Why Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned is sexist

[cali]

First of all, I'm going to "magpie" here and incorporate what some other folks on DU have noted about that idiom- that it's largely men who act on feelings of being scorned with violence that actually does real damage, but even so, most men don't act that way and I don't like generalizations about demographic groups. I think they're dangerous and disrespectful.

Someone alerted in another thread on an op that riffed off that idiom. I also think it's full tilt sexist and not a matter of being overly picky about language. It's place is in Congreve's work- not our culture. That idiom belittles and demeans all women as vindictive and petty and dangerous in the face of rejection. It portrays women in a very negative way and it's false in the manner that almost all generalizations are false: African-Americans like to eat fried chicken and they're lazy. Jews are money grubbers, Muslims are fanatical terrorists etc. We wouldn't accept that shit about African-Americans or Jews or Muslims, and we shouldn't accept it about women either. Yet a jury found that it wasn't sexist or objectionable- by 7 to 0. That's just plain wrong and says something not so good about DU.

As another DUer pointed out, the use of the word "hyperfeminists" in that thread, is in the same vein as calling women "feminazis". I think he's right. Dead on, in fact.

I don't want to be overly zealous about this, but yeah, I think there's a problem on DU with a small but significant group of men who are allowed to get away with this shit. Had AAO not sent me that IM threatening rape and full of vile shit, he would still be running around DU polluting it with his barely veiled misogyny. And he had support in that thread- and from the jury.

It needs to change.

[DonViejo]

1. Good post, cali...

I'm just surprised it had to be written and explained...on DU no less.

[arcane1]

2. Agreed.

I'm amazed that that poster was able to get by for so long holding in those vile thoughts, while pretending to be an ally.

[BainsBane]

13. I wish I could say I was amazed

but I'm not, even a little bit.

[jeff47]

17. Well, take a look at reply #3. (nt)

[randys1]

51. I am not, I have found lots of rightwing thinking on this site

[Comrade Grumpy]

3. Can we go after Shakespeare next?

[LisaLynne]

4. Why?

[cyberswede]

5. Does he post sexist idioms on DU?

[cali]

6. what's your point?

Am I saying Congreve's work should be banned or shunned? Of course not. Am I going "after" Congreve's works? Of course not. That was explained in clear, simple language in the OP.

gad. please attempt to use some critical thinking in discussions such as this one.

[nomorenomore08]

7. Has nothing to do with literary works. Let alone from centuries ago.

The OP's point has to do with contemporary, everyday usage, nothing more.

[BainsBane]

8. It's called derail and distract

like a street magician with three cups, who diverts your eye so you don't see the ball.

[nomorenomore08]

10. I just don't know why anyone would bother. You'd think they'd have better things to do

on a weekday afternoon.

[BainsBane]

12. You don't understand

It's a higher calling, like posting in the thread about Jada.

[nomorenomore08]

14. It's almost like a reflex. Responding to a certain subject with defensiveness every. single. time.

[Squinch]

23. Yes. You should do that right now. Go on! Scoot!

[IronLionZion]

197. You can go after anyone as long as you misquote them first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Congreve#Famous_lines

It's OK to make stuff up if it feels good.

[awake]

9. Here is the full quote

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned,"
spoken by Zara in Act III, Scene VIII in William Congreve play The Mourning Bride (1697)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Congreve

[cyberswede]

15. Which is what cali already posted in her OP...

It's place is in Congreve's work- not our culture.

[Scuba]

11. cali, I was on that jury ....

... I was juror #3. Please note my comment ...

On Tue Jul 15, 2014, 12:18 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Don't underestimate the power of a woman scorned!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025242454

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Woman scorned" is a deeply misogynistic term.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jul 15, 2014, 12:30 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh ffs you cannot be serious with this.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I've never heard that "woman scorned" is a deeply misogynistic term, nor did the alerter provide any evidence that it is.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Get a life!
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Jesus Christ on a crutch! Are you serious, Alerter?

I'm, of course, familiar with the phrase, often mis-attributed to Shakespeare. It was actually from the play 'The Mourning Bride', by William Congreve. The line is: "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

I understand your rationale for considering it a misogynist term, and would have voted differently if presented with that argument within the alert. Feel free to consider me shallow for not getting to that point with a little more reflection. Still, I consider it the alerter's responsibility to make a case, not just state an opinion. You did that; the alerter did not.

Thanks for raising my consciousness on the issue. I'm a bit more enlightened than I was a few minutes ago.

[cali]

16. thanks so much for your post Scuba.

I did attribute it to folks on the jury being unaware of the sexism of the phrase. It seems obvious to me in the same way that "Muslims don't renounce terrorism" is obvious.

[Scuba]

19. You're welcome. This is one of the reasons I love DU. I learned something today.

[redqueen]

20. "It seems obvious to me in the same way that "Muslims don't renounce terrorism" is obvious."

This is how I see it as well.

[sabrina 1]

21. I don't agree with you, as a woman. And as a woman, I acknowledge the right of others to disagree

with others' opinions. That is what women fought for for centuries, to be able to express their views without being silenced and I'm damned if anyone is going to remove that right from me. I'm sure you would agree.

The phrase is not offensive to all women, perhaps even to most.

In fact I like the fact that women are viewed as having the same power as men wherever they may have it. As you stated, men are generally the ones who are credited with this kind of power. I like it that women also are recognized as forces to be reckoned with.

You are entitled to your opinion and other women are entitled to theirs. I am sorry if this upsets you.

[cali]

24. it's more than opinion. It;s a sentiment that wrongly characterizes women

it's the same as saying "Muslims don't condemn terrorists".

Your opinion hardly upsets me. I simply think you don't get it- about so very many things.

Not that I think you will ever get it, but let me explain to you in stark terms why it's so sexist: It's about how women purportedly react to rejection from men. Now that that's established: It's saying that women cannot act rationally in the face of a rejection by a man.

this isn't rocket science, dear.

[Raine1967]

29. Well stated.

I have followed this story, and Like Scuba above, I had not looked at it the way you have, and I have to say, I learned as well.

Thank you, cali.

[sabrina 1]

31. You are expressing YOUR opinion of what someone means when they use the phrase.

I see you have resorted to personal attack btw which I will refrain from doing as I believe women are capable of disagreement without, ironically, doing as you claim the phrase is intended to mean.

I do NOT agree at all with your interpretation of the phrase. I have already stated MY opinion of what it means and WHY I LIKE IT as a woman.

I'm sorry that when someone doesn't agree with your opinion, especially another woman, you refuse to accept that women are individuals, not at all likely to march in lockstep simply because someone yells at them, or attacks them but form their own opinions and will not be intimidated by people who resort to personal attack out of fear or weakness.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion. I have a different opinion. I acknowledge your right to your opinion, you do not, obviously, acknowledge mine sadly. Most women however do agree to disagree without enmity. The opinions of others about ME don't bother me in the slightest, I prefer to stick to issues when possible rather than confirm the false impression society wants to create about women in general by attacking personally any woman whose opinions differ from mine.

I wish you well, I simply think you are wrong, and you are certain I am wrong, which is really no big deal in the scheme of things.

[kcr]

46. It's "only an opinion"

And? There are plenty of opinions that are pretty crappy, like poor people are lazy. Then there are reasonable, rational opinions. Surely you aren't saying that anything that is an opinion isn't valid? It's such a pat dismissal.

[MerryBlooms]

57. "It's such a pat dismissal."

I believe that was the intent.

Good post, kcr.

[sabrina 1]

82. Um, did you mean to direct that question to those who ARE stating that the opinions of others

are not valid? Have you read these exchanges and mistakenly thought it was I who denigrated the opinions of others when in fact, I was defending the right of women, to disagree without being personally attacked, as has happened to me for disagreeing with the OP eg.

I will assume you meant that question for someone else unless you can point out where I, not they, denigrated anyone for not agreeing with ME.

I assume from your last sentence that you agree with me that my opinion is as valid as the OP's because I am being attacked for having my own, very different opinion. Thanks, if that is the case .... I am shocked at the personal attacks on women who dare to have their own opinions and who are not willing to be manipulated into hiding them.

[kcr]

87. No, I meant you.

Do you mean to say that all opinions are valid? They aren't.

[sabrina 1]

105. I think you just contradicted yourself. Didn't YOU just accuse ME, wrongfully as I pointed out

of NOT viewing opinions as 'valid'? Now YOU are saying only SOME are valid?

Which ones, how do you determine that? I'm seriously curious as you seem to be saying two different things OR, what you're saying is if it is an opinion YOU agree with, it is valid, but if you don't, then it is not.

Of course all opinions are valid. They may be WRONG, but they are valid, there is certainly no law against them is there?

Are you saying that some people are not entitled to hold opinions? I have no idea what you are saying as you appear to be saying several different things.

It is kind of funny though, that you are now admonishing me for saying that 'all opinions are valid', when before you were admonishing me for saying the opposite. How confusing for you. I hope you sort it all out. I certainly can't figure out what you are saying.

[kcr]

106. Yes. Some opinions are valid, some not. No contradiction.

I'm pointing out why your it's just an opinion response is meaningless. So what if it's an opinion?

[sabrina 1]

109. That's your opinion, which you're entitle to, no matter how wrong you are in MY equally

entitled opinion.

[kcr]

110. Being entitled to an opinion doesn't make you right.

[AgingAmerican]

125. And visa versa!

nt

[kcr]

157. Very true!

Which is why I don't go around claiming my opinion is valid because opinion entitlement! While poo pooing other's opinions as "just opinions"

[LaurenG]

219. Nor does it make you right. Its just your opinion as well.

[kcr]

226. And my point is so what?

Maybe I'm not being very clear. All opinions aren't the same and aren't equally valid. I notice that those who tend to use this dismissal are perfectly fine with giving their own opinions the weight they seem to think they deserve.

[LaurenG]

228. OK

They are equally valid to the people who hold them. If I don't think you hold a valid opinion then we have nothing to talk about. If I understand that you are expressing an opinion that is important to you then we can debate this. So if you feel only you have the right to decide opinion validity we're all done.

[kcr]

231. Some people seem to have a problem with that.

It isn't me.

[notadmblnd]

126. I agree with your opinion Sabrina

I feel very much the same way.

[intaglio]

139. I have seen no personal attack on you in this thread

This is not an opinion it is an observation.

You have, at length, stated your opinion but, despite your protestations about not objecting to others opinions, you have objected, at length.

You acknowledge the right of others to their opinion but object to them either acting on that opinion or stating why they have that opinion.

You state you wish to stick to issues but then venture into extensive diversions about how you are hard done by.

You have stated that others opinions about you do not bother you but then complain that they are "insulting you" when they express that opinion.

My personal belief is that you are guilty of failing to examine your preconceptions critically and that failure has rendered you purblind to more modern perceptions. A 18th century poet expressing his view of the female gender will, almost always, be expressing views that are objectionable to modern audiences just as highly acclaimed early 20th century white, male authors will be guilty of paternalism (at best) towards women and other races.

[jberryhill]

252. "I simply think you don't get it- about so very many things."

So, do you call that a disagreement with an opinion, or a broader assessment of someone's character?

[intaglio]

280. It is someone's perception of why a particular person does not understand how others see things

Just as my amateur diagnosis of "failing to examine preconceptions," is an opinion of the same.

[NCTraveler]

241. What personal attack?

You see, that is your opinion. Reading what you claim to be a personal attack is an opinion of yours I find to be flawed. Either that or you run around all day thinking you are being attacked when you are not. Perfect example of why some opinions aren't valid.

[jberryhill]

251. " I simply think you don't get it- about so very many things."

Yes, saying Sabrina is generally stupid is not a personal attack. Lol

[NCTraveler]

256. Compared to what she throws out there, no. Not in any way.

She makes comments like that every day here. Are you claiming that she makes personal attacks here on a daily basis? Pretty weak by personal attack standards in any case.

[jberryhill]

260. there are two types of statements....

Commenting on what someone said, and commenting about who said it.

Yes, there are many here oblivious to the difference.

[sabrina 1]

254. I don't care about being attacked, just to be clear, that has never stopped me from stating my

opinion.

I judge personal attacks by how many times someone uses the pronouns 'you', you're, your' in a response to a comment. Phrases eg, like 'YOU run around all day' etc. I believe that the issue being discussed here was sexism, not me.

I counted seven such pronouns in your short comment.

But back to the issue. I am not offended by literary quotes, I am offended by sexism.

[NCTraveler]

258. Are there any posts of yours in this thread containing more than seven pronouns?

Very interesting way to set standards. Guess some of your own posts are more offensive to you than many others here. Too funny.

