Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from time out Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 11:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Found these in other news article. Not looking good... "According to a police spokesman, "a suspect would probably be charged with felony vandalism with a hate crime enhancement that would make time in prison likely." "Irwin has been charged with felony vandalism. If he is found guilty, Irwin could be facing up to one year in state prison or county jail and a $10,000 fine." (reply to this comment)

from Nancy Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 09:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I'd like to say, as I did in a comment many weeks ago that was removed by the administrators, that I am the person Tuneman7 was referring to in many of his attacks. I was not the one he'd repeatedly suspect of commenting on his statements, though. I removed all my articles and photographs from this website, with the exception of one that was written for a little girl who passed away, when Tuneman7 became most aggressive several months ago. I've had no contact with him in many months. I've seen him twice in two years and blocked his email 9 months ago when his rhetoric towards me reached levels not seen even on this thread. It's my opinion that he needs help before something serious and permanent happens. In email that he sent to several lawyers, third parties and the media, Tuneman7 made even more aggressive statements. Almost all of these statements and threats were aimed at women, survivors of physical and sexual abuse by the cult. This behavior, in my opinion, has been occuring since October 2005, and has only worsened in the last 9 months. (reply to this comment)

From Nick Saturday, May 05, 2007, 10:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Well who's putting the "smack down" on who now? LOL. I wonder if when they arrested him he was in full samurai outfit and sword? I just hope this is enough for the judge to confiscate his collection of swords and guns. (reply to this comment)

from time out Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 08:13 (Agree/Disagree?) It seems that tuneman may have taken things a bit to far this time... http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_5823596 Man is arrested in swaztika case A 32-year-old Sherman Oaks man was arrested Friday in connection with swastikas and anti-Semitic statements posted at the local office of Los Angeles City Councilman Jack Weiss, officials said. Adonis Irwin was arrested about 8:30 a.m., on suspicion of vandalism, with bail set at $40,000. Weiss, who is Jewish, has said he and his office would not be intimidated by the anti-Semitic incident. Irwin made two previous visits to Weiss' office in the past week to talk about child abuse prevention and concerns about a religious organization called The Family and Children of God, according to sign-in sheets from Weiss' office. http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_124131506.html Man Arrested For Allegedly Defacing Weiss' Office (CBS) SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. A Sherman Oaks man was arrested Friday for allegedly defacing the front of Los Angeles City Councilman Jack Weiss' Sherman Oaks field office with swastikas and an anti-Semitic note, police said. Adonis Irwin, 32, was taken into custody at about 8:30 a.m. in the 4600 block of Natick Avenue, said Los Angeles police Officer April Harding. It's not clear what charges Irwin will face. Members of Weiss' staff had seen the red-and-black swastikas -- printed on sheets of paper and glued to the doors of the field office at 14310 Ventura Blvd. -- and a cryptic note containing anti-Semitic messages as they arrived for work just after 8 a.m. Thursday, said Weiss press deputy Lisa Hansen. The note included the phrase, "Heil Weiss." "Please make no mistake that I will not be intimidated," Weiss, who is Jewish, said yesterday. "These messages and symbols are so grotesquely insensitive and demeaning to the memories of those who actually experienced these symbols in their real lives," Weiss said. (reply to this comment)

from Noticias Saturday, May 05, 2007 - 04:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Detienen a sospechoso de dejar esvásticas a concejal judío en Los Angeles LOS ANGELES, 4 Mayo 2007 (AFP) - La Policía de Los Angeles detuvo a un sospechoso de haber dejado tres esvásticas y un mensaje antisemita en la oficina de un concejal judío, informó la misma fuerza de seguridad este viernes. Adonis Irwin, de 32 años, fue detenido en la mañana del viernes y tras ser fichado se le fijó una fianza de 40.000 dólares, informó el oficial de policía, April Harding. El equipo del concejal en Los Angeles, Jack Weiss, de religión judía, halló el jueves tres esvásticas y una mensaje antisemita en la puerta de su oficina, informó su asistente Lisa Hansen. "Por favor no se equivoquen que no me van a intimidar", dijo Weiss la víspera en una rueda de prensa. La Policía de Los Angeles en el suburbio de Van Nuys (noroeste de Los Angeles), donde vive una importante comunidad judía, había lanzado una investigación el hecho el mismo jueves. (reply to this comment)

from Oddman Monday, April 02, 2007 - 21:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Methinks your comment rights were temporarily suspended for posting -what you believe to be the truth,- in a manner that was personal, invasive, vulgar, needlessly offensive, flaming, degrading, indecent, and ignored all aspects of nettiquette. But that's just my opinion. (reply to this comment)

from EyesWideShut Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 07:45 (Agree/Disagree?) This article out to be titled The Words "Bitch" and "Whore"--152 Comments and Counting. (reply to this comment)

From You might be right about that, Monday, April 02, 2007, 21:35 (Agree/Disagree?) the article should be retitled... It has zilch to do with tuneman7, and goes on and on about semantics, racism, feminism, and sexism.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Thursday, March 29, 2007, 08:05 (Agree/Disagree?) You must be new here. :P * There's another thread (closed now) with even more goodness. It would appeasr that threadjacking is a fine art, hereabouts. * http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=16&ID=3981(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Thursday, March 29, 2007, 08:08 (Agree/Disagree?) *appear Spelling ain't, apparently.(reply to this comment)

from Now's The Time To Speak Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 10:28 (Agree/Disagree?) If there's anything you love or hate about tuneman, there has never been a better time to say so. In the coming months, a union executive task force will hold company wide hearings over tuneman 21, the most detailed and important anti-Christ robotic AI project in the history of the Projects Subcommittee. If you're galaxies away from tuneman or nearby, it will affect you. As they apply the finishing touches to hundreds of transistors, officials will also work on a complete overhaul of asynchronous negative knowhow, which affects almost everything that happens in the tuneman project. The sky is the limit. In dozens of the meetings, hearings, discussions and debates about tuneman 21, I have yet to hear anyone say that any topic is off-limits, any concern too small or too large, to be considered in this sweeping plan that will guide project leaders for decades. If you don't speak up now, you could be forgotten. If you don't look at the plan before the company Council votes on it, you will miss your chance to catch an oversight that's important to you or your children. The company is spending more than 13 Galleons. The USB-powered nitrous oxide dispensers will have gone to waste if future officials don't embrace the plan. That means the Memorial Day bbq and company events for years to come should weigh heavily on every person who can vote. The tuneman project's campus is more than a secure undisclosed location 3 kilometers underground. The South tuneman project facility collective is more than a busy commercial strip. tuneman's neural pathways are more than vast swaths of empty space. Just how much more is up to you. The company can only do so much if its associates don't hold it accountable and motivate it. tuneman 21 represents the best hope yet for union dues funded remodeling of the company's north side. I've sat at meetings where employees who feel neglected, who could have simply complained about the status quo, instead chose to channel the energy of their frustrations into a storm of strange ideas. If you have anything to say about the company of tuneman and its future, here's what you can do: # Watch for notices about company-wide hearings and other meetings associated with tuneman 21 and changes to planning and zoning ordinances. You'll see announcements in the tuneman Paper and also on tuneman21.com. Watch the agenda page of the company's web site, www.companyoftuneman.org, for announcements. Read the plan drafts and submit feedback. # Call your company Council representative or company Manager Bob Turner at 531-1250. Write letters to them or send an e-mail through the company's Web site. Ask them to respond. # When anything related to tuneman 21 appears on a company Council agenda, sign up ahead of time to speak at the meeting. You'll be able to talk face-to-face with the entire company Council. # If you want to be heard on issues involving AI library use, planning or anything that is or isn't regulated by the 11th Robotic Commandment, call the planning department at 531-1175 and ask how you can be heard. Write a letter or e-mail to Planning Director Barbara Holly using the same address above. (reply to this comment)

From EyesWideShut Thursday, March 29, 2007, 07:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Errr? (reply to this comment)

From roughneck Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 15:07 (Agree/Disagree?) "# Watch for notices about company-wide hearings and other meetings associated with tuneman 21 and changes to planning and zoning ordinances." As long as they're on display in the cellar, in the dark, at the bottom of some broken stairs, and in a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard, we should be fine. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10:49 (Agree/Disagree?) wtf?(reply to this comment)

from thicktionaries Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 01:37 (Agree/Disagree?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitch http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bitch http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bitch&query=bitch http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/bitch http://www.ldoceonline.com/ Under one URL access to many online dictionaries: http://onelook.com/?loc=rescb&w=bitch Very fine research (mentioning men as bitches, historically, but a f t e r women being named that way): http://www.roxanne.org/~maeve/bitch.html Also referring sometimes to men as bitches: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wrader/slang/b.html http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bitch useful: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1040322/posts quite intensive/vast outline: http://pepluminous.blogspot.com/2006/06/loaded-words-i-notes-on-bitch.html "just for fun": http://www.bitchmagazine.com/ http://bookbitch.blogspot.com/2002_03_10_bookbitch_archive.html (reply to this comment)

from tuneman7 Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 10:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks Ben, Nice post. You are a man of science and letters. Now, let's sit back and wait for the bipoloar, nameless idiot posse to show up. hee hee! Take care, Don Irwin (reply to this comment)

from rainy Sunday, March 25, 2007 - 02:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Benz, that was very insightful and I agree heartily. Thank you for reminding us that men are bitches too. :) (reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, March 26, 2007, 03:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Some men certainly are bitches, as are some ......! Though you'd have to guess most men would rather be whores (the pay is better!). More importantly I've proven that Jules' argument is a nonsense/fallacy. You cannot create gender slurs out of words that are not gender specific. Calling someone a whore or a bitch is not a gender slur in itself. If I was to say that all women were whores/bitches that would be a gender slur, but the words themselves can apply to either sex. Jules can dish it out and seek quick reply from Don but obviously can't respond in any timely fashion here (which must go toward demonstrating the pathetic nature of her argument) I therefore must so humbly accept her ungracious defeat by default. Thanks Jules, its been fun! In the meantime I hope for all our sakes she doesn’t go all Germaine Greer-esque and like Germaine start speaking on behalf of the animal kingdom against yet another Irwin action-man-crockhunter without first consulting the resident geek handbook for extra pointers. I’d also suggest to you, Jules that the dictionary would also make good light reading before jumping headlong into another moralistic diatribe with the intent to emasculate your intended victim. cheers, (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, March 26, 2007, 04:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Benz, I agree somewhat with your original comment on the "retirement" thread. However, words should be taken in context. While some dictionaries may list a certain definition of a word, that definition isn't always the only correct way to interpret the word. It is important to note also, that there are still dictionaries that provide a gender specific definition to the terms. Further, English words are not defined by a recognized dictionary listing. English word meanings are defined on common usage, which is then recognized and recorded in dictionaries. Regarding the term "Bitch". The definition of this word changes, depending on gender. In essence, used against a woman, it equates the woman to a dog. A noisy barking animal, a creature of lesser intellect, a creature that is often restrained on a leash, a creature that is expected to take orders from her master. When the epithet is used against a man, it implies that the man displays negative traits "weak or contemptible" that "should belong to women/bitches". I think it's fair to say that in either context, the term could rightly be deemed offensive to "our fairer counterparts" (Am I being sexist now?). While the debate is open as to how the word SHOULD be used, (there are other definitions to the word, which have yet to be listed in the dictionary.) Don's usage could rightly be considered a gender based insult. Don used the two terms -bitch and whore- heavily, in describing a specific female MO user. Perhaps in Don's mind, she had "compromised principles for personal gain". Perhaps in Don's mind, she was "A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing". However, many of Don's earlier comments pointed to gender based disrespect. Sometimes communication is about more than semantics. All the more so when the antagonist shows he has little knowledge or regard for the strict dictionary definitions of terms he/she uses.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, March 26, 2007, 05:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Wrong Oddman! According to your logic if I call a man a bitch I am still making a gender-based slur against women. - Wrong, I am merely making a character-slur against a man. Both you and Jules are wrong, the simple use of the word "bitch" is not a gender-based slur, it is a character-slur. Same with the word "whore", it is a character or occupation which can be held by men, women, transexuals or gays alike. Stop suggesting that the english language defintions of words somehow change in line with your and Jules private pet usages ok? - this is just a website, not an english word factory(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, March 26, 2007, 05:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Eh, are you upset? That's the impression your comment sends me. Like I said, I somewhat agree with you. Both words can -due to fairly recent developments- be used as character slurs. All I'm saying is, traditionally they are gender-based slurs, and taking Don's chat conversations and comments into account, it seemed apparant that he used them in the gender-based sense. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you aren't entirely right. There's a difference. Many English words have more than one definition, and the interpretation of a sentence does indeed change in line with the perceived context in which it is uttered. The same sentence can mean two totally different things, depending on how it is understood. The same sentence can mean two totally different things, depending on how it is meant to be understood. Like I said, sometimes communication is about more than semantics.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, March 26, 2007, 06:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't care whether you think I'm half right, half wrong, quarter wrong, quarter right or whatever. Stop trying to evade the blatant facts, the word "bitch" used against a man is not a slur against women. Equally, the word "bitch" used against a woman is not a slur against all women, hence it IS NOT a gender-specific slur. The word "bitch" is no more a gender-specific slur than the word "lazy". The fact that "bitch" is more often used in connection with women does not take away from the fact that calling one woman a bitch is not a slur against all women, and hence not a gender slur. To say "all women are lazy" is a gender slur, to say "Sally is a bitch" is not gender related. You may as well pick the word "brutish" and say the mere use of that word is a slur against men, because it has historically been used more often to describe men. And as for your comment "The same sentence can mean two totally different things, depending on how it is understood" - that is a classic. OF COURSE dearie, I suppose every foreigner who can't speak English should start contributing to the Oxford's "Recent-development to the Meanings of Words" department. - What a joke! Just because you don't understand the correct meaning of a word does not mean the word should become subject to some "recent development" so everyone else can agree with your new definition. The definition of a word does not change because you fail to understand its meaning. For the record I do find it annoying conversing with people who refuse to respect proper dictionary definitions of the words whilst arguing that the words they use to argue a point are subject to the definitions they prescribe based on their own suspect understanding. Shakespeare, Odd-men are a bitch. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, March 26, 2007, 15:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree. The "blatant fact" is, the label bitch, when used against a man is meant to imply that the man described is "less than a man". This usage equates the "less than man" to "bitch = all women". How is this not a gender-specific slur? How is a self respecting woman not to take offense at this usage? To say "sally is being a bitch" or "Tom is bitchy" is not a gender-specific slur. It is a character insult. "Sally is a bitch" can be understood to be gender-specific, depending on how the listener interprets "bitch". I support sticking to the dictionary definitions in most cases. Especially in written debates. Don's usage was not so much in debate, but rather, in conversation. In such cases, it is natural to apply the spoken definition (street definition if you will) over the written definition. I also stand by my argument, that usage of a word gives it definition. Case in point, "gay". The definition of this word has changed drastically over the years. Oxford did not print "from henceforth gay shall mean homosexual". The word came into popular use to the point that dictionaries recognized and acknowledged the new definition. The definition of gay is still changing today in my opinion. Another example is "nigger". This word is probably one of the most offensive slurs in the dictionary today. But a new definition would have to be added, taking into account the black culture use of the term. Depending on context, the term is clearly neutral, or non-offensive. Or should we stick to the dictionary definition, and assume Tupac was racist?(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, March 26, 2007, 15:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Correction: Above "Tom is bitchy" should have read "Tom is bitching".(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Monday, March 26, 2007, 08:01 (Agree/Disagree?) One thing you learn how to do on an oil rig: swear like a roughneck! -I'm guessing you must not hang out with the sweaty guy crowd much, as in real life calling a man "bitch" is almost always meant to impute some woman-like quality (imaginary or otherwise) to the bloke in question. Making "bitch" a gender based slur regardless of context, even though the dictionary says it swings both ways. For example: "Benz, put out on those slips, you lift like a bitch!" might be something you'd hear on a rig floor if you weren't giving 100% effort tripping pipe. Then again, saying "last night's tour was a real bitch, we had to do X", doesn't (at least in usage) carry quite the same gender-based connotation, at least IMHO. Context, context! "Whore" is always negative, and is always female in actual usage, whereas "slut" can go either way without argument. -I don't make the rules. :P Time does not permit an in depth discussion of the terms "cocksucker", "fag" and "n!gger", and the alternate meanings thereof. ASk me later! /whee! -cussing is fun!(reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, March 26, 2007, 13:17 (Agree/Disagree?) I stand by my original comment, and which is borne out by the dictionary definitions. If I call a man a bitch, or even call a woman a bitch that does not equal a gender-specific slur. The word "manish" when used to describe a woman can hardly be a slur against all men, but that is exactly the equivalent of what you are insinuating. Grow a brain on that rough neck. I know what this is, a fine example of PC madness overriding actual english definitions. If you don't agree, fine, one day you guys may realise the dictionary still has the final say.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 00:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I think the difference between "mannish" and "bitch" lies in the fact that "bitch" is a derogative term, whereas "man" is not. (well, except when used during housewife tea parties, or sexist rallies guised as feminist rallies. :p) Mannish woman = Masculine woman. Womanish man = Feminine man. Neither is derogative per se. Denigrating a feminine man by calling him a bitch, relies on the presumption that femininity, hence women collectively are bitches.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I think, you think, whatthefuckever. Nothing you say or do will make me believe that everytime the word "bitch" is used it is a gender-specific slur, because it just aint so. The funny thing is earlier someone else of you said that the degrading thing about being called a bitch is that it equates a man with something inferior - a woman. - Since I DO NOT THINK THAT WAY the word "bitch" is not a gender-bender-slur, I use it, and my friends equally use it for men as for women under the definition "a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person". Those who think "bitch" is a gender slur must be the same ones who think women are worth less than men. I don't think that, and neither I or anyone else I know uses the word only for women so there. Please, you are pathetic, just another wannabe jumping on the feminist bandwagon. Wait... do you hear that? Its Germaine calling you for your scheduled grovelling bitch session...off you go like a good boy....haha what a cack you people(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 17:30 (Agree/Disagree?) If you motherfuckers want to know what the fuck "bitch" means why do you go fucking looking it up on the fucking internet. You guys are acting like a bunch of fucking retarts.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 20:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree, jolipoli. We have a group of grown ups here, engaged in lively debate. The discussion has for the most part, proceeded with minimal use of slurs and epithets. I've found this a refreshing break from recent trends. Must you now taint our sacred halls of pedantics and semantics with your pallidly infantile speech and corybantic overreactions? To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Use what language you will, you can never say anything but what you are."(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 01, 2007, 11:42 (Agree/Disagree?) why don't you quote your own Japanese or Chinese wise men. Leave Emerson out of it. So proud of your own culture and people while at the same fervently studying Western philosophy and language. What your own cultural writings aren't good enough? What a LOSER.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Sunday, April 01, 2007, 13:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh my, Joli. Real bee in your bonnet. Oddie is the race that all of us are. He was raised in the same society, on the same starvation diet concerning intelligent and independant thought. To his credit, he has overcome that and become and intelligent and independant thinker. Unfortunately for you that appears not to be the case. Unfortunately for you, I feel that you, like me, suffer from self-hate. Is this your form of expression? Tell me, what is your racial lineage? Why do you hate who you are? Because if you can't accept your own beauty and be secure in it, of course you can only see ugliness in others.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, April 02, 2007, 17:00 (Agree/Disagree?) not pure, got a lot of portuguese, and impurities. never gonna have kids. It's the right thing to do. Yeah I hate who I am. But at least I know the difference. I hate ignorance more. I hate lies and injustice. It's a nasty world out there, I'm lied to and cheated at every turn. Small thing that my whole life started out all weird. But I'm doing something about it now. I'm going to make a difference to myself and the rest of the world. Everything is going to change, and I'm going to be there when it happens. At least I know I'm on the right side this time--my side. I'll go to my grave with that thought. The human being is the pinnacle of evolution. I'm not going to let it get fucked up by liberal hogwash and diversity mongers. It's just wrong.(reply to this comment)

