I am floored by the results of the last alert I sent regarding mysogyny...Three out of three thought

[whathehell]

this was "okay" and so it stands:

Please check it out and tell me what you think.

:I think twat might be appropriate in this case".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1194769

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Poster says it's "appropriate" to call the female subject of the OP, a "twat", which is a misogynistic slur.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Aug 25, 2012, 11:08 AM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

I'm getting THOROUGLY disgusted with the sexist bigotry in GD and other places.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. What kind of dickhead would vote to leave a post like that?

Must have been a real bunch of dorks voting.

[Scootaloo]

2. Dude Lebowski jurists

"That's just, like, his opinion, man."

[whathehell]

8. To be honest,

I've been "suspicious", you might say, regarding the results I get from

many of my alerts.

I've gotten so many "Let it stand" responses, in response to even more egregious cases,

and not ALL of them about sexism, that I'm starting to think it might be PERSONAL .e.g "We don't like you, so

we're NOT going to hide ANYTHING you alert on".

[ZombieHorde]

56. They cannot see who altered. nt

[whathehell]

82. You mean "alerted"?

Actually, I've been on juries, and I believe you CAN see who alerted

and who's being alerted on.

[ZombieHorde]

84. Oops!

If you are a host, you can see who altered to the hosts.

[TalkingDog]

125. I'm on juries once or twice a week. You can't see who alerted.

Just the person whose post is in question. You must have special powers.

I don't think I've ever known one person who has been alerted on and never know the alert-er
If it is a petty childish squabble, I usually vote to leave it because I'm not a big fan of the nanny state settling the differences of adults who SHOULD know better. Learn to communicate or learn to click ignore is my motto.

If it's a blatant troll, yes, I vote to hide.

I would say my ratio of Leave it to Hide it is about: 80% Leave it 20% Hide it.

[whathehell]

132. Great, me too, & I'm willing to accept I might have been wrong regarding visibility of alerters

As for the rest of the gratuitous snark, I'd just like to say that yeah,

maybe I do have "special powers", like refusing to buy into Right Wing talking points about things

like the "nanny state", for instance, or assuming just who "should" know what.

I'm sure we're supposed to be awed by the implied "lack of judgment" implicit in your willingness to vote hide for "trolls" only,

but somehow I'm guessing you'd be quick as anyone to alert were it you or "yours" being insulted.

Call me unimpressed.

[TalkingDog]

149. You're kind of humorless aren't you? I wasn't being snarky, but if that's how you choose

to interpret the world, well, bless your heart. (and that...as opposed to my gentle ribbing of last post, was supposed to be condescending... just in case you missed it)

Who says the evoking the "Nanny State" is a Right Wing talking point? You? Ha! Prove it.

I'm sure we're supposed to be awed by the implied "lack of judgment" implicit in your willingness to vote hide for "trolls" only

No wonder your replies come across a bitter and hateful instead of the smoothly glib bon mots you must imagine you are throwing out there. You don't communicate very well. That sentence needs to be cleaned up and clarified. It's a hot mess.

As for alerting, I imagine you'll also be incredibly impressed to know I've never once alerted on anybody for the 8 years I've been on this board.

Overall your tone in this thread is incredibly similar to a pouting child; quite laughable really. Let the adults know when you are ready for real in-depth discussion and we'll get back to you.

[seabeyond]

150. so, you resort to name calling and personal attacks thru out a post to make your point?

ya. that would be brilliant communication. repugs do that a lot, too. you know, along with the nanny state, they then resort to name calling.

btw, jury let it stand, barely. but then, that kinda reinforces the sexism allowed in du that a poster can come in here and attack a member.

[whathehell]

151. No, but it's what stupid guys often say about feminists, lol.

ask anyone on this feminist forum!

As to the "nanny state" bs, you can ask anyone on the site, lol.

Sorry, honey, it appears as if your trying hard to "pass" for someone

with enough intellect to "condescend" to me, but the "effort"

is sadly visible and your reach exceeds your grasp, as they say.

Sorry, bro, not interested in talking to your or your dog, assuming

they're not one and the same. Welcome to my Ignore list and have a

nice life!

