The Democratic Party I grew up in actually put great value in the intellect of its people. I can remember being proud that I was part of a party that recognized intellect and gifted individuals as people to be admired; education was valued and higher education and rewards for excellence were to be aspired to.
Remember all the talk about how Kerry was so great in the debates compared to shrub and his mumbling, stumbling and (possibly) prompted mutterings. The Democrats were the "thinking man's" (and later, the "thinking woman's") party. JFK, RFK, MLK and today RFK, Jr., Randi Rhodes, Janine Garofalo and so many others. So many talented and gifted writers and actors and artists and sports figures; many of whom have discussed the problems they've confronted in their lives trying to conform to the dominant society's definition of normal.
The repubs were always labeling us "elitist" and "snobs" and "arrogant" because we value our gifts and the gifts of our members when all we were doing was trying to debate issues which included the nuanced and subtle language required to fully understand an issue rather than 30 second sound-bites of "black and white" pablum.
And now, because a group of those very same people within our party and on this board want to come together to discuss how those very same attacks and ideas influenced their lives, for good and ill, and I read with amazement the same words, "elitist," "snob" and "arrogant."
Well, okay, then...welcome to shrub's amerika. I'm so proud.
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Showing posts with label language. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
"There but for the Grace of God, go I"
It's a fairly common turn of phrase; mostly spoken by people, whom I believe, would probably bite off their tongue before saying it if they understood what it is they just said.
What they said was
Cliff notes version: they aren't a good person or they would have God's Grace and not be in such bad shape.
Most of us don't pay attention to what we say or how it can be interpreted; the recent Biden/Obama dust up comes to mind. We engage our mouths without having taken the time to think of the words and how they can be parsed.
I'm not sure if we're ignorant, we're lazy or we just don't care; or perhaps some combination thereof. Geez, they're only words, after all. Words aren't really that important or we would have, oh, I dunno, put the protection of them in U.S. Constitution or something. Oh wait! We did. Hmm, you think the framers knew that words have power?
In case you can't tell, I find it ironic that one of the most sacrosanct documents we have here in the U.S. recognizes the importance and power of speech, yet, "We, the People" will argue against that same importance and power of speech and the words which comprise speech when it means we have to examine our own speech. Words have power. Why else do we discuss Democrat versus Democratic? Why debate the meaning and the implication of 'liberal' and 'progressive'? All words have power; not just the ones we cherry-pick at our own convenience.
Oh, and context and tone matter. Ever had a parent tell you "don't speak to me in that tone of voice" or have you or anyone you know ever said "it's not what you said, it's how you said it"? Ever had someone tell you or have you ever told someone that what they said was 'inappropriate' or 'uncalled for'? I know, I know, it's "hard work" "watching what we say" and how we say it. Personally, I think it's worth it.
If it's important to understand the power of Democratic versus Democrat, why isn't it also important to understand the use and context of all words and speech? (asked in general, not of the OP)
Oh well, hey, ya know "there but for the Grace of God, go I."
What they said was
1) I have God's Grace (cool beans)
2) therefore I am doing well (however 'well' is defined)
3) They are not doing well (we've just passed judgment and found their circumstances don't conform to our standard of 'well')
4) therefore 'they' must not have God's Grace (uh, oh)
5) which sometimes means that 'they' are not a good person otherwise they would have God's Grace, wouldn't they?
Cliff notes version: they aren't a good person or they would have God's Grace and not be in such bad shape.
Most of us don't pay attention to what we say or how it can be interpreted; the recent Biden/Obama dust up comes to mind. We engage our mouths without having taken the time to think of the words and how they can be parsed.
I'm not sure if we're ignorant, we're lazy or we just don't care; or perhaps some combination thereof. Geez, they're only words, after all. Words aren't really that important or we would have, oh, I dunno, put the protection of them in U.S. Constitution or something. Oh wait! We did. Hmm, you think the framers knew that words have power?
In case you can't tell, I find it ironic that one of the most sacrosanct documents we have here in the U.S. recognizes the importance and power of speech, yet, "We, the People" will argue against that same importance and power of speech and the words which comprise speech when it means we have to examine our own speech. Words have power. Why else do we discuss Democrat versus Democratic? Why debate the meaning and the implication of 'liberal' and 'progressive'? All words have power; not just the ones we cherry-pick at our own convenience.
Oh, and context and tone matter. Ever had a parent tell you "don't speak to me in that tone of voice" or have you or anyone you know ever said "it's not what you said, it's how you said it"? Ever had someone tell you or have you ever told someone that what they said was 'inappropriate' or 'uncalled for'? I know, I know, it's "hard work" "watching what we say" and how we say it. Personally, I think it's worth it.
If it's important to understand the power of Democratic versus Democrat, why isn't it also important to understand the use and context of all words and speech? (asked in general, not of the OP)
Oh well, hey, ya know "there but for the Grace of God, go I."
More on the Power of Language
I have some theories as to why there is such hostility toward languages other than American English in the U.S. It's early morning here and I'm feeling "chatty," so I'm gonna spend a bit of time and type it out. Put your feet up, grab a cuppa and smoke 'em if ya got 'em. This is gonna be a doozie!
