General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYes, this is still a racist, sexist, unequal world.
http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/yes-this-is-still-a-racist-sexist-unequal-world/" ?w=460
Yesterdays MLK holiday produced the usual passive-aggressive racist twaddle from twits like Sarah Palin, who would like us to believe that there is no more racism in the world, blah blah blah. And we also got extremely aggressive racism from the fashion and art world, which decided it was a great day to publish a racist, sexist, forced servitude-endorsing image. Said image being cropped and re-issued after a few thousand people told the editors that the picture was disgusting, but not disavowed or apologized for.
The perpetrator of this outrage is a privileged socialite and wife of a Russian criminal gangster oligarch, and she has as yet said nothing about the picture of her scrawny white rich-assed self objectifying, using and degrading black women. But there are only a few reasons for posting such an image:
Number A: to use an offensive image to create publicity,
Letter 2: because she is such a rich little stupid-f*** that she doesnt even know this is insulting, or
Thirdly: she hates her some black women. Hates them a LOT.
Regardless of her actual reason, the fact that this happened on a holiday that honors a slain civil rights leader shows us that humans have not created a color-blind, classless, or gender-equal world. And as long as a billionaire thinks it acceptable to visually exhibit her superior position in the world in such a humiliating, degrading, and arrogant fashion as this, we will continue to inhabit a world that oppresses anyone who is not rich, white, and male.
And to Hell with that."
Source information at the link. Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, even Jesse Helms never did this...
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 21, 2014, 01:40 PM - Edit history (1)
But that's maybe because I'm not a rich, White, privileged socialite b***h.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Apparently the word "bitch" is sexist, even in this context and even though you were sensitive enough to use an asterisk. It was a 3-3 decision btw.
Maybe I'll get a hide for leaving out the *
Makes one wonder how some folk manage to get through the day.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)OR...they actually *like* and are secretly OK with the image of a black woman folded in half, dressed scandalously while upholding a WHITE socialite "proper" B***H.
It's a good thing the decision was 3-3 and the post remained (much to their chagrin). There's hope for DU after all.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Just because the chair in the image is more offensive than the sexist slur you're defending, that doesn't make it ok, nor does it mean that people who object to your use of the slur "actually *like* and are secretly OK with" the image.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)were a rich white woman and, they are secretly jealous that they are not.
Brings to mind that quote about American Attitude:
There is so much WRONG going on in that picture that one hardly knows where to begin ...
racism, sexism, classicism, BDSM/Porn .... Irony.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)OR...they actually *like* and are secretly OK with the image of a black woman folded in half, dressed scandalously while upholding a WHITE socialite "proper" B***H.
What's really cute is how she uses it AGAIN, because DU community standards sanction this particular misogynist slur (3 juries that I know of, today, have agreed).
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)the intent/motivation that caused the post to begin with. Doubling Down just reinforces my thoughts about the post.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I'll have to go back and re-read your post when I'm not getting distracted by so many ridiculous questions.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)exactly What All is going on in that picture. The Shock Value is Stunning ... I will give the artist/creator of the piece that much.
That the benevolent patriarchal system is so ingrained in our society is evident in the posters actions.
Again, much education is needed.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Do we know without a doubt that she was a willing, consenting participant of this photo ... ?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Bitch Magazine
http://www.bitchmagazine.org/?
Bitch Media's mission is to provide and encourage an empowered, feminist response to mainstream media and popular culture.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)If Snoop does it, it must be fine for you too, eh? Go for it.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)So you took a dodge instead? Why was that?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)It was a simple question.
Am I to take it that you disapprove of that group of feminists choosing the name "Bitch" for their publication?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and I am asking if- citing B*tch magazine would be any different that citing lyrics in defense of racial slurs? What would be the difference exactly, in claiming ni***rs is not offensive because, Dr Dre?
Same thing. Except the racist slurs would be zapped, and no one would argue they are on some "list of words" they desperately need to use.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Those people call themselves feminists and apparently disagree with you.
Your breathless mini-rants notwithstanding, I took no position on the issue.
And I will forego alerting on you for using a racial slur. Did you think your use of asterisks would make it okay?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)If you didn't want to answer it, you didn't have to reply.
But you did choose to reply, except that you didn't deign to answer the question. Instead, you went on a weird attack, accusing me of being okay with the use of racial slurs because rappers use them. I didn't do that, nor did I defend Bitch magazine.
I'll ask the question again: What about the feminist Bitch magazine? (I imagine this has been hashed out before, but I haven't seen it. I also imagine there is some division within feminist ranks about it, especially given that it exists and calls itself feminist.)
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)And the use of those slurs by people not in the in-group. That is what bettyellen tried to explain by her analogy. Black men and women using the n-word when they speak to each other is something completely different from me as a white woman using it to refer to a black person. Feminists using the b-word is completely different from a person of indeterminate gender on the internet using it to describe a woman. The same goes with LGBT slurs, ethnic slurs, classist slurs. You know this, Comrade Grumpy, and it is very glib of you to pretend otherwise.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)You say it's okay for members of an oppressed group to "retake" a slur and empower themselves by reclaiming it. I get that. Not sure that I agree, but I get it.
But bettyellen appears to be taking the opposite tack: That's it's never okay; that's it's just as bad for feminists to use the b-word as it is for black people to use the n-word.
At least I think that's what she's saying. She never did get around to actually responding to my question about Bitch magazine, instead flying off the handle with all that rapper claptrap. She could have just said "yes" or "no" and appended an explanation of her position.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)that when communities re-take a word that has been used as a slur against them, they stop using it as a slur. When a magazine like Bitch Magazine uses that word, they aren't using it as a slur. And when an African American greets a friend with the N word, that person is not using it as a slur. And when a member of the LGBT community uses the word "queer," they are not using it as a slur.
A person can think it's OK to reclaim a word in that way, but still find it problematic when the same word continues to be used as a slur.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)but by your own standards- they would also be calling people all sorts of racial slurs because
someone else does it.
You didn't need anyone to explain that to you. And you won't the next time you play coy about the issue.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)...through, lo, these many replies.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)as RACIST AND SEXIST SLURS TEND TO OFFEND. Is that clear enough? Did you really need that explained?
Somehow, I doubt it. It has been said way too many times here. Yet some keep feigning confusion. I don't buy it.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Because in the case of black peopel there is not a separate group defined here, with women it appears that some are carving out a group of women - those most aware of their oppression and can use the word and the others are female cohorts who are duped by men and not allowed to use the word.
In other words, it appears some women want to have more privilege than others when it comes to language and DU posting. Who keeps up with all of these rules and who makes them? Is there a female group leader for all feminists who gets to decide what women (and no one else) can use a certain word?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)and why they themselves can use it just fine because they have a secret decoder ring.
On the one hand we are asked to be understanding and sympathetic to something but then told we are excluded because we can never be part of a group. We are all equal and should be treated the same but we are all different and can never fully get/understand someone/something else.
Exclusion and inclusion mixed and matched and shuffled around in a dizzying array of word salads and confusion where each and every word, thought, action is scrutinized to find fault and underlying hatred of another group of people. If you disagree with the analysis it is because you don't understand and your hatred is so ingrained you are too blind to see it. Hence the priests will talk to you about your sinful/lustful ways and educate you - but with so many brands of the religion it is hard to keep track of which one to follow or which one you are offending today.
Especially sad when we all agree on basic premises - inequality exists and it is wrong and harms everyone. For everyone addressed and changed ten new ones pop up.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)as RACIST AND SEXIST SLURS TEND TO OFFEND. Is that clear enough? Did you really need that explained?
Somehow, I doubt it. It has been said way too many times here.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)In a subgroup of women who have decided they can use it but not others?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)affectionately use - can you guess what word?- among themselves but, sadly you would be roundly condemned for the same word. as would anyone one using the word as a slur.
in fact, you'd probably be kicked off DU for using the word because it's on one of those "lists"- the ones libertarians here are always whining about. HA.
Are you really claiming to be unfamiliar with this concept? Well then, you should study up instead of asking silly questions.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Just some? Can any woman use the b word? Do they have to pass a purity test so that none of those 'female cohort' types would be condemned for using it?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)it would be better if you just kind wrapped your mind around that for a while.
People within a group can use the same word to convey anger, hatred, kinship, love. Yep.
There is no static group* of judges or purity test- most people can easily see when slurs are used with anger to denigrate someone. Is not even up for debate in this thread.
