Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is fag banned but bitch allowed?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:28 AM
Original message
Why is fag banned but bitch allowed?
For the record, though most of you know this, I am a gay male. That said this is my case:

There are more than a few people, including many on this board, who argue that being gay is a choice and not an innate trait. I vehemently disagree but have to admit that there is a school of thought which argues that it is a choice. Thus, for at least those people, the use of the word fag would be about behavior and not about an innate trait. So, if we are going to justify the use of bitch due to it being about behavior then why not fag?

The above is meant rhetorically, and I know there are other threads on this but the current one has 250+ posts. But I fail to see a huge difference here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Susang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
1. Whoo - where's my kevlar suit?
I predict a 300 + post thread. I hope the responses are a little more rational than the last "bitch" thread's. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zomby Woof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
16. I am using it in the Lounge
Some upstart tried to tell me that wombats are superior to yaks and I will have none of that. :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogonarug Donating Member (170 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #16
53. You cannot be serious!
yaks superior to wombats?....whats a yak?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #16
67. Heathens. PLATYPUSES are above all! (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FDRrocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
2. Is it banned?
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 01:33 AM by FDRrocks
You can buy a pack of fags in the UK, right?

What I'm trying to say is bitch isn't at all an adjective all the time. It is also a verb. Among other things.

To me, the word bitch is not gender specific, b/c I use the term towards my male friends. I cannot remember the last time I've used it towards a woman, b/c I know it insults them. But of course, people cannot be trusted to use thier own context, apparently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wickerwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Calling a person a fag when your intent is to insult them is.
Likewise, bitch should be. Calling a political opponent a "fag" as an insult is verboten. I hope calling a political opponent a "bitch" may be in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. to see what I am speaking of look at any one of the 8 threads
I mean bitch and fag as applied to people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FDRrocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Those threads were about
banning the word wholesale, from what I understood. I do not agree with that at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. you misread the post.....it was about banning the word in its
sexist usage towards women, not banning the word as a verb or adjective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. and this is what Skinner said in his original post
"Please be aware that we are not going to forbid the use of the term "bitch" as a synonym for "complain bitterly," nor will we forbid the term "bitch" to mean "female dog." Those issues are not up for discussion. Also, to be clear... personal attacks against other members of Democratic Underground are not permitted, so it is already against the rules to call another member of DU a bitch.

To be more precise, the specific issues for discussion here are whether people should be permitted to use the term "bitch" when referring to high-profile political opponents, and whether members should be permitted to use the term "bitch slap" in almost any context."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RapidCreek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #6
35. I'm curious...you seem to love bandying the word about
what exactly is your definition of sexist?

Do you understand the concepts behind singularity and plurality?

RC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. No they or at least the 8th one, wasn't
Skinner was crystal clear that bitch would be banned only if it referred to women or as part of bitch slap. He said bitching the verb was AOK. If you don't believe me click at the top of this forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. that's where the miscommunication happened
is that many posters thought it meant a wholesale ban on the word, and it really wasn't. Just a proposed ban on the word "bitch" towards women or the word "bitchslap."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I didn't see any of the first seven threads
so I have no idea if he changed his post from one to the next. But the current thread is pretty clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I think he said the same thing in the last seven threads
and I think he wasn't clear enough, and there was plenty of confusion among DUers that it meant a wholesale ban on the word, which it wasn't what he was proposing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. You are being very generous
Skinner was crystal clear in that post. I literally can't iamgine that a person who actually read it could have come away with the impression that he wanted to totally ban that word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:22 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. I think people totally overreacted, or that they wanted to
use all definitions of the word "bitch" rather than the verb or the adjective use of it.

They want to continue using it as sexist epithet on the same level as that of a racial or homophobic epithet in order to attack a woman based on her gender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nayt Donating Member (164 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
49. yes but
isn't using the word against males insulting because its like calling them a woman? isn't it used to refer to someone subservient? still seems sexist to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #49
88. you're right----it is sexist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
12. A better contrasting term to "bitch" would be "nob" or "dick"
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 01:49 AM by sweetheart
It is pejorative sexuality, perceived by misogynists as hatred
of woman... and similarly, "nob" would be the masculine version,
demeaning men towards being simply "dicks".

I smoke a fag now and again... you must remember that the US is the
place where cigarettes have been re-branded as gay.

If people speak freely and use all these words, even in bigoted ways,
they can be shown up for their veiled bigotry. I would rather,
take each case of linguistic abuse on its own merit, as otherwise
the world is filled with potential abuse... let alone including
latin, french or spanish pejoratives.

