One of the things I love about blogging here at Alas are the insults. Wholehearted agreement is pleasant, but nothing strokes the ego like the knowledge that you’ve made such an impression on someone that he wants to hit back any way he can.
And insults are such good sparking-points for new essays. Consider this screed:
“I don’t know what more I could have done without sacrificing my self-esteem…”
And there’s another issue – you’re so stuck up your own rear-end you can’t see beyond your own nose. Other people are less important to you than your ‘self esteem’. “Hey hunny, I just had a real hard day at work.. I’m ready to flake out, could you make me a drink please?” – “Hell no, that would lower my already oh-so fragile self-esteem, and I’m not here to bow to your patriarchial demands of coffee-making, you chauvinistic bastar…”
I suspect this comment was born out of hostility towards all feminists – or maybe all women – directed at me simply because I made a convenient target. But beyond the inflammatory phrasing, notice the way I’m quoted in a misleadingly selective manner. Notice how a general comment is extrapolated to a situation completely unrelated to the situation I was discussing. And above all, notice how the mere mention of “self-esteem” serves to light the blue touch-paper of this guy’s hostility.
The full sentence of mine that he partially quotes is “I don’t know what more I could have done without sacrificing my self-esteem and my plans for the future on the altar of his personal convenience.” My plans for the future are immediately dismissed as unworthy of consideration, perhaps because they don’t arouse the same fury as my self-esteem. After all, intelligent people can make plans for the future, but only silly, selfish women care about their self-esteem.
I used the ill-defined term “self-esteem” to stand for a whole host of wishes and desires that would have unbalanced the structure of the paragraph if I’d listed them in full. My desire to explore my gender until I can find an expression of it that seems honest. My desire to express my emotions without being told I was “too intelligent to believe that”. My desire to enjoy my favourite foods and drinks without being made to feel as though I was committing some bizarre kind of self-abuse. Little things which, taken together, make me the person I am as opposed to a robot or blow-up doll.
I haven’t always seen my self-esteem as important. Many times in my life, I ranked it below the approval of others, hiding who I was or giving up what I wanted for no better reason than that friends, family or society in general felt it was inappropriate. It’s only after this last year of hardship and introspection that I’ve come to see that what I am and what I want matter: that my self-esteem is not something to be sacrificed lightly.
It struck me, while contemplating that hostile comment, that self-esteem isn’t a word the privileged need to use. If you have the power to impose your desires on those around you, with society’s seal of approval, your desires aren’t a matter of your self-esteem, they’re simply the natural order of things. It’s only if your desires are minimalised and brushed aside by those around that you need a word to stress the importance of being yourself.
If a man wants sex with a woman, if he wants to decide for her whether she should continue or terminate a pregnancy, if he simply wants her to attend to his wants before her own, he doesn’t use the language of self-esteem. Instead, he states outright or, like the commenter above, implies, that he deserves this, that he’s earned the right, that it should be that way. If the woman wants to assert herself and claim back the right to make these decisions for herself, the language of “rationality” won’t serve her. She falls back instead on the language of self-esteem.
So it’s hardly surprising that someone so openly hostile towards a woman who claims those rights would be filled with contempt for self-esteem. It’s in his interest to undermine it and make it appear frivolous and without value. For if we’re allowed to start believing that self-esteem is something worth defending, something too valuable to sacrifice to the convenience of others, his power starts to crumble. I must be put in my place, mocked and accused of rank selfishness lest anyone begin to take my self-esteem seriously.
Great points all, Nick. Yes, it is amazing to what extent the misogynists will engage in doublethink: *your* self-esteem is a sign of self-centeredness and immaturity….mainly because it takes attention away from some man’s self-esteem.
Re the quote from your “admirer”: I love the way he just assumes that the women in his little scenario “naturally” wouldn’t have had a hard day herself. That “of course” she hasn’t just come in from work herself, or, if she works in the home, that she hasn’t been knocking herself out all day doing the million and one things that need to be done. Nah, we all know that all women’s lives consist of nothing more than nibbling bon bons while watching our soaps.