*look up in group usage, because it's not what you think
KitSileya
(4,035 posts)The re-appropriation of a slur is quite different from using the slur as a slur, and you know that very well. BlueCaliDem wasn't reclaiming the slur - he or she was using it as a slur. that is very clear, and as such, it is misogynistic slur used on a woman, and that causes the reaction. Your patter about 'carving out groups of women' and female group leaders is ridiculous, and you know it. BlueCaliDem used the b-word as a slur against a woman, and we reacted. That some feminists employ the strategy of reclaiming that word among themselves is really irrelevant, because that wasn't what BlueCaliDem did. That should be clear - "That image is disgusting. But that's maybe because I'm not a rich, White, privileged socialite b***h." How anyone can think that the slur was used in a reclaimed fashion, i.e., used by an oppressed group among themselves to turn it into something positive, is beyond me.
Whether oppressed groups should reclaim such slurs is a different discussion - and one that feminists and other groups may disagree on...because no oppressed group is monolithical. Both Martin Luther King, jr. and Malcom X were opponents of racism, even if they disagreed on how to combat it. Malcolm X may have thought that MLK, jr was duped by whites when he advocated non-violence, but that doesn't make either of them less relevant as leaders of the Civil Rights Movement.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)resentment against african americans that it's widely judged not okay to say n*****- but AAs can?
resentment against women that's it's not okay to say b***h or c**t, but women can? yes, I think that's the point SS was trying to make. He hasn't figured out basic decent human behavior, and needs to find a loophole or claim this hobbles *poor misunderstood* white people or men.
Yes! These IS a list of words you shouldn't use here, it's a moderated site w/ standards. There is a wide wide gulf between this purity test bullshit and communicating without expressing bias and hatred towards others. It is not so hard as people here *constantly* pretend it is.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)are you really going to pretend you do not know this?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)So using the word is fine with you, by anyone, as long as it is not used in a derogatory manner? But who defines if it is used in a 'bad' manner?
So this is OK (note, not using the title as someone would use that to alert - also, used a URL shorten-er since the offending word was in the URL and could also trigger an alert by someone offended by seeing it):
http://bit.ly/1jAkhFh
But this would be?
http://bit.ly/1hM7lvp
This entire website:
http://bit.ly/1eT4b6o
A couple more:
http://bit.ly/1f75fpk
http://bit.ly/1g0ZoVC
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)do you need explained AGAIN? I'm not sure why you keep stumbling over this concept. It was explained clearly to you yesterday.
why you are so desperate for permission to call people "n******s and b***hes"?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Not about what I want to call people, but nice attempt at a smear (guess smears are ok in your book).
Some folks think the use of the word by men, at all, is wrong - but not by women. Yet women and men should be equal. There is a divide that some want kept in place while saying they are trying to tear down divides between them.
It is further broken down by some women seeing themselves as different than others (cohorts vs non-cohorts) which gives them a higher plateau to stand on and claim the 'right' to use a word and that anyone else using it hates women. When we discuss black people and the n word it is not about a sub group but the entire group folks are speaking of - yet with some women there is a divide as to who is more qualified and allowed to use a word without being called something bad because of it's use (ie, "I know the proper use of it, you don't, so I can use it with impunity and you cannot" .
It is a way to further separate and isolate a group from others - claiming one group is more enlightened than another and those who don't buy into their beliefs/ideals are 'sinners'.
As far as the n word goes it is used a lot where I live by both black and white people (like, 'yo, what's up N?') which actually goes to a sub group here (poor whites and blacks living together) where people outside the group would be seen as using it in the negative if they said the same thing (it would also been seen as negative by some word nannies who think they can define for others who can use what word when and whether the use is offensive to others. An attempt to define for another group what they should think about a word).
The word does not 'belong' to one sole group who gets to decide what is meant by it's use. One can use it and not hate women/blacks or feel any different about that group because it was used. In my example groups co-mingle because it is not about race but about commonality between the groups. In the case of the b word the desire, by some, is not commonality between people but creating a separate space that others cannot be part of if they don't have the right body parts to match.
This is not really about the n or the b word at all, but about how groups treat each other and communication and trying to tell others who and what they are based on the use of word (condemning others for not being pure enough to use a word that they themselves believe they can use).
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)maybe not you personally, but from the above it is clear, you think African Americans here have no standing to complain over the use of the word "n****r", nor do women over "b***h". None- because that would make them "superior" to white men. = Poor white men not able to slur others as freely as they want.
THAT is what you are advocating for. "Poor white men not able to slur others as freely as they want." is your argument above distilled into something concise and coherent.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Americans" (when not used by a slur). And you have a problem with that- interesting.
So you argue if we complain about the KKK using that word, African Americans are claiming to be "more enlightened" and THEY are the group engaging in separatist behavior? Not the KKK? Really now?
African Americans are choosing to isolate themselves by standing up to abusive language? That is some Tea Baggin bullshit, right there. Thanks for being clearer about your position.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)So you want to base such things on what you can see of their skin color? Nothing at all to do with the culture, where someone grew up, etc and so on - you want to base things on a person's race.
Interesting that skin color has such meaning to you. What do you see when you see a black person? What do you think when men see women (that we want to have sex with them, are undressing them with our eyes, etc?)
You see to want to apply templates to people based on sex and race as though those are the sole definers of who they are, and if they don't fit they are 'cohorts' or 'traitors' to their gender/race. YOU and a few others want to define who can use what when based on gender and race because that is what you see when you look at someone.
Not everyone grew up like one might see in some book they read. A person is more than the total of their color or gender, they have experiences which transcend your classifications of them and the box you try to fit them in.
So no - I don't want to judge who can use a word based on skin color or gender. I don't think I don't belong in certain groups or they don't belong in mine as we have many shared experiences and how we choose to communicate should not be left up to some person on the internet or some other person considering themselves an expert on our lives.
We have much more civil discourse in real life than here since we aren't telling people they are bad for talking to each other how they all accept. Come on over to my hood and stand in the store here and tell people how they are wrong and they should only say what you approve of. It would be interesting. They would look at you like you were from a foreign planet.
You know who folks don't want using certain language - keyboard commandos and folks in ivory towers who feel they can preach to the unwashed masses and try to 'civilize' them by removing their 'savagery'. You know, the folks who tried to educate and transform the Indians and others. The folks who think the real world is some university text and everyone is divided up by experience in the world by race/gender and that people that don't look a certain way can't understand - except themselves of course, they understand.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)except many of us are human beings, and we can and will judge you for the way you speak of, and to, others.
you don't have to like it.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I find your attempts at controlling the language of others interesting, especially when you are basing the person based on the color of their skin.
Seems it is easy to judge others - from what they open, to how they look, to words they are not allowed to say (if they do say them they are racist). Racism and misogyny - when that is all you attempt to read into things from people that is all you will see.
Keep trying to convince us that everyone on du is misogynistic, it really helps When you see the 'terrorists' everywhere you end up with things like homeland security/tsa/etc where everyone is a suspect and that bottle of 'water' they have is probably a bomb (and if not, then the fact they are even carrying one indicates that maybe they think like a terrorist).
Speak a word with friends? Racist. Look at the woman who walked into your office and think she is pretty? Sexist and you want to have sex with her. Hit you finger with a hammer and say son-of-a-word that freaks out people? Misogynist which means you hate all women. You prefer women over men and marry a woman and have sex/kids with her? Sexist because you don't do the same thing with men?
Everyone sucks but the chosen few.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and that is EXACTLY what you are claiming on this thread.
You are posting nonsense. You know one person (me or anyone) is not the judge. Society does judge this behavior. No one is controlling anyone- that is libertarian bullshit.
And your last three paragraphs are over the top BS all about your perceived victimhood. Boo fucking hoo. You still don't get a pass using racial slurs at DU (and not because of me- but because the group rejects your ideas on the matter) and most of us prefer it that way. Take it up with Skinner if you feel this is an huge infringement of your freedumb.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)when one cannot discuss they retreat.
But hey, your side is winning:
N-word use lands Poulsbo Elementary principal on leave
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024380296
People will fear speaking because a few progressive folks will make sure their speech is curtailed or punished, all in the name of freedom and diversity. What next, can't look at women or open doors for them? Oh wait.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)that people who complain about slurs being hurled at them are at fault for being divisive. Not the people who hurl the abuse. You said that outright, and it's a popular opinion- among good old boys and tea bagging idiot racists.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine there are many sub-literate idiots who believe that feminism is simply one, and only one, monolithic block of demographics, and expect all members of that very broad demographic to agree with any and all other members.