[hlthe2b]

174. Tamp down the insults, please...

They really do nothing to advance your viewpoint.

Please realize that this is a safe haven group with a very specific SOP as pinned to the top of this group's posts and here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12553074. Consistent with this, civil discussion/civil disagreement is an expectation and requirement.

Thank you for your cooperation

hlthe2b
co-host, History of Feminism

[Warpy]

177. Blatant troll or blatant full frontal assault of an insult

I don't think alerts over words some people don't like are appropriate even if those words sometimes make me wince.

I'm a big girl. I know how to wince and move on.

[LiberalLoner]

81. I've gotten smacked down like that too, esp. when I alert about posts condoning sexual abuse of

children, etc. I mean it's like, "how DARE you alert on this, you stupid bitch!" That's the feeling I got anyway from the comments. Depressed me.

[caseymoz]

184. How many members are on here?

They're chosen more or less, at random, it seems. Or at least it's automated. How many of them know you? And how do they know you're the one doing the alerting?

Yet, they still happen to randomly put together a jury that disagrees with you. So, either the people running the board have it in for you and always stack the jury with people they know will refuse to go along; the juries are phony and a front for the administrators when it comes to your alerts just because they want to silence your opinions; or, the jury system has been hacked by someone who's fixing the votes against you.

I appreciate your getting suspicious, but there is another explanation.

Do you know how many "alerts" I've made since DU3 started? Three.

Ask people how many they do, and you can get an idea if you're getting offended more than the average person. Since the average persons make up the juries, you will then know why jury votes don't often go your way.

Perhaps things that offend you just don't offend the vast majority? At least not enough to warrant removal.

[whathehell]

187. "How many members are on here"?

At one time?...I don't know. Do you know?

"Do you know how many "alerts" I've made since DU3 started? Three".

That's nice, but is it supposed to tell me something? The fact is,

without knowing how often you're on the board, it actually tells me very little.

I haven't counted my alerts, but you'd probably be surprised to learn that I actually

don't alert that much myself, especially when you consider that I'm on the board a LOT

because I'm currently unemployed have a lot of free time.

So, thanks for your concern and all, but if you're trying to say that I'm "unusual"

or inclined to "get more offended than the average person" here, it seems you

haven't checked the Meta-Discussion lately, as there are MANY people here

who have complained and continue to complain about the same thing.

[caseymoz]

188. According to my profile

I remember (perhaps hazy) that membership is about 20,000. I've tried to verify that and can't find the original source, which I think was a Skinner post very early in DU3.

There's a good reason why they'd complain. Okay, just considering nothing else, the odds that a post you report will be taken down is 1 in 3.

Another thing, six members cannot be a representative sample of the sites membership. The number is too small. In other words, they way they've put together the juries, they might as well be flipping a coin.

[bunnies]

25. I love your use of "dickhead" to deride someone ok with the use of "twat".

made me chuckle.

[hlthe2b]

36. There is a certain irony there... Perhaps we might likewise avoid male-associated terms, although...

I've not seen men complain about this term and, in fact seem to have put it into fairly robust general use.

By contrast there has been long term and long-standing consensus on avoiding the use of female genitalia-associated terms as slurs.

[bunnies]

43. hmmm.

But I wonder what would be said of men who complained about the use of phrases like "dickhead". Even if they were offended, I'd guess they might not admit it.

[hlthe2b]

48. I don't know... But it seems to be in the wider vernacular of general use.

Something I don't wish female derisive genitalia-based terms to become.

[bunnies]

66. I think its too late for that.

At least in my real-life experience, I hear just as many women using anti-female slurs as men. Maybe thats atypical?

[whathehell]

96. Yes, except that the "dominant" group, is less vulnerable to feeling disrespected than the less so.

It's like the difference between a white person calling a black person "nigger"

and a black person calling a white person "honkey" or some such...It just doesn't

cut the same way.

We should absolutely maintain that long-standing consensus on gender slurs,

and perhaps start using that term, specifically, because that is EXACTLY what it is.

Racism and misogyny bear surprising similarities...Both, for instance, are based on conditions of birth.