Also, I have the feeling that he would have said the same thing to Nick if she’d been writing about how she’d decided to have an abortion because she didn’t want to deal with the prospect of such a messed-up sort as father. Or if she’d decided to dump him and look for a new man, one who would be a more responsible father etc etc…
The real crime in the eyes of misogynists is for women to make any decision at all, rather than passively awaiting the man’s superior intellect to drift down from Mt. Olympus and save the day. That’s the core sin, and all else is secondary. Bah. :/
Not to derail the thread, but I’ve noticed that when guys pull this shit, it’s seen as being passionate, acerbic, and no-holds barred. When women do it, we get lectures about civility.
See Bitch, Ph.D.’s post on NARAL for some rather sickening lectures on how naughty we ladies are for using cusswords. It’s apparently okay for the guys though. Nice double-standard on display.
Fuck that shit.
I agree with what you say, and there is another dimension to the use of this word. “Self-esteem” is a word conservatives love to make fun of because they place it in opposition to “dealing with reality.” Kids’ self-esteem should not be an issue in schools, for example, according to them. People should be worried about competiveness and achievement, rather than something wimpy like self-esteem.
Unfortunately, there are some movements that play into this. The example that comes to mind my friends in Boulder told me about: The schools had stopped using scoring in ballgames, so parents had to bring poster board in order to display the scores (I realize that no-scoring is common among very young kids, but these were not very young kids).
Of course, making self-esteem a wimpy concept allows it to be pasted perfectly onto women, doesn’t it? Self-esteem is girly. It’s about feelings.
Well, if conservatives are going to be so brutal about dismissing feelings, they could at least do it consistently: they’re constantly whinging about how bad and mean feminists are for having opinions that hurt men’s feelings and, er, self-esteem. In fact, I’ve seen them use such arguments to excuse everything from cat-calls and rudeness to rape and murder of women. It seems self-esteem isn’t such a laughing matter when it comes to men’s feelings of inadequacy when faced with a woman who demands to be seen as human.
# Crys T Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 6:03 am
Great points all, Nick. Yes, it is amazing to what extent the misogynists will engage in doublethink: *your* self-esteem is a sign of self-centeredness and immaturity….mainly because it takes attention away from some man’s self-esteem.
Re the quote from your “admirer”: I love the way he just assumes that the women in his little scenario “naturally” wouldn’t have had a hard day herself. That “of course” she hasn’t just come in from work herself, or, if she works in the home, that she hasn’t been knocking herself out all day doing the million and one things that need to be done. Nah, we all know that all women’s lives consist of nothing more than nibbling bon bons while watching our soaps.
Nice passive aggressive attack. It’s nice to know that men can be attacked in essence without saying a word, or rather, regardless of what they may or may not have said.
Perhaps you’d like the idea posted in another thread here, just kill all the males? Problem solved, eh?
It seems self-esteem isn’t such a laughing matter when it comes to men’s feelings of inadequacy when faced with a woman who demands to be seen as human.
Maybe seeing men as human would also be a good idea?
Ooh, classic.
1. A woman complains about sexist behavior by men.
2. An overtly sexist man characterizes this as an attack on all men.
Of course, it never occurs to them that men could escape being criticized for sexism by refraining from sexist behavior.
Brian Vaughan Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Ooh, classic.
1. A woman complains about sexist behavior by men.
No, a woman compains about “men”. A woman’s compaint about a whole sex, which is sexism by definition.
2. An overtly sexist man characterizes this as an attack on all men.
Oh? Really? Would you care to name the man she was talking about?
Of course, it never occurs to them that men could escape being criticized for sexism by refraining from sexist behavior.
You seem to be confusing sexim *by* women and sexism by men, or you are blaming female sexism on men.
Either way, you disprove your own point. It’s very sad really.
Step 1: Nick writes a post about sexist behaviour.
Step 2: CrysT writes a comment (#1) praising the post for its good points
Step 3: Rich writes a comment (#6) complains about sexist behaviour/writing by CrysT
Is that clear enough for you? Brian is correct in his assessment, you provide a classic example of what happens when women complain about sexism.
