'Stupid Woman'

[zapatos]

43 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you allow yourself to be manipulated in your speech by anyone who might feign offence? Or are you sure no one would do that?

You are trying awfully hard to find some reason to accept offensive speech. I don't care to join your crusade.

If you don't think sexism exists or don't care to help improve the situation for women because of bad players I accept your decision.

I don't care if my efforts to improve things are 100% successful or not. I will do my best regardless of my shortfalls along the way.

[MigL]

Its a far stretch from offensive to sexist, Zapatos.
I change my speech so as not to offend anyone.
But that does not mean saying "stupid woman" is sexist.
Yes it is rude, mostly because of the 'stupid' part,and I wouldn't say that to anyone ( although I may think it ), because I'm not a confrontational type ( haven't you noticed ? ).

So yes the argument has been made that some see this expression as offensive, and various contortions of arguments have been made that it is sexist.
However, I'm not convinced of the latter ( but feel free to keep trying to convince me )

And that has nothing to do with whether I or JCM think sexism exists or not. We just happen to disagree on what exactly IS sexist.
So why does everyone keep making statements like "If you don't think sexism exists" ?
That was never the argument.

Edited January 18, 2019 by MigL

[Ten oz]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you allow yourself to be manipulated in your speech by anyone who might feign offence? Or are you sure no one would do that?

It isn't a crime to cause offense. It also isn't a crime to be sexist, racist, ageist, or etc. You and everyone else in Canada or the U.S. are free to say things which cause offense. People are also free to be offended. So if you or I choose to say things others preceive as sexist or racist we might be veiwed by others as sexist or racist.

If a person doesn't want to be thought of as sexist it would be best for them not to say things people find sexist. It really isn't complicated.

@MigL  You seem hung up on the fact you personally don't think "stupid woman" is offensive but it really doesn't matter whether or you think it is. 

I think climate change is real but know better than to talk about it in certain environments because I understand many people view climate change as political. As a supervisor of other at work if I overheard people speaking about climate change I would ask them do it elsewhere so not to potentially upset others. I would do that regardless of how well what was being said align with my own beliefs. As a negative consequence if I don't I may lose the professional respect of others who hold  different beliefs if they feel disenfranchised or disrespected. 

You are free to say "stupid woman" often as you'd like. Just know that some people who observe you saying that will consider you a sexist.  

[StringJunky]

This was on the BBC site today. Emphasis not mine. Comments? 

Quote

Pavey was the oldest woman to win a European Championships gold when claiming the 10,000m title in 2014 aged 40, just 11 months after giving birth.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/46869084

This is not a one-off on the BBC.

 

Edited January 18, 2019 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This was on the BBC site today. Emphasis not mine. Comments? 

This is not a one-off on the BBC.

 

Here in the U.S. it is common for Rap Musicians of color to use the N-Word yet still extremely offensive for anyone else to do the same. Language and social interaction can be complicated. Formalities only get us so far. 

If you were on a date and your date told you the disliked the word cup (for whatever reason) you could choose to replace the word cup with glass or just accept the date will go poorly. The choice would be yours. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

It isn't a crime to cause offense. It also isn't a crime to be sexist, racist, ageist, or etc. You and everyone else in Canada or the U.S. are free to say things which cause offense. People are also free to be offended. So if you or I choose to say things others preceive as sexist or racist we might be veiwed by others as sexist or racist.

If a person doesn't want to be thought of as sexist it would be best for them not to say things people find sexist. It really isn't complicated.

@MigL  You seem hung up on the fact you personally don't think "stupid woman" is offensive but it really doesn't matter whether or you think it is. 

I think climate change is real but know better than to talk about it in certain environments because I understand many people view climate change as political. As a supervisor of other at work if I overheard people speaking about climate change I would ask them do it elsewhere so not to potentially upset others. I would do that regardless of how well what was being said align with my own beliefs. As a negative consequence if I don't I may lose the professional respect of others who hold  different beliefs if they feel disenfranchised or disrespected. 

You are free to say "stupid woman" often as you'd like. Just know that some people who observe you saying that will consider you a sexist.  

I'm not hung up on that particular term at all. I already stated I would tend not to use it unless I was confident my intended (or likely) audience would recognize the intended context. As MigL says it is offensive anyway, less so if directed at what was said than a person...but still.

That's pretty sad with regard to climate change, that anyone would take offence to such an important topic, but I understand what you mean.

Edited January 18, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[StringJunky]

45 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Here in the U.S. it is common for Rap Musicians of color to use the N-Word yet still extremely offensive for anyone else to do the same. Language and social interaction can be complicated. Formalities only get us so far. 

If you were on a date and your date told you the disliked the word cup (for whatever reason) you could choose to replace the word cup with glass or just accept the date will go poorly. The choice would be yours. 

I find it offensive because it's sexist.  I'm not just saying that for effect. If the shoe was on the other foot and the BBC emphasised the gender of men, there would be  uproar. Equality is not about turning the tables 180^o.