From madly Monday, April 02, 2007, 18:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Rainy sure hit that one on that head….wow…it all becomes so clear and so sad. I didn’t realize that you weren’t 100% Caucasian. Your comments make so much more sense to me now. It has been said that when you hate or even dislike others… it is because you see in them something you hate or dislike in yourself. Our hate mirrors itself onto others with our own attributes and characteristics that we can’t bear to face. This all comes down to you and the sad fact that you can’t stand yourself… it isn’t about them… you don’t really hate them… you hate what you can’t change about YOU. You hate the part of you that you see when you look at them. I would venture to say that if you learned to love what it is you hate within yourself, the world would look a lot different to you. I feel sorry for you and I hope that you can come to terms with yourself. I hope one day, you can look in the mirror, and love, or at least accept, the face staring back at you. If you can’t learn to do that, your life will continue to be miserable, because like rainy said, if you are full of hate… that is all you will ever see. I have been loving this song lately and the words seem to fit you too: “ You in the dark, you in the pain, you on the run… living a hell, living your ghosts, living your end… never seem to get in the place where you belong… don’t want to lose the time, lose your time to come…” It makes me so angry that so many of us are so messed up… I hate that they made you hurt this way… I hate that you hate yourself; that you are so unhappy. The way they made you feel about yourself and the world makes me livid. I would like to take back my harsh comment to you from before… how could I feel anything but compassion for you… for someone so obviously hurting. Don’t let them beat you… don’t let them take everything and destroy what life you have left. Hate them if you must, but don’t hate yourself and don’t take it out on innocent people who have done nothing to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvXzk3jpaAM(reply to this comment)

From madly Monday, April 02, 2007, 18:35 (Agree/Disagree?) *ummm... the head... not... that head(reply to this comment)

From sowwy... I... ack.. can't... resist.. Monday, April 02, 2007, 21:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Wouldn't whichever head the brain seems to be in, be the right head?(reply to this comment)

From madly Monday, April 02, 2007, 21:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Sure... whatever.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, April 01, 2007, 13:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I would share the words of the Shotokutaishi, the multitudes of Shoguns and Bushos, the Sajins, Bunjins, and Sous, if I had thought for a moment that you would understand the wisdom in them. I've read the Gorin no sho in both English and Japanese, but too much of the essence is in the context and nuance. The masters say so much with so little, and no translation would do them justice. I'm far from qualified to translate philosophy that's been around twice as long as the USA has, and if I were, the effort would be wasted on deaf ears. I'll keep these pearls out of the pig sty. I'll share one of my life mottos though, a quote of Juzo Sugiura. ~ Fear not the world. Rather fear thyself. ~ In my opinion, hate is fear, blame is fear, prejudice is fear.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, April 02, 2007, 17:49 (Agree/Disagree?) the simple sayings of the great Sugiura. Yeah you bring out your Shoguns and Bushos, I'll just laugh you right out of the water. Oriental sayings all about the length of a haiku. Reminds of another book I used to memorize for hours a day--simple sayings for a simple people. If it weren't for the West, you guys would still be still be chopping each other's heads off and shifting around like humming birds. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Sunday, April 01, 2007, 13:38 (Agree/Disagree?) So wise. So utterly correct.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, April 01, 2007, 12:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I am also Caucasian, but I have no problem with learning something from people of other races or cultures. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."- Dr. Martin Luther King "Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It cause his to describe the beautiful as ugly, and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true. "- Dr. Martin Luther King "Ninety-nine percent of all failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses." - George Washington Carver Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.- Albert Einstein Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking.- Albert Einstein (reply to this comment)

From roughneck Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 18:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Righto then, next time we'll all come to you with our etymological disputes and let you suss them out, O wise one. Pray tell though, Ye Oracle of Definition, what's a "retart"? If it's some kind of heretofore unheard-of bakery product, make mine strawberry. (reply to this comment)

From Sweet-tart Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 20:39 (Agree/Disagree?) "Retart" may or may not be a gastronomical slur. It usually means when you regurgitate your tart (shush, you filthy minds!). But it can also mean that you have to re-heat your pop-tart (which is of course much more respectable, although it means that people can now shout "retart" all over the site and expect not to be called sexist - uh I mean gastronomist).(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 21:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Some other possible interpretations of re-tart. Urban definitions of tart. A: A prostitute. B: A flirty or promiscuous woman. C: A woman who dresses like (B) D: A flamboyant gay man. A man in drag. It is then possible to interpret "tarting" as.- A: Whoring. B: Flirting. C: Dressing skanky. D: Going drag. Retart can therefore describe... A: Taking a second client. B: Coming back to flirt some more. C: Changing into another skanky outfit. D: Redoing drag do. Maybe I'm wrong, but I had assumed sar was flirting with me. All this nerd/geek talk is certainly turning me on. :D(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 21:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry, but that was brilliant! I like option C). (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 20:07 (Agree/Disagree?) shuv a mapleleaf up ur ass canuck...and getalife.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 20:54 (Agree/Disagree?) While I applaud your use of non-gender-specific suggestions in the above, you really could do better than this if only you put your mind to it. I mean seriously! A harmless little maple leaf? Up my ass? What did the leaf do to deserve this, anyway? And "canuck"? Since when is that an insult? If you really must let fly at Canada &/or Canadians, please take lessons from former movingoner JoeH, who had it down pat. I give this feeble attempt at trolling a rating of -5. Please resubmit with revisions, and remember, spelling counts!(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 06:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Don't have time for that. You complain about Indians taking your job. Get off your a$$ and kick some Indian butt, loser. Problem with white trash like you is you have no discipline. Don't even know that your country is under assault from all sides from Indians, Asians, Paks, Mexicrents, etc. One day, you'll have to take action.(reply to this comment)