Abuse is the crime we're on about... and some people with a bug up
their asses about hating feminism see bitch as a negative word,
whereas a grownup, mught see it as simply 5 phonecian letters and
a plethora of intonations and meanings.

Fag is 3 letters. Perhaps we should ban all words with 5 or less letters and be done with it. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. um, there's a reason why "fag" is banned here, and it's not because
it used to be a cigarette.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rabid_nerd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
13. O/T but...
what about bisexuals...

is that an innate trait?

I've never heard any opinion one way or another on that
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:50 AM
Response to Original message
15. Think there's an EIGHT PAGE thread for this already...
..but hell, thanks for starting another one..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Did you read my post
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 02:00 AM by dsc
I think I explained why I started this thread. hint it had something to do with the size of the 8th thread. It would be nice if before you hit reply you actually read the stuff above reply.

On edit I realize this is somewhat harshly worded. But my post had to have been no longer than 200 words, if that. And your response to it shows no sign at all of your having read a single word of it. That is awfully rude, to be honest.

On edit 132 words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. I did indeed...I love it how just becuase I don't share your view...
That YET ANOTHER separate thread is need, I must have "not read" what you wrote. I think the last thing that is needed are thirteen threads bitching about bitch. I think the whole reason a sticky topic was made was to move thirteen different threads out of the front page and have a single place for discussion. That's just me.

I do keep forgetting that I can hide threads I don't want to see though.. I need to remember that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:33 AM
Response to Reply #22
27. that little "x" button next to threads can be useful
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #22
68. Words have meaning
and this is what you said.

Think there's an EIGHT PAGE thread for this already...


..but hell, thanks for starting another one..



You will note the utter, complete, and total absensce of either an acknowledgement that I had mentioned the other 8 threads, or the fact you disagreed. You post is entirely about the existence of and your presumption I didn't know about, the other 8 threads. Note, that unlike you, I actually read, and responded to your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #68
73. Well, its a new day, and you're still not correct.
I was not presuming that you didn't know about 8 other threads. Stating my opinion that you are wrong to presume that what YOU have to say on the matter is so special that it deserves a special thread. Especially since in the last week the board has been flodded with these kinds of threads.

Note that unlike you, I am not having a problem of misinterpreting the intent behind the post, becaause also unlike you, I didn't come in assuming that if you disagree with me, it becuase you didn't bother to read.

Think there's an eight page thread for this already -- meaning, I don't think, I know so, its right at the top of the board and you do too, becuase you said so, but decided that you are such a unique and beautiful snowflake that surely what you had to say was just too good to fit into the countless threads there have already been on this isusue.

...but hell, thanks for starting another one... meaning thanks for assuming that what you had to say was so special that it warrented further clutting up the board when there have already been countless threads, many of which include people making the exact same point you are.

See, that's what we call "an opinion." /nod It's not the inability to read, it is instead the ability to reject the relevance of what's being said.

The bottom line is, I disagree that what you have to say warrants a new thread. And the only reason I'm still harping on this issue, and will for as long as you continue to respond and keep saying I didn't read your post, which is a lie, is because I don't like the FALLACIOUS way of arguing, which is to respond to someone by saying "well if you had actually bothered to read, you would see..." Essnetially, that is nothing more than a ad hominem statement that holds no meaning.

I always read before I post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
18. kick for clarification of skinner's post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
19. The predominant view is that...
homosexuality is an inherent trait, and not a question of learned behavior or choice.

So, using "fag" would be the equivalent of using "nigger." It is a pejorative for someone who "is" rather than "does."

Insulting someone for what he or she is, rather than what they choose to do, is the lowest form of discourse. It's not even debate. It's beneath even arguing. It's simply insult for the sake of insult and inflicting harm on the target.

I am adamantly against banning words, but if words must be banned, ban the ones that insult an entire class of people for simply being what they are.

This does, of course, mean that we have to come up with synomyms for British cigarettes and bunches of kindling wood.

(Curious that we have so far spent more time on this word nonsense than just about any other subject this month.)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. This has been long overdue
The timing, given current events, leaves something to be desired, but this issue has been raised off and on for the entire time I have been here, which is over 2 and one half years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. and the fact that this issue keeps coming back shows that the
word "bitch" is NOT a gender-neutral word as many posters would claim. Some definitions of it could be used as a verb or adjective, but the main usage of the word "bitch" is to put down a woman or to emasculate a man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #19
54. the very first time i heard the word nigger was by a white man
referring to another white man. it was meant to be a surpreme insult just as calling a man a bitch is meant to be a supreme insult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
25. Well, whether it's a choice or not, it's still insulting someone
for being a member of a natural demographic.

