'Stupid Woman'

[naitche]

9 hours ago, zapatos said:

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".

Was that using language correctly though, or giving a word meaning it did not have?

Because I agree that should be avoided.

Edited January 19, 2019 by naitche

[zapatos]

31 minutes ago, naitche said:

Was that using language correctly though, or giving a word meaning it did not have?

Because I agree that should be avoided.

Yes, that was using the language correctly. Languages change constantly based on use. Words are added to (or deleted from) the dictionary every year. Merrian-Webster added 840 words in 2018.

Edited January 20, 2019 by zapatos

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, that was using the language correctly. Languages change constantly based on use. Words are added to (or deleted from) the dictionary every year. Merrian-Webster added 840 words in 2018.

Yes, I used it too. I think some people here still say it.

[MigL]

No, it was not used correctly, Zap.
The person you were referring to, was not Jewish.
( that makes a huge difference )

In this case T May IS a woman.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

 

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

No, it was not used correctly, Zap.
The person you were referring to, was not Jewish.
( that makes a huge difference )

In this case T May IS a woman.

It was an example of racist language with no racist intent. Are you saying it wasn't racist language? Or that I had racist intent? Or something else? 

Edited January 20, 2019 by zapatos

[MigL]

Saying a person 'j*wed you out of a quarter' is associating a trait with a religion/culture.
It is racist because it unjustly associates that trait with all people of that religion/culture.
That we both agree on.

Calling T May a '****** woman' is associating the trait of being a woman, with all women.
Certainly not the same thing.

( I can go into more detail regarding racism, or women, if you wish )

[iNow]

MigL - Would it have been better if Corbyn had not inserted the term “woman” into his stupid comment, yes or no?

Thats really all this boils down to.

If yes, then we all agree on the important bits and any disagreement is so marginal as to be ignored. 

If no, then let’s keep chatting. 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Saying a person 'j*wed you out of a quarter' is associating a trait with a religion/culture.
It is racist because it unjustly associates that trait with all people of that religion/culture.
That we both agree on.

Calling T May a '****** woman' is associating the trait of being a woman, with all women.
Certainly not the same thing.

( I can go into more detail regarding racism, or women, if you wish )

I wasn't comparing the two. I was trying to demonstrate to naitche that his assertion ("Language used correctly is not sexist. The intent its used for might be") was wrong by giving an example of racist language without racist intent.

[MigL]

Personally, INow, I wouldn't care if he called her a 'stupid bi*ch'.
The term was MEANT to be offensive, and it was.

I have a problem with calling it sexist, because it can be 'weaponized' by some unscrupulous people, who then use the term to label people who disagree with them, and who may not necessarily be sexist.
It has happened with the 'racist' and 'homophobe' labels.
Even on this forum where we all expect more reasoned thoughts and discussion.

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

Personally, INow, I wouldn't care if he called her a 'stupid bi*ch'.
The term was MEANT to be offensive, and it was.

Right, but would it have been better to leave out the mention of femaleness, yes or no?

[MigL]

Possibly.
But not if there was any question as to who he was referring to.

[iNow]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Possibly.
But not if there was any question as to who he was referring to.

It’s a yes or not question. Why be evasive? Just say yes or no. 

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, MigL said:

There is no doubt that calling someone a stupid 'whatever' is offensive.
how about trying to prove it is sexist.

 

how about trying to prove it isn't sexist.

 

11 hours ago, MigL said:

I simply don't have the justification to claim it was SEXIST.

 

On 12/20/2018 at 2:32 PM, hypervalent_iodine said:

I can see where you are coming from, but I would counter that such a bland interpretation ignores a lot of the nuance around how the expression is used. In most common examples I can think of, the word proceeding “stupid,” is typically something to underscore the insult and really put across just how stupid someone it. Stupid boy, stupid girl, stupid idiot, etc etc. In my experience, you don’t really hear people use “stupid man,” as an insult all that much. You do hear, “stupid woman,”  quite a lot, relatively speaking. Within the context of an insult the use of, “woman,” is really not a statement of plain fact; it is used mockingly. That’s why it’s sexist. 

 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

how about trying to prove it isn't sexist.

How would you react if a woman had said it?

[dimreepr]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

How would you react if a woman had said it?

meh

[naitche]

On 1/19/2019 at 8:06 AM, StringJunky said:

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

Agree.

So if we believe the word 'woman'  conveys more than the sex of a person, its sexist to them.

