Jump to content
IGNORED

Nice, real nice. - GOP State Rep Kicks Disabled Son


Sola

Recommended Posts

Kelya, thanks for the link!

I am one of the "Brits" who uses "cunt" on a regular basis. I try not to use that term in front of Americans cause it seems ruder to you than it does to us. While it is very impolite it is not horrific (in the circles I move in) and some feminists say "We are reclaiming the word".

Must think more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are better words out there to describe him then misogynistic ones.

Would you prefer dick head, or wanker, or perhaps something a little asexual such as plain old simple twat.

Take your pick, that man is all those things and if you don't like me calling him a cunt, well tough and all that. Free speech init.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally disagree, and it's not for any lack of "basic education."

IMO, what makes "retard" so deplorable that it is worth policing (unlike "cunt," etc.) is that many mentally disabled people cannot fight back or even realize they are being mocked. Does not compare to the case of supposedly misogynistic language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creeky Steel- yeah, I'm pretty sure this exact same conversation just happened, right down to what freedom of speech means.

I totally disagree, and it's not for any lack of "basic education."

IMO, what makes "retard" so deplorable that it is worth policing (unlike "cunt," etc.) is that many mentally disabled people cannot fight back or even realize they are being mocked. Does not compare to the case of supposedly misogynistic language.

If you don't see how women are systematically oppressed (i.e- unable to fight) by misogynistic language, I don't really know what to tell you. How do you feel about the word nigger? Should it be okay because black people "are able" to fight back against racist language? Is faggot okay because gay people "are able" to realize they are being insulted? Having the mental capability to fight derogatory words does not mean you have the social capability to fight derogatory words. So I'm not sure how lack of awareness or understanding is the magical line at which language becomes hurtful.

Sola- you can use whatever language you choose, but freedom of speech also means people have the right to criticize your word choice, offer you other words, think less of you for using words they find offensive, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creeky Steel- yeah, I'm pretty sure this exact same conversation just happened, right down to what freedom of speech means.

If you don't see how women are systematically oppressed (i.e- unable to fight) by misogynistic language, I don't really know what to tell you. How do you feel about the word nigger? Should it be okay because black people "are able" to fight back against racist language? Is faggot okay because gay people "are able" to realize they are being insulted? Having the mental capability to fight derogatory words does not mean you have the social capability to fight derogatory words. So I'm not sure how lack of awareness or understanding is the magical line at which language becomes hurtful.

I hate to let this discussion upstage the topic of the thread, which I believe to be more important in its own right. That said, it is a bit absurd to treat the pro-language policing position as even feminist gospel when it so clearly is not. "Female language" is a huge topic in (particularly poststructuralist) feminist theory, from Elaine Showalter to Cixous and Irigaray. "Cunt" etc. can easily be viewed as presenting a challenge to phallogocentrism. Of course they can also be viewed as furthering it, but this more simplistic reading tends to neglect many subtleties of critical-theoretical discourse. All I'm saying is that the theoretical positions on this question are fascinating and not nearly as one-sided or simple as you seem to suggest.

I have a particular distaste for language policing, as it reminds me of the behavior of fundamentalists and other narrow-minded, pedantic, and oppressive types. However, there is a good reason not to call people faggots, niggers, or retards. This reason (aside from the unkindness of insulting your addressee) is that gay people, black people, and mentally disabled people are human beings. Vaginas are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to let this discussion upstage the topic of the thread, which I believe to be more important in its own right. That said, it is a bit absurd to treat the pro-language policing position as even feminist gospel when it so clearly is not. "Female language" is a huge topic in (particularly poststructuralist) feminist theory, from Elaine Showalter to Cixous and Irigaray. "Cunt" etc. can easily be viewed as presenting a challenge to phallogocentrism. Of course they can also be viewed as furthering it, but this more simplistic reading tends to neglect many subtleties of critical-theoretical discourse. All I'm saying is that the theoretical positions on this question are fascinating and not nearly as one-sided or simple as you seem to suggest.

I have a particular distaste for language policing, as it reminds me of the behavior of fundamentalists and other narrow-minded, pedantic, and oppressive types. However, there is a good reason not to call people faggots, niggers, or retards. This reason (aside from the unkindness of insulting your addressee) is that gay people, black people, and mentally disabled people are human beings. Vaginas are not.

I'm not sure where I said I was going to give a detailed analysis of every position regarding feminist language. I actively posted a link to a well respected feminist site that explains MY position and why I believe Sola's language choice is sexist, demeaning, and takes away from her original point.

It is also extremely disingenuous to say you're only trying to point out that this subject is "not nearly as one sided or simple as seem to suggest," when your original response contains absolutely nothing to that effect. In your original response you actively state that the reason you crusade against a particular derogatory word is because of a set of arbitrary criteria you have decided upon places it in a different realm than other derogatory words, yet refuse to provide any more reasoning on why that criteria should be respected by everyone else, and now backtrack to say you're only offering a theoretical critique, when again, nothing theoretical has been posted by you previously.

