Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should the term "bitch" be forbidden on DU in certain circumstances?

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
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:24 AM
Original message
Should the term "bitch" be forbidden on DU in certain circumstances?
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 08:36 AM by Skinner
PLEASE READ THIS THREAD CLOSELY; THE TEXT HAS CHANGED.

We have posted a poll on this issue, which is currently pinned to the top of the General Discussion forum. Because of the likelihood that the poll thread would get extremely long, we have decided to forbid discussion in that thread. If you wish to discuss this issue, you may do so here. We will open additional threads, if necessary.

On Democratic Underground, should we forbid the use of the term "bitch" when used as an insult against our political opponents, and should we forbid the phrase "bitch slap"?

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.

I know that this is a highly-charged issue for many people, which is related to deeply-held progressive values including opposition to sexism, and support for free and open expression. However, we believe that it is possible to have this discussion without resorting to personal attacks and incivility, and we hope everyone will make an effort to participate in the spirit of mutual respect.

This topic has been discussed in a number of threads already. Here are links to Thread #1, Thread #2, Thread #3, Thread #4, Thread #5, Thread #6, Thread #7, and Thread #8.

If you wish to vote in our poll, please click here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Loonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. Sure
If "prick", "dickhead", and "tool" are forbidden as well, for their pejorative connotations towards men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. So who won the pool for how many threads the bitch thread would go
or does this count as #9???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katarina Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. And again...
On Democratic Underground, should we forbid the use of the term "bitch" when used as an insult against our political opponents, and should we forbid the phrase "bitch slap"?

No and No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nothingshocksmeanymore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. I would ASK people not to do it. I guess I get hung up on FORBID
The last day we had threads conversing over the ideas behind these words. If the words are forbidden, the discussion doesn't take place and discussion is where understanding is born...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. Torn
I haven't weighed in on this key issue before, but I'm torn.

I try to avoid using foul language at all, including fuck and shit and asshole and all that kind of stuff. I just don't see that it adds anything to the discussion, and it clearly makes some people uncomfortable. I don't really see Bitch as any better or worse than Asshole; although I understand the femenist argument on it, and think that people should probably not use either.

That said, I am hesitent to impose my own standards on everybody else. I may see no reason to use such language, but other people might have a different understanding than I do.

So I probably come down on the side of, it should be allowed, but I wish people wouldn't use it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
6. Randi Rhodes said she would like to "bitch slap" Condi Rice....
So if it can be said over radio, perhaps we should think twice before we ban it on an internet board? Although I understand the sensitivities that some folks have toward the word, we should ask ourselves if we would be worse off by censoring "free speech" or worse off by tolerating these insensitive words? Also, we should keep in mind that the problems now taking place in Iraq and Falluja can be directly traced to shutting down and censoring the 'insensitive' newspaper that was favorable to al Sadr....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
7. I'm a Female and I say NO NO NO NO...
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

We aren't right wingers we are intelligent people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SiobhanClancy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Another female says NO....
I will (nearly) always vote against censorship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #14
31. and this one says yes
Let's not start using our sex as weight for arguments. THAT would be sexist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #31
63. It also lets them know that all women want it banned. That is what
I am trying to say.

A woman with power is often called a Bitch.
A man who is annoying is often called a Bitch.

Bitch isn't somthing that is just "Female" anymore.

Lighten up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #63
76. heh
I assume that's a typo in your subject line. My point was just that it shouldn't matter whether or not you're a man or a woman. White people can fight racism, straight people can fight homophobia, etc. Your sex is irrelevant here; your arguments are not.

Speaking of which, you (and others) can continue to claim that this word, when used in the way Skinner is talking about, means something else, but simply saying it doesn't make it so. Your stated definition is not the commonly accepted one, just like the commonly accepted definition of the word nigger is NOT "a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people." (see dictionary.com) You can go ahead and use the word that way and point out from here until the end of time that you do not mean it in a race-specific way, but you can't erase the connotation of the word through a technicality.

And you know what, I was "light" until these debates started. I wasn't in favor of the ban until I saw how dismissive and rude people are to the people who support the ban. (But I'll remember that advice when people start giving ME shit for using the word nigger in that non-racist way.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
8. No (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
molly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
9. I don't care - it's not on the top of my list
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:37 AM
Response to Original message
10. Nooo. Bitch can now be said over the airwaves.. But you want..
to ban it here??? Doesn't make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
162. so can nigger n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
matcom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:40 AM
Response to Original message
11. my GAWD how long is this going to go on?
over 1000 replies to 8 threads and that isn't enough?

the answer to the question has to be NO

obviously the majority have spoken
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Current poll, 85% say No to banning the use of bitch.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
13. the poll is going to be misused in the future to declare the use of
the word as acceptable by the majority when in fact it will be a judgment on the advisability of banning words in general or this word in particular.

for instance, i will continue to protest it's use even though i voted against the proposition. as has been said, the only way people become aware of the hurt they cause is if someone points it out to them.

if the word is banned, many learning opportunities will be as well. and i might add, it's helpful to see who chooses to use it despite what should soon be universal knowledge that many women and men object to it.

i see it as a valuable asshole indicator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. I think we should ban the word "bearfartinthewoods"
:) Not really!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. if i changed my name it would be unfair to all those who
can't come up with a better way to insult me. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnLocke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
153. Ouch (nt).
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 12:03 PM by JohnLocke
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemLikr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. So...speaking as a fag asshole who uses the word bitch
when and where he chooses, I recommend you check job opportunities in John Ashcroft's Justice Department.

I would guess he has some sort of language-monitoring team with opportunities for advancement.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. send asscroft my regrets. i like my current job but
i'm always looking for new hobbies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. Let's see. "Bitch" is offensive, but "asshole" isn't?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. yup
everyone has an asshole so that's indisputably gender neutral. the gender specific nature of the insult bitch, while clear to me, is obviously a point of contention. in such a case, i choose to stand with those expressing pain rather than those inflicting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #26
45. Bitch is gender specific to a dog. There are no dogs on DU.
Last time I looked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. it IS gender specific in this case
Skinner is talking about banning the word when used as an insult to a third party.

When used that way, 99.99999% of the time it is used either (A) against women in general or (B) against men, to insult them by implicitly calling them women. (As in, he's such a pussy and has no balls - that makes the sexism much more obvious.)


If you look at the dictionary.com definition of bitch (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bitch ) the definitions that apply to this particular discussion and proposed ban are those in the second definition, described by the dictionary itself as offensive:

a. A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing.
b. A lewd woman.
c. A man considered to be weak or contemptible.


None of the other definitions apply to the way the word is used in the very specific context Skinner is talking about. It is, without a doubt, not just gender specific, which in itself isn't so bad, but sexist in that perpetuates the idea that strong women - and men who act weak (like women) - can be insulted on the basis of those traits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #46
59. An adjective to describe a female trait!!! Shocking! I tell ya...
Even if we go on your premise that the "adjective" is gender specific.. So? What's wrong with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #59
65. that's not what I said at all
I specifically said the the "gender specific" nature of the word is not in itself a bad thing. I very clearly stated that at the end of my post. You either didn't understand that or deliberately ignored it.

The problem is that the "trait" in this case is a stereotype. The word insults women for being strong and opinionated. It attempts to slap them back down into their proper place.

The word insults men by comparing them to women, assuming that women are weak and contemptible. Again, these are very well-known female stereotypes and it is no coincidence that the use of the word this way is the same as saying "he's got no balls" or "he's such a pussy."

Again, it is a word used almost exclusively against women, and when used against men, it is to insult them by comparing them to women. There is simply no way around this. That's how the word is defined, that's how the word is used, and we all know it.

We are not talking about female dogs, we are not talking about complaining. Skinner made that very clear in his post. Constantly pointing out those other definitions is a diversion. They do not apply to this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #65
158. well put.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #65
190. it's so fucking amazing how many here still don't get it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #45
75. to be truthful, i have seen men called bitches but only here
and in reference to prison culture. off course those references always go back to calling a man a woman in one way or another. which of course gets us back to gender specific.

still, i acknowledge the dispute and as i said, i stand with those who express pain rather than inflict it. how about you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kitkatrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. Thank you. That about sums up my feelings too.
I'd rather your (not you in particular) behavior be left for the world to see and mock, and to give you a chance for education, than for it to be banned, and you stew in your own ignorance. That said, after the fact that many have objected to its use, to continue using it is at best impolite.

