'Stupid Woman'

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You are trying to imply that men are naturally stronger and therefore may potentially have some advantage over a woman in certain career fields and asking a hypothetical about what would happen if a woman may objected to it. Not all men are stronger than all women and you're ignoring experience, skill, education, and etc.

Let's break this down so I can be precise and clarify, since much of this included insinuations I don't agree with

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 You are trying to imply that men are naturally stronger...

I am in fact essentially stating that is generally the case...only a climate change denialist level thinker would try to dispute it. Pointing to exceptions, especially strong women or cold days don't change these objective truths.

 

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 You are trying to imply that men are naturally stronger and therefore may potentially have some advantage over a woman in certain career fields...

 

I wasn't saying that. That was not the point I was making at all. That, however, does not mean it's not true. In some career fields it is true.

However, I also find it disingenuous to imply that was a point I was trying to make, if that was what you were trying to do.

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

You are trying to imply that men are naturally stronger and therefore may potentially have some advantage over a woman in certain career fields and asking a hypothetical about what would happen if a woman may objected to it. Not all men are stronger than all women and you're ignoring experience, skill, education, and etc.

 

Nor would I dispute this. I agree with this, but take exception to the "ignore" part. It is disingenuous to suggest I'm ignoring it for the motive you suggested, again if that is what you are trying to do.

So now that I have made that clear, is that acceptable?

 

[naitche]

11 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think the anonymity provided by the internet is the only reason this conversation persists.  I find it very difficult to believe in real life anyone here would argue about the definition of "woman", their intentions, or etc in person if confront by someone claiming offense. In real life when someone points out offensive language or claims offense to sensible thing to do is apologize and move on. Individuals who are too disagreeable to do so generally do not make it very far within a career or anything else which involves any level of interaction with others. 

When someone says they are offended it is best to just accept that they are. Talking them out of it is not a good idea. In practice I believe everyone in this discussions understand that. Corbyn's failure to just apologize and move on exacerbated the issue. I doubt it would have been that big a deal had Corbyn handled it with more humility. He had a stupid moment. Rather than allowing that stupid moment to become a war over the use of language and the state of gender equality Corbyn should have just acknowledged error. Every hill isn't worth dying on.  

For my part it has nothing to do with anonymity. 

I agree that most here would likely apologise and move on including myself.  Its obviously  a sensible choice to avoid conflict, and make clear your intent is not antagonistic.   I disagree with assuming offence on the behalf of others because they are women. Has T May commented?

If not she has my utmost respect for acting in her capacity as P.M, not as woman. That is her role in this instance. I would also respect her decision to challenge it on her own behalf,  and could still see a P.Ms  strength in that.

There would have been no offence given or taken if someone hadn't assumed it, and made it public. Most women I speak to see it as sexist to assume offence on their behalf and make allowances for language based on nuance they  feel has no place in our language. So who is right? Thats for women to work out as people. Not us to decide for women. 

In the meantime, if we stop giving recognition to concepts that don't belong with the word, we can still respect the wishes of individuals, as individuals. 

You think Corbyn should have acknowledged it and moved on. Its still his decision and without knowing the conditions from his reality perspective 

with absolute certainty, we can't be sure what he should have done either.

9 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Why say, "strong man" or "strong woman" when it introduces a needless bifurcation of genders and one that serves to keep us unequal? 

 I AM saying this is part of the broader conversation around ways we can do better, ways we can be more aware of and attentive to our unconscious habit of treating women differently, and that should collectively try to improve in this space (among others) for the good of everyone.

Because some people see bifurcation of the sexes  as recognition of a diversity. Based on sex. Nothing else. 

Who says different means unequal? Or that we should see it as unequal?

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by naitche

[Ten oz]

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

now that I have made that clear, is that acceptable?

I don't really understand your post as it is a step backwards. I thought we had already found agreement and moved past all this?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, Ten oz said:

I don't really understand your post as it is a step backwards. I thought we had already found agreement and moved past all this?

So you already understood all that? I didn't need to tell you? OK. Thank you. Moving on.

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, naitche said:

Because some people see bifurcation of the sexes  as recognition of a diversity. 

Well, IMO those people are lazy.

Diversity is about the individual... their experiences, their history, their upbringing, their trials and tribulations. IMO things like gender (or race or sexuality for that matter) may help inform those experiences, but is not a valid enough proxy to treat as primary. 

Individuals are diverse. Gender may be one component of that that diversity, but the focus should ALWAYS be on the individual. 

47 minutes ago, naitche said:

Who says different means unequal?

Math. Kidding aside, and in context of this discussion, there’s no reason to call out the gender in these instances so it’s inherently removing an equality that should otherwise exist. 

Edited January 24, 2019 by iNow

[MigL]

A dollar bill and four quarters are essentially equal.
If I need change for the parking meter, four quarters is better.
But If don't wear a belt, and don't want my pants falling around my ankles, a dollar bill is lighter and so, better.
Things can be equal, but each have their individual advantages.