I say the hostility toward languages other than U.S. English is a combination of fear of others, fear of "scarcity," and cynical manipulation of those fears used as a diversion of blame.
First, I've not noticed the same hostility towards British English as there is against, say, Spanish. I don't notice a lot of Americans complaining about German in our schools, or Italian. French only recently came under fire after France refused to be part of the "coalition of the willing." And usually, any hostility toward a foreign language is followed by some epithet about "them damned foreigners!"
Well, you might say, there aren't a lot of German or Italian speaking people "inundating" our country, or even French speaking. But that's now. In our past, there were a lot of German, Italian, French and other foreign language speaking people coming to the U.S. During that time, there was also a "hue and cry" against "them damned foreigners!" There was even "tension" between the groups of foreigners. The Irish, when they came to the U.S. were reviled because they talked funny and they smelled funny and they were portrayed in the newspapers of the day as criminals and animals. As were the Chinese. In short, any group that "inundated" the U.S. has been labeled and despised by the "native" population. I think a lot of people forget or never learned this part of U.S. history, at least here in the U.S. We have a long history of hostility toward those who look or sound "different."
Now, add to that some fear and a perception that resources are finite; that is, there is only so much money to go around, only so much land, only so many jobs available to the "native" population who has a "Manifest Destiny" to achieve the "American Dream" for themselves and their "posterity" and sprinkle in a little public relations campaign promoting "conspicuous consumption" and we have one helluva a tool to control and manipulate "the unwashed masses."
I don't mean to make this sound like a conspiracy of people got together and planned an agenda to control and manipulate. I will argue, however, that it can be a convenient coincidence which can easily be exploited by whomever might benefit from making land more dear through scarcity. By whomever might benefit from keeping control of wages and jobs. By whomever might benefit from keeping our history from us. By whomever might benefit from our ignorance. Who benefits from lower wages? Who benefits from job "scarcity?" Who benefits if we and our children don't understand "the markets" and how money works? Who benefits from our ignorance, fear of scarcity, fear of and hostility towards others? Of those who benefit, who can influence our "common knowledge?"
A conspiracy? Who knows. Convenient and easily exploitable? Definitely. I remember in the months leading up to 9/11, there were stories beginning to come out about airlines that were heading for bankruptcy. "Fortunately" for them, they were able to exploit the horror of 9/11 to receive financial support. I know it sounds awful, I also know what I remember reading and hearing just before and just after 9/11. Do I think they caused 9/11? Nu, uh, no way. Do I think they'd use it to prop up their bottom-line? Oh, yeah. Several casinos in Vegas used 9/11 as their reason for laying off 25,000 employees within 2 weeks of the attack. The following first quarter reports showed those same casinos making record profits and their CEOs received substantial bonuses. Nike just made a large donation to some schools local to them. Just good neighbors? Training ground for future Nike employees with a future cost/benefit to their bottom-line? Large corporations donate buildings and wings of schools and hospitals. Altruism? Influence? Exploitation? Who knows.
So, to get back to the question of language. (Thought I'd forgot, huh? ) Which is more profitable for a business or land owners or even our government which increasingly profits from business monies? A population well and comfortably paid with benefits to secure their path to the "American Dream" for them and their "posterity?" Or, a population who will work for pittance wages with few or no benefits? Do businesses admit they could pay their employees more if only the CEO would take a cut in pay and benefits? Or do they blame low wages on "them damned foreigners" who work for their "competition" and artificially deflate the going wage so they can't pay more or they'll lose some of their profits? Profits, which by the way, are those monies left over after a business has met all their financial obligations; NOT the monies needed to stay in business. Do businesses go out of business because their profits are down; or does it just mean the CEO has to keep his car another year rather than buying the latest? And who's to blame? Why, "them damned foreigners." How can you tell who "them damned foreigners" are? They don't speak English, dammit!
I say the hostility toward languages other than U.S. English is a combination of fear of others, fear of "scarcity," and cynical manipulation of those fears used as a diversion of blame.
First, I've not noticed the same hostility towards British English as there is against, say, Spanish. I don't notice a lot of Americans complaining about German in our schools, or Italian. French only recently came under fire after France refused to be part of the "coalition of the willing." And usually, any hostility toward a foreign language is followed by some epithet about "them damned foreigners!"
Well, you might say, there aren't a lot of German or Italian speaking people "inundating" our country, or even French speaking. But that's now. In our past, there were a lot of German, Italian, French and other foreign language speaking people coming to the U.S. During that time, there was also a "hue and cry" against "them damned foreigners!" There was even "tension" between the groups of foreigners. The Irish, when they came to the U.S. were reviled because they talked funny and they smelled funny and they were portrayed in the newspapers of the day as criminals and animals. As were the Chinese. In short, any group that "inundated" the U.S. has been labeled and despised by the "native" population. I think a lot of people forget or never learned this part of U.S. history, at least here in the U.S. We have a long history of hostility toward those who look or sound "different."
Now, add to that some fear and a perception that resources are finite; that is, there is only so much money to go around, only so much land, only so many jobs available to the "native" population who has a "Manifest Destiny" to achieve the "American Dream" for themselves and their "posterity" and sprinkle in a little public relations campaign promoting "conspicuous consumption" and we have one helluva a tool to control and manipulate "the unwashed masses."