Racism is based on the COLOR of the body. Misogyny is based on CONSTRUCTION of the body.

[hlthe2b]

100. Yes. I agree

[whathehell]

102. Yes, thanks. n/t

[Warpy]

129. Yes, total peckerheads

and we know they were thinking with their knobs, not their noggins.

Honestly, I have no sympathy at all for any of the Word Police here at DU. I spend much of my time on a forum with mostly women where no words are banned and it's refreshing.

[Jackpine Radical]

138. You got it.

Of course, the average male doesn't have enough blood to run a brain and an erection at the same time.

[seabeyond]

147. what garbage. any of my men or boys would be offended. but hey... this is a giggle for men with

their awe inspiring sexuality that is the be all end all of all times.

[niyad]

3. unfortunately, the results were not in the least surprising. reading further down, it is apparent

that some people were trying to pretend they don't actually know what the word means.

[whathehell]

10. That's true.

Consciousness of misogyny as a NON progressive attitude, while never high,

seems to be slipping lower and lower and I'm not sure what we can do about it.

[seabeyond]

41. this is why i continually challenge this "war" being just on the right. it is not.

it is not about a political position. it is all about gender, and one wanting to control and dominate, demeaning and degrading women.

but, really, lighten up

[seabeyond]

40. yes. du has been having a feild day letting the crap stand as they cry OUTRAGE i tell you, over the

sexist garbage from the right. it shows how little they truly care.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

128. Some might not actually know what it means. Over a period of time, I've found that a number

of posters are Canadian, British, and, more recently, Australian. They, of course, don't use the English language in the same way that we do. Some may not even be familiar with American slang. Then, too, some people in certain regions of the country may not be familiar with all American slang.

[eridani]

162. Particularly a problem with humor

I used to be on a list that had English-speaking members from all over the world. An American posted that old saw about why can't lesbians go on a diet and wear makeup at the same time? Because you can't eat Jenny Craig with Mary Kaye on your face.

In Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Denmark etc., this was met with a resounding "WTF"?

[hlthe2b]

4. Yes...

Given that we've had little luck getting posts with the C-word slur hidden in many instances, I can't say I'm surprised.

The most difficult aspect is seeing a handful of DU women attack DUers (both male and female) who express disapproval at the use of these terms. And, they can become quite vicious in their vehement attitude that since these terms don't bother THEM personally, then none of us should have the right to object. These same handful of posters seem to show up in every single thread where this comes up. And then those of us who are old enough to have experienced the very real impacts casual use of these terms have-- in terms of work place harassment and institutionalized inequality-- then get to be regaled by those who claim we are "out of touch."

I share your disgust. I only wish I knew the answer.

[whathehell]

11. Wow....I thought the C-word was strictly against the rules.

If that's "on", we really need to bring this up to the administrators, I'd say.

[hlthe2b]

12. They are aware.

[whathehell]

21. Well, why the hell are they not doing anything about it, then?..What is their "rationale" if any?

[hlthe2b]

24. There has been a very different climate established in DU3--community standards are more subject

to the changing tide and attitudes of the most active (vocal) membership, it would appear. I'm sure most here have noticed a trend in juries frequently including one or two jurors who make it clear they will never vote to hide--claiming to do so represents "censorship" or some such claptrap...

I assume when admins (and perhaps DUers in general) see juries not hiding such posts, this sets new precedence for what is "appropriate" in terms of community standards. I can assure you that many of us have repeatedly argued that this particular term in use should, as use of racial or gender preference slurs, represent an automatic TOS violation. In practice, it does not seem to be.

[whathehell]

27. It does seem to be getting VERY nasty here, and not only regading women's issues.

Is this "new climate" been formally recognized as such?...Are there actually new rules?

[DURHAM D]

29. With the jury system the majority rules.

When a majority rules construct is used minority interests are simply never protected.

Therefore it is naturally undemocratic.

[hlthe2b]

31. Very true

[DURHAM D]

34. Just a few words in the TOS would change everything.

The admin apparently prefer it the way it is - probably increases traffic. As times goes on DU will likely have fewer and fewer women participating/paying members.

