Lessons in 'Sexism'

[The Doctor.]

It's really fascinating what one can learn on these internets nowadays. Recently, I picked up something that had never really occurred to me before. I found out that gender dictates intention. That's right! The intention of the writer/speaker is dependent upon the gender of the subject.

Take the following adjectives for example;

"Irrational", "Hysterical", "Crazy", "Foolish", "Childish".

Now, If I apply those to a man, they function pretty much along the lines of intent outlined in Merriam-Webster's dictionary.

"Irrational" Means; "(1): not endowed with reason or understanding (2): lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b: not governed by or according to reason"

"Hysterical" Means; "1 : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions
2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess <political hysteria>"

... and so on.

BUT... I've recently been learning that if one applies those to a woman, especially one that is a primary candidate for president with a fistful of fervent followers, they all take on a different and singular meaning across the board.

They all go from having distinct definitions (if also related) to having one theme; They are sexist slurs!

That's right, the same exact words that have no sexist connotations when used to describe a man, suddenly become ugly, misogynistic attacks on the gender of the woman in question, thus becoming an insult to all other women in the world by extension. This applies to unflattering pictures as well;

For instance, an unflattering picture of a haggard, tired man is a commentary on his exhaustion, and perhaps even his vitality... but it has nothing to do with his gender.

A similarly unflattering picture of a woman is a commentary on her gender first and foremost, and significant of the other traits only in the same unflattering ways as they apply to women.

Fascinating!

Even more interesting;

If one uses such adjectives or depictions when describing a woman regardless of whatever justification there may or may not be... the gender of the describer must be male.

It's like magic! Automatically, I become a 'man' right there on the otherwise gender-neutral internets... just like that!


Gosh DUers, you really can learn a thing or two on these here internets!

I'm glad that here on the internets, I needn't embrace any characteristic of race, gender, religion, or other quality by which I might start having to re-learn what all the various possible meanings of so many words could become just because I or someone I support are referred to in a way that must be sexist, racists, intolerant, or bigoted... how would I know?

Well, I'd just have to learn how to look hard enough.

[FlyingTiger]

1. You damn sexist.

How dare you use sarcasm to make me chortle like that.

[The Doctor.]

3. Crap!

Now I'm not sure what rule made me a sexist for learning what I did about sexism...

I'm going to have to go all over it again.

Thanks. :eyes:

[slinkerwink]

2. hysterical IS sexist when applied to women.

I'm an Obama supporter, and the use of the word hysterical against women IS sexist.

yhsterical
One entry found.

hysteria


Main Entry:
hys·te·ria Listen to the pronunciation of hysteria Listen to the pronunciation of hysteria
Pronunciation:
\his-ˈter-ē-ə, -ˈtir-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
New Latin, from English hysteric, adjective, from Latin hystericus, from Greek hysterikos, from hystera womb; from the Greek notion that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus
Date:
1801

[DarienComp]

4. How many people even know the origin of the word "hysterical"?

[The Doctor.]

7. I do, actually. I considered it while I was posting and decided at the time

that it really was a word that only has 'sexist' connotations when so perceived. I took the definition lock, stock, and barrel, the whole thing from Merriam-Webster and decided that it was a word that trancended it's roots and isn't necessarily indicative of gender unless intended as such.

In which case, the meaning of my post remained... If I said; "She's hysterical" because she's demonstrably confused or emotional, then it's an observation that legitimately applies regardless of gender. If I said; "She's hysterical" because I am dismissing her for being female, then I am most certainly being 'sexist'.

With that distinction in mind, I went ahead with it.

[DarienComp]

9. Of course, if we're going to go by the original meaning...

you can't really call a man "hysterical" either, without being accused of being sexist or quasi-homophobic, right? I mean, you'd essentially be accusing the man of being a woman, or exhibiting 'female' traits.

So shall we just ban the word? I think it'd be more constructive to just accept that the meaning of a word can and does change over time, and that while the origin of a particular word may be rather unsavory, it doesn't dictate the current usage of the word.

[The Doctor.]