I don't mean to make this sound like a conspiracy of people got together and planned an agenda to control and manipulate. I will argue, however, that it can be a convenient coincidence which can easily be exploited by whomever might benefit from making land more dear through scarcity. By whomever might benefit from keeping control of wages and jobs. By whomever might benefit from keeping our history from us. By whomever might benefit from our ignorance. Who benefits from lower wages? Who benefits from job "scarcity?" Who benefits if we and our children don't understand "the markets" and how money works? Who benefits from our ignorance, fear of scarcity, fear of and hostility towards others? Of those who benefit, who can influence our "common knowledge?"
A conspiracy? Who knows. Convenient and easily exploitable? Definitely. I remember in the months leading up to 9/11, there were stories beginning to come out about airlines that were heading for bankruptcy. "Fortunately" for them, they were able to exploit the horror of 9/11 to receive financial support. I know it sounds awful, I also know what I remember reading and hearing just before and just after 9/11. Do I think they caused 9/11? Nu, uh, no way. Do I think they'd use it to prop up their bottom-line? Oh, yeah. Several casinos in Vegas used 9/11 as their reason for laying off 25,000 employees within 2 weeks of the attack. The following first quarter reports showed those same casinos making record profits and their CEOs received substantial bonuses. Nike just made a large donation to some schools local to them. Just good neighbors? Training ground for future Nike employees with a future cost/benefit to their bottom-line? Large corporations donate buildings and wings of schools and hospitals. Altruism? Influence? Exploitation? Who knows.
So, to get back to the question of language. (Thought I'd forgot, huh? ) Which is more profitable for a business or land owners or even our government which increasingly profits from business monies? A population well and comfortably paid with benefits to secure their path to the "American Dream" for them and their "posterity?" Or, a population who will work for pittance wages with few or no benefits? Do businesses admit they could pay their employees more if only the CEO would take a cut in pay and benefits? Or do they blame low wages on "them damned foreigners" who work for their "competition" and artificially deflate the going wage so they can't pay more or they'll lose some of their profits? Profits, which by the way, are those monies left over after a business has met all their financial obligations; NOT the monies needed to stay in business. Do businesses go out of business because their profits are down; or does it just mean the CEO has to keep his car another year rather than buying the latest? And who's to blame? Why, "them damned foreigners." How can you tell who "them damned foreigners" are? They don't speak English, dammit!
Friday, November 17, 2006
How the Right Wing will Attack Nancy Pelosi, Madam Speaker
Every "mistake" she makes will be analyzed ad nauseum; every success will be glossed over or framed as a loss.
Every move she makes will be analyzed down to dots on 'i's and crosses on 't's.
Pictures will show her in the worst light. She will look "tired," "angry" or small.
Her choices for office furniture, clothes, hairstyle, makeup and diet will be discussed ad nauseum.
There will be comments about her "looking tired" in order to suggest the job is too much for her.
Anytime she has a disagreement with another woman it will be called a "cat-fight" or words to invoke the image of cat-fight.
Her tone of voice will be frequently described as angry, shrill, hysterical or grating rather than passionate, firm, etc.
If she is persistent on an issue she will be described as being stubborn, pugnacious, unbending, unyielding rather than focused, persistent, determined, etc.
If she does compromise she'll be labeled weak, inefficient, wishy-washy, etc.
And, finally, she will be responsible for single-handedly "feminizing" the Democratic Party and liberals.
Every move she makes will be analyzed down to dots on 'i's and crosses on 't's.
Pictures will show her in the worst light. She will look "tired," "angry" or small.
Her choices for office furniture, clothes, hairstyle, makeup and diet will be discussed ad nauseum.
There will be comments about her "looking tired" in order to suggest the job is too much for her.
Anytime she has a disagreement with another woman it will be called a "cat-fight" or words to invoke the image of cat-fight.
Her tone of voice will be frequently described as angry, shrill, hysterical or grating rather than passionate, firm, etc.
If she is persistent on an issue she will be described as being stubborn, pugnacious, unbending, unyielding rather than focused, persistent, determined, etc.
If she does compromise she'll be labeled weak, inefficient, wishy-washy, etc.
And, finally, she will be responsible for single-handedly "feminizing" the Democratic Party and liberals.
Friday, September 01, 2006
I'm not gonna sit still for it!
The fact that you used every filthy, misogynistic stereotype known to women in order to slam a vitriol spewing, right wing bag of pus, was way too much for me. I had to comment. Hate her message? Say so. Sling misogynistic stereotypes used to keep girls and women in their place at her? Not gonna sit still for it.
I'll call her "Ann'. Every high school had one. She went steady with every boy on every sports team. She also went steady with every boy on the debate team, the chess team, and the detention room. There were also rumors of her going steady with a few of the male teachers.
Everybody liked Ann because she would do anything. At one point, Ann was the most popular girl in school. She played the flame to every boy's audition for the the role of 'moth'. By Junior year, even your parents knew of Ann.