Sheelzebub –
See Bitch, Ph.D.’s post on NARAL for some rather sickening lectures on how naughty we ladies are for using cusswords. It’s apparently okay for the guys though. Nice double-standard on display.
lol hon, I was actually in the middle of all that … it was just an amazing combination of being insanely funny, mindbogglingly nuts and agonisingly predictable. There was just so much and varied misogyny coming from those two to three guys that you just simply did not know where to start. And yet, it was all our faults, and all about how they were being nice enough to show us how we should be doing things if we wanted to win, and how we were irrational for suggesting that anything might concern us.
In a way it was almost good that Dr. B was away, so we got to see the insanity itself.
9 times out of 10, I find when someone is making fun of you for cherishing your self-esteem, it’s because they have no esteem for you themselves.
# Amanda Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
9 times out of 10, I find when someone is making fun of you for cherishing your self-esteem, it’s because they have no esteem for you themselves.
====
In another thread I (and all men) are being blamed for rape.
Is this a self-esteem issue on my part?
Oh, christ, when is this troll going to be banned? “OMG, you said all men are rapists!”
Ginmar, cut him some slack. He’s obviously got reading comprehension problems.
# ginmar Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 3:28 pm
Oh, christ, when is this troll going to be banned? “OMG, you said all men are rapists!”
===
No, I said that in another thread, all men were being called rapists.
And that post was by Q Grrl, and here’s her post.
====
# Q Grrl Writes:
August 15th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
God, you are slow.
Yes. I hold all men responsible for rape. All rapes. All men.
And yes, for the second time, I equate “men” with “rapists.”
You are the ones who have, time after time, convinced me to think this way. You don’t like your reputation? Confront that asshole men who have given it to you. Until you do that, tough. I’m sorry your fee fee got hurt, but I’m not responsible for that.
I’m with ginmar. I was enjoying the Feminists For Life thread and though I completely enjoy reading the words of Q Grrl, Cryst T and Sheezlebub I am sick of watching them have to try to redirect the conversation back from one attention-hungry man with a chip on his shoulder about feminism. These smart, articulate women deserve more respect than that.
Another interesting post from Nick. And Amanda said it right – I notice that no-one mocks successful white men for having high self-esteem. Using the term as a slur inherantly implies that the people being slurred really shouldn’t have such a high opinion of themselves. No surprises there considering the people who dislike the term.
Here’s a suggetion about how to deal with the troll. Why don’t we all just ignore him and not bother responding to his comments? It’s not like he’s saying anything that we haven’t all heard a million times before. Responding is a waste of our time and energy, not to mention our considerable collective wit and wisdom! If we’re going to play whack-a-troll let’s at least save the effort for one who’s more interesting.
Here, here BritGirlSF :)
What, do I look like Mother Theresa?
I think the biggest privelege of all is the ability to be invisible. You’re the default, the standard, the center of attention, all without having to do a damned thing. When it’s gone it feels like you’re exposed and cold. After all, people are supposed to rotate around you like the planets around the sun. You can’t feel it when it’s there but you sure notice it when it’s gone.
Not that I have any sympathy at all for the priveleged. People should ask questions and actually do some THINKING now and then.
Which is exactly why I’m suggesting depriving the troll of the attention he seeks, Gin.
Thanks, Brian and Samantha!
You know, I think the reason most people are opposed to “self-esteem” posters is the idea that people have worth without doing anything. I think a lot of people feel we should have to somehow “prove” we’re worth something, prove that we are something, do something before we are allowed esteem. Some people take this to extreme: aka, the “nerds” and the “losers” in the high school social structure should be picked on by their social betters so that they have a motivation to become a social better. Gays shouldn’t be a part of anti-bullying measures because they should be bullied out of their distructive lifestyles.
The worst I’ve heard is of one of my college Republican, “social-Darwinism-is-back” peer of mine who states that people who are suicidal should just kill themselves, or be mocked if they do not succeed, because they are bringing down the gene pool don’t deserve life.
To some people, weakness is the worst moral failing at all. If you’re lazy, you don’t make any money, and you don’t deserve good health. If you were stupid and married an abusive husband, you don’t deserve a good marriage. If you don’t flourish under the status quo, you are not WORTH esteem, happiness, health, anything.