13. Precisely.

There are also obviously sexist applications for all kinds of words that have no inherent gender connotations. It is the intention of usage that dictates meaning. An articulate person will sometimes use words with the purpose of evoking their inherent meanings. Sometimes done subtley, sometimes overtly, and sometimes in tandem with other connotations, the author/speaker will evoke meaning specific to intent. Often we get to see this in brilliant speechwriting with layers of meaning, and certainly in poetry and performance. But here, on discussion boards, there is rarely cause to layer meaning.

Saying; "She is behaving irrationally" passes a simple 'show and tell' test that results in a true/false/opinion verdict. Saying that it's 'sexist' to call a woman 'irrational' only makes sense when the allusion is intentional.

Anyone can perceive sexism/racism/bigotry where it is not, so the test comes down to discoverable intent. Frankly, if it's not there to be seen, I'm not going to be one of 'those people' that finds offense wherever I look.

After all, it's not that hard to construe what you would like... or dislike.

[dansolo]

15. The word "woman" is inherently sexist

The word originally derived from "wife of man", though ironically enough it is apropos in Hillary's case, because she wouldn't be where she is now without her husband.

[The Doctor.]

18. OUCH!

That's almost as bad as saying that Obama wouldn't be where he is unless.... uhhh... let's not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. As Is The Word HisStory

~

[Darth_Kitten]

70. Tit for tat: Obama wouldn't be where he is if he was a woman......

Insulting and demeaning, huh? Sad that a woman of Hillary's skill and intelligence gets put down by people who are, well, somewhat jealous.

[OzarkDem]

20. Feminists know

Hysteria was a term coined by the Greeks to describe what they though was an affliction of the uterus. They thought the cure for "hysteria" was more sexual intercourse.

:rofl:

The first sexists.

[dsc]

24. educated ones

[DarienComp]

25. Don't be elitist, now.

:hi:

[Darth_Kitten]

69. Naughty, now don't you go informing people or anything.....

:D

[The Doctor.]

5. But so is 'irrational', 'crazy', and 'childish'. See for yourself;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5892322#5898417
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5903537&mesg_id=5903690
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5798822#5798846

Oh, I know the root of 'hysterical', but how does that prevent it from being used to describe a man? It doesn't. Tell ya what though, just to keep it clear, I'll take that one out if I still can. The point is the same.

K?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FlaGranny]

48. The original word

had a female connotation, but it doesn't really now. Psychiatrists use it to describe male AND female mental disorders. In the psychiatric world it does not equate to female. I've seen hysterical men and I've seen hysterical woman.

http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec07/ch105/ch105a.html

"Histrionic (Hysterical) Personality: People with a histrionic personality conspicuously seek attention, are dramatic and excessively emotional, and are overly concerned with appearance. Their lively, expressive manner results in easily established but often superficial and transient relationships. Their expression of emotions often seems exaggerated, childish, and contrived to evoke sympathy or attention (often erotic or sexual) from others.

People with a histrionic personality are prone to sexually provocative behavior or to sexualizing nonsexual relationships. However, they may not really want a sexual relationship; rather, their seductive behavior often masks their wish to be dependent and protected. Some people with a histrionic personality also are hypochondriacal and exaggerate their physical problems to get the attention they need."

Let the definition fall as it may.

Edit: To fix.

[The Night Owl]

6. You wrote this long post just to make the point that...

...some people on the Internet take certain kinds of criticism the wrong way?

[The Doctor.]

8. So you can't call someone 'irrational' if you think they're 'irrational'?

Answer the question.

[The Night Owl]

14. No, I think your argument is basically right, but...

...the fact remains that words with no sexist or racist connotations are sometimes used in racist and sexist ways. For instance...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBR&q=+site:www.freerepublic.com+freerepublic+niggardly

[The Doctor.]

19. Yes, "words with no sexist or racist connotations are sometimes used in racist and sexist ways."

Then explain all the outrage when they're not.

I'm afraid that your point is utterly irrelevant, because I'm not talking about using words with the intent of being sexist, I'm talking about when people use words innocently but are then taken to mean offense without evidence.