But into Senior year, Ann was finding it harder and harder to get dates. The boys had moved on to more serious social lives. Ann, rather than being the object of everyone's fantasies and desires, was little more than a locker room joke. Or an object lesson.
Ann never did go to the prom. Nobody wanted to take her.
She was seen, a few years after high school, at a few of the bachelor parties given for her former 'steadies'. No one really wanted to confirm that she was there, or why.
Its kinda sad. When she was old enough, she started hanging out in bars. She had a reputation for short dresses and outrageous antics. It was again kind of like high school, but with older 'boys' now. With jobs. Ann took to promoting whoever her current flame was. Working to make him, in the eyes of others, more than he was. She'd say and do damned near anything to enhance the image of her latest beau.
But then it was found out she was taking money to do this. The boys were paying her and using her. And then moving on and settling down with a 'nice girl'.
Ann took to wearing shorter and shorter skirts. She was rumored to have an eating disorder as she became obsessed with her image.
Soon enough, everyone in her social circle was ...... somewhere else. Ann was all alone. Her only loves? Chardonnay and cigarettes.
Whatever happened to Ann? Maybe someone can find her on one of those high school reunion web sites .........
Did she ever make something of herself?
I am one of many women whose been called many of the things you listed by men who blamed me because they were jerks.
I'll call her "Ann'. Every high school had one. She went steady with every boy on every sports team. She also went steady with every boy on the debate team, the chess team, and the detention room. There were also rumors of her going steady with a few of the male teachers.
She never really did but all the teenage boys sitting around in the locker room having a mental circle jerk sure made sure to say they had so they wouldn't feel left out. The ones who were most pissed off about her turning them down even said she'd "done it with the math teacher".
Everybody liked Ann because she would do anything. At one point, Ann was the most popular girl in school. She played the flame to every boy's audition for the the role of 'moth'. By Junior year, even your parents knew of Ann.
She rarely if ever really did the things she was accused of. But, boy, them teenage boys were gonna "get them some 'o that" and they'd crucify her for the fact all the other boys lied to them about it. It was called being a "prick tease" back in those days. Or even a "dyke". What're they calling those girls these days?
But into Senior year, Ann was finding it harder and harder to get dates. The boys had moved on to more serious social lives. Ann, rather than being the object of everyone's fantasies and desires, was little more than a locker room joke. Or an object lesson.
Ann never did go to the prom. Nobody wanted to take her.
Yep, the nascent neo-cons had done quite a number on the poor girl's good name. Everyone was convinced she was nothing but a sleazy, skanky, whore. Of course the little monsters were still throwing her name around their daily locker room circle jerk.
She was seen, a few years after high school, at a few of the bachelor parties given for her former 'steadies'. No one really wanted to confirm that she was there, or why.
Too bad she came from a small community, huh? Years of being treated and called a whore and all she could get were a couple of gigs here and there playing "mind fuck" with some of those former "steadies" who'd lied about her all those years. Fortunately, she'd learned to sock away the bucks made off her previous enemies.
Its kinda sad. When she was old enough, she started hanging out in bars. She had a reputation for short dresses and outrageous antics. It was again kind of like high school, but with older 'boys' now. With jobs. Ann took to promoting whoever her current flame was. Working to make him, in the eyes of others, more than he was. She'd say and do damned near anything to enhance the image of her latest beau.
Yeah, still thinking there might actually be a couple of good men out there. Unfortunately for her, she still kept meeting the "circle jerk club". Sad what a woman will do to herself to be "accepted" into a group. She even went so far as to try to win over one of the circle jerks by being the "woman behind the man". It didn't work of course. Those kind of men only want eye candy and whores anyway. She was traded in on the newest model.
But then it was found out she was taking money to do this. The boys were paying her and using her. And then moving on and settling down with a 'nice girl'.
And she was laughing all the way to the bank after exploiting the jerks' own teenage fantasies. Watching as their "nice girls" turned into "religious" whackos because their new husbands only knew to treat women as whores.
Ann took to wearing shorter and shorter skirts. She was rumored to have an eating disorder as she became obsessed with her image.
She lost weight working all those weird hours and putting herself through college to make something of herself. People who remembered "her past" constantly found fault with anything and everything she did. Even the fact she stayed her high school weight was fodder for snarky remarks. So, she kept her nose to the grindstone and made a point of wearing shorter and shorter skirts to really piss off the now, full grown neocons with their Valium-taking, wacked out wives and their beer guts and juvenile delinquent kids.
Soon enough, everyone in her social circle was ...... somewhere else. Ann was all alone. Her only loves? Chardonnay and cigarettes.
Whatever happened to Ann? Maybe someone can find her on one of those high school reunion web sites .........
Did she ever make something of herself?
She moved on, far from her old neighborhood to get away from the narrow minded circle jerks, and became successful as a lawyer helping women whose husbands beat them bloody, working for women's rights in the U.S. and helping to educate the public about sex, sex education and the teenage male habit of demonizing girls who "don't put out."
She lives in a modest home with her husband who, as a teenager, thought the locker room circle jerks were asinine. She's raising her daughter and her son to respect women and to understand healthy sex and healthy relationships.
