revealing crocket
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8381
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:45 pm
Honestly marg were you born yesterday? I have to say I'm astounded at those who have forgotten how the boy's gym coach called his charges "women" when he wanted to denigrate them. Or add your own example from American culture (at the very least) here, if you haven't forgotten it.
beastie's point was correct, crockett thought he was being naughty/funny and he wasn't.
beastie's point was correct, crockett thought he was being naughty/funny and he wasn't.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
beastie wrote:Lastly, my personal favorite from marg:Even if Bob meant it as an insult and not because he thought Scratch was female, it doesn't indicate misogyny/hate of women. Your reaction indicates you are either hyper-sensitive regarding this or you have a dislike of Bob or both. Yes, it is an insult to call a male, a female deliberately. It can mean the guy is weak, a wimp, too emotional, too gossipy, gay etc. That doesn't mean the person insulting hates women. The insult wouldn't work if women weren't associated with those adjectives.
In this very thread Beastie you are acting like a woman, because You are too emtional, too hypersensitive to an insult. Most guys typically wouldn't have reacted like you have. And by the way, you notice the insult doesn't faze Scratch.
Marg seems to assert that people can – without being misogynist, or, more exactly, without disrespecting women – call a man a woman because he is being weak, wimpy, too emotional, too gossipy, gay because women are associated with those concepts.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Yes, marg, women are associated with those concepts, and that is why it is viewed as an insult. But the fact that our society has chosen to describe characteristics in women that men also share in a pejorative fashion, while, at times, describing the exact same characteristics in men in a favorable fashion is not indicative of the fact that society is justified in attaching these negative attributes to women, but rather is indicative of the fact that we have long lived in a very sexist society.
Yes, we have "long lived in a sexist society" One in which females are treated as second class citizens with fewer rights than males. One in which women were and are treated as inferior, relegated to lower paying jobs and positions of power and responsibilities.
That doesn't negate that women in general display certain characteristics more often than men. Such as gossiping, being overly emotional about trivial things, more sensitive to having feelings hurt, physically weaker, more interested in appearances. it is not a matter of justification, it is simply a matter of observation. And hence yes, it is an insult if a man refers to another man as being feminine, because these traits are not as frequently found in men and the inference is that the man is weaker than other men. But the insult is not indicative of misogyny Beastie.
In this very thread you are acting like that stereotype noted of females who are too emotional over trivial things, who blow a small insult way out of proportion. As a female I find the way you are carrying on against Bob's remark as offensive to women in general because you are further perpetuating that stereotype.
You say I’m acting like a woman because I’m being too emotional and too sensitive. Now, the funny thing is the only emotion I felt was ANGER. And I expressed it quite directly. I got in bob’s face.
Gee. I though that was what society says men do – and often praises them for it. I thought women brood, sulk, do passive aggressive things, while men get straight in an offender's face and push.
I see so you think that because you displayed anger ..that's a guy thing? Beastie it depends on what you are getting angry about. You are trying to attach all the societal negatives against women, which is indicative of a hatred against women, onto Bob with his small insult... and it doesn't equate. Let's assume for argument sake society historically had not been so negatively oppressive against women, and this discussion occurred in which Bob referrs to Scratch as Ms. with the intent of attempting to annoy and jest that he's more sensitive, more emotional than most men. That wouldn't indicate hatred of women, when it is an observed fact by most people that women on average are more emtional, more senstive than men. And by the way Beastie, the way to change that stereotype is not not act so sensitive and emotional over the trivial as you have done.
A bit of a mixed message, eh? Actually, no, the message isn’t mixed at all, as long as you really understand what the message actually is. The message is that attributes that both men and women share are negative when attached to females, and praiseworthy when attached to males. Like frequent sex? You’re a stud if you’re a man, a slut if you’re a woman. Surely this sounds vaguely familiar to you.
Well actually I have girl friends that like it when men indicate feminine qualities. They like it when the guy they are friends with expresses emotions, gossips with them, cares about the things they do, shares feelings etc. So it's not always viewed as a negative.
The crux of your complaint is that Bob indicates he hates women because he referred to another man as a Ms. To begin with the insult doesn't stick, because Scratch in no way acts in his writings like any stereotypical female from what I can see. And if an intended insult doesn't stick it's not an insult. Hence Scratch isn't fazed by the attempt.
All Bob has done is use the stereotypical female, he didn't create that stereotype and attempted to use it to insult. When women such as yourself stop acting like that stereotype, that stereotype will no longer stick or be effective as an insult.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
marg,
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to discuss this to death with you. In addition to not being interested enough to continue to nit-pick with you, I noticed you have already misconstrued some of my statements, and I don't feel like getting on the merry-go-round to attempt to correct them. (example, you believe I said that it is men are the ones who act out in anger, get in someone's face, whereas in reality I said that is what society attributes to men - in my experience, the tendency to either act upon anger immediately, or to stew and be passive-aggressive, is pretty equally distributed among men and women) I'm also not going to deal with your forced portrayal of me as being continually emotional about this issue. I was angry last night. By the time I went to bed, I was over it.