Not that you would ever imply such an invalid and lack-of-thought-out position, demanding consistency from an inconsistent world.
I also imagine those same sub-literate idiots have a difficult time believing how incredibly transparent their disingenuous and insincere lines of questions actually are...
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)so true I selectively pulled some of your text "incredibly transparent their disingenuous and insincere lines of questions" into my response without crediting you, because that shoe fit so well.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It has nothing at all to do with calling the woman in the photograph what the poster called. Good old grumpy, always ready to come in and stir shit.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)pass to slur women and people of color freely. But Snoop says it too, said every racist teenager in the 90s.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)Reclaiming a slur means to use it positively instead of negatively. TO embrace a word tht has been used against you negatively for a long time. The act of reclaiming a slur is a very personal decision, and it doesn't unfortunately mean that all use of the word suddenly becomes positive everywhere.
This is a quick and easy way to describe what the courtesy rules when it comes to reclaiming slurs:
YES
-You can reclaim a slur that has been used against a minority group that you belong to.
-You can use that slur as a way to describe other people non-derogatorily if they are comfortable with that.
NO
-Reclaim a slur that has not been used against your minority group. If you do, youre not reclaiming it. Youre perpetuating its hateful usage.
-Call someone a slur that youve reclaimed without getting their consent first.
And obviously, don't use the slur against them in a derogatory fashion.
riqster
(13,986 posts)cinnabonbon
(860 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)And it started a lot of conversations about race, words, and intent.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)although they can be a pain to go through while they happen. Is there anything written about this band that you know of? I'd absolutely love to know more.
riqster
(13,986 posts)cinnabonbon
(860 posts)Thank you!
riqster
(13,986 posts)Sly and the Family Stone were an amazingly innovative band at their peak.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)about how words mean nothing. Hilarious.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Sissyk
(12,665 posts)Number 1,589.
This one won't end any differently. People yelling about the word, people still using the word, and juries still leaving the word.
Looks like we have to wait until Number 1,590 to see what the feel of DU is like then.
It would be interesting to see all these jury alerts to see what members think, wouldn't it?
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Well most people, anyway. There are always a few who refuse to evolve no matter what.
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)I've seen a couple of new members use it, but would change or delete upon request.
The problem with bitch, is not everybody (hell, not even a majority) agree that it is a sexist word. I don't. I use it IRL probably daily. I try not to here because this is what happens. A thread will get derailed and go off on the word wars, which takes away from the sexist and racist point of the OP.
I give you an A for your effort, though.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Just like you say the b word is now.
And guess what? People learned.
After being told over and over and over and over that it is an ableist slur.
Eventually this will happen with this slur, as well.
No matter how many people belittle the efforts to educate people about the FACT that it's a misogynist slur, and that it's unacceptable, it will continue until it -- like 'retarded', and 'gay', and many other offensive words -- is no longer thrown about with abandon as if it was perfectly harmless.
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)and it seems I am wrong. It's been used quite a bit over the past year. None hidden by jury. So, no. People didn't learn.
I wasn't belittling anyone's efforts, redqueen. If that word means so much to you, go for it. I respect someone standing for what they believe in. Other people should respect the opinions of the ones it doesn't bother.
However, we don't seem to be convincing many members one way or the other. Especially juries.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)It took a lot of arguing on the old DU to get people to agree it should be hidden.
And I'm sure it gets hidden still, though obviously not all the time.
But standards are falling in general, so... that is to be expected, I suppose.
Thanks for the civil exchange.
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)There's no reason people with different points of view can't discuss them and be civil.
And just FYI, I think this "art" is beyond racist and sexist; but, I hold the woman in the picture as responsible as I do the artist.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Absent some statement from her explaining how she was 'making a statement', or whatever other BS, I don't know how else it could be taken other than she's condoning it.
And yep, civil if spirited disagreement is the best kind
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)"It would be interesting to see all these jury alerts to see what members think, wouldn't it?"
Here's one that I was privy to:
On Tue Jan 21, 2014, 12:47 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
I am inclined to believe its meant to be
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4366940
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Misogynist slur.
JURY RESULTS
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jan 21, 2014, 12:52 PM, and the Jury voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No, shit-stirring would be more accurate.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I know it escaped hides elsewhere in the thread, but I vote to end the casual use of an offensive word against women. Asterisks don't help.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Really?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Isn't the slur in the post to which this DUer was responding?
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Sissyk
(12,665 posts)Interesting.
riqster
(13,986 posts)It is a misogynistic slur, and doesn't belong here.
My pennies.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)the word "twits" in your OP far more misogynistic and offensive. Just my two cents.
But I've changed the word in my original post. Perhaps you can do the same and asterisk "twits"?
riqster
(13,986 posts)http://m.dictionary.com/definition/twit?linkid=ibc5yn&srcpage=home&site=dictwap
Perhaps if I had spelled it with an "a", you'd have a point. But I didn't.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)When it's used predominantly or even exclusively against women, it becomes misogynistic, no matter what the original definition of the word is.
And even though it's directed against Sarah Palin, it's still offensive to me.
riqster
(13,986 posts)If you would like to refute that statement, please provide citations.
You know, like I just did to make my case.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)But I know you know it.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I assume by now you have discovered that you had the wrong word: how about a retraction?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But then again, I'm just dickin' around.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)That the word is sexist? Check a dictionary. It's definition is a female dog, therefore it seeks to insult women it's directed at as subhuman. How do we get through the day? We spend our time with educated, civilized people who don't get off on using sexist or racist slurs, making chairs out of African American women, burning crosses on lawns, or any of the other stuff some think so amusing. Yeah, the world really is becoming a horrible place when some women start to think they are actually human and should be treated as such.
1
: the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals
2
a : a lewd or immoral woman
b : a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bitch
redqueen
(115,103 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)So not everyone agrees with you that it was a "misogynist slur". It was clearly an apropos label for a woman who unapologetically sees that racist "chair" as "art", and despite the complaints, refuses to either apologize or address them.
I would advise people to grow a thicker skin. Or just grow up already. I've been called worse here and those posts were allowed to stand. By the way? I'm female and not the least bit "misogynist". But I give credit when it's due.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Just because misogynist slurs are so socially acceptable, that doesn't actually change reality, you know.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)A slur, yes. Misogynist? Hell no.
So let's agree to disagree since you're not going to change my mind and I don't have any inclination to change yours.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Along with all the people who think words like 'retarded' and 'gay' should be acceptable insults.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Are you trying to rewrite the dictionary to suit your language sensibilities? Aren't you concerned about becoming what you are fighting? Your complaint is as absurd as interpreting your SN as a homophobic slur.
Sometimes the use of the word "bitch" is totally appropriate and not only when referring to a female canine. That said, I'm the first to admit that sometimes I can be a real dick.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Oh, heavens no, they would never attempt to do that.
That would almost be like a list of "forbidden words", something no true progressive would ever even contemplate.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)your choice and your right. The word is by no means forbidden and used in it's proper historical context no one would argue.
You, of course, may use it how you see fit. Then when others come along and call it the slur it is -- You should not be surprised especially, given the fact that you are on a Democratic Message Board where enlightened, educated, self aware women post.
Get used to it.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)I am!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Maybe we'll end up with no words allowed. Now wouldn't that be a bitch. Then how could we discuss what dicks we are at times and how life can be such a bitch?
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Pretty much all of my posts that have ever been hidden were due to "forbidden words", even when trying to discuss the why of the word. So progressive. The other hidden posts were due to certain people making up things I never said and a jury didn't seem inclined to read the post. I live and learn.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Some words mean the opposite given the sentence .... the word "cleave" immediately leaps to mind. They are known as auto-antonyms. I find them interesting.
14 Words That Are Their Own Opposites
Overlook usually means the opposite: 'to fail to see or observe; to pass ... Cleave can be cleaved into two homographs, words with different origins
more at link:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/49834/14-words-are-their-own-opposites
BITCH: AN EXAMPLE OF SEMANTIC DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE
CharLes A. Colllns
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
at link:
http://soar.wichita.edu/bitstream/handle/10057/1784/LAJ_16.1_p69-86..pdf?sequence=1
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The second was a tad long, but very interesting, especially as it is already out of date by about 30 years. So much has evolved semantically since then.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)somewhere you can use all sorts of slurs against women, african americans, LBGT and jews? that seems to be where you aspire to hang, and this is not it, buddy. Not yet anyway.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)send a DUmail to a man politely asking them to kindly remove the offensive porny response/OP they had posted.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)that is just bizarre.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)YMMV.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Did you just call me buddy? I consider that an offensive slur against men. Please delete.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)chum, friend, compadre. But continue on about how you can use slurs freely and no one should question this.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)When you say that word you compare women to animals because you don't agree with them. It's not a good thing to do. Certainly not when people that are your side are saying that it offends them. Perhaps it makes them wonder if you'd use that slur against them the next time you argue.