[The Night Owl]

22. Explaining the outrage...

If you've been unfairly accused of sexism for calling someone irrational, then the accusation was probably an attempt to negate the criticism by impugning the motive behind it and an attempt to counterattack by suggesting that you're a bad person. It's just human nature. Some people know how to take criticism and some people don't.

[The Doctor.]

23. That's a fair explanation,

but it kind of makes my point; people claiming 'sexism' where there is none.

I think that if someone says "Hillary is irrational", my first response would be "explain how". I would do that for two reasons; 1) put the onus on them to support their statement 2) allow me to scrutinize their rationale.

Saying, "you're sexist" might make me feel like I've diminished their position, but in fact I would not have.

[izzie]

10. Just how old are you? Where have you been?

If one does not see a different standard for a women or a black man than for a white man they have had to missed some thing along the way. Words are used in a way for each. It is better than when I was a kid but I hope it gets better and we end up looking at the thinking and not the head it comes out of.

[The Doctor.]

17. *sigh*

So, Katherine Harris loses her bid for re-election to Congress. For weeks afterward, she continues to park in her Congressional parking spot.
I call her 'Crazy' and 'Irrational'.


Rick Santorum makes a claim that gay marriage will lead to "man on dog sex".
I call him 'Crazy' and 'Irrational'.


They both fit the definition, which one am I being 'sexist toward?



Please answer the question, I'm sick of people ignoring reason... makes 'em look irrational.

[izzie]

29. Both are crazy and irrational and I am not sure if that is how

the general pop named it. I am sure, when I grew up, only the women would be called that. Rick would be just though to be a little off the mark.

[The Doctor.]

30. Then you get the point.

It's not necessarily 'sexist' to call a woman 'irrational' or 'crazy'... especially if she's being irrational or crazy.

Glad you picked up on it.

[izzie]

53. One hardly has to tell a women in her 70's that their are standards.

I have lived them and I am sure Obama has also. He knows the score as well as I do. White men have ruled this country since we got off the boat in Plymouth and it is not easy to change the way people think. It is better than it was. I hope it does better yet.

[Sparkly]

11. I can play this game!

Fascinating!

You can make sarcastic remarks about other remarks, without citing any actual examples of those remarks or debates, to claim you have the more sane, logical, and rational view of what is or isn't sexist, intolerant, or bigoted, while dodging the entire question of whether, how, or why others might feel offended, let alone the question of why you don't give a shit about whether, how, or why others are offended as long as you can clear your own conscience by implying they are irrational -- perhaps even hysterical -- without even having to say it!

AND

Even more interesting:

If one acts like a superior judge of what is and isn't offensive to other people while dismissing their arguments before even giving a fair paraphrase of those arguments, one may be dismissed as a self-satisfied, sanctimonious, sarcastic snot uninterested in actual debate toward understanding due to closed-minded satisfaction with an unraised consciousness!

Yes, it's really fascinating what one can learn on DU these days!

ALSO, formatting can be fun.

:eyes:

[The Doctor.]

16. "Without citing any actual examples"? LMAO... oh, you are in SO far over your head.

Let's see, there are these;

Claims of 'sexism' where there is none;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5892322#5898417
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5798822

(Yes, the picture was rude and demeaning and I denounced it as such and admonished the poster here;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5798822#5800942
But it was not 'sexist'. Here's my rationale;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5798822&mesg_id=5800832
You'll note the word 'rationale' which requires a modicum of 'rationality'.)



Here are links to several of my requests for Clinton supporters to back up their claims;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5896810&mesg_id=5897454

Oh, there are some DOOSEYS in there.



And oh the irony... here's me calling you out on the BS assumption that Obama Supporters have 'no reasons' for supporting him;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5793971#5797721
(You didn't respond)

And then here's me again proving that your assumptions are BS;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5800373

Oh, and there's just so much more, but I'll let ya chew on that first, then maybe we can get into it for real. :D



Now, I'm sure that you have 'good reasons' to be offended by things that are there just as much as by things that aren't. I'm willing to give you the BOTD, even after dealing with utterly unfounded charges of sexism.