If you get pregnant and don’t do what the sperm-donar tells you to do, you are not WORTHY of support.
It’s almost enough to make me want to get a shotgun and go Rambo on Justice Sunday II. But then I remember, people are worthy, contrary to what others say. People are equally valuable: weak, strong, smart, stupid, poor, rich. President W is no more valuable than a special needs orphan out of Detroit.
And that’s why I think people hate all of this self-esteem stuff most of all. Because they see themselves as “higher up”; and they should get the things that those “lower” than them don’t deserve. Because if they don’t have something that someone else doesn’t, than they’re not better, they have no self-esteem. And that’s really sad.
Yeah, Britgirl, I got that. Sarcasm doesn’t come across really well in print.
He’s just feeling the loss of that spotlight.
Antigone, good points on self-esteem perceptions. I think at least some of the “you have to earn it” attitude has its roots in colonial times. The Puritans have a lot to answer for, IMO. For instance, in Puritan society at one time, wealth and success were considered the visible proof that you were almost certainly one of the 144,000 from the book of Revelation.
Lee Writes:
August 16th, 2005 at 5:51 am
Antigone, good points on self-esteem perceptions. I think at least some of the “you have to earn it” attitude has its roots in colonial times.
Self-esteem is not something anyone gives you, it’s something you give yourself. And you do have to earn it, by succeeding at things difficult or challenging. Doing simple easy stuff may save you from failue, but you’ll have done nothing from which you can gain self-esteem.
JFK said that we’re not going to the moon because it’s easy, but because it’s hard. This is the road to self-respect. It’ll also earn you the respect of others.
Antigone: “To some people, weakness is the worst moral failing at all. If you’re lazy, you don’t make any money, and you don’t deserve good health. If you were stupid and married an abusive husband, you don’t deserve a good marriage. If you don’t flourish under the status quo, you are not WORTH esteem, happiness, health, anything.”
Rich, I should have included this in my previous post about “you have to earn it.” Do you agree now with what I said?
Trying to bolster someone else’s self-esteem by ladling out lavish praise for nothing in particular doesn’t help anyone and is IMO patronizing; similarly, handing out do-nothing projects and expecting the participants to be grateful that they have an opportunity to be condescended to isn’t very constructive, either. I think we’d agree that self-esteem is lifted and enhanced when a person does something that garners recognition and praise perceived by BOTH the receiver and the giver as sincerely earned.
IMO, a trap that American society seems to be falling into more and more often is that we have turned self-esteem exercises into entitlement exercises, and we misapply processes across the board that were intended for certain very narrow sets of circumstances. I mean, an acceptable response to failing a test (for instance) should not be (on the part of the person taking the test), “Failing a test doesn’t mean I’m stupid, and I still feel good about myself.” It should be something like, “Failing a test doesn’t mean I’m stupid, it means I didn’t prepare for it. Next time, I’ll make sure I understand the material and study (harder) for it.” A good response for the test-giver should not be, “Somebody failed this test, so I’ll have to make the next one easier so that nobody feels bad about how they’re doing.” It should be something like, “Somebody failed this test. I should talk to this person to find out what happened so that we can schedule extra help if they need it.” And (to take an example I heard on the radio this morning), if gasoline prices take a huge jump, a typical response shouldn’t be, “It’s unfair to make me feel like I can’t drive a car to work. These gas prices are just killing my self-esteem.” (Really!)
Yo, Rich. I said I (meaning “me”) equate “men” with “rapists”. I also said that I hold all men responsible for rape.
Nowhere did I say all men are rapists.
Perhaps you should be more alarmed with *why* I equate men with rapists rather than the fact that I *do*.
Excellent posting from Lee.
I agree. It’s the strange attitude that people are only defined by their actions in the external, material world. That reminds me of the poem The Unknown Citizen by W.H. Auden.
I think what Antigone was getting it is that a good component of self-esteem doesn’t need to come from doing anything. It is a mental and emotional state, not an index of accomplishments.
Actually, equating “men” with “rapists” is the same thing as saying that all men are rapists. If that’s not what you mean, then do clarify.