Edited January 18, 2019 by StringJunky

[Raider5678]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you decide to refer to a woman as an "intelligent person" so as not to offend anyone that reads that as "intelligent for a woman"...and then someone gets offended because they feel saying "intelligent person" is obviously condescending toward woman... What do you do next?

You don't compliment people. It's not your place to tell them if they are or are not intelligent.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

You don't compliment people. It's not your place to tell them if they are or are not intelligent.

Yeah. That would imply I had to be more intelligent, and thus able to assess them in all respects better than they themselves could...

[iNow]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

This was on the BBC site today. Emphasis not mine. Comments? 

This is not a one-off on the BBC.

The European Championship is an athletic competition where males compete separately from females. They are parallel, but different tracks.

While the BBC easily could have left off her gender, in this case there's at least a decent reason for including it... There are two different championship paths and they sought clarity for which of the two distinct paths Pavey won.

While it's entirely possible this was self-evident and the BBC could have avoided mention of gender, it's quite different from the discussion in this thread where there are NOT separate paths for male and female politicians and there is NOT so decent a reason for Corbyn to have included it (at least IMO no reason that doesn't suggest conscious or unconscious biases). 

Woman ARE being hurt and discriminated against throughout the world and throughout history. The core argument here is that we should at least TRY to be more aware of that and at least TRY to be more cognizant of the ways we might portray them as somehow "less than" and that we should at least TRY to be better and more aware of not contributing to these problems.

Why so many people feel so strongly that this is a mistake and continue defending the status quo... essentially suggesting that we should NOT try to be better and that we should NOT try to be more aware of our own language choices... and who continue mocking those who are pointing these things out... it just boggles the mind.

[MigL]

I have never claimed "stupid woman" wasn't offensive.
It is.
And so I choose not to use it, whatever you might think, Ten oz.

But you seem hung up on the belief that 'offensive' and 'sexist' mean the same thing, and are interchangeable.
Not everything offensive is sexist.
And all I've ever claimed is that the term 'stupid woman' might not be SEXIST.

AS for climate change ( whatever that may have to do with anything ?), it is neither sexist, nor offensive; but a scientific fact.
If you're going to claim that scientific facts can offend some people, we had better stop teaching evolution.
We can't offend a huge group like religious people; that's religious discrimination ( the words mean the same, don't they ? )
We should make every attempt not to bring it up as it is a bias and may offend some delicate sensibilities.

Edit:
I'm glad you agree that the term '****** woman' isn't necessarily sexist, INow.
( at least that's what I got from your post, and have never disagreed that sexism exists )

Edited January 18, 2019 by MigL

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

AS for climate change ( whatever that may have to do with anything ?), it is neither sexist, nor offensive; but a scientific fact.

My point was that despite being a scientific fact it is also viewed as political by many. Regardless of my views or knowledge of climate change it isn't something I would discuss at work out if respect for others who have different views. It doesn't matter that I think their views are wrong. They are entitled to them. 

Likewise it doesn't matter if I believe using The gender specific label of woman is offensive. People may still be offended by it.

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

My point was that despite being a scientific fact it is also viewed as political by many. Regardless of my views or knowledge of climate change it isn't something I would discuss at work out if respect for others who have different views. It doesn't matter that I think their views are wrong. They are entitled to them. 

2

And this is where I think we'll probably never agree.

I think the truth is more important than offending people. Regardless of what someone believes, I'm not going to avoid talking about something.

I'm not going to go out of my way to shove my views in their face or anything, but I still won't avoid it. 

Facts don't care about your feelings.

[J.C.MacSwell]

We could suggest Ten oz might be "enabling" climate change denialists, but he probably just believes there are better times and places for his efforts.

...but if we find out he's been working for the oil companies...

[zapatos]

49 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

And this is where I think we'll probably never agree.

I think the truth is more important than offending people. Regardless of what someone believes, I'm not going to avoid talking about something.

I'm not going to go out of my way to shove my views in their face or anything, but I still won't avoid it. 

Facts don't care about your feelings.

I think a key phrase you are not taking into account is "at work". Similar to the example by Ten oz of things discussed on dates, there are some places where certain conversations should probably be avoided. Doesn't matter if you are speaking the truth or not, getting in an argument at work about climate change is likely not a good idea.

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think a key phrase you are not taking into account is "at work". Similar to the example by Ten oz of things discussed on dates, there are some places where certain conversations should probably be avoided. Doesn't matter if you are speaking the truth or not, getting in an argument at work about climate change is likely not a good idea.

I don't think that was his position. His reasoning, as he stated was:

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Regardless of my views or knowledge of climate change it isn't something I would discuss at work out if respect for others who have different views. It doesn't matter that I think their views are wrong. They are entitled to them. 

 

So I could be wrong, but I felt as though he was saying that it was because he didn't want to disrespect them, and it had less to do with the environment.

[zapatos]

47 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I don't think that was his position. His reasoning, as he stated was:

 

So I could be wrong, but I felt as though he was saying that it was because he didn't want to disrespect them, and it had less to do with the environment.

Yeah you could be right. Guess we'll have to wait for him.