Here we go again;

"Sparkly, please whenyougetthechance go and find me some examples of this 'rampant sexism' that has you so offended here on DU so that I can have a better understanding of your concerns."

You know how many times I've asked that question? Let's just say I've learned not to hold my breath.

As for my "attitude";

Sparkly, I love ya, I really do and have for years, but if I come across as condescending, it's because you've earned it. I've asked you to back it up before and you haven't. I have very little tolerance for anyone who makes claims that have no basis in factual reality. Believe me, we seen enough of that from freepers over the years that we don't need it around here.

ANYONE can find offense in anything they want to. So far you've made a point of being very offensive by telling ME that I don't know what I'm talking about when I say I have reasons for supporting Obama. Let me reiterate;

"I have very good reasons for supporting Obama over Clinton, and anyone that tells me I don't is insulting my intelligence, and demonstrating their own ignorance."

YOU did that. I quote you right here; http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5793971&mesg_id=5797721
YOU offended me directly and demonstrably Right THERE. No ifs ands or buts about it.

So if I come across as 'snotty' or 'rude', that's too fucking bad.


Love ya' anyway tho' :hug:


Now get busy! You got some work cut out.

[SoCalDem]

42. My take..

People (generic-either sex) get FAR too worked up over what a bunch of (mostly) anonymous people typing into the ether, have to say about/to each other..

If someone is brutally offended if they see the word "bitch", then they should move on.. or any of the "special" words..

I guess I am just an old (59) woman who is a "stick & stones" kind of "gal"..or maybe it's because I raised 3 sons, and "words" are not that big of an issue for me...

I hate the idea of DU becoming "FreeRepublic cens*red" so the big bad scary words never appear...

If someone wants to call me a "bitch", I'm ok with that..I'm sure I AM bitchy from time to time.. Am I going to go ballistic and scream SEXISM??? Nope..

[Bunny]

57. !

:applause:

[TahitiNut]

12. Let's not forget "intuitive"

... as applied to "feminine intuition." :evilgrin: (Now THAT one has some fascinating origins.)

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Too much shuck and jive for me. n/t

[frickaline]

27. Did you really just make a thread to pat yourself on the back for making people angry enough

with you to call you sexist?

Well here ya go, virtual celebration for both you AND your ego

[The Doctor.]

32. Over your head too, I see.

When people get 'angry' and start screaming 'sexism' where there is none, the problem is them, not me.

This post is to point out that it's irrational to scream "Sexism!" just because someone said something you didn't like about your candidate. Is that you? Do you resort to that kind of behavior?

If I point out that Katherine Harris is irrational, does that make you "angry enough to call me a 'sexist'"?

Well, that's fine, you're allowed to be hysterical.


Thanks for the fireworks by the way. Love 'em! :patriot:

[frickaline]

35. No, I don't resort to that ...

ya sexist pig :P

But seriously, I think the emotion you are reacting with here is just as irrational. Do you seek vindication from the masses? Why do you feel you need to point out, "the problem is them, not me". Do you think people can't figure that out and needed you to tell them? You're right, it is over my head, because I can't see any other point here. I'd say your post will only be received by the audience that doesn't do this, and that you already knew that when you wrote it.

But glad you liked the virtual celebration. I don't mean to come off as rude but its just how I see this type of posting, particularly when you start citing posts from specific board members. As far as I understood, that kind of thing was frowned upon here.

[The Doctor.]

40. When someone asks for substantiation, and the posts are pertinent to the topic,

then there's nothing wrong with citing posts.

The OP was only to point out how ridiculous it is to run around screaming 'Sexism!' where there is none. I know the answer to the question of course; people do it because they haven't the ability to directly address the characterization, and psuedo-outrage often feels like a fair substitute for reason.

That's all really.

And yes, it was a little self-indulgent... after all, I've been putting up with it, so I pitched some well-deserved derision back.