I haven't voted yet, still want to think some things out. The term in question doesn't really offend me (I don't use it all that much anyway), it's the attitude and behavior behind the word that makes it so bad. If we ban the word, then the attitude more than likely will stay and it may even worsen. At least this way, we can call someone out on their usage and take the chance to try and change their minds, or lurkers' minds.

I want to congratulate Slinkerwink, Velma, you, and any others I may have missed for fighting tenaciously for what you believe in, even if I disagree with it. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #23
32. Thank you
It means a lot when people who disagree with me still respect my opinion.

I had to step away last night and regain my sense of balance.

I know which way this thing is gonna go and I'm fine with it. The word isn't going to get banned and some people are gonna crow that they beat the evil feminazis and we'll be having the same arguments about sexism on DU tomorrow that we've been having forever. It's tiring but it's reality. My only real hope is that this conversation has driven the point home to some people that the word is offensive and reflects badly on those who use it. Maybe a few more people will stop using it out of common decency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kitkatrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #32
108. You're welcome.
I've been reading the whole thing since the third thread, and I still have the headache from last night. I can only imagine what you feel like, having been in the middle. I think you've had more impact than you think--lots of lurkers may have changed their minds, or at the very least been provoked by your thoughts. Anyway, I invite you to take a dandelion break with me. :) But I can't find the opus cartoon. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #13
38. I did agree with you
But after reading through all these threads it became fairly clear to me that no one is the least bit interested in hearing why this word might be offensive to women when used a certain way. No one gives a shit about learning. Any effort to explain why the word is sexist was met with ridicule and contempt to an extreme I have never witness before.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #38
53. don't take the insensitivity of the most vocal as a universal trait.
i guarantee there have been people who have changed their minds about this issue based on what they read on these threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
THUNDER HANDS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
15. after some deliberation and consultation last night
I've decided to come down on the side of not banning the word and letting people continue to have a free and open discussion on whether the word is offensive or not.

Obviously, different people have different beliefs and looking at this, there is no simple solution that will satisfy everyone.

So I say let the word stay, lets continue to argue over it, and when Bush is thrown out of office in November we can pick up this discussion again and maybe resolve it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNOE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
17. Has this Poll been set up to where
people can ONLY vote once?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kitkatrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #17
25. Yes, it think that's what the vote confirmation feature is for. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
18. What's the point?
Caring about building community or sensitivity to the feelings of others has never been a priority on DU.

Why start now?

This is where people come to learn to rip others to shreds.

So much for "peace".

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
20. NO.
If somebody finds a particular post offensive, they ought to complain about it.

But pre-emptive banning doesn't seem a good idea.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
24. Signifier and signified
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 09:05 AM by Monica_L
When somebody says bitchslap, this is what I hear:

You are a female. Your behavior and words will be scrutinized and if found not deferential enough to males, we reserve the right to degrade you with violence.

Language matters. Comedians get laughs with the term but it serves to legitimize and at the same time trivialize the problem of violence against women. Just because you would never personally strike a woman doesn't mean you're not contributing to an overall atmosphere that condones it.

http://www.feminist.com/antiviolence/facts.html

Fact #27: Somewhere in America a woman is battered, usually by her intimate partner, every 15 seconds. (UN Study On The Status of Women, Year 2000)

Fact #28: A University of Pennsylvania research study found that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to low-income, inner-city Philadelphia women between the ages of 15 to 44 - more common than automobile accidents, mugging and rapes combined. In this study domestic violence included injuries caused by street crime.

Fact #29: Following the Supreme Court's decision in 2000 to strike down the civil-rights provision of the Federal Violence Against Women Act (ruling that only states could enact such legislation), only two states in the country (Illinois and California) have defined gender-based violence, such as rape and domestic violence, as sex discrimination, and created specific laws that survivors can use to sue their perpetrators in civil court. (Kaethe Morris Hoffer, 2004).


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #24
114. What about the signifier and the signified?
Linguistic theorists since Suassure have believed in the *arbitrary* relationship between the signifier and the signified. You seem to be arguing for quite the opposite--unless you are instead suggesting that because the signifier and the signified have one relationship to you, it requires a miniature revolution in language. I guess 70+ years of linguistics needed to be thrown out the window in one fell swoop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #114
128. Um, didn' t I explicity state...
When somebody says bitchslap, this is what I hear:?

Oh yeah, that's right, I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #128
133. So it's all about
your relationship to the signifier and the signified? Sorry, but if that were the case, schizophrenics, who linguistically have radically discontinuous relationships between signifier and signified would put us all in quite a bind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #133
139. Well since we're addressing sexism on DU
and I have an opinion on the specific term of which Skinner was eliciting opinions, I posted information specific to my interpretation of the term and identified it as such. There. Okay now? I'm not talking about the whole wide world and all the schizophrenics and cranks in it, just answering the question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #139
149. Cool.
I just hate to see proper terms like signifier and signified used incorrectly, as you did above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #149
174. They were correct as used
take your nitpicking and pissing contests elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #174
199. I disagree
It's not nitpicking to believe that proper terms should be used properly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #199
205. They were
You're wrong, not me. Thanks for your input, it means so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #205
207. Yes, I suppose everone can
create his or her own "proper" notion of signifier and signified now that they are tethered only to one's will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gottaB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #114
181. Linguistic theorists since Benveniste....
We can argue about where to place arbitrariness. We can argue about degrees of the arbitrary, and species of non-arbitrariness.

If somebody tells you "this is my intuition about language" I don't think it's a fitting use of your education and intellect to be telling them they're all like schizo, and not recognizing other thinkers who would support or shed light on what they are saying.

Since you've rejected Kristeva so forcefully, I wouldn't expect you to be down with revolution, but your rejection should have at the very least made you aware of a problem with Saussurean linguistics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #181
197. Actually I just reject
Kristeva because she seems to normativize maternity (IMHO) and my sense tht she is patently anti-revolutionary. The way she embraces some of the most regressive notions in catholicism bolsters my belief. But that's neither here nor there.

BTW, I never told anyone they were "like schizo"; I just offered a pretty standard linguistic account of schizophrenia dating back to early Lacan (and, indeed, is one Ms. Kristeva has cited herself).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracyindanger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #24
161. Have you told Margaret Cho?
She uses the term. As well as "bitch" in the not-so-co-opting-and-empowering way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
27. I'll say it again
I suspect the nos will win, but I'd like people to think about something here.

So we've preserved the right of expression, or, more precisely, the right to use an expression in a very specific, sexist way.

What have we lost? Does no one understand how it might make women feel to hear that the right to use sexist language is more important than making it clear that sexism will not be tolerated?

I believe in freedom of speech, but can you yell fire in a crowded theater? Can you use a racist slur against a co-worker? Can pro-lifers protest INSIDE a clinic?

Aren't all of these things legitimate restrictions on expression?

Aren't there already such restrictions in place on this forum?

Society makes compromises all the time; no right is absolute. What this really is is a debate over priorities, and I'm just dismayed that this community, of all communities, would consider the right to use a word in a specific, sexist way more important than sending the message that sexism, no matter how "funny" or "harmless," will not be tolerated.

I guess I just don't understand what everyone's fighting for in opposing this ban. I just don't see what preserving this right to use this word in a sexist way contributes here that's so important.

And to be perfectly honest, it's not that the word would be allowed that bothers me, it's that the members here would consider using it that way, or even just defend their right to use it that way, that bothers me. It's just so sexist, and it's sad that no one can see that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sunny_Sunshine Donating Member (88 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #27
89. Our societies hatred of women is so ingrained
It's not even recognized. It's "in the air". It saddens me that liberals would not even be willing to look at their thought processes. As long as the worse thing you can call a man is a women (wuss, fag, sissy) we perpetuate that hatred. I don't want to ban any words, I want people to understand why it is unacceptable and change how they think about women and men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
159. again, you put it very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
191. I'm seeing that and it's very sad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
28. I am simply astonished
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 09:12 AM by dsc
I figured banning bitch would lose but not 9 to 1. I would be sorely tempted to give some of these people who want total free speech a taste of exactly that for a few weeks. ATA woould soon become the most busy forum as people complained about freepers and everything else. The simple fact is, for good reason, you ban all sorts of things on this board. On point with this you ban offensive words as to race, national origin, religion, and sexual orientation. This is pretty much the same thing. Evidently way to many people here dont' care that they are insulting every woman to insult Condi Rice. Many of these people would be storming ATA if people used race instead of gender to insult her.

On edit, To clarify this post is saying that if I were Skinner, which I am not, I would be tempted to stop enforcing all rules regarding posts, which appears to be the idea behind many of the no votes. My guess is that if he did that we would be invaded by freepers and racists and the like. That is what I meant. I honestly thought the use of the subjunctive would have made that clear. Sorry that it didn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #28
33. Please don't do that. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #33
40. You totally misread my point
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 09:08 AM by dsc
I meant you should stop enforcing all rules. I certainly wouldn't say vile words no matter what but once it got out you weren't enforcing rules we would have a freeper invasion the likes of which we have never seen. That was my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #40
54. It doesn't even take "freepers"
Banning discriminatory words for all but one group is discriminatory itself.

Using all those other words would be one way to demonstrate that.

It's VERY SAD that it has to come to that.

But I, also, feel like just using all those other words. Sometimes others have to be on the receiving end before they GET IT.

Kanary

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #28
34. join the club
I'm so tempted to start using my "freedom of speech" around here. What's the point, though? They clearly don't get it. Mocking and offending women is still OK.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #34
44. that actually wasn't my point
I wasn't saying I would stop following rules but that I think Skinner should consider not enforcing them for a few weeks. We would soon have a massive freeper invasion which would wake everyone up to the idea that rules matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #44
49. I thought there weren't any rules
My understanding is that there are racial and homophobic slurs that aren't explicitly banned here, it's just that no one uses them.

And if they are explicitly banned, that makes the whole issue of whether or not to ban bitch even MORE offensive to me. Fair is fair, either they all go or they all stay.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. I am 99% sure that
if someone posted Andrew Sullivan is a fag it would be deleted. Similar fates would befall other threads which used other insults. The rulebook may not use the word ban but they are banned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #50
56. you missed my point then
What I meant was that there are non-racist/non-homophobic definitions for words like nigger or fag, so if people want to argue that when they say bitch they don't "mean it like that," then I don't see why I can't use accepted, non-discriminatory definitions of these other words, too.


The greater problem, of course, is that "Sullivan is a fag" would automatically be deleted while "Rice is a bitch" would not. We shouldn't need an explicit ban on this word if we don't have one for others. It seems to me it's already covered.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #49
52. This has been my point from the beginning
I cannot tell you how many times I have had this discussion over in Ask The Administrators.

All I ever wanted was for the rules to be applied evenly. There is no way in hell a post calling Colin Powell the "n" word would be allowed on this board. Someone would alert and it would be GONE in a flash. No discussion. GONE. But call Condi Rice a "b" and you get 9 threads of discussion on whether it's "really" sexist or not and scores of posts from alleged liberals who want to have the right to demean women. Kinda tells you everything you need to know about why some women don't consider DU a very friendly place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #52
61. so this really isn't about censorship at all
The phrasing of Skinner's proposal is all wrong, I think.

This shouldn't be about whether or not we ban the word bitch. It should be about whether or not the existing rule already covers this specific use of the word bitch. Since its use in this way is undeniably sexist, it IS already covered, and the mods just need to start deleting messages that use it this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #61
69. It's about people wanting to be able...
to violate the rule against sexist posts with impunity. It's about people wanting to be able to be offensive and suffer no consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #69
201. Protecting their supply
Can't give up their sexist ways ... WON'T give up their sexist ways. Nuh huh. Sexism R Us.

I'll tell you what else I'm extremely disappointed about (Skinner, this is for you): that after all this discussion we have a goddamend POLL about it. Silly me, I hoped that Skinner would weigh the merit of the arguments made over 9 threads and make a decision based on that. I thought DSC's posts were particularly illuminating. I also agree with ant: the question really should have been, shall we enforce sexist words like "bitch" in the same way we enforce clearly homophobic and racist words?

But no. We have a goddamned POLL which does nothing but provide cover for continuing to allow the sexism none of the boyz can see fit to let go of. The poll wasn't even necessary -- anyone could see from the threads themselves that the overwhelmingly majority of posters were against "forbidding" the word.

This is also a terrific example of the "tyrany of the majority" which our Forefathers worked so hard to avoid in our Constitution and for good reason. The majority were no doubt against ending slavery. The majority were against giving women the vote. The majority are against gay marriage. And so it goes, on and on. Again and again, the majority have to be brought up to speed, usually kicking and screaming, on what is simply the Right Thing to Do.

Very sad. I'm thoroughly disgusted with myself that I thought, for a few brief moments, that Admin would see fit to do the right thing. What a fool.

Bah.

Back to my self-enforced exile. I can live without this shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drfemoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #201
213. ciao
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #213
215. there's a bit of insanity going on in here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #52
116. I think shorthands for racist slurs should be forbidden
since everyone knows what "the *n* word" means. I find it incredibly offensive that people continue to use it,particularly because it constitutes the most duplicitous kind of hate speech imaginable: one can say it and not say it simultaneously. It just proves that banning a word makes it even more likely to appear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #116
121. I would never be using the word even in short-hand...
if it wasn't pertinent to a discussion of racial, ethnic, and gender epithets. As I explained on a thread last night...it is not a way of saying it without saying it. It's a way of showing sensitivity to the African-Americans on DU by letting them know that I wouldn't use that word in a million years...I won't even type it out on the off chance it would hurt their feelings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #121
135. Yes, how good.
YOu can both type it and not type it simultaneously, but it always registers as precisely what it is. And it is an epithet of monumental proportions. But I'm glad you get to (not) say it so often in these posts. It just proves what will happen with "bitch" if it is forced underground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #52
148. Exactly
And the person using n**** is usually banned. I'm not advocating anyone use offensive words. DU is often a very unfriendly place to women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #49
55. check agin
Do not post racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnic, anti-religious, or anti-atheist bigotry. Unambiguous expressions of bigotry will be deleted, and will often result in the immediate banning of the individual responsible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. oh, so it's already covered
The word bitch, when used in the way Skinner is talking about here, is already "illegal" then. Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #57
70. i don't think it has been established that the use you refer to
is sexist, believe it or not. and it certainly isn't enforced.

that's why this has been such an ongoing dispute. in theory it should not be allowed yet it happens all the time because the un-ambiguousness nature is not acknowledged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #70
74. This is all so sad
Deep down I can't help but feel like we have been set up. That this whole conversation has been for nothing. They're going to point to that stupid poll and say "see it isn't really sexist" and then they won't have to do anything about our complaints.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #74
83. if that's the case...
This whole thing has made me really unhappy about this place. Just the discussion I've seen has really turned me off, and I don't consider this a very feminist-friendly place. It is, but in that "be a cool chick/one of the guys" type of way, where women are expected to sort of be apologists or something. I don't know if that makes any sense.

Anyway, my point is that I'm not sure whether or not I'll stick around. If things evolve as you're saying I'm definitley out of here. This is clearly not a community that wants me or that I want to be a part of. I fight sexism on the right, and that's draining enough that I don't need to fight it with people who are supposedly on my side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #83
88. That's the part that makes me angry and sad
We have to fight every single day against the right and the little nibbles they take out of our rights every day. It hurts that we have to fight so-called liberals as well. It hurts, but it's par for the course if you know the history of the women's movement in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #88
90. eh, this is just a board
What bothers me is it really doesn't seem like people are that interested, and the sexism is just so intensely ingrained in them that they don't even see it. It's like people not recognizing how racist they are when they lock their doors or clutch their purses at the sight of a black kid. As long as they're not burning crosses they're not racist, right?

Anyway, I'm just not sure this is a battle I really want to fight here. It's just a board, no one seems to actually care, and I think my time would be better spent elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #88
113. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #113
115. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #115
124. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #124
126. Find one post where I dropped the "n" bomb...
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 11:15 AM by VelmaD
just one. You won't because I don't use that word.

Someone with a better grasp of logic than you is going to have to explain to me how it's alright for y'all to call women "bitches" but it's not ok for us to call you "sexists".

You WILL NOT tell me how to be a good liberal.

on edit: For the record...I did not alert on the post deleted above. I say this only to forestall the inevitable claim that I got this poster banned or ran him off or whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #115
140. I don't see rampant sexism. Are people supposed to ignore..
the differences in males and females???? There are some, you know. That doesn't bother me in the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #140
143. And none of those differences...
have a single damn thing to do with the issue at hand...the use of sexist language on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #113
164. wanna bet?
uneless or until i am told that the word bitch enjoys a special protection...... that admin has elevated it to a higher status than all other insults, i will continue to protest it's use just as others are allowed to protest the use of the words geezer, fatso and trailer trash.

and you can bet your 50 buck dictionary on that.


http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561599727/definition....

all three uses of the word as a noun reference it's offensiveness.

bitch < bich >

noun (plural bitches)

1. taboo term: a highly offensive term for a woman that describes her as spiteful, quarrelsome, and unprincipled ( taboo )


2. complaint: a querulous nagging complaint ( slang ) ( often considered offensive )


3. something difficult: a difficult thing or situation ( slang ) ( often considered offensive )
That locks a real bitch to open.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #57
204. Well, no. Skinner made explicit and specific allowance for
the word from way back. This discussion isn't the first time this issue over the word "bitch" has come up. I myself, with a little help from my sisters, argued for it to be treated as the sexist term it is and Skinner patently, resolutely refused. He just didn't think it was sexist, I guess. I don't remember his exact reason, but I do remember how characteristically definitive his response was.

Seems to me this was at least a year ago if not longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #55
129. People post anti-religious words like "goddam" everyday...
Nothing is done about that. That word is very offensive to me. But I know that I cannot control the language of others so I skip those posts or screen out posters who use that language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #129
131. Ok, this is not meant to be a snarky question...
I'm quite serious and want to understand why goddamn is "anti-religious". I could see it being irreverent and even sacriligious...but I'm not sure it qualifies as anti-religious but I would like to hear your take on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #131
136. "Goddamn" is cursing God....
I'm surprised that you don't know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #136
141. I always thought...
it was asking god to curse whatever or whoever it was you were mad at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #141
144. Even if your interpretation is the correct one, according to God..
in the Holy Bible, people shouldn't "swear." Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #144
147. Yes, but not everyone on DU...
believes in the Bible and we have this neat thing called seperation of Church and State that means that we don't all have to live by the rules in the Bible. To stay here we do have to follow the DU rules.

Although frankly we'd probably have a much better level of discourse if we all stopped swearing or at least cut down significantly. As with "bitch" the constant hum of swear words has made them all entirely too acceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #144
194. You need to provide a verse for that
I have never heard that. We are not supposed to take the Lord's name in vain but I have literally never heard of a verse banning swearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #28
41. It's tolerance. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buddhamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
30. NO.
The thought or meaning behind a word/s, whether it be sexist or racist etc, is still in the mind of the beholder it's just not expressed. Banning people from DU for using offensive language is necessary sometimes but, it is more productive to discuss the offensive words with the user than to ban them outright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
35. A lesson from Huey Long
Quote me as saying that that Imperial bastard will never set foot in Louisiana, and that when I call him a sonofabitch I am not using profanity, but am referring to the circumstances of his birth.

Huey Long on KKK Imperial Wizard Hiram Evans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
36. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemExpat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
37. NO.....it is the best word to refer to the behavior/attitude of some
fellow females....it is used extensively in society, and I act like a bitch too at times, so I do not want to see the word banned here at DU.

DemEx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woofless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
39. I am Kathy's BITCH and damn proud of it.
As a "househusband" I will say it loud and say it proud. That's a no vote. We at home use the term as a light-hearted dig at convention and have a lot of fun with it. Sue us.

Woof
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #39
43. that's not the sort of use...
...that's being discussed here.

The proposal is to ban the word when used as an insult against third parties, almost always women. We're not talking about joking around between friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
42. ridiculous
i am proud to be a bitch!




besides, something else would take it's place quickly. misogyny will not be cured by speech codes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Christian Donating Member (746 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
47. This whole discussion is indicative of why the left keeps splintering
We splinter because we allow ourselves to focus on the microcosm while the macrocosm goes to hell in a handbasket. We focus on a word instead of the attitude behind the word. And it's not just in this instance, we do it over and over in a plethora of ways.

I don't like the word "bitch" as it is used in most senses. I almost never use it. I don't use it to refer to a direct and authoritative woman every time she's being direct and authoritative. Hell, I AM a direct and authoritative woman. And, frankly, as long as people keep listening to what I say, I don't care what they call me out of my hearing. Mostly, I think they actually respect me enough to disagree with me to my face.

I also don't like the words asshole, prick, dickhead, motherfucker, cocksucker, or any of the other words that I see bandied about here all the time. (I didn't even know my fingers knew how to type those words.) ALL of those are derogatory. ALL of those put human beings down and reduce them to the level of object. ALL of those allow us to diminish and dismiss other people.

In my "best of all possible worlds" no one would use language that I couldn't have used in front of my Great-Aunt Marguerite. We would learn how to say what we really mean instead of taking the easy way and using an imprecise, yet convenient, vulgarism. I wish the world would change to that. I wish we didn't feel the need to put people down. I wish DU would voluntarily decide to adopt a code of behavior that truly showed respect for ALL human beings.

I doubt we can make that happen. Our cultural standards have slipped too far. I lament that.

But I think we get into an Orwellian universe when we begin saying what can and can't be used. Sooner or later, because she or he can't say "bitch," someone will say "that lovely woman" between gritted teeth, and "lovely woman" will come to mean "bitch."

Changing language doesn't automatically change attitudes. And when each person has a passion for his or her own microcosmic issue, the ability to change the macrocosm splinters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
48. I am incredibly disappointed that this is being put to a vote
Seems like a huge cop out on the part of the admins to me.

This is very simple. What skinner was originally proposing was not allowing the word when it is used as a sexist insult. That should already be covered by the DU rules against using sexist language. Why they can't just step up and enforce that rule the way they enforce the rule against using racist language I don't understand.

By putting it to a poll they are guaranteed to get the result I think they wanted all along. People on this board will continue to use sexist slurs and contribute to an atmosphere at DU that is uncomfortable for women. We will continue to point it out when we see it but the mods won't have to do a damn thing about it because they'll be able to point to a non-representative, non-statistically valid, self-selected internet poll and say "see, it isn't REALLY offensive".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #48
60. Even a socalled "sexist insult" can be arbitrary..
The insult is in the mind of the beholder. Nobody else has control over what's in someone else's mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #60
64. Would you tell that...
to a black person about the "n" word? Of to a gay person about any of the nasty names they get called?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Oh, give me a break, Velma. I'm black and a bitch.
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 09:45 AM by Kahuna
Now what? I'm being a bitch right now. And that phoney balogne nonsense of trying to equate a racial slur which only has one meaning with an adjective or noun is a total nonsense. I don't care how many times you repeat it. It doesn't make it so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. You didn't answer the question...
but then I've gotten used to people not answering questions in these threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. Psst.. Thelma.. black people get called the N word a lot..
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 09:46 AM by Kahuna
by each other. Duh. And guess what. We manage to survive inspite of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. It's Velma...and yes...
black people call each other that a lot. We could debate whether that is a good thing til the cows come home but that's not the point of this thread.

Would you tell a black person not to be offended if I called them the "n" word? *psst...btw...I'm not black*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #71
73. This thread has no point, IMHO... I guess as a black person..
my skin might be a little thicker than some other folks. You know what I mean? One of the first things my mother taught me was sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Not profound maybe. But I believe there's a lot of truth to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #73
79. Actually there is a point...and it's unfortunate...
that so many people seem to be missing it. The point is this...the rules of DU already prohibit sexist posts...along with racist, homophobic, and anti-religiou or anti-atheist slurs. Many of the women on this board have been arguing with the admins for a long time to get them to enforce those rules even-handedly. I have never asked for a word to be banned. I just want the same consideration given to me that is given to black or Hispanic or gay or or Christian DUers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #79
81. Let us miss it if we want to. It's no skin off your teeth...
You are not responsible for whether I "get it" or not. That's life. Count on the fact that most people may not necessarily see things the way you do. One would be gracious and mature to accept that and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #81
86. One would also be "gracious and mature"...
not to use offensive language after being told it is offensive. But that's a level of maturity some people on this baord don't seem to want to aspire to. C'est la vie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #86
120. If I direct it at you.. And you find it offensive, I certainly ..
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 11:03 AM by Kahuna
would honor your request. But you cannot speak for everyone. And BTW, there are a lot of other words and terms that other people find offensive. Should we start a list? I'll go first. The term, "goddammit" is very offensive to me and other God fearing folk. And thread that pokes fun of or belittles Jesus is highly offensive to me. DU Christians have asked for a little respect and have received exactly, zero to date.

Who else has a word or term? Let's get that list going for a DU filter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #120
125. Is there a derogatory term...
that gets applied to you just for being a Christian that you find offensive?

If so, tell me what it is and I'll do my best not to use it and tell others not to when I see them using it. Period.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #125
132. No. But if someone called me ugly or stupid I wouldn't like it
Those are adjectives the same way that bitch is an adjective. The fact that bitch is an adjective that could be gender specific means nothing to me. The words, she/her/female/lady and woman are gender specific. That's just part of our language. We do have words that are gender specific. I'm used to it. I don't know why you aren't. Next you'll be asking DU to man referring to God in the masculine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #132
137. It isn't just a gender specific word...
it is a gender specific insult. I would think that has been made abundantly clear in the many definitions that have been posted. While their are some definitions that do not mention gender...there are many that do and those definitions are insults. They either bash a woman for displaying unwomanly traits or a man for being too womanly. Sounds like a gender slur to me.

I don't care which gender people refer to their deities in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #137
142. I don't care if it is a gender specific insult. We do have..
gender specific words in our vocabulary and that seems to bother you more than it bothers most people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #142
145. I can explain it to you...
but I can't understand it for you.

One more time. Gender specific words are not the issue. You can call me by gender specific compliments or use neutral gender-specific words to describe me all you want. But gender-specific insults that demean women either for being women or for not behaving in a "womanly" enough fashion...are sexist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #132
169. for clarity's sake
it's the noun bitch, and it's use as an insult that is under consideration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #81
168. gee...i wonder what this country would be like if we took your
advice for the last 50 years.

"Count on the fact that most people may not necessarily see things the way you do. One would be gracious and mature to accept that and move on."

let's see...no legal abortions, blacks on the back of the bus both pop into mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #73
167. one of the first things my father taught me was not to be hurtful
when i don't need to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #68
87. that's not the issue
Skinner is not talking about an outright ban on the word. He is talking about banning the word when used as an insult against a third party.

Black people may refer to themselves as n* all the time, and I may proudly call myself a spic bitch, but those are not the cases under discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #87
122. We insult third parties everyday on DU. Now we have to have..
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 11:08 AM by Kahuna
an approved list of insults. How ridiculous is that? :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #122
127. we don't insult them in racist or...
...homophobic ways, though, do we? Why are we allowed to insult them in sexist ways?

Velma made a good point that this is really already covered under the rules. When the term is used in a sexist way the mods should be alerted and the post deleted, just as racist/homophobic terms would be.

What is the problem with that? Why do you object that rule?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #127
134. But, bitch isn't racist or homophobic, so?? Your point?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #134
138. are you serious?
Do not post racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnic, anti-religious, or anti-atheist bigotry. Unambiguous expressions of bigotry will be deleted, and will often result in the immediate banning of the individual responsible.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html


Again, the word bitch, when used in the way Skinner describes it, is sexist. People are only asking that the rules be applied fairly across the board.

I ask again, why is it OK to NOT enforce the rules on sexist language but expected when it comes or racist or homophobic language?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #138
150. If I refer to God in the masculine sense, I guess that's sexist too...
We can go on and on. Sexism is highly subjective. It's a very slippery slope that gets nowhere. To me, sexism is denying me equal rights under. Not little words or epitaphs. Your definition seems to be that we can tolerate no gender specific terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #150
166. no, only gender specific
That's gender specific, which you and I have already agreed is not automatically the same as sexism.

I don't see where using male pronouns insults women like using the word bitch as an insult does. If you see a comparison please explain to me what it is, specifically, that's being isolated and mocked and how it demeans women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #66
85. it doesn't have only one meaning
That racial slur has a non-racial definition. No one actually uses it, of course, and no one would dare justify her use of that word by claiming she was using the non-racial definition, but it is technically there.

I'm just wondering why that excuse wouldn't be acceptable for the racial slur but is acceptable here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNOE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #48
62. Yea, Democracy Stinks
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 10:05 AM by TNOE
I can see that it would be better if the administration just bowed to the wishes of a few. This issue started because of a thread entitled "John Dean bitch-slaps Bush" - which was an expression and was not calling any female on this board a bitch. I told you how I felt about it yesterday Velma and my thoughts have not changed. Basically a hand-ful (5) people have started this uproar trying to stiffle the speach of others.

This from YOUR web-site Velma:

We have fiction which is explicit, we have links which lead to explicit places. Daphne and Velma are grown-ups and believe that smut is a healthy expression. This is not a pornographic site, but does deal quite explicitly with things of a sexual nature. Ergo, if you are a minor (this means, if you are not of age in your respective country), religiously biased, anal-retentive, repressed, androphobic, or otherwise uncomfortable with graphic depictions/literature/etc. pertaining to georgious male bodies; or if you can't handle strong opinions; or accidently ended up here looking for Scooby Doo..

Web page was disabled - YOU are spouting sexism against women and yet you say you are GROWN UP enough to believe SMUT is a healthy expression. I think you are nothing more than a disrupter with very skewed perceptions.

http://www.ravenswing.com/EVILTWINS/misc/index.html

Website "sexualizing men" Again - Double Standards much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #62
98. it DOES stink
Thank god we live in a constitutional republic that allows minorities to be protected from the tyranny of the majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNOE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #98
103. Are you saying women are minorities?
And what men are the majority? Is that only white men who are the majority or all men? I never knew women were minoities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #103
104. Frankly, yes...all men in the US are the majority because...
no matter how oppressed the men in a particular racial or ethnic group are...they can still oppress their own women. And they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNOE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #104
109. Nope
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 10:46 AM by TNOE
Women can ONLY be oppressed if THEY THEMSELVES allow it. The men are only doing what the women allow.


http://rense.com/general51/WHRE.HTM


One of the reasons that so many women can't find a husband is that millions of men have declared a Marriage Strike. Men believe that family courts have become so unfair that in case of divorce, they will lose custody of their children and their ex will take them for all they're worth (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0324rob... ).

But there's a second reason for the marriage gap. Most people have heard that gloomy statistic: American women outlive men by over five years. But maybe they haven't considered the effects of that longevity gap on women.

Throughout his life, the American male is relentlessly stalked by the Grim Reaper.

In his late teens, car accidents, suicides, and homicides claim three times more male victims than females. Beginning in their 30s, men must face the scourge of heart disease. In their 50s and 60s, it's the looming specter of cancer. And men's overall suicide rate is four times higher than among women.

It's a public health disaster of epic proportions: For every one of the top 10 leading causes of death, men have a higher risk of death than women.

This demographic imbalance wreaks havoc on the lives of American women
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #104
208. So objectifcation is OK, so long as you're in the group doing it?
What happened to supporting equality?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #208
210. Huh?
Not sure what that had to do with what I posted.

I'm going to assume that you are yet another person trying to pull my web sites into this discussion. And yes, I am all in favor of equality...including women's equal right to have porn written for them by other women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #210
212. I may have made a mistaken assumption - you tell me
From your posts, I assumed that you were against pornography that "objectified" women. If that was a mistaken assumption, then I apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #103
112. I wasn't saying that but I do think they are
It's called power - power structures, social arrangements, etc. In terms of power, yes, women ARE a minority.

However, that's actually not what I was saying. I agree with it, but it wasn't my point. You commented that democracy is a good thing, and I pointed out that it isn't, really, not in the way you meant it. That's why we don't have it in this country, because majority rule is not a wise way to run society.

I would hope it's common knowledge by now that just because the majority believes something is right that doesn't actually mean it's right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #103
170. in this case, the PEOPLE, both male and female
who are willing to openly protest the use of bitch to insult are in the minority.

a fairly remarkable statement about a liberal board in itself, btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #62
99. 'cause everyone knows feminists are sexless
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 10:41 AM by VelmaD
Whatever.

It is not a contradiction at all if you bother to actually read my opinion on banning bitch. I never advocated banning the word. I'm generally a big proponent of the 1st amendment and I run erotica sites on the internet purely because I believe in free speech. (Hell, I own the Boys in Chains archive and I haven't read 99% of what's on it because it isn't my cup of tea...but I'm willing to defend the right of others to publish their stories.)

