Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

So...what exactly is it? A way to escape using the word "man" in "woman" by second-wavers? That was my guess at the time, but I never followed up on it.

Yeah.  The general idea is that you have "man" and "wo-man," which sets women apart as "marked" from men, or "different" from what our society considers the default.  Lesser beings, usually.  One of the proposed solutions to this linguistic difficulty was the changing of spelling of the word "women."

However, it seems to me that if you really have to keep a linguistic divide between these two groups, there's better spellings to screw with, and there's probably also better targets for feminism to attack right now than linguistic difficulties.

I saw this in the Happy thread and thought it would be appropriate: Sometimes even republicans surprise me

There is the biggest smile on my face right now.

[Il Palazzo]

Couldn't they just spin "man" to be seen as less than "woman"? I mean, it's quite obviously lacking a syllable.

[Darvi]

Also, "man"<"woman". Even computers agree so!

[Criptfeind]

Siquo... as far as I can tell, you're saying you have an iron-cast right to tell jokes that offend others, but offended people have no right to tell you that you've been offensive and that you should stop offending them.

Noooooope don’t see it.

It is implied that he will not care, but I so no where him stating they don’t have the right to tell him.

[Vector]

Couldn't they just spin "man" to be seen as less than "woman"? I mean, it's quite obviously lacking a syllable.

They could if men were the ones being oppressed, yeah.  I think the point is that, given the inequality divide, even the spelling becomes a problem.  But the real problem is that male=default in our society, and in my opinion the issue isn't about spelling so much as that particular grammatical issue.

The other thing is that taking "womyn" rather than "women" emphasizes the differences between the genders, rather than (as the third wave hopes for) realizing that the masculinization of men can be problematic, just as the effeminization of women is.  Both sides end up being forced into destructive gender roles, though these particular roles effect a balance of power with further issues on the female side.  And, furthermore, the "divide" is not so clear-cut as all that.  People live on borders in terms of identification, traits, physical characteristics, and so on.  That's why second-wave feminism tends to be very transphobic and wish away the experience of trans women--they view their own experiences as unique, and believe it is impossible for anyone who has lived as a man, even briefly, to understand it.

That sort of gender essentialism makes my stomach boil.  It's only by having the faith that the people I'm speaking to do have the ability to understand that I can continue.  And besides, it's not like all women have experienced the same thing... different facets of it, perhaps, but definitely not all of it.  Setting things up to call someone out for "not being a real woman" is just absurd.

Noooooope don’t see it.

It is implied that he will not care, but I so no where him stating they don’t have the right to tell him.

I gotta say, there's no real reason for him to post in this thread to inform us that, then.

So you're going to tell anti-progressive jokes!  Go tell everyone in the progressive thread that you assert your right to tell them!

It's kind of weird.

[Criptfeind]

It's not so weird when the topic of the thread at the time is "anti-progressive jokes" and indeed people saying you should not say them.

[Vector]

It's not so weird when the topic of the thread at the time is "anti-progressive jokes" and indeed people saying you should not say them.

*sigh*

Well, I'll direct everyone to that article I linked one more time, and then I guess everyone can decide on their own what they want to do.

[Criptfeind]

Heads up, I am not reading the whole thread cause of wall of text+rapid posting. I need to skim to stay on what is going on, and forget about reading any back log.

So maybe I missed something important to this debate.

[Vector]

Nah, it's okay.  I'm not pissed, or anything.  Just kind of tired.

Going to take a break and read a novel or do some German homework.

[Phmcw]

Nobody else think the problem is not the joke but the way it's used?

"you can joke about everything but not with everybody" is a saying I feel fit.

[SalmonGod]

I think context is the majority of humor.

[Mindmaker]

So I finally caught up on this thread. Took some time, but there sure are some interesting dynamics here.

Anyway, this is more the "posting to watch"-sort of comment, since I lack acess to the problems discussed here and am therefore unfit to comment. Not to mention that those issues seem to be a lot more loaded in the US, than in some other parts of the world, so I'd need to experience them first hand, to grasp their severity.

I simply lack female friends, which would allow me to look at the world through their eyes and women generally don't come up in any topics (neither positively nor negatively) I discuss with my friends.

There aren't that many political equality issues around here, that I can think of. The two current are equal wages for both sexes, which slip in and out of general consciousness, without ever being solved and fixed percentages of female staff employed in managerial areas, which has been opposed even by women, arguing that you should find the person fit for the job, instead of simply fulfilling quota.
When it comes to gay rights, things are actually pretty good from what I've heard and there's a steady advancement, since it lacks open opposition.

Just keep it civil and I may drop by every now and then, should I have something of interest or relevance.

[Fenrir]

Anything related to words and their meanings is likely to summon me from the shadows.

In an autistic "I don't see how it contributes to the problem, it's sexists and racists that contribute to the problem"-way.

Unless you have autism, I would like you not to appropriate that term for your own enjoyment.

He does not appear to be using it for his amusement. He would appear to be using the term in a valid manner, as the word, meaning “of or relating to autism”, could be used to communicate the properties of the thing being described that are characteristic of autism. One such characteristic is difficulty in communication, and, to my perception, that is what is being communicated here. This is dissimilar to cases where terms used to describe something bear nothing in common with that which is being described. The most notable of these terms is “gay”, as it is frequently used to describe something that is physically incapable of being homosexual in any capacity, but it is merely something that is undesirable, and this term is selected merely because the people using it find homosexuality distasteful and most likely have a meagre vocabulary.

In regards to the matter of altering the spelling of “woman”, I think that it is a juvenile notion. I do not suppose it is juvenile in conception, but, rather, it is juvenile in necessity, for, if one can not recognize women for the people that they are merely by the inclusion of another word in the spelling of the other, there is clearly a deeper problem that must be solved, and I shall not soon employ those people in any kitchen anywhere lest they find confusion with ham and hamsters.

[Virex]

Anything related to words and their meanings is likely to summon me from the shadows.

In an autistic "I don't see how it contributes to the problem, it's sexists and racists that contribute to the problem"-way.

Unless you have autism, I would like you not to appropriate that term for your own enjoyment.

He does not appear to be using it for his amusement. He would appear to be using the term in a valid manner, as the word, meaning “of or relating to autism”, could be used to communicate the properties of the thing being described that are characteristic of autism. One such characteristic is difficulty in communication, and, to my perception, that is what is being communicated here. This is dissimilar to cases where terms used to describe something bear nothing in common with that which is being described. The most notable of these terms is “gay”, as it is frequently used to describe something that is physically incapable of being homosexual in any capacity, but it is merely something that is undesirable, and this term is selected merely because the people using it find homosexuality distasteful and most likely have a meagre vocabulary.

If we're harking back to the semi-original meanings of words, it should be noted that gay used to have a meaning analogous to happy or good-tempered, but could also be used to describe something as frivolous. Surprisingly someone claiming a bright-pink suit looks 'so gay man!' is in a sense using the word right.

[Fenrir]

If we're harking back to the semi-original meanings of words, it should be noted that gay used to have a meaning analogous to happy or good-tempered, but could also be used to describe something as frivolous. Surprisingly someone claiming a bright-pink suit looks 'so gay man!' is in a sense using the word right.

I was not harking back anywhere. “Of or relating to autism” is the present meaning of the word “autistic”.