Its not wrong to perceive it sexist or not sexist. Our belief will decide our personal response to its use.  Neither belief is universal to women. Its not for us to decide which belief should  govern our response to women as a  demographic. Its arbitrary. Sexist to assign  assume or tie a belief to a sex.

Some women might believe the word 'woman' in conjunction with stupid is sexist due to concepts historically conveyed beyond sex.

Other women might see  additional concepts have been expressed,  but believe the word 'woman' used correctly does not include those.

I think the easiest solution would be to stop attaching concepts beyond sex to use of the word 'woman'. Not alter our use of the word to allow that they are there

The word Woman shouldn't be ambiguous or arbitrary. Used correctly, it should convey sex and only sex. To allow that it could convey any more ensures it will continue to convey more, because we limit its use on that assumption. We accept that it does convey more than sex. I see that acceptance hindering its evolution  to match the concept to the reality we ( say we) recognise.  

 

 

 

On 1/20/2019 at 1:43 PM, iNow said:

MigL - Would it have been better if Corbyn had not inserted the term “woman” into his stupid comment, yes or no?

Thats really all this boils down to.

If yes, then we all agree on the important bits and any disagreement is so marginal as to be ignored. 

If no, then let’s keep chatting. 

It would make no difference. Unless you accept the concept of  "woman" is synonymous with other traits.I don't see its use with 'stupid' implies its synonymous with stupid.

On 1/20/2019 at 1:49 PM, zapatos said:

I wasn't comparing the two. I was trying to demonstrate to naitche that his assertion ("Language used correctly is not sexist. The intent its used for might be") was wrong by giving an example of racist language without racist intent.

My mistake. Intent was the wrong word. Concept  would have  been better.

I think the language used in your example was incorrect because A) it was referring to an action or concept not within the definition of a Jew. Jew can only be effectively verbed in that manner while we recognise the connection.

And b) If there was no racist intent, then  you didn't recognise the concept  conveyed. You were aiming for an entirely different one. The word  Jew used in that instance was used independent of  religious recognition. 

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by naitche

[MigL]

Exactly.
Attaching other meanings to the word 'woman' is because of pre-conceived notions; and THAT is sexist.
( I have made this point previously )

But, yes, INow, it would have been better had J Corbyn not used the word 'woman' in that epithet.
It would have saved us 20 pages of 'back and forth', but getting nowhere.

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, naitche said:

I think the easiest solution would be to stop attaching concepts beyond sex to use of the word 'woman'

Why not just stop attaching concepts of sex to use of words like ‘stupid?’

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

But, yes, INow, it would have been better had J Corbyn not used the word 'woman' in that epithet.

Thanks. Agreed. 

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

It would have saved us 20 pages of 'back and forth', but getting nowhere

I can’t agree with you here, though. I think it’s made us all more aware of subtleties in our language and ways people face inequities every day of their lives, even if we personally are not as aware of them.

Hell...Even I’ve adjusted my behavior as a direct result of our discussion here, but YMMV. 

[naitche]

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Why not just stop attaching concepts of sex to use of words like ‘stupid.

 

The concept being expressed was stupidity. Followed by an identifier, singular and specific.

if being identified as a person of a specific sex  is offensive because of the concept it  conveys,  setting arbitrary rules on its use as an identifier only reinforces the idea of an an  arbitrary concept.

[DrP]

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 2:43 AM, iNow said:

MigL - Would it have been better if Corbyn had not inserted the term “woman” into his stupid comment, yes or no?

Thats really all this boils down to.

If yes, then we all agree on the important bits and any disagreement is so marginal as to be ignored. 

If no, then let’s keep chatting. 

Being honest with you - I personally don't think it would have made a bit of difference. He was clearly not attacking women or using the identifier as a negative towards women.

The Jew thing is obviously worse/different for the reasons MigL pointed out.

 

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Why not just stop attaching concepts of sex to use of words like ‘stupid?’

Why attach it to any thing in conversation at all then? If we didn't - then his words would have been offensive, but we DO, so they were normal and were not.

 

 

[DrP]

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 12:09 AM, zapatos said:

Yes, that was using the language correctly. Languages change constantly based on use

No - it wasn't using the language correctly. If someone is a Jew it denotes that they are born of a certain lineage or follow a certain religion.  When used to mean a penny pinching miser it is offensive slang that generalises all Jews by the reputation that some have for being tight/greedy with the money. This is generally considered to be racist.  Would you use the word nigger to identify someone with darker skin? Is that proper language? I wouldn't because it is known to cause offense.  

