My thoughts on all the confict here

[rhino91063]

First off I have to say the freepers must be wetting themselves watching this group self distruct and break out into a battle of the sexes. Secondly I think both sides need to consider for a moment there reactions. To the ladies that have take much offense to the terms used by the male members here, remember the old saying that the measure of a person is what it takes to upset them. You are really not putting yourself in the best of light when something as trival as refering to Ms. harris as a slut will set you off.
To the members that feel insist on using terms that are offensive to others, where are you manners? What happened to civilized behavior where you avoid offending others? Most of you that are using offensive laguage probably fancy themselves as gentlemen. Yet I never met a gentlemen that would deliberately use language that is offensive to women.
We have bush in the White House destroying this country and other countries. Isn't that a big enough problem to deal with? Do we really need to add to list of problems by taking it upon ourselves to straighten out those allies we perceive as sexist or to PC?
Just my two cents on the issue.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I'm mostly in agreement with you and am not out to divide

the community.

I'm not terribly thrilled that you consider language triva since WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION has now shifted to a WEAPONS program...(see how it works?)but I'm not going to flame about it simply point it out. We are who we are DEMOCRAT , LIBERTARIAN etc because of the language that defines those constructs.

One last point and I'll take whatever medicine comes my way on this thread...and that is....


IT IS NOW PC (in vogue) TO BE AS OFFENSIVE AS YOU CAN...in case you haven't noticed. Rush and his ilk made it that way...so I think it goes to the heart of who we have become.

[rhino91063]

9. The words Weapons of Mass Destruction

Was not what was important, it was the slaughter bush launched in their name that was the important thing.

[roughsatori]

2. "trivial as referring to Ms. harris as a slut"

I think you unwittingly revealed the kind of thinking that infuriates some of the women posting in response to these kinds of things. At least that is what I have been picking up, as a male, reading all of their reasons--as well as those defending the use of that language. You discounted them in that statement as "trivial," which is what we men have frequently done to woman in everyday life and history. I think these female posters are sick of it.

I know if I were told my concerns were trivial, I would get out the flame thrower.

[Clete]

3. I was going to post that too.

Sorry dupe.

[Clete]

4. I was going to post that too.

I think everyone should think about what has been said and why it is offensive. Because if they don't find it offensive, then they need to examine why this kind of thinking is acceptable to them. I personally don't think the sexist remarks and words used on DU are deliberate. They only expose the socializing influences that men are under from the time they are born. They should sit back and try to understand why we don our breastplates and swords when confronted with this over and over, instead of getting all petulant about it.

[rhino91063]

10. It is not a question of finding the term offensive

It is a question of how important is the issue. Personnal I would not use the term. My descriptions of Ms Harris have nothing to do with gender. Her deeds had nothing to do with gender, so why would they. However, I do not make a federal case out of everything I find offensive or do not like.

[roughsatori]

14. I am not writing about Ms. Harris, I am writing about your use of trivial

Again, I would be insulted if someone labled my concerns as trivial.


My problenm with the use of words like "slut" is that they are anti-sex,puritanical, and indicative of a way of thinking about sex that is similiar to a Freepers.

[Clete]

15. You're making this about a single post.

Actually, it was the last straw of many posts, displaying this attitude that the poster objected to. I have been denounced for wanting equality in representation, for daring to call verbal abuse just that. I was wrong, they said, when I said that calling a teenage girl no good and unattractive wasn't sexist verbal abuse from her father. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

[roughsatori]

26. Whenever posters here want to dismiss one's issues

They bring up the old, "We are all really here to get Shrub out of office, why bring up your issue?" It is so condescending and implies that it is impossible to do 2 things at once.

I wonder it people who make that argument can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[salin]

6. It is trivial... IF

you don't try to understand the concern... and instead assume the concern is something about "mean words" and "hypersensitivity". And that it is merely a reaction ala "my feelings are hurt".

From that framework, it really does appear trivial.

Sad thing - is that if one read the concerns - one would see that this isn't the issue at all.

But clearly it is much easier to dismiss it than try to understand a different point of view. Oh well.

[rhino91063]

37. Wouldn't it make more sense to address the issue directly?

If this issue is gender inequality, why not just address the issue? Why side track it with a major brewhaha over the term slut?

[salin]

44. Because

those discussions end up the same way as these. Sidelined by semantics, claims by the few that there are no inequities, there is no domestic abuse or rape problem that is disproportionately targeted towards women, and then comes the claim that indeed the problem today is reverse discrimination against men.

