system, and minor parties simply don’t have any impact as they do in typical European countries and Israel.
So, if you want to have more Scalias and Thomases on the Supreme Court and appellate courts, want to have Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas overturned, want to see women’s and lgbt and consumers’ and children’s and disableds’ and racial minorities’ concerns ignored, by all means, vote for a third party.
The time to raise hell is when the side more favorable to us has won. Then we can pressure them further. You know damn well Bush isn’t going to pay attention to progressives.
Let’s get real about the write-in or third party option. That option won’t win, and it’s all about winning in US politics.
Yawn. And how many times have we heard this in the last 20 years ? Strange how meekly rubber-stamping one two-party asshole after another hasn’t made us any safer or made the two-party system any more amenable to opening up its closed shop. I’m sick of being shaken down by bullies on both sides of the aisle.
Read this, please, Nancy. Says it better than I ever could:
http://www.counterpunch.org/baker04242004.html
P.S.– It’s been mentioned about four billion times by 3rd-Party advocates on this blog and a thousand other places that Scalia and his buddies got where they are today with the explicit co-operation of many, many Democrats. So excuse me, Please, if I don’t feel like hashing all that out again.
I care less how people vote this year faced with the usual shitty dilemna than I care about what they intend to do after the election to try and prevent this same shitty dilemna from facing us all in the future.
Well, you already know where I stand on this one Barry – though you didn’t tell me you had blogged about it yesterday! I can add this, though: I don’t think that the comments made about you and Meg were inherently sexist. I’ve seen the same thing said far too often without any gender/sex being tied in. It’s much more of a power comment that is sort of obnoxious/FPS-speak than sexism. It’s really common to hear ‘so-and-so owned so-and-so in that fight’ in the MMORPG world, so I think you’re maybe reaching a bit in calling it directly sexist.
alsis38 makes an excellent point that needs to be underlined in response to the “Oh, I’m just speaking ironically–in order to subvert this kind of language” charge:
The reason, of course, is that they know something that they don’t care enough to apply in the case of women: that in order to try to subvert slurs, you first have to make the slurs (this is true of a lot of things besides just name-calling). And people are not so comfortable with confidently trotting out “nigger”–even when they aren’t speaking in propia voce. Why? Well, because that word had a very particular use–and that use ain’t bloody well funny. Not realizing that the same is true of misogynist slurs, I think, helps indicate how seriously some boys take the idea that male supremacy is really, really bad.
MB is perfectly right to point out that this is far from the most pressing feminist issue in the world. But while no-one should drop, say, pro-choice activism or fundraising for battered women’s shelters to spend the time on this (or on anything having to do with blogs, for goodness’ sake), don’t you think it’s worthwhile to try, little by little, when we have the time, to change political discourse and move it away from, say, the cognitive style of ritual male combat ornamented with explicitly misogynist slurs? And wouldn’t the best place to start be somewhere where we stand a chance of making a difference–with those who we would like to be our allies, and who at least recognize that sexism is, in principle, wrong? (If any progress is going to be made with boys at all, then it seems like liberal boys would be as good a place as any to try to make some difference.)
I want to win, because losers get nothing in politics.
Third parties are fine for local races where enthusiastic canvassing can do wonders, and the number of voters per race is small (say, 20,000 for a state rep), but in general, third parties simply don’t have the infrastructure and cash for effective (ie, WINNING) statewide and national races. Watch Nader crash and burn here – the money and paid personnel he is getting is largely Republican money, not actual Nader-voter money and labor. I have never been too crazy about the Greens because in my state they don’t put up candidates for the potentially winnable city, state rep, and state senate races. If they decide to put up a reasonable candidate in my area, I will take a second look. Occasionally an independent can carry a state-wide race (Jesse Ventura in MN, Bernie Sanders in VT), but these are the exception.