The neocon assholes of her childhood are regularly spewing filth on the nightly news about pot smoking, oversexed, "wine loving" elitist liberals.
One especially has become infamous. An old "enemy" of our girl who hated her with a passion because she'd seen our girl as prettier, smarter and more popular than she; and more importantly, because our girl got out of this narrow minded hell hole while your Ann was stuck married to one of the more "popular" circle jerks. The enemy of our girl is named Ann, too.
I am one of many women whose been called many of the things you listed by men who blamed me because they were jerks.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
If only women wouldn't act that way...
they wouldn't get raped.
The thing is, "advising people not to act in those ways" impliesand is frequently extrapolated to mean that what might have worked in "negligible" "number of rapes the victim could clearly have prevented," would be effective deterrents to all cases in which men rape.
I said "It seems an uneven and dangerous presumption to make that women have power over men which men appear to not have over themselves." I didn't say you held this presumption. I do believe it is a "commonly" held presumption by many.
"Normal men don't take precautions against raping women because they don't need to..." but do they take active measures to let the men and boys around them know that rape is wrong? Do they speak up when a group gets together in a locker room, a sports bar, a fraternity or even one on one with their friends when those friends start talking about what they'd like to do to/with such-and-so-woman-of-"note"? Do "normal" men correct or rebuke or educate the guys who talk of rape and/or sexual "conquest" as a cool, "manly" thing to do or that some woman "deserved it"? Or do "normal" men sit back and figure "it's none of my business" and let the talking and boasting and ragging continue and accept that their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and female friends are just gonna have to learn to protect themselves from "normal" guy's friends?
I bet there are many guys here who have stopped or attempted to stop a female friend or family member from going out with one of their "dickhead" (used soley for differentiation from "normal" men) friends? I wonder how many have ever attempted to educate previously mentioned "dickhead" about their questionable behavior? Which tact may do the "greatest" good? "Saving" one female on one occasion or "saving" many women with whom previously mentioned "dickhead" will come into contact throughout his life. Better yet, "saving" one female AND educating previously mentioned "dickhead."
The thing is, "advising people not to act in those ways" impliesand is frequently extrapolated to mean that what might have worked in "negligible" "number of rapes the victim could clearly have prevented," would be effective deterrents to all cases in which men rape.
I said "It seems an uneven and dangerous presumption to make that women have power over men which men appear to not have over themselves." I didn't say you held this presumption. I do believe it is a "commonly" held presumption by many.
"Normal men don't take precautions against raping women because they don't need to..." but do they take active measures to let the men and boys around them know that rape is wrong? Do they speak up when a group gets together in a locker room, a sports bar, a fraternity or even one on one with their friends when those friends start talking about what they'd like to do to/with such-and-so-woman-of-"note"? Do "normal" men correct or rebuke or educate the guys who talk of rape and/or sexual "conquest" as a cool, "manly" thing to do or that some woman "deserved it"? Or do "normal" men sit back and figure "it's none of my business" and let the talking and boasting and ragging continue and accept that their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and female friends are just gonna have to learn to protect themselves from "normal" guy's friends?
I bet there are many guys here who have stopped or attempted to stop a female friend or family member from going out with one of their "dickhead" (used soley for differentiation from "normal" men) friends? I wonder how many have ever attempted to educate previously mentioned "dickhead" about their questionable behavior? Which tact may do the "greatest" good? "Saving" one female on one occasion or "saving" many women with whom previously mentioned "dickhead" will come into contact throughout his life. Better yet, "saving" one female AND educating previously mentioned "dickhead."
Thursday, June 22, 2006
An Internet Feminist's Manifesta on Language
Whereas words and language have power to create meaning and ideas which, in turn, have power to create words and language;
Whereas each individual on this planet has the right to create their own identity within the larger group;
Whereas each individual's power within a group contributes to the power of the group which, in turn, contributes to the power of the individual;
And
Whereas all things female/feminine have been defined and codified throughout history as "other," lesser, weaker, "sinful," dangerous, repulsive, dirty, evil, petty, unworthy, pathological;
And
Whereas the leftist/progressive/liberal/Democratic ideals purport to be inclusive, diverse, welcoming, all-encompassing and empowering;
Whereas the group can only be as strong as its weakest member;
Whereas we find the following words, phrases, language and ideas with their subsequent subtext, to be antithetical to and destructive of leftist/progressive/liberal/Democratic ideals;
Therefore
We, encourage our fellow netizens to cease the use of and to cultivate their knowledge of the offensive, repressive, and dis-empowering nature of sexist, abusive, oppressive, regressive and destructive language, words, phrases and ideas; such as defined in the categories below:
A. Derogatory Language
1. "Cat fight" - usually used to describe passionate debate or argument between 2 or more women; used to degrade the import of the discussion as being unworthy of serious thought or concern. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things female are petty)
2. "Bitch" - the context and tone in which it is used and to what purpose, can be extremely negative and offensive. That it may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when it is used against males it is precisely because of its anti-female associated meanings that it is considered such a powerful insult. (associated phrases include "bitch slap," "make someone his/her/their bitch," etc.) (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, mean, etc.)
