'Stupid Woman'

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

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

He, and separately I, may not share your views...that doesn't mean we are doing what you accuse us of. Not even close.

[zapatos]

Sure you are. It's there in black and white. You may not act that way IRL, but it is what you are conveying on this site.

[naitche]

On 1/17/2019 at 10:16 AM, naitche said:

Historical context of sexism.

I think its a mistake to bring that context into the present, with out evidence its the same context today. 

Conditions change and that  needs recognition too. 

I think its agreed (here)  that sexism is some thing that needs to be changed .  

Seems to me this is mostly about how individuals react to that expectation.

By direction, that allows for individual conditions/conditioning, or by universally  imposed conditions/conditioning .

I think an assumption of sexism where the evidence does not clearly support that asks that  we adhere  to conditions rather than respond to  conditions presented, as best we can. That history shouldn't decide conditions today.

Like DrP, I think stupid is more insulting than 'woman' and as a singular it should not be taken as a slur against women in general.

 

On 1/17/2019 at 10:31 AM, Ten oz said:

@naitche Canada (MigL is Canadian) has never elected a female Prime Minister in it's history. Discussions about sexism in society whether one is from Canada, England, U.S. or etc are not merely rhetorical ones. I believe their are strong arguments to be made that sexism is a serious problem disenfranchising large portions on the population. 

 

I have not argued otherwise.

On 1/17/2019 at 10:41 AM, zapatos said:

Have you been following the news? Heard of #MeToo? That is what is going on TODAY and as far back in time as you'd care to go. If we have to start with proving that sexism exists and has a negative impact on women today we'll have to do that in another thread.

Where do you get a denial of that?

#Me too is a movement that illustrates past and current injustice. It also illustrates the change away from acceptance of such injustice, and the empowerment of women to challenge it.

I don't claim the job is done. The point I was trying to make is the methods of getting there seem the bigger conflict in this thread and more generally.

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by naitche

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, naitche said:

I don't claim the job is done. The point I was trying to make is the methods of getting there seem the bigger conflict in this thread and more generally.

Sounds to me a bit like telling Rosa Parks she should’ve just sat in her damned place on that bus. 

Edited January 19, 2019 by iNow

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sounds to me a bit like telling Rosa Parks she should’ve just sat in her damned place on that bus. 

That was because she was black, not a woman.

[J.C.MacSwell]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sounds to me a bit like telling Rosa Parks she should’ve just sat in her damned place on that bus. 

Sounds to me like the kind of remark that got Trump elected. And I'm not joking. Nor do I think it is an exaggeration.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Sure you are. It's there in black and white. You may not act that way IRL, but it is what you are conveying on this site.

Try reading just the black. What was actually stated, and stop attributing motives that aren't there.

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That was because she was black, not a woman.

a·nal·o·gy

/əˈnaləjē/

noun

1. a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"

   • a correspondence or partial similarity.

     "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
   • a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.

     "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

[zapatos]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Try reading just the black. What was actually stated, and stop attributing motives that aren't there.

Thanks for the advice. If I've misunderstood perhaps you should express yourself more clearly.

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

a·nal·o·gy

/əˈnaləjē/

noun

1. a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"

   • a correspondence or partial similarity.

     "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
   • a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.

     "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

It was a low-ball analogy.   

 

[naitche]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Sounds to me a bit like telling Rosa Parks she should’ve just sat in her damned place on that bus. 

I thought Rosa Parks did just sit in her damned place on that bus.

She didn't give up her rightful place, based on just one of her conditions.

She didn't allow one condition to define her identity as  less deserving of space.

 Less deserving of common Humanity.

The goal was recognition of value to the common identity of humanity. Not recognition based on different needs and conditions. Based on common ones 

It caused a lot of offence, to a lot of people in its day. 

It didn't mean the offence was excusable, rightious  (deserving right of way).  It was based on belief.

Changing language to recognise  unique needs of an identified group, based on its differences, enshrines that difference into  language.

So language emphasises the difference, Removes it further from common humanity.

Language used correctly is not sexist. The intent its used for might be.

 

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, iNow said:

Sounds to me a bit like telling Rosa Parks she should’ve just sat in her damned place on that bus. 

Below are the 4 arguments used in Brown vs Board of Education. It is sad to me that some version of all these arguments have been attempted here is this thread. The 4th in particular seems common in thread's about sexism. It goes something like 'progress has been made in good faith but woman are still behind because they take time away to have babies or focus on being mothers'.

Quote

 

The Constitution did not require white and African American children to attend the same schools.

Social separation of blacks and whites was a regional custom; the states should be left free to regulate their own social affairs.

Segregation was not harmful to black people.