The thread to which you react- was, I believe, pointing to a single thread - one of many over a period of time, that demonstrates the use of language that by its mere pervasiveness - even among those who mean no harm - perpetuates attitudes, beliefs and behaviors towards women among those who do mean harm, by serving to validate those beliefs.

Imagine you are in a town where the word N******* is still commonly used (I have spent time in such a place as recently as five years ago) and it is often used in a derogatory way (eg "Why did the player throw the ball to that dumb N******?) Not everyone in the town is an active racist. Some may even bristle from time to time over the language - but the language is pervasive. Some in the town harbor real racist views - and in hearing the language repeated so frequently it reinforces how "common and accepted" these beliefs are to the hard core racist. Indeed to this individual's thinking - EVERYONE must feel exactly as I do.

The real problem is when something sets this person off - they already view the African American as less than white (often objectified to being something less than human) - thus committing a violent act... well, s/he tells him/herself... doesn't matter - everyone agrees with ME they will all understand... heck they might even celebrate me... And thus atrocities like the dragging of James Byrd, the lighting on fire of a man in Virginia, or in another context the beating and stringing up of a young Gay college student in Wyoming, all are more likely to occur. There just aren't the same "stops" in the head (sometimes social morays DO serve as a barrier for people acting out on their urges).

Now back to the language for women. We still have quite a bit or domestic violence against women, rates of rape are still too high and perhaps, just perhaps - our use of language helps to perpetuate rather than allow to die out - certain behaviors.

In the political context- this does not seem a big deal.

In the context of rape victims and rape survivors - (and domestic violence survivors) - it actually is a big deal.

[rhino91063]

8. harris is an evil monster

Does it really matter what labels arepinned on her? What if someone's concerns were trival? By the reasonning you have given, that is impossible. Whatever upsets me must be extemely critical. You want to know what upsets me? I will tell you. Iraq and bush for one. bush is responsible for the murders of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Now that upsets me. bush and the huge national deficit. Now a half trillion in debt to give to our future generations all so bush could reward his rich backers, now that upsets me. Terrorism and bush's incompetant handling of the problem, pissing off the world is only going to help terrorist not hurt them. Now THAT upsets me. Breathing smog filled air here in NJ because bush changed the rules and let the filthy midwest power plants continue to spew their poisons into the air, now THAT upsets me. Using an inappropriate, but deragatory term to describe Katherine harris, frankly that doesn't even rate.

[Iverson]

12. sure, labels matter

Let me start by noting that I am upset by all of the same things that you cited.

Obviously, terms used to describe Katherine Harris are less important than war and devastation. However, they are still important. Harris is a monster because she runs roughshold over people's voting rights with impunity. Her sexuality has nothing to do with it, and in fact trivializes real problems that make her the monster you accurately describe.

Our best actions will arise from clear thought. Therefore, we should prefer precise expressions.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. Just so everyone is clear

I would have preferred that she had LITERALLy SCREWED the voters of florida...each and every one...one at a time...than to have FIGURATIVELY screwed them.

I don't have a problem with REAL sexual promiscuity.

[rhino91063]

19. I agree with what you say

Her sexuality is not an issue here and it is silly to bring it into the mix. Yet I ask you considering the magnitude of the other problems, how big an issue is this?

[Iverson]

24. smaller than war

"...how big an issue is this?"
It's a smaller issue than war. Looked at in isolation, it is trivial. However, justice and the egalitarian spirit are not trivial at all, and eschewing sexist discourse is part of that.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. Not very big at all

there are only several hundred thousand rapes a year which when added up over the same time frame is more than ten times the number of dead and wounded gulf war veterans from this gulf war and the last thanks to the ability to obfuscate women's issues as trivial.

The language of violence hasn't made us more aggressive.

It's really no biggie in the big scheme of things I suppose. :eyes:

[Clete]

21. Well, it does turn you into Ann Coulter.

All those liberals are evil sluts?

[Missy Vixen]

5. Really?

>remember the old saying that the measure of a person is what it takes to upset them. You are really not putting yourself in the best of light when something as trival as refering to Ms. harris as a slut will set you off.<

Here are some facts, Rhino:

The term "slut" (as well as some other terms like "whore," the newer insult "ho," etcetera,) has been used for many years to control, to shame, and to subjugate women.