Bullshit, Aegis, and you know it. She did clarify it and you’re telling her she needs to clarify—what, exactly? Her clarification?
A kid who doesn’t listen to women who talk about rape isn’t exactly the sort of person who gets to demand clarification from them. Why bother when you’ve proven yourself incapable of listening at all?
How much more clear can you get than, “I did not say all men were rapists.” She said it. You read it. Would you fucking pay attention to what a woman says, rather than what you want her to have said?
What Gin said.
Let me just note that this remark from the original screed:
“you’re so stuck up your own rear-end you can’t see beyond your own nose.”
is an astonishingly mixed metaphor, I believe. Although if you work it through, it does make a kind of sense . . .
Ok, back to our regularly-scheduled programming . . .
I actually read it as a single metaphor – after all, if you stuck your head that far up, it would be too dark to see anything much *wink*
Pingback: The Republic of T.
On the contrary, I responded to exactly what Q Grrl said. She said she equates “men” with “rapists” (see my previous post for the exact quote). That is the same as saying that all men are rapists. I understand that is not what she intends (and I don’t doubt her sincerity), but it is what her words say. So yeah, that is confusing.
Aegis, you have absolutely no credibility when you talk about confusion. She said it, it’s over, deal with it. And stop this game playing bullshit. It’s disgusting.
Aegis, I think perhaps you simply don’t understand. The word “equate” has several meanings. It does not necessarily mean “equal to” or “the same as”. If I said I equate “youth” with “inexperience”, I am not saying all young people are inexperienced. When I don’t understand a word, or if it used in a different context that I would normally use it, I look it up to see if it has more or different meanings than I thought it did. Perhaps you could try doing that when you don’t understand what people here are trying to tell you? It might help with your confusion.
But that would mean he’d have no excuse for derailing thread after thread to talk about how TPHMT.
At the risk of seeming immature…
Oooooh! BURN! Mousehound owns you, Aegis.
At the risk of seeming mature…
Extremely consise and accurate analysis Mousehound. Well put.
Weakness and strength are illusions. The entire concept of “completeness” is an illusion. None are complete and none are self made, and none are in control as many wish they were. GW has a bunch of big guns at his disposal, tons of money, and IMO has very little self esteem. If he did value his life and recognize how rare and fragile our lives and relationships are, he would do all he could to save them, and not brutally cast them in front of and under the swords of his flag waving loonies.
The first thing folks do when confronted by something they fear is to minimize it; especially if it is a truth, as it cannot be explained away. The privileged classes have used stealing self esteem as a tool for centuries. Look at the emasculating and treating of African and other, “dark” races. The treating of women as the, “weaker” sex; “come-mon honey… let me get that for you… just go along and go shopping like a good girl… don’t trouble ya self.” Makes you want to spit. The line between polite and subjugation is not that fine. I hope women do not aspire to the same level of self esteem displayed by men; many would need a shovel to get to it. The necessity of men to protect their place of privilege is evidence of how low self esteem is and shallow are the roots of confidence. Just how much stuff do you need to feel like you are safe fella’s? It is as big as it is going to get, get over it. It is an illusion, it can all be gone in the blink of an eye, and then if we have no one we shared with, what do we have when it is gone?
Those who need our help are not less worthy because they are in need. It is not our place to “make” them equal. (Equal to what?) The fact that a person is part of our community is enough, ability to perform some arbitrary task is not the determinant of a persons worth. How could it be? (Coby, does throwing a ball through a hoop empower a person to get away with rape? What does that say about the need of self esteem?) The person needing my talents is an opportunity for me to give from the blessings I have received. What good does it do to keep it? The currency of love only works when we spend it. Isn’t that really what esteem is all about, knowing you are worthy of love, are loved and can give love to others? The illusion that some have of independence is like a chain around their feet in a pool, as they go down, they claw at anyone to stay afloat… even if it means they both will drown. It is when we see that we all are incomplete and that together holding each other up, “interdependent,” (in my world view, God fills the gaps that we can’t) we become more than our combined weaknesses; then the Truth of the united body emerges.