[sabrina 1]

259. Of course, my posts contain plenty of pronouns, but they are usually descriptive

of issues, not other DUers. However, if someone falsely attributes something me then I will respond by pointing out why that person may be doing so eg. Iow, I rarely initiate personal attacks but do respond to them.

This post so far contains plenty of pronouns, but they are not directed at you personally such as 'you are full of bs' eg, they are responding to your comment which contains suppositions such as 'some of your own posts are more offensive to you than many others here'. No, they are not, since they do not initiate personal attacks. That was an incorrect supposition.

Nothing funny to me about personal attacks, though to be honest I have laughed at one or two, such as 'you are a descendant of the destroyers of women'. That was at least creative and did make me laugh.

[pipi_k]

61. I also don't find it sexist

but as a 61 year old woman with children and grandchildren, what would I know, right?

I'll tell you one thing...I would rather be confronted with an angry woman's full and honest anger or even rage, than with the passive aggressive bullshit so many women exhibit.

Ask ten angry women if they're upset, and what are you likely to get? "No. I'm. Fine." from at least 8 of them.

Their husbands or boyfriends might ask, "What's wrong?"

The women: "Nothing".

Meanwhile, they're seething inside.


I would rather have it out on an honest level with someone than to be INSULTED by dismissive and sneering statements like these:

Your opinion hardly upsets me. I simply think you don't get it- about so very many things.

Insulting and sneering

Not that I think you will ever get it, but let me explain to you in stark terms why it's so sexist: It's about how women purportedly react to rejection from men. Now that that's established: It's saying that women cannot act rationally in the face of a rejection by a man.

Insulting and sneering. What's this about, if not having to (gasp!!!) actually explain to another woman exactly why she should find it sexist. Because....

this isn't rocket science, dear.

She's clearly too stupid to understand it.


There are times when I really and truly feel sorry for men having to maneuver their way around a lot of this bullshit.

Give me an honestly angry woman any day over the ones who think they're doing the rest of us this big favor by being snotty even while they claim they're "not angry".

[RobinA]

150. And I Don't

see the actions of the "woman scorned" as irrational AT ALL.

[seabeyond]

151. then why is it such a joke, a giggle, a chuckle for men? wink wink. jab in rib. ha ha. nt

[RobinA]

165. 'Cause

they don't get it.

[seabeyond]

166. oh. ya right. you think you are pulling the wool over the mens eyes. so as they insult you.

and giggle, laugh, ect.... in your mind you are saying you are all that and the joke is on them?

wowsers.

that is a tough one for me to wrap my mind around as they use this to, oh....

not pay us as much
not give us promotions
pass laws restricting our healthcare
not filing reports, prosecuting, convicting, sentencing rape

all the while, the joke is on them.

hm

who would have thunk, we had all that power all along, being denigrated and laughed at by men in a degrading manner.

[RobinA]

172. I Thought

we were talking about "a woman scorned."

And no, I don't let men define when I'm irrational. You appear to be saying that men know better than you do when you are irrational. Otherwise, who gives? Of course the joke is on them if they make this mistake. I don't feel the need to recognize their misunderstanding as an insult.

[seabeyond]

187. because this notion that women are all that in irrational and emotional doesnt effect our real life

at all?

is that what you are claiming?

women have had absolutely no repercussion because of this stupid ass conditioning of women being irrational or emotional?

historically, present day. you see nothing in our lives effected by this?

look. you can try to steer the conversation to me, and somehow slight me by not being in control of my own existence or whatever.

any one that takes half a look at gender issues knows better.

[seabeyond]

37. every one of your posts starts, woman here, and no misogyny or sexism at all. really. every one.

i would think with sabrina and your long history on du, you would not have to put WOMAN WOMAN and i never see sexism.

i have never seen any posts declare their gender as often as your.

interesting.

[sabrina 1]

38. Thanks for your comment. I am proud to be a woman.

You object to women declaring their gender on the internet where for many years women often chose handles that did not reveal their gender? Been in those gender wars, and never ever felt ashamed of declaring what and who I am.

As a woman I will always feel proud to state it. And especially when I encounter people who claim to speak for all women, I will, as a woman, state that they are incorrect, that no one speaks for all women.

I will make it clear always when I am disputing the fact that anyone speaks for all woman, that I am a woman who holds a different viewpoint.

That seems to be upsetting to some people. Do you know why any woman would object to another woman not agreeing with them on some things? I would think most women would be happy that we can all state our opinions now without fear of being bullied into silence. I know I, as a woman, certainly am.

I noted the personal attack mode in your comment also. Is there a reason why, as a woman, that is necessary? Note, my comments are about my opinion, AS A WOMAN. Why my stating that I am a woman should pose any kind of threat to anyone is a mystery to me.

[seabeyond]

39. right sabrina. that is the point. i object to women declaring their gender. you got me.

[sufrommich]

66. "You object to women declaring their gender on the internet "

Is a statement no one even remotely said.


" I encounter people who claim to speak for all women" another statement made by no one.

[sabrina 1]

80. Why would someone even comment on another woman stating that she is a woman?

Is there any interpretation other than they think women should remain quiet about their gender? If there is, then please enlighten me, but I thought the comment extremely odd. It would never occur to me to say that to any woman unless I intended to try to shame them in some way. Perhaps you can explain it?

[sufrommich]

89. It wasn't hard to understand at all. Sea stated that you preface

every "that's not sexist" post with "I'm a woman so not all women agree". We get that.It's got nothing to do with anyone expecting you to " remain quiet about their gender" no matter how much it's convoluted to appear as such.

[sabrina 1]

92. So you are saying that because I don't agree that a literary quote is sexist

and DARED to express that disagreement, explaining that I, a woman, do not share that view AS A WOMAN, with a few other women, I should NOT have stated that I am a woman??

WHY?

It IS hard to understand otherwise I would understand it. I have NEVER admonished any woman for stating she IS a woman, it would be inconceivable to me.

What is easy to understand is that some people cannot tolerate any disagreement, that is certainly clear, but to take issue with someone simply stating who they are, that is completely incomprehensible.

Your explanation only makes it more strange to be honest. I guess I'm just one of those people who is not that complicated, who doesn't read something nefarious into everything someone else says. I say what I think, and see no reason to do anything else so I am completely puzzled by all the conspiracies and suppositions about people who simply have a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.

There is something very odd about it frankly.

[kcr]

108. Why?

Because the fact you're a woman doesn't automatically lend more validity to your opinion. The version used by men is "my wife/girlfriend doesn't agree." A big so what in either case.

[sabrina 1]

115. You are upset that a woman states she is a woman? Wow!

Is it upsetting to you when a woman doesn't walk in lockstep with those who seem to think they speak for all women?

Since I am a woman who will continue to make that clear regardless of this sudden strange objection to women stating their gender here, I certainly DO have validity when the subject is about women, as much as those who CLAIM to represent ME. You got THAT right!

Excuse me if a woman decides to speak for herself here rather than let others so.

If it bothers you don't read my posts. You will see way more women here stating their validity AS WOMEN to disagree with those who put themselves forward as representing all women.

They do not.

[kcr]

119. Your opinion that those you disagree with seem to think they speak for all women

is a ridiculous one, and it's ridiculous no matter what your gender is. It makes your tendency to bring up your own gender all the more ironic. The all opinions are valid! doesn't seem to go both ways with you.

[sabrina 1]

121. They don't speak for all women due to the fact that women like me among others

have from time to time, spoken up to let people know that there are OTHER WOMEN HERE who don't always agree with them. If women here had not done that, many people reading here would believe that they do. Which is why I make sure to state that I am a woman and will continue to do so despite the strange objection to women stating they are women.

[boston bean]

144. Right, we got it. Women like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman

wouldn't agree with much of anything I had to say.

So?

[kcr]

229. Because they're Just Your Opinions

They're entitled to their opinions, too. So, you're wrong. Stop being such a bully. You make us all look bad

[RobinA]

170. Apparently It Does

because elsewhere in this kind of "discussion" people who haven't been raped are invalidated if they have an opinion on some issue related to rape, men are invalidated when they comment on sexism, god forbid anybody white says anything off the party line on race... I've seen whole discussions on whether or not a poster is a man or a woman, black or white, based on how closely their opinion jived with what it was supposed to be.

I've started non-monolith-compliant posts with a statement that I'm a female simply to avoid the inevitable conjecture as to my gender.

[sabrina 1]

193. Thank you Robin. I believe the objection to a woman who disagrees with the supposed status quo

stating she is a woman, is threatening to those who find it easier to attack a man who might also disagree. It undermines the process. Which is why I will continue to state that I am a woman in order to let people know that not all DU women agree on all designated opinions. The reaction to this is amazing. Thanks for your comment.

[kcr]

199. I've never been raped

If someone tells me that I can't fully understand a subject on that topic, I don't pout and declare I've been invalidated. That goes to my point about not all opinions being equal. I think one has to have a lot of hubris to think their opinion on something they've never experienced is just as valid. That goes to all your examples. I know, god forbid anyone express "unpopular opinions on a liberal board. I thing Discussionist is a better atmosphere for people who don't like blowback about their "unpopular opinions"

[NCTraveler]

242. +1 nt

[polly7]

86. You, Sabrina, are one of the strongest, most intelligent, able women I 'know'

You remind me of my friends in real life and I appreciate you speaking up. No, we're not all alike, thank god ... and we sure as hell don't all have to believe in the same reasons to broad-brush human beings based upon their sex alone, when most of those people are more invested in equality, the desire for dignity for all and respect for others than many here who profess to be the 'educators' of what we 'should' believe, fear, and even hate.

[laundry_queen]

93. I think your posts are demonstrative of the issue

and that issue is that the way women are viewed and treated is so entrenched in our culture that most women don't even see it, and will refuse to see it even when it is pointed out to them.

You said that pointing it out makes women seem weak and fragile and I'll disagree and say that not pointing it out or accepting that it just IS is an easy way out. It's far easier to deny something that isn't comfortable or, quite frankly, is too nuanced and complicated to 'fix'. When one group points out the nuances and the unintended consequences of certain views, other people simply don't want to be bothered.

It's far more comfortable to continue our current way of behavior than to put any effort into changing. Humans are notoriously resistant to change, even when facts right in front of them (really, everyone should take a social psychology course to see just how messed up us humans are and how our behavior is shaped by society). People will deny blatant facts pointed out to them because it's easier to just carry on as they always have. It takes a lot of courage to acknowledge that the way you've always 'seen things' or the way you've been taught things are isn't right. It also takes a lot of thought and introspection to really examine the underlying influences with regards to our opinions. Some of us are continuously re-examining our views and opinions - I won't even get into how my views on numerous subjects have changed over the years - and sadly, some are incapable of the smallest amount of introspection.

I've always enjoyed - and looked forward to - your posts here at DU, but you are wrong here. It's not about anyone bullying you to have a certain opinion or to be silent - it's about those who may disagree showing a modicum of respect and a smidgen of introspection towards those who wear the DU feminist label proudly instead of rejecting everything they have to say out of hand, for reasons that are not readily apparent to me. There must be some personality clashes or past baggage I'm blissfully unaware of.

[sabrina 1]

97. I respect you too and enjoy your posts. We simply disagree on this. I am fully aware

of change and all the history of women's treatment and the ongoing inequalities. I am simply not upset by literary quotes and believe I have a right to that sentiment as a fairly intelligent human being.

It is insulting, although you may not have intended it that way, to tell me I am unaware that I am somehow being abused. You see it your way, I see it mine, but I would not presume to tell you that you simply don't know yourself. I assume you do, as do I. I give you that much respect, I'm sorry you couldn't do the same for me.

If I were or even thought I was being abused by anyone, no one would be screaming louder. Speaking for myself only, words can only hurt ME if I allow them to. I have a habit of not allowing words to do anything other than inform me about those using them. That is useful information, but I will never give anyone that kind of power over me.

I have not insulted those who disagree with me, I assume they honestly believe they are being insulted and are entitled to feel that way.

What they are not entitled to is to insult and attack those who do not agree with them. Nor are they entitled to be the arbiters of what all women should think. That IS bullying and it is reprehensible imo.

I know who I am and am not particularly concerned about people's opinion of me unless they are people I know and respect.

I'm sure we will agree again on other issues, we simply do not agree on this, it's no big deal. Take care :hugs:

[laundry_queen]

111. The words may not hurt you

but if they are hurting others, isn't that reason enough to stand up? As people on the left, the main thing that distinguishes us from the other side of the spectrum is our ability to empathize with people who do not see things the way we do and who have different experiences than we do ourselves.

I think that is what bothers me the most. If it were any other kind of subject other than sexism, no one would stand for it.