I can't imagine "complainers" ever becoming a demographic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. that's why the main definition of the word "bitch" should not be allowed
as a sexist epithet against women or men, but that verb or adjective use would be fine such as "That was totally bitchin'!" or "I bitched so much about my day."

However, calling a woman a "bitch" because of her politics or the way she wears clothes or looks is a sexist epithet. We even had people HERE calling Randi Rhodes a bitch just because she wasn't what they were used to as a radio personality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:28 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. Goddammit Slink
AGAIN, "bitch" does NOT insult someone FOR being a woman. Depending on the definition (of which there seems to hundreds), it's insulting someone who happens to BE a woman (or a man, as the case may be.) That's it. Period.

The only case you have is when it is used as a SYNONYM for "woman." And, even in that case, many would say that at that point it is no longer a derogatory term, but a term of endearment, like "nigga."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. i think slink might mean this

try to imagine being dismissed by being called a bitch,feminazi,man-hating dyke or to be dismissed by the phrase stop bicthing get off your soap/bitchbox its that time of the month or she is on the rag when you tryto talk about a meaningful issue like sexism

also do you rember that superbowl commercial with the ref being yelled at during a game and then it shows a scene where he tunes out the nagging wife
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. bravo! it is against her gender-----not because she "happens"
to be a woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #32
37. No, it's not. Men acting that way would get exactly the same
treatment. These are behaviors that people just don't like, no matter who is exhibiting them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. no, when men are called "bitch" it means that they're weak or
being compared to a weak woman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #38
50. I don't think it's so much...
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 06:46 AM by theHandpuppet
..being compared to being a weak woman, but being compared to a woman at all. Sadly, it seems that in our culture accusing a man of being "woman-like" is the most insulting thing some people can think of. Think the recent "Bush As Cheerleader" thread. Should it surprise anyone that attacking Bush's masculinity was expressed in homophobic and sexist insults? There's a reason the two often go hand-in-hand... underneath it all lies an insidious cultural misogyny.

Bush may be an evil, ignorant, greedy sociopath, but I'm afraid men will have to claim their own pariahs and stop passing them off on to women and gays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:28 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Better yet, let me give you some examples of sexism,
which is the organized oppression of either males or females. Sexist terms are those which facilitate that by being a derogatory SYNONYM for either "woman" or "man."

Some examples of ACTUAL sexism:

1) Women not being allowed to vote.

2) Women being paid less than men for the same job.

3) A woman being told to leave the room while the men discuss politics, simply because she's a woman. Similarly, a woman being told that her opinion doesn't matter simply because she is a woman.

4) A woman having to walk or sit behind a man at alls times, because she is a woman.

5) A woman being **told** that she's **not allowed** to work, and has to stay home and take care of the kids, because she is a woman.

6) Although I've never heard of this, any tax that might levied on women exclusively.

7) All ACTUAL, and I stress ACTUAL, double-standards such as women being called a "slut" for promiscuity, while men are given pats on the back, are inherently sexist, because they oppress women. Keep in mind that this would NOT be sexist in any society or situation where men are looked down upon in the same way as women for promiscuity. "BITCH" DOES NOT FALL UNDER THIS CATEGORY.

8) Women not being allowed to positions of power in the church or any other organization.

Anyway, you get the idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #41
43. maybe you should add men telling women what sexism is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. I'm telling EVERYONE that.
And I'm fucking right. Deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Oh, and I forgot to add the draft as being sexist
The OTHER way, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. The draft if they drafted both sexes or only one goes against feminist
princeples anyway this thread was about bitch check out my post number forty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RapidCreek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #43
48. Why, are women the exclusive arbiters of what constitutes sexism?
That's an extremely sexist remark.



RC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #48
55. not exclusive
maybe predominant but no more exclusive that blacks determining what is racist. my father in law came home with one of those statues of a little black kid fishing that people sit by their ponds. now, in truth, there is nothing wrong with the image of a little black kid fishing but the first thing he did was to call me and ask me to paint it white because statues of little black kids fishing has been declared racist. wanna bet white people didn't decide that?

if women don't have the right to decide what they do and don't consider sexist, who in the hell does.

sweet tea people...it's not like the women are asking that woman me womyn or anything trivial. just don't call women bitches. why in the hell is that so hard. why is it more important to retain the right to use that word as an insult than it is to stand with our sisters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #43
51. Touche'!
Thanks! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #41
61. And HOW do you think all those lacks of "freedom" come to be?
It starts with calling a group of people a derogatory term... like "bitch" and "nigger" and "fag" to dehumanize them.