Feel free to criticize Katherine Harris' ideas. Make mockery of her policies. Make sure everyone knows her decisions are less than stellar. When one uses terms like "slut" to describe a woman that is disliked for simply continuing to respirate, one has lost the argument already. It's the same definition when one uses insults and slurs against someone else's personal appearance.

Maybe it wouldn't be upsetting to you to hear a female family member described as a "slut". It's hard for me to believe that the vast majority of those posting on this board would feel the same way.

Julie

[rhino91063]

16. I have to say that is very interesting concept

To quote "the term "slut" (as well as some other terms like "whore," the newer insult "ho," etcetera.) has been used for many years to control, to shame and to subjugate women."

Now this is a very interesting assertion. I am not quite sure how these words have been forged into such effective weapons. I would think it was the attitude behind these terms that actually did the damage. I have tried insulting my enemies, much to my dismay, I have found insults only piss them off, I have yet to shame, control or subjugate anyone with name calling and insults. To go after the words used, is kind of pointless. What is the problem is the attitude that the words MAY reflect. All you accomplish, by attacking the words, is to hide the problem. This is akin to walking through my house and seeing a room on fire. I can shut the door and that way I don't see the upsetting scene of my house and belongings burning up, but does it solve my problem?

As to your other issue Julie, I would be upset to hear any member of my family insulted be they male or female. I would not be anymore upset that the term slut was used. I would be upset that someone was insulted. Yet, I am pretty sure no one on this board is related to Ms Harris. If they were, I hope they gave her a well deserved verbal tongue lashing for the terrible and immoral acts she committed.

Richard

[Iverson]

27. one possibility

" I am not quite sure how these words have been forged into such effective weapons."

I think it is connected to a history of unequal power relationships in our culture in which for years women were pretty much defined in extremely narrow terms.

[rhino91063]

32. It seems to me

It is the power, not the words that was the problem.

[John_H]

7. Politics is conflict

and as long as the enemy shows up around here, they're going to get attacked.

That being said, there are a few--not as many as some believe, but a few--who excede sensibility on attacking other dem candidates. There is a difference between primary and general elections.


The problem is that there is a group of people around here for whom there is only one candidate they will ever support--so for them it is a general election. They use the tactics most partisans reserve for the other guy.

My policy is to defend only and not say anything about their guys (except to point out that a couple of them will be very soon going back to the fantastic non-candidate jobs they do very well)

If there is a member of a party which wants dems to lose, isist upon hanging out here, I say war is war and they asked for whatever we give them.

[scarletwoman]

13. Uh, did you even read what this thread is about?

We're not talking about candidates here, we're talking about sexism and the various reactions to it.

sw

[DagmarK]

11. And how did BUSH get into the White House?

male-dominated chauvinistic crap spewed from sea to shining sea by the christian coalition.

You bet your bottom dollar that sexism IS a relevant issue in all of this.

And from your paternal reprimand of women followed by a gentle slap on the wrist of the "gentlemen" for not being gentlemen.........I shant bother to explain this to you. Cause.....my time will be better spent on educating the generations that came after you.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

18. The thread should be name

"My thoughts on all the conflict here
and how I wish those awful threads had
not been here so I am going to start a
new one on the same thing."

As Governor of California (please somebody
do something or I am going to acktaully BE Governor
and then what?! because I saw The Candidate!)
I will say in my acceptance speach:
"Guys, treat the gals like the gals say they
want to be treated and they would not have to
stop and put a boot up your dumm ass. When
you start to say something about a gal, think
would you say the same thing about your mama?"

[rhino91063]

20. Why is it that you joined yesterday

Yet you are involved in any conflicts that may arise here. Frankly it is been my experienc that anyone that joins and immediately joins in any dispute should be treated with a high level of suspicion. Especially if they use the name of another idiot republican as there screen name.

[noiretextatique]

25. see all beings as you mother

is basically what our brawny friend wrote...hey govenator :hi: (thanks again to sam sarrha for posting this in another thread).
it seems you are the one provoking a conflict with this poster.

[roughsatori]

29. That is a frightening thought: all beings as my mother, YIKES

Just kidding, I know what you mean and I love my Mother. :)

[rhino91063]

31. Think what you want

I offer you the insight as a vetern of many years of debate and message boards. I even run a couple of very successful debate sites on Yahoo. I have also been around this group for years, with different IDs. I can only share my experience though, I can not make people listen or learn from it.