So IOW, NancyP, you can’t be bothered to read Baker’s article. And you could care less about electoral reform. Okay, I get it. Vote however you want, and I’ll vote however I want. On paper at least, it’s still a democracy. Sort of. Although the Democrats themselves haven’t seemed to notice it. You don’t have to be a huge fan of Nader nor any other 3rd Party candidate to see that the Democrats were cowed and jerked around and hopelessly outmaneuvered by the Repugs last time around. So now they’re turning around and playing the same games against Nader. It’s sort of like how a kid faced with a bully he can’t beat will usually scout around for an even smaller kid that he can beat up on easily. Helps ease the pain, I guess, even though it actually doesn’t solve diddly-shit.
If that’s your idea of “winning,” have at it. Your idea of “winning” ain’t mine.
“I want to win, because losers get nothing in politics.”
Niiiiiiiice. So, even if the winning side is a bunch of right-wing bastards who will only continue the campaign of screwing over the poor in US, bringing devastation and death to the poor abroad while simultaneously destroying the planet, you’ll feel good because you’ll be on the winning side?
Doesn’t it bother you at all that the system your country has in place for electing its top officials is shockingly undemocratic? And that, if it were eliminated, the despised “third parties” (like what, there’s only one more in addition to the Republicrats?) would stand a hell of a better chance?
Also, change takes time, and the longer you put off working for change (by, for example, voting for an alternative party candidate for president), the longer that change will take to come about. All you’re doing now is keeping the status quo intact.
And the real losers are not only the American public, but people, paricularly the poor, who live in other countries and get screwed over by a president they don’t even have a voice in electing.
Look, it’s all well and good to talk about purity and idealism and all that. It was really appealing to a lot of us in the year 2000 when Nader got a surprising number of votes.
But pardon people like me and NancyP. If more people had held their noses and voted for Al Gore (who isn’t really the spawn of Satan or anything like that), then we wouldn’t have had an unnecessary war that’s killing tens of thousands of people, a massive rollback of constitutional rights, an economy heading straight for the shitter, and a huge rollback of gains made by feminists and other culture warriors.
m sorry if I do find the 3rd party stuff to be Ivory Tower nonsense. It isn’t exactly the same. I’m not really sure about where you live, but here it’s fucking scary living under such an extremist right wing machine. Getting dreary emails from friends whose job has been put on the chopping block and being afraid *every day* that your job is next is stress enough. Of course on top of it is the fear that someone else you know will be killed in Iraq or “reactivated”. And the newly emboldened right wingers who are enacting a reign of terror on our local Planned Parenthood knowing they can come extremely close to the line and even pass it without the Justice Department doing a damn thing about it. Not just the anti-abortion activists are emboldened, either–in case you haven’t noticed, the little mini-fascists all over the country are testing the boundaries and finding as long as they are white and vote Republican, those boundaries are pretty much invisible.
I wish the Democrats weren’t so attached to corporate interests. But I would so rather have mild corporatists who at least care a little about the unemployment rate and who don’t flirt with fascism over what we’ve got now.
Amanda,
So what is it that Clinton did for the poor? Oh yeah, welfare reform and huge restrictions on foodstamps. That was a good thing. Bush or Gore didn’t matter in terms of your job. The economy was going to tank anyway & everybody knew it. Just like in ’89. The problem isn’t that the Democrats are attached to (more like owned by) corporations. The problem is that the Democrats do not represent any of my positions. It’s my view (and that of many others) that the choice before us this year (and the last umpteen years) is to have things gradually get worse or to have things get worse very quickly. I don’t think that either of those is a good choice.
And the insults aren’t helping. I refer, of course, to “Ivory Tower nonsense.” I’ve been strongly leaning towards voting for Kerry. Hell, I’ve even given money to his campaign. But the disdain in which the Democrats hold those who are to the left of the Democratic Party is really pushing me to vote for somebody else. That disdain is an indicator of what I can expect the Democrats to do on any issue that is important to me.