From Cartman's Mom Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 10:12 (Agree/Disagree?) "Sorry boys, jolifam can't come out and play. My little poopsiekins is still grounded for trying to exterminate the Jews two weeks ago."(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 08:49 (Agree/Disagree?) For starters, I never complained that Indians are taking MY job, just that outsourcing takes jobs out of my country. How is "kicking some Indian butt" really going change anything? If I really wanted to effect change, I'd be kicking the butts of the few rich WHITE guys who make the decision to move jobs out of the country just for a couple percentage points of profit. Frankly, I don't see that my country is "under assault", I quite enjoy the diversity we've got going on here. I do think it's a shame that many immigrants are willing to work for such low pay that they depress the job market for people who can't survive on $10/day. But, hey, at the end of they day, immigrants don't get to choose their economic realities either. In any case, I'd prefer just about any immigrant for any job to your stupid, racist, entitled ass. I'm still not sure what makes you imagine that the lighter shade of your skin makes you somehow better than your asian counterparts, though. People like you are not just part of the solution, you ARE the problem. Not just part of it, all of it! I'm sorry you're not grown up enough to separate whatever bad experiences you may have had in India and Nepal from the rest of reality and everyone else in it. Until you do, please stop with the skinhead rhetoric already. It's highly unoriginal and exceedingly offensive to any thinking person, regardless of shade. And no, you're not a thinker. Sorry.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 12:13 (Agree/Disagree?) you crack me up. go smoke some more weed. btw, you contradicted yourself. I'm sorry that your whole life is conflicted. At least I know who I am. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman just asking a simple question Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 06:51 (Agree/Disagree?) If white people are genetically superior, where does white trash come from?(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 12:23 (Agree/Disagree?) what kind of stupid question is that. if you want to make a point about something, go right ahead. your true smug nature is coming out more and more. let it out, man.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Thursday, March 29, 2007, 07:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Tell you what, when you're half as smart, educated and erudite as Oddman, you'll be more than welcome to some smugness yourself. Lucky for me, the Second Coming of Saddam Hussein is expected long before you manage one out of three.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, March 29, 2007, 16:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Oddman isn't educated, so much as you are willfully ignorant. Go get an education, you'll blow Oddman and his toaist ways out of the water. One of the only weaknesses among whites is their tendency fall for longwinded, ghandiesk bullshit like Oddman's. All you need is a little education to tell the difference between pretentious, circuitous, pointless, nonsense, and good ol' common sense.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Thursday, March 29, 2007, 19:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Willfully ignorant of what, pray tell? In any case, I'm sure it will take more than just an education to blow Oddman, in the water or no.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Friday, March 30, 2007, 23:49 (Agree/Disagree?) you're right. look what it took to put down hiro hito...(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 13:01 (Agree/Disagree?) It's a simple question, Joli. If you cite DNA as the reason some non-white people are stupid or poor, then what in your opinion, is the reason some white people are stupid and/or poor?(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 15:10 (Agree/Disagree?) has nothing to do with being "stupid or poor." these are subjective qualities. Poverty per se is not an indicator of white creativity. I would rather be "stupid and poor" and white, then rich and smart and asian. The qualities you mentioned are just superficial attributes that just happen to be more prevalent in asian races than white races. Of course, they are just symptoms of deeper problems and/or traits. There are many kinds of intelligence, there are many shades of morality, of common sense, of independence, of tolerance for pain and discomfort, etc., that characterize a race. Of course these haven't been quantified or measured yet. But they obviously exist. The question is whether you choose to see them or not. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 18:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting. If a genetic superiority is not quantified, how do you know superiority exists? Are you admitting that -aside from your personal emotive thoughts- there is nothing to support the theory that any one race is superior to another? The signification of "superior" would be "higher or greater" (Webster). One can perhaps be great without quantification (Debatable, but I'd allow for that.). How can one be superior or greater, without quantification, comparison, measurement. Further, a scale or method is required to accurately measure something. So far, your method is merely "How do I think I feel about this" nothing more, nothing less. How is this method qualified as an accurate standard?(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 19:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Talking to you is like talking to an alien who's learning to speak to humans. Your putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that. You assume you understand what I'm saying when you really don't. This is typical of non-whites. Your creativity and perception is limited--of this fact, I'm accutely aware. Misinterpretation amongst your kind is so commonplace, that when we speak to you, we nearly always have to scale back the complexity of our thoughts and spell things out to you asians as if we were feeding machine language into a computer. I'm accutely aware of this necessity. It's as if the brain capacity seems large enough, but there's not enough RAM so to speak to process things fast enough. This is one of the frustrating things about our diverse society, trying to communicate with you guys. Oh well. Good thing is once you get the message you memorize it and perfect it. Thanks to that we get rewarded with nice Hondas and other imitation electronics. Guess your good for something. Nice little robots you guys are.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Thursday, March 29, 2007, 00:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Just a side observation. If an Alien is learning how to communicate with humans, would that not indicate that the Alien may possess superior intellect? After all, if the humans were superior, why aren't they just conversing in Alien? How do you qualify the assumption that because another species or creature or person does not communicate like you, they must be lacking in intellect? It is so interesting how there is always more than one way to interpret any given scenario. A different perspective, a different view. "You assume you understand what I'm saying when you really don't. This is typical of non-whites" How does my asking you to clarify your statement, point to me assuming an incorrect interpretation of your words? Of racial traits, you said, "These haven't been quantified or measured yet." I posed the question "How can one be superior or greater, without quantification, comparison, measurement." Based on the understanding that confirmation of superiority is achieved through quantification, your statement -that the difference between races have not been quantified- would imply that any racial superiority is unquantified, therefore unestablished. Is this logic simple enough? You are probably right about "misunderstanding of English" being typical of non-whites. The majority of the world's non-white populace speak in their mother tongue. The ability to speak a specific language is nurtured through education and use. Surely you agree that the ability to speak English is the child of nurture, not nature. As such, any disparity in English proficiency cannot be attributed to genetic superiority, unless perhaps, both persons are raised and educated under identical conditions. I agree, Asians seem to have a unique wit for taking another's concept, and enhancing on it. Not only do we memorize and perfect it, we improve it. I believe it takes as much "creativity" to take an established concept and rethink it outside the box, as it does to make something from scratch.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, March 29, 2007, 16:44 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree with your last point about it taking as much creativity to copy an idea as it does to come up with the idea in the first place, no matter how much toil to improve on it. As for understanding English, you again assume that I was talking about overcoming language barriers (where did I mention language at all?). This, by the way, is just another example of you (and by extension your genetic kin) assuming things then going off in some tangent on that assumption. In doing so you just provide me with more fodder to prove how your mind works in constrained boundaries. It is my argument that these boundaries are the reason your kind is unimaginative and unperceptive.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Thursday, March 29, 2007, 17:47 (Agree/Disagree?) There are few truly new inventions nowadays, Joli. Most new inventions rely on age old inventions, theories, and discoveries. I'd almost argue that humans have yet to truly create something, anything, that was not a creative bastardization of existing elements. Once a method or standard is set, it takes a lot of creativity to deviate from that concept. For instance, computer code at its purest form, would boil down to binary. Are innovative codes and scripts -that are only possible due binary- any less creative? As for understanding English, you assume that I understood your comment to refer to the language barrier. Perhaps a second read would bring you to the realization that I was taking a subtle dig at your implied fallacious contention that one's comprehensive faculties are affected or limited by DNA. I would interpret "You assume you understand what I'm saying when you really don't" to mean "you misinterpret/misunderstand". Now then, are you going to address my very simple questions? 1. How can the superiority of any object -or group of objects- over another be established, without quantifying the properties of both items, and comparing their quantifications? 2. By what quantification do you consider "white" superior to "non-white"? 3. What method or formula have you used to achieve that quantification? 4. How is your method or formula qualified? How is it's reliability established?(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, March 29, 2007, 19:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I've already answered your questions by stating that I refuse to discuss any sort of quantification. I'll leave that to the experts. go look them up, if you're interested. I have no problem making more general claims though, which are readily evident to everyone with good sense. Furthermore you are a fool, your statements are specious. You don't understand creativity, so you argue relentlessly to prove it doesn't exist. You claim that I contend that "one's comprehensive faculties are affected or limited by DNA." Then you say, after this bit of putting words in my mouth, that this contention is fallacious, which you say without providing evidence to support your side, which is typical of you. The fact that you made this claim regarding the fallaciousness of the affect of DNA, proves that you are an idiot, and don't know the first thing about science.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Friday, March 30, 2007, 04:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Indeed, you've already answered my question, by stating as follows. There are many kinds of intelligence, there are many shades of morality, of common sense, of independence, of tolerance for pain and discomfort, etc., that characterize a race. Of course these haven't been quantified or measured yet. Indeed, you have no problem making "general claims". Claims which have no logical or scientific basis. As such, your opinion that one race is superior to another is exactly that. Your opinion. If you claim racial superiority can be established by being "evident to one of good sense" you would need to qualify "good sense" as a barometer. You say "You don't understand creativity, so you argue relentlessly to prove it doesn't exist." I've relentlessly been arguing that improvement can be attributed to creativity. How does that imply the opinion "creativity doesn't exist"? Fallacious –adjective 1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments. 2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony. 3. disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace. Contention –noun 1. a struggling together in opposition; strife. 2. a striving in rivalry; competition; contest. 3. strife in debate; dispute; controversy. 4. a point contended for or affirmed in controversy. 5. a point asserted as part of an argument 6. the act of competing as for profit or a prize; I believe my choice of words were entirely adequate. I consider your opinion -that one of white lineage is genetically superior to one of brown, black, yellow, or any other color- to be a fallacious contention. A controversial point you contend for, which is both logically unsound, and dissapointingly delusive. Fallacious contention. So far what you have offered as proof of genetic superiority, is the living conditions in a third world country. You argue that because you have seen a few hundred, maybe a few thousand Indians living poverty, all 1,027,000,000 of them are genetically predisposed to inferior performance. Fallacious contention. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, March 31, 2007, 00:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I probably saw more than just a few thousand, which more than satisfies the requirement for statistical analyses, and conclusions. And as for judging me that my opinionated contentions are fallacious and so forth, remember that you yourself have stated belief that blacks are inferior to you in some regard. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, April 01, 2007, 13:52 (Agree/Disagree?) You've seen more than just a few thousand? How many did you sit with? How many did you interact with as humans? How many times did you get off your high horse and mingle, speak, converse, understand them? How many times have you stood on their level? Do you speak Hindi? If a casual glance at passerby served as sufficient data for analysis, god save America, god save Japan.(reply to this comment)

From madly Friday, March 30, 2007, 04:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Odd... give it up, babe...he is an idiot. And as for you, Jolipolioli...as I told benz... I would like to help you, but I just can't fix stupid.(reply to this comment)

From GoldenMic Thursday, March 29, 2007, 22:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I really do not mean to offend, but I am troubled by this racial stereotyping primarily for one reason; it so perfectly mimics the biased, hierarchical racial statements and judgements from our cult past. Does that bother you?(reply to this comment)

From rainy Saturday, March 31, 2007, 03:10 (Agree/Disagree?) GoldenMic, I have a high opinion of you, but I cannot fathom why that would be your primary reason for being troubled by Jolifam's tragically warped perceptions. That's still allowing your upbringing too much sway in your judgements.(reply to this comment)

From GoldenMic Saturday, March 31, 2007, 08:17 (Agree/Disagree?) OK, I will admit that I was actually horrified at the racism and elitism, but I really try hard to refrain form being judgemental or critical of others on this site, trying to avoid wearing out my welcome! So, I was addressing the issue that seemed most relevant to my own passion, the nature of our cult upbringing and its ongoing effect on our reactions. Paolo Freiere's work talks about "internalizing the oppressor", a fascinating aspect of of long-term trauma, and central to the development of healing models.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Saturday, March 31, 2007, 00:34 (Agree/Disagree?) It would if I were basing it on the words of a few who are shoving it down my throat. However, I came to my conclusions after two years in India observing unending poverty and misery in that unfortunate country. Having no access to racialist literature, (Hell, I didn't even have access to "system" music hardly), I made the connection in my mind between the dark skin of these Indians and the dark skin of the South Americans, and observed that both peoples lived in the same plight despite being worlds apart, speaking different languages, having different cultures. Bearing this singular commonality in mind I concluded that dark skin must having something to do with poverty. This realization liberated me from Christian thinking gradually, because, through living in poverty myself and suffering the discomforts of the people around me, I came to focus more on these conditions, in other words it became harder and harder to "overcome" and believe that forcing myself to "become one" with third worlders was worth it. This strain on my belief system forced me to reconsider it. The only way out was to conclude that the third world peoples are not worth saving and that heaven is a myth. I've come further and now conclude that third world peoples just like all humans are merely animals, and this of course is the consenses of strict science, when you boil it all down to cell structure, genes, vertebrae, etc. See that we are merely animals, that happen to have bigger brains, can walk upright and talk, it is not a stretch, when considering that some races have progressed in lets just say, different paths than others, due to any number of natural forces, such as geography, asthetics, etc., that some paths taken happen to be the more desirable path. If you personally had to choose the race of your mate, would you choose or would it make absolutely no difference to you? I don't see why it should bother anyone to choose who they want to live with and associate with, unless you have some deep guilt about racism or whatever. Philosophically, I've come a long long way as well. I really don't place a huge weight the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a certain way of looking at things. In the Family, everything I did was judged according to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of it. I've forced myself to deliberately shun such thinking, whether it comes from own mind, from associates, or from the media. What's right to me is what I determine it to be through considering all sides of the story. I believe that after 20+ years of living with dark skinned people I can, through experience, attest that poverty and dark skin goes hand in hand. Since I hate poverty, and the patheticness of human helplessness, having had my fill of that, I've chosen that I don't want anything to do with dark skinned people. However, I don't hate dark skinned people per se. To me they are just animals, and it's stupid to "hate" animals. In a sense though I will admit that I'm "rubbed the wrong way" by their presence by virtue of the fact that their very presence, especially if they happen to speak a low breed of spanish, brings up too many aweful feelings from my past and living in those aweful places. I guess it is a bit of bias, but having lived in the first world for quite a few years now, I really wonder how I survived with all those savages for so long. I don't doubt that I'm being slightly irrational in deeming them to be "savages" but when you look at the crime rates, disease rates, etc. in the third world, it's no surprise that they are to an extent justifiably stereotyped in a certain way. And since I'm all about perfection, and doing away with things that are inferior, I have no qualms with judging the third world to be recommended for the trash pile to be thrown out. Good riddance, damn it. Just wish they'd stop breeding...(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Saturday, March 31, 2007, 03:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I am seldom politically correct, I love being white, I'm against afirmative action, I think illegal immigrants should be deported, I hate the fact that racism is a major issue in the US when it's against minorities and overlooked and ignored when it's against whites. So I can say, from one white guy to another, that you are a fucking moron, an ignornant piece of trash, a worthless hunk of bigoted garbage who is wasting my air. Kindly refrain from doing so by submerging your head in water till you stop twitching. Thank you. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 01, 2007, 11:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I respect you. I think Whites are beginning get back their pride. It's rare to hear the things you said (the first part anyway) nowadays. Hopefully Tancredo will be elected president, and then Whites won't be ashamed to speak the way you did in public. (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, April 01, 2007, 12:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Just because I'm proud of what I am doesn't mean I think everyone else is inferior. Individuals are inferior, not races. Everyone should be proud of what they are and work to better their respective races. You are not someone I would want as a representative of the white man. (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Saturday, March 31, 2007, 03:55 (Agree/Disagree?) *affirmative*(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, March 31, 2007, 03:35 (Agree/Disagree?) This guy is to caricatured to be real!(reply to this comment)

From madly Saturday, March 31, 2007, 01:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow….wow… wow!! No words…no f’ing words!! I have heard of people like you, joli…but never have I come across such blatant racism as you have just displayed. I don’t get involved with your debates usually, but for some reason I was bored and read your comment and I am dumbfounded at your ignorance and utter hatred. We do have a lot of issues in this world and poverty and over breeding are definitely serious ones, but let me assure you, they are as much a problem with white people as they with any other race. I can see how you became this way, but that doesn’t excuse the savage it has made you. You are Hitler come to life again; your views are full of hatred for innocent people that have done nothing to you. Have you taken the time to look around and see how many poverty stricken white people there are in this country…fat…lazy ass…WHITE people!! White people on welfare, draining the economy while watching Jerry Springer and breeding. How dare you talk about another human being that way! You are the animal and it is YOU that I hope will never breed another human to be raised with such a pathetic psychotic attitude. You have a right to your views, but let me tell you what, you need serious help!! Don’t reply to this, for I don’t care to read anything you have to say… you are not worth my time, but don’t worry… I don’t hate you…how could I hate a stupid animal? (reply to this comment)

From madly Saturday, March 31, 2007, 01:44 (Agree/Disagree?) And just so we are clear: I can talk about white people that way, because I am about as white as they come.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 01, 2007, 11:32 (Agree/Disagree?) sure you can, but not about other races right?(reply to this comment)

From MegaGroan Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 22:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I have a question for the admin: I've been trying to keep up with joli's racist droppings, but I am getting bored and tired. Can you set it up so that everything he posts automatically gets a thumbs down from me?(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 15:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, no worries then! You're everything you want to be! Stupid, poor, and white! Good for you, just goes to show that dreams can be achieved.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 15:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, no worries then! You're everything you want to be! Stupid, poor, and white! Good for you, just goes to show that dreams can be achieved.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Princy poo, Jolly Joli, Tuney, and now Benz. Yay, I can have my very own hate club. All this love is making me so chirpy n' chipper. Please tell me where I said that every time the word "bitch" is used, it is gender specific? I've rather been arguing that the most important thing is context. Secondly, (while this might appear self contradictory, it is not) traditional usage weighs heavily into the interpretation of words, and certain usages of the terms can easily be interpreted as gender-based, and one would not be entirely wrong in interpreting them as such. Why in such a hurry to label and denigrate? So far, have I said anything personal? Just a bit of backyard debate, my bru. Can't we all just argue in peace? Meh..(reply to this comment)

From Benz Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 03:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Thats just the point dude, the word "bitch" is not gender-specific just because the person on the receiving end decides to interpret as such. If you take context into it, what Tuneman said could most easily just be read with the meaning of "a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person", so why infer that he was using it as a gender slur. The point is that while some hyper-sensitive types may jump at the chance of calling bitch a "sexist/gender slur", it is very possible that sexism/gender bashing had nothing to do with the use of it, but that it referred entirely to a character trait (or lack thereof). My point about other words is that men could be equally sensitive about words which are bandied about by some women so unless someone is blatantly sexist I say the simple use of the word bitch is not proveable as sexist without more surrounding evidence. (reply to this comment)

From madly Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 03:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Who really cares? I sure don’t… I think all of you are acting bitchy at this point and I know this cause I can be the biggest bitch around, so shaddup and stop bitching at each other. :P(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 12:38 (Agree/Disagree?) After reading over this whole thread my head is bursting from being bombarded with so much concentrated intelligence. You scholarly bastards! Now I have to immerse myself in hours of Reno 911 and Family Guy to get my thought patterns back to the acceptable level of a grunt. You're not making it any easier for me to do my duty...Heheheheheheheheheh...I said "doodie".... *scratches balls*(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 03:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey, why are you trying to spoil the fun?(reply to this comment)

From madly Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 03:46 (Agree/Disagree?) sowwy, sar... you are my favorite bitch of all, babe :P(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Awe, what a lovely thing to say (... I think) :)(reply to this comment)

