'Stupid Woman'

[DrP]

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

A person can make a sexist remark and not BE a sexist. 

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Why is it so hard to admit that Jeremy Corbyn, not generally considered a sexist, made a sexist remark that he shouldn't have?

If I thought the remark he made was sexist I'd agree.   but I still don't think it was. It was factual (in his mind...  I can't believe the woman is stupid in reality...  surely she wouldn't have risen to be the Prime Minister otherwise). 

They do it to him all the time...  he disagrees with a right wing policy that comes out of Israel (as everyone else does anyway) and they all jump to call him an anti-Semite. He calls a female a woman and he's sexist. He doesn't wear a sharp looking suit and he's a bum and a lazy tramp. He tries to negotiates peace and reconciliation with a terrorist organisation and he is a sympathizer and a traitor.  The problem is that he wants the huge multi billion dollar companies to pay fair taxes....  so Rupert Murdock slams him in the public eye every single chance he gets to discredit him. The working class all lap up what Murdock says in his papers and so they see Corbyn as a total joke - a scruffy, lazy unelectable buffoon who makes silly sexist and racist remarks when he is supposed to be sticking up for minorities.  If he was in power then Murdock would have to pay his fair share of taxes and he doesn't like it.  Thus - the paper is full of Corbyn being sexist, racist, scruffy, thick, a whip who wouldn't push the button, a danger to the country, a traitor who talks to enemies!....  instead of reporting 3000 dead over Christmas due to Tory social cuts, May willing to walk away with no deal and isn't sweating it even though they have no plans for it, big arms deals going down with governments that are commiting war crimes, DT being a dick again..  that sort of thing.  And everyone falls for it. I would have thought that this recent line of accusing the most left wing people of bigotry and bringing them down in the press whilst ignoring 1000 worse comments and policies and hideousness from the opposition would be a transparent tactic....  apparently not.

 

[Ten oz]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

I think you are ignoring how relative isms often are. By today's standards just about every man alive 200 hundred years ago was sexist. Today entire societies like that of Said I Arabia be described as sexist.

What you may not think sexist others might. In my opinion it is good for society when these things get challenged. It helps move to bar for  offense from a ridiculous place where husbands can legally beat their wives to one where men must consider if "stupid woman" is appropriate to say. 

16 hours ago, MigL said:

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. )

I made a similar point earlier in this thread. Different sayings mean different things contextually pending on who is saying it to what audience. I do not know the nuances for dog whistles and slights in UK politics. I have no idea if Corbyn's remark had deeper implications. I have also stated a few different times that I do not know whether or not Corbyn is a sexist. 

Lying to avoid criticism is still lying. I never pitty politicians who purposefully lie. Corbyn exacerbated this issue. Rather than obfuscating with BS he could have just apologized and said "people" is the word he should have used.

 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, DrP said:

If I thought the remark he made was sexist I'd agree.

but I think even he would agree, it should be challenged, if only to make us think twice.

3 hours ago, DrP said:

They do it to him all the time...  he disagrees with a right wing policy that comes out of Israel (as everyone else does anyway) and they all jump to call him an anti-Semite. He calls a female a woman and he's sexist. He doesn't wear a sharp looking suit and he's a bum and a lazy tramp. He tries to negotiates peace and reconciliation with a terrorist to leader he is a sympathizer and a traitor.  The problem is that he wants the huge multi billion dollar companies to pay fair taxes....  so Rupert Murdock slams him in the public eye every single chance he gets to discredit him. The working class all lap up what Murdock says in his papers and so they see Corbyn as a total joke - a scruffy, lazy unelectable buffoon who makes silly sexist and racist remarks when he is supposed to be sticking up for minorities.  If he was in power then Murdock would have to pay his fair share of taxes and he doesn't like it.  Thus - the paper is full of Corbyn being sexist, racist, scruffy, thick, a whip who wouldn't push the button, a danger to the country, a traitor who talks to enemies!....  instead of reporting 3000 dead over Christmas due to Tory social cuts, May willing to walk away with no deal and isn't sweating it even though they have no plans for it, big arms deals going down with governments that are commiting war crimes, DT being a dick again..  that sort of thing.  And everyone falls for it. I would have thought that this recent line of accusing the most left wing people of bigotry and bringing them down in the press whilst ignoring 1000 worse comments and policies and hideousness from the opposition would be a transparent tactic....  apparently not.

