'Stupid Woman'

[Ten oz]

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.  

[DrP]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

When someone says they are offended it is best to just accept that they are

So who did he offend?  No one heard what he said and no one was offended until it was plastered in the paper  -  I am still not sure who was supposed to be offended. Who actually said that they were offended by what he still claims he didn't say?

Being honest - when I first saw the clip I honestly read it as 'people'....  then I started to see it as 'woman'.  It doesn't matter - the comment was directed to no-one and no one was offended and he still claims he didn't say it. Lip readers were torn as to which he said.  Members here that I respect say he said 'woman'...  although I still think that is debatable whatever has been said over the last 20 pages. 

I think the right wingers are laughing as this accusation has had exactly the effect they intended  -  for the left wingers to argue about it and to split their opinions regarding Corbyn. It is even plainer than Fox news trying to discredit Clinton with all the publicity about her e-mails.  I totally despair that so many fall for it. 

 

 

 

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

So who did he offend?  No one heard what he said and no one was offended until it was plastered in the paper  -  I am still not sure who was supposed to be offended. Who actually said that they were offended by what he still claims he didn't say?

Corbyn is the opposition leader and said it while seated in Parliament. Of course it was plastered all over the paper. Had he been alone in his living room no one would have seen or cared. Corbyn is a public figure by profession and was in public when the comment was made. Media picking it up goes without saying. 

5 minutes ago, DrP said:

Being honest - when I first saw the clip I honestly read it as 'people'....  then I started to see it as 'woman'.  It doesn't matter - the comment was directed to no-one and no one was offended and he still claims he didn't say it. Lip readers were torn as to which he said.  Members here that I respect say he said 'woman'...  although I still think that is debatable whatever has been said over the last 20 pages

From what I have read members of Parliament took offense " The video of the remark, made after May’s final exchange with the Labour leader, spread like wildfire among Tory MPs even as May continued to answer questions in the House of Commons. As the Tories grew more incensed, several MPs, including the Commons leader, Andrea Leadsom, accused Bercow himself of using the same term, prompting an angry backlash from the Speaker. Link". In the time sense countless op-ed have been written outlining why it's offensive. So it upset people on the floor in Parliament well as constituents of those in Parliament.  

13 minutes ago, DrP said:

I think the right wingers are laughing as this accusation has had exactly the effect they intended  -  for the left wingers to argue about it and to split their opinions regarding Corbyn. It is even plainer than Fox news trying to discredit Clinton with all the publicity about her e-mails.  I totally despair that so many fall for it. 

All politicians have opposition. This is Corbyn's chosen career. He is free to return to the private sector if he doesn't want the public to pay attention to what he says. 

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, DrP said:

no one was offended until <...>  the comment was directed to no-one and no one was offended

I ask this a bit tongue in cheek, but only a bit:

Will you please share the survey you conducted across the nation that allows you to so confidently declare this?

I'm interested to correct my (apparent) misconception that millions of women and men found it indicative of a larger issue of unconscious bias.

[DrP]

31 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Corbyn is the opposition leader and said it while seated in Parliament. Of course it was plastered all over the paper.

Oh come on!  They (politicians in parliament) are at each other's throats all the time - have you ever seen prime minister's question time or any footage from the house of commons when they can't agree on something?   Don't say this is whataboutism - it isn't - they insult each other all the time... particularly from members of the other party and it is never in the papers afterwards.

31 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

From what I have read members of Parliament took offense

31 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

spread like wildfire among Tory MPs

... so the Tories spread it as fast as they could to cover Corbyn's objections to them casually accepting the 'ah well - no worries if we cant get a deal we'll just go WTO' he and the opposition and anyone of any sense doesn't want there to be a 'no deal' leave. Most of the Tories do and will do anything to cover it up....  including feigning offence at a nothing comment when they are guilty of far worse themselves to distract and waste more time as the clock counts down to us leaving without a deal.

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

I ask this a bit tongue in cheek, but only a bit:

Will you please share the survey you conducted across the nation that allows you to so confidently declare this?

I'm interested to correct my (apparent) misconception that millions of women and men found it indicative of a larger issue of unconscious bias.

I can't do that as I haven't conducted the survey.  Can you point me to those that were offended? Obviously NOT the Tory MPs that were trying to cover their desire for a no deal leave by trying to distract the public - but to the actual statements or studies that show, as you claim, millions of men and women across the nation that found it offensive....  and if that study is conducted by The Sun newspaper then you can just forget it.   

PS - I'm not disputing there is unconscious bias that leads to sexism and racism...  I am saying that in this instance it is a massive finger pointing scam that...  er, well I was going to say that fools no-one, but seemingly the ploy has worked just fine.