That's the new math, INow.
Didn't they teach you that in school  ?

[naitche]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Well, IMO those people are lazy.

Diversity is about the individual... their experiences, their history, their upbringing, their trials and tribulations. IMO things like gender (or race or sexuality for that matter) may help inform those experiences, but is not a valid enough proxy to treat as primary. 

Individuals are diverse. Gender may be one component of that that diversity, but the focus should ALWAYS be on the individual. 

Math

Agreed. Not by multiplying offence by the numbers of women when they don't all share the same  value.

So I don't think your math works. Numerically, women as opposed to men would be roughly 50/50. I don't think their value is in their numbers, but as individuals.

The majority of women I know would prefer people not see some thing wrong with that identification.

[DrP]

16 hours ago, zapatos said:

If someone says "he/she" is offensive to them, then you need to decide for yourself if you will modify your language.

If someone says that adding "woman" to the end of their description is offensive to them, then you need to decide for yourself if you will modify your language.

In my mind it is as simple as that, and this entire discussion seems to continue because some of us think modifying their language is the right thing to do, and some other don't.

Well in over 40 years of living it has never been offensive (or no one I have met or known has said it was offensive) to identify between the sexes using he/she or man/woman. If 1 person pops up now 40 years on and says he is offended by my use of identification of sex in language (which has never happened to me) do I consider them a revolutionary or some kind of weirdo?  ;-)  

There are plenty of terms that get used that I think are offensive and that are generally accepted to be offensive. If you start pulling people up on non issues (perceived by me and many to be a non issue anyway) then they won't take you seriously when it matters and your message is important. I know some will groan - but this is why the Trump supporters and Brexiteers don't take you seriously (imo). You raise hell over non issues and when you have something important to say they just see the mouth moving and a drone coming out as they stopped listening long ago.

 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, DrP said:

There are plenty of terms that get used that I think are offensive and that are generally accepted to be offensive.

What process do you think it was that drove this acceptance and consensus?

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you already understood all that? I didn't need to tell you? OK. Thank you. Moving on.

We agreed that despite averages it is best to treat individuals individually. I accept that agreement without needing to understand or comment on the rest.

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We agreed that despite averages it is best to treat individuals individually. I accept that agreement without needing to understand or comment on the rest.

OK. You persist with ad hominem arguments. That's fine. I will do the same.

Edited January 24, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

Wtf?

[DrP]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We agreed that despite averages it is best to treat individuals individually. I accept that agreement without needing to understand or comment on the rest.

...  and to never mention what sex they are on pain of being lynched by the press?

 

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

What process do you think it was that drove this acceptance and consensus?

What process do you think led millions of xenophobes and racists and sexists to hide their feelings and never discuss them openly in public until the ballot day?

I am not dissuading discussion about it   -  I am dissuading witch hunts over the most minor of issues that cloud and hide the real issues that need discussing. As soon as you start getting all school teacher like towards these people they close up and deny anything they've said they believe, pass it off as nothing and keep their hideous beliefs inside...  which then comes out at the ballot box.  Which we have seen here on both sides of the Atlantic over the past couple of years.

I have held ignorant and horrible views and beliefs in the past. It wasn't a bollocking from a school teacher that changed them. I am sure we share the same dream of a world without war, discrimination and prejudice, no starvation, rape etc..  a world where logic and reason and love for fellow living beings is the driving force behind politics rather than a greedy grab for more money for those that are already the richest...  I don't think we will see it in either of our lifetimes.  Keep up the good work friend - you are a soldier in my eyes.

 

 

[iNow]

..

Edited January 24, 2019 by iNow

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

For my part it has nothing to do with anonymity. 

I agree that most here would likely apologise and move on including myself.  Its obviously  a sensible choice to avoid conflict, and make clear your intent is not antagonistic. 

In my experience the internet is far more racist, sexist, and all around combative than the real world. I see arguments launched, even here in this thread, that I do not believe people would launch in person. Outside of the anonymity of the internet I can't think of a better reason for this. You concede that in real life most would just apologise and move on. Yet here we are 23 pages in with people arguing otherwise to varying degrees. 

10 hours ago, naitche said:

If not she has my utmost respect for acting in her capacity as P.M, not as woman. That is her role in this instance. I would also respect her decision to challenge it on her own behalf,  and could still see a P.Ms  strength in that.

I am in the U.S. and am not well versed on all of May's political positions. From what I am familiar with I don't like her. Had Corbyn just called her Stupid I would have no opinion on the matter. 

10 hours ago, naitche said:

There would have been no offence given or taken if someone hadn't assumed it, and made it public. Most women I speak to see it as sexist to assume offence on their behalf and make allowances for language based on nuance they  feel has no place in our language. So who is right? Thats for women to work out as people. Not us to decide for women. 

No offense every has to be taken by anyone and nothing every has to be made public. People do get offended and things do become public. That is just a reality of life. If it never rained I wouldn't need to owe an umbrella but it does rain so I do. 