If bob has insight to add to his comments, I'll read and respond to them. It is possible background information is missing that would make more sense. As it stands, he certainly appears to have attempted to insult scratch simply by calling him a woman - note, not saying that he was displaying certain female attributes, but simply calling him a woman.
by the way, I do regret making the comment about bob's wife thinking about England. That was said in a moment of anger. I apologize to bob for that, but not for the rest of my observations about the "Ms. Scratch" incident.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to discuss this to death with you. In addition to not being interested enough to continue to nit-pick with you, I noticed you have already misconstrued some of my statements, and I don't feel like getting on the merry-go-round to attempt to correct them. (example, you believe I said that it is men are the ones who act out in anger, get in someone's face, whereas in reality I said that is what society attributes to men - in my experience, the tendency to either act upon anger immediately, or to stew and be passive-aggressive, is pretty equally distributed among men and women) I'm also not going to deal with your forced portrayal of me as being continually emotional about this issue. I was angry last night. By the time I went to bed, I was over it.
If bob has insight to add to his comments, I'll read and respond to them. It is possible background information is missing that would make more sense. As it stands, he certainly appears to have attempted to insult scratch simply by calling him a woman - note, not saying that he was displaying certain female attributes, but simply calling him a woman.
by the way, I do regret making the comment about bob's wife thinking about England. That was said in a moment of anger. I apologize to bob for that, but not for the rest of my observations about the "Ms. Scratch" incident.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
beastie wrote:marg,
As it stands, he [Bob] certainly appears to have attempted to insult scratch simply by calling him a woman - note, not saying that he was displaying certain female attributes, but simply calling him a woman.
Of course, I'm fairly certain, Bob attempted to insult Scratch but the (attempted) insult did not indicate hatred against women/misogygy, which was your charge against him and what you claimed to be so angry about.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
Of course, I'm fairly certain, Bob attempted to insult Scratch but the (attempted) insult did not indicate hatred against women/misogygy, which was your charge against him and what you claimed to be so angry about.
I'll try one more time. He did not use the insult in conjunction with some characteristic. (which, apparently, would be fine with you)
The insult was simply being a woman.
You interpret that as you will.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
beastie wrote:Of course, I'm fairly certain, Bob attempted to insult Scratch but the (attempted) insult did not indicate hatred against women/misogygy, which was your charge against him and what you claimed to be so angry about.
I'll try one more time. He did not use the insult in conjunction with some characteristic. (which, apparently, would be fine with you)
The insult was simply being a woman.
You interpret that as you will.
Since you aren't quitting as you had said you would but instead further perpetuating your position, please quote Bob which supports your assertion that he was attempting to insult Scratch by the mere fact of him possibly being a woman and therefore referred to him as Ms. And then please explain how that shows Bob hates women.
I'm aware of Bob in response to accusations of misogyny saying that he actually thought Scratch was a woman and that's why he called him Ms. But in that case he's not presenting an insult. It would only be an intended insult if it is common knowledge Scratch is male.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
I already linked the thread, marg. Go read it.
And yes, on this board, everyone that I know of believes scratch is male.
:::must::: resist:::: marg merry-go-round::::
And yes, on this board, everyone that I know of believes scratch is male.
:::must::: resist:::: marg merry-go-round::::
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
beastie wrote:I already linked the thread, marg. Go read it.
And yes, on this board, everyone that I know of believes scratch is male.
:::must::: resist:::: marg merry-go-round::::
I suspect the main reason you don't want to respond to my questions is because you appreciate you can not support your initial accusation that Bob's comment indicates a hatred of women.
I've read the thread Beastie.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6215
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm
beastie wrote:And yes, on this board, everyone that I know of believes scratch is male.
Actually, I'm not so sure myself. My suspicions were only aroused when someone else (nor rcrocket) made a remark suspecting that Mister Scratch is actually a woman. Not that it matters either way. It's just kind of funny thinking that maybe the Devil (Mister Scratch) wears prada ;)
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14216
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am
I suspect the main reason you don't want to respond to my questions is because you appreciate you can not support your initial accusation that Bob's comment indicates a hatred of women.
I've read the thread Beastie.
Oh, for heaven's sake.
By your own admission - Bob meant to insult Scratch.
You keep insisting that it's not misogynist to insult a male by calling him a female due to the attached associations to certain traits.
Bob did not associate his insult to any specific traits. He just tried to insult scratch by calling him a woman.
The reason I don't want to respond with you is because I've watched you engage with others enough to know that it would be a tiring, and probably maddening, exercise.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
Penn & Teller
http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com