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by DrP

[J.C.MacSwell]

What if I said "strong woman"?

What if it was clearly meant physically? Women have less physical strength, on average, than men. What if I was referring to the Women's light weight World Champion? Do I need to refer to her as a person of above average strength?

What if it was meant in terms of character? Some might say that suggests women have less strength of character than men. i certainly would not. Do I need to point that out, or explain why? Do I have to say "strong person"?

Can I not simply be reasonably (my opinion of reasonably at the time) cautious, and clarify in good faith if asked, or accept what I consider to be reasonable responsibility after considering what I said?

Edited January 23, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

I can't do that as I haven't conducted the survey.  Can you point me to those that were offended? 

I didn’t make the claim, mate. I challenged you when you did.

Instead of accepting your attempted transfer of the burden of proof, I’ll instead accept that you are unable to support the “nobody was offended” comment so we hopefully can move on. 

I think people were offended. I think this thread alone is evidence of that. I can not accurately comment on how many, retract my mention of millions, and will repeat that it’s quite clearly not nobody. 

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What if I said "strong woman"?

 

The more I think about this, the more I have a problem with this, too.

She’s just strong. Leave it at that  

She’s not strong “for a woman” in the way this seems to imply, even if that was never your intent. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

I didn’t make the claim, mate. I challenged you when you did.

Instead of accepting your attempted transfer of the burden of proof, I’ll instead accept that you are unable to support the “nobody was offended” comment so we hopefully can move on. 

I think people were offended. I think this thread alone is evidence of that. I can not accurately comment on how many, retract my mention of millions, and will repeat that it’s quite clearly not nobody. 

The more I think about this, the more I have a problem with this, too.

She’s just strong. Leave it at that  

She’s not strong “for a woman” in the way this seems to imply, even if that was never your intent. 

It could though, if my context was physical strength.

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, DrP said:

Oh come on!  They (politicians in parliament) are at each other's throats all the time - have you ever seen prime minister's question time or any footage from the house of commons when they can't agree on something?   Don't say this is whataboutism - it isn't - they insult each other all the time... particularly from members of the other party and it is never in the papers afterwards.

I never implied politicians weren't at each other's throats. Rather I implied it is part of Corbyn's chosen profession to deal with such publicity and opposition. 

20 minutes ago, DrP said:

Tories spread it as fast as they could to cover Corbyn's objections to them casually accepting the 'ah well - no worries if we cant get a deal we'll just go WTO' he and the opposition and anyone of any sense doesn't want there to be a 'no deal' leave. Most of the Tories do and will do anything to cover it up....  including feigning offence at a nothing comment when they are guilty of far worse themselves to distract and waste more time as the clock counts down to us leaving without a deal.

Whether the offense is feigned or deeply felt doesn't matter in my opinion. You are agruing no one was offended at all yet there was public outcry in Parliament follow by international debate over it. Clearly people were offended.

Apologizing and moving on would've been the best response in my opinion. 

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What if I said "strong woman"?

What if it was clearly meant physically? Women have less physical strength, on average, than men. What if I was referring to the Women's light weight World Champion? Do I need to refer to her as a person of above average strength?

What if it was meant in terms of character? Some might say that suggests women have less strength of character than men. i certainly would not. Do I need to point that out, or explain why? Do I have to say "strong person"?

Can I not simply be reasonably (my opinion of reasonably at the time) cautious, and clarify in good faith if asked, or accept what I consider to be reasonable responsibility after considering what I said?

What if you said "strong woman" at work and a co-worker pulled you aside and said it made them uncomfortable, how would you respond? I think it would be foolish to argue with them that they have no right to feel uncomfortable. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

What if you said "strong woman" at work and a co-worker pulled you aside and said it made them uncomfortable, how would you respond? I think it would be foolish to argue with them that they have no right to feel uncomfortable. 

I would tell them I was sorry they felt offended by my belief that was founded in objective evidence. I might try to change my speech where I deemed it appropriate, but not if it affected the job significantly.

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would tell them I was sorry they felt offended by my belief that was founded in objective evidence. I might try to change my speech where I deemed it appropriate, but not if it affected the job significantly.

I would apologise and leave it at that. People are at work to work and not have lengthy discussions about such matters. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by Ten oz

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would tell them I was sorry they felt offended by my belief that was founded in objective evidence.

but I like to argue, so fuck em...

[MigL]

A big issue seems to be the reading/understanding of 'extra' information in a sentence.
JCM said 'strong woman'.
INow reads 'strong FOR A woman'

Who is the one with pre-conceived notions or biases ?

[iNow]

58 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would tell them I was sorry they felt offended

Ah, yes. The non-apology apology. You are, at least, consistent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

JCM said 'strong woman'.
INow reads 'strong FOR A woman'

Who is the one with pre-conceived notions or biases ?