11 hours ago, naitche said:

You think Corbyn should have acknowledged it and moved on. Its still his decision and without knowing the conditions from his reality perspective 

with absolute certainty, we can't be sure what he should have done either.

Corbyn is not obligated to do anything. He can call her a "stupid woman" again if he chooses. I am not implying otherwise. The arguments here are going back and forth about whether or not people should be offended. Considering people are offended Corbyn should expect more people to be offend if he were to do it again. Whether or not people should be or should not be offended is irrelevant to me. 

According to a Sky News poll in the UK 56% of people feel the comment was NOT sexist and 70% of people think an apologise is in order, Link, 

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

As soon as you start getting all school teacher like towards these people they close up and deny anything they've said they believe, pass it off as nothing and keep their hideous beliefs inside...  which then comes out at the ballot box

It’s sort of a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. I’m unsure ANY approach would change this. Many people are just unreachable, but with steady patient persistence even the largest of buckets eventually overflows with the addition of enough individual drops. 

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

OK. You persist with ad hominem arguments. That's fine. I will do the same.

An ad hominem is when one directs arguments towards a person rather than a position. Stating we found agreement on something doesn't direct an argument against you in any way shape or form. If you feel it did please explain how so and I will try to clarify.

Do you no longer agree that individuals should be treated individually? 

14 minutes ago, DrP said:

...  and to never mention what sex they are on pain of being lynched by the press?

A person can mention anything they want. They just don't get to play the victim if it gets them in trouble. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

An ad hominem is when one directs arguments towards a person rather than a position.

argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument,

 

Where in any of my posts since we found agreement did I attack your character or motive? Do you no longer agree that individuals should be treated individually? 

 

[iNow]

Recommendation: JCMacSwell you should report a post if you think there are ad homs being leveled and everyone should stop talking about it here within thread and derailing everything.

Focus on the topic... not on each other. This is not hard. It’s only hard if you force it to be.

Don’t go out of your way trying to find things offensive. Don’t go out of your way trying to offend. Let it go and move forward.

 

Treating and viewing people as individuals instead of as members of a gender seems like a good plan. It has the peripheral benefit of all of us agreeing about it.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Where in any of my posts since we found agreement did I attack your character or motive? Do you no longer agree that individuals should be treated individually? 

 

 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Recommendation: JCMacSwell you should report a post if you think there are ad homs being leveled and everyone should stop talking about it here within thread and derailing everything.

Focus on the topic... not on each other. This is not hard. It’s only hard if you force it to be.

Don’t go out of your way trying to find things offensive. Don’t go out of your way trying to offend. Let it go and move forward.

 

Treating and viewing people as individuals instead of as members of a gender seems like a good plan. It has the peripheral benefit of all of us agreeing about it.

I don't think it is unfair for anyone to question my motive. I think it is unfair to ignore any clarification I make and not accept it.

When Ten oz starts off a statement with "You are trying to imply..." and continues "and therefore..." should I report it? 

Or should I clarify my position and ask if he can accept it? What would you do?

[iNow]

Just now, J.C.MacSwell said:

What would you do?

Stop derailing the thread

If someone has misunderstood you, focus on clarifying your position. Don't focus on calling them a liar or a leftist engaged in tactics or any of the other things that seem to be cropping up repeatedly.

"I think you may have misunderstood my position. Let me say it another way to help bring us back together on this..."

Or, "I'm not sure why'd you are interpreting my comments that way. I want to clarity that what I am trying to say is actually X,Y,Z..."

Back on topic now, please... again...

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Stop derailing the thread

We've covered this before. If someone makes an insinuation against someone, whether it is on topic or not, we all have a right to reply to it.

You certainly do. Stop being hypocritical. 

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Stop derailing the thread

If someone has misunderstood you, focus on clarifying your position. Don't focus on calling them a liar or a leftist engaged in tactics or any of the other things that seem to be cropping up repeatedly.

"I think you may have misunderstood my position. Let me say it another way to help bring us back together on this..."

Or, "I'm not sure why'd you are interpreting my comments that way. I want to clarity that what I am trying to say is actually X,Y,Z..."

Back on topic now, please... again...

 

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let's break this down so I can be precise and clarify, since much of this included insinuations I don't agree with

 

 

 

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

We've covered this before. If someone makes an insinuation against someone, whether it is on topic or not, we all have a right to reply to it. 

!

Moderator Note

Where did "we" cover this before? You can PM me the link

 

[swansont]

 

!

Moderator Note

After review, it would appear that "we" did not include staff.

In a word: no.

This is not a decision members get to make; it is a matter of the rules and that means moderators. Insinuations against people are off-topic, and the proper protocol is to (1) report them if you think rules have been violated, and (2) ignore them. NOT to engage in a response. You are just furthering the hijack of the discussion, and possibly escalating any breaches of civility. This applies to EVERYONE

 

Enforcing the rules is what the moderators are supposed to do. This includes admonishments to get back to the discussion. We're not going to crack down on people who ask this, but if you have to do it repeatedly, it's best to have one of the mods step in instead.