From EyesWideShut Thursday, March 29, 2007, 07:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, we're all about lovely here, babe ;) There's no mistaking the lovely.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 03:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey Benz, Aussies aren't supposed to get this serious. Chill out and come into chat.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 01:09 (Agree/Disagree?) I would say that in the derogatory sense 'bitch' draws more from its canine properties than female. Consider the phrase "son of a bitch" as evidence of such, and root of many uses of 'bitch' since. But before anyone goes off on some tangent about insults being somehow gender-discriminatory, consider 'dick', 'cock', 'wanker' and plenty more male-specific slurs. Both genders are significantly represented in the insults library.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 01:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Bitch also draws on its feminine properties. "Son of a bitch" referred to the mother of the person receiving the insult and not to the father. Some languages have an equivalent "male dog" insult. English does not. "Wanker" is gender neutral - it refers to one who masturbates and not specifically to men who do. Women may also masturbate. "Dick" and "cock" are met by "pussy", "twat", and "cunt". I haven't made my mind up as to whether these terms are gender neutral as I see valid arguments both ways.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Everyone has a mother, therefore if drawing on its female properties "son of a bitch" would be a tautology. The insult is derived exclusively from the canine properties. "Wanker" is indeed gender-specific as the term for male masturbation. There are, of course, female equivalents which I shan't get into now. As for your conclusion, I think we may in fact have a similar viewpoint in that I consider that in many cases the gender properties are negated by the insult properties. When calling someone a 'dick' or a 'bitch', one is doing so because of the percieved negative connotation of the word rather than in respect of the word's etymology.(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, March 29, 2007, 16:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't see how you would see 'son of a bitch' as a tautology. I don't want to get in a lengthy discussion about it, just curious.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Thursday, March 29, 2007, 17:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Dear sar, Assuming that "bitch" is a synonym for woman (and nothing else), the phrase "son of a bitch" could be interpreted "son of a woman," which would be so obviously true that the statement need not be made. This is the essence of tautology. -j(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, March 29, 2007, 17:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you for that Jolifam. I had not thought that NeO could possibly be equating "drawing on female properties" with "synonymous with female" and my imagination does not stretch that far. I now understand.(reply to this comment)

From Oddie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 06:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Heh, the traditional, or literal definition is indeed masturbator. But I note Aussies and South Africans use it in much the same way as Cunt, Tosser, doss, Jackass, Slowpoke, fucker, knob jock, loser, bum. Cunt and Wanker are also often used in a endearing manner. As in, "Oi sammy boy ya wanker, let's fuck off to the pub and dop/piss up."(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:11 (Agree/Disagree?) The 'terms of endearment' context is comparable to the use of the N-word within that demographic. In fact, I would suggest that most insults have such a 'reverse' usage within some group or another.(reply to this comment)

From Oddie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 07:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Some other fun variants of wank. - Wanker's remorse A: A feeling of guilt that comes to stupid religious wankers after they wank. B: Any feeling of guilt that one shouldn't feel. - Wanker's tan The extremely pale complexion of people who live in their houses with their curtains shut, presumably engaging in wanking, online life, gaming etc. - Wankbank, Wankspace, Wanklist Myspace friend lists full of only good looking members of the opposite sex. "This wanker's friend list is a private wankbank." "No, I'm not telling you my myspace name. I don't want to be on your Wanklist." - Wankaholic One who wanks many more times a day than can be considered healthy. - Wankable The losers version of fuckable. For example, wanker timmy may consider Sheila fuckable, but as he lacks the ability to net a fuck with her, she is unfuckable to him. She is therefore, merely wankable. - Wankermobile A. Expensively customized vehicle, based on a crappy car. B. An expensive vehicle owned by a poor wanker. - Wankidextrous People who are such big wankers, they must be ambidextrous just to cope with all their wankery. - Wankopheliac One who picks up chicks/dicks and flirts with them all night, then leaves them at the party. Presumably, he/she proceeds to go home and wank to the memory. - Wankee The one non-American guy in the group that defends the USA, or USA politics, when everybody else is having fun dissing them. - Wankademic, Wankebater. A wanker posing as an academic. One who finds pleasure in always being "right", by sucking up to the majority in a group debate, rather than thinking about the issue himself. - Wankocracy A majority vote by a large group of wankers. - Wankerism A. A cleverly worded, yet off the mark retort. B. The bull that flows endlessly from the mouths of wankers. - Wankanease, Wanklish. A: The language of Dicks, Cocks, Twats and Cunts. Jibberish, nonsense. "Will you quit speaking that wanklish, and debate in a language we sensible people understand?" B: Ridiculous and consistent typos, or way too many abbreviations in chat, that indicate the chatter is probably wanking while chatting. "i Gtg 2 teh maal 2day 2 c f i cld find sum nu gamz"(reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, March 30, 2007, 17:48 (Agree/Disagree?) LOVE your definition of Wankable. Here wanker often means a pretentious git who acts all affected. Something that is wanky is something trying hard to be posh or intellectual.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, March 30, 2007, 17:51 (Agree/Disagree?) To add to that, the reasoning behind it is because they LOVE themselves. If someone is going on and on about themselves or assuming a pseudo-intellectual manner, it's not uncommon to see someone standing behind them miming a wank. Tall poppy syndrome here in Aus.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, April 01, 2007, 14:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Oi moit, do me a favor and your Aussie wankers to stop posting their bloody world maps bloody upside down. It takes forever to find Guinea Bissau. And ask them kindly to please learn how to speak English before coming to teach English. This new Aussie accent popularity makes it harder to pick up chicks with my wanky fake pommy accent. :P(reply to this comment)

From rainy Sunday, April 01, 2007, 14:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Um...I'm not sure I follow.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, April 01, 2007, 14:27 (Agree/Disagree?) We've got a lovely crowd of Aussie blokes in Nagoya, and most of them teach English. They bring their Aussie world maps, with everything upside down.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, April 02, 2007, 04:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Why would any Aussie want to hang a map of the world upside down when Australia's at the top?(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:56 (Agree/Disagree?) The insult in "son of bitch" lies in the fact that one is insulting a man's mother. Its kind of in the category of yo mamma jokes. I don't see how that makes it a tautology. Please let me know from what dictionary you are sourcing your definition of wanker. It is different from any that I have looked at. My point at the end was that there are equivalents. "He" is a gender specific word, but people don't normally quibble with that as there is an equivalent, "she". A "dick" itself doesn't have a gender and that is my reason for thinking that it may not be gender specific. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 03:15 (Agree/Disagree?) A 'dick' may not have a gender, but it is most certainly emblematic of one! And at least it has human relevance, unlike 'bitch'.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:07 (Agree/Disagree?) The first sentence is why I am undecided as to whether or not it is a gender specific term.(reply to this comment)

From neez Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:38 (Agree/Disagree?) The term "wanker" is never used to describe women. Not in England or Australia anyways.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:48 (Agree/Disagree?) From my experience that is not the case, neez. Provided of course that by "used to describe women" you mean used in reference to a woman or used to insult a woman rather than to describe women as a sex. Anyway, the term itself can be accurately used in reference to both men and women, regardless of how it is used.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 03:11 (Agree/Disagree?) When used as an insult "wanker", like "bitch" becomes gender-neutral and can be used to insult either males or females. However, 'wank' has male properties in exactly the same context as 'bitch' has feminine ones.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:19 (Agree/Disagree?) "Wanker" is gender neutral whether intended litterally or as an insult.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:28 (Agree/Disagree?) See Benz' question below.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I suggest you also consult Benz once he has found a film that his question satisfactorily for a recommendation. If after that you still don't know what it is a woman wanks, I would assume that you don't know the definition of wank. If this is the case, being the genius that you are, I am sure you are perfectly capable of looking the word up in a dictionary without any guidance on how do so. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 03:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Exactly what does a woman wank?(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:29 (Agree/Disagree?) As much as I feel I ought to explain this to you, I think you would do better to ask placebo for a video demonstration. I am confident he would know a link to a site that would provide that infromation. Unfortunately, I am unable to recommend one myself.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Seriously, would you just stop taking the words bitch or whore so seriously. This is such a joke I feel sorry for you people. Please, by all means if you feel so cut up about the word, continue with your nonsense idea that every time the words bitch or whore are used they are a slur against women. I on the other hand will not believe that the simple use of the word bitch means I am denigrating women. Hey, I have been called and call other chaps bitches, when that happens we ARE NOT SLURRING women - so just chill missy(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:34 (Agree/Disagree?) NeO, I see your point. If you consider the use of bitch to draw from it's canine properties, indeed the use of the term against either gender is rather character specific than gender-based. It is still my opinion that traditionally, the term has been used as a gender specific label. If one refers my earlier comments, one would note that I am not debating that it can be used in a gender neutral context. I am arguing that a woman is not mistaken in interpreting it as a gender specific slur, as there is good reason to interpret it as such. I also agree, there are slurs that refer to men. I personally don't mind the use of these against me, as I consider the use of petty slurs a fine indication of ones intellectual limitations. The sooner slurs come out from an opponent in debate, the chirpier I'll be. It only provides me with a gap which I can exploit. If we want to be gender neutral, everybody can be an asshole. Happy now? sar, The use of "dog" as an insult, is a fair equivalent to "bitch". Currently, "dog" is normally used in a gender neutral sense, covering anything from ugly appearance, skankiness, to just plain laziness. It's not the worst insult you'd see, and definitely ranks less offensive than "bitch". Old use was often gender specific, and referred to cowardice, dishonesty, disloyalty, and sometimes, violence against women. Pretty much, the attributes your average man considered the least acceptable traits for a man to have. The use of the term as an insult is uncommon today, and bitch doesn't carry the same connotations. Benz, Heads up and pay attention. I'm not the one being all black and white about things, and I'm not the one saying wrong this, wrong that. I merely said I did not agree. I did not say or mean to imply that "every time the words bitch or whore are used they are a slur against women.". I am saying that they can easily, and rightly be interpreted as gender-based slurs, regardless of context. Further, certain contexts make them gender-specific.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:39 (Agree/Disagree?) As "dog" is gender neutral, "dog" is not a male equivalent of "bitch". (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Context, sar. I think I clarified the difference between the gender neutral use of dog, and the rather male specific use. While dog is commonly used to refer to the whole species, dog is in fact, the masculine form. We commonly to all domesticated bovidae as cows, but strictly speaking, only females are cows. We refer to all panthera leos as lions, but strictly speaking, only males are Lions. Strictly speaking, a male duck is no duck, but rather a drake. The term "Brute" could also be considered a close equivalent of "bitch", as "Brute" refers only to male wolves, never the females. (reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I was was not trying to decifer what meaning was intended by the word, but what meaning the word itself actually has. Hence, I consider context to be a secondary consideration. (reply to this comment)

From Oddie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:46 (Agree/Disagree?) What is the meaning/definition of a word, without context? In regular conversation, a mere change in intonation, a mere raise of an eyebrow, the conversation preceding the use of the word, the context defines the meaning of the word. "This car is SHIT" and "this car is the SHIT" mean two totally different things, regardless of the fact that the strict meaning/definition of the operative word "shit" is "excrement" or "dung". I believe it's better to use the dictionary definitions where possible, especially in online communication. However when interpreting another's comment, one must take into account that the person one is conversing with may not think the same.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:50 (Agree/Disagree?) I was not interpreting another comment. I was, originally, looking at whether the words "bitch" and "whore" are gender specific. There is a difference between what any particular person means when they use a word, and what the word itself means. Give me a word and I'll let you know what meaning it has independent of context. (reply to this comment)

From Oddie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:54 (Agree/Disagree?) god.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10:04 (Agree/Disagree?) thefreedictionary.com/god gives 7 meanings of the word god. god play_w("G0172100") (gd) n. 1. God a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. 3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. 4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. 5. A very handsome man. 6. A powerful ruler or despot. The meaning of the word "god" is any one of these things. If you say "god" meaning "cow", someone may understand you, but that doesn't mean that "god" means "cow". To determine which definition a person intended to use, it is necessary to look at context. But the word itself, "god", means all and any of the above.(reply to this comment)

From Oddie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Doesn't take a genius to list the various uses/definitions of the word god, the particular dictionary you cracked open chose to record, sar. A dictionary is merely a record of common uses. You said "Give me a word and I'll let you know what meaning it has independent of context." Correct? Independent/void of context, "meaning" is defined as. 1. to have in mind as one's purpose or intention; intend: 2. to intend for a particular purpose, destination, etc 3. to intend to express or indicate: 4. to have as its sense or signification; signify: 5. to bring, cause, or produce as a result: 6. to have (certain intentions) toward a person: 7. to have the value of; assume the importance of: (dictionary.com) 1. what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: 2. the end, purpose, or significance of something: 3. Linguistics. a. the nonlinguistic cultural correlate, reference, or denotation of a linguistic form; expression. b. linguistic content (dictionary.com) You did not say you would let me know what "definition(s)" it has, or what "meanings" it has. Correct? So please, if we are discounting context, and relying purely on semantics, pray tell me -void of context- what "meaning" my above use of the word "god" had? What did I "have in mind as one's purpose or intention" when I stated in one sentence, "god.". ;)(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10:44 (Agree/Disagree?) I will use the first one of your definitions of "meaning", though it is probably not the most applicable in this context, "1. to have in mind as one's purpose or intention; intend:". If we apply that to the word god, we would be looking to the meaning or purpose of the word god, not the meaning or purpose of the person who uttered the word (as we are looking at the meaning of the word and not of the person). We would have to ask what the word "god" has in mind as its purpose or intention. Of course the word "god" does not have a mind which is why I suggest that the first definition is not the best to use in this context. That is not to say that the word "meaning" does not mean the first definition, only that it is not the only one. Just as any person can have several purposes and intentions, a word can have several meanings. I was not concerned with what your purpose or intention you had in mind when you used the word god. That would be your meaning, which may be a different thing than the meaning of the word.(reply to this comment)

From Oddie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 11:18 (Agree/Disagree?) When I utter a word, I give the word meaning. When you interpret and understand a word, you give it a meaning. Dictionaries record the more common uses and interpretations. Humans then pervert the use some more. As Ludwig Wittgenstein aptly put it, "The meaning of a word is its use in the language". Semantically speaking, you said you would tell me what "meaning" the word "god" had. If we are to interpret "meaning" as "4. to have as its sense or signification" then, the signification of the word "god" could be any of those you mentioned, and many more you have not. However, one could not deduce this signification of "meaning" without context. To quote Noam Chomsky, "Language is a process of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed, but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free and infinitely varied." Oi, NeOublie, now there's some Noam Chomsky you might agree with.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 12:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Before you utter a word, you choose that word. You choose a word that you think fits the concept that you want to convey. You do not choose what word fits what concept. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 20:50 (Agree/Disagree?) sar, I understand your opinion, and I don't entirely disagree with it. However, to harp on what we agree on would be a redundant and prosaic exercise. The majority of folk indeed select a word that signifies what it is they mean. But this is no be-all and end-all rule. Somebody somewhere sometime decided "gay" fit the concept of the then understanding of homosexuality, although the word "gay" did not in itself, signify homosexuality. Further, in poetry and literature, you will find words frequently used independent of their signification. Some poetry can only be understood by understanding the author. To add my wrinkles to NeOublies quote, "Language is both art and science. Communication is an art."(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 12:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Seeing how you've addressed me directly, Oddie, I would challenge whether the 'laws and principles' are indeed 'fixed'. But not now...(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 13:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Now that would be a whole new discussion, well deserving of debate. I was also digging at your non-linguistic political views which -appear to- stand at stark contrasts to Chomsky's. Dissecting Chomsky's political rants and ravings would provide much entertainment, in my oh so very not humble opinion. Perhaps another day we shall?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 14:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I had picked up on that dig... I just didn't have the inclination to take the bait in this instance, although it is indeed a worthy discussion, and one we will have to take up at a later date. Not being a student of politics myself, it would probably help for me to buff up on my knowledge of Chomsky's views. See, I tend to form my own opinions based on my own observations and analysis rather than on others' theories. Then, as and when I learn of others' views I compare them to my own rather than vice versa.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, context is important. So is tone. No one takes offense when comedian Gilbert Godried screams "Son of a bitch!", but when someone says "Be a good little bitch and keep your mouth shut!", that's different. There is a difference between someone saying "I'm going over to the bar to chill with the bitches.", and someone saying "Look at that fat ass bitch letting it all hang out in a tube top. That is just not right." "That outfit is bitching.", is different from "Quit bitching at me!" Wheteher bitch is an insult or not depends on numerous factors: like context, tone, and the relationship between the two people.(reply to this comment)

