'Stupid Woman'

[iNow]

I think he was making a funny

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

I think he was making a funny

Just making sure. The post clearly bothered someone. 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I was being sarcastic. I was agreeing with your post. 

I misread sorry.

[MigL]

Funny how some people perceive offence where there may be none.

Maybe you should have been more aware of your audience Ten oz .

[Strange]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Funny how some people perceive offence where there may be none.

I assume you mean where none was intended. After all, if people perceive that they are offended then they are offended.

[MigL]

No, it was a misreading of the post; there was none.
But that is the point; there could be no offence, or none intended, or an accidental mistyping, or a cultural difference, or view from the FoR of a different gender/sexuality/color, or myriad other causes for misunderstanding.

I would like to thank Ten oz and Dimreepr for illustrating my point a lot better than my own posts throughout the last several pages.
( don't you love it when a plan comes together ? )
And the ease of resolving such 'misunderstandings by asking for a simple explanation/apology, rather than pillorying someone in the News for days or weeks.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would like to thank Ten oz and Dimreepr for illustrating my point a lot better than my own posts throughout the last several pages.
( don't you love it when a plan comes together ? )
And the ease of resolving such 'misunderstandings by asking for a simple explanation/apology, rather than pillorying someone in the News for days or weeks.

I think you're ignoring the fact that the people in the News are there because they're celebrities, and there is no taking someone aside to explain it to them privately. They are in a public arena, and their actions and behaviors should ALWAYS reflect that, IF they don't want this kind of magnified attention.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, it was a misreading of the post; there was none.

It was a misreading of the post that led to someone feeling offended. You can't say there was none when the reactions was:

On 1/5/2019 at 4:41 PM, dimreepr said:

Wtf is your problem?

  

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

But that is the point; there could be no offence, or none intended, or an accidental mistyping, or a cultural difference, or view from the FoR of a different gender/sexuality/color, or myriad other causes for misunderstanding.

And any of those could cause offence. You seem to be saying that the offence isn't "real" if it wasn't deliberately intended.

 

[MigL]

But if E May had said, after the news broke, that she was offended by the implication that it was a gender disparaging comment, J Corbyn might have offered up an explanation ( "No, it was an identifier" ) or an apology ( if it was ).

He may have still needed to apologize for the 'stupid' part of the comment, unless that has an explanation also.
( they are politicians, are they not ?)

 

@Strange
No I have been saying all along that I don't know, and reserve judgement.
Others have been saying that the only criterion for offensive behavior, is whether the 'audience' is offended or not.

Edited January 6, 2019 by MigL

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

But if E May had said, after the news broke, that she was offended by the implication that it was a gender disparaging comment, J Corbyn might have offered up an explanation ( "No, it was an identifier" ) or an apology ( if it was ).

 

why does it matter who challenges him?

[Ten oz]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

And the ease of resolving such 'misunderstandings by asking for a simple explanation/apology, rather than pillorying someone in the News for days or weeks

The piling on in the news generally happens because individuals flatly deny or obfuscate what they meant rather than clearly explain or apology. Also Dimreepr is not obligated to agree with my response regardless of my intentions. Despite the fact I was agreeing with  Dimreepr they could  have disapproved of the satirical way I chose to respond.  

[MigL]

What if everyone else had started chiming in with their own explanations of the reason Ten oz had offended you ?
( he's never liked you/you are too thin skinned/you immediately jump to profanities/you hate measures of weight... )

Instead a simple explanation, and its over.
For what its worth you two are better than politicians, or newsmen ( wait, is that sexist ? ).

[Ten oz]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

Others have been saying that the only criterion for offensive behavior, is whether the 'audience' is offended or not.

To an individual how is this not true. It you are legitimately offended by something  who am I or anyone else to say that you should not be? If one cares about you personally or professionally  they should be mindful of what things offend you. 

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

Instead a simple explanation, and its over.

And it’s great if things can be resolved quickly with an explanation/ apology. Which might mean explaining why no offence was meant or why the thing that was said was offensive (or both). 

But doesn’t mean the person wasn’t offended in the first place. 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

What if everyone else had started chiming in with their own explanations of the reason Ten oz had offended you ?
( he's never liked you/you are too thin skinned/you immediately jump to profanities/you hate measures of weight... )

Instead a simple explanation, and its over.
For what its worth you two are better than politicians, or newsmen ( wait, is that sexist ? ).