Just like we do in war.... dehumanize a group, then it's easier to kill 'em.

Same difference.

Kanary, who knows that sexism will never go away at DU, because it's approved from the beginning at all levels
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. I'm well aware of the mechanism behind
sexism and racism. Once again, though (and, shit, I can only say this so many times) "bitch" is not used in that way.

Speaking of mechanisms, how do the mechanisms of political censorship weigh into this argument, in your mind? It starts with "bitch," then moves onto....????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #62
71. You're well aware of it,
yet, you advocate "Full speed ahead"

Obviously, this is why women are Still Behind, After All These Years.

With friends like this, who the heck needs enemies?

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #71
76. Yeah...BTW the ACLU sends its regards. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #76
80. Actually, I happen to know many people in the ACLU here
and they don't go around insulting people with terms like these, which you defend.

This "Freedom of Speech" stuff is a nice bluff to hide behind.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. You're talking to one. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. So are you.
Shocked? ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. You are too. Nice try. No dice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #83
84. Okay. I'm lying about being in the ACLU.
LOL whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #41
63. Back up the truck
You just shot down your own argument with #7 above. What's the differenc ebetween teh double standard of calling women "slut" for promiscuity while patting men on the back...and calling women "bitch" for being assertive while patting men on the back for that. If "slut" is sexist because of that double standard then so is "bitch".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #63
66. Read them both again.
I knew someone was going to say that.

Yes, it does get complicated in dealing with the "what constitutes oppression via double-standard" arena but I think I defined it pretty well in the post you responded to. Read it carefully.

"Bitch" doesn't fit the definition, because it has a male counterpart: "asshole." The behavior being insulted is displeasing in both sexes- so, you can see how it is distinguished from a word such as "slut," which in most situations doesn't have a male counterpart (it does in some situations), thus showing a clear double-standard (again, in most situations- there are movements against "dogs"). If it became common that men were insulted with a term similar to "slut," "slut" would no longer be sexist.

You have to look at the fact that when someone gets called a bitch, they're typically being called that because they're exhibiting some kind of behavior that society generally rejects in ALL people- i.e. bossiness, irritability, self-centeredness, etc. It's not meant to only oppress women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #66
72. I have to respectfully disagree with you...
as I have been called "bitch" for behavior that would not be consured coming from a man. Women aren't just called "bitch" for being bossy, irritable, or self-centered". We are often called bitch just for being assertive, for standing up for ourselves, or just for disagreeing with a man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. That's not sexism, either.
These are all insults that happen to be directed at women. These women you're using as examples are exhibiting behaviors that EVERYONE dislikes in ALL people. Men who act like that get treated the same way.

Gimme a ring when you guys finally find an actual sexist incident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:18 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. no, when men are called bitches, it's to emasculate them, or
to compare them to women. That's a sexist epithet right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:27 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. when women express a strong political belief we are often times called
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 04:34 AM by corporatewhore
bitch or told to stop bitching not because we happen to be women but because in a patriarchial society men do not like to be reminded that women are not inferior beings with inferior minds Bitch is often used to put a woman in her place as much as the term feminazi or being told that they are acting "bitchy" or being called a man hating dyke or because they are on the rag and need not to get all worked up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #36
57. find me an example of a man being beaten bloody by a woman
sreaming 'take that bitch' and we'll talk about how it's unisex.

it happens to women all the time.

the behavior she may have exhibited was missing the bus or looking at him wrong. you claiming these behaviors 'that EVERYONE dislikes in ALL people.' or that 'Men who act like that get treated the same way.'

trying to put forth that women universally deserve the word whenever it's applied is crap.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #30
56. find any dictionary that doesn't include female in the definition.
there may be one but everywhere i checked it female is mentioned and male is not..

besides..neither you nor i nor slink are the final arbitare of language. so set that aside and explain to me why you cannot extend a courtesy to slink and the other women who have expressed their sense of offense.

instead of focusing on the why, explain the why not. why not accomadate the sensitivities of a significant portion of our community?

what it so damn important that you call women bitches.

it took just one person pointing out that i was using the word gay to refer to homosexual men and women when it was more appropriate to refer to the entirty of the community as GLBT, for me to adjust my speech.

why is there so much resistance? we don't use wop and kike and chink and fag and nigger but there is this contingant that seems to have drawn the line at the foot of the women who protest and refuse to appreciate their offense at bitch and i really want to understand why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #56
59. I don't call women bitches.
If I did, I would understand if someone came to me and said, "You know what, I really wish you wouldn't use that word. It's a hurtful, crude word, and there's no reason for you to be so nasty." That actually hits home with me, because, believe it or not, I don't like hurting people. It makes me feel extremely guilty. I still remember hurting people in the past. It stays with me, and it makes me feel like shit to think about it.