[noiretextatique]

36. yeah...some of us have been on the internet for a while

i've been involved in some other community-building efforts. i think DU is doing a great job in that regard...that includes some new members. this particular issue will not go away...it is partly the nature of the beast. however, i do appreciate the efforts of those who work towards the evolution of the consciousness of THIS community.
i know there are several places on the internet where i can go battle with racists, if i choose. i am pleased that DU is not one of them.

[roughsatori]

28. I can agree with you there

My biggest suspicion is when a very new member starts a thread topic that is obviously divisive. Such as a pro-gun, or anti-gun topic title.

[Rex]

23. If the real Conan said that

the media would go into a jizfest. They would pronounce it as the second coming and crown him King of Kalifornia.

[PurityOfEssence]

22. That's ridiculous. "bad" does not equal "bad"

The fact that Harris is a lying, elitist, spoiled, privileged, vicious criminal does not mean that she's sexually loose. Some of the looser women I know are also so deeply ethical that your average conservative wouldn't even believe they could be so without some fear of godly retribution keeping them in line.

A woman who's a greedy torpedo for the monarchists is not necessarily a slut. Far from it: right wing women tend to have big sex/power/gift problems and are generally more prudish than anything else. Being a slut isn't necessarily bad, unless it hurts the partners or family.

Unless there's a gender component in evil, it has nothing to do with it, and if brought up, reflects the bigotry of the speaker.

If there is a gender component in the evil, it's fair to bring it up, but it had better be accurate, and even then, flak will ensue.

Call Harris a harpy, because she is a shrill flying female demon who defecates on your food. She is a bit "fem", but she's not an ultra-fem like Phyllis Schlaffly. Call her a bitch, if you must, because the snotty way she comports herself with those tacky fem business outfits reeks of that. If she feigns the privilege of not having to be scrutinized so thoroughly because she's a woman, then that's playing unfair, and that is a gender component.

There IS a bit of the gender component to her image and methods; she does want a break or two for being female, so she deserves to be called on that. Coulter is worse.

To marginalize women by questioning their sexual habits is ridiculous and vile.

I call Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld pricks because their "big tough strong iconic male" horseshit is central to their personalities and part of their problem. They deserve it because the grubby, primitive bullying and cocksure, trampling dominance is part of the ugly side of masculinity and a personality trait they relish and use. I wouldn't call Steve Forbes a prick; he's just a hereditary nobody with no gender component to his persona.

Same with race, ethnicity and other personality components.

Equating things you think "bad" is silly. Frank Sinatra was a fairly decent singer, a really good actor but a despicable human being. Condi Rice is an elitist mediocrity who needs to be thought of as intellectually superior when she isn't; she's got a bit of an Aunt Jemima enabler streak, but her sexuality has never been any component in her wickedness as far as I know.

Defending the right to use any version of smear against an opponent renders your credibility close to nil. Now, using the appropriate slur against someone who's gaining leverage from something and using it to hurt people, well that's just fine; I might even hold your coat and side-coach you a little.

Oh, and WHO CARES WHAT THE FREEPERS THINK ABOUT US? Caring what they think of us makes us cringe, deny our political beliefs, apologize for our very beings and scramble for scaredy-cat candidates like Clark. (He's not the scaredy-cat; those who think we have to have a military guy to distance ourselves from ourselves ARE.)

[rhino91063]

33. Purity

YOu seem to have a very well thought out and clear understanding of the proper use of and concept of insults and deragatory terms. However, would it be safe to assume that everyone else does as well? Is it a good idea to assume that others share your clear vision and that there choice of words must reflect other issues? As for defending the use of improper terms, I am not sure where you came to that conculsion. As I clearly stated the terms are offensive to some and it is not proper to use them. That is hardly what I would call a defense. What I did say, is that as offenses go this one is not that major.

[scarletwoman]

30. LANGUAGE -- the words we use to denote concepts is NOT "trivial"!

The problem of Bush in the White House, the problem of military agression and Empire, the problem of right wing hate-mongering, the problem of religious fundamentalism, and the problem of degradation of the Feminine are ALL inter-related. These are ALL aspects of patriarchal culture running wild, of *power OVER* being exalted as the highest value rather than *power from within*.

The *power OVER* dynamic is at root an anti-woman dynamic, as it degrades and dismisses the feminine values of cooperation, nurture, and self-sublimation to the greater good.