Fair's fair.

:hi:

[frickaline]

41. lol fine, have your fun

:hi:

[VotesForWomen]

28. are you trying to lose votes for Obama or what?

[The Doctor.]

34. How would I be doing that?

1) I'm pointing out that it's irrational to start screaming "Sexism!" just because someone says something about your candidate that you don't like. Are you into the whole 'misogyny witch-hunt'?

2) The only people that are so easily offended by this thread that they will refuse to vote for Obama weren't going to vote for him anyway because they belong here;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5892322

You're not one of those "I will NEVER vote for Obama/Hillary!" types, are you?

'Cause if you are, then your opinion is as valuable to me as a vial of Streptococcus.

[hulka38]

31. A fickle post

[The Doctor.]

38. A fickle response.

If it's so fickle, then maybe you can explain why the same adjective under the same circumstances is offensive when applied to a woman, but not when applied to a man?

I'm seriously curious why it is that if I call a man 'irrational' for acting irrationally I'm just being 'critical', but if I call a woman 'irrational' for acting irrationally, I'm being 'sexist'.

Can you please explain.

I sense a failstorm coming to this thread.

[Evergreen Emerald]

33. "lessons?" Sounds like you did not learn anything

I am left to wonder what exactly you are a doctor of? Obviously not history or logic or common sense.

[The Doctor.]

36. Great! Then you can HELP me....

Please answer the question;

"Why is calling a woman 'irrational' "sexism" while calling a man 'irrational' under the same circumstances is not?"

So.....?

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. I will answer a question with a question:

why is calling a black man a "boy" racist, but calling white man "boy" is not?

Seriously? Are you nuts?

[The Doctor.]

39. So if you call a boy a 'boy', you're being 'racist'?

You see, I'm not talking about demeaning anyone I'm talking about describing behavior. Just the way that I would call a boy a 'boy' because he was a 'boy'. (for me the cut-off is generally around the age of 14)

If a woman is behaving irrationally, and I say she's 'irrational', why am I sexist?

Can you answer that, or will there be more questions?

[JoFerret]

45. If a poster posts in the forest

does it make him a plank?

[The Doctor.]

46. Yeah, that's what I thought... nothing.

The point is serious; Wild accusations of sexism based on nothing, and all because people can't take criticism of Hillary Clinton.

Ridiculous.

[JoFerret]

47. Refusal

to see the forest - ignorance.
Slashing at the trees - ineffective.
Blaming the branches - failure of perspective.
Inability to see the plank as wooden - blindness.
Shrieking and swooning - silly.

[The Doctor.]

51. So you somehow think that answers the questions?

You think that you've created a clever correlation?

How does that excuse people who actually scream "Sexism!" where there is none?
Are you saying that I can't see what's not there? Brilliant. :eyes:

You see, I'm dealing in the factual, empirical universe right now and asking substantive questions about demonstrable points. Resorting to half-assed koans just tells me you have nothing.

But by all means, go ahead and tell yourself how clever you are for finding a way to avoid dealing with the subject.

[JoFerret]

54. I think

...that no amount of argument, examples, facts, evidence, persuasion, alternative perspectives will cause you to change your views one iota. You have your view and you are sticking with it. You have your "questions" but they are not genuine. They are nothing but idle provocations. Empirical inquiry is not your game. You are not interested in responses that might challenge your already made up mind. You are engaging in an intellectually bankrupt exercise driven by your emotional hold on your reality.

Engaging with your opinions and "questions" other than for sheer amusement is time wasting.

[The Doctor.]

55. That's pretty ignorant. You see, the only way to know whether "examples, facts, evidence,

persuasion, alternative perspectives" might influence my opinions is to actually employ some.

I know though, it's easier to come up with nothing, and then tell yourself that "examples, facts, evidence, persuasion, alternative perspectives" won't work so you don't have to come face to face with your deficiencies.

I'm sure it saves you a whole lot of actual diligence that way.

Like I said; You tell yourself whatever you need to in order to avoid dealing with the subject while still believing you're all over it.