3. "Whore" - see "bitch" and include the added double standard applied to women and our sexuality in which our sexuality equates with our inherent character and that character is deemed evil, dirty, immoral, etc. That it may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when it is used against males it is precisely because of its anti-female associated meanings that it is considered such a powerful insult. (associated phrases include "media whore," "whoring for fill in the name.") (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, mean, etc.)
4. "Slut" - see "bitch" and "whore." other examples of anti-female epithets in this vein include: "Bi-Yach," "Ho," "skank" and "douche bag." That they may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when they are used against males it is precisely because of their anti-female associated meanings that they considered such a powerful insults. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, mean, etc.)
5."Pussy" - equates anything less than a sociologically defined masculinity as weak therefore bad, lesser, unworthy, not tough enough, in short, not "male" enough. Implies that only "masculine" traits are desired or the norm. Accepts the idea that to ascribe anything woman/female-like to a male is an insult. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, dirty, etc.)
6. "Sissy" - see "Pussy" also includes such "insults" as "cry/throw/hit like a girl" (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, dirty, etc.)
7. "Cunt" - derogatory slang for woman's genitalia usually used as an insult. Objectifies not only individual women, but also women as a class, by reducing them to their body parts. Implies that women's genitalia are somehow evil, dirty, immoral, etc. (sexist: because it endorses the destructive and false idea all things female are evil, bad, dirty, etc.)
B. Exploiting Rape to Vilify Women
1. "She asked for it" - not always stated outright, frequently implied. All statements place responsibility for the actions of a rapist on the shoulders of the women/girls who men rape. (see G. The Bandwagon Argument for why this section says specifically "men rape women.")
- 1.a. "she shouldn't have gotten drunk/high," - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that men are incapable of controlling their "monstrous sexual appetites" and will "fuck anything" (denying the humanity of women who men rape) and also makes an assertion that men have no responsibility nor will take responsibility for their own "monstrous sexual appetites."
- 1.b. "she was dressed like a ho/skank/whore/slut, etc." - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that men are incapable of controlling their "monstrous sexual appetites" and holds women responsible for controlling men's "monstrous sexual appetites" even though men, apparently, can't.
- 1.c. "she shouldn't have been there in the first place," or its inverse, "what was she doing there in the first place?" - perpetuates the illusion that all rape is "stranger rape," and since men are incapable of controlling their "monstrous sexual appetites," women "should" live their lives avoiding the places in which our lives take place; such as, the privacy of our own homes; at a party with friends whom we trust; the parking lot at the grocery store or work or a club or...; the playground with the kids; walking to and from work, school, the bus, the train; riding the bus or train or driving in our car; camping; family outings or family gatherings; or...anyplace that is not inside the illusionary safety of our homes.
- 1.d. "Women/girls need to take responsibility for their safety," - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that women have the sole responsibility to control men's "monstrous sexual appetites" and that we forget that responsibility at our peril
- 1.e. "If she had been smart..." or its inverse "If she hadn't been so stupid..." - perpetuates the destructive and false idea that men rape only "stupid/slutty/whorish" women and that all women who men rape are "stupid/slutty/whorish."
3. "Date rape isn't as bad as 'violent rape'" - not always stated outright, frequently implied. Perpetuates the destructive and false idea that rape is just sex that got a "little out of hand." Denies and obfuscates the violently emotional toll rape has on women/girls regardless of presence or absence of physical evidence. Implies that women's emotional health is less important than not only her physical health, but in the "grand scheme of things."
4. "She's lying" or its inverse "the alleged rapist is innocent until proven guilty (implies "she's lying")" - perpetuates the assumption that sensational accusations of "false reports" of rape that appear in the corporate media, a) are false rather then "unprovable" in "a court of law," b) are indicative of the actual ratio of false to "provable" reports of rape, c) that the ratio is accurate in the number of "false" accusations to actual number of rapes d) that all acts of rape are reported and provable in a court of law and e) "proof" that women are a bunch of "gold-digging, money grubbing, liars". Further insults women by denying our credibility on a board whose members will "judge, try and 'hang'" a republican or a pedophile with never a though of "innocent until proven guilty" and whose members protest loudly and vociferously that the "media cannot be trusted!" Perpetuates the idea, that when a woman files a charge of rape, she is "guilty until proven raped."
5. Rape as "comedy" material; a source of jokes and amusement of the "it'll never happen (hasn't happened) to me so it's not important," and the "if it's inevitable, just lay back and enjoy it" crowds - used to deny the violent emotional and/or physical impact rape has on a girl's/woman's "sense of Self" and her, forever changed, place in the world. Denies and obfuscates that When a man rapes a woman or girl, he has not perpetrated just one violent act against one woman. Rape can irreparably change the entire course of a woman's life and those whose lives intersect hers. Thereby illuminating the "attraction" of using rape as a weapon of war. Rape is NOT funny.
(sexist, abusive, destructive: because the statements above remove all responsibility from rapists.)