You bring up a powerful point Nick, yours and others self esteem has been dismissed for far to long. (Sorry about the sermon, it’s what I do. I am home sick with the flu and had to get it off my heart.) Blessings.
Well, what else would it mean?
As it happens, I did look up “equate” in the dictionary before I called Q Grrl on her incorrect use of it (as far as I can tell):
The 2nd definition obviously isn’t useful here. As for the third, are you saying that ginmar only said she considers/treats/depicts “men” as “rapists,” but doesn’t actually say men are rapists? That still seems almost as bad.
Yes you are! By the definitions above, you are saying that youth is equivalent to inexperience, or you are “considering/treating/depicting” youth as equivalent to inexperience (if we must split hairs). Either way, your statement means that anyone who is a youth would be considered inexperienced, so it necessarily applies to all youths.
P.S. Why do I care? Because I believe that the relationship between men and rape must be described as accurately as possible to avoid painting men with too broad a brush.
But given it is impossible to tell which men are rapists and which are not, it is a good idea to keep in mind that any man may be a rapist and consider carefluuy how much you know/trust them before going anywhere alone with them. On some levels that is treating every man like he is a rapist, but how else can you reduce the chances of putting yourself in a situation where you may get raped.
The statement “I equate ‘men’ with ‘rapists'” describes a state of affairs inside the speaker’s head.
The statement “All men are rapists” describes a state of affairs outside the speaker’s head.
Is the difference really that hard to see? It’s perfectly clear to me.
Aegis, From the same page you linked, you ignored this:
equate
v 1: consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous
Do you see that “equal” is just one meaning? It also means “describe as analogous: ‘similar or correspondent in some respects though otherwise dissimilar’ “. An analogy is a comparison between two different things, in order to highlight some form of similarity. “Equate” also means to “consider or describe as similar”. It is used to compare or liken one thing to another.It does not always mean “equal to” or “the same as”. Words mean different things depending on the context they are used in. If you choose to go with a meaning that does not take into account the context, you will persist in not understanding.
If I said I equate “hurricanes” with “property damage and loss of life”, I am “not” saying that all hurricanes cause property damage or loss of life, because they don’t. I am saying that enough hurricanes cause property damage or loss of life that I feel comfortable likening the two.
If I said I equate “drunk drivers” with “accidents”, I am “not” saying that alldrunk drivers have accidents, because they don’t. I am saying that enough drunk drivers have accidents that I feel comfortable equating the two.
If I said I equate “men” with “rapists”, I am “not” saying all men are rapists, because they aren’t. I am saying that enough men “are” rapists that comparing, or likening, the two seems reasonable.
Picture a headline in the news: “Suspected Rapist Eludes Police”. Without reading the article, I could be reasonably certain that the suspect is a man. Why? Because I equate “men” with “rapists”. Why do I equate the two? Because the majority of “rapists” are “men”. It does not mean I think all men are rapists.
I don’t know how else to explain, Aegis. And since everyone else seems to have understood Q Grrl just fine, I see no sense in beating a dead horse.
Because I believe that the relationship between men and rape must be described as accurately as possible to avoid painting men with too broad a brush.
If that’s the case why have you been so determined to ignore what women have been saying about what they h ave experienced, felt, thought, and learned about rape?
Aegis : Because I believe that the relationship between men and rape must be described as accurately as possible to avoid painting men with too broad a brush.
Ginmar : If that’s the case why have you been so determined to ignore what women have been saying about what they h ave experienced, felt, thought, and learned about rape?
That’s a damn good question, actually. Why does a certain segment of the male population insist on taking this discussion so personally, while others are perfectly capable of deducing that they they themselves as a subset of the category “men” are not under attack? And how can one expect to come to an understanding of the dynamics at work if one completely ignores the experiences of women? Riddle me that, my dear.
Well, how can one come to know about rape if that segment of the male population is determined at all costs to turn the discussion from that very thing?
Gin – I was quoting you. My question was directed at Aegis and friends.
Oops. I still think you are misusing the word. Thanks for answering my question on your usage of it, though.
The fact that a subset of men are rapists doesn’t mean that men in general are similar (or analogous) to rapists.