[seabeyond]

46. and this was suggest from a huge thread allowing c word in the first days of du. a simple fix. nt

[LiberalLoner]

124. I'm not sure but I think that is the goal,

To pretty much get rid of or at least silence the women on DU. It's their site, and if they want a boys only club, more power to them.

[seabeyond]

126. i believe i made a payment to participate in this site. they offered a product

assuring me that certain behaviors we not "community standard". i gave them my money trusting the product the offered me.

and no, not more power to them.

i was told to speak up. so speak up i will.

[LiberalLoner]

144. I like your spirit! I am just worn down lately

[seabeyond]

45. which was my observation and concern in the "try out" of the new du. i was told to have faith

in our duers.

i no longer have "faith"

[caseymoz]

185. No, it doesn't.

Six random people are not a majority of anything on DU. It's far too small a sample to be a useful survey. If they're going to choose six random people to make the decision, they might as well flip a coin.

Real juries have this problem, too, except there at least they vet them to some degree.

[hlthe2b]

30. DU3 changed from a moderator system to a more fluid jury system to oversee "community standards"

with the admins fully acknowledging that juries may be quite arbitrary in how they perceive what is acceptable. So, I think it was these structural changes that have allowed this new climate to develop and flourish.


If you read the Terms of Service (here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice) which is linked down at the bottom of each page
a lot of what was pretty clearly specified in the past is left fairly open to interpretation. Scroll down to the bottom to see the little blurb on community standards. This is the not unexpected outcome of turning much of the day to day oversight to the members, in the form of the jury system, rather than admins and moderators. So, in that aspect, I think this was intended.

[whathehell]

142. So it seems.

If there's no "standards" of courtesy anymore, there's really no point to a site like this, I'd say.

It will become insufferable and only the most aggressive, insensitive, bullying type personalities will post.

I've heard from a couple of people who seemed "proud" of never alerting on insults, only on "trolls".

[BanzaiBonnie]

139. Let the lowest common denominator ride

[whathehell]

140. Yeah, that will really encourage people to post.

[DURHAM D]

20. DU has a zero tolerance policy for some things -

misogyny is not one of them.

The administrators are aware of their own policy.

[niyad]

15. the c-word does not bother me personally, because I have a little routine I use when I am called

that, such that I guarantee the person will never use the word again.

however, it does bother others, and I will not stand for it being used to them (ask the last one who used it in my presence against a friend)

[seabeyond]

42. correct. i have seen the c word stand 8 times. adms assured us, that it would not be allowed.

not seeing it.

i have watched host find ways to locked threads that were offensive to other groups, searching for justifiable ways it broke SOP.

i have watched them argue sexist posts, where fun, and really, may not meet SOP, but, it is ok, cause it has all these records, and people playing in the thread. 98% of the recs and replies from men.

so, no surprise that they are having fun in their vulgar, crude play in a sexist thread.

and host say, doesnt meet SOP, but we will keep it.

very telling.

[earthside]

5. Lighten up.

It's a play on words ... and I've seen ten times worse on DU.

And no one was calling someone else a name.

Pretty tame, in my opinion.

I would've voted to 'Leave It Alone'.

[hlthe2b]

7. earthside, you can certainly disagree as to the impact or intent behind the use of the word...

But you need to do so respectfully. Telling those with whom you disagree to "lighten up" is dismissive and rude. I would suggest and appreciate your editing your post.

hlthe2b
co-host, History of Feminism

[MadrasT]

18. Thank you. n/t

[MadrasT]

14. No.

OP does not need to "lighten up".

You are welcome to disagree, and OP gets to feel exactly how OP feels.

"Lighten up" was uncalled for and is yet another way people try to shut women up.

Women do not need to shut up.

Ever.

[whathehell]

22. Thank you. n/t

[whathehell]

16. You "lighten up".

It might be construed as a "play on words until the poster snidely said

"in this case, it's appropriate", which underlined it as a gender slur.

Would you accept a "play on words" regarding words like "nigger" or "faggot" or any other

slur that involved MEN?...I doubt it.

[niyad]

17. and your cavalier attitude is exactly the kind of thing the OP meant.