C. Language Used to Glorify a Perverted and Anti-survival Form of "Masculinity"
1. "He's got balls!" - validates the pervasive and destructive and false idea that only those with the proper physiological equipment are capable of showing great strength or power and frequently used to promote an ideal in which, since women have no balls women are therefore handicapped in a world which values strength and power. Also validates and perpetuates the idea that "might makes right," in and of itself an anti-survival idea. Can also be used in a "positive" (destructive but favorable) manner, such as "She's got balls!" (sexist: because it it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things feminine are weak and pathological; destructive: because it endorses and perpetuates a perverted and anti-survival form of hyper-"masculinity.")
2. "Be a man!" - usually used in discussions in which a poster has questioned a perverted or anti-survival form of "masculinity" and implies that the poster is in some way weak or less than and therefore to be disregarded, ridiculed, or ignored. Can also be used in a "positive" (destructive but favorable) manner, such as "She's the man!" (sexist: because it it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things feminine are weak and pathological; destructive: because it endorses and perpetuates a perverted and anti-survival form of hyper-"masculinity.")
D. Objectification
1. Comments about women's appearance/dress - used as a weapon of attack against any woman with whom the poster has a difference of opinion. Used to attack the messenger rather than debating the message. Used to obfuscate the merit (or lack thereof) of the words, ideas, actions or contributions to society made by the object of such remarks. Objectifies not only individual women, but also women as a class, by reducing them to their body parts. Implies that said body parts are the standard by which women are measured. Sometimes referred to as the "fuckability quotient." (Examples include: "I'd do her," "Check out insert description of female body part," "She's hot!" "She's ugly (or some other adjective to define less-than-beautiful)", "Progressive women are hotter than conservative women (or some variation thereof)," "Can you believe she'd wear something like that?" "She dresses like a whore/slut/skank/etc." "She's had a boob job." "What a cow!") (sexist: because it objectifies women and it assumes and validates the idea that women are permanently on a runway to be constantly critiqued as sexual objects, no matter what context they are acting in; abusive: because it attempts to silence the message and the messenger.)
- 1.a. "She slept her way to the top" - used to promote the idea that women are incapable of succeeding without using their bodies and sex. Denies that the targeted woman is intelligent, talented or skillful in anything other than the "womanly arts" of seduction and/or sex. That it may now be used to denigrate males does not attenuate the fact and does in fact, illuminate that when it is used against males it is precisely because of its anti-female associated meanings that it is considered such a powerful insult.(the same stereotype when used in the context of marriage is "gold digger" and "trophy wife.")
E. Gender Identity Attacks
1. "Mann Coulter" – the implications of this phrase are that:
- 1.a. - because a woman looks a certain way, i.e., not "feminine" enough, she is not a "real woman;"
- 1.a.1. - that there is something pathological about not being a "real woman;"
- 1.b. - that a person's personality and/or pathology is tied to their appearance and or sex/gender;
- 1.c. - that there is something pathological with a person if their physiology does not match their gender identification;
- 1.c.1. - and that subsequently there is something pathological about transgendered people;
- 1.d. - That there is something pathological about a man wanting to be a woman.
(sexist: because it it endorses the destructive and false idea that all things feminine are bad, evil, dirty, weak, pathological, etc.)
F. Pompous Negation of Critiques of the Systems of Patriarchy and Authoritarianism
1. "Can't you take a joke?" - usually used in response to an individual's concern that a comment or post was offensive or sexist; implies that the individual concerned does not have the right to express their concern or that their concern is in some manner petty (other forms include: "lighten up," "get over yourself," "get a life," "not this again," "oh, you're one of those feminazis/militant feminists/radical feminists," "word police," "PC Police," etc.) {special note: many women on this board hear these phrases with the word "bitch" implied, for example; "geez, bitch, can't you take a joke?" or "jesus, bitch, get over yourself" and so on.} (abusive: because the concerned individual is being denied their own perspective)
2. "Male bashing" - usually used in response to a post in which an individual had the audacity to criticize men/males/boys and/or their actions. A form of hyperbole and duplicitous rhetoric in which the accuser purposely muddles a critique of behaviors and symptoms of a system of patriarchy with a critique of all men as individuals because the original poster did not weaken their statement or argument by including confusing and muddying conditional adjectives and statements such as "some" men/males/boys or "I know that it's not all men/males/boys, but..." or "with all due respect to the men/males/boys on this board" and so on. (abusive: because it is used to derail the original content of the post, i.e., deny or obfuscate the OP's message.)
G. The Bandwagon Argument
1. "It happens to men, too" - used as a conditional to legitimize an act which is perpetrated by men against women in significantly higher numbers than than when "it happens to men, too." Frequently used to imply that feminists are uncaring or "selfish" or that a poster is denying what is a legitimate claim though it is not the topic of discussion. Used to dilute or derail the debate. An in-depth view of the insidious nature of this remark, see Why I Write Not of Men posted by White Bear at Bitch Ph.D..
2. "Woman do it, too" - used as a conditional to legitimize an act which is perpetrated by men against women in significantly higher numbers than than when "women do it, too." Frequently used to imply that feminists are uncaring or "selfish" or that a poster is denying what is a legitimate claim though it is not the topic of discussion. Used to dilute or derail the debate.
3. "I'm a humanist" - used to promote the idea that feminists and feminism are elitist, narrowly focused, or an exclusive club and that feminist ideals are nothing more than a selfish attempt by a few women and men to promote an agenda which will take rights for themselves at a cost to others' rights. Denies and obscures the comprehensive nature of feminism and the very existence of patriarchal oppression.