[MigL]

When he gets here, maybe you can also ask him if we shouldn't talk/teach  religious schoolchildren about evolution, as that may offend then.
Creation it is then !
No wait, that may offend atheist schoolchildren.

You know what, let's not teach them anything at all; it seems anything may offend people.

edit:
IE where do you draw the line ?
( this is not rhetorical; try to answer, please )

Edited January 18, 2019 by MigL

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

When he gets here, maybe you can also ask him if we shouldn't talk/teach  religious schoolchildren about evolution, as that may offend then.
Creation it is then !
No wait, that may offend atheist schoolchildren.

You know what, let's not teach them anything at all; it seems anything may offend people.

edit:
IE where do you draw the line ?
( this is not rhetorical; try to answer, please )

What is offensive or not is arbitrary, depending on ones belief system. 

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

And this is where I think we'll probably never agree.

I think the truth is more important than offending people. Regardless of what someone believes, I'm not going to avoid talking about something.

I'm not going to go out of my way to shove my views in their face or anything, but I still won't avoid it. 

Facts don't care about your feelings.

My advice to anyone working in a professional career would be to leave politics and religion at the door when showing up to work. It is just bad professional etiquette to bring such things into the workplace. 

I have seen in the past where you referenced going to church with your family. I am sure you have met people through your church who would be very offended by having co-workers telling the the facts about evolution. Do you think a deeply religious person should have to hear about evolution it they do not want to?

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

We could suggest Ten oz might be "enabling" climate change denialists, but he probably just believes there are better times and places for his efforts.

...but if we find out he's been working for the oil companies...

I make it a habit of enabling peoples freedom of thought/belief when I am able. I think climate change denial is stupid but I do not think it should impact ones employment. Those who deny climate change still have a right to live their lives free from what they may perceive as harassment. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

When he gets here, maybe you can also ask him if we shouldn't talk/teach  religious schoolchildren about evolution, as that may offend then.
Creation it is then !
No wait, that may offend atheist schoolchildren.

You know what, let's not teach them anything at all; it seems anything may offend people.

edit:
IE where do you draw the line ?
( this is not rhetorical; try to answer, please )

I don't expect religious institutions to teach evolution. I think parents have the right to pull their children out of public school and send them to private schools if they choose. We can debate (in a separate thread) whether or not those private schools which don't teach evolution should receive full accreditation from the Dept. of Education but certainly (in my opinion) parents have that right.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Ten oz

[Raider5678]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

My advice to anyone working in a professional career would be to leave politics and religion at the door when showing up to work. It is just bad professional etiquette to bring such things into the workplace. 

 I have seen in the past where you referenced going to church with your family. I am sure you have met people through your church who would be very offended by having co-workers telling the the facts about evolution. Do you think a deeply religious person should have to hear about evolution it they do not want to?

If the statement was specifically about work and it's environment, it seemed a bit odd to bring it up in my opinion. Kind of like if you're talking about whether or not it's okay to say curse words, and you start saying how you wouldn't say it in front of your grandmother. 

 

But anyways. Whether the person wants to hear something or not, is in my opinion, irrelevant to the equation. There are exceptions for things like personal matters, etc, but in terms of broad topics like science itself, I don't think I should be expected to ignore certain topics simply because of what they do and do not want to hear.

Especially on a larger scale. If you're talking on some talk show, there is basically nothing you could say politically that won't offend someone. Under that reasoning, we wouldn't have anyone talking about politics publically. Which would be disastrous in my opinion.

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

When he gets here, maybe you can also ask him if we shouldn't talk/teach  religious schoolchildren about evolution, as that may offend then.
Creation it is then !
No wait, that may offend atheist schoolchildren.

You know what, let's not teach them anything at all; it seems anything may offend people.

edit:
IE where do you draw the line ?
( this is not rhetorical; try to answer, please )

You can't "draw the line". It is too complex. But while many of us seem content to make our best effort and accept something less than perfect, you regularly throw up roadblocks and seem to accept that if a perfect line cannot be drawn, then we should do nothing at all.

[Ten oz]

28 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

If the statement was specifically about work and it's environment, it seemed a bit odd to bring it up in my opinion. Kind of like if you're talking about whether or not it's okay to say curse words, and you start saying how you wouldn't say it in front of your grandmother. 

Uhm, where was Corbyn when he said "stupid woman"?

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You can't "draw the line". It is too complex. But while many of us seem content to make our best effort and accept something less than perfect, you regularly throw up roadblocks and seem to accept that if a perfect line cannot be drawn, then we should do nothing at all.

...or he simply doesn't accept polarized thinking, or view everything that way in others.

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

You are trying awfully hard to find some reason to accept offensive speech. I don't care to join your crusade.

If you don't think sexism exists or don't care to help improve the situation for women because of bad players I accept your decision.

I don't care if my efforts to improve things are 100% successful or not. I will do my best regardless of my shortfalls along the way.

 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...or he simply doesn't accept polarized thinking, or view everything that way in others.

 

Sorry but I missed the point you are trying to make. Can you expand on it a bit?