[seabeyond]

47. "Lighten up." no. nt

[Major Hogwash]

114. That post would have been hidden on DU2 by the moderators.

And that thread locked.
I guarantee you that.

[gopiscrap]

6. I was on that jury

and I voted to hide it..I am surpirsed by the result also!

[MADem]

9. Perhaps you could post the comments? The OP just got results and was not the first alerter. nt

[gopiscrap]

68. I said

it was gutter sexist language and at DU we shouldn't be using sexist language!

[MADem]

75. No, not your comments alone--the entire jury result, with the comments of all the jurors. nt

[whathehell]

35. Let me thank you for that.

Truthfully, I was surprised, but felt SOME relief that at least it was three to three...I had another one

on the same topic of misogyny that was something like four to two or five to one.

[gopiscrap]

69. you're welcome

[whathehell]

97. Thanks again.

[seabeyond]

49. thank you. nt

[gopiscrap]

70. You're welcome!

[On the Road]

13. I Don't Know How Much This Accounted for the Decision,

but Cher was not being referred to as a "twat." The term was being used as a dismissive substitue for "tweet," which is not unusual in certain circles. Certainly the word is offensive, but in this case it's not being used to describe a person.

[whathehell]

19. I disagree. If what you are saying is true, why did she say in THIS case it's "appropriate"?

with no explanation, ESPECIALLY when the original user was "warned" to edit the post?

[On the Road]

120. Why? I Would Assume That It's Because

you appeared to misread the original comment and think it applied to Cher rather than a tweet. I realize you object to both usages, but not everyone does, and there is a major distinction.

Look, I don't know any of these posters personally. I don't use the c-word or the t-word here (I guess we have to call it that now), or for that matter in general conversation.

However, you asked the question and there seems to be a straightforward explanation.

[whathehell]

122. You can assume what you will.

I assume otherwise.

[seabeyond]

50. everyone has a reason to dismiss the use of the c word, also. i have heard it repeatedly. thank you

very much giving us just another lame excuse to allow the demeaning of women on du

[Buzz Clik]

26. I understand your dismay, but isn't this thread a violation of DU rules?

[DURHAM D]

28. What rule?

[Buzz Clik]

55. Good point. They used to post rules here. I can no longer find them.

Without the presence of rules, there is nothing to violate.

Nevermind.

[hlthe2b]

32. As a co-host of this group, please DO tell me what it is that you find in opposition to the rules.

This is a safe haven group, btw. While we do not encourage meta topics and jury discussion per se', the ultimate focus of the thread is the use and impact of gender-derisive terms which does fall within the bounds of our SOP for the group.

[madrchsod]

33. sort of....

it used to be but it seems it`s been changed since the jury system has been in place.

well i must disclose that i have been a number of juries

[Buzz Clik]

57. It used to be that you could not start a thread to call out posters or mod/admin decisions.

Are there any rules here anymore? I could not find any.

[DURHAM D]

59. Do you not visit Meta?

That is pretty much all it is.

[Buzz Clik]

61. Not until 30 seconds ago. I had no idea it existed.

I took a two-year hiatus because of the ugliness here at DU.

A forum dedicated to discuss discussions? Well, okay.

Are there rules of engagement for DU posted anywhere?

[hlthe2b]

64. I can appreciate that...

TOS is linked at bottom of every page, but includes very little structure re: community standards.

[Buzz Clik]

76. Thanks.

I have the gift of being able to overlook the obvious.

The Terms of Service are about a generic as they can be. I see why juries are necessary and why the Meta forum gets a lot of traffic.

[seabeyond]

51. wtf? yes women, it is offensive now shut the fuck up and let us play. nt

[Buzz Clik]

54. Not even close to what I said, but do carry on.

Last edited Sat Aug 25, 2012, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

[pansypoo53219]

37. i let just about eveything stay on, cause LET IT ROLL OFF YOUR BACKS.

ignore them if you no like. stupid posts are to be seen as stupid. MEH MEH MEH. this is why people are bullied. too sensitive. stick + stones.....