And before anyone gets hopped up over THAT statement, let me make it perfectly clear that "feminine values" AND "masculine values" (such as competition, self-assertion, and agression) are NOT confined to one or the other gender. All HUMANS have within them the capacity for BOTH sets of values, and BOTH genders exhibit them to one degree or another.

Words in common usage arise out of culture, and words reinforce that culture's normative values. The word "slut" designates a loose woman, a woman overly free with her favors. There is a very specific value judgement contained in that word -- a sexually free woman is an object of scorn and disaprobation. There is NO equivalent term of disaprobation for the male gender.

How did it come to be that our society has so many terms of derision for sexually free women? It comes from the patriarchal roots of our culture, the centuries of male ownership of women, of the conceptualization of women as chattel, as property to be controlled -- especially SEXUALLY controlled.

If we, as conscious human beings, are to free ourselves (ALL of us!) from the oppression of patriarchal thinking -- which has given us the Bush White House and all the attendent ills of conquest, empire, and authoritarianism, then we need to recognize that even the language that we use is part of the overall struggle.

If you wish to dismiss concerns with how we use language as "trivial", then I assert that you are not much of an ally in this struggle.

sw

[rhino91063]

34. I am confused

Why would one assign a gender to values? To me this would only promote sexist thinking. To me values are gendered neutral. As for the whole slut issue, would not the term womanizer describe the male equivilant?

[scarletwoman]

41. What's to be confused about?

I stated very clearly that "feminine" and "masculine" do NOT refer to specific genders. They are descriptors, like "yin" and "yang", and quite commonly used in our culture.

As to your second question -- no, "womanizer" is certainly NOT an equivalent term, it is nowhere near as loaded a term as "slut". Would you insult a man by calling him a "womanizer" when it's his political stance you disagree with? I submit that you would only use it if it applied to his actual sexual pursuits, and ONLY if his sexual pursuits had direct bearing on your criticism of him.

Do you see the difference?

sw

[Clete]

42. No the slut equivalent of womanizer is

prostitute, which as you can see, is not true of Katherine Harris as far as we know. There is no doubt that Arnold is a lecher so the adjective womanizer is pretty factual. If you said the same about Governor Davis, it probably would not be true. If you applied this to any man you didn't like, you could see how insulting this would be to men in general.

So I am afraid you have lost this argument on descriptive words.

[Wonder]

35. Sexist language is no exception.

inventory is required all the way around. some of this is not even a matter of gender. It is instead a matter of humanity. Self examination is required by both genders.

The way we have become sensitized to language that is considered racist, it has come the time to be as sensitized to language that is sexist. And not just because they are words and meaningless... but because like racist language... the language itself does incite hate incidents wherein words become violent actions.

I would guess this is why society has called to task racism and the various anti-culturism. The words are indicative of sentiments that DO lead to violence actions motivated by hate. Sexist language is no exception. It is not just a matter of women having hissy fits over innocuous words.

[Cocoa]

39. when you say "male members"...

what exactly do you mean?

But seriously... If someone objects to a certain term, why not just apologize and just not use the word anymore?

[wickerwoman]

40. Could someone link the thread in question?

I'm having trouble finding it and I'd like to take a look before inserting my 2 cents. Thanks.

[scarletwoman]

46. Here you go:

The thread that started it all:
Katherine Harris is a Fascist Slut

The thread in response to the arguments in the first thread:
To all the chest pounding neanderthal, burping, farting, sexist DU men

Both are locked, btw.

There were two or three other threads that evolved out of the same issue, (also locked), but I didn't bother looking them up. The whole thing had degenerated wildly by then.

sw

[Skinner]

43. I am locking this thread.

This was discussed at length yesterday. I still think that we need some time off from this issue.

Skinner
DU Admin

[rucky]

45. People Get Emotional Here...

...and some thoughtless shit spews out of their keyboards. So what do we do when we're offended by it? Responding with the same level of emotion may make you feel better - but it usually exacerbates the situation.

I try to understand the subtext of what was being said (i.e. "I hate Katherine Harris"), and give the person a chance to semantically wiggle out of it themselves - maybe asking them to clarify ("what do you mean by 'slut'?"), or paraphrase what you hope they meant to say ("I wouldn't call her a slut, but I do hate her guts as well").

It's kinda passive-agressive, but it diffuses a fight that's probably not necessary in the first place and still gets your message across.

...of course if their response is "nope, she's a slut," then I'd tear 'em a new one. But I hope most of us are decent enough to catch ourselves on edit.