But that's not what I'm seeing here. I'm not seeing any of these people who are "offended" being HURT, at all. This is BULLYING, pure and simple. It's PC thuggery on par with religious fundamentalism. When someone uses the term "bitch," we don't see people getting hurt, or crying, we see people sounding war-cries and name-calling. We see people trying to beat others into submission.

I'm sorry, but I don't put up with that shit unless there is a REAL good reason. If you're gonna start a witchhunt or a pecking-party, someone had BETTER have called someone a "fuckin' nigger" or a "piece of shit faggot," or called for the extermination of all Jews. All of this manufactured rage gives us liberals a REALLY bad name. It destroys our credibility, and loses us elections.

I have yet to see any kind of serious sexism or racism here at DU that wasn't perpetrated by a disruptor (at least that I can recall). I think that this is a healthy, open-minded environment. So, let's start picking REAL hills to die on, and dealing with REAL problems, instead of CREATING things to rage against and demonizing others.

That being said, yes, you're right. "Bitch" is an insulting, crude term, and I don't use it. But I always err on the side of free speech, and, more than that, I'm not going to let anybody push me around and tell me what I can and can't say because it makes them feel good.

For the first couple of days, I had been trying to let this go. I didn't want to be reactive and create an issue even though everyone basically agrees. But, the PC-ers kept pushing and bullying, because they really wanted their witchhunt. So, eventually, I had to jump in.

I'm not going to let people do this. When they stop, I'll stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #59
64. I call bullshit
We have tried asking nicely in the past. Asking nicely has never gotten women a damn thing other than another steaming pile of sexism heaped on top of us.

In case you missed it I will say it again. Use of the word bitch hurts many women on this board. We are insulted. And we are tired enough of it not to be very nice about expressing our hurt at this point. But it is not "manufactured rage", it is real, and I will thank you to stop trying to invalidate our feelings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #64
69. Tough.
I'm not going to tolerate witchhunts and the bullying of innocent people. Period.

People with the gall to question the validity of these claims of sexism are being called bigots and sexists themselves. It's McCarthyism. They did nothing wrong, yet they're being demonized. What about THEIR feelings?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. Many people have gone way past...
just "questioning the validity of these claims". How many times did we get called "ridiculous" or "silly" or "not important" last night? And that's just the mild stuff. I've been called much much worse here on this board in the last couple of weeks.

I'm sorry you see what we consider justifiable anger and passionate defense of our position as bullying...then again that could just be due to our socieity's tendency to see agressive behavior in women as far worse than the exact same behavior in men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. They didn't start this, though.
Like I said before, if someone's going to start a witchhunt they'd better have a REAL good, clear reason.

And so far, I'm definitely not convinced. Thus the analogy to McCarthy- who was a man, by the way. A bullying asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #74
78. Trying to untangle...
who started it is pointless at this point...although I would argue it was started by the first person who called a woman a bitch on DU and was allowed to get away with it.

If you want to just talk about the last couple of days...Skinner started it but I don't want to blame him because he's just responding to those of us who were sick and tired of swimming in a sea of sexism around here.

You want to believe this is a witch-hunt and I doubt I can change your mind. From my pov it isn't meant as one...it's meant as a plea for a little civilitiy and common courtesy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:39 AM
Response to Original message
28. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:13 AM
Response to Original message
29. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:43 AM
Response to Original message
33. cuz dogs are fine, but cigarettes are bad
Seriously, though, there is a reasonable logic to this: one is a slur based upon mere sexual preference, whereas the other--although admittedly a gender-based insult--is an attack upon behavior.

The underlying theory is that being female or being naturally attracted to those of the same sex is beyond one's choice and no better or worse than any other hands one may be dealt, whereas being a vicious harpy is deplorable behavior.

Proper derision should keep the sexual element in focus, though, and unless a woman is deliberately using the posturing of her gender as an element in her nastiness, it's untoward using a sex-based tag; thus, it's more appropriate to call Jeanne Kirkpatrick a shithead, while "bitch", "harpy", "harridan" or any number of similar epithets are most appropriate for Ann Coulter. Likewise, it's more appropriate to call Dennis Miller a creep, while the more fitting tag for General Boykin is "prick".