[whathehell]

38. Um, some people are more sensitive than your average rock.

so I'm afraid those folks aren't good with that.

[seabeyond]

53. yes... the whole world is letting the misogyny roll off their back. look where it has gotten us.

thank you so much for letting us know you are not concerned.

[MadrasT]

77. No fucking way.

We let shit like this "roll off our backs" for decades while lipstick "feminists" were flashing their tits and sexing it up and claiming "empowerment" and "reclaiming" langauge like "slut"...

...and now we have a plethora of new abortion laws and despicable assholes like Akin and Ryan running the show trying to beat us into submission and control our very beings.

We are not letting SHIT "roll off" our backs and we will not shut up EVER AGAIN.

I spent literally DECADES smiling and "being cool" with this kind of language.

NO. MORE.

If other women think it's OK-fine-no-big-deal I can't tell them what to do but I FOR ONE will not stand for it and I certainly will not shut up about it.

[pnwmom]

89. There is nothing inconsistent about both taking a public stand

when something seems wrong to you, and letting an idiot's response roll off your back. You can respond to an inappropriate post appropriately without getting worked out about it.

[niyad]

107. sorry, but it just does not work that way. we have been fighting a battle against the denigration

of women, the casual, woman-hating, ugly, dismissive, hurtful language in conversation, in media, in the whole culture, for many years now. it doesn't stop until we make it abundantly clear that such is NOT to be tolerated, or found acceptable.

YOU are free to ignore if you wish, the rest of us are trying to make a slightly better world.

[seabeyond]

39. an all around concerted effort in disrespect and dehumanizing women to an extent that allow repugs

to accomplish what they are doing today.

thank you du, for participating in the war against women. good job. now, lets go after the blacks and gays.

really, lets.....

[DURHAM D]

44. I assume you are saying that -

After the Republicans succeed in their war on women they will go on to get the blacks and the gays. Well, actually they are already doing that as well.

But, your post sort of reads like you are saying DU should go after blacks and gays. I know that it not what you mean so perhaps if you clarify then those who stalk you won't Alert on your post.

[seabeyond]

60. yes. i am saying, since we allow it for women, lets go after blacks and gays. we will NOT allow it

any i would speak out every single time. adm will not allow it. du would not allow it.

but... that says something.

people have to realize the hypocrisy in this.

you do not know how many men in lbgt i have heard reinforce the misogyny. they do not stand against it, but all of us in this community has stood and will continue to stand against homophobia and racism.

[DURHAM D]

63. Given that I am LGBT I concur that misogyny is a problem in our own community -

and that very much includes DU.

[seabeyond]

65. that is all i am saying. as i said, my votes against racism or homophobia is consistent with my vote

against misogyny and sexism. others cannot say the same.

[pnwmom]

87. This is something I've heard discussed a lot

among the adult children of LGBT. Misogyny is not nice to grow up with. And it's not just misogyny (that's what I personally was familiar with.) There are a number of lesbian parents with unresolved negative feelings about men, too. And even if the mothers themselves are okay, they might have friends sitting in their living room spouting off negative things about men -- in front of the boy children.

One thing that happens is that the opposite sex child is cute and fine as a baby and young child, but then is perceived more and more as part of the dark side as he or she grows older.

No one, gay or straight, with unresolved negative feelings about an entire gender should have children without dealing with these issues.

[DURHAM D]

91. Your post is off-topic, off-putting and this is horse manure -

"One thing that happens is that the opposite sex child is cute and fine as a baby and young child, but then is perceived more and more as part of the dark side as he or she grows older."

And this "Misogyny is not nice to grow up with". Straight couples are much more likely to create that environment.

[pnwmom]

95. You said that misogyny exists among the LGBT community.

That's what I was responding to. I stated that both gay and straight people need to deal with this. What do you think happens when misogynists or other people with negative feelings about the other gender have children? The opposite sex child has to listen to it.

I haven't seen any research showing that either straight or gay couples are "much more likely to create that environment" so I'd have to disagree with you on that point. I think children are better off when adults are aware of these problems, so I was impressed with what I thought was your awareness. I guess I was wrong.