From Actually, Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 12:34 (Agree/Disagree?) if the right person(s) said 'Be a good little bitch and keep your mouth shut!' to me, that'd be pretty hot. (reply to this comment)

From steam Saturday, March 31, 2007, 10:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Can't put your name to that comment?(reply to this comment)

From vix Saturday, March 31, 2007, 10:59 (Agree/Disagree?) How perceptive of you. Yours truly, not at your service ;-). I never change the comment heading as a way of concealing my identity, since I assume that most anyone can recognise my run-on sentences and my tendency to comma splicing. Tell me, though (I'm curious), have you figured out the one *very* easy way to pick out my comments, verbose or not? (reply to this comment)

From vix Saturday, March 31, 2007, 11:01 (Agree/Disagree?) And don't give it away, there may still be one or two individuals who haven't noticed. (reply to this comment)

From rainy Sunday, April 01, 2007, 02:59 (Agree/Disagree?) There are many ways, I don't know the *one* easy one (LOL)but you'd be the only person to use the first word of your sentence as a name.(reply to this comment)

From Heh, Sunday, April 01, 2007, 06:14 (Agree/Disagree?) well that is one easy way that even I wasn't aware of. But it's not *the one*... Oh the intrigue! (reply to this comment)

From Lucy Lawless Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 12:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Velcome to Club Vandersexxx! Bring on the fluggeecheimen!!!!(reply to this comment)

From EyesWideShut Thursday, March 29, 2007, 07:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Speaking of Lucy Lawless, she will be performing at Girl Bar, part of the Dinah Shore Weekend in Palm Springs, at the Palm Springs Convention Center. Biiig lesbian event. As will Carmen Electra, whom I met last year :)(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Each of the words you used in that paragraph have at a meaning independent of any context.(reply to this comment)

From Henry David Thoreau Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 11:35 (Agree/Disagree?) It is the man that determines what is said, not the words. (reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 12:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm assuming you understood that statement to be contrary to what I am saying. It is not. I am not saying that words choose to be said. That would be stupid. The man may determine what is said, but that man does not have power to determine what what is said means.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 12:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm assuming you understood that statement to be contrary to what I am saying. It is not. I am not saying that words choose to be said. That would be stupid. The man may determine what is said, but that man does not have power to determine what what is said means.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:31 (Agree/Disagree?) See my comment below. In the English language context is indeed an essential part of understanding any word given the multiple - and changing - definitions within our dynamic language. This is one of the strengths of the English language, although admittedly it can also pose some difficulties.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Context is an important part of understanding what is meant by a word, but is not so important in understanding what a word means.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:58 (Agree/Disagree?) In which case this whole thread is moot, since 'bitch' is NOT an insult, and in fact simply means a female dog. Therefore the only idiots are those who have used this word as an adjective or to inaccurately describe humans.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10:11 (Agree/Disagree?) What did you think we were doing if not mooting? It could be argued and dictionary definitions would support a view that "bitch" has other meanings which could accurately be applied to the word. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Taken out of context that is the 'pure' definition of the word - any 'insult' is purely a construct of context and perception, and would not even exist if not for the contextual perversion of the word from the original. Back to my point, the English language is dynamic and even dictionary definitions are not necessarily universal - being subjectively selected and phrased.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Of course dictionaries vary slightly. Words are concepts. I don't see how that supports a view that words are devoid of meaning if taken out of context.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Getting closer to understanding, sar, but still you think only within the context of dictionary definitions. As I just said, language is an art not a science, and its primary value is in the usage (context). Devoid of context words are nothing more than sounds, the first context being that it is a spoken, intelligible, language, then the language which is being spoken, the dialect possibly even further, and so on and so forth...(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 11:01 (Agree/Disagree?) You know I disagree with your assumption that language is an art and not a science. The value of any particular word is in the fact that it conveys a concept. Sometimes a word carries several concepts which is when one needs to look to the context to determine what the person who uttered the word meant. Devoid of meaning words may be nothing more than sounds, but words can have meanings when taken out of context.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 11:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Kindly, then, define for me the inherent meaning of the word 'la'.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Friday, March 30, 2007, 17:12 (Agree/Disagree?) google define:la lists quite a few.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 12:35 (Agree/Disagree?) There are several. I am tired of definitions. I believe I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with much of it. I do not think you understand what I am saying. I am not saying that words appear or are born with definitions (though some are). Words develop over time within a language. I will leave it at, anything more would be repeating myself. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 14:20 (Agree/Disagree?) For the record, I do indeed understand what you are saying. Further, I can understand the thought process that would lead to those opinions, which is all the more reason why I am happy to dispute them.(reply to this comment)

From Oddie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:51 (Agree/Disagree?) You are right. But it could also be said that a word means what it means independently, what is meant when uttered (in context), and what is understood when heard (taken in context; not neccessarily the same context as the one in which it was uttered).(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 04:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I think that 'context' is indeed the crux of this whole debate. English is a dynamic language, and words have changed, and continue to change, meaning throughout history (consider 'gay' or 'queer') - often in fact taking up an opposite definition ('let' or 'wicked' spring to mind). Our words are also not precise, and have numerous meanings and contexts. So yes, feminists 'can' interpret these as gender-specific slurs, but I believe that not only would they be inaccurate in doing so, but that by making such a fuss over it they are in fact reinforcing that perception - thus becoming somewhat of a 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. But hey, that's all just part and parcel of our modern culture of victimisation, so why should I be surprised that common sense takes a back seat to the global quest for victimhood.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Nice, a sentence both starting and ending in "seriously". I like to analyse words and their usage from time to time, so please don't feel sorry for me. I did not say that you are "slurring women" or that the words are a "slur against women". My point was merely that "bitch" is a gender specific word. If you read my comment to you earlier you would know that I do not consider "whore" to be gender specific.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:56 (Agree/Disagree?) If "bitch" were a gender-specific word you would not be able to use it for men.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:59 (Agree/Disagree?) How do you figure that?(reply to this comment)

From Benz Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 03:06 (Agree/Disagree?) because it wouldn't apply to men then would it... like saying a man is pregnant - now that IS gender specific(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Precisely, and if you said a man was "pregnant" you would most likely be either using the term incorrectly or telling tales. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10:46 (Agree/Disagree?) OR contextually... as in 'pregnant with ideas'. Language is an art, not a science!(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 10:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Politicians like to think language is an art. Not everybody agrees. My error was not failing to look at the word contextually, it was in failing to take the word out of the context it was used in order to determine what the word itself means. (reply to this comment)

From roughneck Monday, March 26, 2007, 14:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Mkay, what exactly DO you mean if/when you call a guy a "bitch"? Used that way, the term in question is a direct attack on a guy's masculinity, 100% of the time. Feel free to comment out the depth of your ignorance again, though. -It's awfully fun laughing at you. I'd end this by calling you a cunt*, but I can't, apparently. -Those are good for something and I know how you're a stickler for accuracy and all. (*the rejoinder to being called that is "if you are what you eat, sure!" Thought I'd save your mind the duress of thinking. ) (reply to this comment)

From neez Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 02:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry, but it's not an attack on a guys masculinity 100% of the time. Not in this country anyway. We also have a popular brand of cheese named "Coon". Some interesting reading: http://plateaupress.com.au/wfw/coonage.htm(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 07:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, we have the trash-talk-amongst-blokes tradition here too. And, no, I don't count insults delivered in obvious jest as offensive, whatever their original connotation. (I wonder, though, should it be considered sexist when we moderate our workplace cussing every time a female shows up on site? :P) I was speaking mainly of the use of that word (bitch) as an intended insult towards a man, not in a joking "we're mates" kind of way. Even then, the meaning intended is usually not flattering to women. I've tried that brand of cheese, it's pretty good! That being said, a lot of other companies have rebranded to make the names &/or appearance of their products less likely to offend. An interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darlie . (I actually remember using this toothpaste somewhere in Asia..anyone else?)(reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, March 26, 2007, 14:47 (Agree/Disagree?) I see you pulling out the percentages there sailor boy - impressive, tell me where are you getting your statistics from these days? talk about anal... Calling someone a bitch usually refers to a pratting, whinging, whining, moaning and groaning annoying person. - Hang on a sec, yep, come to think of it, a lot like you. - however if you wish to imput these charactaristics onto women as a whole, thats your doing not mine. Like I've said before some guys are definitely bitches, as are some women.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Monday, March 26, 2007, 14:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Sticks and stones, brah. I've been called worse by better. And, brainless or no, at least I can spell "prating". Later, dickhole! (gender specific enough for you?)(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Monday, March 26, 2007, 20:00 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL. This amusing discussion reminds me of the following scene from Clerks 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpGdxQ0o3l4 I think Benz is just trying to take "bitch" back...trying to reclaim it. :) (reply to this comment)

From conan Monday, March 26, 2007, 13:55 (Agree/Disagree?) American Heritage Dictionary's definition of the word 'bitch': bitch (bĭch) n. 1. A female canine animal, especially a dog. 2. Offensive 1. A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing. 2. A lewd woman. 3. A man considered to be weak or contemptible. 3. Slang A complaint. 4. Slang Something very unpleasant or difficult. v. bitched, bitch·ing, bitch·es Slang v. intr. To complain; grumble. v. tr. To botch; bungle. Often used with up. From Wordnet: bitch noun 1. an unpleasant difficulty; "this problem is a real bitch" 2. a woman who is thoroughly disliked; "she said her son thought Hillary was a bitch" [syn: cunt] 3. informal terms for objecting; "I have a gripe about the service here" [syn: gripe] 4. female of any member of the dog family verb 1. say mean things [syn: backbite] And finally, from dictionary.com: bitch Pronunciation[bich] –noun 1. a female dog. 2. a female of canines generally. 3. Slang. a. a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman. b. a lewd woman. 4. Slang. a. a complaint. b. anything difficult or unpleasant: The test was a bitch. c. anything memorable, esp. something exceptionally good: That last big party he threw was a real bitch. –verb (used without object) 5. Slang. to complain; gripe: They bitched about the service, then about the bill. –verb (used with object) 6. Slang. to spoil; bungle (sometimes fol. by up): He bitched the job completely. You really bitched up this math problem. Benz, as you can see by these dictionary definitions the term bitch, while not gender specific, is usually used in reference to the female gender in multiple species. Therefore it is often both implied and inferred that the use of the word bitch is derogatory to women first, even when spoken in disdain for a male. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, March 26, 2007, 14:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Conan, So what if you breed dogs? Everyone knows a female dog is called a bitch. But you can't ignore the defintions which are not female specific and since men can also be called bitches it is not a gender-specific term!! Anyways, since useage is always important right Oddman, I don't think Tuneman used bitch in the "breeding" form, he was always using it in the context of "malicious, unpleasant, selfish person" (to quote from your definition above), therefore, note the word PERSON, this could relate to either sex. End of story. Anyways, whatever happened to our little word "whore", that quickly slid off the discussion board when you PC vigilates realised you wouldn't win that one. ha.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Monday, March 26, 2007, 14:33 (Agree/Disagree?) For a given value of "win"... Let's see, 99.99% of the worlds prostitutes are female or pretending to be. But yeah, let's automatically assume that when someone says "whore" they're talking about the .01% who are male. Real logical there, biatch. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, March 26, 2007, 14:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Don't drop the soap there sailor, or was that Oil-rigger. Man you must be living in a cave, both male to male and male to female prostitutes are common place in most western nations.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Monday, March 26, 2007, 14:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Apparently you're the expert! In any case, this conversation is headed downhill (not that it started anyplace lofty) so I may not return for more sillyness. For the record, -I'm not gay, though I have nothing against you for it if you are -I'm not racist or sexist (I swear!) -I cuss as if I might be. For this, I apologise. (reply to this comment)

From sar Monday, March 26, 2007, 04:45 (Agree/Disagree?) "Bitch" is a gender specific term. It refers to a female canine. Whore is a gender neutral term, but it could be a gender slur if it is applied exclusively to women. If you were to say that all women are whores that would be a sexist remark, but it would not make the term gender specific as it leaves open the possibility that men are also whores.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, March 26, 2007, 03:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, not on your side anymore. I suggest some major reading about the history of feminism for you.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, March 26, 2007, 09:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I think parallells can be drawn between this quote about multiculturalism and feminism: “What "multiculturalism" boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture - and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture”(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 01:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you suggesting you agree with that quotation and that it also applies to feminism? Or were you takin the piss?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 01:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I do indeed agree with the quotation as an unfortunate, but apt description of 'multiculturalism'. Similarly with the parallel to feminism.(reply to this comment)

From sar Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 01:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, then I have to disagree. I think that in "Western" countries there are a range of cultures and some are more multicultural then others. To which western country's culture do you refer? By "multicutural", I mean that they have a range of cultures within their borders. It has nothing to do with passing judgement on the value of any particular culture. If you think that 'western' culture is dying out, please define what you consider 'western' culture. I think art is a big part of culture and that is protected and praised. What is it that you would like to praise about 'western culture' that you feel you cannot do? What is it that you think 'western culture' is unfairly blamed for? Feminism is hardly analogous to multiculturalism. There are too many strands of ideals within feminism to accurately "boil it down" to one thing. Most feminists are for equality. There are strands of feminism that think that men should die out. These factions are obviously not for equality, but the majority of feminists are. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:05 (Agree/Disagree?) The quote was from Thomas Sowell an American economist, political writer and commentator, and as such had an American context. My support of it comes from both what I know of the movement in the US as well as the UK. As a pure concept, multiculturalism simply means multiple cultures operating side-by-side within a cohesive community. However this comment is addressing the unfortunate political reality that 'multiculturalism' has become having been promoted and hijacked by groups and individuals with a vested (and predominantly 'left-wing') agenda. How it ties in with feminism is as a part of the 'victimisation culture' which sets out to finger blame for ones' misfortunes by merit of some real or imagined injustice done them. In the case of multiculturalism it is the perception that Western (Anglo Saxon in particular) culture is too predominant (in the UK and US? Nah, really? It's not like it's inhabited predominantly by Anglo Saxons or anything, is it?), and further that it is the cause of just about every problem in society. Therefore, all in the name of 'multiculturalism' foriegn culture and tradition is celebrated, while indigenous equivalents are marginalised or actively oppressed. Feminism similarly attributes blame for the current woes of females to males, and in many cases the 'equality' being sought is in fact INequality in that only by inequality of opportunity can equality of outcome be achieved. Oh, and as a side point, there are no cultures which are either more or less multicultural than each other since 'multi' means many therefore denoting multiple cultures, not one amalgomated culture. Which actually comes right back to the root of the problem - what these activists are doing is enforcing their own artificial 'master culture', telling people what is or is not 'PC'.(reply to this comment)