4. "All feminists are/believe/do/think fill in negative stereotype" - implies a form of "groupthink," or "hive mentality" within the feminist movement as though the women and men of the feminist movement are incapable of independent thought. Sometimes used to catapult anti-feminist propaganda or an anti-feminist writer as indicative of the "feminist" movement. {editor's note: Anyone who thinks "all feminists think alike" has obviously never been in a room with 2 or more feminists in their life.}
5. "Not all men do/think/act fill in the blank" - used when a woman or man has the "audacity" to make a declarative statement rather than placating the reader with conditional words such as "some," "not all, but" "with all due respect," and so on, when writing about traits, actions, ideals which have traditionally been associated with a perverted and anti-survival for of "masculinity." It is usually an attempt to deny the existence of patriarchal systems of domination and their horrible impact on women and men. (abusive: because it is used to divert and/or silence the message.)
- G.A. Jumping Off the Bandwagon
- "I'm not a feminist, but..." - usually followed by a list of women's rights for which many feminists, female and male, now and throughout history have fought, were imprisoned, have had their lives destroyed, and for which, some have died. Dishonors the long history of struggle from which we, women and men, have benefited. Usually used to distance herself from the myths that feminists are: humorless (F.1.), frigid (H.1.), manhating and/or angry (H.4.) or pathological (listed throughout). Corollaries include: "I'm a feminist, but I love/like porn/sex/men" (subtext: but not one of "those" feminists (H.1., H.2., H.4., G.4., F.2. and throughout), use by women of destructive and sexist language because "I'm not that sensitive," "It's just words," "I'm not like that," "It doesn't mean anything," "I've never taken it that way," etc. usually as an attempt to distance the poster from "those women" and to show how "unlike" "those women" the poster is. Validates the destructive idea that language has NO power. Validates the usage of destructive language since "women do it, too" (G.2.). Denies and dishonors the long history of struggle as mentioned above.
H. Anti-Feminist Propaganda
The intentional and the unintentional use of anti-feminist rhetoric used to "catapult the propaganda" that falsely portrays feminists and feminism in a negative, sometimes pathological, light. Many of the falsehoods listed below have been repeated so frequently for so long they have become "common knowledge;" though they have unfortunately become common, they are not knowledge as they are falsehoods created to discredit feminists and feminist ideals.
1. "Feminists want to outlaw porn" - usually used in a debate to define feminists as "frigid," anti-sex, "man haters," cold, sexually repressed and so on. It is also used on occasion to equate feminists with neo-con religious fundamentalists as an added insult. Will sometimes include an incomplete quote of Catherine MacKinnon's anti-pornography legislation. "1. "Pornography" means the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words" and does not include the rest of the line which states: "that also includes one or more of the following:" followed by a list of depictions of women in pornography with which many might actually agree. Click here for the full text of Mackinnon's definition of pornography within the anti-pornography legislation which she proposed.
2. "Feminists believe all sex is rape" - implies a form of "groupthink," or "hive mentality" within the feminist movement as though the women and men of the feminist movement are incapable of independent thought. "MacKinnon claims the first reference... surfaced in the October 1986 issue of Playboy. ..., the statement (which had previously been attached to feminist Andrea Dworkin) was made up by the pornography industry in an attempt to undermine her credibility. It became inextricably linked with MacKinnon's name after she began working with Dworkin in the early 1980s to write model anti-pornography laws. Full story.
3. "Womens libbers burned their bras" -
- 3.a. the use of the word "libbers," as was the case with the use of the word "suffragette" in its time, was devised by the media and women's rights opponents of the day, to ridicule and denigrate women who spoke out in an "uppity," "strident," "shrill" and "unlady-like" manner. "Dyke," "man-hater," "lesbian," "castrating bitch," "ice queen," and "dragon lady" are other examples of epithets which are used against feminists. {special note: most feminists today have healed their own homophobia and are no longer "cowed" by the use of "dyke," "lesbian," and *wink*wink*"Oh, you're one of those."}
- 3.b. "the bra burning incident" - "That's a myth. It was the time of draft-card burning, and some smart headline writer decided to call it a 'bra burning' because it sounded insulting to the then-new women's movement. We only threw a bra symbolically in a trash can." (emphasis added) Full story.
5. "Feminists are 'manhaters'" or its corollary, "Feminists are 'angry'" and the placating versions "I don't hate men, but..," "I love men, but..." - used to imply that if the poster in question, would only "learn to love men," read that as "get laid" or "get a man," rather than "hating men" or "being angry" read that as "instead of being a frigid bitch," the poster would "be cured of her pathology," read that as "remember her 'place' as chattel." Used as a tactic to imply the poster is pathological because she is "angry" or because she "hates men." The men and women who accuse a poster of "hating men" because the poster has criticized or commented on a sexist or abusive post, could perhaps put their defensive outrage in perspective by reading any version of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto to see what angry, manhating looks like. Its author, Valerie Solanas, took her angry, manhating to its logical and extreme conclusion as depicted in I Shot Andy Warhol.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