That isn't what happened. One can 'what if' any situation into a messy affair if they try. I clarified what I meant and we amicably resolved the misunderstanding. In the case of Corbyn he denied the matter outright claiming instead to have said "stupid people" rather than the more pointed "stupid woman".  The denial was insult to injury for those who do not accept they excuse. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

The denial was insult to injury for those who do not accept they excuse. 

And as our own lip-reading expert confirmed, the denial was an outright lie. Why lie if he was just removing the ambiguity surrounding Theresa May's gender, or to emphasize the target of his ire (even though she had just spoken) for his aide's benefit? 

Because men are far less likely to encounter gender discrimination such as this ("they're all stupid/inadequate/not worth as much money/overly emotional/weaker/whinier/or any other gender-based prejudice X"), I think it's necessary to be a bit more sensitive about demeaning women for being women. It's amazing there's been nine pages of pushback about something that should be so basic, HAS NEVER BEEN TREATED THAT WAY, and is obviously something that needs to be addressed more sincerely in modern times.

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And as our own lip-reading expert confirmed, the denial was an outright lie. Why lie if he was just removing the ambiguity surrounding Theresa May's gender, or to emphasize the target of his ire (even though she had just spoken) for his aide's benefit? 

Because men are far less likely to encounter gender discrimination such as this ("they're all stupid/inadequate/not worth as much money/overly emotional/weaker/whinier/or any other gender-based prejudice X"), I think it's necessary to be a bit more sensitive about demeaning women for being women. It's amazing there's been nine pages of pushback about something that should be so basic, HAS NEVER BEEN TREATED THAT WAY, and is obviously something that needs to be addressed more sincerely in modern times.

Even the deaf percussionist Evelyn Glennie says that he said "woman". She is a master lip-reader. I'm good but she's awesome.   

Quote

Tim Johns, who produces the Jeremy Vine show on BBC radio, tweeted: “I just showed Evelyn Glennie, the famous percussionist, the footage of Jeremy Corbyn in the Commons. 

"She's deaf and can lip read. She wasn't aware of the story and her interpretation of what he said was "stupid woman". She says she's very certain.”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-accused-of-mouthing-stupid-woman-at-theresa-may-during-pmqs-a4021601.html

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And as our own lip-reading expert confirmed, the denial was an outright lie. Why lie if he was just removing the ambiguity surrounding Theresa May's gender, or to emphasize the target of his ire (even though she had just spoken) for his aide's benefit? 

Because men are far less likely to encounter gender discrimination such as this ("they're all stupid/inadequate/not worth as much money/overly emotional/weaker/whinier/or any other gender-based prejudice X"), I think it's necessary to be a bit more sensitive about demeaning women for being women. It's amazing there's been nine pages of pushback about something that should be so basic, HAS NEVER BEEN TREATED THAT WAY, and is obviously something that needs to be addressed more sincerely in modern times.

Moreover why lie if saying "woman" isn't sexist or any worse than "people". In the denial lays an admission of sorts. 

[MigL]

I can agree on this part Ten oz
"To an individual how is this not true. It you are legitimately offended by something  who am I or anyone else to say that you should not be?"

But then your claim to be offended should not immediately mean that the offender is sexist ( as Phi is implying )
A sexist, racist or any other discriminatory offence should  be evident to all.
Otherwise only complainers are discriminated against.

J Corbyn may have claimed he said 'people' for this specific reason.
An accidental mis-speak makes him sexist. when clearly, people who know him much better than us North Americans, claim he certainly isn't.
( incidentally I've been calling Theresa May, 'E May'. Elizabeth May is a Canadian politician. I know even less about British politics than I thought. )

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

But then your claim to be offended should not immediately mean that the offender is sexist ( as Phi is implying )

I think that is an interesting (and very complex) point. I certainly don't have an easy answer. It is not as simple as dismissing the claim of sexism (or whatever) but neither can we assume "guilt". It may well be that someone is not aware of how language has changed. Or just is not aware that what they are saying is deeply sexist. (They are in need of "re-education"!)

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

A sexist, racist or any other discriminatory offence should  be evident to all.

Not at all. People who share the speakers sexist/racist/whatever views, may not see it as discriminatory or offensive.

I am assuming that some (and, today, perhaps most) discriminatory language is not used in a deliberate attempt to insult or demean people. Much of it is used without thought, based on cultural assumptions that are unfair and inappropriate. We have come a long way from the days when a sign advertising a room for rent might say "No dogs. No Irish." And even a long way from "some of my best friends are Jewish".