From sar Saturday, March 31, 2007, 03:39 (Agree/Disagree?) I repeat two of my questions that you were writing in response to, but did not answer. "What is it that you would like to praise about 'western culture' that you feel you cannot do? What is it that you think 'western culture' is unfairly blamed for?"(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, March 31, 2007, 03:55 (Agree/Disagree?) I think the rest of MovingOn'ers are beginning to get fed up of my ramblings on here - we should start up a blog, and sell advertising... maybe even take it on to a newspaper column eventually ;)(reply to this comment)

From sar Saturday, March 31, 2007, 04:27 (Agree/Disagree?) hmm, yeah, someday.... :)(reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, March 26, 2007, 03:54 (Agree/Disagree?) chill Rainy....Germaine Greer isn't the be all of feminism (not that I care much for that sport anyhow). I'm sure that feminism would still be alive and well without Germaine. I just don't appreciate the agenda of some ex-fam SGA's who keep trying to paint guys in such a nasty, dare I say feministic light. Those people are just using feminsim for their own personal gains, nothing to do with the actual movement. Be on my side or not I don't care, if Jules blatently states certain words have properties do not have in order paint men in a bad light then I take issue and respond. - What, do you think no-one should disagree with Jules? - too late, the dictionary already did so there, why don't you blame in on Collins or Oxford. Just a PS. I don't care about Feminism, so you can save it, the wrong women always take it to extremes for their own gain, leaving men as unfortunate victims in the same fashion as reverse-racism is the new way to set everything right. - Thankfully Rainy, most people are smarter than you!!! (reply to this comment)

From Jules Monday, March 26, 2007, 14:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I consulted my friends Oxford and Collins, as you suggested, and they had this to say: Oxford : whore: noun – derogatory, a prostitute or promiscuous woman. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/whore?view=get Bitch: noun - 2 informal a woman whom one considers to be malicious or unpleasant. 3 black English, a woman (used in a non-derogatory sense). http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/bitch Collins: Whore: 1. Noun – A prostitute or promiscuous woman, often a term of abuse http://www.collins.co.uk/wordexchange/Sections/DicSrchRsult.aspx?word=whore Bitch: 2 (Slang, derogatory) a malicious, spiteful or coarse woman http://www.collins.co.uk/wordexchange/Sections/DicSrchRsult.aspx?word=bitch These words have been considered gender slurs for centuries: “As a term of contempt applied to women, it dates from c.1400; of a man, c.1500, playfully, in the sense of "dog." In modern (1990s, originally black English) slang, its use with ref. to a man is sexually contemptuous, from the "woman" insult. "BITCH. A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of whore." ["Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue," 1811]http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bitch As to modern common usage being non-gender specific, come on now. Do you really think that all those rappers going on about “bitches and ho’s” are talking about men? (reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, March 26, 2007, 14:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Jules, As I said already, you can't ignore some definitions of bitch and whore which are absolutely gender neutral. - I note you've only cut and pasted portions of the definitions, instead of including the non gender specific ones. The dictionary also defines bitch as "malicious, unpleasant, selfish person", note PERSON. - that is the context which Tuneman used (a bit too often I admit). What gets my goat is that you women can slur men about willy nilly, words like abusive, violent, aggressive, brutish, which are more associated with men historically speaking. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander I say.(reply to this comment)

From madly Monday, March 26, 2007, 20:16 (Agree/Disagree?) *Rolls eyes*…You know… one thing I have come to realize, all too clearly over the last few weeks on this site, is that certain individuals are not worth the effort or the time being used on them by so many worthy minds. Some of you have only reaffirmed to me that common sense isn’t all that common. Why do so many lack the ability to look at things objectively in order to at least weigh and consider diverse opinions? Maybe it isn’t their fault… maybe they are just incapable of doing so. Oh well… all this to say… Benz, I would like to help you, but I just can’t fix stupid.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Monday, March 26, 2007, 16:33 (Agree/Disagree?) yeah, perhaps if Tuneman hadn't gone on to specify (repeatedly) that he was speaking of a woman, you might be correct. But hey, I guess when someone is speaking of a woman and calls her a "whore" they actually don't mean "rents her body for money" they just mean "I dislike this person". This must be the New English I've heard so much about. Never mind what something means to most everyone who hears it, Benz has a dictionary! Aren't you supposed to be the one braying on against "Political Correctness"? If he hasn't meant to say that she was a malicious, unpleasant, selfish *sex-trade worker*, then don't you agree a different choice of words than "whoring bitch" would have had a clearer effect? That being said, my apologies for the coarse language in previous posts. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Monday, March 26, 2007, 15:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Neither Collins or Oxford has that definition of bitch and have no definitions for the previous usage of bitch (as a concrete noun, which is what I pasted) that is not both gender biased and derogatory. My whole point was that if one must insult or disagree with another person, perhaps there are more intelligent ways to do it than by using sexist slurs. If someone were to say "you men are abusive, violent brutes", then that would be the same thing. The words abusive, violent, aggressive and brutish though don't have the same gender biased etymology and aren't innately prejudicial and therefore offensive in and of themselves--Although I wonder about willy nilly :) (reply to this comment)

From Benz Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 01:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Funny Jules, here's a link to the online Oxford dictionary definition of bitch: http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=bitch&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname Here is the whole text, it includes a NON-DEROGATORY definition: • noun 1 a female dog, wolf, fox, or otter. 2 informal a woman whom one considers to be malicious or unpleasant. 3 black English a woman (used in a non-derogatory sense). 4 ( a bitch ) informal a difficult or unpleasant thing or situation. • verb informal make spiteful comments. Now we all know Tuneman's penchant for his rap music - so I suggest he could have been using number 3 (non derogatory). But even if he were using number 2 - it is just "informal" not a slur, seems like a pretty straight-forward meaning to me, the Oxford does not indicate that by calling a woman a bitch he is equating her with a female dog - completely separate meanings altogether. Here's a link to the definition I gave you: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bitch Despite the historical relationship with this word to women I put it down to a bit of over-reaction by pompous British women aristocracy from back in the day. Just because the word means female dog as well as "bad-tempered" is hardly a reason to say it is gender-specific. If the fact that the word bitch also refers to an animal is such a sticking point, what about these words: Cocky: I know, this must be sexist against men because girls don't have one of those - nooooo!!! - Off to HR, she called me cocky. Bullish: definitely sexist against men! - We all know that girls can't be bullish (or bullies), after all they're cows - hey. The way I look at it, there is no difference between calling a man a bitch or a woman bullish despite the animal-gender relationship. I refuse to accept that the words bitch and/or whore are gender-specific, because it is clear both words can apply to men and women (and all grey areas) alike. Stop getting your knickers in a knot woman! (reply to this comment)