Again... why not just "strong?" She's strong or he's strong is perfectly fine.

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

Now, please don't get me wrong here... I'm not saying I'm going to write a letter to your mother to explain what a horrible person you are or leave you a negative review on LinkedIn for saying "strong woman," but 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.

Edited January 23, 2019 by iNow

[Ten oz]

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

A big issue seems to be the reading/understanding of 'extra' information in a sentence.
JCM said 'strong woman'.
INow reads 'strong FOR A woman'

Who is the one with pre-conceived notions or biases ?

People are all individuals. A book outlining how to speak to everyone without causing offense will never successfully be written. I think it is best to accept people as individuals and treat them accordingly. If a person says they are offended just apologise and move on. Failure to do so will result in some sort of animosity. 

[DrP]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Again... why not just "strong?" She's strong or he's strong is perfectly fine.

What? Surely that is identical though no? 'She's strong'  is pointing out that the person you are talking about is a woman. How is that any different from saying 'strong woman'

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

What? Surely that is identical though no? 'She's strong'  is pointing out that the person you are talking about is a woman. How is that any different from saying 'strong woman'

She and he are references to the individual. They're pronouns for specific identifications.

Woman and Man are references to the entire gender. They are not pronouns.

Also, English is weird.  

Edited January 23, 2019 by iNow

[DrP]

Just now, iNow said:

She and he are references to the individual. Woman and Man are references to the entire gender.

They can be  -  but not normally -  If I say 'that woman is stupid' it is clearly not meaning all women but one woman.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, DrP said:

They can be  -  but not normally -  If I say 'that woman is stupid' it is clearly not meaning all women but one woman.

Note: I edited my post slightly while you were posting.We can disagree, and that's okay. 

Although, you did change the structure of the syntax here in this new quote, and that changes things.

With the different syntax which includes the word "that," it's obvious you mean one woman and not the entire gender. The original example, however, lacked the word that and left it open for the alternative / less precise interpretation.

My original position remains, though. Why include mention of her woman-ness when it'd be better without?

Edited January 23, 2019 by iNow

[MigL]

So when I say 'stupid woman', INow reads an extra 'for a' in there, while DrP reads an extra 'that' in there.
Meaning the offense is based on their mind-set. And that's all very well; offense is in the eye of the beholder.

But sexism is applied by a society to specific sexist ( for lack of a better word ) behavior.
It is at the societal level, not at the individual level.
So while the term may be offensive to some ( I would certainly apologize upon offence to anyone ), it should NOT be labelled sexist.

I really don't know how many more times we can go round this argument.

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

So when I say 'stupid woman', INow reads an extra 'for a' in there, while DrP reads an extra 'that' in there.
Meaning the offense is based on their mind-set. And that's all very well; offense is in the eye of the beholder.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but do want to be clear. I'm NOT offended. I'm saying we can do better and should try.

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

I really don't know how many more times we can go round this argument.

At least 42. Bring you towel.

[DrP]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

My original position remains, though. Why include mention of her woman-ness when it'd be better without?

Why mention it at all...  why use she or he either then? Where do we stop? 

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

At least 42. Bring you towel.

I fancy a pint and some nuts now!  :-)

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I would apologise and leave it at that. People are at work to work and not have lengthy discussions about such matters. 

If for instance it was a male complaining that women should lift as much as men? Or a woman complaining that she felt no one should lift more than anyone else, despite there being obvious discrepancies in lifting capability ?

I don't know where you work, but where I do these could be legitimate examples. Fortunately this hasn't come up, and everyone  generally uses their common sense. Everyone is expected to err on the side of safety, 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

A big issue seems to be the reading/understanding of 'extra' information in a sentence.
JCM said 'strong woman'.
INow reads 'strong FOR A woman'

Who is the one with pre-conceived notions or biases ?

I did specify for that example for Ten oz to assume my context inferred the objective science that men are  on average stronger physically. I would be tactful, but if I was of the opinion that someone I was in charge of was making an unsafe lift I would intervene...even if I felt it was safe for someone else to do it. As I said, I would adjust my language where practical.

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, DrP said:

Why mention it at all...  why use she or he either then? Where do we stop? 

The place to stop is when you've taken all the steps you'd care to based on the information you have.

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.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Ah, yes. The non-apology apology.

I do this all the time. It is a statement in a manner that conveys respect for someone's feelings, without implying I feel I am responsible.

Say you inadvertently bumped into me in the supermarket. My first reaction would be to say sorry in a polite manner, even if it was 100% sure it was your mistake. If I thought you were being reckless I might say it in another way, more likely "excuse me", with the tone depending on circumstance up to including obvious sarcasm.