Calling a dude a dick doesn't have the same power, because you don't make him vulnerable by saying so. Calling a woman a bitch is demonstrating that you want "her to know her place". That is, below you. Like an animal. That is why it's offensive.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)....SO glad everyone is on the same page about that.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4120434
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4325366
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)Feminists are not a hivemind. But I don't believe it's a good thing to use loaded words that negatively effects minorities. They are already vulnerable, they don't need to be reminded of it all the time.
But you bring up an interesting question! What is the difference in calling someone a dog and calling someone a female dog?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sadly, there are those -not you, of course who seem to feel this sort of thing is okay. And then there is the silence of those who ought to know better, but can't seem to be bothered to call this sort of thing out, because.. I dunno, some bullshit about "sides", if I had to guess.
Frankly, it's despicable that those kinds of personal attacks have been tolerated on this board, if you ask me.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)wasn't acceptable here. It would make DU more welcoming to everyone, and in the end, we are here because we are on the same side. It would be nice to feel like you posted on a board filled with allies, you know?
As for slurs and such, it's remarkable what an apology can do. I wish more people dared to write some.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)As for the point about specific uses of words and language (as distinguished against personal direct attacks against fellow members of this site, even the "bad" ones about whom some think it's okay to attack) --- particularly the "b" word --- I will say this; it's not exactly a new question, on DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1354644
one_voice
(20,043 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)(Speaking of "Doubling Down"
But, it's not about YOU.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)"like a dog"
Literary device commonly used to make a point.
Simile/Metaphor/Analogy.
to seek approval/validation/confirmation from men.
The person did this and described her 7 y/o daughter as "raised" .... past tense.
Seven years old.
raised.
I am done.
Keep it up with your trollish behavior.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That, and maybe a self-delete. I'm sure you know how to do that.
polly7
(20,582 posts)134. I knew you would. and Truly -- you are most welcome.
You deserve it.
that you can continue to laugh at simple old jokes and enjoy being petted by these men.
sort of like their old pet dog, reminds me.
the picture I have of you in my mind when I see you posting.
a good old hunting dog. loyal. pet. pet. good doggie. here let me throw you another morsel ...
lord. You crack me up.
haha. Hilarious. truly LMAO over her.
You didn't.
After that post, I've had a picture in my mind when I see you posting.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)Quite odd, as it was almost 8 months ago and I just briefly skimmed it and didn't see the word raised. Notice the amount of self-deletes.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11148025
polly7
(20,582 posts)I remember seeing it and thinking what a little character your daughter must be! How they see themselves fitting into the world as adults is pretty darn cute, and I hope you didn't let some of those replies bother you at all, because from the amount of self-deletes, even they weren't so proud of what they'd said.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)Today when I was getting her ready for school she said "Mom, you have one of the hardest jobs in the world with all the stuff you do".
Gave her a huge hug and said "Thanks and I love you"....must be doing something right in "raising" her.
Thanks Polly.
polly7
(20,582 posts)obviously you're doing it right! That objection to the 'raising' thing I still don't get, but whatever.
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)We are still "raising" her and she just brought home her report card a few weeks ago and got all A's along with a comment "works well with others".
Oh, the irony!
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Just like when you said a female DUer was like a dog and you think there's nothing to apologise for, logic dictates that it'd be okay to tell other DUers they're 'like a bitch'. Right? And if you think Warren's acting like a troll because he pointed out something you'd said that many DUers find unacceptable, doesn't that same troll factor apply to the posts in this thread complaining about what other people have posted? Because otherwise I'm sensing some double standards and a need for a good dose of practice what you preach...
Just a general aside not aimed at anyone, but after reading this thread, there must be a few keyboards where that asterisk key is worn down totally. Asterisks are every bit as annoying as the music censorship I heard on the radio this afternoon when half of this song was fuzzied out and ended up sounding disjointed and stupid. Lily Allen doesn't deserve that!
RiffRandell
(5,909 posts)FYI, Sirius doesn't censor songs.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I don't usually listen to commercial radio, but my daughter had been in my car before and I was too lazy to switch it back to my hard drive full of amazingly cool 90's music
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)When I call someone a bitch, which I rarely do, I am using the word in the context of contemporary usage. Some folk need to update their internal dictionaries to reflect the times we live in. Semantics are very fluid. The word "bitch" has many meanings in present day usage, the least of which is its literal meaning, nor the meaning you ascribe to it, which in the context of the interpretation made in Post #1, is absurd.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)in case you argued out of ignorance instead of malice.
There are people that reclaim their slurs to make them positive (see Bitch magazine up there) but the thing is that if you reclaim it to be positive, you shouldn't use it as an insult as well. It defeats the purpose of reclaiming it if you do. Using words in the contemporary way doesn't prevent anyone from knowing where the words come from, and the power they still have over people.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)For example, introducing one's wife or girlfriend as one's bitch, is extremely degrading and inappropriate.
However, telling one's wife that she is being a bitch, in a certain moment, is neither degrading nor sexist.
Qualifiers can change the whole dynamic. Calling someone a "mean bitch" may de either insulting or complimentary, but not sexist.
Calling a woman "one tough bitch" is usually meant as a compliment and is not sexist.
Then we have the SOB. Is it sexist to use that expression? I think not.
Maybe I have a different perspective on this. I grew up in the UK, where words like "twat" and "cunt" are commonly used to describe members of both sexes, but do not have the same sexist stigma associated with them as in N. America. They are merely alternatives to arsehole, wanker and bugger, all of which could be interpreted as being either sexist or homophobic, but they are not.
The important thing is always intent. If one misinterprets the intent, is it the fault of the speaker or the listener? I agree that one should always be aware of the appropriateness of certain words with respect to time and place. I never use the words I exampled in the paragraph above, but I am not offended when I hear them used by Brits.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)An insult in which the target isn't the man it's directed toward, but his mother?
Really?
You're asking people in this thread to explain a lot of stuff which is well covered here:
http://www.shakesville.com/2007/11/on-bitch-and-other-misogynist-language.html?m=1
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)SOB may have meant that a few decades ago, but certainly doesn't anymore. No more than it means son of a dog. You seem to be living in a byegone era. And I thought I was old.
How about "motherfucker"? Is that sexist too? Do you really think these words are used literally? Because, if you do, then we have a whole shitload of words need scrapping before you'll be satisfied.
I suggest you look up the etymology and history of the word bitch. It really is fascinating. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Tuesday Afternoon posted a couple of bitchin' links upthread.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)An insult in which the target isn't the man it's directed toward, but his mother?
That explains a great deal about the way you see things. You really are so fixated on sexism issues you can't see the true target of an insult.
I kinda knew that, but that was an excellent illustration.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)is sexist about calling someone a son? I wouldn't say that the word son is loaded with negativity.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... just the opposite, actually. I'm not the one that saw sexism.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)I see the sexism in the term, too. It might be different for people who are affected by the slur part of the term, you know. I wouldn't call him that in front of his mother, because she would know what I was saying.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... whether the term was an insult or praise, it was about identifying the target.
You also seem to have the common affliction of not being able to see the point of a post without it being filtered through a certain lens.
I also find that most post titles that start with "So you think ....?" turn out to not be what I thought. A lot of that comes from projection, not reading comprehension.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)would you call a guy that term in front of his mother? I mean, in the purpose of identifying the target.
Or would that be insulting both to him and her?
And for that matter, let's talk about more than just the target. Let's ask whose nature is being pulled into question in this term. Is it his? Or is there something about his mother's (negative) nature that is supposed to have been passed down to him?
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)I wouldn't call anyone that term in front of anybody. I don't do that. If I address someone there is no question as to whom I am addressing.
Moot point in my case, since I wouldn't do it.
No, let's not talk more about it. The point of my post was how revealing comments can be in gaining insight into the way people think. I do not care to discuss the term, or the thought process in interpreting it.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)I don't want anyone to actually go around and insult people! So don't worry about that.