From Jules Wednesday, March 28, 2007, 21:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Your argument of not using bitch or whore as sexist slurs would hold a bit more weight if you didn’t pepper it with “you women”, “stop getting your knickers in a knot woman”, etc. You are right about a definition for bitch from Oxford being non-offensive in black English, that was actually one of the definitions I pasted above. For some reason I thought black English was like black humour, meaning dark or off-colour—Is that racist of me or just dumb? Whether or not that is still an accurate definition, I don’t know. There is a lot of debate among African Americans as to the “bitch and ho” misogyny of hip-hop, but since I know nothing about it and don’t listen to or understand this music at all, I won’t get into this one. I disagree that the etymology of a word is irrelevant. If one was discussing the concept of disenfranchisement with an African American, they would likely take offense to the use of the word nigger, even though one of the dictionary definitions is: “a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.” Why are some words considered obscene and others with the same definition not? Words are just words, it’s societal context that gives them any moral value or offence. I realise that one thing I did not consider in this debate are the differences in vernacular between countries or cultural groups. For example, the word cunt in Scotland is widely used as a part of speech just meaning person. Even in the UK, it’s often used endearingly for both genders by certain social-economic groups. In Canada it is the most offensive word for a woman. One of my sisters visited Canada a few years back with her Scottish boyfriend and he couldn’t understand why the women that did understand his dialect were so obviously offended until we explained to him that that word was highly insulting in Canada. In the UK Paki is a racist term for any south Asian and highly offensive to that community. Apparently it is not the same in Australia. The word Indian in the US is widely used to refer to Native Americans. In Canada, it is considered offensive and racist. When The Spy Who Shagged Me was released in the UK, the title was very controversial and was edited to “The Spy Who…“ in the previews that ran during the day. In the US, where they are a little censor crazy regarding anything sexual, the powers that be saw no need for such censorship. If you ask to “bum a fag” in the UK, you’ll get a cigarette. In the US you might get something quite different. I am not familiar with Australian vernacular, so it is possible that bitch is often used for men there and has no sexist connotations. I could speculate as to why that might be but I think I’ll leave that one alone. In my social circle, the only people who use bitch in a non-sexist way are gay men and feminists (the latter to “reclaim” the word, which I think is a bit ridiculous personally). While our lexicon may be a result of our socialization and culture and we enjoy the freedom to use whatever words we want, our use of language is one of the primary ways we present ourselves to others and others will judge our values, breeding, social class and intelligence by our use of words. That’s just the reality of society. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Thursday, March 29, 2007, 02:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I enjoy the subject of this debate. I'd like to think I'm not sexist, just sensitive to female rejection perhaps, defensive, belligerent even when the prospect of castration looms on the horizon. Anyways I joke when saying "you women", & "stop getting your knickers in a knot woman", just a manner of speaking, not to be taken offense to......sort of intentionally said to get a rise out of someone, immature possibly, probably. I just like to desensitise certain words when beng informal, other times I just like to enrage a sparring partner. Anyways, strangest coincidence yesterday on the way home the radio station I was tuned into was having a live debate on the use of offensive words. I was amused and interested, and I hope I am now more informed for having listend in. There were many opinions for, against and everything in between, but the running theme was that such words are less offensive now than they used to be. One comment which stuck out was that it the emotion attached to the use of a word which creates a larger effect (negative or positive) than use of the word itself. It rings true for me, I know if someone is angry and uses a word it makes all the difference. Naturally, you're right though, some people just find certain words offensive regardless of the intended meaning of the person using it. I guess at the end of this chat I will likely hold the same view of offensive words as I came in with, as probably will you. I think this is because the use of these words is subjective to the social groups we travel in, the work we do and the interaction we engage ourselves in. On a historical perspective though I am still baffled, why did "bitch" become more sexist than "cocky". (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Thursday, March 29, 2007, 04:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Many dictionaries list the signification/definition of cocky as "Overly self-assertive or self-confident" and it's use in any current common sense is therefore gender neutral. The historical perspective question is truly intriguing, yet the answer may be more simple than we'd think. There are many derogative words that originated as terms used predominantly to describe females, though they are not gender specific per se. Further, there are many words where the masculine form carries a less negative connotation than the feminine form. Some examples. Signification: Whore = Gigolo Connotation: Whore ≠ Gigolo Signification: Slut = Casanova Connotation: Slut ≠ Casanova Witch, Bitch, Hag, Skank are also labels commonly attached to women. I think this disparity is largely owed to the sexist or misogynic -dare I say gynophobic?- society of the time these words began being well recorded. By this theory, synecdoches and zoomorphisms used to describe females evolved to carry heavier negative connotations, only because females were viewed to be inferior. While the same mentality or psyche may have been at play when calling a woman a bitch and calling a man a brute, bitch was gradually attached to what society deemed negative feminine properties or attributes (i.e. spiteful or overbearing), whereas brute was associated with what were considered negative male attributes (i.e. Savage; cruel). In other words, rather than considering a bitch or cock as fitting the profile of a woman or man, the words were attached, then the perceived attributes followed. As society of the time was more chauvinist than that of today, what was considered negative feminine attributes, such as cowardice, emotional sensitivity, and stupidity, was looked down on in comparison to what were deemed negative male attributes. Further, many attributes considered manly were glossed over or glorified, when they could hardly be considered positive attributes by today's standards. A man drinking was manly, a woman drinking was unladylike. A man in a fight was manly, a woman in a fight was hysteric. So on and so forth. The topic of sexist slurs brings up another interesting topic, sexist speech and feminism. For the sake of being as unoffending as possible, I make an effort to use gender neutral speech where possible. I'll say "he/she" where I don't need to specify a gender, I'll use humankind instead of mankind. But how far should this go? I mean, not to quote George Carlin, but should we use personholes, chairpersons? Wait a minute, someone might think "per(son)" is sexist, should a female person be a "per(daughter)"? No wait, they should all be perhumans. Wait a minute, what of "hu(man)s"? Should that be hupeople? Hey, isn't it sexist to call Christ son of man? (not to mention the obvious, but if the virgin mary fiasco is to be believed, he was no son of man at all, but only a son of woman.) Ok, I'm playing around here for sure. I don't dispute that our speech should not be sexist. But no sexism is at play when I need you to man that post or when I think my kid bro needs to man up. If we tried to replace every use of man that is not gender specific, there's a hell of a lot of words that need revamping. Why not just use man to refer to mankind (there I said it. I didn't mean it in a sexist way.) and create a word to describe male man? If male man is say heman, then "man" refers to both wo-man and he-man. That way firemen and policemen can stay what they are, instead of becoming XXXXXX-persons. Man-made lakes can stay, without becoming artificially constructed lakes. I would know if I have the manpower for the project, without calculating hemanpower and womanpower to get perhupeoplepower. Another question. What do you think of speech versus thought? Does thought mold speech, or does the spoken language change how we think? If indeed speech changes thought, then replacing existing terms -that sexist or pejorative connotations- with gender neutral terms should change how we think. However, as evidenced by the fact that many use the neutral term "gay" as a term of disparagement in much the same way "homosexual" was used, this seems it may not be the case. I wouldn't dispute that speech can affect thought, but I scarcely accept that changing the beautiful English language to satisfy PC nazis will have any real effect in promoting equality. What do you perhupeople think?(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, March 29, 2007, 16:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with gender neutralising speach when words are in reference to people. So manholes can stay, chairman cannot. In the UK a "chairman" is now widely referred to simply as a "chair". I think we should also get rid of the waiter/waitress, actor/actress and just have one that fits both. There are some terms, such as waiter or actor, that could become gender neutral over time. Some terms, such as chairman, could not and the "man" in the word is unnecessary. I think we should get rid of Mr/Mrs/Miss etc and even he/she and replace them with gender neutral wordw. I don't know how much it would change how we think, but I think it would beneficial if the sex of a person wasn't such a large factor in conversation. I think it can be particularly harmful in business. I think the only other way to get rid of sexism would be to allow people to self define as being of a certain gender based purely on what they consider the characteristics of that gender to be. That way terms wouldn't be assigned to you on what you born as and on your physical attributes, but on what you choose to be and your mental attributes.(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Friday, March 30, 2007, 07:51 (Agree/Disagree?) How about "server" for waiter/waitress? We already use that in this country. Fits nice I think. Personally, "thespian" for actor sounds a little, well, alienesque. And "performer" sounds somewhat "above-an-NC-17-rating" (if you get my drift :). Seems to me that exclusive use of a neuter pronoun would unnecessarily obfuscate the meaning of a sentence when one is trying to refer to a specific person without using their name. For example "she went to the store" might be replaced with "s/he went to the store", leaving the reader wondering Who? And, what?? I agree that such a word would be quite useful when you're deliberately trying to be unspecific about a subject's gender, though. "S/he" is so terribly clumsy to pronounce. (Shee-hee? Sh-hee? darn...) All that to say, I'm in favour of adding words to the language, but please don't dumb down English (or "get rid of" useful words) just because some people use them in a bigoted way. And no, I don't think "he" and "Mr." are quite in the same class as some of the other racial/ethnic epithets to be found on this thread. Flame me for this if you must. :) (reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, March 30, 2007, 08:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I take your point about it becoming more difficult to know who one is talking about. In any case, I think that the only reasonable way to get rid of words is to add a new one and then leave the others to fall out of common usage. I'm in no way suggesting any words be banned. I also wasn't claiming that "he" and "Mr" in the same class as other racial epithets on this thread. If it was in the last comment that I made a like between sexism and racism, I was trying to say that were a new pronoun to be introduced which referred only to brown people, or only to white people (or any other colour) most people would, I think, consider it racist. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 30, 2007, 08:20 (Agree/Disagree?) It's sad when people can't/won't understand the difference between discrimination and description.(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, March 30, 2007, 08:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't feel like playing the definition game with you now NeO, you can look up the two on your own. Suffice it to say, that I do understand what both words mean. Unlike you, I consider words to have meaning. I would be happy to discuss the meaning of discrimination with you, but only after you have looked it up for yourself in a reliable dictionary.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 30, 2007, 08:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Funny how you conveniently lose the interest in definitions when it suits you...(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, March 30, 2007, 09:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I lose interest when my argument would consist of cutting and pasting from the dictionary. Its boring. I am convinced I used the word appropriately, it's you who is trying to convince me otherwise, so it should be for you to provide an argument against it.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 30, 2007, 09:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Accurately refering to someone with a gender-specific term is definition, not discrimination. ie: a male 'waiter' or female 'waitress' these are simple descriptive terms which aid in the precision of communication, and are not 'discriminatory' in the negative context in which that word is used throughout this discussion. Of course, if you were in fact talking about the non-PC-charged original definition of the word, then I do indeed apologise for the misunderstanding.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 30, 2007, 01:47 (Agree/Disagree?) While you're at it, why not eliminate the concept of male/female names... or clothing... I mean, let's just turn everyone into hermaphrodites and be done with it! Difference is healthy, and what makes life interesting. We should be celebrating differences rather than trying to turn everyone into cookie-cutter replicas of some neutered 'ideal' which some people seem to have. Oh, and as a side point, I don't know what part of UK society you're talking about that 'widely' refers to it as a "Chair", but definitely amongst Chairmen of blue chip companies that is not the case - often even when the person filling that role is a woman.(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, March 30, 2007, 03:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I do think men and women should be able to dress in either fashion. I don't agree in differentiating the dress codes of school children. I don't think it promotes confidence in girls to have to watch how they sit and not be able to climb tress or do other children stuff, because people will see their pants. Differences enforced by names and fashion are social constructs. The sex of a person is a biological matter. Allowing people to choose what clothes they wear based on something other than sex would not be the same as turning them into a hermaphrodite. I'm sure I don't need to point out to how that is so different. There are differences that are inherent in people other than their sex. People are put into molds. Only women are put into one and men into another. I am sure you would see it as inappropriate if there were rules differentiating the dresscode of black people from white people. I would think you would see that as inappriate. Also I'm saying that people's dress codes shouldn't be externally imposed on them. Not that men shouldn't wear trouses should they so choose, but that there should not rules which prevent men from wearing skirts and vice versa for women. The 'differences' you think you are celebrating are merely a construct of society and the remains of centuries of sex discrimination. As per the chair comment, I am not claiming that all do or even that the majority do, just that many companies do refer to the chair as a chair, whether it is a man or a woman. I speak from experience and I am sure you do the same. It may well be that our experiences have been different.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 30, 2007, 05:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Of course I know there's a difference between the social and biological differences, but you should have been able to grasp my point which was simply taking your 'gender-neutralising' to its logical extreme. The fact of the matter is that we ARE different - each one as an individual - but there are common traits which are prevalent in various groupings, male/female being one such. Even apart from genitals, there are character traits which distinguish males/females - obviously not as hard and fast rules - and I do understand that it can seem unfair if you find yourself wrongly being assumed to possess certain qualities - but they are statistically significant enough to be viable shorthand. I again revert to my starting point - in just about every discussion - that if you start at the basic premise of individuality and individual freedoms then this is all really an irrelevance. When I interact with someone, although I do still reference the traits of 'social groupings', that is always secondary to those unique to the individual, and typically only in the instance that I am unaware of the individual traits. (Basically, if I'm meeting someone for the first time, the 'groups' into which that person falls - gender, race, sexuality, style of dress, mannerisms, etc - will help me to interact appropriately with them up to the point at which I can base each aspect of my interaction on first-hand knowledge of the individual in question.) As for dress code, I'd say that them being 'externally imposed on them' is perhaps a bit harsh - especially in this society. Yes, there are very predominant 'norms', and yes, what you choose to wear does make a statement - but then again, that's usually the whole point! I choose to wear a suit and tie to work every day, while wearing something more casual for the weekends. And by the way, there ARE types of dress which are about as exclusive to ethnic groups or nationalities as are those attributable to males/females in our western society. Interestingly, dress is one thing in which I would have to say that there are far more cultural 'limitations' placed on men (and white men, at that) than women. There are few items of western mens' clothing which women do not commonly wear, from trousers and jeans to the full suit, similarlly for other cultures it is not unusual to see them in western dress, but to see a white man in either womens' or some other ethnic dress would in most cases be noteworthy.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Sunday, April 01, 2007, 14:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said NeO. P.S. Go ahead and wear that Tutu, NeO. We won't mind. :D(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, March 30, 2007, 05:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Firstly, your comment was not the logical conclusion of my statements. Look back at my comment in response to yours to show where the differences lay. Secondly, I find it reprehensible that you think that a persons sex or gender should determine how you act towards them. This would be lengthy topic. The difference in treatment on the ground of sex or race is discrimination on the ground of sex or race. Whether or not discrimination is a good or a bad thing is whole other debate. While there is no law saying that women must wear skirts and men must wear trousers, there are often dress codes in institutions, such a schools, higher education institutions, and work places setting out different dress codes for men as for women. I don't think is justifiable. There are things that change with society's perspectives, but there are things that are institutionally sexist. I think the first step is to avoid institutionalised sex discrimination. I disagree that there are character traits which women have because of their sex. Much of the characteristics which you attribute to women are mere sociological constructs. It is not fair to women to impose these characteristics on them. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 30, 2007, 06:02 (Agree/Disagree?) ... and I find it counter-productive and stupid in the extreme for anyone NOT to customise their communications to their intended audience! (Busy now, I'll get around to the rest of your comments later...)(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, March 30, 2007, 06:22 (Agree/Disagree?) You can customise your communication based on other factors (e.g. how a person is dressed), but customising it because you think they will think a certain way because of some physical attribute that they were born with and did not choose would be counter productive, you will likely come across as patronising and end up offending your audience.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 30, 2007, 07:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Kinda missing the idea of customisation if you think it means to select the approach that will alienate your audience! The fact of the matter is that gender IS a factor - just one, but still one - and as such it would be foolish not to include it as such. It is also typically the one which is most easily recognisable, perhaps accounting for the disproportionate reliance that is sometimes placed on it as a factor.(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, March 30, 2007, 07:57 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm not saying you would customise your speach for the purpose of alienating your audience. You obviously think it would do otherwise. I am saying that just because you think you are taking an approach which will be better suited to your audience, if you base your approach on the sex of your audience, that approach will probably end up alienating your audience. You seem to see gender and sex as one and the same. They are not the same, but that again would be a whole other debate.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 30, 2007, 08:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Still not getting the point there! It's all about the skill with which you do it, sar. Of course the obvious, blunt approach is not going to work, but it's the more subtle, often non-verbal, things that you do, or ways that you address issues that makes the difference. And again I will state that gender/sex IS a factor. And to answer your last point, no, I don't buy the psycho-babble gender vs sex line. When I refer to them I am talking about the biological reproductive-organs-on-the-inside/outside definition, everything else is a case of individual personality traits &/or characteristics.(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, March 30, 2007, 08:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I did understand that and I know that you consider sex to be a relevant factor. If you did not, you could not hold the sexist viewpoint that you hold. I am slightly surprised that you consider the gender vs sex line "psycho-babble". I assume this is because you have no interest or knowledge of the subject.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 30, 2007, 08:45 (Agree/Disagree?) See if I care what terms you try to peg on me! As for my lack of interest/knowledge on the matter, hey, forgive me for actually forming my OWN opinions rather than following anyone who chucks some initials after their name and throws around a few pseudo-scientific terms! In fact my opposition to that particular distinction is that the only traits I attribute scientifically to gender are those which I have already stated - other traits which some choose to define as either 'masculine' or 'feminine', I put down to individuality and simply recognise the statistical commonalities within groupings, but do not attribute them specifically to 'gender'. So, in a sense, my NOT accepting your explanation is in fact the less sexist position.(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, March 30, 2007, 08:57 (Agree/Disagree?) I am in no way suggesting you should follow what you read. I am suggesting that you challenge your own opinions with those of others. Sometimes its useful to read stuff done by people who have done considerable research in this area. Your view that gender and sex are the same thing, I find synonymous with a view that culture and race are the same. It is of course not. I don't understand why you would consider it necessary to talk to women differently from men if you see the reproductive organs as the only factor in the equation. If you do not attribute personality traits to them because of their sex, why do you need to talk to them differently? I mean, aside from when you're trying to pull or have pulled.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 30, 2007, 09:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, let me phrase it differently this time... I am not saying that what you are describing by the terms 'gender' and 'sex' are the same - I am saying that I use those two words in that context to describe the same thing. The properties you have separated out from my shared definition are those which I do not consider to be driven by gender, and I therefore do not care to use such terminology to describe it. Perhaps you do not understand the concept of statistical commonality, if a significant percentage of a given population share a trait then I consider it statistically appropriate to leverage that knowlege when interacting with those of that population until such a time as I can determine whether the individual is also possessed of that trait. But that has nothing to do with considering that trait to be 'caused' by being part of that grouping - particularly when taken in the context that the trait is shared (if to a lesser extent) by individuals outside of that grouping. As for interacting differently with men women, I consider every interaction to be an opportunity to influence, and therefore I customise my approach according to what I am trying to achieve as well as with whom I am interacting. As I have ALREADY said, it is about interacting with each person as an individual. Experience has taught me that there are certain traits which are more/less common within certain demographics, and as such different approaches are better suited to that interaction. These groupings vary from broad (male/female, racial) to more defined (within a specific 'team' or of a specific 'career', or perhaps of a specific sunsign even), as I interact with the individual I subconsciously build up a mental 'profile' of them which determines my interactions with them. However, that is a process which takes time, and so in absence of the first-hand knowledge I rely on the 'shorthand' groupings as above.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman is too inebriated to participate. Sunday, April 01, 2007, 14:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Again, well said, NeO. You two should do this more often. Both of your intellect, combined with the hopeless stubbornness, keeps things oh so interesting. I'm so glad you two see things from different perspectives.(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, March 30, 2007, 06:26 (Agree/Disagree?) I'll clarify now, age may be relevant consideration as well as cultural or national characteristics, but not race, sex, height, eye colour, etc., which are a given and do not necessarily impact on the thought process of that individual.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, March 30, 2007, 10:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, let's try a couple examples of ways that your "no-go's" could influence the way I interact with someone: Race - assuming we are speaking the same language, there are potential differences in syntax, sentence structure or specific terms used that could be specific to a given 'race'. Sex - when interacting with a female I would be less likely to employ certain types of humour, as well as more likely to pay attention to the finer points of my attire, such as choice of tie, tie clip, cufflinks, etc (and no, not ostentatiously or from a 'flirtatious' perspective, simply because they are more likely to notice those kind of things) Height - depending on the 'power balance' between myself and the person I may choose to either emphasize or diminish the height balance. When interacting with my boss who is significantly taller than me, I may choose to stand by him while he's seated, or distance myself from him if he is standing, in order to convey greater weight with what I'm saying, while at other times allowing myself to stand closer forcing me to look up to him, all depending on the purpose of my interaction. Eye colour - I don't tend to notice this one much, but by careful observation of someone's eyes you get a better idea of their engagement with you, and in fact there are extreme cases where eye colour can suggest a greater sensitivity to light, for example.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, March 30, 2007, 15:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I get the feeling that almost everything about your life is calculated and deliberate. How do you do that?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, March 31, 2007, 03:49 (Agree/Disagree?) To be fair, it is mostly subconscious, and something which I have been - and will continue to - refine over time. Thanks for the birthday wishes, madly & rainy, it was actually two days ago now, and yes, I did have fun.(reply to this comment)

From madly Friday, March 30, 2007, 15:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know what he is... but I know that he is a birthday boy and he needs a birthday song. So... Happy Birthday to you, happy birthday to you... happy birthday dear noobles... happy birthday to you!! And for your present: I promise to read half of your comments with out rolling my eyes...:P Have fun tonight... you crazy kid, you.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, March 30, 2007, 18:41 (Agree/Disagree?) It's your birthday Nooblie? Happy Birthday! I wish you fun and spontenaity. :)(reply to this comment)

From sar Friday, March 30, 2007, 06:21 (Agree/Disagree?) You can customise your communication based on other factors (e.g. how a person is dressed), but customising it because you think they will think a certain way because of some physical attribute that they were born with and did not choose would be counter productive, you will likely come across as patronising and end up offending your audience.(reply to this comment)