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. no, it is based upon the gender, not the behavior
"bitch" is often directed at women to keep them down, or to tell them to "toe" the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guava Jelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
42. because Cigarettes are bad and Girl puppies are cute.
sorry couldnt resist.
I think the only word that should be banned is Bush thats a rancid 4 letter word
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RapidCreek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:35 AM
Response to Original message
47. Why Gay?
Why not a male homosexual?

Frankly...in the literal sense...at least in my world...you may or may not be gay. Gay in my world means happy or joyful, keenly alive and exuberant....it was not until fairly recently that the words etymology was hijacked. Should I insist that the homosexual community refrain from using the word "Gay" to describe their sexual proclivities? Should the innateness of homosexuality validate or invalidate it's use? Indeed...why not fag? Why not queer? What makes either of these words more or less acceptable or accurate than gay?

I don't understand your argument. What has a traits innateness to do with justification of the words used to describe behavior not solely attributable to that trait? If it were possible for a person to innately possess a bitchiness trait and inescapably display the behavior this word describes, how, would the effect such behavior evokes in others be different from that of a person who chose to behave as such? In either case they would be displaying a particularly remarkable behavior. One which in either case is hurtful to others. While I agree that true homosexuality is an innate trait....not all who engage in homosexual sex are innately homosexual. That is not the point, however. Do you equate the impact on others evoked by behavior described as bitchy with the impact on others of that evoked by your homosexuality? To take your argument seriously one must assume that you do....and that, my friend, is the point. You see...behavior is behavior...it matters not whether such behavior finds it's origins in an inherent characteristic....but in it's effect on bystanders.

Your homosexuality does not effect me. A person who displays malicious, spiteful behavior and depends upon the protections societal norms afford those who possess a feminine nature is distinctly different than one who displays the same sorts of behavior with the understanding it might very well yield them an extremely harsh rebuttal. This sort of behavior does effect me....it is a remarkable and distinguishable behavior...whether it's origins are innate or not.

RC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plaid Adder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
52. "Fag" is a homophobic slur and bitch isn't.
I mean that's why I object to "fag" and not to "bitch." Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #52
58. isn't that pretty much a whose ox is being gored argument?
Of all people to be saying this I am stunned that you are. My point is that bitch is to women, or at least a great many women, as fag is to gays, or at least a great number of gays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #52
77. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander
Open it up, across the board.

Have at it.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemLikr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
60. This fag thinks we should stop banning words altogether.
a malicious poster is going to get banned from the board pretty quickly anyway. Who cares what "words" he or she uses in the brief interim?

Such prickly thin skins...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Christian Donating Member (746 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
65. Being victims
I'm intrigued by the assumption that women need to be protected by a rule banning the use of language that may be derogatory about us.

I thought we were going to stop waiting for the knight in shining armor to save us from the outside and do something about our own lives and situations because we were strong enough to take responsibility for ourselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #65
85. i dont want to be rescued by skinner but i want people to aknowlegde
that sexism is wrong and shouldnt be ignored and all though we dont realize with our language we perpetuate it and it is as disgusting as people making homophobic remarks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Christian Donating Member (746 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. I want people to realize that, too
But I want them to make their OWN changes. People will only resent change that they are forced to make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corporatewhore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. that has some truth to it but placeing it on the same level as fag
helps to show people imho
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
75. It seems I wasn't clear enough the first time, so let me rephrase -
I don't appreciate having yet another thread on this subject, no matter how "special" the poster feels his/her particular insight may be. That's just a personal feeling though. My opinion is that the reason the mods created a sticky thread was to SAVE the rest of us from the spam of threads on the same issue that was happening over the last few days.

In my opinion, I don't feel that your discussion warrants "special" treatment, especially since the basic question you ask has been asked several different times already.

If it were up to me, I would make all further discussion on the rules of DU be taken out of GD and somewhere else.

Now, you don't have to agree with my point of view - but it has nothing to do with not "reading" the original post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
79. I think we should stop banning all words here
I am stunned at the other threads and the comments made. I try not to use words that offend others. I've used bitch a few times until I realized how much I offended many and how many women sense the violence behind the word. I understand many use it as a joke in intimate settings but that does not justify using it in public forum. If we have free speech then allow the use of all words so we can discuss the pain they cause others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
89. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 23rd 2014, 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC