What, why and how it is all happening very well. Thank you.

It's kinda heartbreaking, really. We are making progress in so many ways. I don't like seeing women getting left behind. Whether it's the social acceptability of bigoted language, the widespread resistance to anti-objectification efforts, just anything that most people still so easily dismiss as 'little stuff'... to me it just drives me to push harder.

Encouragingly, anti harassment efforts seem to have got traction now, and aren't being so widely dismissed as before.

So, hope...

I love posts like these, Redqueen.

I think it's important for women to look at these slurs critically. Not because it's fun, but because we need to think about whether we want to continue using them against other women. Men using women-negative slurs against women to feed the woman-hating culture we live in is nothing new. But women should at least think about whether they want to be part of the culture that says "women = insult".

Privilege is so tricky to talk about with people, because they get so defensive about it. It makes me wonder how to reach people on a level that makes them get it. Some say that men don't understand how the world treats women until they have daughters. I hope that's not true. I hope that it's possible for most to see it even without being directly affected by it. But it takes a lot of effort and willingness to listen, and.... well. I am sure it is more comfortable to cling to what they know, instead of looking at the world that women inhabit.

I think it's common that even the most blatant forms of ugliness which are directed at girls and women aren't recognized by men until they have a daughter. Sadly I think for some, it doesn't happen even then.

And the more insidious forms sometimes aren't ever acknowledged, by men or women. Mary Pipher described in Reviving Ophelia the choice adolescent girls face, and I think part of this choice is whether or not to 'go along to get along' with respect to these 'little stuff' examples of misogyny.

actually inferior?

(Whoa! Did he really say that?)

Not really, but think in evolutionary terms.

Over the last few hundred thousand years we have evolved where the female was pretty much out of it most of the year with pregnancy and childbirth so the male evolved to be larger and stronger for the hunt and battle. The problem then is not so much thinking that women's skills are inferior to men's, but that that the hunt and battle are more important than the domestic and agricultural work that women did. Facing danger and possessing strength are rewarded far more than keeping order. Even among men, the scholars and administrators rarely have statues built. Statues and holidays have been reserved for military men and their ventures. Tough guys.

That is now a complete crock. Not only are we living 3 times as long as our prehistoric ancestors, but we have changed work to where musculature is much less important. Even war is largely mechanized and remote controlled.

So, the way I see it is that rather than simply denigrating women, these insults are archaically and excessively celebrating male prowess at whatever. This may seem to be a small distinction, but I think it changes the color of the entire discussion.

Oh, yeah, there are a lot of guys out there who do dislike and denigrate women, but I suspect they are not as important as some would make them. At least not in this country.

Unrelated historical inaccuracies aside, how does the unfairness of making some types of oppressive slurs socially unacceptable... yet fighting tooth and nail to defend the social acceptability of anti-woman slurs have anything to to with an individual's personal rationalization for the unfairness?

I also don't understand how the idea that referring to women as "bitches" is more about celebrating male power than denigrating women makes much difference at all. It still boils down to elevating men's status and keeping women's lower.

you're referring to, but where did I mention slurs? "Slurs" are just words, and every group has unfavorable terms for other groups. It's an entirely human failing and goes beyond any gender wars. I find it's usually best to ignore them as much as possible.

Now, on a more positive note, here's an article about two extraordinary women who are more "man" than either you or I:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/us/politics/2-women-transcending-party-renew-quest-for-immigration-deal.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20140122&_r=0

Slurs are not all equal. Some slurs are considered socially unacceptable because they reinforce oppression.

It is frustrating that certain people are willing to acknowledge that the use of bigoted slurs is unacceptable for some oppressed groups, but fight tooth and nail to keep using misogynist slurs.

That's kind of the whole point of this thread.

And I'm sorry, but... they are more "man"?

Just what is that supposed to mean?

without distraction. A simple play on words meaning little. Sometimes, words are just words and it's wasted effort digging down to find some horrid hidden meaning in there.

Read the article, without distraction over words, about two women I admire greatly-- soldiering on with little to show for it except their belief that they are on the right path. And they are not alone, of course. There are many more like them, but I just happened across this article yesterday.

(Oops! "Soldiering" What does that really mean...)

I'm done. Enjoy ... whatever it is you think you're doing here.

More "man" infuckingdeed.

gender slurs. Really, what are you trying to prove here?

But I do think that celebrating men and masculinity (like in for example, "be a man" "Don't throw like a girl&quot is still putting women and femininity down as inferior, directly and/or indirectly. The ideal in society is to be a man, and preferably manly. Women can never be these things, and will be ridiculed and fought if they act like they're equal to men (and by this I mean that they don't sugarcoat their opinions, and they don't coddle the men they meet, like what is expected of women).

I mean, it's like a football match. When one team wins, we celebrate them and the things they do and try to bask in the glory of it. The losing team is still considered losers, and we either try to erase them from our memory or they get mocked. Both of these things happen at the same time, one can't exist without the other.

being used to criticize men. Neither of those phrase celebrates men or masculinity, they attack boys and men using language that attacks girls and women. Both are insults to both males and females, celebrating nothing.

instead of being their natural self. Those quotes idealizes masculinity ("real men throw well, because they are powerful and masculine. Not like girls!", and imply that men who do not fill the ideal are lesser people. Almost like women.

Rigid gender roles hurt both genders, as I'm sure you've noticed.

there is that "winner" thing. While it does point out that girls are "losers" in throwing fastballs or long golf drives, I'm not sure there's a value judgment going on there. If you do value fastballs as extremely important in your life, women will be forever losers; but most of us are a little more complex than that. A game is just a game, after all.

Aside from that, there was a lot of talk about society being "feminized" and that maybe it's not such a bad thing. Constant competition, as in "manly pursuits" tends to be draining while there's a lot to be said for cooperation..

And it would be easy to ignore the fastball thing if the glorification of masculinity and male ideals weren't the staus quo outside of the game, too. The best paying jobs are the ones that rely on "ideally male" qualities, like being able to do well in science and math. STEM jobs. In school we were learning an awfully lot about male philosophers and their great contributions to society. We also learned that they believed women were so inferior. Most of the books we read were written by men, about men. When we read books by women, there were always someone complaining that he didn't want to, because seeing it from a woman's POV was so boring. No one ever complained that intensely about the men's books, (and some of classics were a pain to read).

And then there's all the jokes about women's interests as "frivolous". There's so many put-downs and they're so normalized that it just tires you out enough that you don't even want to fight them anymore. So in a way, constantly saying that one sex is the better one sends the message that the other one is inferior. The same thing happens with racism. If a person puts up a sign that says "whites only" and say that it's just because whites are naturally better because XYZ, then that does make everyone else feel worse about themselves. It creates a hierarchy of power.

Cooperation will forever be my choice if I can pick between competition and cooperation. I don't want to 'win', as much as I'd like to be able to reach a fair compromise. We have to be able to cooperate if we're going to be able to get our government back to doing its job FOR the people instead AGAINST the people, after all.

does the comparison of a woman to a dog celebrate male prowess?

Last edited Fri Jan 24, 2014, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)

And social systems like patriarchy developed because of this over thousands of years over fear and insecurity. As well potential loss/threatening of power? The whole mystical childbirth thing?

War is a pathological response to environmental stresses, and 'hunters' supported sustenance less than gatherers did, -- "hunter/gatherers presumed to be along gender lines in the first place for some ridiculous reason.

Insulting women to celebrate male prowess is still insulting women. Kind of a weak argument there TG.

claim that either gender is superior or otherwise, just occasionally better at certain things.

For some odd reason buried in prehistory we tend to celebrate things that males trend to be better at, ergo we tend to celebrate males more than females. This is an imbalance to be addressed, not an insult.

Insulting women is not "celebrating" men.

Why do you insist on framing misogynist slurs as if they are not meant to insult women?

yeah. I agree.

I hope you do some thinking about why it is considered unacceptable to use bigoted slurs against oppressed groups. Because at this point it seems that you're not clear on that.

Also worth examining: Possible reasons why it is easy for you to dismiss sexist speech (e.g. more "man&quot , vs. why the group with lower status, the oppressed group (women) might not see it as so meaningless.

If people want to discuss anthropology, they should at least have an idea of the different theories of gender in early civilizations.

That's a whole other discussion.

One which has been had many times all over the net. If one was interested in learning of these theories they aren't hard to find.

Or hear anyone whining about how they were entrapped by an enticingly-titled, nefarious HoF thread.

hateful sexists. Do they forget the person who brought them into this world is a woman?

Do they all hate their own mothers?

Women can be as misogynist as men. Media, peers, families - the message that women are of lower status comes from all directions. It's nothing personal, it's just 'the way things are'.

We've seen similar situations played out over and over. (e.g. homosexuality was considered wrong, non-whites were inferior, left-handed people were from the devil, etc. etc. ad nauseam). Eventually enough people learn that the programming is bullshit and we more or less move on.

And I think Sinclair's quote applies here with very little additional interpretation.

And I have to admit (as a male with a long association with the military, and its corresponding impact on my linguistic habits) that I am quite guilty of that linguistic pattern. This, despite the fact that I am (and have long been) aware of the pattern you describe and its detrimental effects.

Language really is important. It is not merely a means of expressing thought and feeling ... it is a tool for developing thought and feeling. And one's language patterns are very much a matter of training and habit ... and thus are a reflection of how the mind itself has been trained.

These very detrimental patterns of thought and speech are NOT easily disarmed, even by those of us who are aware of the problem and disapprove of it. It would help to have linguistic elements that are invective and which can be used to convey thought and feeling in situations where one man must criticize another. I have been told by a Chief Petty Officer that, when I am confronted with that sort of situation, my use of language causes seasoned naval sailors to blush and flee. (He intended that as a compliment, BTW.)

For example, I regard Paul Ryan as an incomplete and largely dysfunctional male (like most Randians). He is untrustworthy. He deliberately de-magnetized his moral compass decades ago. He is self centered, and panders to a certain element in order to achieve personal power. He is incapable of exerting personal courage or committing to sacrifice to achieve the greater good. He is not someone with whom I would seek an honest intellectual debate, for I do not believe him to be capable of intellectual honesty. He is certainly not someone I would ever want at my shoulder when on the field of battle, for his commitment to Randian "self interest" is likely to compel him to leave my butt exposed when the evil wind is up. Etc.

Now, I can express all of that in a fashion any other male can understand, and with great force, and a very few words ... but those words reinforce the pattern you describe and serves to promote male privilege and even misogyny. (An alternative set of words slurs the LGBT folk ... it's a similar problem.)

So I need new words and turns of phrase that are both easily expressed and readily understood ... and which pack emotional force ... for moments where I just have to express all that tersely and and effectively. (During my study of Soviet culture back in the 80s, I learned that the word (if I remember aright) "nikulturny" ... which means "without culture" ... was one of the most deadly insults in the repertoire. Pretty much guaranteed to produce a bar fight. What a great word ... but it draws a blank stare when used here, of course. And no one seems to care about being called uncultured.)

Change the use of language, you change the underlying patterns of thought, and vice-versa. This all takes time. Consequently I have chosen to resort to suppression of the impulse to use that sexist nomenclature. In that effort, I am not always successful, and so must ask the indulgence and forgiveness of those who I unintentionally offend.

Trav

Exactly.

It's really hard to unlearn the habit of using these terms. Like you said, other insults just don't have that certain something. And there's a reason for that. It's the most hurtful ones that pack the most punch.

I doubt it'd be possible to just stop like you were flipping a switch. Using these slurs in anger and frustration is a habit and in the times we're angry and frustrated, thoughtfulness isn't exactly at the forefront of our minds. Just recognizing that it was a mistake, and reminding yourself why you want to stop is about all you can do until you break the habit.