Also, you say "I have not insulted those who disagree with me" but there are subtle insults in this very post. Invalidation is insulting. And you accuse me of insulting you but then go on to do the same thing and assume you haven't done so also. Also, there is a certain passive aggressiveness to your posts that is rubbing me the wrong way and so I will step away from this subthread after this post. I will assume all of this is unintentional on your part, but I can see how it could be triggering to some people.

Anyway, take care. See you around.

[sabrina 1]

118. There are no insults in that post, unless you want there to be. Someone disagreeing with you is

not an insult. Someone attacking you and telling you are too stupid to know yourself, IS an insult.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, I have even changed my mind when someone explains their position without attacking or presuming every word of disagreement is an insult. But when people claim to care about women, yet attack any woman who has a difference of opinion, what that reveals is that they care about THEIR issues, not about women in general.

Anyhow, this is why DU is not the place, as I have said many times before, to discuss the serious issues facing women in the world today. I used to just observe from a distance as have many other women here. There are better venues sadly. This should be a safe place for women like me to discuss issues that concern them, but it isn't.

See you around also.

[BainsBane]

154. The insulting was done by the person whose language you are defending

He called the OP a c... and insisted she should be anally and orally raped. That is the person whose language you are defending. That you try to present people who agree with the OP about his comments, in both the OP and PM, as insulting anyone is outrageous. It is in fact unconscionable.

You spend much of this thread talking about how you weren't offended by sexist language and therefore how those of us who voice objections to it are "weak." If you aren't so easily offended, what insults are you talking about? Why is it that sexist and misogynistic insults are supposed to be tolerated without comment, but there is some unmentioned insult perpetrated by feminists who challenge such language that you find so unacceptable? How exactly does that work? Why should you be so much more easily offended by objections to sexism than sexism itself?

[seabeyond]

156. yes. "more easily offended by objections to sexism than sexism itself?"

THIS. just this. exactly this. yes, this.

lol

yes.

thank you

[sabrina 1]

232. Don't try to conflate these two issues, they are entirely separate which several

people have already pointed out.

Nice try, but DUers are smart enough and experienced enough to see through efforts to conflate one very nasty incident with an issue that has zero to do with that incident.

As to the rest of your comment, I have already responded at length to your last comment to me in another thread. I pointed out in that comment that your attempt to 'punish' me by 'donating to Hillary' was precisely what people have been talking about, the incredible intolerance of women who express differences of opinion on what are priorities for them. You can find that response here http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5247412 as you appear to have missed it.

As to your question, 'why should you be so much more easily offended by objections to sexism than sexism itself'? What does that mean, can you explain it as it makes zero sense to me. I do not share all of your opinions on what is sexism. That appears to be the problem. As a woman, I do have the right NOT to be offended by everything someone else is offended by, wouldn't you agree? As a woman and a feminist I am deeply offended by sexism.

I hope that answers your question.

[prairierose]

257. Thank you for getting to the ...

real point of all this. I have never understood women who feel that sexism is acceptable and I never will but to argue that it is acceptable and to be upset with those who argue against sexism makes even less sense to me.

Language, no matter what group it denigrates is, in itself, a form of violence against that marginalized group. It is a form of intolerance that should not be accepted on a "liberal" or "progressive" discussion board.

Once upon a time, more people seemed to understand that but after more than 30 years of hate-talkers working so hard to make unacceptable speech, behavior and violence acceptable, many people seem to have forgotten or never learned that. I do not like this public square where so many people feel empowered to stand up and scream at the top of their lungs so many things that really should never be spoken in public.

A friend of mine told me that it was better for this to be spoken in the public square rather than buried under the surface of our culture. But I have observed that the more unacceptable language is shouted in the public square, the more that will show up tomorrow.

OTOH, Will Rogers said, " I do not belong to an organized political party. I am a democrat." I have always accepted that dems are disorganized and fight over many ideas and issues but I still believe there are some things that we need to come together to say, "This is not acceptable in a civilized society."

[smirkymonkey]

266. +100

Great post. Thank you!

[prairierose]

309. Thank you for reading....

[seabeyond]

143. excellent post, queen. i have not delved in this thread, but, i would make your point. looking at

a woman scorned and seeing the inherent sexism in it is not the solution to all problems, nor the end of the world. it is merely unraveling the centuries of embedded sexism that conditions us from the time we are born, until buried in the grave, day in and day out, 24/7.

it is not the deal so many are making it on du, just cause there are people that can look at .... hell hath no fury like a woman scorn, and see the built in sexism of it, any more than the 'joke" that all women lie. deconstructing these jokes are needed, because they do become a daily part of who we are.

very good post queen.

[Luminous Animal]

49. If it isn't offensive, it ought to be. How a person reacts to rejection is a matter of personality,

not gender. Yet, the quote says quite the opposite.

So, I googled the phrase and found this on Yahoo answers... notice sexist language particularly those he claim that women cannot control their emotions.

Holy Trinity answered 2 years ago
Once a woman is upset and angry, hell just seems like a walk in the daisy field.

Blind Didymus answered 2 years ago
Ladies tend to hold grudges longer and are more vindictive though some men can be pretty furious at times too yet generally a lady's emotions way with greater strength.

Jackie m answered 2 years ago
Of course I believe it and practise it if necessary, you never get on the wrong side of a woman or she can make your life a misery.

ARM answered 2 years ago
A woman may forgive you but she will never ever forget, nor let you forget.

ane answered 2 years ago
Hmm...I would think that it means that when a woman is angry towards a certain "misdeed" done upon her she generally does not let go and would make it one of her lifes priorities to make you miserable for it. E.g. she would wake up everyday thinking about how to mess up your life for something bad that you did. If she's the crazy sort you don't really have to do much to get her to that mode.

It is true that when offended a woman in general does not let go easily but most have the better sense of not acting upon it. Much like men.

Chigoziri answered 2 years ago
Its the nature of the average woman. . .except some that have humble temperaments!

Heraclius answered 2 years ago
"Heaven has no rage, like love to hatred turned,
Nor hell a fury, like a woman scorned."

Quite fitting really when displaying a lack of maturity both physical and spiritual
It truly makes me wonder why they're generally perceived to be more emotionally stable than men given their underlying bitchy natures
Men can be brutal, while women are more likely to be both cruel and vindictive
Because while physical damage usually repairs well, psychological damage lasts a lifetime

Demon answered 2 years ago
Its true women cannot control their emotions and hold on to things forever and ever. They are mean hateful and cruel. Women are emotionally weaker than men as men can put things behind them and get back to normalcy women are forever hurt and cannot ever recover from things and become bitter and mean for the rest of their lives.

Adam answered 2 years ago
It means they dont know the meaning of "get over it"

[sabrina 1]

76. Quotes from anonymous, ignorant people on the internet have zero effect on me. Is there some

reason why women should allow themselves to be influenced by such ignorance? What significance does all that have? I could google on any topic and find ignorant comments. But they have no effect on me unless I let them. Which I don't. I've been the target of plenty of ignorant personal attacks for holding certain, liberal opinions but it doesn't bother me at all. I don't get this notion that women are so fragile they have to care so much about people whose opinions are of no consequence.

The quote is from literature, we can use it any way we want. I choose to use literary quotes the way I want to use them, not the way someone else wants me to interpret them.

Should we ban all literature, should we be upset by all literary quotes that can be interpreted one way or another because some people are offended by THEIR interpretation of them? I don't think so. I think women are far stronger than they are being given credit for and it upsets ME that they are being portrayed as weak and easily offended even by something like this. And that is MY opinion and it's not likely to change. You, of course, are fully entitled to yours.

[pipi_k]

96. This is something

I think women are far stronger than they are being given credit for and it upsets ME that they are being portrayed as weak and easily offended even by something like this.

which has bothered me for a long time.

People who think this or that particular group are so weak and powerless that they just HAVE to run to their defense.

Not out in the real world, like in solidarity with them. No...sniping at people on an internet discussion group. Telling other people how they SHOULD feel.

I can just see it now...and I would imagine it happens somewhere in the world...maybe a minority person says, "Look, this or that statement or word doesn't really bother me". And someone who isn't a minority comes along to tell them, "Well you SHOULD be offended!" (The suggestion here being that the non-minority knows way better than the minority person does about such things...ugh. Just disgusting).

So here we have an example of how some women act worse than men they denigrate for talking down to women, talking down to other women who quite honestly say that they're not offended by a phrase.

Using belittling and shaming language.

Because they know better than we do what we should find offensive.

It's not bad enough that there are some men out there who are only too happy to rob us of our self-power, however we choose to find it...now there are also women doing the same exact thing. Only, you know...it's just for our own good.

[sabrina 1]

98. Good post, thank you!

Yes, that is the irony, isn't it? The very people who are outraged over a presumed offensive statement, then attack those who simply cannot get offended along with them, with offensive personal attacks. I admit, I sort of smiled when I saw some of the responses to ME for daring to say 'I am not offended'. And thought how insincere it is to claim to be upset on behalf of women while attacking any woman who simply doesn't agree.

And that is why I only pay attention to people who are consistent and whose opinions I have learned to respect because THEY are respectful. The rest, I could not care less about their opinions of me.

[notadmblnd]

127. +1000

[Luminous Animal]

131. Goodie for you. Black people are lazy. Mexicans are dirty. Women are irrational.

How dare black folks protest against historical bigoted literature that contributes to they subjugation. How dare brown folks protest against tropes that contributes to they subjugation.

[Luminous Animal]

158. The point is, many feel and agree that the quote portrays

women as irrational. It is a sexist sentiment, and it is a bigoted sentiment. But go ahead, defend it. Will you also defend phrases that describe lazy shiftless black men? Or dirty Mexicans?

It has nothing to do with YOU being defined as irrational. It has everything to do with all females, starting from birth, being defined as a irrational.

Bigotry sets up barriers to both personal and financial success. A society that perceives women as irrationally furious when handling personal interactions, is also a society who will believe that women are not capable of taking charge.

[sabrina 1]

164. That is your opinion and to you it makes sense. I respect that. Mine happens to be different.

I don't see the problem with women having differences of opinion, but clearly for some it is a huge problem. Every person has their own life experiences which they handle in ways that are most effective for them. Seeing the outright hostility here for women who dare to disagree has been most enlightening. None of it effects me, I am used to internet bullying and attacks, but it is very instructive and explains why so many women here, do not participate in the women's forums. And that is a shame.

[seabeyond]

168. you call women weak and victims if they speak out. now, you are calling women bullies if they speak

out disagreeing with you.

there are three women forums where the likes of us do not participate. if you wanted to talk womens issues, which you have not in the three years of du3, you have a place where we do not participate. so no. it does not explain why you and others do not participate in womens issues.

[sabrina 1]

270. I talk about women's issues in RL and on other forums.

I prefer forums, RL is better of course, regarding women's issues where the focus is on the extremely important issues women face in the world today, not on personalities.

I also prefer to see women portrayed as strong, focused on the very real issues facing them today around the world not on literary quotes which I can assure you many of the women I am involved have little time to even think about, they are so busy with RL issues.

All I have ever seen here is infighting in the women's forums which is not of interest to me.

Women should be working together, and they are, not fighting amongst themselves on the internet providing fodder for those who would love to see the women's movement disappear.

Thanks for the comment, but I am deeply involved in women's issues elsewhere and prefer to keep it that way.

[seabeyond]

274. You blamed women on du for not participating in discussions about women's issues. 3 groups we do not

Participate in. We are not the blame like you stated. That was the only point I made regarding your discussions with women's issues.

You have not seen in fighting in hof. You have not seen in fighting in the other women's groups. It is not there. Another false accusation.

[sabrina 1]

275. Why are you fighting with me? You made a comment, I responded with

an explanation, that is all. Yet you are angry, not the first time you have responded angrily to me and others.

I never participated in the women's forums here because when I first registered here I looked at them and saw nothing but fighting, anger and nastiness. I simply didn't participate, then I watched what was going on a few years ago and was shocked at the nastiness and glad I was not involved.

I don't know why you are so upset that people who see that kind of thing simply don't want to be involved, and I am far from the only one.

If you are happy with the situation, great. I have never been a part of DU's womens' forums for all the reasons I just mentioned.

I have had my concerns confirmed each time I participate in discussion about Women's issues when they occur in this forum, I and others receive nothing but nasty responses from women who do participate.

Since I am respectful even to those who post snide and nasty responses, the personal attacks I receive are not due to my behavior, they are BECAUSE I HAVE OPINIONS about some things that are apparently not acceptable to these some from these groups.

Thanks, but no thanks, I prefer an atmosphere where a difference of opinion doesn't result in personal attacks and threats of 'punishment' from other women.

If it is in GD, I will participate. I am impervious to the childish personal attacks, they are not my problem, but DU's women's forums are not of interest to me for all the reasons I just stated. It's too serious an issue to waste time battling over differences of opinion.