Anyway, I'm not in favor of banning any words. I'm just in favor or applying the DU rules equally and I'm in favor of people being more sensitive to the sexism (and homophobia and racsim) that pervades our society and this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #99
105. amazing how the wording matters
Really, I wonder how different the poll and discussion threads would be if Skinner had phrased this all as you did in that last sentence rather han as "should we ban x and y."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #105
107. But he didn't...did he?
Which makes me wonder about why he phrased it the way he did. I don't want to believe he set us up for this to be a flamewar. I want to ascribe more noble intentions to him than that. But it ain't easy. The word "ban" is loaded and he had to know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNOE Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #99
106. You talk and act out of both sides of your mouth
you don't know what you advocate except that no one insult your accute sensibilities about being a female and yet as a female you have a web-site sexualizing men. You want to ban the word bitch from a political website and then espouse the 1st Amendment.

I don't think the word "bitch" is your problem, you are one very confused female. And for the women who are spouting abuse statistics - NOTHING goes more towards the abuse of women and children than poronography. You are a hypocrite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #106
110. You still haven't listened to a word I've said...
I never advocated banning ANY words on DU. I merely asked for people to be more sensitive to the concerns of women on DU about what some of us see as the pervasive sexism on this site.

And you might want to actually go look at the "porn" on my websites. Almost all of it involves men having sex with each other. The vast majority of it was also written by women. I'm a firm believer in women's right to take back erotica for ourselves. I'm also in favor of turning the stereotype that men like to watch two women on it's head with the male-on-male fiction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #48
78. Use as an insult is not necessarily sexist...
although it seems some have a rather difficult time processing that. Lazy, perhaps, but not sexist.

For the last bloody time: GENDER-SPECIFIC WORDS ARE NOT INHERENTLY SEXIST.

AND...a SPECIFIC insult, aimed at ONE person, used because they fit the accepted definition (e.g. "bitch" - malicious, spiteful, unpleasant, etc.) CANNOT be compared to a term of derogation which insults and demeans an entire CLASS of people merely because of their race, religion or sexual orientation (e.g. "nigger" "kike", "faggot", u.s.w.). Anyone who would suggest that it can is, at best, obtuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #78
94. yes, it is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #94
97. You need to read a dictionary, then...
if I ever use it as an insult (which is rarely, because I generally prefer to excoriate the objects of my derision at great and detailed length) the meaning I intend is "spiteful, malicious, harsh, vile, unpleasant, nasty" et cetera. Use of a gender-specific term with such connotations is NOT sexist; however, I'd be perfectly happy to substitue such perfectly good and sadly under-used words as "shrew" and "harpy" in the future. Would that make you happy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #97
102. a dictionary?
check out the relevant definitions from dictionary.com:

2. Offensive.

    a. A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing.
    b. A lewd woman.
    c. A man considered to be weak or contemptible.


4. Slang. Something very unpleasant or difficult.



Again, people can argue that when they use the word they are really referring to definition #4 and it is therefore not sexist, but while that's technically correct it ignores the connotation of the word, it's commonly accepted definition, and it strikes me as a pretty big stretch to justify the use of sexist language because...well, why, again? I asked before why people are so determined to protect this right to use this word in only this way, and I have yet to get an answer. I've never seen people cling so desperately to the right to use a word in a way that those around them sincerely feel is hurtful and offensive.

No matter. Let's just remember that nigger has several definitions as well. Also from dictionary.com:

nigger ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ngr)
n. Offensive Slang
1.

    Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger (James Baldwin).
    Used as a disparaging term for a member of any dark-skinned people.

2. Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people: Gun owners are the new niggers... of society (John Aquilino).



According to you, I should be perfectly free to use the word according to the 2nd definition there. That's fine with me, by the way. If people want to use bitch and claim they mean definition #4, I don't really mind so long as the rule is applied consistently and fairly to EVERYONE and ALL WORDS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #102
111. Perhaps you should get a BETTER dictionary, then.
I'm going by the OED; one definition given is "a malicious, spiteful, or otherwise despicable woman".

And anyone who can even ATTEMPT to compare a SPECIFIC term of contempt to a GENERAL term of contempt is, as I said before, amazingly obtuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #111
118. that's funny
When I used OED (online, subscription required, through my school library) I found the following definition:

2.

a. Applied opprobriously to a woman; strictly, a lewd or sensual woman. Not now in decent use; but formerly common in literature. In mod. use, esp. a malicious or treacherous woman; of things: something outstandingly difficult or unpleasant. (See also SON OF A BITCH.)

b. Applied to a man (less opprobrious, and somewhat whimsical, having the modern sense of dog). Not now in decent use.


Like I said before - a point that you continue to ignore - the word carries very clear and obvious assumptions about the nature of the female sex, and that's what makes it sexist. You can pick and choose the dictionary and definition that suits you, ignore the historical and social meaning of the word, pretend that when you say it means something less common, whatever. Knock yourself out.

I don't mind being treated like a nigger here. I'm a relatively tough bitch and can handle it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tishaLA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #118
123. Thanks. I posted the OED definition yesterday
and nobody cared then. I'm sure they won't now, even though the OED is the proverbial bible of the English language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #123
177. it doesn't seem to matter how many definitions are produced.
some people just refuse to see.

if i had the power of a mind reader, boy would i have fun today, delving into these "defenders of the magnificent word" and find out what is really behind this.

it makes no sense to me...to intentional hurt your allies in order to retain the right to use a particular word against your enemies.

from a strategic point of view, that is silly as hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #177
180. that's what's really bothering me
I wasn't originally in favor of a ban, but I changed my mind when I realized what it is Skinner's actually proposing. What convinced me, too, was seeing how people are just so fucking callous with each other. No one gives a shit at all. But at all. It's amazing to me.

I don't understand why the ability to use this word in a sexist way is so important that people are willing to hurt and offend their allies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #78
173. find me a dictionary in which the female gender doesn't surface
in the definition.

linguistics aside...why are you so addamate in your refusal to accomadate the comfort of your sister. what, specifily is so wonderous about the word that you defend it's use in the face of people asking for you to refrain from doing so?

what is the big deal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kanary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #48
82. Agree completely, Velma.
Almost a "push poll".

We keep hearing, over and over, that this forum belongs to the admins, and they will run it as they see fit.

So, I want to hear, from the source, why slurs against women are OK, but slurs against race, religion, or homosexuality is NOT OK.

It's been that way for years, so I'd like to know what the thought behind it is.

Kanary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #48
96. Why they can't just step up and enforce that rule the way they enforce the
'cuz they got no balls?
:evilgrin:

I've read all the posts in all the threads before this one, and including this one.

I say Skinner should instruct mods to treat the word bitch as he has outlined ... ban it's usage in certain circumstances as he has outlined.

I think Yoko Ono said it best, when she said "woman is the nigger of the world."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
51. My elaboration on No
One could easily get the impression from reading these myriad threads that real feminists are the only ones able to recognize sexist language, and the only ones willing to put themselves on the line to protect themselves and their sisters from words that might frighten women into meek submissiveness.

But I cant buy that line of thinking because theres no such thing as a real feminist. There are many factions of feminism with many points of view about the B word.

I remember 70s feminism very well, and I was part of it until I could no longer bear to think of myself as a victim and all men as my oppressors. That attitude comprised a very large part of 70s feminism: Women Good, Men Bad. It was a black and white view of a gray world and it polarized people. And that didnt help women or men a damn bit. BTW, Im not saying that thats all feminism was about. It was just the part that made me decide Im a humanist, not a feminist.

So the history lesson doesnt interest me. Etymology does. However it is not the origin of the B word that is germane to this debate, but its current usage. Thats because language changes. Words take on new meanings. I would argue that when calling someone an asshole few people actually picture a puckered sphincter, but rather mean to indicate that their opponent is a jerk. Yelling "Goddamn it!" is an expression of exasperation, not a consignment to eternal hell. And do you really think of unwed mothers when you hear someone described as a bastard?

But "bitch" has always been and likely will always be a gender-specific word. The fact that men now use it on each other does not make it genderless because in that context it is meant to be emasculating. It is an insult when applied to either sex, no doubt about it.

Still, the fact that it is gender-specific does not make it sexist. Equating its specificity with sexism is a huge leap. That is the kind of "different rules for women" that men find objectionable. As do many women.

Why should calling a woman a bitch be any more insulting/threatening/offensive than calling her an asshole? Why should I be any more concerned about being thought of as bitchy than as bad-tempered or overbearing? ("Overbearing" is often an insult applied to women - should this term be banned, too?) If anything, I would be more concerned about hearing a behavior-specific term like bad-tempered applied to me, because it defines more sharply than a blanket insult like bitch, which I can dismiss. I cannot be hurt by words any more than I choose to let them hurt me. If I let invisible people on the Internet scare me into silence with a single word that I have convinced myself carries an implicit threat to my wellbeing, well, shame on me.

