'Stupid Woman'

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, DrP said:

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.

 

These types of things tend to work both ways.

When women try to convey to you a lifetime of frustration that comes with being treated as "less", asking that you PLEASE stop using language that they feel continues the legacy of discrimination against them, and you respond with words like "weirdo", "revolutionary", "non-issue", and "stopped listening", they realize you are not on their side and they then act and vote accordingly.

By complaining about things like this, they are asking you to convey whatever message you'd like, but to simply use different words.

But when you ask them to stop complaining about such language, you are essentially asking them to limit their fight for equality.

You are being asked by them to choose sides, and the message you are sending is that you'd rather oppose them than support them.

You've made clear your position on this and I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just telling you how many women view this, and why I've chosen to modify my language accordingly.

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

These types of things tend to work both ways.

When women try to convey to you a lifetime of frustration that comes with being treated as "less", asking that you PLEASE stop using language that they feel continues the legacy of discrimination against them, and you respond with words like "weirdo", "revolutionary", "non-issue", and "stopped listening", they realize you are not on their side and they then act and vote accordingly.

By complaining about things like this, they are asking you to convey whatever message you'd like, but to simply use different words.

But when you ask them to stop complaining about such language, you are essentially asking them to limit their fight for equality.

You are being asked by them to choose sides, and the message you are sending is that you'd rather oppose them than support them.

You've made clear your position on this and I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just telling you how many women view this, and why I've chosen to modify my language accordingly.

Can you not choose to support them where you feel it is appropriate and oppose them where you feel it is not?

Is everything that could conceivably advance women's rights something that should be implemented in the name of progress?

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can you not choose to support them where you feel it is appropriate and oppose them where you feel it is not?

Of course! As I said earlier, you gather the information and make your choice.

Quote

Is everything that could conceivably advance women's rights something that should be implemented in the name of progress?

Yes. If there is even the remotest possibility it could advance women's rights, even if it means death and destruction for millions, it should be implemented. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Of course! As I said earlier, you gather the information and make your choice.

Yes. If there is even the remotest possibility it could advance women's rights, even if it means death and destruction for millions, it should be implemented. 

I will of course take that as a no.

So you would ask them to limit their fight for equality? (you can take that as rhetorical)

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I will of course take that as a no.

So you would ask them to limit their fight for equality? (you can take that as rhetorical)

Yes, if it means the death of millions, they should limit their fight.

If it means dropping one word from my statement that in no way changes the meaning of what I am saying, then "no" they should continue the fight.

I have no idea why you keep throwing up obstacles. If you don't want to help, then don't. But please don't act as if the lack of a perfect solution is the only thing holding you back.

 

Edited January 24, 2019 by zapatos

[Ten oz]

Freedom of speech is not equal to freedom from consequence. No one in this thread has stated that anyone should be prevent by law from saying "stupid woman". Anyone can say it. As a consequence of saying it people might be offended and call them out for it. 

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I have no idea why you keep throwing up obstacles. If you don't want to help, then don't. But please don't act as if the lack of a perfect solution is the only thing holding you back.

 

Indeed, argue for the sake of arguing, then claiming the high ground, seems dishonest...

[naitche]

On 1/24/2019 at 10:48 PM, Ten oz said:

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. 

More combative or sure.

These arguments in person?  More often not I would say.

Anonymity would be part of it. The  reason might be people do think if the  subject needs change, then it needs discussion to find the best  way forward. Without offence to other subjects more personally. With out exacting a payment in kind. And without with out equating historical with inherent.

I choose relative anonymity because who or what I am is not relevant to my reason (for being here). Or to how it should be received.

If you insist qualifications for where an identifying word can be used, Thats an insisted  meaning  qualified by other than sex. Other meaning is not historical, Its recognition is insisted.  Believed. Inherent.

Language is environmental. Its a human construct we shape to express concepts as we recognise them. What and how we recognise changes as we evolve, and the language with it. Yes it affects how we see things. Its designed to show them and reflect what we see to others.

I recognise an identifier of sex and use it accordingly to reflect that to others. If that offends some one familiar to me  I will try to modify my speech within reason so as not to offend.

Unless I feel the offence is used as a personal attack, based on belief. An attempt to categorise me (sexist) based on past  experience and people,  not the conditions or person present.

 I think ignoring that is like ignoring evidence because the result is not what you think should happen.

I do believe Trump and Brexit are results of ignoring that. People feeling falsely categorised, denied space and opportunity because of it, so claiming it if they believe the opportunity is there. If you set up an oppositional force, its going to meet resistance.

You don't eliminate  'isms' because the causes are repeated in tackling it. 

This isn't an attempt to argue you out of your opinions. Its an attempt to give other perspectives that I think are important to understand if others aren't to be disadvantaged. You can say they aren't. But the theme of these arguments says otherwise. Many feel and say they are. I think ignoring that is like ignoring evidence because the result is not what you want to see.

As for not doing this in R.L, it is personal then. The intent is not to attack personal belief. Its to look at what beliefs we are promoting as a whole.

 

 

Quote

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. 

Meh. I don't know enough either, to like or dislike her. I can still respect or not specific responses to conditions she meets.

Quote

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. 

Being made public isn't the problem so much as  judgement, based on beliefs. Assuming offence to T-May on her behalf as a woman, and that  the word woman  is inherently sexist. That it must convey more than sex.

Quote

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, 

I'm not arguing that  people should or should not be offended. I am arguing   against acceptance of  the word 'woman' as inherently sexist as an identifier because I see that offence being reinforced rather than changed. 

If my anonymity offends, I chose it because I don't think any conditions I may have should affect my  reasoning, or be seen to.

Edited January 26, 2019 by naitche