6

Corbyn cant make the jump from activist to leader - unfortunately...

[DrP]

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Corbyn cant make the jump from activist to leader - unfortunately...

not when the press disallow it by painting him as a scruffy idiotic loon, a bigoted Nazi, a terrorist sympathizer and a ban the bomb pansy whilst ignoring sins a thousand times greater by his opponents and cover then up. Who cares if he has a beard or not? In this day and age your appearance should not be important - I think he does it deliberately to make a point. Good for him. Why does trying to find diplomatic peaceful solutions over war make him a bad choice? Other than by not deepening the pockets of the already rich.

Last general election... I'd never read such an exciting manifesto as his. The oppositions one was frightening...  right wing, social cuts further, bringing back fox hunting etc...  as opposed to fairer taxing, better services, better everything all round.   People still said he was unelectable...  when questioned as to why he was unelectable they say...  'well just LOOK at him!'  as if his appearance sums up whether he is capable or not. They never even read his manifesto... the reason?  Because the press focus on shit like this recent 'stupid woman' comment and ignore 1000 comments by the opposition to discredit him so they can continue to dodge their taxes and make further billions for their fat cats. The working class hate him because Rupert Murdock has told them to.

 

 

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, DrP said:

If I thought the remark he made was sexist I'd agree.   but I still don't think it was. It was factual (in his mind...  I can't believe the woman is stupid in reality...  surely she wouldn't have risen to be the Prime Minister otherwise). 

Then perhaps you're still of the mind that people need to be defined sexually before you can identify with them in any other way. Many men still do that. For you, it isn't a statement about women, but for too many other men it is. And the statement is ugly, brutal, and heavily prejudiced.

And again, AGAIN, bear in mind we're talking about people shaping public sentiment, leaders and heads of state that are constantly in the media. I think they deserve some extra special scrutiny, adhere to their scruples more closely, seeing as how they help inform many of our own decisions. If we want things to be better, for women especially in this context, we have to be willing to change when we're shown how much our words hurt.

[DrP]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I think they deserve some extra special scrutiny,

I agree  -  so where is the outrage at the far worse language that comes from people from across the aisle every single day?  When have they ever been spread across the front pages for days on end when they actually publicly say something dumb and offensive?...  it is usually ' oh dear, blundering Borris has put his foot in it again, tee hee, what a naughty boy - lets not get carried away with PC gone mad - everyone carry on!'   Or when the brexiteers start their hate speech about foreigners, or when the Prince calls an Indian a golly wog or a says the japs have slanty eyes... then its ' oh well he's old, he's the queens husband, he's done a lot of good'... and it gets washed under the carpet...  or when the president of the USA calls a nation state a shithole country?   Being honest I don't mind some of it getting brushed under the carpet but can you not see the double standard?  Maybe not as you live in a different country., although I know you saw it with Trump and Clinton.  Both accused of many things  -  everyone believes the hype and lies about one and ignores the actual facts about offenses caused by the other.

 

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Then perhaps you're still of the mind that people need to be defined sexually before you can identify with them in any other way

not at all  -  I don't believe so anyway  -  see above rant, lol.

Edited January 7, 2019 by DrP

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

I agree  -  so where is the outrage at the far worse language

It's probably being drowned out by all the whataboutisms being thrown around.

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, DrP said:

not when the press disallow it by painting him as a scruffy idiotic loon, a bigoted Nazi, a terrorist sympathizer and a ban the bomb pansy whilst ignoring sins a thousand times greater by his opponents and cover then up. Who cares if he has a beard or not? In this day and age your appearance should not be important - I think he does it deliberately to make a point. Good for him. 

3

that's my point, not Good for him. 

[DrP]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

that's my point, not Good for him. 

no - that's MY point!... it's not good for truth and honesty...  shame on everyone. Are you suggesting we should discriminate then based upon the appearance of someone... say - what clothes they wear, the colour of their skin or their sex for instance?  Sounds like it to me.

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by DrP

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

no - that's MY point!... it's not good for truth and honesty...  shame on everyone.