I am trying to remember, eg, if you have ever addressed me with anything other than accusations and anger. That is very puzzling to me. But it is an example of why I have no interest in participating in forums where a difference of opinion produces so much hostility.

[seabeyond]

283. no sabrina. you are not respectful. that is the problem. not even a little. your posts of full

of accusations and insults. i am not angry and upset. because you say it, does not make it so.

and i have not once heard you support women and womens issues. not once.

[sabrina 1]

285. Disagreeing with someone, stating a difference opinion, is not disrespectful.

Stating historical facts about the women's forums here, is not disrespectful.

Show me a post of mine if you can that contains any kind of personal attack.

Your idea of supporting women and mine are apparently different, I support women being perceived as powerful, strong and focused on important issues that affect the lives of women everywhere and always have.

That is standing up for women rather than allowing them to be perceived as powerless, controllable emotionally and weak. That is more damaging to women as it continues the old attitude towards women that for centuries which women fought so hard to change.

You are free to disagree, I can accept that without ascribing nefarious motives to that disagreement or, if it is done respectfully, without claiming that your disagreement is an attack.

[seabeyond]

286. but you do ascribe nefarious motive to those that disagree with you and you do repeatedly

you claim disagreement is an attack.

you claim that for women to speak up, they are painting themselves as victims. what an insult that is. differing opinion? sure. and damn insulting, too.

when anyone disagrees with you, and it is thru out the thread, what i found too funny, you claim you are being unfairly attack, the women are vindictive, emotional, petty.

you do not see it. the hypocrisy of your posts. but it is there.

you ascribe i am angry, mad. no such thing.

you have reduced most women on du that talk about womens issues to pathetic human beings. lol

anyway.

as i said. i have yet to see a post where you actually support a woman. i generally ignore you posts. i will go back to that.

[JTFrog]

287. Yep. Quite the cognitive dissonance.

That poster is never going to see past the chip on her shoulder. Ever. Don't waste your time.

[seabeyond]

288. totally....

blows my mind.

actually i thought you were probably a reply from sabrina and was just gonna end it with

ok.

lol

[sabrina 1]

294. I did ask you I believe for examples of what you are claiming.

So since you did not provide any, I will simply repeat, disagreement is not an attack, accusing people of being anti-women BECAUSE they disagree IS an attack.

I have never used the word 'unfair attack', I have called them 'false attacks'.

I don't ignore anyone's posts, I read everything everyone has to say as I can handle respectful disagreement and have even changed my mind if someone presents persuasive arguments to demonstrate where they are coming from.

I do often decide not to respond to posts that have no content other than accusations or personal attacks, and sometimes I do.

Once again, your comment to me is filled with accusations, it's hard to imagine you can't see it yourself.

Anytime you want to have a discussion without accusations, I am more than willing.

[smirkymonkey]

267. Correction: that would be "affects"

sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine.

[Jamastiene]

208. To me, it is offensive.

If there was any truth to it, where are all the domestic abuse centers for all these battered men who have received such "fury" from women "scorned?" They don't exist, because it is not true. There are *some* instances of women abusing men, but for the most part, the domestic abuse shelters are places women (and children) need to go to, to be safe from the types of men who've been "scorned" (or so they think) and cannot control themselves. Hell hath no fury like those certain men scorned would be closer to the truth, but it can go either way and with either gender.

That is why I see it as offensive. It implies women cannot control our emotions while every day there are women who are dealing with domestic abuse and real physical danger from the types of men who cannot control their emotions AND actions. It is insulting to the nth degree considering what those women are going through.

[likesmountains 52]

88. Thank you...I am so weary of being scorned for not being upset over

things that don't upset me.

[sabrina 1]

94. Lol, don't worry, you are far from alone!

Well said btw, 'not being upset over things that don't upset me'! I can't do it either, can't even pretend to be.

[jeff47]

107. I think you could have worked "I'm a woman" in to that post a few more times.

There's easily two or three sentences between your declarations of gender.

[sabrina 1]

112. Well, if you had asked me sooner, I would have done it, as a woman, just for you.

As I pointed out to someone else, not only are we women supposed to be upset over a quote from literature because some anonymous people on the internet think we should be, now women on DU are being admonished for saying they are women.

Thanks for another example btw. That's twice now. I think I should write an OP about this actually, how women are now being admonished on DU for stating that they ARE women.

Hey, thanks for criticizing us women for daring to be proud of and stating it.

Nothing makes us women feel more like women than some anonymous man on the internet commenting negatively on our pride in being women!

We needed that from a man!

I hope I have pleased you by using the word 'woman' and/or 'women' often enough. That WAS what you requested, no, SIR?

That is what we women are here for, to please men who are not happy with us stating that we are women.

But we dare NOT disagree with those who tell us what we must be upset over.

Hilarious, the pretext of caring about women, until one of them dares to have an opinion of their own!

[jeff47]

114. They are not being admonished for saying they ARE woman. They are being admonished

for treating "I'm a woman" as a shield, in an attempt to deflect criticism of their post.

One wouldn't need to sprinkle it all over the replies if the only goal was to let people know where they are coming from. Saying it over and over again is an attempt to insulate from criticism.

If your point is good, it only needs one "I'm a woman". When you layer them on thick, you're setting up an attempt to call any critics misogynists regardless of the contents of their criticism.

Which you've immediately done to every single critic of your post, regardless of their gender or the actual contents of their critique.

Fundamentally, the quote says women are worse than Satan himself. Doesn't really matter what the woman is angry about. She is worse than the Devil.

[sabrina 1]

116. How dare you accuse me of using my gender as a shield. I should alert on this

post as it is a despicable attempt to silence a woman who just DOESN'T AGREE that she should be upset over something she is told to be upset over.

I will continue to state that I am a woman when I encounter people who claim to speak FOR ME AS A WOMAN. They do NOT, and if you object to ANY WOMAN daring to have an opinion different to those who are claiming to speak for all women here, then don't read or comment on my posts. I consider your comments here to me to be sexist frankly.

[jeff47]

117. And there you do it again.

Golly, what a surprise!

Again, the quote fundamentally says that women are worse than Satan. If you do not think that is misogynist, it seems you've set the bar too low.

[sabrina 1]

120. Your comments to me as a woman here are sexist. You are using that old 'shame on you' routine

in an attempt to prevent me, a woman, from stating my opinion. You are lying about my stated opinion, typical abusive behavior, though thankfully it will have zero effect on me since words no matter how abusive or false, cannot force me to be silent, they have the opposite effect.

When people resort to personal attacks over a simple difference of opinion, I know they are frustrated because they cannot defend their position.

[jeff47]

122. No, they're not. They're recounting what you've actually done in this thread.

For example, I've never claimed you can't state your opinion. Yet you claim I have.
I also keep pointing out that you keep retreating into claims of misogyny without addressing the contents of the critique.

Guess what you've done here? Retreated into claims of misogyny without addressing the contents of the critique. The same one's been in the previous three replies:

You are defending a quote from the 1600s that says women are worse than Satan, claiming that quote isn't misogynist.

Yet you keep ignoring that critique, instead launching into the misogyny attack. To do otherwise would require reevaluating your argument, which you will never, ever do.

[sabrina 1]

124. You have done worse than tell me I have no right to an opinion, you have deliberatley

mischaracterized it and lied about and you are doing it again. That is abuse. There was no 'critique' there was a mocking of my stating that I am a woman. That is an attack on a woman who dares to state she is a woman. That IS sexist. You have made no attempt at discussion of the issue, you started out jumping into a discussion by mocking me for stating I am a woman. That is misogyny.

Then you stated YOUR opinion without ever asking me for mine, of the quote. You have no idea what I think of the quote itself because you didn't ask, you were far more interested in attacking me for stating I am a woman. That is sexist.

[smirkymonkey]

134. Wait, remind me again. Are you a woman?

I couldn't quite tell from your vague posts.

[seabeyond]

147. uh oh. i think she is making all women look weak and i think we are suppose to get pissed about it.

are you seeing this little subthread as i am? certainly interesting. glad i had at least two cups of coffee.

[Bobbie Jo]

159. Yeah, sea...

I think a round of these are in order:



Par for the course in this case.

[seabeyond]

167. it truly was a wtf moment for me this morning. thank you. thank you for

confirming what i was seeing. lol

[smirkymonkey]

269. Yes, of course. It's kind of sad, isn't i?

Not even worth the energy it takes to argue.

[jeff47]

175. The nice thing about a message board is it's impossible to mischaracterize an argument

because the argument is still sitting there.

There was no 'critique' there was a mocking of my stating that I am a woman.

The other nice thing about a message board is it shows the edit history of the posts.

The critique is there. And the edit history show's it wasn't added after-the-fact.

there was a mocking of my stating that I am a woman.

Nope, there was pointing out that you were attempting to use your gender as a shield. Which is why you keep saying "I am a woman" every 3rd sentence. It's an attempt to not allow others to critique your position.

You have made no attempt at discussion of the issue, you started out jumping into a discussion by mocking me for stating I am a woman. That is misogyny.

Posts are still sitting there. Everyone can see what was done.

And everyone can see you are claiming that "Women are worse than Satan" is A-OK, but talking about that claim is what you call misogyny.

Then you stated YOUR opinion without ever asking me for mine, of the quote. You have no idea what I think of the quote itself because you didn't ask, you were far more interested in attacking me for stating I am a woman.

You already stated it repeatedly. Again, it's a message board. The messages are available for everyone to read, including me.

And yet we're now 5 deep and you still haven't quite gotten to reading the critique that has been in every post: The quote says women are worse than Satan.

Will you ever address it? Nope. When someone disagrees with you, you launch into whatever attack is convenient. For example, you've posted a ton of threads of woo, pretending it's science. And I've demolished your argument each time, but that doesn't keep you from coming back. They look like this:
You: (Woo)
Me: (Shows links proving Woo is wrong)
You: (Same Woo, slightly rephrased. Starts with light personal attacks)
Me: (Shows same links, pointing out that you haven't read it)
You: (Woo version 1.1 - slight twist on previous claims. Add to personal attacks)
Me: (Adds more information, breaking 1.1)
You: (Woo 2. More personal attacks)
Me: (Demonstrate Woo 2 isn't true either)
You: (Return to Woo 1.0. More personal attacks)
Me: (Link to first reply, point out you've gone in circles)
You: (Woo version 1.1.1 - add another slight twist. Add more personal attacks)
Me: (Point out already broken above.)
You: (Woo 1.0, More personal attacks)
Me: (Repeat first reply)

Around that point you stop replying. Though one time you did get so deep into it I started including quotes from random Wikipedia pages to demonstrate you weren't reading beyond the first two sentences.

[sabrina 1]

186. I'm truly sorry that there are actually people here who are offended by a woman stating

that she is a woman. I have some theories as to why they find women so offensive, especially those who have opinions THEY believe women should not hold.

As a woman, I find it sad that there are still those who believe they can silence women who dare to think for themselves.

Which makes it all the more important for women to refuse to be bullied into silence.

So much hostility towards women, where does it come from I wonder?

[smirkymonkey]

216. It's not that you have opinions as a woman.

It's just that you state that you have certain opinions and then go on to beat everyone over the head with the fact that you are a woman ad nauseum. Give it a break.

[sabrina 1]

217. Sure it is, it's about women who don't bow down to bullying and most people here know it

I AM a woman, sorry if that offends you, sorry if a woman not agreeing with you is so intolerable you have to search for some way to attribute her disagreement to some kind of ulterior motive.

I stated I am a woman, and will continue to do so whenever I feel the need, because it is important for people to know that not all women agree with what apparently they are required to agree on. And some of them, WOMEN, are not afraid to say so.

My feeling is that it is upsetting to learn this for some people. If eg, I were a man, it would be much easier to dismiss my opinion because 'you're not a woman', and THAT is, again in MY opinion, why women making it clear that they are women, is so very upsetting to a few people. And that is why it is so important for women to do so.

So now you know why I state that I am a woman. It would have been far more respectful for you to simply ask than to try to read my mind. I am not shy at all about stating my opinion and would have had no problem explaining it to.

It's really not hard to understand at all.

[LaurenG]

225. You did good.

And what a pile on you successfully maneuvered through.

[Bobbie Jo]

212. Holy crap

Sorry, but that made me laugh out loud.

[seabeyond]

146. omg... sabrina. go up adn read those posts, right above that you just posted. i cannot

believe the disconnect i am reading in your posts. really?

too early for such amusing entertainment. no way. i thought at first a play, by you. but you are totally serious. no fuggin way.

ah ha..... lol

[jeff47]

177. She never reads beyond about the 3rd sentence in a reply.

Thus she will spend a very long time responding to what she thinks was said instead of what was said. On pretty much any topic.