Whites were making a good faith effort to equalize the two educational systems. But because black children were still living with the effects of slavery, it would take some time before they were able to compete with white children in the same classroom.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/5-decision/segregation-argument.html

 

 

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Below are the 4 arguments used in Brown vs Board of Education. It is sad to me that some version of all these arguments have been attempted here is this thread. The 4th in particular seems common in thread's about sexism. It goes something like 'progress has been made in good faith but woman are still behind because they take time away to have babies or focus on being mothers'.

1

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Once again, could we please get back on topic. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

35 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Below are the 4 arguments used in Brown vs Board of Education. It is sad to me that some version of all these arguments have been attempted here is this thread. The 4th in particular seems common in thread's about sexism. It goes something like 'progress has been made in good faith but woman are still behind because they take time away to have babies or focus on being mothers'.

 

I essentially asked to what extent it was true with regard to elite work positions, and you did not answer. Unless you think it is of no significance whatsoever (I very well suspect that's the case with you, but am of course not certain), what makes you think I even weigh it more heavily than you do?

If you interpret everything I say based on your perception of my views, my gender, or my race, you are being a bigot, sexist or racist.

For what it's worth, I would not have directed that question to someone I perceived as an outright sexist, lest they get the wrong idea.

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, naitche said:

 

Language used correctly is not sexist. The intent its used for might be.

 

When I was an eight year old kid we used the common verb  (at that time and place) "jew". As in "he jewed me out of a quarter". I can assure you that I had no intent to slur jews. I was just a stupid kid using the language I learned. I had no idea it had racist origins.

Using language correctly does not absolve it from being racist, sexist, or any other "-ist".

Edited January 19, 2019 by zapatos

[Ten oz]

33 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I essentially asked to what extent it was true with regard to elite work positions, and you did not answer.

A) - I said that argument was common in thread's and did not single you out.

B) - I didn't address your question but there was a Mod note directing us to stay on topic directly following the exchange. If you start a new thread about sexism broadly in society I will happily discuss it a length with you.

37 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If you interpret everything I say based on your perception of my views, my gender, or my race, you are being a bigot, sexist or racist.

In context to this this thread's topic I think it is important to keep in mind Corbyn is a national figure who said "stupid world" for the world to see. Corbyn wasn't at home or in a bar being over heard by people ear hustling in on his conversation. My perception of you or vice versa is an off topic. There have already been a couple mod notes. 

 

[MigL]

What roadblocks Zap ?
I have often said that sexism exists, and have told that I don't like offending people.
Yet you and others continuously confuse offense with sexism.
The two are different.

There is no doubt that calling someone a stupid 'whatever' is offensive.
how about trying to prove it is sexist.
That's where everyone has failed ( for 19 pages now )

[iNow]

Nobody said calling a person stupid is sexist. It’s the addition of the word woman that seems unnecessary and appears to suggest an unconscious bias. 

Much of this discussion has been IMO about trying to become more conscious of that bias in hopes of minimizing or extinguishing it. 

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

What roadblocks Zap ?
 

Implying that if we cannot achieve perfection or know with certainty that this crosses the line and that doesn't, then our suggestions are worthy of making fun of and thus not to be taken seriously. Such as below.

Quote

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.

...where do you draw the line ?
 

 

Quote

Yet you and others continuously confuse offense with sexism.
 

I don't remember confusing them. Can you show me where I did that?

[MigL]

I'm glad you think I made a humorous comment.
I assure you it was meant to be serious.

Ten oz has constantly repeated that if someone thinks a comment is offensive, then it is.
I can agree with that.
But does that make it sexist ????

You may have been offended by my treatment of your "suggestions are worthy of making fun of and thus not to be taken seriously".
And that is your right.
But again, does that make it sexist ?????

So why not cut the rest of the cr*p, and the accusations ( which I find offensive, by the way, but certainly NOT sexist ), and discuss the OP.
What about " stupid woman' makes it SEXIST ???

Edited January 19, 2019 by MigL

[Ten oz]

On 12/21/2018 at 2:20 AM, MigL said:

Regardless of what he actually said, the interpretation is of the intent, Stringy.
Did he say 'stupid woman' as an identifier, or did he imply that she belongs to the stupid gender ?
It is not as simple as someone slapping another person, where the action has intent and is wrong to all observers.
This action has differing interpretations, even among members of this forum.
Is someone going to declare themselves the arbitrer of correct behavior and say his own interpretation is the ONLY valid one ?

Otherwise all we have is one group ( with one interpretation ) calling the other group ( with differing interpretation ) 'sexist'.

I don't know much about J Corbyn ( as some others seem to ) but it seems like your politics is descending to American levels.
Sorry mate !