"Bitch," "prick," "bastard" these are all shorthand for people who lack the milk of human kindness, whose compassion is in short supply, and who do not treat others as they themselves would want to be treated. They are lazy words, and there are many other, better words that insult more keenly; but they have their uses, and they are not inherently sexist. Thats why I dont want to see them banned from this board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Christian Donating Member (746 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #51
72. Thanks
You said what I was trying to say, but you said it better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #51
91. Well said. I largely agree.
Strangely, however, while the use of the 'c-word' is deemed sexist due to the fact that it equates a common female anatomical feature to an epithet (when used to call a person a name, rather than just a slang term for a vagina), the word "prick" is not similarly banned as sexist, even though the reasons it's sexist are identical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #91
93. reverse sexism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #51
92. gender specific vs. sexist
But "bitch" has always been and likely will always be a gender-specific word. The fact that men now use it on each other does not make it genderless because in that context it is meant to be emasculating. It is an insult when applied to either sex, no doubt about it.

Still, the fact that it is gender-specific does not make it sexist. Equating its specificity with sexism is a huge leap. That is the kind of "different rules for women" that men find objectionable. As do many women.


I agree that things can be gender specific and not sexist. However, I don't agree that that's the case here.

I find the word, when used in the way Skinner is referring to, sexist because of how it insults women. Women are being insulted for being aggressive and opinionated. No one would really call Laura Bush a bitch because she's too mousy and weak. The term I hear most often with her is Stepford-related. Barbera Bush (grandmother), now there's a bitch. I find it sexist that these are grounds for insulting a woman. I find it sexist when society tries to find fault with strong women, to marginalize them somehow. These are the types of women who get called this word; we can argue all day long about the technicalities of defintion 4.5 or whatever, but we all know how the word is used, and we all know what it means.

And I think the use of the word against men is also sexist. Like you said, it emasculates him, by applying a word that is gender specific. He is insulted because he is being compared to a woman - how is that not sexist? What's, exactly, is wrong with being a woman?

Again, the mere fact that the word is gender specific does not make it sexist. It is the stereotypes and notions of femininity inherent in it that do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheWhoMustBeObeyed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #92
175. A word of some nuance
My industry, marketing, is filled to the gills with aggressive and opinionated women (and men). In my world these traits alone aren't enough to get a woman branded as a bitch, and people laugh openly at a man who applies the word to a woman who's gotten the better of him through sheer aggression.

What it takes to be a bitch (or prick) in this context are behaviors like underhandedness, backstabbing, stealing credit from subordinates, lying to superiors, passing along blame for mistakes - you know, the usual business mix. I have worked with strong, tough women and men, and I have worked with major bitches and total pricks. I see a clear distinction, and it governs how I apply the terms.

I respect, though, that not everyone delineates at the same point, and that one person's powerhouse is another person's prick. That's why I use these shorthand words in private conversation, and not on public forums.

Just now I see that my other half has posted in support of the ban because these pejoratives have no place here. I agree they don't need to be used here but I am opposed to banning them. If members were to engage the users of B/C/P/D/W or whatever in discussion about the appropriateness of their usage, they might advance understanding better than demanding the offenders stop, or forbidding them to start.

(BTW, absolutely nothing is wrong with being a woman unless one is a man, and to imply that a man is a woman is to say he is less of a man. The reverse is also true: at least in my experience, women don't appreciate implications that they are in any way masculine. )

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #175
178. I never requested a ban on the word...
Just a request for the current rules to be enforced for gender slurs as they are for racial or ethnic slurs.

And this did start long ago with discussions to try to get people to voluntarily change their behavior and stop using sexist language. The fact that we are still having to have this discussion and there are still people on this board who want to reserve the right to use gender epithets lets you know how well that worked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #175
183. you can say that again
I come from the hard sciences and currently work on military security issues. I have been surrounded by men for most of my professional life, and I know that when someone calls me a bitch I am doing something right. I understand and support reclaiming, and I understand personal nuance, but I agree with your point on private vs. public conversation.

I agree they don't need to be used here but I am opposed to banning them. If members were to engage the users of B/C/P/D/W or whatever in discussion about the appropriateness of their usage, they might advance understanding better than demanding the offenders stop, or forbidding them to start.

My sense is that this is the culmination of a lot of those individual engagements. I'm curious what would happen now if someone hit an alert on the sexist use of the word bitch. I really have come to think now that no new rule is needed, it's just that the rules currently in place need to be enforced fairly.

(BTW, absolutely nothing is wrong with being a woman unless one is a man, and to imply that a man is a woman is to say he is less of a man. The reverse is also true: at least in my experience, women don't appreciate implications that they are in any way masculine. )

I agree that to call a man a woman is to say he's less than a man, but I don't see that the other way around. Women may object to being called men, but I don't think calling them men lowers their position like it does in the other case. Being rough, tough, aggressive, etc. isn't really being "less than" a woman (can you be less than the lesser sex?), it's more inappropriate. It's just wrong and improper for women to be men; it's a sign of weakness and cowardice, much more contemptible, for men to be women.

Those are the connotations I see, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
58. Good Grief!
There was a time I couldn't get a credit card, a car note, or rent an apartment without a male co-signer, even though I had a good work history and a fair wage. I had a friend die from a botched abortion, and childhood friends die in Viet-Nam. THAT and today's war, being called unAmerican by the right and the White House administration is offensive to me.

I've heard men and women use the word bitch all my life. I have even used it from time to time. But then, I don't swear much. 'Bitch' has many meanings. I don't particularly like the word, but I don't find it offensive, either. My son has told me I need to taking 'bitching' lessons because he thinks I'm too nice. If someone called me a bitch, I guess that would be quite something!

Any word can become offensive if used in an offensive context. The old adage 'it's not what you say, but how you say it' applies, IMO.

Imposed censorship is a controlling and frightening thing. Once it begins, it is hard to stop.

I voted no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
77. Why are people unable to follow simple instructions?
There are already 5 posts on the pinned thread that says "DO NOT POST HERE" in big bold letters. Administrators, you have my sympathy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gottaB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
80. It shouldn't be allowed in topic titles
It's inflamatory and off-putting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
84. Epithets make a poor substitute for reasoned criticism, and NO!!!
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 09:58 AM by slackmaster
I don't believe ANY word should be banned on DU, including the highly offensive ones that are clearly banned under present rules.

Let people who rely on ad hominem attack advertise their prejudice, misogyny, misandry, stupidity, and hatred. Let us all see the emptiness of their thoughts and arguments.

People who use sexual put-downs, scatological references, racial or ethnic slurs, etc. deserve to exercise their right of free speech here IMO, and letting them show their true, bigoted colors is ultimately a good thing because it helps the rest of us sort the wheat from the chaff. (Oh, did I just insult wheat plants?)

Skinner, I'm pretty sure you won't agree with my first sentence but thanks for asking anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
95. Should the term "hysteria" be banned as sexist??
hysteria

\Hys*te"ri*a\, n. rie. See Hysteric.] (Med.) A nervous affection, occurring almost exclusively in women, in which the emotional and reflex excitability is exaggerated, and the will power correspondingly diminished, so that the patient loses control over the emotions, becomes the victim of imaginary sensations, and often falls into paroxism or fits.

Note: The chief symptoms are convulsive, tossing movements of the limbs and head, uncontrollable crying and laughing, and a choking sensation as if a ball were lodged in the throat. The affection presents the most varied symptoms, often simulating those of the gravest diseases, but generally curable by mental treatment alone.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hysteria
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #95
100. No, but calling
a woman a hysterical female or something similar will get you alerted on if I see it. It's a sexist stereotype. Which is covered already by the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemLikr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #100
117. So, Velma, is it OK to call someone an "Hysterical Male?"
You really need to consider publishing a handbook of language rules and regs...it would be very helpful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #117
119. you know what would be even better?
If so called progressives actually understood the basic mechanics of the sexism and racism they claim to fight.

You want to know why "hysterical male" isn't the same?

Here you go:

http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/content/2002-06/24wise.c...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #95
101. NO ~ to Skinner's question and no to banning hysteria
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cally Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
130. I think all words should be used here
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. I still find the word bitch slap as indicating violence to women. I lose respect for anyone using the term.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #130
146. I love you Cally.
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #146
165. I love you both Cally & Kahuna
:hug:

It seems so odd that we are having these discussions.....ok, bitch is not the nicest of words...and I am real sorry a lot of women here take it personally...but as Cally said, there are a lot of words that are offensive to many here on the boards...so where does this end? IMHO we do not want to go down this road cause its not gonna lead us to a good place.