But nevertheless, it is a good thought exercise when considering the way words mean different things to different people. You don't have to be afraid, this wasn't some kind of "aha!" trap I laid out in front of you. I simply enjoy breaking words apart and revealing their meanings and roots. They are very interesting to me. And if I learn to avoid terms that are hurtful to my allies on the democratic side, I don't see the harm in that.
It's a shame you're not interested in seeing how words have power over people. But I guess that's something that happens as you age. It stops being fun going outside your comfort zone. Don't worry, it's not for everyone!
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 22, 2014, 02:38 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't really mind what you tell your wife, because that is in private and none of my business. But the internet is far from private. In fact, I would look at it as talking very loudly in a mixed company. That's why I avoid slurs in general. There are plenty of insults available for me to voice my displeasure, without putting down a whole group at the same time. That is what happens when a gendered insult is used, for example. Technically speaking, one is equating that being female is negative enough that you might as well use it as an insult. The female people in the 'room' takes notice.
Calling another woman a "mean b*tch" is an example on reclaiming a slur. In most reclaiming 'groups', it's generally the group that is being targeted by the slur that gets to use it. Everyone else that uses it gets the stink-eye because it's still considered an insult in most places. I'm sure you've seen how some white folks try to use the n-word to look cool and end up looking the opposite.
See, this is where I think things get interesting. Here we meet on a message board for international users, so that means that everyone you meet has had a different upbringing and experience when it comes to different insults. And when it comes to slurs, they haven't become normalized in the same way they have in the UK. (Although linguistically, I find it so interesting that there's hardly any male-specific insults that are not homophobic. Tw*t, c*nt, *b*tch... all of them are pointed towards female genitalia. Wanker is gender neutral, because both genders engage in masturbation. I wonder why only those are the ones that are socially acceptable?)
Intent is a wonderful thing, but this is the internet. We are nothing but words to everyone we meet. They can't judge our tone of voice or our facial expression to see if we are hateful or not, so we cannot blame the listener for our own inability to be clear with our words. Our persona is shaped on the foundation of our words here. No one knows whether your intentions are good or bad, they only hear the slur that is used against them, and if it hurts them they will not care if your intentions were good or not. That is why it's so important to think about the way we use our words, because people will judge people who frequently use misogynistic language to have a tendency towards misogyny. And that would be a shame! Same with all the other minorities. If someone use homophobic language, gay people might not feel like talking to them anymore. Even worse, they might think that a republican snuck into DU unannounced!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Very refreshing to have a constructive conversation around here, especially on this subject. I tend to agree with much of what you say.
It is true that many insults are pointed towards female genitalia, though bitch is not one of them.
I should also point out that wanker tends to be used almost exclusively toward males. I can't remember ever hearing it used against a female. But that may be because masturbation carries no negative connotation. In fact, it tends to reflect female empowerment.
Whereas, the terms "dick", "prick", "jerk" and jerk-off", refer almost exclusively to males and male genitalia and all have negative connotations.
A couple of other thoughts. Women are definitely victimized more than men and bear the brunt of sexist remarks. Thankfully, they are not a minority, except in China and India, maybe.
Neither are white people a minority, yet they are still potential targets of racism. Objections to racist remarks are not exclusive to minorities, yet nobody complained about the use of "white" in post #1, which could definitely be construed as a racist slur. Then there was the use of the word "rich", which is definitely a classist slur. I'm not personally objecting to the use of any of those slurs in this instance, because they were not addressed to an individual, but rather to an artisitic representation. The poster used the slurs to describe the image and that comes with a degree of poetic license.
I agree that misogyny should be confronted, as should homophobia and all forms of sexual discrimination. But I'm not sure there was any of that in post #1
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)I appreciate that. I am on my way out the door right now, so I'll just add a little pointer here, because I notice a misunderstanding. When we talk about minorities in this case, we're not basing on on numbers. We're talking about groups having little power or representation relative to other groups within a society. "The majority rules", after all, and in the UK and the rest of the west that's historically been mostly white men. So it's not math-based majority, it's power-based majority, if that makes any sense.
Interesting point about wankers, because I looked at it and figured it wasn't gendered. The more you know, I guess! Maybe it's one of those words you have to hear in the UK in order to 'get' it.
When we talk about racism in the west, we are usually referring to the white supremacy structure in western society that people of colour have to deal with. I know it's harsh to put it like that, but that's how it is. The West was structured around furthering white people's interest and protect the white people living in that country. It was perfectly logical to do that at the time because they needed imperialism to be accepted by society so they could go pillage foreign countries. But as the countries matured, the people simply internalized the messages about race and then thought that their biases were natural.
The same power structure doesn't work against white people in the same way it works against POC, so you might be met with confused looks if you say that whites experience racism. There is no structural, racist society that puts whites at the same disadvantage. Our politicians are turning our countries into police states against our will and that vulnerably, yucky feeling is certainly similar to feeling powerless! But feeling powerless isn't the same thing as being oppressed.
As you know, sexism and racism and all those isms hurt badly because the damage is being done by someone in power. They are striking down at a group of people who are already vulnerable in society, and using their skin/disability/gender/gender expression/sexuality against them). That's why I think it's so important to listen to oppressed people when they talk about the things that bothers them, because they know their oppression best. It can be uncomfortable to confront it in the beginning, though! Just a warning. It's perfectly normal to feel a little defensive.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have a bunch of things I need to be doing, too, besides sitting at a computer.
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)See you in another thread, then.
get the red out
(13,466 posts)Agree
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)words have meaning. You can pretend a word means anything you want, but that doesn't make it so. A "btch" refers to a female dog, as less than human. There is no disagreement. There is knowledge or ignorance of the English language. People can pretend to "agree to disagree" about climate change too. It doesn't mean both positions are valid. One is based on fact and the other isn't.
1
: the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals
2
a : a lewd or immoral woman
b : a malicious, spiteful, or overbearing woman sometimes used as a generalized term of abuse
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bitch
athena
(4,187 posts)FWIW, I find the slur offensive as well. A jury decision to leave the post as it is does not mean the post is not offensive. With only six jurors, the results of any alert will inevitably be subject to large statistical fluctuations.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)perhaps it was because the poster used * because they KNEW it was a crappy thing thing to say on a progressive board.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)But being a woman allows me the advantage of a female's insight men don't have, and I've learned not to find the word offensive. In fact, I wear it like a badge of honor. It helps me when I'm up against macho-men who believe women should never speak above a whisper.
However, the label "twit" is something I will NOT tolerate. And guess what? It's in the OP. I haven't read a single post in this thread that's decried that blatantly misogynistic word. Have you?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)twit
noun \ˈtwit\
: a stupid or foolish person
Full Definition of TWIT
1
: an act of twitting : taunt
2
: a silly annoying person : fool
See twit defined for English-language learners »
Examples of TWIT
Only a complete twit would insult his hosts.
more at link:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twit
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)I can only imagine the word being confused with another that is only one letter off.
Otherwise, I'm completely fucking baffled as to the posters comments about "twit".
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Reading Comprehension and Clear Concise Writing are So Important on a Message Board
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)did I really just have to explain that? this is a progressive board, and it has standards. Slurs are not supposed to pass, but some juries play it just as stupid as some posters do.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)When's the last time you heard or read someone call a man a twit?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/07/mitt-the-twit-in-london.html
Is that recent enough for you?
Fun with etymology:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=twit
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I do consider myself a feminist. And I believe that 'bit**' has become genderless.
I don't think of it the same way as I think of 's*ut' and the 'c' word.
I will call men, women, the can opener when it's not working the 'b' word. Same with 'd*ck' I call men and women that.
Feminist are not monolithic and can have different opinions about words, feelings, etc.
I work in the community with women of domestic violence as well as rape. I helped my neighbor get away from her abusive husband.
Women's issues are very important to me. I have a daughter, sister, and mother--who was a victim of domestic violence. She was shot in front of me when I was little.
I differ with some feminists on the 'b' word. I think that's ok.
edited to add: I have to go shovel snow...this isn't a post and run. I will check back when I'm done.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)Some feminists have tried to reclaim the word and worn it "like a badge of honor." That doesn't mean it's no longer offensive to use the word in its original, misogynistic, form, which is what you did.
Someone who wears the word "like a badge of honor" does not turn around and use it against other women. What you posted was misogynistic, in a very traditional way. It blamed the woman in the picture. It represented her as the bad person, letting the publisher, the photographer, and the maker of the chair completely off the hook.
BTW, as others have pointed out "twit" is not a gendered word. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, it means "a silly or foolish person" and may have been derived from the Old English word "aetwitan", which means "reproach with."
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)but have started to distance myself from that label, the more I see the unfathomable piling on by the uber-feminists. Sorry you felt the need to add more asterisks, or even the first asterisk, for that matter, but I respect your decision. Bitch is not some dirty word. You are being bullied, but I give you credit for standing up to the onslaught. You should wear it like a "badge of honor", whether you're standing up to some asshole macho guy, or defending yourself against a gang of misguided feminists, whose extremism does them no favors.
Tough bitches rule!
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Even if you think it's ok FOE WOMEN to 'reclaim' this slur, you're not one, are you? So why are you flinging it around as if it's perfectly acceptable, especially after your other posts in this thread?
But yeah, of course you consider yourself a feminist. Of course you do.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Are straight people not allowed to fight for gay rights? Are atheists not allowed to support the freedom of religion? Because I am all three.
I believe in fighting the battles worth fighting and not getting bogged down with petty bullshit that only serves to divide.
You don't get to tell others what words they are allowed to use. Sorry. Care more about what's in their hearts and minds and we might be able to make some progress.
I'm sure you consider yourself a feminist, but maybe you don't realize that the extremism you're displaying here, is a big turn-off to many who have fought for equality for women and minorities.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Or did they just use what you consider to be a naughty word? And you understood it to be a slur. The context in which it was used in Post #1 could never be construed as being sexist.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)It would be beneficial if you stop nitpicking words you don't like, and instead read posts in the context of the OP.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)sometimes people use * because they do not want to spell out offensive slurs when discussing them- you did it because you wanted to hurl a slur and not get a hide for it- and still call the woman a b*tch. see the difference? I am discussing it, you are hurling slurs.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)It's a real shame you don't believe I have that same right.
And for the record, I wasn't "slurring women". Your generalization is outright hyperbole and your accusation is false.
The "art" in that picture is offensive. The fact that the "artist" has said nothing despite the deluge of complaints against the sexist, racist, degrading-to-black-woman p.o.s. "art" on MLK Day, is offensive, and the fact that the editors haven't even apologized or disavowed it is offensive - and misogynistic.
As of the writing of this post, I have yet to see a post here of yours decrying it. All you seem to be able to focus on is an asterisked word you don't approve of in a post of someone criticizing it.
But I'll revise the word for the extreme sensitive on this board.
So there. I've discussed it. You won. Happy now?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)is generally considered unacceptable, because of where we are. no one would have to explain this if it was racial or anti-Semitic, but if it's sexist some like to play stupid. Let's not do that.
Thank you for removing it. FWIW, asshole works well when you want to insult someone without coming off as sexist.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)then you must be wholly offended with the word "twits" in the OP. Have you asked the OP to change it?
"Twits" is far more offensive and misogynistic than B***H even when criticizing Sarah Palin.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)making it, through popular use, misogynistic. And you know it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)sexist slur, because I am turning up NOTHING.
riqster
(13,986 posts)"You keep on using this word... I do not think it means what you think it means". (I. Montoya)
I provided links upthread to make it easier for you.
Throd
(7,208 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)with three of the same letters but a different vowel.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)in this post.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=114066
Note the poster, and the term used....
morningfog
(18,115 posts)You're high fiving because your alert went to a misogynist jury that upheld it. You lucked out, but I don't see it as anything to be proud of.
Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #1)
Post removed
Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #1)
Hutzpa This message was self-deleted by its author.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)11:02 AM
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Tue Jan 21, 2014, 10:52 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
That image is disgusting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4366316
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling a woman a bitch, because we do not like her, is still sexist. This poster exactly proves the point we still live in a sexist world. Is this photo disgusting? You betcha. The comment is sexist.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jan 21, 2014, 11:02 AM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bullshit alert. alerter needs to lighten up.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Using a sexist term in this context is quite acceptable, and relatively mild considering the message behind the image.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Also racist!
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Sigh !
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't understand the alert, which seems to be in full agreement with the OP.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And/or misogynists.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Beyond disgusting.
What the hell is wrong with people?
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)The full truth is they want a real African American under that chair. Don't bother to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's not "art." This is "in your face", full on racism.
cali
(114,904 posts)We really, really don't need it posted again.
Delete it.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Frankly, I would prefer not to have seen it. But I think it may be more productive in the long run for such disgusting racism to be exposed and discussed rather than swept under the carpet.
cali
(114,904 posts)for it to be posted repeatedly.
Hopefully no one else will post this.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)for those who did not want to view it again.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Ignore lists lead to dupes
redqueen
(115,103 posts)If depicted in porn, abhorrent and even illegal actions (rape, abuse, torture, racism, misogyny, etc.) are widely accepted by most liberals.
So I'm kinda surprised at all the outrage.
If there was a guy masturbating over the chair, you couldn't post it here, but people would defend it.
I wonder why that is. (Not really.)
athena
(4,187 posts)that if the chair depicted a white woman, it would be considered far less offensive.
I can imagine lots of men here defending it, along with a few women posting that it can't possibly be sexist, since they are not offended by it. (Because we all know that no woman can possibly be sexist. )
It's good that we can all agree that racist imagery is unacceptable, but it's sad that most people are still OK with images showing women being degraded and objectified.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I wish someone would post a pic of the white version. I'm curious to see the reaction to it.
And yes, its cute how often the 'this woman likes it so its fine!' bullshit is peddled.
athena
(4,187 posts)I have to thank seaglass, who posted that the chair was a re-creation of original work by Allen Jones.
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)But you knew that.
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)your exposure to porn must be extremely limited.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Or is that those with the most exposure are also the most "against it" (Utah), you know, after they're finished.....
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)I guess that white female sitting on the "chair" is being oppressed somehow.
athena
(4,187 posts)Don't you think that the fact that the chair depicts a woman is significant? How often do you see men depicted in such positions in advertising, compared to women?
ETA: You might want to take a look at the following.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024346693
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125534930
mainer
(12,022 posts)This horrid image is throwing in our faces the fact that this is indeed a racist, sexist world?
Artists often create disturbing, awful images to depict the ills of society. Do we really think that Francisco Goya, in his disturbing painting of wartime execution, was actually advocating firing squads?
I don't know the story behind this image, but taken out of context, it's impossible to know the intent of the photograph.
riqster
(13,986 posts)When called on it, they did not articulate a case such as you describe. They cropped the image to show only the boots, and made no other comment.
mainer
(12,022 posts)Ms Zhukova's publicist blasted the use of the image on MLK day and said her client has a strong record of promoting diversity. She said it was 'regrettable' that the image of the chair by Norwegian artist Bjarne Melgaard had been used on such a sensitive day by the blog, and pointed out that such a use took the work completely out of context.
Ms Zhukova herself added: 'This photograph, which has been published completely out of context, is of an art work intended specifically as a commentary on gender and racial politics."
Throd
(7,208 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)and the controversy that caused!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
riqster
(13,986 posts)And for my money, that's not a apology. It's an attempt at an explanation, and an incomplete one at that.
Could you provide a link to the statement you referenced?
mainer
(12,022 posts)I just followed the links backward from the OP
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543069/Abramovichs-girlfriend-fire-picture-posing-chair-half-naked-black-woman-appears-Russian-fashion-blog-MLK-day.html
Added to the article after I posted.
polly7
(20,582 posts)out of context. Thanks for posting her remark. Always good to have the full story.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)is called forniphilia
from wiki:
Human furniture (or forniphilia) is a form of bondage and sexual objectification in which a person's body is incorporated into a chair, table, cabinet or other piece of furniture.
So now it's racist sexual objectification.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)Learn something new every day.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)learned this today...hopefully something equally as useless
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)And provoked thought, so I guess that's a good thing!
mainer
(12,022 posts)It enraged, engaged, and made us all talk about racism. Which I suspect was the artist's point.
I am an art lover and try to take in as much modern art as I can. I am frequently shocked by what I see, but I understand that artists often have political points to make, and I am open-minded enough to accept that what we see in their creations, and what the artist actually intended, may be diametrically opposed.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)then the next level taking it farther is the photo which is also a work of art and adds another layer/dimension to the statement being made.
athena
(4,187 posts)Can an artist not be sexist and racist? Can an artist not popularize sexist and racist notions through his/her art? Moreover, when does something stop being art? As seabeyond pointed out, the original version of the work was by Allen Jones. He was attacked by feminists for being a misogynist, but eventually, society accepted his work as "art". At the same time, society became more accepting of the objectification and dehumanization of women. Now, we have advertising everywhere that depicts women as furniture. I strongly suggest that you watch this video:
and look at this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024346693
mainer
(12,022 posts)If the artist intended to say "blacks are bitches you can subjugate", that's quite different from saying "this is how black women are treated in society."
All I know about the artist is that he's Norwegian. I can't speak to his intent, but I'm open to the possibility his intent was to protest racism.
athena
(4,187 posts)I take it you didn't watch the video. That's why you didn't get the point that this "art" you defend has led to societal attitudes that hurt women today.
Or perhaps you did get it but don't think it matters. After all, it's just women, eh? When you put millions of women on one side of the scale, and the male "artist" on the other, some people would rather deify the male "artist" than recognize the suffering he has caused countless women.
mainer
(12,022 posts)I am also in the arts. I hardly want to put "women" in their place with my art.
athena
(4,187 posts)Being female doesn't make a person non-sexist by definiton. Just as being non-white doesn't make her non-racist. DU has a large number of proudly misogynistic women.
Saying "but I'm a woman" is no more convincing an argument in a discussion of sexism than is saying "but I have many black friends" in a discussion of racism.
mainer
(12,022 posts)I just wanted to point out that as an artist, I try to understand art from the artist's perspective. Whatever his/her race.
and btw, not cool calling me a sexist and a racist just because I don't agree with you. I consider this a dialogue, not a forum for name-calling.
athena
(4,187 posts)I did not call you a sexist and a racist.
And I'm sorry, but I don't buy that you're a non-white female.
mainer
(12,022 posts)but the female I see looking back in the mirror is definitely not white.
Wow, now you're even into denying the basic identity of another DUer. That is definitely not cool.
athena
(4,187 posts)then you're very uninformed about sexism. If you were not uninformed, you would have realized that "I'm a non-white female" was not a valid response to my post. Being a non-white female does not make you non-sexist and non-racist by definition. Moreover, the sentence "Being a non-white female does not make you non-sexist and non-racist by definition" is not the same as accusing you of being sexist and racist. Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.
mainer
(12,022 posts)As soon as someone says "you need to work on your reading comprehension" I know the conversation has deteriorated into "I know you are, but what am I?"
As much as you'd like to disguise it as a double negative "Does not make you nonsexist and non-racist" is indeed an accusation of both sexism and racism.
athena
(4,187 posts)Black is white. Pointing out that "But I'm a non-white woman" is not proof that something is non-sexist and non-racist is the same as accusing the speaker of racism and sexism. Using passive-aggressive methods is a perfectly effective way to achieve civil discourse. Sure.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)But not unexpected from this crowd.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)It's sad, but I used to have a lot more sympathy and respect for feminists and feminist issues before some here decided they needed to "educate" me.
Also not cool to dodge questions, make up false accusations, and project their prejudices onto others, but I have seen that here also.
polly7
(20,582 posts)help to disparage other women, simply because they don't bow to authoritarian black and white thinking. There's nothing 'proudly misogynistic' about having a voice of one's own, and that's a pretty hateful way to judge people who you know absolutely nothing about.
athena
(4,187 posts)FWIW, I was not. I have been attacked by a feminist here and agree with you that feminists shouldn't attack each other.
I don't appreciate you attacking me personally, when I have never attacked you or any other feminist (except when said feminist was attacking me).
ETA: You can see examples of "proudly misogynistic" women who post about how they're not feminists further up the thread.
polly7
(20,582 posts)You weren't attacked (or called anything at all), I commented on your 'proudly misogynistic' comment about other DU women and how that kind of judgement is basically, a bullshit presumption based on absolutely nothing but possibly a few words on a message board. If you have some verifiable links that prove what you're saying about other women here, maybe you should post them.
athena
(4,187 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)40. Never said I was a feminist.
But being a woman allows me the advantage of a female's insight men don't have, and I've learned not to find the word offensive. In fact, I wear it like a badge of honor. It helps me when I'm up against macho-men who believe women should never speak above a whisper.
However, the label "twit" is something I will NOT tolerate. And guess what? It's in the OP. I haven't read a single post in this thread that's decried that blatantly misogynistic word. Have you?
I think you're going to have to try harder.
She seems to have a problem with men who don't believe a woman should speak up, and feels free to claim a word as empowering.
I'm so glad you're not around my friends and myself when we're together, I don't use the word, but have no problem accepting that it is seen by some women as being powerful and taking no *. If that's the way they interpret it when using it for one another, who am I to judge? I definitely won't call them proud misogynists and not expect to get my behind kicked.
athena
(4,187 posts)It's the women who object to the slur who are out of line?
As I posted here, there was nothing "empowering" about that person's use of that slur. Are you honestly arguing that it's "empowering" to compare other women to animals, as that person did?
polly7
(20,582 posts)NO.
I said that women who use it towards one another and see it as empowering, have the same right to interpret it that way as you do to object.
Why twist my words all the time?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Good thing we've got a small but vocal contingent here ready to show you the error of your ways.
mainer
(12,022 posts)That's something. All my life I've been trying to be accepted by whites, and now I guess I've made it!
cinnabonbon
(860 posts)And I say that as a fellow artist. If the artist didn't realize that selling a sexualized black-woman-statue that people were meant to treat as non-human for as long as they owned it, then I'd say that Norway has some trouble with racism too.
Or maybe he was doing a social experiment, what do I know. It is still unpleasant.
mainer
(12,022 posts)This image is, in some ways, a mirror into our own agonies.
Some see sexism.
Some see racism.
Everyone is disturbed, but for their own personal reasons.
And now there's back-and-forth about whose "ism" is more valid.
This is what art SHOULD do.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)But it's so much easier to fly off the handle, react, and condemn the "scrawny rich white woman."
redqueen
(115,103 posts)"there's back-and-forth about whose "ism" is more valid"
I'm not seeing that and I'm curious as to what you're referring to.
As for art, I would agree if we knew the intent. Michael Richards stood up on front of a crowd and shouted racial epithets at an audience member. It certainly opened up a dialogue, but that was not his intent.
Same with objectification in ads. They inspire discussion of the dehumanization of women and the results of that dehumanization.
If art is created with the intent of opening up a dialogue on important issues, that's indeed what it should do. Conversely, if the art was exploitative, that is not, IMO, what art should do.
mainer
(12,022 posts)about what's sexist and what's not, and whether it's sexism when the model is called a white bitch, and whether that is more outrageous than the fact the chair is a black woman.
It's getting heated.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)I perceived the disagreements above as:
1. Whether the b word, especially when hurled as an insult, is a misogynist slur.
2. Whether the chair would be considered so offensive as this one and by as many, if it depicted a white woman clothed and positioned the same way.
As for whether it's racist and misogynist, I hoped there was a general consensus that it is.
mainer
(12,022 posts)Some are far more outraged by the sexism than the racism of the image (we all agree the image is both, I think.)
As a nonwhite female, I was most bothered by the racism. But I'm not sure I'd feel the same way if I were a white woman. Maybe I'd be most bothered by the sexism.
It just brought home to me that for nonwhite women, race has a lot more to do with why this piece disturbs them than the sexism.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)Simply because often, what happens is that people, if they perceive general agreement on one issue, will not comment on that one, and will move on to challenging the issues that they perceive as not being subject to the same widespread agreement.
I know that that is true in my case. I'm mixed-race, but can pass, so I get lumped in with white women most of the time.
athena
(4,187 posts)My observation is that anyone who isn't disturbed by the sexism of the sculpture is either sexist or doesn't consider black women as women.
Personally, I was equally offended by the racism and sexism of the "art". Some people on this thread didn't even notice the sexism. (See post 21.) That says a lot about how acceptable sexism has become in our society.
I happen to think, as I posted elsewhere on DU previously, that the current level of racism in our society is worse than the level of sexism. Nonetheless, sexism is likely to stick around much longer than racism. At least on the left, most people recognize that racism is a major problem; very few even notice sexism, let alone consider it a problem.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That sums it up better than any two lines I can put together.
Edited to add--- Since people have a tendency to wildly misinterpret my posts, let me say this: My point is, in addition to yes the objective of (some) art is to provoke discussion or controversy- and this has apparently succeeded in that - but I also find it fascinating that the topic almost immediately veered away from the piece in question, rapidly turning into a spat over the offensive comment about the offensive comment about an offensive comment about the art.
...But me, I expected it to happen.
mainer
(12,022 posts)would that change everyone's mind about this image?