 

On 12/21/2018 at 11:46 PM, MigL said:

It would not have been charitable even if he had said 'stupid person', INow.
( but if he had simply said 'stupid' it may have meant just that which she was speaking about at that time )

Yet there is a big jump between 'charitable' and sexist, and the fact that the comment is not 'charitable' doe not automatically make it sexist.
Unless you choose to interpret it that way.

Thank goodness we're allowed differing opinions.

 

 

On 12/23/2018 at 3:57 PM, MigL said:

I have spent much time in the States Ten oz, and while you don't hear 'stupid man' too often, you do hear 'that man is stupid', which is consistent with use as an identifier.
You do get, in popular media such as tv commercials, the implication that men are stupid.
They won't ask for directions when lost.
They can't boil water or cook anything.
The don't clean up after theselves, or do laundry properly.
They are basically useless without their better half ( a woman ).
Etc.  Etc.  ( even though it is often true, it is generalizing, and not indicative of all men )

My take on this is " Don't get your knickers in a knot"
But that might be considered sexist.

So if a comment makes you feel uncomfortable in any way, let the commenter know how you feel and ask him/her to stop.
Most decent humans don't like to make others uncomfortable, and will stop.
Situation resolved.

Those that don't stop are jackasses, and beyond redemption, and probably best avoided.

I wonder, if E May had immediately made it known to J Corbyn that the comment distressed her, if he wouldn't have immediately apologized, and it may never even have made the news.

 

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

What roadblocks Zap ?
I have often said that sexism exists, and have told that I don't like offending people.
Yet you and others continuously confuse offense with sexism.
The two are different.

There is no doubt that calling someone a stupid 'whatever' is offensive.
how about trying to prove it is sexist.
That's where everyone has failed ( for 19 pages now )

You know that no one here is claiming "stupid" is sexist. It was the use of "woman" which it the issue. Your previous posts ( I quoted a couple but there are more) in this thread illustrate you understand that. You are currently posting in bad faith by playing stupid and attempting to re-position the nature of the conversation despite 19 pages of establishment. If you don't think Corbyn's use of "woman" is sexist that is your prerogative but please don't insult us all by pretending we've been debating the use of the word "stupid" all along when you clearly know that is not the case. 

[MigL]

I'm not playing at all ( and if you think that's stupid, it is your right )

In all the above quotes, I've never questioned whether the comment was offensive.
I simply don't have the justification to claim it was SEXIST.
Apparently, you being NOT stupid, have clear justification.

How about presenting it to the rest of us, and not simply your interpretation ????

Edited January 19, 2019 by MigL

[zapatos]

37 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm glad you think I made a humorous comment.
I assure you it was meant to be serious.

I didn't say anything about your comment being humorous.

Quote

Ten oz has constantly repeated that if someone thinks a comment is offensive, then it is.
I can agree with that.
But does that make it sexist ????

No, of course not. No one is saying that all offensive comments are sexist. I don't know why you think that.

Quote

You may have been offended by my treatment of your "suggestions are worthy of making fun of and thus not to be taken seriously".
And that is your right.
But again, does that make it sexist ?????

Again, of course not. What did I say that made you think that?

Quote

So why not cut the rest of the cr*p, and the accusations ( which I find offensive, by the way, but certainly NOT sexist ), and discuss the OP.
What about " stupid woman' makes it SEXIST ???

It can be construed as an example of sexual stereotyping. Given the history of sexism, in particular the suggestion that men are intellectually superior to women (women are bad at business because they get too emotional, women are bad at math, not allowing women to vote or be scientists, etc.), criticizing May as a stupid WOMAN can seem, especially to those for whom sexism is experienced daily, as a continuation of that historical use of gender in a negative way. "You play like a girl", "don't worry your pretty little head", "you really screwed that up Sally". 

Given the similar forms of stereotyping language that are now universally acknowledged to be discriminatory in nature ('He is a lazy black/tight fisted jew/drunk Irishman/stupid Pole', etc.) it amazes me that it is so difficult to see that "stupid woman" might not also be construed as discriminatory.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Ten oz has constantly repeated that if someone thinks a comment is offensive, then it is.
I can agree with that.
But does that make it sexist ????

If someone thinks a comment is offensive, then it is to them. I have not implied than if someone thinks something is offensive than it must be in absolute terms. Same goes for sexism. If someone thinks something is sexist then to them, based on their values and life experience, it is. 

 

[beecee]

Just butting in here, isn't calling someone a "stupid woman" be possibly factual, the same as calling someone a "stupid man". Yes certainly offensive to the recipient. Where it becomes sexist is saying, "stupid women" or alternatively "stupid men"....yes, yes OK, perhaps calling her a "stupid person" may have been more diplomatic? 

 

I now hand control  back.