I can only assume my red rep mark was due to the fact that we are going in circles and that I differ with your opinion - whatever. I disagree - if you want to neg rep me for that then do so but I think whoever done that is pretty thick if they can't get their point across in the text. The word 'WOMAN' is a normal word in the English language and is not offensive. I agree it can be used offensively, but not as an identifier to gender as identifying gender in conversation is considered normal English language. I was not aware before this thread that anyone found gender identification offensive.  You learn something new every day.

 

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, DrP said:

No - it wasn't using the language correctly. If someone is a Jew it denotes that they are born of a certain lineage or follow a certain religion.  When used to mean a penny pinching miser it is offensive slang that generalises all Jews by the reputation that some have for being tight/greedy with the money. This is generally considered to be racist.  Would you use the word nigger to identify someone with darker skin? Is that proper language? I wouldn't because it is known to cause offense.  

I can only assume my red rep mark was due to the fact that we are going in circles and that I differ with your opinion - whatever. I disagree - if you want to neg rep me for that then do so but I think whoever done that is pretty thick if they can't get their point across in the text. The word 'WOMAN' is a normal word in the English language and is not offensive. I agree it can be used offensively, but not as an identifier to gender as identifying gender in conversation is considered normal English language. I was not aware before this thread that anyone found gender identification offensive.  You learn something new every day.

 

To the best of my recollection I have never given you a negative rep.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, DrP said:

Being honest with you - I personally don't think it would have made a bit of difference. He was clearly not attacking women or using the identifier as a negative

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I think we've established somewhat strongly even just in this thread that this is anything but clear.

Some of us do feel it was intended to magnify the insult in an attacking manner (link), likely one rooted in unconscious biases. Others feel differently. That's okay, but it is unfortunately unclear to us all given the different interpretations we hold.

4 hours ago, DrP said:

Why attach it to any thing in conversation at all then?

Because sometimes it is a meaningful qualifier. See example I gave to StringJunky about the sports competition. There are separate tracks for males and females, separate winner groups, and the addition of the word woman's to separate them is okay. Are there, however, equivalently separate gender paths for stupid? Nope.

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

To the best of my recollection I have never given you a negative rep.

Same here, FWIW

Edited January 22, 2019 by iNow

[DrP]

21 hours ago, zapatos said:

To the best of my recollection I have never given you a negative rep.

 

21 hours ago, iNow said:

Same here, FWIW

 

I didn't think it was either of you. I wouldn't have minded if it was- if someone thinks it deserves it then it probably does.   It was a repeat of what I'd said about 4 times already - it is why I haven't participated much in the last 10 pages or so - I don't see the point going round and round in circles.  I meant to reply to Phi's post weeks ago but didn't get the chance and also thought we might be going in circles - I didn't think that my 'what about isms' were truly that - as iNow said above - it is DEBATABLE as to if what he said was sexist or not - not fully agreed upon....  so - after 10 pages of more circular stuff I repeated my point.  

So - in reply to Phi saying that my concern over the comments from the opposition being just 'what about ism' I disagree   -  I (and many others) believe it is a direct attack on JC by the press to keep the public frightened of him and to keep his appearance as unelectable so that the mogals like Rupert Murdock wont have to pay their fair share of tax. It isn't what about ism - there is no comparison between the standard set for both sides. 

If one side say 'stupid woman' once under his breath in private.....  and the press go mad at him for days on the front page - the Prince says something about gollywogs or wanting to not go to China in case he gets slitty eyes and they laugh it off as an old guy just being lovable or Boris Johnson's continuous blunders being brushed under the carpet and we are told there is nothing to see move along - that isn't whataboutism - it's biased taking of sides in politics from the press.

 

 

 

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, DrP said:

n reply to Phi saying that my concern over the comments from the opposition being just 'what about ism' I disagree   -  I (and many others) believe it is a direct attack on JC by the press to keep the public frightened of him and to keep his appearance as unelectable so that the mogals like Rupert Murdock wont have to pay their fair share of tax.

That's entirely fair, though it does feel like maybe you're drawing a false dichotomy. It can, in fact, be both of those things at the same time (whataboutism AND politically motivated character attack). They're not mutually exclusive, after all.