Your me in a different skin - so yes - but...

[iNow]

6 hours ago, DrP said:

If I thought the remark he made was sexist I'd agree.   but I still don't think it was. It was factual

Yes. It was factual. You are correct, though this is less about the accuracy of the comment itself and is more about why he felt the need to insert an adjective that is already itself self-evident. Let me lay this out and set a bit more context:

"Stupid woman." We already know she's a women, so why include it? What's the point? That's ultimately what I'm trying to sort through here...

Maybe let's look at other self-evident adjectives and how we might respond had those been used instead:

"Stupid black." Hmm... Now that feels a bit different... a bit harder to accept as legitimate, yeah... don't you agree? The color of their skin is both self-evident and also irrelevant. It seems clearly included to suggest "blackness" makes their stupidity even worse. It seems meant to further saturate their "stupid," because they're also "black."

Continuing this theme, let's maybe try another one:

"Stupid blonde." Hmm... Yet again, how is hair color relevant? We don't have the same history of discrimination against blondes, but clearly there's a generalization being made and one that rests in old stereotypes about blonde people. How is including hair color in the comment needed? What value does it bring? It is, after all, self-evident what color their hair is to everyone with normal vision.

Perhaps you disagree, but it seems obvious to me that they're generalizing about blonde haired people as a whole... trying to magnify this idea that the individual is of poor intelligence by including them in a broader group that is ALSO supposed to be less intelligent. The inclusion of this hair color "fact" is to further exaggerate the claim of stupidity.

Now, if they'd said, "Stupid red shirted person," that would just be weird. We would never expect to hear such a thing, yet when it comes to being "factual," the red shirt isn't much different from the blonde hair, the skin color, or the gender... The red shirt is equally self-evident to us, however it instead rings hollow in our ears because we KNOW it's both unhelpful and irrelevant and not a useful variable when commenting negatively on ones overall intelligence. It's just a shirt color...

Less irrelevant than hair or shirt color, however, I think we can all agree... The comment would have felt FAR different and FAR more negative had he instead said, "Stupid Jew." He didn't, of course, but let's use it to explore our own reactions to the words used by others. 

How would we have reacted had he said, "Stupid Jew?" I'm fairly sure we'd be like, "Whoa there, buddy! Back the eff up... that's totally NOT acceptable, not at all!! This isn't 1930s Germany you ignorant twat!" Amiright? We'd quite rightly and without hesitation recoil at the tone deafness and ignorance embedded in such a comment, right? But why? 

While the religious ideology or cultural heritage as a "Jew" is not quite as self-evident as the above referenced physical traits (unless perhaps they're Hasidic or wearing a yamaka / kippah, etc.), it still stands out as unnecessarily biased, unhelpful, and likely even rooted in a broader discriminatory attitude. It clearly is intended to magnify the attack on the individual by including them in a larger group that is also "less than" or inferior in some way. It's still factual, but suggests something much more than an innocent comment on one lone persons intelligence.

So... stupid black? Yeah, that sounds different. That sounds like it should be avoided. Stupid blonde? Well, maybe not as big of a deal, perhaps a bit more playful at least, but still would've been better to leave it out. Stupid Jew? Well, no... Not at all. That's a line being crossed right there and we're clearly better to avoid that as a culture.

So, that leaves me with this one question: Why should we consider "Stupid woman" to be any different?

Edited January 7, 2019 by iNow

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes. It was factual. You are correct, thought this is less about the accuracy of the comment itself and is more about why he felt the need to insert an adjective that is already itself self-evident. Let me lay this out and set a bit more context:

...

+1 - Very good post.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

+1 - Very good post.

Indeed

[Phi for All]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, that leaves me with this one question: Why should we consider "Stupid woman" to be any different?

Thank you.

[DrP]

27 minutes ago, iNow said:

So... stupid black? Yeah, that sounds different. That sounds like it should be avoided

To play advocate - although I agree partly with what you say   -  'Stupid Black' is not a common term in the English language and is KNOWN to be offensive... it isn't part of modern everyday use of language.  'Stupid Woman' / Stupid Man' / 'stupid Boy' /  'Stupid Girl' are.   I'm not condoning it but they are. There is a huge difference... mainly because of language norms that get used.  Maybe this needs to change   -  but it hasn't yet, so to spend 3 days of new coverage on it is a blatant attempt to cover up the crap they don't want to publish and another chance for them to attack his character... which they have been doing for years, which you seem to be overlooking or ignoring.