I’ve said it before. The best campaign for Kerry is the Bush Administration. I can now add that the worst campaign for Kerry is the Democratic Party and gung-ho Democratic voters. Was that what you were trying to do?
Oh, I forgot my on topic comment entirely.
If a person uses the word “nigger” in their writing and that person is informed that that word is offensive and insulting and that person defends their use of the word and keeps using it….. Might you not call that person a racist?
The same thing applies to the words “bitch,” “slut,” “cocksucker, “pussy,” etc. in the arena of misogyny. Wouldn’t a person who wasn’t a misogynist say something along the lines of, “Gee, I’m sorry. I had no idea. I never thought about it that way. I’ll find other words to use?”
But maybe my expectations are too high.
It all vaguely reminds me of what got the women’s movement going in the late 60s, when women realized the guys were always assuring them they’d deal with sexism “after the Revolution,” or after more important things had been dealt with.
What Jake said. On both topics.
Well, what Jake said, except that I’d rather eat glass than give money to Kerry or any other Democrat ever again. I was suckered two years back into giving Sec. Bradbury of Oregon fifty bucks for his suicide run against Gordon Smith. Bradbury has treated the Nader/Camejo ticket disgracefully in his conniving to throw them off Oregon’s ballot. On Mischief Night, maybe I’ll load a shopping cart with Silly String and toilet paper and head to his house to demand my fifty bucks back. :p
“Barry WON. Barry Won.
He OWNED HER!”
I think you are too quick to assume this is sexist. It is very common in sports talk to say one athelete “owns” another when he has a consistent record of success against that athelete: “Bob Gibson owned the Tigers last night, striking out 17 . . .” That doesn’t imply that the Tigers were female . . .
Similarly, saying somebody isn’t a “real man” may involve some latent sexist or homophobic imagry, but most of the time what the person saying it really means is that the person in question is not displaying the type of moral, responsible behavor we exepct of an adult . . .
I never use gendered insults in written communication. In the spoken realm, I rarely insult anyone seriously. That is to say, I sometimes insult people in jest, but when I am actually angry at someone I don’t throw insults.
I do sometimes, thinking upon it, use gendered insults when I am joking around sometimes in person. I’m not naturally inclined to insults, though, so usually am I trying to be funny, and not at all thinking about the gender issues involved with using them. But, I am somewhat aware of them, I guess, because I would never call a woman a b!tch or a c*nt any more than I would call a black person the “n”-word.
But I sometimes call my friends b!tch. I stopped using sexual (“fag,” etc.) epithets a few years ago. Maybe I need to get get rid of the gendered ones too.
BTW, the two-party system is a result of our “winner take all” system of elections. If we moved to a proportional system (where a party that gets 5% of the vote gets 5% of the representatives in the legislature), as used in many countries, the door would be opened for third (and fourth and fifth…) parties. The Presidency would still have to be winner take all, but there would be a lot more legitimate parties to contest it.
“I think you are too quick to assume this is sexist. It is very common in sports talk to say one athelete “owns” another when he has a consistent record of success against that athelete: “Bob Gibson owned the Tigers last night, striking out 17 . . .” That doesn’t imply that the Tigers were female . .”
Because something is “common” does not negate the hate behind the sentiment. One could possibly argue in the sports team scenario that it isn’t sexist to say someone “owns” someone else — but it is certainly racist/classist. If you don’t think that this statement implies ownership in the sense of prostitution/being a wife, you must admit that it implies ownership in the sense of slavery. Either choice stems from the same patriarchal sense of entitlement and power-over relationships — no matter how common the sentiment or how friendly the rivalry.