From Oddman Friday, March 30, 2007, 05:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said. Well said.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Thursday, March 29, 2007, 14:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Personally I do use the word mankind and use he or she, not and/or the other, so I suppose I am less PC than you. Yes I do consider myself a feminist, but I think that gender neutralising all language (although we are talking about English here) is both ridiculous and irrelevant to feminist values. Frankly I think obsession by some self-proclaimed feminists with such trivialities as the words “his”tory or fe”male” does those who have fought for equality and women in general a disservice. As a feminist I am much more concerned with issues such as TF style of “dating” (aka hooking up) being readily adopted by young women, or the fact that young women are being exploited in media such as “girls gone wild” and don’t seem to know or care, or the fact that pre-pubescent girls emulate the overtly sexual and women-as-objects images they see in music videos, movies and in their “role models”. Personally I try to focus on real issues, not PC nonsense. I am personally fundamentally opposed to censorship and actually do think that any form of expression, creativity, art or debate should be judged on the merits of itself alone, not the moral culture of the time or place. I have many books with views I strongly disagree with but still have read and considered. Personally I think that when we are certain and set in a viewpoint, any viewpoint, and cannot listen to intelligent discourse that challenges us, we become a fanatic. In answer to your question, personally I think that thought influences speech. My understanding of Cognitive Science is that we form conscious thoughts in the abstract and express them in the concrete. We think a thing and then make it so. Enforcing certain vocabularies on people will not change their world-views and I think it’s silly to think that it would. Racism, sexism and other pejorative views are erroneous because of actual fact—women, black people, Asians, etc. are just as capable, intelligent and moral as caucasian men. Only education (formal or self-learning) and the openness to evaluate facts will change these ideas. Education and challenging closed-mindedness are, I suppose, actually my primary concerns and the values that I hold most dear. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, April 01, 2007, 08:39 (Agree/Disagree?) I know it's unfair to pick on this considering how much I agree with the gist of this post, but I'm sure Jules won't take it personally ;) See, I find this sentence to be a classic example of how feminists - and many other campaigners - actually undermine their own campaign by poor use of language. "women, black people, Asians, etc. are just as capable, intelligent and moral as Caucasian men" The problem being that it takes as 'assumed' that 'Caucasian men' are somehow more more intelligent or moral, or at least the 'standard' against which to measure. See, I would suggest that the number of people who actually think that would be a very small minority - even of Caucasian men - but presenting it like that does two things to directly undermine your cause. First, it creates/reinforces that as the 'standard' mindset which the audience is expected to have unless changed. Thus making yours a task of making people 'change away' from their position. Second, it suggests that that is the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you. Thus making anyone who takes exception with any part of what you say assume that that is the opinion they hold - even if they had never even thought of it before.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Monday, April 02, 2007, 12:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Ne Oublie, I know you thought I wouldn’t take this personally, but I am crushed *sob* by your suggestion that I make poor use of language (my obvious overuse of “personally” in the comment in question aside). In my defence, I didn’t write a thesis or even an essay. It was just a comment on a web site and I wasn’t expecting the entire feminist movement or activism in general to be graded on it. I admit my formal education in English grammar and punctuation only went up to the age of 10 so I am a bit lacking in this area. Perhaps what I should have written to more accurately portray my point was: “Racism, sexism and other pejorative views are erroneous because of actual fact: i.e. women, black people, Asians, etc. are just as capable, intelligent and moral as Caucasian men.” I am still not sure if that is an appropriate use of punctuation, but it seems more accurate to me. I meant this statement as being some direct examples of inaccurate and pejorative racist/sexist viewpoints which can be disproved through fact, which I hope my above punctuation correction makes more clear. Your first point of “that as the 'standard' mindset which the audience is expected to have unless changed” is defunct with the punctuation correction. That Caucasian men are superior is not a standard mindset, just a sample one which some people do have (thanks Jolifam for proving this point for me--your cookie is under your pillow). There are many cultures around the world that have discriminatory and sexist view points that are not limited to Caucasian men. For example, Chinese families, having had the one child mandate been enforced for a number of decades, have aborted and abandoned female children because they are considered of less worth than a male child. In India, female children are considered a burden, due to the high cost of dowries and the social requirement for marriage for women. As an aside a demographic gender imbalance is currently occurring in these countries as a direct result of sexism and valuing boys more than girls. http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-3-16/52898.html http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07030608.html For more examples of non-western sexism: Afghanistan under the Taliban, female genital mutilation, the belief in some African societies that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS, etc. Your second point, and your assumption that my statement “suggests that [this] is the opinion of anyone who disagrees with you” is also inaccurate. I admit I love my hyperbole as much as the next person, but in a serious debate I try to curtail it as much as possible. I do not assume that anyone who is opposed to feminism believes that women, black people or Asians are inferior. I have a number of friends, male and female who are not feminists, in fact some of my friends are Republicans and/or Born Again and some even Evangelical Christians. I would like to think that my arguments are not just rhetoric, but have some basis in rational thought. If that is not the case, then please show where my deductions and therefore conclusions are faulty. I do think that if a person can make an intelligent and rational argument as to their point of view, one should listen, consider it and not just dismiss it out of hand because it differs with one's own world-view. Giving an example of nonsense does not equate with any differing with another person as them believing such nonsense. My whole point was that we should all be open to opinions that challenge our own and be able to hear and consider other points of view. This thread is now all about the ‘whore” and “bitch” definitions though and since it is already getting too long, perhaps if we want to debate this issue further, we could start a new one. The idea of feminism, why it has gotten a bad rap recently, it’s relevance to our history of being born and raised in TF, and what it is really all about is something I am interested in debating—just please let’s start another thread for this. (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, April 02, 2007, 16:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Systems analyst eh? maybe you can analyze my system some time heh heh. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, April 02, 2007, 14:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Jules, First of all, if by some chance you were indeed "crushed", then I sincerely apologise. My comment was not intended as specific to either you or that sentence - rather, your sentence had simply brought this topic to mind. It was also not your grammar which I was taking exception to, and as such your revised statement would prompt the same comment. My approach was one of messaging, as well as how to utilise language to best convey your message. An example of how I might re-word your sentence above to better convey your message would be, "Caucasian men are just as capable, intelligent and moral as women, black people, Asians, etc" The difference being that this way it reverses both of the points I raised. By doing so it encourages those most likely to disagree with you (Caucasian men) to find themselves agreeing with you by default, because the alternative would be to say that they are not as "capable, intelligent and moral". As has been said, it's not what you say, it's how you say it that counts.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Monday, April 02, 2007, 15:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I accept your apology. Not to be all Stephen Colbert but thank you for understanding that your difference of opinion with me was wrong. :) Seriously, thanks also for your concern on how one's personal POV might be conveyed effectively. I appreciate your editorial suggestion: "Caucasian men are just as capable, intelligent and moral as women, black people, Asians, etc." That is indeed a much better way to say what I meant. I guess this is why people hire editors and copywriters. It's probably not what you think but definitely how good your speechwriter is actually is what counts. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, April 02, 2007, 14:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, and if you want to start the thread... I've got a Bank Holiday coming up, and for some reason I'm not expecting to spend too much of it in church...(reply to this comment)

From rainy Sunday, April 01, 2007, 13:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Well Said, Ne Oublie.(reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Sunday, April 01, 2007, 11:14 (Agree/Disagree?) it's the classic strawman fallacy, you pointed out in your last point. As for the unspoken assumption that Caucasian men are more capable, intelligent, and moral, well, whether people consciously believe it or not, its still in the back of everyone's mind, since modern society is so thoroughly molded to the liking of Caucasian men, and this imposing truth naturally trickles down into the human subconscious. So it's already there, it doesn't have to be "created/reinforced" by verbalizing the assumption. In fact only by outright attacks on this assumption, can the assumption be surpressed. The media attacks this assumption at every turn, to the point where it's dangerous even to verbalize the assumption unless its some form of attack on it. And even then there's people like you who attack the attacker anyways. What a fucked up world we live in. (reply to this comment)

From roughneck Sunday, April 01, 2007, 12:36 (Agree/Disagree?) The fact that several hundred years ago European countries "colonized" (read: enslaved) these people you despise has no relation at all to your view that you as a European-descended are innately superior to them, right? Further, I suppose the Caucasian's historically easier if not exclusive access (as "Master Race") to education, opportunity and modern medicine had nothing what-so-ever to do with what you consider your race's "superiority", eh? If it's not about Nonwhite people's ancestors' access to opportunity, money, or medicine, then basically what it boils down to for you is that Whities are inherently better because they have to spend some time in the sun to be brown-skinned.* How... Scientific of you! *See? Now that's closer to a strawman. But hey, you've already made it abundantly clear that debating you in any meaningful way is an exercise in futility. I am gratified to see, however, that you've stepped up your level of erudition to the dizzying heights of a failing-grade-school-English essayist. Kudos, that makes you right on your way (if only in wee baby steps) to a well-deserved glass of warm Caucasian Smug sometime in the very, very distant future. Good luck with that! (reply to this comment)

From jolifam77 Monday, April 02, 2007, 16:29 (Agree/Disagree?) It really is an intellectual fad these days to excuse the 5 billion brown people of the world for not inventing anything on their own. Not sure what is, maybe a feeling of helplessness? Subconsciously you want to salvage them somehow so you tell yourself over and over again that "it's not their fault, all their powers and creativity were quashed by whitey," "not their fault..." Thailand was never colonized and it's the same shit heap as the rest of the southeast asian countries. Countries like Brazil are basically akin to the States in that the Portuguese colonized it, and they remained. The only difference is they miscegenated more, so their melting pot is quite a bit more melted then ours--AND IT IS A brown SHIT HEAP, world's largests slums, highest leprosy rates, and on and on. Your argument about whitey stole fire from the natives and never gave it back, is stupid stupid stupid.(reply to this comment)

From Shaka Sunday, April 01, 2007, 11:35 (Agree/Disagree?) If that assumption is true, will you please stop being Caucasian? You're drastically lowering our intelligence average. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Thursday, March 29, 2007, 04:59 (Agree/Disagree?) I also note that some languages like Japanese, have a masculine form and feminine form -such as otoko/male or kare/him and Onna/female or kanojo/her- and a separate neutral term equivalent to man (hito)as in "mankind". An interesting read on the subject can be found here. http://www.friesian.com/language.htm (reply to this comment)

From GoldenMic Friday, March 30, 2007, 14:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Not to be overly technical, but I am certain that the use of "masculine" and "feminine" in language science, as in analysis of Japanese or Spanish or French, is refering to nothing more than seperate forms and conjugations, not specifically to males and females. Thats why the most technical linguist actually avoids using the words "masculine" and "feminine" when they are discussing the concepts of male and female. I think that's one of the reasons these male-female debates gets awkward and contradictory. (reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, March 29, 2007, 03:48 (Agree/Disagree?) "Bitch" is more sexist than "bitchy". The comparison should be between "bitch" and "cock".(reply to this comment)

From neez Thursday, March 29, 2007, 00:24 (Agree/Disagree?) You crazy Canadians. Kevin Bloody Wilson(a local comedian/legend) wrote a song about this very subject. It's called "You can't say cunt in Canada". What shall I more say. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBWAjn2a3rA(reply to this comment)

From Jules Thursday, March 29, 2007, 09:39 (Agree/Disagree?) And yet our national animal is the beaver--I know, it makes no sense. Thanks for the link, I now have that lovely song running through my head. (reply to this comment)

From roughneck Thursday, March 29, 2007, 07:57 (Agree/Disagree?) heh yeah, Kev's the man. Not exactly "PC" by any stretch though. :) "stick that fucking phoooone, up yer fuckin' aaaaarse" ... I lol'd.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Monday, March 26, 2007, 13:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you are full of crap. I breed dogs and the female dog is always called a bitch you do not call the male a bitch. You can white wash the issue however you like but the fact remains the same. If you call a woman a bitch you are lowering her to nothing more than a female dog whose worth lies mainly in breeding. Maybe you don't care about the whole femanist issue, and maybe your bitch calling and pretending it means something else entirely is your way of saying you don't give a crap about women. Either way I say face the real issue and grow up and be a man.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, March 26, 2007, 05:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, most people are smarter than rainy? I sure wish I knew where all these people are. We could put them all together and find a cure for cancer or AIDS. Rainy is a very smart girl, Tuneman, which is quite an accomplishment for someone who was raised in a cult. You can say that you don't agree with her views on femenism without basically calling her dumb by saying "Most people are smarter than you". That would be the smart thing to do, and if you had done that you wouldn't be looking like an ass right now. By the way, I also disagree with most of Rainy's views on femenism, but I agreed with that one. Studying up on the history of femenism would probably do you some good. And for the love of the gods, PLEASE stop attacking Nancy. Don't you see that that is exactly what The Family wants? Nancy's a bright girl, and in a position to do a lot of harm to The Family. She knows her stuff, she's a good speaker. She comes across as very credible. Exactly what The Family does not need. Now Don, you also know a lot about The Family's doings. You're a good guy, you have the close relationship to the Berg family that you would need to make yourself credible when you speak about the evil that they have done. You're a good singer. And you can be very compassionate and caring at times. The only thing that will keep us from attacking The Family to our fullest potential is bickering amongst ourselves. And that is what The Family wants. We will never be as strong individually as we would be united. The only ones that will win if we seperate and bicker are Maria and Peter.(reply to this comment)

From idiots anonymous Monday, March 26, 2007, 13:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Sammy, you fucking idiot! The only one who looks like an ass is you after this comment. Talk about a case in ironic humor, you're lambasting Benz for comments and views which are not even his, and yet you talk about trying to defend the credible? Sammy, you're occasionally entertaining and excruciatingly sweet but don't let that encourage you to come riding in for the defense of the women of this website who have more intelligence, (un)common sense, flair, eloquence, verbiage, etc., than you will ever have. Unfortunately, you come across as a simple, pathetic, horny loser trying desperately to get the approval of madly, rainy, and vixen (the three women on this site you seem overly smitten with) whilst stating your arguments in an overly simplistic, condescending manner which is just sad. Oh, and your Maria and Peter go witnessing parodies are not even cute or endearing...they're stupid and unfunny and no one likes them.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 04:55 (Agree/Disagree?) ..................../´¯/) ...................,/¯../ ................../..../ ............/´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ ........./'/.../..../......./¨¯\ .......('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ........\.................'.../ .........''...\.......... _.·´ ...........\..............( .............\.............\(reply to this comment)

From Oddie Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 05:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Such a viewtiful work of art this.... even if it's blatant piracy. Even if it doesn't even qualify as plagiarism. But yeah, Sammy, that comment did make you look stupid, so neener. :p(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, March 27, 2007, 09:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Indeed it did. Everyone has their bad days.(reply to this comment)

From idiots anonymous Thursday, March 29, 2007, 01:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess you have more bad days then most, eh Sammy?(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Monday, March 26, 2007, 14:43 (Agree/Disagree?) If you're going to "lambaste" someone this vigorously, it's plain common courtesy to attach at least your movingon handle to the diatribe. Otherwise, you're just another anonymous putz with an axe to grind whom Sam would be well justified in ignoring. Not that I don't agree with certain of your points.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, March 26, 2007, 06:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Samuel, I'm not Tuneman, Don or anyone else you idiot, from what I understand he's been banned from this site. What on earth would you know about what I do or do not know about feminism? Sounds like another dumb assumption, so why don't you shut up and rehearse the alphabet in your head before you break a blood vessel. I'm having a simple debate on whether the words "bitch" and "whore" are gender-specific slurs. I haven't once even mentioned Nancy, you complete moron. What's wrong with you mentally retarded fuckwits - can't any of you read?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, March 26, 2007, 05:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Maybe I lost track somewhere along the line, but I have the impression that Benz and tuneman7 are indeed different people. (reply to this comment)

From EyesWideShut Thursday, March 29, 2007, 07:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Hahahahaha! There are some names I always seek out for a good intelligent come back. You're one of them and always make me laugh. Lol!(reply to this comment)

From Uh, what now?? Thursday, March 29, 2007, 09:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Don't get me wrong, I think Ne Oublie is up there with the best developed intellects in this community (even if I don't often agree with him entirely), but uh, 'intelligent comeback'?? His seems like a common sense statement to me, and nothing more than that. Would that it were that easy to impress me - I'd surely be getting laid much more often, then. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, March 26, 2007, 06:03 (Agree/Disagree?) That is possible. In that case, I apologise for mixing you with Tuneman7, Benz. Tuneman has numerous names, and posts under several of them, which makes it very difficult to keep track.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Monday, March 26, 2007, 05:08 (Agree/Disagree?) That's not nice. What's gotten into you?(reply to this comment)