Vaginas are a part of women, who are human beings. I don't really see your point. If nigger isn't okay because it insults an entire person, not just a demographic trait (like a vagina), is calling a black person "darky?" okay? How about more offensive terms for dark skin, like "shit skin?" Is that unacceptable because it insults a particular trait of a person and not a whole person? How do you feel about bitch? Is that worse than cunt because it insults a whole human being?

Additionally, whereas I have attempted to politely engaged with you, you've continually equated my position with fundamentalism, called it simplistic, pedantic, and oppressive, and now are attempting to stop the conversation because it isn't important enough? If it isn't important enough, people will stop responding, but until then we are free to go where topics lead us. You're also free to post on the original subject of the thread, as well as to stop disproving your belief that this is unimportant by using adjective such as pedantic and oppressive. Hint: if you find something oppressive and narrowminded, it should be important enough to address. You're seriously actively attempting to stop feminist discourse right here under the guise of it not being important enough ( again, by your own arbitrary judgements), and that is messed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where I said I was going to give a detailed analysis of every position regarding feminist language. I actively posted a link to a well respected feminist site that explains MY position and why I believe Sola's language choice is sexist, demeaning, and takes away from her original point.

Fair enough.

It is also extremely disingenuous to say you're only trying to point out that this subject is "not nearly as one sided or simple as seem to suggest," when your original response contains absolutely nothing to that effect. In your original response you actively state that the reason you crusade against a particular derogatory word is because of a set of arbitrary criteria you have decided upon places it in a different realm than other derogatory words, yet refuse to provide any more reasoning on why that criteria should be respected by everyone else, and now backtrack to say you're only offering a theoretical critique, when again, nothing theoretical has been posted by you previously.

Obviously nothing theoretical had been posted by me previously. Obviously my original response contained nothing to the effect of my later theory-related point. I never claimed my theory point had anything to do with my original response. What I find disingenuous is this explanation of yours: "you[...] backtrack to say you're only offering a theoretical critique." "Backtrack"? What on earth, when the points clearly had nothing to do with each other?

Vaginas are a part of women, who are human beings. I don't really see your point. If nigger isn't okay because it insults an entire person, not just a demographic trait (like a vagina), is calling a black person "darky?" okay?

No, and this is a faulty parallel.

How about more offensive terms for dark skin, like "shit skin?" Is that unacceptable because it insults a particular trait of a person and not a whole person?

Ditto.

How do you feel about bitch? Is that worse than cunt because it insults a whole human being?

Yes.

Additionally, whereas I have attempted to politely engaged with you, you've continually equated my position with fundamentalism, called it simplistic, pedantic, and oppressive, and now are attempting to stop the conversation because it isn't important enough? If it isn't important enough, people will stop responding, but until then we are free to go where topics lead us. You're also free to post on the original subject of the thread, as well as to stop disproving your belief that this is unimportant by using adjective such as pedantic and oppressive. Hint: if you find something oppressive and narrowminded, it should be important enough to address. You're seriously actively attempting to stop feminist discourse right here under the guise of it not being important enough ( again, by your own arbitrary judgements), and that is messed up.

"Actively attempting to stop feminist discourse"? I'm pretty sure I just said I thought the original topic was more important, which I do. I won't argue with your use of "discourse," though I'm quite tempted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this. I wanted to post it but the Kid and I are sick right now.

Would you prefer dick head, or wanker, or perhaps something a little asexual such as plain old simple twat.

Take your pick, that man is all those things and if you don't like me calling him a cunt, well tough and all that. Free speech init.

I frankly didn't say anything but the initial post, so I'm not sure exactly where the free speech thing came from. I simply put it out there. I'm not fighting for some sort of FJ Code of Conduct, it was just a suggestion. You absolutely have freedom to keep saying it, and I have the right to think it's wrong to use it.

To All:

I really really didn't mean to start this, I'm used to more gender safe spaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, this is why FJ Iz For Lerning as well as Snarking. It was interesting to read Kelya's link. The problem with so called "safe spaces" is that they are fairly sterile environments ;) FJ isn't and that's why I like it.

Inspired by this thread I did an informal survey of some of my mates as to the use of the word "cunt".

Men:

"I'd say it in front of other men, but not if there was a woman present, she might feel hurt by it"

"I used to say it all the time but having met radfems they explained to me why the word was wrong."

"You say it, JFC, because you're from [part of Scotland]. But where I'm from [in England] you just don't. Just don't. I would feel too embarrassed to say it."

Women:

"I absolutely believe in saying it. Why are my genitals more shameful to mention than a man's?"

"No. I don't want to buy in to the history behind the word. I would say something like arsehole instead, everyone's got one."

"I have no problem with a woman saying it, but not a man. It sounds threatening from a man."

I am intrigued and wouldn't have thought much about it before this thread. It is now interesting to see cultural, class and gender differences in the view of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely use the word dick moreso than any female-centric word. (Cunt or even bitch.)

It lends itself to many more uses.

"S/He's a dick."

"A walking bag of dicks."

"Dickwad."

"Don't be a dick."

"I'm going to cut your dick off if you don't shut up."

etc.

As malleable as fuck without all the negative connotations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.