Just curious. How does the artist's identity figure into your reactions? Comments?
riqster
(13,986 posts)And if they provide context, then even those who disagree can at least understand.
In this case, all we have heard is that it was misunderstood and taken out of context. Not explanatory.
By contrast, take "Blazing Saddles", which threw out slurs by the truckload. The movie made it clear that the racists were the ones being lampooned, and if you didn't get it, Mr. Brooks explained it in interviews.
mainer
(12,022 posts)The artist can explain his intent. Interpretation is in the eyes of the beholder.
riqster
(13,986 posts)mainer
(12,022 posts)Artists are used to getting whacked with forty lashes.
riqster
(13,986 posts)After that, I learned to explain my lyrics.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)commented - for all we know the artist is a raging racist misogynist.
riqster
(13,986 posts)The creator of the chair, the model, the photographer, the editor or the blogger?
This is a huge bouillabaisse of credit and attribution. Thus far, I haven't heard enough exculpatory material to alter my OP, though.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Who had herself photographed on the chair and the the photo published with no contextual information on MLK day.
She is now claiming it was somebody else's fault.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)say she was photoshopped on the chair.
riqster
(13,986 posts)True in this case!
mainer
(12,022 posts)Since everyone seems to assume this image was created by some racist sexist white artist, and that's what pisses you off.
But if you were told it was made by a black African female, would it change your mind about the piece? Would it force you to reinterpret its meaning?
It's always interesting to explore our reactions to art. Unless you'd all rather just be angry.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I would still think it was sexist.
As for the racist angle. Would the women be in different positions? The black woman sitting on the white woman? If so, it would remind of that movie White Mans Burden. I thought it was an interesting look at role reversals. And only in that respect it wouldn't necessarily ring racist to me.
Since you've given a description of your race and gender...I will do the same. I'm a white woman---that was raised by interracial parents. My dad is black. I have black, white, and bi racial brothers and sister.
mainer
(12,022 posts)black audiences would feel pretty outraged, because they would interpret it exactly as you said, "White Man's Burden." Or, to channel Ronald Reagan, the black "welfare queen" getting a free ride from the whites.
So yes, that would get people angry too!
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I would expect it would still be controversial, but I didn't think of the 'welfare queen' angle. Definitely got me thinking...
mainer
(12,022 posts)is controversial.
Add different races or genders, and it's even more so.
If you were to put a woman sitting atop a kneeling man, you can bet there'd be someone interpreting it as "women using men as meal tickets" or something along those lines. That would enrage women. (And bitter ex-husbands)
one_voice
(20,043 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)Speculating about the hypothetical situation in which a misogynistic and racist work of "art" might have been created by a black woman is as meaningful as speculating about the hypothetical scenario in which slave-owners in the antebellum south were mostly black.
As it happens, the "artist" is not a black woman. He is a white man. Here is some of his other "art":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/bjarne-melgaard_n_3895425.html
Finally, even supposing the artist were black (I, who also happen to know something about art, disagree that the chair in question could have been created by a black woman -- suggesting otherwise is dismissive and disrespectful of minority artists), that still does not make the work of art non-racist and non-sexist.
I suspect that all this is very hard to understand for someone who thinks that being a "non-white female" makes them by definition non-racist and non-sexist. (Hint: we are all racist and sexist; no one -- regardless of color and gender -- can live in our racist and sexist society without absorbing some of its racist and sexist attitudes. The best defense against this is to question oneself constantly. Anyone who says, "But I'm not racist or sexist" is probably both racist and sexist, since not being so requires constant vigilance and self-questioning.)
mainer
(12,022 posts)by anyone who TRIES to explore a subject on another level. I am not saying the artist is a black female; I am simply asking you to speculate about YOUR reaction if he were. Do you never engage in discussions about hypotheticals? Is that not part of intellectual discourse, to more deeply explore sociological topics?
You do know that calling me a "non-white female" IN QUOTATION MARKS is telling me I'm a fraud, don't you?
athena
(4,187 posts)I put "non-white female" in quotes because those are your own words. I have no way of confirming your race and gender, so I am not going to describe you as a "non-white female" without quotation marks. Moreover, if, as you suggest, I had meant "non-white female" to mean "white male", the sentence you are referring to would not have made any sense. But I suspect you didn't actually read the sentence.
You have repeatedly ignored the thoughtful comments people have made. You have ignored the substance of the post you are responding to, as well as the substance of my previous responses. And yet you claim to want to engage in discourse and to "explore a subject on another level." I wasn't aware that the new definition of "exploring a subject" is "being unwilling to consider anyone else's views but one's own."
mainer
(12,022 posts)I started posting late in the thread, and I've tried to respond to everyone's comments since then. I'm not sure which comments you want me to respond to, unless you just want me to say "Yes, Athena, you're right every time!"
athena
(4,187 posts)So it's disingenuous of you to claim that I was looking for a "Yes, Athena, you're right every time" answer.
You simply ignored the substance of my posts, including those to which you responded. I'm not going to re-post the comments I made, since you'll just ignore them again and find some tiny thing to attack, like my use of quotation marks.
mainer
(12,022 posts)because that was what jumped out at me immediately. There is no reason for putting quotation marks around "nonwhite female" except as an editorial comment that you're questioning the validity of that term. The way people put air quotes around things they're either mocking or don't believe in.
Why ELSE would those quotation marks be there, except to say you don't believe I'm a nonwhite female? There is no grammatical purpose for them otherwise.
Let me repeat the post we're talking about:
As it happens, the "artist" is not a black woman. He is a white man. Here is some of his other "art":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/14/bjarne-melgaard_n_3895425.html
Finally, even supposing the artist were black (I, who also happen to know something about art, disagree that the chair in question could have been created by a black woman -- suggesting otherwise is dismissive and disrespectful of minority artists), that still does not make the work of art non-racist and non-sexist.
I suspect that all this is very hard to understand for someone who thinks that being a "non-white female" makes them by definition non-racist and non-sexist. (Hint: we are all racist and sexist; no one -- regardless of color and gender -- can live in our racist and sexist society without absorbing some of its racist and sexist attitudes. The best defense against this is to question oneself constantly. Anyone who says, "But I'm not racist or sexist" is probably both racist and sexist, since not being so requires constant vigilance and self-questioning.)
Notice where else you put your quotation marks? Around "artist" and "art", the clear meaning of which is to MOCK those words.
How else am I to interpret your quotes around "nonwhite woman"? And don't try to educate me about punctuation marks. I make my living as a writer.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)What bothers me the most, personally, is the fact that she didn't bother to apologize; THAT is *highly* problematic, even if perhaps she may not have fully understood the unfortunate implications of such a photo. Given that she's a Russian, I'll go with Letter B on this one, but she still should have apologized.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, even Jesse Helms never did this...
Jesse Helms was a lot worse than this, though, TBH.
polly7
(20,582 posts)A Russian fashion blog published the photo along with an interview on Monday, sparking angry accusations of racism by bloggers outside Russia.
In the cropped photo now appearing above the article in Buro 24/7, where Zhukova talks about Russia's lingering "cultural isolation", only the high-heeled black leather boots can be seen.
Buro 24/7 also issued an apology, saying it was "against racism and everything that may humiliate people."
"We sincerely apologise if the posted photos insulted our readers," its editors said in a statement.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25833440
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The apology isn't quite how I would have preferred it, personally, but it's better than none at all, at least.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And yeah, maybe the Helms analogy was inaccurate.
Response to riqster (Original post)
mainer This message was self-deleted by its author.
riqster
(13,986 posts)It was part of another work which amplified and hijacked the racial message.
The chair is one thing. For a white woman to sit on it with an "oh, isn't this ordinary" expression reeks of institutionalized racism, sexism, and classism.
mainer
(12,022 posts)So it is pertinent to this topic.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Exculpatory, no.
mainer
(12,022 posts)OK. I will delete as you wish.
riqster
(13,986 posts)So don't try to pin the blame for your choices on me.
The issue I have with the article is that it seems a not-very-subtle attempt to defuse the controversy by reframing the debate after the fact: by pretending the issue is a "racist chair" and quashing that notion, the other artist who was in fact offensive gets off the hook.
I have seen this tactic tried in other situations, and it's a cheap, tawdry, cynical move.
Not biting on that hook.
mainer
(12,022 posts)and I'm told I made a "bad choice" for sharing it.
That's why I deleted it. Because posting an article that directly addresses the controversy, but doesn't agree with you, is a bad choice.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And that I am not.