But people still casually say offensive things. Like introducing people on a discussion panel as "... Professor John Jones, Doctor Bill Bones, and finally, the prettiest member of the panel, Jane Doe" (omitting the fact that Doe is a PhD and a professor with more published papers than Jones and Bones put together). At which point all the women (and some of the men) in the audience are facepalming while some of the men are smiling about how pretty Jane is (and thinking "what a nice compliment to pay her").

The speaker (and some of the members of the audience) just thinks he is "being nice". He needs to understand that, even though he may not have intended it that way, what he said is sexist, demeaning and offensive.

19 minutes ago, MigL said:

( incidentally I've been calling Theresa May, 'E May'. Elizabeth May is a Canadian politician. I know even less about British politics than I thought. )

Weirdly, when I noticed that, I knew it was wrong but couldn't for the life of me think of the right name!

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

An accidental mis-speak makes him sexist. when clearly, people who know him much better than us North Americans, claim he certainly isn't.

Is this the problem then? Do you think making a sexist remark makes you a sexist? I think you need to practice the bad habit regularly before you're considered that as a whole. You've lied before, but I wouldn't classify you as a liar (the way I do with Trump). 

I actually think this is why many guys defend bad behavior. They don't want a mistake to label them, but what's really important here is that the language needs to stop being needlessly offensive.

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Is this the problem then? Do you think making a sexist remark makes you a sexist? I think you need to practice the bad habit regularly before you're considered that as a whole. You've lied before, but I wouldn't classify you as a liar (the way I do with Trump). 

Good point.

I'm sure we've all had that moment when your mouth goes, "It's all right, I've got this" and then proceeds to say something that makes you want to crawl under a rock until this civilisation has collapsed.

No? Just me then ...

[Raider5678]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

They don't want a mistake to label them, but what's really important here is that the language needs to stop being needlessly offensive.

I'd argue the exact opposite of what you said.

I don't want the language to be needlessly offensive, but what's really important here is that a single mistake doesn't label you. 

Take, for example, a girl who just got dumped by her boyfriend and says "All men are just assholes." (I've heard it. Many, many, many, many times.)

The language is needlessly offensive. She could have said his name instead. But no, she says "men". That's sexist, is it not?

 

Or perhaps we use another phrase, more related to this thread.

A woman, after her husband forgets to put the big spoons separately from the small spoons, says exasperatedly, "Stupid man.", takes the spoon, and does it for him.

I mean, according to you(I think it was you who said that), there is no reason to include gender in that phrase unless it's used in a sexist way to demean that gender. 

Should we label that woman as sexist, in the name of reducing needlessly offensive language?

 

I could go on. But I think my point is clear. I really believe that allowing a mistake to label someone is far worse than there being needlessly offensive language.

4 hours ago, Strange said:

The speaker (and some of the members of the audience) just thinks he is "being nice". He needs to understand that, even though he may not have intended it that way, what he said is sexist, demeaning and offensive.

And if it's sexist, as it obviously is, and the speaker made a mistake when saying that, should we label him as sexist? (This is assuming you agree with Phi's statement. If not, ignore this.)

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Or perhaps we use another phrase, more related to this thread.

A woman, after her husband forgets to put the big spoons separately from the small spoons, says exasperatedly, "Stupid man.", takes the spoon, and does it for him.

I mean, according to you(I think it was you who said that), there is no reason to include gender in that phrase unless it's used in a sexist way to demean that gender. 

Should we label that woman as sexist, in the name of reducing needlessly offensive language?

If you'd read what I wrote, it would be quite clear that the woman made a sexist remark. If she had a habit of making sexist remarks, I would probably label her a sexist. What is so hard about separating the person from the behavior? We do it all the time here. We attack ideas, not people. A person can make a sexist remark and not BE a sexist. 

Are we going to start calling you a thief because of that thing you stole? Or are we going to reserve that label for when you don't learn your lesson and steal something else?

Why is it so hard to admit that Jeremy Corbyn, not generally considered a sexist, made a sexist remark that he shouldn't have? I've done sexist things before, and later realized what I did. I might have realized more quickly if someone had pointed my behavior out to me. Men rarely do, and women have been conditioned not to make waves around men. I'm glad this movement is happening in my lifetime, and I support my sisters in their quest for more respectful treatment.

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I'd argue the exact opposite of what you said.

I don't want the language to be needlessly offensive, but what's really important here is that a single mistake doesn't label you. 

Interesting definition of “opposite” where you repeat exactly what Phi said!