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

So, that leaves me with this one question: Why should we consider "Stupid woman" to be any different?

 

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Thank you.

seem different to me... it just is. Calling someone stupid in the first place could be considered offensive...  if you call it to their faces, a whisper under your breath sounds like a thought crime to me. Meanwhile the opposition gets away with pretty much anything.  My point is - they aren't using the same measuring stick when assassinating his character as they are when they smooth over their own gaffes.

 

If you want to remove gender from the English and American language then I do not have a problem with it.... but we haven't, so don't berate those who use gender in discussion as it is just ingrained in the language. So - it's different because that is just the way our language and culture has worked for a very long time. Sure it can be changed... but this recent outburst is a transparent attempt at character assassination rather than any attempt to clean up sexism in the UK. Can you not see that iNow, Phi, Ten, zap, dim?  Do you get my point and not agree with it or aren't you getting my point?

 

 

 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, DrP said:

I agree  -  so where is the outrage at the far worse language that comes from people from across the aisle every single day?  When have they ever been spread across the front pages for days on end when they actually publicly say something dumb and offensive?...  it is usually ' oh dear, blundering Borris has put his foot in it again, tee hee, what a naughty boy - lets not get carried away with PC gone mad - everyone carry on!'   Or when the brexiteers start their hate speech about foreigners, or when the Prince calls an Indian a golly wog or a says the japs have slanty eyes... then its ' oh well he's old, he's the queens husband, he's done a lot of good'... and it gets washed under the carpet...  or when the president of the USA calls a nation state a shithole country?   Being honest I don't mind some of it getting brushed under the carpet but can you not see the double standard?  Maybe not as you live in a different country., although I know you saw it with Trump and Clinton.  Both accused of many things  -  everyone believes the hype and lies about one and ignores the actual facts about offenses caused by the other.

 

not at all  -  I don't believe so anyway  -  see above rant, lol.

It's because it's been hyped to F- and it's not about women, so it doesn't matter. What annoys me is that none of this is about the real injustices and indignities women suffer in places like Saudi, Pakistan , India etc. What's being wittered about here are first world problems i.e. pretty  trivial. i actively search and read about women's lives in these countries and think "What are their First World "sisters" doing to help them?

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

"What are their First World "sisters" doing to help them?

this

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, DrP said:

To play advocate - although I agree partly with what you say   -  'Stupid Black' is not a common term in the English language and is KNOWN to be offensive...

That will be at least partly because English tends not use adjectives as nouns. But equivalent terms (several beginning with N) could be used. At which point, they become part of the insult, rather than just an identifier. This is one of the reasons why terms migrate from being formal words to identify people to being informal and then insulting. For example, in Japanese, kimi originally meant prince but then became an informal term of address (similar to the way "squire" has evolved in [Bristish] English) but now, it is pretty insulting to use it to anyone except close friends.

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, DrP said:

To play advocate - although I agree partly with what you say   -  'Stupid Black' is not a common term in the English language and is KNOWN to be offensive... it isn't part of modern everyday use of language.  'Stupid Woman' / Stupid Man' / 'stupid Boy' /  'Stupid Girl' are.   I'm not condoning it but they are. There is a huge difference... mainly because of language norms that get used.  Maybe this needs to change   -  but it hasn't yet, so to spend 3 days of new coverage on it is a blatant attempt to cover up the crap they don't want to publish and another chance for them to attack his character... which they have been doing for years, which you seem to be overlooking or ignoring.

 

seem different to me... it just is. Calling someone stupid in the first place could be considered offensive...  if you call it to their faces, a whisper under your breath sounds like a thought crime to me. Meanwhile the opposition gets away with pretty much anything.  My point is - they aren't using the same measuring stick when assassinating his character as they are when they smooth over their own gaffes.