[seabeyond]

188. ya know. now we are pretending that the conditioned belief that women are emotional and irrational

has absolutely no significance in women's lives. historically or presently.

i mean.

turn the world on its head.

wtf??

again

[LaurenG]

220. I also agree with Sabrina

I would like to see the hijacking of words stop. These are words that do not mean the same thing to everyone. You and a few people here think this is a terrible affront. I like it and will not ever consider it sexist and I would like to see people here stop acting like only they know what words are ok to say. Maybe we should all try to stop trying to shame others.

This whole outrage reminds me of the temperance movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_movement

[seabeyond]

221. bully for you lauren. terrible affront? hardly. do not make more of it than what it is.

Last edited Thu Jul 17, 2014, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

a discussion. on phrases created all those many years ago, in a time in history when women were property, that need to be discussed and put to bed.

if that is your interpretation of a "terrible affront" then so be it. personally, i think you attempt is to exaggerate and dismiss a persons word.

hey lauren. promise me. NEVER consider the phrase sexist. ever. really.

i would like people to stop making the statement that people are acting like "only they know what words are ok to say.". it is a dishonest, bogus argument.

Maybe we should all try to stop trying to shame others.

be the first to step up. that is all your post is about. an attempt to shame. and it failed miserably.

didnt follow the link. a post of hyperbole was enough of a waste of time and this subject is long dead. it was not like you actually addressed a single thing you replied to but use the post to ... oh what? shame me?

[LaurenG]

222. You are the ones making this a bad bunch of words so bully for you!

You are also the ones running DU'ers out of here. People are tired of this, maybe just back off a little.

Do you ever take responsibility for being the in the wrong? In this case you have been very unkind. I should have known better than to even speak to you as you have once again attacked and gone over the top with your insults.

[seabeyond]

224. i will say once then out of here. we are discussing a term, coined long ago when women were property

we are addressing the inherent sexism in it.

you might re read the posts to see who is taking it to the personal.

done

go hog wild.

[LaurenG]

238. Go hog wild?

This started as an admonishment and you did indeed try to shame Sabrina1. It didn't work and here you are now trying to say you weren't. Fortunately its there for everyone to see.

[seabeyond]

240. hog wild as in.... last word. i would not be back in but feels like i am being set up for hides so,

i have to come in to clarify. really wanna be done with this subject

sabrina made me laugh.

make what you want of it. i saw pure contradiction with what was said, between two subthreads. it made me laugh.

so done.

[LaurenG]

245. Come on

I'm not stupid. Just leave it alone, I'm not setting you up nor am I alerting on you.

[seabeyond]

145. tsk tsk... how dare? isnt that showing weakens? you are singlehadnedly taking down all women with

your outrage.

and i am woman. so i can say, that allowing yourself to be so outraged, over simple conversation, make all women look weak, and darn it. i cannot have that, as a woman.

[smirkymonkey]

268. You noticed that too? LOL!

[RobinA]

149. This Is My

approach exactly. I still haven't gotten over the fact that men honed in on our power as hurricanes. Now we're to be robbed of our power to be stronger than Hell?

Of course, I am a person who recognized very young that it was the damn witch who had all the power in fairy tales, not the wimpy heroine and her late arriving suitor. The powerful witch was my role model and she made me proud to be a female, even at age 5.

Now I have to go, I have to tend my flying monkeys.

[mercuryblues]

235. Are you

speaking for all women when you say you are a woman and as a woman.....then go on to say the phrase is not offensive to all women, perhaps even most? "cause it sure sounds that way to me.


Changing the common usage of the phrase to suit your needs, then touting your opinion as superior while others are simply disagreeing.

I agree, I like it when women have equal power. Just that this phrase helps perpetuate the notion that women are irrational beings and can not be trusted with any power, lest they get out of control. It means the exact opposite of your definition.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Search the site, and you'll find it used a fair amount

even by a regular of the HoF group. I don't think it's cut and dried that it's sexist.

[sabrina 1]

22. It isn't. It's an opinion, and we are all entitled to opinions. I do not find it sexist, as a matter

of fact I find it empowering as a woman.

[cali]

32. so then it's opinion that Muslims have a predilection for terrorism and generally don't condemn it?

and it's opinion that women cannot act rationally in the face of a rejection from a man.

some opinions are worthy only of SCORN. and that's what should be directed at BOTH those opinions.

Just my opinion of course. One I find empowering as a human being.

[sabrina 1]

33. Why do you assume that 'scorn' always relates to men when it comes to women? Women

have lots of other things on their minds other than men, things that have to do with their work, their finances, legal matters etc and fury is sometimes justified in all of these aspects of women's lives, just as it is and has been for men. THAT is sexist imo, to assume that women cannot feel fury over anything other than men.

[DeadLetterOffice]

67. But the quote is specifically about women's supposed fury *over men.*

And asserts that fury *over men* makes us irrational and vindictive.

Personally, I have no desire to be seen as irrational and vindictive, especially over something as petty as being 'scorned' by some guy. I don't equate irrational and vindictive with strong and capable. I can't see any context in which irrational and vindictive is empowering.

[sabrina 1]

73. The quote is used for many different reasons in today's world. Personally I don't care much how

people 'see' me, I am confident enough in my own powers, as a woman, that the opinions of people for whom I have little respect don't affect me at all. That is THEIR problem. Why do you care about the opinions of ignorant, insignificant people? Men don't seem to care, why should women? See, this is what bothers me. This is what makes women seem weak and easily upset, when nothing could be further from the truth. women are strong and for the most part, not so easily shamed or upset by weak and ignorant individuals.

So many quotes from literature are used in many different ways to express many different things. Should we ban literature altogether or USE it to OUR advantage? I'm always for using everything we can to our advantage as women.

[polly7]

77. Thank you!

The less I show someone who's trying to get to me in real life that I care about some stupid word (unless it's totally unacceptable), the sooner the offensive shit stops. I don't get why we'd give anyone the power to make such a term so important as a tool. We aren't small children who can't handle most things most grown men do, why even let on that we are? Just weird, to me.

[sabrina 1]

83. I know, never give anyone that kind of power over you, imo. I am shocked at

how we are being asked to do so when we have the tools to do the exact opposite. I will say it again, women are strong and capable of handling ignorant morons, they are not children, you are so right Polly. AND it appears that if a woman dares to hold a different opinion she is somehow portrayed as the enemy.

Thankfully this seems to be confined to the internet because the women I know in RL are way stronger than this image that is being pushed online. I don't know where it came from. But it is harmful to the women's movement and gives fodder to the Limbaughs of the world who jump all over this kind of thing and use it to portray feminists as people who want to control even how people speak. It's a shame really.

[seaglass]

141. When women speak out to say you are not going to speak to me like that, you are not going

to make negative generalizations about me or characterize me based on my gender - you see that as weak and upset.

We will have to disagree. I see women speaking out and saying I'm not taking shit from you, I'm not afraid to upset your sensibilities, I'm standing up for myself and any women who stands with me. That is not weak and upset, that is the opposite.

On what planet is submitting to someone else's slurs and/or offensive language without making a peep considered strong? Should a black person stay silent when someone uses a racial slur against him/her? Should anyone speak up for themselves or should we all meekly accept what "ignorant and insignificant" people say? Makes no sense.

*you = general, not specifically you

[seabeyond]

148. men say that as a jab at women, for a little chuckle. we are bascially being told, the strong woman

laughs at being insulted.

i mean

in what world

[smirkymonkey]

272. Thank you!

Some people here seem to be missing the point, unfortunately.

[Generic Other]

81. Can I add my two cents?

I am wondering if some of us have appropriated the term and taken it beyond its original meaning, stripping out the part about rejection by a specific man and focusing instead on women in general being treated with scorn by men who control their lives, and how women react to such treatment. There are at least 2 DUers who have variants of the phrase in their DU names. One I know pretty well chose her name because of the sheer power of her anger at being scorned by a patriarchal institution in general. I think her definition of a "woman scorned" has some validity. It is the rage that simmers beneath for many as we confront the daily sexist society we live in. And that scorned woman is all of us. We are scorned by institutional sexism, by those who deny it exists, by those who use our sex as a weapon against us, etc. etc. I think Sabrina is right. And cali, I think you are right. I am not sure, however, that I will ever stop feeling like a "woman scorned" in this world. I am certain, however, that my anger gives me power.

Peace.

[sabrina 1]

100. Good post, Generic Other, very well said.

[jeff47]

113. There's a problem with that argument.

Fundamentally, the quote means Satan himself can come up with nothing worse than an angry woman.

Doesn't really matter what she's angry about. She is still harming people more than hell can. She is worse than hell.

If saying "women are worse than Satan" isn't misogyny, we've set the bar too low.

[RobinA]

179. Where In This Quote

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned,
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

Is "irrational" contained?

Furies - The three terrible winged goddesses with serpentine hair, Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, who pursue and punish doers of unavenged crimes.

[treestar]

230. Then you don't know what it means

It is an 18th century man (which the male privileges of that time) gloating over the fact men get to do all the choosing and if a woman doesn't like it, she is left with useless fury.

[muriel_volestrangler]

236. Well, it's a princess telling a captive she will have him killed

because he has rejected her in love (he having found out his wife is still alive). Her fury is far from useless at that point. She later repents of this, however, determines to let him escape, is misled into thinking he was executed after all, and kills herself in grief.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Mourning_Bride/Act_III

[sabrina 1]

255. He's dead, it's literature. And I like that women can be viewed as forces to be

reckoned with. Would you rather women be portrayed as doormats who simply accept their 'lot in life'? I'm all for women responding as forcefully as men when they are wronged. Not sure why anyone would want us to go back to the old 'stfu and accept your fate' garbage.

[treestar]

278. She is not being viewed as a force to be reckoned with

at all. She is being referred to in that time period as pathetically ineffective and unable to do anything but rage when rejected by a man.

And is being differentiated from men, who don't let fury affect them, supposedly, should a woman reject them.

[mercuryblues]

289. that is

because you changed the commonly used definition of the phrase to mean the exact opposite of what it really means. Then you deride others who do use the commonly understood meaning of the phrase as insulting to your opinion.

[seabeyond]

290. when men are laughing their ass off at you, to your face, pretty well know it is not a compliment.

dontcha think????

if women are the butt of the joke, where is this empowerment we speak of?

[mercuryblues]

291. yup

that empowerment is being misrepresented as being a prude, feminazi, hyper feminist, and more in an effort to get women to run away from their power.

[seabeyond]

292. someone down thread said, women are this, own it. (a woman said that). no.

i am not and never have been that. i wont own it. it is not something i admire or respect nor want to be.

men are already demanding we own it. that is the whole point of this argument. we are saying no. we wont own it. not who i am. is it who you are mercury?

now a woman down thread criticizing us just flat out tells women to own it.

there are women that want ownership of the b word. here is the definition for bitch.

a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, especially a woman.
b.
a lewd woman.

not who i am and i am not gonna own it. there is nothing there i want to be.

people insist because i am a woman, i must attach emotion to sex. wrong again.

yet... there is such an intense need to define all women like this and an insistence that we woman just merely .... accept.

[sabrina 1]

293. I use everything I can for the benefit of women. Do you have a problem with

women taking every tool they can and using it for their benefit?

See, there it is again, an accusatory response rather than a discussion.

I learned from very strong women how to utilize every opportunity to further the cause of portraying women as equal in power to men. I did not accuse them of manipulation, I admired their resourcefulness to turn weapons intended to portray women as weak, into powerful weapons to fight those portrayals.

Disagreement does not mean a person has ulterior motives, yet that appears to be the only response here to women who have a different opinion on what tactics most benefit women's fight for equality. And as I have said already, it is the reason why many DU women do not participate in the women's forums on DU. Because if they disagree, they are accused of having some kind of ulterior motives. Elsewhere this is not the case, women listen to the opinions of others and learn from them.

If you have a counter argument to those of us who disagree on this, I have not seen it. Which is too bad as discussion often changes minds, but accusatory comments simply turn people away.

[mercuryblues]

295. my counter

argument is you changed the definition to mean the exact opposite of the commonly used definition. When you get mad and someone tells you that, they are not telling you as a woman you are empowered. They are really telling you that you, as a woman are irrational and incapable of making sound judgments. And by omission men are better at making decisions.

It doesn't matter how you personally define it. It has been historically been used to portray women as being hateful, irrational and vindictive, just because they are women.

[sabrina 1]

296. It just doesn't offend most women, sorry you are upset over that. And yes, I will use every tool

I can find to change the image of women as weak, emotionally unstable and powerless to utilize everything to their advantage. I already said that.

I am amazed that anyone would object to women taking control of their own issues and not allowing themselves to be defined by others.