If you ever feel like growing up and presenting your "examples, facts, evidence, persuasion, alternative perspectives", then I'm all ears. Other than that, I can keep playing your stupid games all day... it's fun for me too.

Cheers.

:smoke:

[JoFerret]

56. A couple of options

1.) You are totally correct. There has been absolutely no sexism or racism in this campaign or on DU. Such thinking is merely the fevered imaginations of the shrieking and swooning political brain and the intellectually bankrupt.

OR:

2.)Sweetie:
Many such examples have been posted on many occasions.

Surely you have seen them.

[The Doctor.]

60. I haven't seen them.

What I have seen are people claiming 'sexism' where there is none. I'm sure there are people doing the same thing with claiming 'racism' where there may be none.

I've also seen people claiming 'racism' when there are viable examples. Clinton claiming she can win the Presidency where Obama cannot because she has the important 'white vote' is certainly borderline racism at least.

If Obama made the same basic claim that only he could beat McCain because he had the crucial black/white vote, then I would say the same of him.

As for examples, I can cite them;

Here's an unfounded claim of sexism;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5892322#5898417

Yes, I'm called "sexist" for suggesting that both candidates' supporters are childish for declaring they will "never" vote for the other. How does that work?
:shrug:

Here's a thread where I ask where all the sexism is. I ask for an example of it;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5600433#5600797
-Nothing.

Here's someone claiming that posting an unflattering picture is 'sexist';
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5798822#5799259

Why? Because it's a picture of a tired, haggard woman. What if it's a picture of a tired, haggard looking man? Is that sexism too?

No. Of course not. Either way, it's a commentary on fatigue or age. And as you can see, I admonish the poster for being so rude.


That's not even scratching the surface. If I see sexism, racism, or uncalled for rudeness, I have no reservations about pointing it out.


But I'm constantly hearing claims of "sexism!" where there is none. I know the reason for it, which is why I post threads like these. It serves two purposes;

1) To call out the silly people who see 'sexism' that isn't there and hopefully bring them back to reality-based thinking.

-and-

2) To give people a chance to substantiate those claims and show me that it's really there so I know who the jerks are.


I'd say that's pretty fair of me. So far, No one's come up with anything. If someone shows me instances of blatant or intentional sexism, I will acknowledge it. I aspire towards being as empirical as possible, for that I need evidence, not presumptions of 'sexism'.

Fair enough?

[JoFerret]

63. As you say.

No sexism or racism anywhere.
Hurray!

[The Doctor.]

65. I never said that. You're a child buidling a strawman.

I said 'I've seen none', but I didn't discount the possibility that it's around. Otherwise I would not have said;

"2) To give people a chance to substantiate those claims and show me that it's really there so I know who the jerks are.


I'd say that's pretty fair of me. So far, No one's come up with anything. If someone shows me instances of blatant or intentional sexism, I will acknowledge it. I aspire towards being as empirical as possible, for that I need evidence, not presumptions of 'sexism'."
(Learn to read and comprehend)

I gave you a chance to be reasonable and deal with reality, that is apparently outside of your capacity. You've had plenty of chances to show me an example of all this 'sexism' that you claim is everywhere... yet you are apparenntly incapable of doing so. That further reinforces my entire premise here.

I've been more than fair, you've been little more than a child who thinks yourself clever.





Oh, and in case you still don't get the "providing examples" idea, this is how it's done;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5905971&mesg_id=5920033

[JoFerret]

68. As long as it's a straw

man. And the man is white. We will be OK.

[walldude]

58. Depends...

A white man calling a black man "boy" is racist. A white man calling a white man "boy" is demeaning. 2 sides of the same coin. Anyone calls me "boy" probably gets cussed out. Calling someone "boy", white or black, is an attempt to show some mistaken sense of superiority.

[JoFerret]

43. You hit the target there

What on earth is the point of this gynophobic linguistic self indulgence?

[The Doctor.]

44. Do more reading, then same question to you;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5905971&mesg_id=5909202

I'm still waiting for an answer. How is it that the collective 'you' cannot answer?