 

If you want to remove gender from the English and American language then I do not have a problem with it.... but we haven't, so don't berate those who use gender in discussion as it is just ingrained in the language. So - it's different because that is just the way our language and culture has worked for a very long time. Sure it can be changed... but this recent outburst is a transparent attempt at character assassination rather than any attempt to clean up sexism in the UK. Can you not see that iNow, Phi, Ten, zap, dim?  Do you get my point and not agree with it or aren't you getting my point?

Your argument seems to be "as long as people still commonly use the term, it is okay to keep using the term". Of course this will mean no one will ever need to stop using "woman" as a derogative term. (As an aside, if you want to see my wife pissed off, say something like "you play like a girl" in front of her.)

And had we followed that argument, we would still be saying "stupid black" and "stupid jew".

As far as "getting your point", yes, I absolutely get your point. People are taking something he said and making the most of it. Politics as usual, and typical bullshit. It's wrong.

But there are two separate things you are talking about here: The first is the use of the term "woman" in a negative way, and the second is how politicians (and others) exaggerate or lie to take advantage of someone or something.

The problem I have with your argument is that you seem to be conflating the two. You are going down the path of accepting the use of "woman" as a perjorative in part because what the other side did was even worse. From my perspective both are wrong. I'm not sure why you are conflating the two.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

To play advocate - although I agree partly with what you say   -  'Stupid Black' is not a common term in the English language and is KNOWN to be offensive...

Zap really said what I thought, but even better. My reply to the specific sentence above would be, "but it wasn't always known to be. It took lots and lots of individual conversations like this to change that."

I say all of this while also acknowledging StringJunky's point that there are bigger and badder issues in the world. I can only reply that, once a thread is opened about those, I'll push back against them, as well.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

If you want to remove gender from the English and American language then I do not have a problem with it.... but we haven't, so don't berate those who use gender in discussion as it is just ingrained in the language.

Come on now, that's a strawman of the position. Gender only needs to be removed where it doesn't make sense to use it, and isn't that true of a LOT of things? Take the sugar out of my ketchup, please, and the pollutants from our manufacturing processes. And while you're at it, stop emphasizing negative traits by adding gender to increase the insult. 

[MigL]

I wonder...

If T May had made a good point, and J Corbyn had said "Intelligent woman", would that have applied to ALL women, or Just T May ?
Why is an insult applicable to all womankind, but for a compliment it is just an identifier ?

Or what if he meant to say "She is a stupid woman", but left out the "She is", as it is redundant ?
As a matter of fact, INow, I could say" He is a stupid black man" and not have it be considered racist, just that all the other black men I know are much brighter ( Or Jews, Irish men, or Canadians ). But when the subject is clearly known, the "He is a" part becomes redundant. And, it seems, people CHOOSE to interpret it in the worst way.

Seems to me we are going to great lengths for an excuse to label J Corbyn's comment, sexist.

Edited January 7, 2019 by MigL

[Phi for All]

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why is an insult applicable to all womankind, but for a compliment it is just an identifier ?

I was waiting for someone to bring this up. And the answer is, it's just as sexist when used as a compliment as it is as an insult, WHEN USED FOR NO OTHER REASON. If a woman says something intelligent, can't she just be a smart person? Why bring up gender unnecessarily anytime?

When you add gender in where it doesn't belong, it's like you're saying, "What an exception to their gender this person is!"

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Seems to me we are going to great lengths for an excuse to label it sexist.

Conversely, it seems to me that some are going to great lengths to label it as the simple use of a harmless identifier.

The thing about institutionalized racism and sexism is that those who participate in it often have no idea they are doing so. So it behooves us to examine our behaviors when called out by others to make sure we didn't overlook something.

[MigL]

I would not say I'm going to great length to label it an identifier.
I've repeatedly stated "I don't know" and therefore will not judge.
Others, apparently don't need to know to pass judgement.

I can pull up a couple of posts where you've called me "a fairly intelligent guy", Phi.
( usually on the way to an underhanded insult for my lack of understanding  )
Why did you need to include the "guy' identifier ?
And should every other guy on this forum have been offended ?

I would think T May would be more offended at being called 'stupid', rather than 'one of the group'.
Should we get rid of 'stupid' also ?
( I draw the line at "jackass', it is my favorite putdown )

No one has the right to NOT be offended