[Luminous Animal]

299. When a women uses it, they are defining THEMSELVES as irrational and vengeful because that is

precisely how the phrase is used in the modern lexicon. Rejecting sexist language IS taking control. It is rejecting being defined by others.

Do you believe that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? Do you believe that women handle rejection more irrationally, with more violence, anger and rage than men?

[mercuryblues]

308. +1

and +1000
for this

Rejecting sexist language IS taking control. It is rejecting being defined by others.

[mercuryblues]

307. LOL

Not upset at all. Are you projecting your tone into my posts?

If by redefining terms to suit your needs go ahead. However you will not get far with that in the general populace. You know why? They define it the exact way as stated in the OP. IOW you are the only one who thinks that the phrase means empowerment to women.

[sabrina 1]

310. I've gone very far with it and find that when you take the power away from those who

THINK they have it, but usw it instead to your own advantage, they realize they have no power at all over you, and have to try to find some other way to exert their power. It's a wonderful feeling, to see someone fail so miserably to get the reaction they expected. But I don't encounter too many people like that, those I have, know better than to try again, after the first time.

You should try it, it is amazing what happens when they FAIL and find themselves at the end of the rope they tried to hang you with. I simply don't allow anyone to have that kind of power over me.

Never have, never will.

[seabeyond]

311. you do allow others power if you behave in a poor manner just to try to get something over them.

selling yourself out for sure.

some of us have no interest what so ever to behave in a poor way, to prove to someone an insulting saying is right, letting us feel empowered in our shril, abusive, out of control, certainly unprofessionall or whatever.

no thank you.

[sabrina 1]

315. That's confusing. To me, those behaving in a poor manner are those trying to insult

others. I don't give weapons to people who use such tactics, that would be poor behavior. As I said, it works for me, I am rarely in the company of people who behave badly for more than the time it takes to expose them.

[mercuryblues]

313. No

they are laughing at you, because they insulted you and you basically said thank you, may I have some more.

Again, how you define it is against the historical and current accepted norms. And you are the only one who defines it that way.
Meh, I prefer telling someone what they said was unacceptable to me and why. That I deserve respect and to be treated that way.

they think when they walk away. Not laugh to themselves and say, I just insulted the shit out of her and she thinks I complimented her.

[sabrina 1]

314. You sound very hostile, and all because I don't agree with you.

[mercuryblues]

316. that sounds

hostile to you? You, who says being told that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned is a compliment. Being told women are irrational when they get mad and can not be trusted, is a compliment to you, but my post is hostile?



Again, you are ascribing an emotion to me that simply is not there. Why do you keep insisting on trying to describe my emotions to me? Or are you projecting your emotions?

[sabrina 1]

317. Lol, the irony. 'Why are you ascribing emotions to me'!

That made me laugh.

[mercuryblues]

318. Not once

have I labeled you with an emotion

go back and read my posts.

Better yet, I'll help ya.

Are you speaking for all women when you say you are a woman and as a woman.....then go on to say the phrase is not offensive to all women, perhaps even most? "cause it sure sounds that way to me.


Changing the common usage of the phrase to suit your needs, then touting your opinion as superior while others are simply disagreeing.

I agree, I like it when women have equal power. Just that this phrase helps perpetuate the notion that women are irrational beings and can not be trusted with any power, lest they get out of control. It means the exact opposite of your definition.


because you changed the commonly used definition of the phrase to mean the exact opposite of what it really means. Then you deride others who do use the commonly understood meaning of the phrase as insulting to your opinion.




My counter argument is you changed the definition to mean the exact opposite of the commonly used definition. When you get mad and someone tells you that, they are not telling you as a woman you are empowered. They are really telling you that you, as a woman are irrational and incapable of making sound judgments. And by omission men are better at making decisions.

It doesn't matter how you personally define it. It has been historically been used to portray women as being hateful, irrational and vindictive, just because they are women.

Not upset at all. Are you projecting your tone into my posts?

If by redefining terms to suit your needs go ahead. However you will not get far with that in the general populace. You know why? They define it the exact way as stated in the OP. IOW you are the only one who thinks that the phrase means empowerment to women.
-------------------------------------------------

they are laughing at you, because they insulted you and you basically said thank you, may I have some more.

Again, how you define it is against the historical and current accepted norms. And you are the only one who defines it that way.
Meh, I prefer telling someone what they said was unacceptable to me and why. That I deserve respect and to be treated that way.

they think when they walk away. Not laugh to themselves and say, I just insulted the shit out of her and she thinks I complimented her.

[Luminous Animal]

319. Why the personal attack? What part of mercuryblues seem hostile?

You realize, that you come off as trying to deflect from the topic, (and mercuryblues defends her position plainly and dispassionately) and put her in a position of defending herself rather than advancing the discussion.

[Luminous Animal]

297. Thank you. It is often used as an insult because it perpetuates the stereotype that women do not

engage in rational thought. Men's rights groups use it to bolster their claims that women are liars and they will vengefully lie in divorce and custody cases in order to get revenge on the exes.

[seabeyond]

298. supposedly, i think the argument is, we are that and we need to use it as a tool to be strong,

and not weak, ergo win the battle?????

help me to understand luminous. cause i merely see it as a slight.

[Luminous Animal]

301. I don't get it either. Defining women as irrationally violent with rage when they are rejected IS

certainly not a compliment.

[seabeyond]

303. i do not see it as... lol. for sure. lol. ah ha. i am glad some are interpreting

this as i am. cause i hate to feel i am in a different universe on this. lol

[BainsBane]

26. I've alerted on the phrase a couple of times and it's been hidden

so clearly some juries see it as sexist. Typically one sees the "hell hath no fury" part.

[cali]

27. it's about how women cannot act rationally in the face of rejection from a man. how is that NOT

a sexist (and stupid) generalization?

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. 'fury' is not necessarily 'irrational'

If you say you're furious, it doesn't mean you're irrational. There's also the idea, of the English name used for the Greek mythological characters, of the 'Furies' - who carried out divine vengeance on sinners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erinyes . Given the reference to heaven and hell in Congreve's couplet, this idea of considered vengeance is very much present in it, I think.

[cali]

34. I can't agree. I think the general sense of the phrase in context and as it's been historicallly

used, contradicts your interpretation.

[kcr]

50. In the context of how that phrase is commonly used, irrational is the implication.

Oh, boy! When a woman gets mad, watch out!

[laundry_queen]

95. Exactly. Wasn't it recently

someone posted a study about how men in the workplace see women as irrational when they are emotional (even though research shows women are perfectly capable of being rational AND emotional at the same time)? So the implication is clear - emotional/angry women MUST be nuts! Look out!

[RobinA]

181. No...

the implication is that men THINK that emotional women are irrational. Any other interpretation allows that men thinking something is true, makes it true.

[kcr]

207. Well, thinking something isn't harmless, is it?

The men who think this aren't choosing to think something that they know isn't true. They actually think it. I don't see how pointing out this trend makes what they're thinking true. It shouldn't be ignored.

[smirkymonkey]

55. It is stupid. Why do we hear so much about men murdering the women who try to divorce/leave them,

but rarely hear about the reverse. It seems to me that the opposite statement would be true. Women seem to handle scorn much better than most men.

[sufrommich]

69. My first thought too. nt

[yallerdawg]

25. You called it right, Cali.

That is an absolutely sexist quote in line with all the stereotypical examples you present.

Just pointing it out should have been the end of it, but, "Oh, no..." Jurors and commenters and that original banned commenter exposed themselves as exactly what you said.

We should be tolerant and respectful of each other. A simple acknowledgement and apology, reassessment of personal attitudes is what is called for here.

Then we all move forward.

[seabeyond]

28. here is another that goes along what you say, woman scorned. all women are liars.

i was watching a fun psych tv series, love the show. two older detectives are with the younger detectives. one of the younger says, how did you know she was lying.

both older me say at the same time....

cause she is a woman

and laugh. and laugh.

cause she is a woman. she is a woman, so when she opens her mouth you know she is lying.

i am a person that takes seriously lying. i do not like it. i do not do it. my boys and husband cannot find a single time i have lied.

yet, a show, a little saying, society, gets to paint me as a liar because i am.... a woman.

i know. i am suppose to laugh.

not funny.

[madinmaryland]

35. My wife actually uses that phrase (not about me, but herself). We have a bit

of an interesting relationship, but we have together for nearly 20 years.

[Quantess]

36. Groan... is this why a jury hid my post?

Fucking... get real, people!
Oh yeah, is this too much for you? Wimps. You should be ashamed of yourselves! Get a life!

[seabeyond]

40. quantess..... i love you.

you are one awesome woman.

and you know why your post was hid. you talked about it last week or before. you made it clear once again, you see it different from others. the b word is 50/50 chance of a hide. you gave it a try. you got the hide. and....

you did not even use it right. you just really wanted to use it to see if you would get away with the.

the repug woman was not being the b word, she was being stupid. there was no b in who she was

sigh...

i kept quiet for a while. lol

[seabeyond]

44. lol. that woman? i would have called her stupid. that was all she was to me. stupid.

i have said in the past, the b word is not top on my list. the c word i hate with a passion. but the b word?

but. that woman. i would call her stupid. lol

[Quantess]

48. I do not get the sensitivity to the "b" word.

I have never been physically abused, never been raped, never been molested.
So in some ways I don't know the whole story.

[F4lconF16]

132. Neither have I.

I'm also a man, and I'm "sensitive" towards that term. All it takes is a little bit of thought about the word, its history, and its usage to realize that it is an incredibly sexist and demeaning term. A term for which I have no use and one that I would like to see disappear because of the harm it does to women, whether some see and understand that harm or not.

[smirkymonkey]

271. Thank you!

I appreciate your post!

[Quantess]

54. I believe in you, seabeyond, I really do.

although I do not agree with every single one of your beliefs. I think you are an awesomely cool woman. and I totally support your right to say what you think is right!

That horrible woman: FUCK HER!!

[seabeyond]

56. lol. i am gonna get back to you.

i am gonna think how to say this. and right now i am hungry. but, i will get back to you.

[Quantess]

45. Is it so hilarious?

How do I describe horrible women around me then? Or do they even exist in your fantasy world?

[spooky3]

123. I think the point is that you can call them "horrible"

Or be more specific about what is bad about what they are doing without using a gender-related term. Such terms imply that they are bad BECAUSE they are women.

There is no shortage of words in our language that can be used in those situations that are not sexist.

[JEFF9K]

185. You are correct.

It's ridiculous the way this site shackles free speech and free thought. Who really gains from it?

If something is offensive to someone, she should leave a comment to that effect. Not ask a jury to shut it down!

Who knows how many people have left this site in disgust!

Can you imagine George Carlin, Bill Maher, or Christopher Hitchens joining and staying?

[seabeyond]

190. challenge the democratic administration to your free speech of rw talking points. i dare you.

i double dog dare you.

come on

the outrage, that they dare to limit your speech. go at it.

while you are at it, tel them you want to use the n word and the f word.

go for it dude, that they dared to limit your speech.

give 'em hell

[JEFF9K]

209. What the eff are you talking about?

[seabeyond]

213. "this site shackles free speech and free thought." challenge the democratic administration to your

challenge the democratic administration to your free speech of rw talking points. i dare you.

i double dog dare you.

come on

the outrage, that they dare to limit your speech. go at it.

while you are at it, tel them you want to use the n word and the f word.

go for it dude, that they dared to limit your speech.

give 'em hell

[JEFF9K]

214. Please explain how what you said even begins to make sense.

The "f" word is used at this site all the time.

The "n" word is clearly offensive to 99.999% of educated people, and no one could possibly take issue with censoring its use in a negative context.

The phrase that this thread pertains to is clearly NOT offensive to educated people. Attempts to argue that it is is in my opinion counter-productive to the interests of Democrats and is, in my opinion, mind-bogglingly stupid.

[seabeyond]

215. you are yelling about your free speech being shackled. oh the outrage. so, tell skinner not being

able to use rw speech is such a fuckin outrage.

and no. the f word is not used all the time, you would be kicked off the board. the f word toward gays.

of course the n word is not used.

so basically you are saying, you are all for free speech having shackles on it with some speech. just the free speech yuo want is not allowed. SHACKLES i tell you.

[NCTraveler]

246. The non right wing members gain from it.

"It's ridiculous the way this site shackles free speech and free thought. Who really gains from it? "

Your rights to free speech are being infringed upon in no way.

[intaglio]

47. Claiming that a quote from an significant playwright or author renders it harmless

... is nonsensical.

The Congreve quote is definitely out of line, just as quotes from "The Merchant of Venice" are antisemitic and much of "The Taming of the Shrew" is misogynistic.