Oh, I do know. And I'm so glad you all jumped in.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

49. I have never in my life heard a grown man described as hysterical

I can't think of a time I've heard a man decribed as irrational either. Men are, by default, the rational actors in our society. Kinda like how white people are hard working and patriotic by default.

[The Doctor.]

52. "Bush is irrational"

There, now you've heard it.

Am I sexist?



I find it hard to believe you've gone your whole life (how long is that anyhow?) without hearing a man described as 'irrational'. I've heard it and said it quite literally thousands of times. I've called men 'hysterical' as well.

Are you saying that men cannot behave 'hysterically' or 'irrationally'?

Because that would seem rather sexist of you.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. I really can't think of a time that I've heard men described that way.

Not even Bush.

As for whether or not I believe men cannot behave that way, why are you putting words in my mouth that I did not speak?

Seems rather irrational of you. :shrug:

[The Doctor.]

61. It's not 'putting words in your mouth' when it's a question.

Very cute though. ;)

I've seen very irrational men behaving very irrationally.

Let's see;

The WSWS calls Bush 'irrational';
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/inau-j22.shtml (first hit)

A terrorism analysist;
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:QO3cKP7Uq40J:world-ice.com/Articles/Irrational.pdf+%22irrational%22+%22bush%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Heck, here's the Google search of "Bush" + "irrational";
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGIH_enUS254US255&q=%22irrational%22+%22bush%22

Examples are everywhere.

Do the same search with most members of the administration and I'm sure you'll find that there are plenty of examples of men being described as 'irrational'.

I'm sure you can understand how difficult it is for me to believe you've gone through life without ever hearing of a man being described as 'irrational'. That search took less than five seconds.


So, why is it only 'sexist' to describe an irrational woman as irrational, but not an irrational man as irrational?

It's a double-standard like that one that's 'sexist'.

[DarkTirade]

62. It's not limited to those words.

That's really the basis of what the idea of 'priviledge' is. I think the best illustration (no pun intended) I've seen of the subject was http://xkcd.com/385/">this webcomic. It's very simple and straightforward, and with only two sentances it shows the difference between treating someone as a person vs. treating someone as a member of a larger group.

This applies to people of any color, creed, orientation, age group, ect. that can be stereotyped.

[The Doctor.]

64. Right, there's no argument there.

If you think someone is bad at math because they are female, then you are being 'sexist'. If you assume that a woman is bad at math, then you are being 'sexist'. If you note that someone is bad at math because they are bad at math, you are not being 'sexist'... even if they happen to be female.

That's what I'm getting at; I've seen nothing really 'sexist' here, but plenty of people that seem to believe that criticizing someone who happens to be a woman, regardless of the nature of the criticism, is automatic misogyny.

That's just plain silly.

[DarkTirade]

66. Yes, there is a lot of sillyness about.

And unfortunately much of it turns to ugliness. Which is why many of us have started avoiding the hotter forums here, most namely this one. Because it just gets ugly. Insinuations flying left and right. People madly defending and attacking things that they don't understand. Or in your example, people fighting over one person's interpretation of another person's intent.

Of course, I'm sure some of it is just trolls... but unless they reveal themselves fairly obviously, it's just my reading of their intent vs. their actual intent. :P

[Darth_Kitten]

67. Know the origin of the word "hysteria"?.....

:eyes:

I won't inform you, you want to believe that women have no issues or thoughts worth anything anyways. Beyond pathetic.

[The Doctor.]

71. Not only have you apparently not read the part of this thread where I covered that,

but to tell youself something so patently full of shit as;

"you want to believe that women have no issues or thoughts worth anything anyways" -About me when I have never suggested anything of the sort, ever, and have been a proponent of women's rights my entire adult life, tells me that you are a hateful asshole who will choose to see your own twisted version of the world rather than the real decency of those you don't agree with.

I'd say that your post was insulting, but it's difficult to feel insulted by someone as delusional and small-minded as yourself.

I hope some of you come back to your senses this summer.

Good luck to you.