I’ve had a fondness for the phrase “Wholly-owned subsidiary of…” ever since I first heard Molly Ivins use it to refer to Bush the First. As in, he is their [the oil interests’] wholly-owned subsidiary. Of course, I don’t think she meant for me to apply it to Democrats as well, but I do anyway. Sorry, Molly. When you signed my copy of your book “Keep Raising More Hell, Alsis” you had to know that it was an awfully vague directive. :D
After 12 years of living under Bush as opposed to most of y’alls four years, I just can’t see this election as anything but putting all our efforts towards throwing him out. Yes, Clinton screwed the poor. Bush will screw them harder. Go hang out in the Rio Grande Valley down here and tell me that Republicans and Democrats are the same thing.
Anyway, Bush is firmly dedicated to shrinking the middle class as much as possible, which will create more poor people to screw. I think that the Democratic Party needs to be reformed. I also think that won’t happen unless people quit being squeamish about being Democrats.
Exactly which people need to quit being squeamish, Amanda ? Take that idea to Kerry and see how far it gets you and then we’ll talk. If there’s anyone who clearly regards the Democrats’ once-proud heritage of standing up for the downtrodden, it’s the DLC. And no non-DLC candidate has been chosen for the top slot in about two decades now. :(
Maybe those assholes should give me something to be “un-squeamish” about. So far, they’ve been doing a piss-poor job in that regard. I’ve given up on them. You can have them.
AARGGH.
“DISregards.”
Shit. :o
Look, you gotta stop being squeamish about Ken. Ken won’t beat you up as badly as Dave.
That’s no reason for me to vote for Ken. I’d rather vote for Melissa.
Maybe self-proclaimed lefty Dems should stop being so squeamish about the Greens or the Socialists or the…..
Maybe the Dems should stop being so squeamish about me and mine. Maybe they should offer me a reason to vote for them other than, “We won’t take out the middle class as quickly as them other guys.”
The DP is nowhere near capable of being reformed. As long as money is the biggest factor in determining election winners the DP isn’t going to risk losing those big corporate donations. Don’t you think?
But that’s OK. The DP can continue to smother itself by ignoring my issues. When they lose this election (and I include the legislative branch in this), they will cease to even be a viable opposition party. Not that they have been an opposition party at any time in the last 4 years.
Alsis has it right. Until you offer me a reason to vote for you, fuck off & shut up. Only breaking one of my legs is not a reason to vote for you. It’s a reason for me to find somebody who will protect me from both of you.
I’ve got to say once more that you are doing more to convince me to vote for an actual leftist in this election than anything has in 4 years. Congratulations.
Anyway, I’m scared to death what’s going to happen to our university if Bush gets elected again. He’s sure to pass as many massive tax cuts as humanly possible for the rich, and you and I all know that the next thing on the chopping block is money for higher education.
Then you’d better pray that House and Senate Demos develop some spine, Amanda. So far, they haven’t really, but…
[beats head on desk]
Actually, Bush has been paying for his massive tax cuts for the rich by building up massive deficits, not by cutting programs, by and large. So your university will probably be fine in the short run, but your children will be broke.
I really don’t follow sticking “own” in the same category as misogynistic insults like “bitch”
it does carry heavy elements of classism, and arguably does contain it’s roots in a thuroughly unpleasant -ist past, but it’s meaning “to defeat utterly” is related more to the ancient version of slavery than american racial slavery or any form of particular sexism.
and while the phrase “real man” can contain sexist or homophobic sentiment, that doesn’t mean the phrase inhereantly carries it. it can also be used to deride immaturity. If you tell someone (say, Bush, for instance) “you fucked up. be a man and take responisibility” while gendered, is not per se sexist.
while yes, it is a sexist derived quirk of the language that a similar “be a woman” phrase doesn’t exist, the term “grow up” is used for both genders for the same meaning.
one could argue that the existance of a gender neutral version means that the one with a sexist origin is unnessicary and should be removed from our collective vocabulary, but I for one like redundant euphamisms. it makes persuasive writing that much easier.
and do keep in mind, ALL insults are based on some sense of superiority. and not all ideas of superiority are fair or reasonable. “stupid cow” for example, includes superiority declarations of intelligence, (presumably) gender, and beauty, in the form of fat hatred.