As to DU juries; a while ago I unsuccessfully alerted about a "dumb blonde" joke. Jurors who had the guts to comment variously said that "it was just a joke, FFS," or "blonde can mean a man or a woman," or "get a life". This is just indicative of the inability of many people to examine their own preconceptions and, on a progressive MB, is rather frightening.

[Gman]

52. Jeez it's a figure of speech

And it's a guy thing.

And I've heard plenty of women use the phrase.

[geek tragedy]

53. Did someone actually defend a sexist phrase with

"it's a guy thing?"

[seabeyond]

60. bah hahahaha. it is a guy thing you all. you know, sexist shit. just a guy thing. lol. nt

[truebrit71]

63. It's starting to get ridiculous around here. .

[Gman]

65. Delayed super-moon stuff, I guess

Or something.

[treestar]

78. A figure of speech that generalizes about women

If you have to use "it's a guy thing" you've admitted it's sexist.

The old women use it to excuse is fail, too. There are plenty of misogynistic women. Start with Michelle Bachman.

[jeff47]

104. It isn't sexist because it's a guy thing?

You may want to take a nanosecond to think about what you're writing before you hit "post".

[Gman]

59. You can put Congrieve's phrase in the context you want

but that does not make it sexist. It's now a saying used by men when they face the wrath of a woman. I can't change that and neither can anyone else. Do you object to the use of the word "wrath". I hope not. Maybe a better way to say it is to say a woman's anger.

[seabeyond]

62. more men murder women when scorned. few women do shit when scorned, besides leave. it is bullshit,

firstly

like you say, it is a guy think.

generally, the man is getting a pat on the back fucking around, and look at that silly woman, i threw her away and she is pissed. ah well.

wink wink. snort. jab in the rib.

it is a bullshit saying, made up by a man, used by men, to get a giggle on at the expense of women.

ya. no sexism there.

[Gman]

64. The fact that the guy likely deserves the wrath aside

And regardless of the fact that the overwhelmingly incredibly vast majority of men do not beat or murder women, women will never change how guys think and vice versa. Such is the celebrated difference.

[seabeyond]

68. all you are doing is saying, regardless how clearly it is misogyny, so the fuck what. men will

continue to be and anything you say really does not matter.

your spiel has not changed one iota. i had forgotten myself, and actually replied to you. i get it. my bad. you are and always have been perfectly clear on your position

i will simply go back to laughing, your declaration

sexism... it is a guy thing

[polly7]

70. Thank heavens broad-brushing isn't a 'girl thing'.

I'd hate to be included.

[seabeyond]

71. You might get onto gman about it since he was the one to say it. But, thanks for

Following me along the way

You take care of you Polly, doubt I will be chatting again, always ready with the insults. Not my thing.

[polly7]

72. I didn't 'follow you' on anything.

I despise the way posters here are lumped into groups to be demonized purely on the basis of one poster's words and think it's simplistic, and without any value whatsoever. Debating important issues like this is great ....... implying that 'the menz' should accept every insult imaginable because ......... sexism, by someone, isn't something that impresses me.

Hell hath no fury like a human being scorned would be more accurate, as I've seen horrific examples of both, although, to be sure, women are killed and punished for it far more often. Denying one set of facts though is disingenuous, there's plenty of blame to go around.

[sabrina 1]

102. Very well said, polly.

Hell hath no fury like some people when someone dares to disagree with them. It is an age-old, gender neutral problem. I love good literature, you can use it any way you want, which is why it is good literature.

Amazingly I have been admonished for using the phrase here 'as a woman'.

But I will use it anyhow, and again say that as a woman, I am angry at the way women are portrayed as people who cannot tolerate even a quote from literature without taking it personally. I know NO woman in RL who feels that way and it is wrong to see women portrayed like this. Which is the ONLY reason I dare, and I use that word deliberately, to express MY opinion so that anyone reading here understands that women, like men, actually can and do hold different opinions despite being personally attacked for doing so.

YOU are one of the women here I have the utmost respect for and would listen to if you disagreed with me. Those who launch personal attacks on anyone who has a difference of opinion, I pay little attention to.

[BainsBane]

142. "I despise the way posters here are lumped into groups to be demonized "

That from someone who has not only accused me of what others have said based on your assumption we are all of the same group but insisted I was to blame for actions that took place before I even joined the site.

[Gman]

75. You always forget the "in my opinion" part

As opinions on this are purely subjective. Especially something this borderline.

[treestar]

79. So you admit you generalize about women

And their anger is all the same thing.

And it's always bad, as "hell hath no fury" clearly expresses that. It's always a hellish fury, isn't it?

[Gman]

84. When they're really really really really pissed, at least in my experience. Much more pissed than

any guy I know. Reminds me of a Guy Clark song, She's Crazy For Leaving. He co-wrote it with Rodney Crowell. That kind of pissed.
Listen to it. I don't know about Crowell, but nobody has ever accused Guy Clark's work of being sexist. Listen: It's a cute song.

The song was a big hit.

And please, you know as well as I do women generalize about men. I've learned to roll with the men jokes an comments.

[demosincebirth]

74. What's next?

[LittleBlue]

90. lol @ this thread

Make thread about sexism
Get 2 women who clearly aren't sexist flagged for review

All this over the Congreve poem

Oh DU

[BainsBane]

140. It was over an intensely abusive PM

Wishing that she be violated. There is nothing funny about it.

[lonestarnot]

91. So did he get a piece of pizza or did he get the whole damn thing? Edit for never mind. :) I

see where he ate the whole thing. Good for him.

[fishwax]

99. you state your case well

I agree with what you said upthread that the sexist underpinnings of the saying seem obvious. (A paraphrase from a 17th-century Restoration literature could be sexist? Imagine!)

[Beausoir]

101. Utter nonsense.

As per usual.

[MohRokTah]

103. You and I disagree on a lot of things, cali

I believe we are in complete agreement on this issue.

[WillyT]

128. pssst... hey cali.... shhh...

you do know we have a famous long time loved poster named, hell has no fury, right ???

justsayin...

[dilby]

129. I have never used that phrase before.

But some how it's looking very different in my eyes, not sure what it could be. Anyways hopefully you get a nice sleep and tomorrow will be better for you.

[BainsBane]

130. The idea that there is something "weak" about recognizing sexism is absurd

silence is not strength. Accepting inequality is not strength. To listen to some here, thousands of academics who work in gender studies and discourse or semiotic analysis are weak because they explore the gendered use of language. It's is not a question of being easily offended. It is a matter of awareness, of seeing. I saw that OP early today before Cali commented, and while I wasn't offended I did mentally note the use of a sexist phrase. I understand Cali's reaction because she is just starting to notice what is all around us. As someone eloquently pointed out in another thread, once you see, you cannot unsee. Some chose not to see. In fact, some are invested in not only not seeing themselves, but ensuring others remain blinded.

We see the same arguments in discussions about rape and domestic violence. They insist speaking about such crimes on this message board is "playing victim." Pointing out sexism or misogyny of any kind is "playing victim." They insist feminists such as myself and the rest of the evil HOF focus on unimportant matters. Yet I couldn't help but observe that when the issue of the Hobby Lobby decision came up, the same people who continually tell us how we focus on the trivial couldn't be bother to talk about a decision that instituted legal discrimination against women, if they weren't, like one recently banned troll, busy telling us how unimportant it is. Was that also trivial? Or are those of us who protest that decision also playing victim?

Speaking out against power, whether that be through a SCOTUS ruling, rape culture, or language (because as Michael Foucalt points out, "language is power') is not playing victim. Accommodating injustice is not strength. It is the opposite.

I'm not sure what the point of arguing that there was something trivial about Cali's reaction, given the PM that AAO sent to her. Clearly the man is a misogynist, and his PM confirmed it. She caught a glimpse of him through that phrase that others insist she should not have seen. She should not have commented on it. Well she did comment, and she was right. His word choice and, more importantly, reaction to concerns about it, were indicative of a far more serious contempt for women.

[TorchTheWitch]

262. Who is "AAO", and what did they send?

I keep seeing reference to this but it's mentioned so vaguely as if it's somehow obvious.

[BainsBane]

263. Here

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10025243375

[ecstatic]

133. glad the troll was banned; however, I agree with others who disagree with your framing

of the phrase. I don't solely associate it with a woman who's furious over a relationship gone sour. Maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe there should be a poll before one person dictates that a phrase should be banned from DU.

[kickysnana]

137. +1

[get the red out]

135. I agree with the OP

We live in a country where there are way too many murders and assaults that are perpetrated on women when men are "scorned". Not a majority of men, but way too many incidences.

And the implication is, once again, that women are too emotional to deal with life events.

[kickysnana]

136. Respectively disagree.

I always thought that phrase it gave women back the power that had been taken from them. I respectively refuse to not use it when it is appropriate to convey what I want to convey. That the "weaker sex" can stand up and fight for themselves if crossed, beware. And it is "A woman, not "all women."

When every little thing said can be twisted to mean something bad we begin to stop talking to each other and dialog and then all progress stops.

We work, worship, love, live and die in a world that has power and I am not going to give this one up cause I am just not getting or feeling that it is something I need nor want to do.

So I will use it. You can call names back by alerting but that is my line in the sand to the overzealous feminists who have only made things harder for me and my sisters. Come to think of it, the women really taking offense at the saying are the living proof of that saying, which is why they are uncomfortable and don't want it said.

Goodnight.

[quaker bill]

138. It may easily underestimate hell

I would not know....

I can say that in my day I have scorned a few people (men and women) and their fury about it was quite impressive. Each situation being different, I would have a hard time saying whether it was the men or women who were most impressive.

[liberal N proud]

152. I think this is one of those old world phrases that is not going away as fast as some others

There are all these phrases that we learned from our parents and grandparents that are either sexist or racist. From what I am seeing, many if not most of those phrases that are condescending have diminished in use in the last decade or more.

I know there are dozens of phrases that my parent used, that I would never use and therefore, my kids would have never heard them. I think if we all stand up and refuse to propagate these phrases, then they will eventually exist only in history.

It will take some time and diligence to purge our society of such things, but I think we truly have come a long way.

And it never hurts to remind everyone through talk and articles such as this.

[seabeyond]

153. absolutely. it is merely the progression beyond the racism, sexism adn homophobia. and no, they

will not go quickly. but then, instead of teaching my sons, a woman scorned, we discuss the sexism of a woman scorned. it ends with his generation. he is going to recognize it for what it is. just like i learned sexist, racist, homophobic slurs that i nipped in the ass.

that is what we do.

and if no one discusses it, no one will experience the light bulb of duh.... and teach their children otherwise.

this is not rocket science stuff. and for people to actively work on keeping sexist slurs active for whatever reason, is simply silly.

educate

grow

progress

and why the fuck not?

[Romulox]

155. You haven't made your case. This reads more like an after-the-fact rationalization. nt

[LordGlenconner]

160. ...

[LordGlenconner]

161. ...

[kysrsoze]

205. Hilarious! :D

[ieoeja]

162. I would bet the vast majority of people, DU or not, view that phrase as a compliment to women.

I can see where it could be twisted into an insult. But surely most people view it as a compliment.

[JEFF9K]

163. The person who sent it to the jury should be suspended.

Anyone who finds the term offensive can complain in a comment within the thread, rather than getting it censored.

[LaurenG]

169. I personally don't see it that way

It's a shame that this place is so worried about an old saying. The JURY said leave it alone, yet here you all are carrying on about it.

Overly zealous? Thats putting it mildly. *sigh* Keep up the compulsion to crucify people who don't see the world exactly like you and soon there will be very few DU'ers left.

(Just so we're clear I do not condone the email you received, it was horrid and should never have been sent to you.)

[redqueen]

173. Calling our a sexist saying is not "crucifying" people.

Why is hyperbole such a common reaction when sexism is called out... WTF?

[LaurenG]

174. I don't understand what you said in your title.

However, I don't agree that its sexism. Oh and I don't have to agree with it just as you don't have to agree with me.

I have wittnessed the swarming that goes on here for the slightest infractions (of course only my opinion.) Things are scary here now and few will step back and look at what's happening. I fail to see the phrase "Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned" as anything other than hyperbole myself anyway.
A phrase from a play is not sexism. I think lots of people have complained so much about every little thing that we are all tired of hearing it.
Maybe we all need to be reminded that not everything needs to be picked apart until it makes no sense, not everything that is said is meant as an affront.

[redqueen]

176. There's a typo. "nor" should have been "not"

We disagree about the necessity of exposing and calling out sexism.

It's sad to me that some are so comfortable with it and so upset that others have an issue with it.

But then people used to defend the opinion that bullying was something we could never hope to change and even that it was good for children's development. So ... progress.