I would say you are misusing the word “equate” in both cases. Yes, the consequences of hurricanes and drunk drivers are property damage and accidents. Yet hurricane and property damage are two distinct entities that are not similar or analogous at all (same with drunk drivers and property damage). “Equate” is not the right word to describe the relationship between those phenomena.
Ok, I understand that you have a strong association between “rapists” and “men.” I don’t think the word “equate” is an accurate way to describe that association. There is nothing in the definitions of “equate” implying that it should be used to describe correlations. If you want to point out that rapists are much more likely to be men, or that you have a strong association between rapists and men, why not simply come out and say those things instead of risking the misuse of the word “equate” (especially when the primary use of “equate” is a relationship of equality or equivalency, and many people understand the term to have that meaning)?
In my above post, I did not reply to myself (as the quote of “Aegis”) would indicate. That quote is actually from mousehounde.
There’s a distinction in some programming languages between “equal (have same address)” and “equal (have same content)”. If nothing else, it proves that ‘equate’ has more room for ambiguity than Aegis is willing to admit.
It might also be a good analogy for Q Grrl’s argument; ‘men’ and ‘rapists’ are commingled at the address-level, and it’s inefficient (or unreliable at runtime, whatever) for her to disambiguate by doing a test-by-content. We can’t always link in ginmar as an exception handler.
Interesting, but you don’t explain how it proves anything of the sort.
(Use of words in programming languages) != (use of words in normal speech)
Where’d the rest of my comment go, dammit? BritgirlSF, I got that but I typed more. Hm. Argh.
I’d also like to point out that now I’m the one being identified as saying that I said all men are rapists. Gee, all us feminists look alike, don’t we?
:: sigh:: Aegis, you are absolutely correct. Words only mean what you say they mean. Whatever would we do without you to define things for us. You are a giant among men. I am in awe of your mighty intellect. You have a really big dick. All women want you, and those that don’t just don’t get how wonderful and kind and how good a person you are. And you are right! All the time! Every word from your mouth is a universal truth! YOU are the best thing to come along since sliced bread.
You can retire triumphant! You proved all us poor folks wrong! Please go away now. You win.
Amp, don’t you think Aegis has wasted enough time and gummed up enough threads here with his oh-so-“civilized” brand of misogyny ? I sure do.
I don’t know how Amp feels, but I’ve had enough semantic wrangling on this thread at least. Comments relating to the original post are still welcome, but now is as good a moment as any to call for an end to comments dissecting the precise meaning of “equate”.
Sorry, Nick. I should have addressed you. :o I’m just getting tired of these games in which a man basically indulges in nothing deeper than those childhood games where we’d chant or print a certain word over and over again, until the very repitition robbed the word of any real meaning. I’m sure that he thinks it’s quite clever and amusing, but it’s not.
Rock wrote:
I think that folks like GW aquire their self-esteem through the existence of courtiers who constantly reinforce their right to commit the brutal acts that they do. Some courtiers are true believers, and some are obstensibly on the opposing team, but want to fawn and mimic the dominant voice anyway, usually out of fear of reprisals if they don’t.
At a personal level, you could argue that the sort of hostility directed against Nick is to be expected because by making her own decision about having the baby, et al, she has shrugged off her societally-designated role as courtier. Imagine if everyone did that ! Royalty is only royalty as long as the sycophants keep backing it up. Oh, dear… [fans self]
Hope you’re getting over your bug, Rock.
Sorry, Nick. I should have addressed you.
Because you talked about other threads than just this one, I thought you were talking about a site-wide ban, which would be Amp’s department. No apology necessary ;)
My department? I have a department?
I don’t think we even have site-wide bans anymore. Although if we individually all ban the saem person, that comes down to the same thing.
Piffle, Aegis, code *is* speech. You’ve been leaning on a math-defines-the-real-meaning use of ‘equate’, and even that reed collapses beneath you.
Ginmar, an exception handler is the part of a program that handles unexpected trouble; it was meant to be a compliment.
*ahem*
clew: I know it’s painful to give Aegis the last word, but I did ask for an end to this wrangle.