not one of those are fair declarations of superiority. not being intelligent doesn’t make one of less worth as a human being. neither does weight or gender. but in this thread, I’d bet the only one that would draw attention in that insult is the gendered aspect of it.
outside of removing the pyschological pressures to insult AT ALL, insults are always going to divide people and unfairly establish a heirarchy of worthwhile and worthless.
sure, women ARE derided and looked down upon by society unfairly, moreso than most, if not all other groups. but to say that insults as a word group are ok, just not GENDERED insults doesn’t seem to help the issue entirely
Speak for yourself, karpad. I find that an absence of gendered insults makes me much happier and more comfortable participating in these discussions. If I have to endure insults, let it be for things I’ve done or haven’t done, not for my lack of the more “powerful” set of genitalia.
I for one do not like the idea that smart/stupid classifications are comparable to man/woman. Some judgements are different than others.
aside from the fact that stupid people are not universally regailed to second class citizenship (if I were really clever, I’d make that a link to GWB.com or something) I don’t see too much of a difference.
a stupid person’s life isn’t any less valuable, and it sure as hell isn’t a defense on a murder rap to say “he played instant lotto and liked playing with dynamite after drinking heavily. all I did was accellerate Darwinism”
you can either be entirely heartless and say “women have no excuse for allowing a patriarchy to exist in the first place, so to hell with you, bitch” or you can say “ALL insults are hurtful and should be removed from dialogue” I simply see no reason to maintain sympathy for gendered insults when wealth and intellegence are consistantly used as insults.
now, it IS possible to drop any sort of class distinctions with insults, but then you find yourself restricted to phrases like “pus bloated, rat-like inhuman corpse spawn” (if the undead have any complaints, they’re perfectly free to appeal to me, and I’ll stop right away).
fun, but not as effective as a short epethet like “dumbass”
don’t get me wrong, I don’t think people SHOULD use bitch in everyday conversation. but then, I don’t think insults should be used in everyday conversation at all. and I certainly don’t think that “own” should be anywhere NEAR the top of our priority lists in terms of “hateful words people should avoid using.”
Because smart is preferable to being stupid inherently, whereas man is not actually preferable to being woman, except that we as a society make it so.
Also, stupid and smart are relative terms, and frankly they are temporal terms. I did something smart today but I also did something stupid. But frankly, everything I did was female.
That’s like saying the man/woman dichotomy is the same as beautiful/ugly. Smart is a positive adjective we bestow on behaviors or persons that we approve of. Woman is what someone *is*.
Psst… Amp… I liked rad geek’s comments, but I’d still like to hear YOUR answer on this:
Oh, and Amp, I’d swallow the “irony” argument more if you could point me to three or four important Lefty blogs that threw the “N” word or the “K” word around with the same impunity that they do anti-woman slurs. I have yet to notice des femmes get any response for that particular question: Why is it all right to insult women in the name of irony but not all right to do the same to any group which might include men ?
Steve Gilliard uses “nigger” ironically. He’s one of the big ones that des femmes singles out.
I’m not defending him or accusing him, by the way. In my corner, the jury is still considering the “irony” arguments. I see the validity in the argument that one should be able to parody your opponents, but I also see that some words are still considered beyond the pale in those circumstances.
When I was a teaching assistant, I got in trouble for saying the word “faggot” out loud while using it as an example of a hurtful word, so I can sort of see why this sort of thing can be taken wrong quickly.
I try to appreciate irony, but I find considerable merit to des femmes’ claim that the “irony defense” is used far too often to excuse callousness, a lack of insight, or just plain old intellectual laziness. :(
Nice acticle.Try my site medical billing software OR online medical billing software medical billing software online Direct – http://medical-billing-software.redi.tk Thanks
Pingback: feministe
Pingback: feministe
Pingback: Utopian Hell
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Bending sideways
Pingback: Pacific Views
Pingback: Bending sideways