[LaurenG]

180. Let it be known that I am the most anti bullying proponent

you have probably ever known of. I do not entertain fools and I have gone to the mat for others my whole life. I am also a member of all the womens groups here but I don't agree with this. Honestly, I will go so far as to say hell hath no fury like a mother whose child is in danger or a father whose wife is in danger or a woman/man scorned or in other words who has been screwed over for the last time. It doesn't mean I'm going to get violent, it means that this will be the last time you get to do this to me.

I think its a rather empowering statement. I am not trying to tell you to use it or feel the same way about it that I do. Just understand that I am proud to use that expression and no one gets to tell me I can't because they think it's sexist.

[redqueen]

182. False balance.

No one is saying that anyone who uses the saying is a sexist person who hates women.

But people are comparing being told that it is sexist to crucifixion.

[redqueen]

189. Nice dodge. nt

[seabeyond]

192. some people actually raise an issue to be thought about and discussed. you go right into insult.

[seabeyond]

200. my personal issues are not in play unless you plan on creating that. wtf? so, you are saying

walking onto du to insult people peronally or their opinion is A OK?

this is what you think this board is about? insulting people in all manners?

[seabeyond]

203. that is all i have read from you. you are the one advocating and doing. so, ok. ya... whatever.

gonna share who you were?

[kcr]

211. It seems to me there is more degrading from those who don't think it's sexist

toward those who do.

[LWolf]

171. I agree with your comments about misogyny on DU.

I have to say, though, that until this situation, I'd never considered the "hell hath no fury" cliche to be sexist.

I'm pondering it now, holding up others' perception to my own, and, so far, here's what I've got:

My perception of that phrase has always been that it's correct, or should be. That a woman's anger is deeper, stronger, and more long lasting than male anger in general. That in itself seems sexist. I think it comes from noticing that male anger seems to be more frequent, and resolved more easily. Or maybe it's just a recognition of one woman's anger...mine.

I've sometimes thought about it in terms of nature: the male displaying, competing, and, usually, the loser backing down. The female as quieter, less flamboyant, but more likely to follow through. The peacock vs the offended mother grizzly.

Then I realize that, while human males DO engage in that kind of physical display/competition, so do most females; just not me. So maybe that doesn't really work.
As a matter of fact, human culture is so twisted that females are valued based on that display. Which is sexist.

That leads me back to the anger of women, and how misogyny has led to that anger to begin with, and has kept it repressed, and expressed in usually less violent, but no less destructive ways; that a collective ancestral rage could very well FIT the phrase. There is some part of me that has wanted the power of that rage to rain down on those who have propagated misogyny.

Finally, I realize that the way I've perceived that phrase has more to do with my own personal anger than with women as a gender, and that I've spent a lifetime trying to figure out how to live with the sources of that anger, and that, finally, while I have done a decent job, I don't think I've done well enough to consider women's anger from an objective place. I still carry too much of it. So I don't have a foundation from which to judge whether or not that phrase is misogynistic.

Except that some women perceive it that way, which means that it's real for them, and therefore possible to at least some degree.

I know that I'll never hear that phrase again without feeling conflict about it, anyway.

[seabeyond]

191. but see. thinking about it was all this was about. the insutls and accusations, simply

because someone puts forth that it is sexist. cries of censorship and word police. insult abound simply because, one poster suggested it sexist, adn maybe we ought to think about the phrase.

when i saw that it was sexist, or used as such, was hearing men say it to snicker at women, to giggle at them all outraged at being "scorned". looking to each other to share in the humor at that silly woman and her behavior.

[LWolf]

195. Well, I'm doing that, aren't I?

[seabeyond]

196. yes. and it was an interesting read how you processed thought on the subject.

i was basically saying, yea you. you thought about it at least, lol

[NCTraveler]

248. I wish others would put thought behind things as you have done here.

Even if we disagreed(not saying we do), I would respect your thoughts, as you are willing to listen and critically think about the topic at hand. Good post.

[Orsino]

184. Of course it's sexist.

I have heard "hell hath no fury" occasionally invoked in reference to men and inanimate objects, and in those cases I rather like it, highlighting as it does in those cases the power of human resentment rather than calling women crazy. Evidence of evolution, maybe.

Context is all, but employing the complete proverb to speak of a scorned woman probably can't help but come off as sexist.

[seabeyond]

194. i was thinking about htis. a man murdering his wife, cause he is scorned. how would that play....

walking into that thread and stating

hell hath no fury but a man scorned.

[randys1]

201. If a Woman tells me, a man, something is sexist or misogynist, then that is that...they know.

If an African american tells me something was racist, I dont argue with them, they know.

[Petrushka]

206. And . . . if another woman tells you, a man, the SAME something is NOT sexist . . .

. . . then what is what?






Yep. WE know.






Edited to add:
As a woman who agrees with the saying re: hell's fury, I disagree with the OP's opinion.

[kcr]

264. Easy. You go with the person saying something is sexist/racist

There is no group where everyone fully agrees with everything. You don't dismiss the experiences of someone merely because someone else who happens to be of the same group disagrees.

[Luminous Animal]

302. So you agree than women are more prone than men to react with irrational rage when scorned?

Okey-doke.

[smirkymonkey]

273. A sound policy!

[randys1]

300. Is smirky from the HBO show with O'Dowd?

[smirkymonkey]

320. No, it's an old reference

to GWB - he always had a smirk on his face and he looked like a monkey, except not as cute.

[kysrsoze]

204. Every single day... more [insert irreparable harm]-ist B.S.

I've never seen such absolutely relentless, pointless nonsensical political correctness-obsession as I've seen on DU I'm the past 3 months. Imagine if we all spent so much time on things like political activities, volunteering, etc.

[BainsBane]

304. Unforuntately, some who share the view

that Cali should not speak her opinion about sexist language choose to spend their time insulting women as c... and threatening with rape. Because really, what proves that a statement isn't sexist better than following it up by threatening a woman with rape? Would you call that a more productive use of time? Or did you decide that was irrelevant and you would decide to forget the rape threats and just pretend this is about the awful political correctness of women who have the nerve to believe equality matters?


Just imagine if people who spend their time telling women they shouldn't care about what they don't think matter actually devoted themselves to activism? Imagine that.

[BainsBane]

306. On political correctness

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5256418

[Zorra]

210. Puhleeeze, let's not get all hysterical now, woman.

Can't you women control yourselves?


Thanks cali.

[Hestia]

218. You know, I think this a millennial problem - we are supposed to throw out each and every word or

phrase, let it go through some committee, who then decides if a certain word is or is not bigoted, racist or sexist. Guess what, not all of them do and grown adults have other things to do than go through a phrase dictionary just LOOKING for something to post about.

Hell Hath No Fury Like A Woman Scorned - if you are a woman, own it, claim it, and move on; if you are a man, get over it. 'Cause you know what - those phrases are phrases for a reason, and a lot of them are true.

Isn't there other shit to get your panties in a wad over?

This constant pick-pick-pick-pick over people's word usage is getting old and running people away. This bullshit is a distraction, keeping us from having real discussions about real issues, not a phrase that has been out how freakin' long? I'm sure you know if you've done your research and then come back here tell us what and why we should be upset over it.

As a woman, who gives a flying rats ass? I don't, I have a life. When all people are fed, when all people have a snug, comfortable roof over their head, when all people have clean drinking water - THEN and ONLY THEN do we have time to parse dictionaries and phrase books.

[redqueen]

223. As a woman, I loathe the idea that sexism/misogyny is the ONLY form of bigotry that we should ignore

until all the other problems in the world are solved first. It makes me sick.

I don't think I've seen women making that argument before now. Awesome to see it here

[treestar]

227. Educated people get what the phrase means

Anyone with any filter knows not to use it directly or they will get pushback from people who think women are equal.

You always have to use some filter - you wouldn't live all that long if you said everything and anything you wanted. I don't see a problem filtering out things that insult women - you wouldn't call a black person certain things (if you aren't a member of the KKK).

[muriel_volestrangler]

237. Like these uses, you mean?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021750202
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=394247
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5187651

I think that's all involving people who think women are equal, and no-one found it a problem in those 3 threads.

[treestar]

279. I don't think they are quite getting what "scorned" means

And in the context where it was written and later used, it certainly did not mean empowerment. This is more akin to black people using the N word - trying to take it over. Or women using the B word the same way.

Scorned is personal rejection, not political oppression.

[muriel_volestrangler]

281. They're using it in exactly the same context that AAO used it in, that cali and you complained about

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_J83G0vaXRkJ:sync.democraticunderground.com/10025242454+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

"Don't underestimate the power of a woman scorned!"

I see that he didn't even used the word 'fury' - just 'power'; so how can you say "it certainly did not mean empowerment"? But he was talking about the Republicans alienating women, and suffering in the polls as a result. Just like the examples I linked to (1st one talks about the gender gap, just like the recent NBC article; 2nd one, although not literally about a woman, is still saying the GOP should be afraid of women; and the 3rd is a call, accepted by DUers, for women to get even with the GOP for their anti-woman policies).

I think you're being a bit condescending to sheshe2 and Marie Marie (and Cha) when you say 'I don't think they are quite getting what "scorned" means'.

If your position is that it is a phrase that only women should use, then that should have been your case from the start, not only after you find that DUers whom you seem to respect have used the phrase in the same way as AAO. I'd disagree that it should be a 'woman-only' phrase, though.

[LaurenG]

234. I hold this same opinion

Thank goodness we went to University and were taught to think for ourselves.

[redqueen]

243. You think anyone who disagrees with you doesn't think for themselves?

[LaurenG]

244. It was sarcasm

take a look two up. Something about educated people understanding sexism better. Please just try and take things in context. Take a look at Muriels links as well.

[redqueen]

247. gotcha...

I somehow missed the 'educated people' line. IMO that's not true. Lots of educated people interpret all manner of things differently.

I did see the links and I know people here have used it. I don't expect perfection from anyone or that I'll agree with anyone about everything.

[LaurenG]

250. Great!

[seabeyond]

249. firstly, if i am "scorned" i walk. fury does not even have a place. so no. i wont own it.

why would i want out of control ugly? why would i spend an ounce of energy if a man cannot respect me?

and why would i possibly..... own it.

[awake]

233. An interesting thread that was posted today related to the word "Fury"

The Furies... source of the word fury

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025251095

"In Greek and Roman mythology, the Furies were female spirits of justice and vengeance. They were also called the Erinyes (angry ones). Known especially for pursuing people who had murdered family members, the Furies punished their victims by driving them mad. When not punishing wrongdoers on earth, they lived in the underworld and tortured the damned......"

Please do not take my reposting of this as attacking or supporting any of the above posts, I just thought it could be helpful understanding the root of some of our words please check out the thread.

[Petrushka]

276. Thank you for the link.

Interesting subject.

[NCTraveler]

239. Thanks cali. nt.

[Sissyk]

253. You may find this interesting, or not.

I did a small excersize that took about 20 minutes (my accounting database is down, lol).

I only counted replies that stated they agreed or not with you that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is sexist. If it was hard to tell by their answer, or if the gender was not available to me, I did not use them, so your results may differ from mine.

At the time of my posting, there are 252 replies on this thread. The majority are direct messages about the person they are posting to, not the topic of the thread.

Of those 252 replies, I could identify the following:
Women that agree with cali that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is sexist: 14
Men that agree with cali that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is sexist: 7
Women that disagree with cali that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is sexist: 13
Men that disagree with cali that "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is sexist: 7
Members that changed their minds after reading your post: 1 man and 1 woman
Number of hidden post in this thread: 3 women

Replies that are men telling a woman that they don't know what they are talking about, men telling a woman they say they are a woman too much, or men just putting down the point of view of a woman is: 25

Replies that were directed at another poster and not responsive to the OP at all: 95

What are we talking about again?

[RebelOne]

261. There are couple of ex-boyfriends who can attest

to the fact that hell has no fury like as scorned woman. In fact, they will probably say that I was the spawn of the devil.

[Petrushka]

265. "...spawn of the devil." ?? Oh, my!

Have you ever been on the Jerry Springer or Maury Povich show(s)?

[Niceguy1]

277. meh

[IdaBriggs]

282. Perhaps "Hell hath no fury like a LOVER scorned?"

Removes the specific, and stays true to what we know about human nature?

[mopinko]

284. as someone in the midst of a divorce i did not even want

who has exhibited extreme generosity and kindness, but has been met with a MAN who THINKS he has been scorned, yeah, little touchy about this one myself.

[mr blur]

305. If you are up in arms about misogyny why don't you attack the bible?

More people read, quote and believe it than they do Congreve.

Or how about the Catholic Church? Or any other religion for that matter. You know, stuff that people profess to care about?

[seabeyond]

312. golly gee. feminists talk about the bible? religion? geeez, why didnt feminists EVER

think about talking about the patriarchy in religion.

thanks