If things get too much or too offensive for people to tolerate, then why stick around? If I keep coming back to a place or person that treats me in a way I find disrespectful, then what does that say about me??

Life isn't always the way we want it, but you will never be able to control it from the outside in- by attempting to control what others say or do. You can only deal with what goes on in side you...you do not have to accept that word as fitting or describing you.....you are what you think you are.....if you want to play a victim as in feeling the recipient of every derogatory comment then that is your choice. I simply have other things I'd rather do with my time.

I do not mean this as a put down or insult to those who feel hurt by the choice of words that some use...so I hope you won't flame me and make this an "us or them" battle. I don't like a lot of terms but I don't let those terms define or insult or hurt me. You have to realize it says a lot more about the person who chooses to use that word than it does about the person it is said about.

Anyhow.... :shrug:

Peace
DR


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #165
188. have you ever heard of the civil rights movement or the women's
rights moveent> how well do you think either of those efforts would have succeeded if we followed your advice "Life isn't always the way we want it, but you will never be able to control it from the outside in- by attempting to control what others say or do."

there seem to be a helluva lot of lassez-faire liberals around here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #188
206. self deleted
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 04:02 PM by Desertrose
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
151. There Is No Need For The Usage
My vote was to bar it.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #151
152. Wow...thanks
You're one of the DUers whose opinion I most respect. Means a lot to me that you think the word is not appropriate. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shrek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #152
179. Velma, you changed my opinion on this issue
I was essentially a fence-sitter, but after reading your posts I have left it and landed on your side.

The simple facts are:

1. It is entirely possible, even easy, to communicate effectively without the use of that word.

2. The word is offensive to many who post here.

If it harms no one to prohibit it, and harms some to allow it, then the decision is easy IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrWeird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #151
154. Then I ask you to no longer use the word "bastard".
Since the common usage of the word only applies to males.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #154
156. Being One Myself, Doctor
You may forgive me for not acceeding to your request. Put bluntly, Sir, it is not supposed to be easy to be a man; we are expected, and properly so, to take a great deal....

"Don't take rides from strange men, and remember all men are strange as hell."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #156
157. Yeah, cause everyone knows being a woman...
is a piece of cake. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #157
160. Life Is Suffering, Ma'am
Each side thinks the other has it better, being more familiar with its own complaints.

Throughout the animal world, males are expected to compete against one another in ways that guarantee a large proportion will go to the wall in abject defeat. Every man is the enemy of all other men in his soul....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triple H Donating Member (714 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
155. No.
We don't want to turn into Facist Underground, do we? I think banning anything is facism. I don't like the idea of banning a word.

I think as long as the word is used, and not against another member of DU, it should be ok. That's the only logical solution, IMO.

That's my .02 and please respect it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pathwalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
163. Yes, especially bitch-slapping.
While this word is not one that particularly bothers me personally (if someone calls me that, I'll usually say that's MRS. Bitch to you. I also have a favorite T-shirt that says Witch, with the "W" crossed off and a "B" above it), it is very offensive to many of the female DUers here. Since I respect them, I will vote for them. To me, this is about respect, and the misogyny on DU has been old for a while now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PfcHammer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
171. thread's filling up. smell a lockdown coming n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jus_the_facts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
172. TROUBLES IN PARADOX?
.....our all or nothing mentality is and always will be one of the causes of history repeating....as with the way we compare ourselves to perfection instead of the animals that we are and judge one another accordingly....round and round we go without much hope of ever making any real progress. :nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BattyDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
176. I'm female ... and I say NO
When a woman pisses me off, I consider her a bitch. When a man pisses me off, I consider him a bastard. Should we also ban the word, bastard? After all, that word is probably offensive to anyone who was born out of wedlock. And what about son-of-a-bitch? Will that be banned, too? :eyes:

Personally, I'm not offended by the word. I am offended by the fact that a powerful woman is routinely called a bitch for no other reason than being in power. That is the real sexism, not the word itself. But when a powerful woman abuses that power, then I agree: she's a bitch ... and a powerful man who abuses that power is a bastard. I realize that it's probably old-fashioned to consider one word "feminine" and the other "masculine" - but what can I tell you? In my neck of the woods, that's how we use those words. :)

As long as "bitch" or any nasty word is not used to insult another DU member, I have no problem with it - but that's already against the rules anyway.

I believe in Freedom of Speech 100%! Once you start banning certain words because they may be offensive to some people, then you open the door to banning other words. Where will it end and what criteria would have to be met before banning a word? Freedom of Speech is a double-edged sword: you take the good with the bad. Sometimes you're going to offend somebody whether you meant to or not. Sometimes you're going to be offended. It's a risk ... but maintaining free expression is worth it, don't you think? Isn't that part of why we're all here in the first place? We want to stop the RW from taking away our rights, including the right to say what we want to say. (Yes, I know - you can't yell fire in a crowded room ... yada, yada, yada ... but now you're talking about causing a panic and possibly injuring someone, not simply offending someone.)

To be totally honest ... I find it amusing as hell that Progressives and/or Liberals are arguing in favor of banning an "offensive" word. It's true that we Liberals prefer to be very "PC" with our language because we don't want to demean anyone, but when we start creating rules that forbid "non-PC" words from being used, we're going against a core principle of progressive thought. :crazy:

That's my 2 cents worth ...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
182. I think the majority has stated NO, both in polls and posts. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #182
184. Yes...and if the majority decided to jump off a cliff...
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #184
185. Really, when?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #185
186. *snort*
I didn't think it was possible for someone to make me laugh on this thread...but you did it. Thanks. :) I needed that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #186
187. Was it the graphic or the smart assnes? Just wondering. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #187
193. I thinkit was the image in my head...
of the little guy in your sig line bouncing up and down..."we're jumping off a cliff...cool...when? where? now?" :bounce:

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #193
195. Yeah, the good ol' Hammurderer always gets them.........eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #184
189. if the will of the majority was imposed in the 60s, blacks wouldn't
have civil rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guy Whitey Corngood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #189
211. Well the majority here aren't ignorant right wing racists. So I'll respect
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 04:55 PM by SMIRKY_W_BINLADEN
their decision. Actually the majority of people here seem pretty damn decent. In a democracy the majority vote should prevail. You do what you do I'll do what I do and keep calling Georgie and the Bush crime family bitches, hos and whatever else I feel like. This shit is just getting ridiculous.

If anything, no words should be banned. That way it tells you more about the person using them. Feel free to correct them any time there's nothing wrong with that. And I've been called every stupid ass racial slur anybody can come up with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #211
216. right-wing racists use the word "bitch" as a sexist SLUR
and should we so-called liberals be like them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracyindanger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #216
217. RW idiots use the word "liberal" as a slur, too
Excuse me, I forgot: Nuance isn't allowed on this topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
192. YES.....you've read all my posts in the previous threads, Skinner
and I think it's wrong to put it up to a poll vote, since the majority who want to use the word bitch as a sexist epithet against women will win the poll vote, so the minority who protest its use will be left out again in the cold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolo amber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #192
196. Yeah...
that whole voting/majority rules thing is a real pisser, eh? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slinkerwink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #196
198. oh yeah....the majority isn't always right
remember...the majority was against civil rights, against the rights of women to suffrage, against the rights of gays to have sex in the privacy of their own home without being arrested.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dolo amber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #198
202. Right or wrong
it's the best system we have at the mo'. I'm sure Skinner and all of DU would be happy to hear any suggestions you might have for allowing censorship based on the preferences of a minority of its members. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #202
203. It's very simple...
and it's a suggestion I have made repeatedly. Enforce the rule against sexist posts the same way they do for posts using racist language.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VelmaD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #196
200. Difference between a republic and a democracy dolo_amber...
Edited on Wed Apr-07-04 03:42 PM by VelmaD
We don't live in a democracy. The majority does not always get it's way if that means trampling on the rights of the minority. If that was the case we'd still have Jim Crow laws and you and I wouldn't have the right to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gpandas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
209. no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
214. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-07-04 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
218. I'm locking this.
The poll has been ended ahead of schedule, so I think it is appropriate to lock this.

I have posted another thread that may be of interest to you.
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 Mon Oct 20th 2014, 04:52 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