[DURHAM D]

103. The misogyny remaining in the LGBT community is

almost entirely in older men. They were all raised in mixed couple families. The younger generation of males is very different. I do not know any lesbians who hate men. Period.

As for who produces children that are bigots, first think about how few gay couples there are in the world compared to the number of straight couples. Of that small percentage of couples (gay) a very small percentage are raising children and the number is dropping.

Then think about the fact that we are minorities being denied our human rights so naturally we are 100% aware of minority issues and we don't condone bigotry inside or outside of the home.

You clearly have issues with gay couples raising children and I will not discuss it with you further.

[Jackpine Radical]

175. Yup--those males

are cute when they're small.

Kinda like little piglets.

[whathehell]

98. Damned right....Katha Politt, who was on "UP" today, said "Misogyny is the

last acceptable prejudice of the Left" and she's correct.

We should NOT tolerate this here, not at all.

[tama]

52. 'Misogyny' is the correct spelling :)

As for TWAT, that's how I shorten The War Against Terror.

And as for Vagina Monologues, often cited on DU, I would have preferred the author using some more common English word instead of the clinical sounding Latin word.

Can't now think of anything else to say on the subject.

[whathehell]

94. No, dear, it's just the latest spelling.

"Mysogyny" is the original term.

Your acronym for the "War against Terror" was not the subject of the thread.

Have a nice day.

[tama]

99. It's Greek to me

and since I've made career as translator from Greek, I at least should know that the original spelling is with iota (of love ) instead of ypsilon.

You don't comment on the Vagina Monologue in the brush away style of my other contributions so I assume that it stays a subject of mutual interest. Now, before quoting the Wikipedia article about it I ask do you think that if it's on Wikipedia it's also OK to quote on DU?

[whathehell]

104. That's nice...I'm very impressed, which I'd guess

was the point of that revelation, but let's get back to the subject at hand.

I didn't pick up on the VM reference because I've never seen it.

Now, before making an ass of you and me with that "assume" thing, let me

tell you I'm not at ALL interested in Wikipedia at the moment or, for that matter,

in extending this conversation with you.

Have a nice day.

[DontTreadOnMe]

58. Stop being the word police here on DU

If you can't stand the "words", then leave and don't come back.

I can hear Gorge Carlin cringing right now...

I don't like guns. I don't like gun forums. If the majority of people here on DU want gun forums, then there will be guns forums, even if I don't like it.

Get used to Democracy.

[seabeyond]

62. so, you are suggesting we allow the n word and the f word? lets see how that plays out. nt

[gopiscrap]

73. I don't give a crap about using the f word, but part of the

Democratic Party principles is respect for gender, the disabled, sexual oreientation, ethnicity, country of origin, creed, immingrant status and economic status.

[seabeyond]

74. fuck? fuck... i use fuck all the time, lol. fuckin do not care a fuck about fuck

if that is the word you are referring to.

i am talking "f*g" and "n***r". against gays and blacks. you are not ok with that word? right? ugly word. i didnt use that 3 decades ago.

i have to be real careful showing words cause people like to find reasons to hide, but hopefully that will be allowed in explanation for your better understanding.

it took a while to dawn on me you may thing the f word fuck.

[DontTreadOnMe]

78. I am not scared of any words

And I think it is fine to let bigots, racists and misogynists let that fat mouths blab in public, so we can identify them easier.

Every time Rush Slimeball opens his mouth, it helps our side.

Let people be assholes... oh, can I use "that" word?

[DURHAM D]

86. That makes no sense when it is "our" side that is doing it.

And on a website where most of us (who can) actually pay to be members.

It is even more disgusting that the word "Democratic" appears in the site name and one should be able to assume that the members are liberals, progressive and regular Democrats, and not a bunch of tone-deaf bigots.

[whathehell]

101. Well, aren't you big and brave?...On the other hand, you're Male

so there's a good chance you know NOTHING about being demeaned for your Condition of Birth,

isn't there?

Hint: It's not all about YOU.

[seabeyond]

108. "good chance you know NOTHING" a very good chance. almost a certainty. nt

[whathehell]

123. Thanks.

I only used the "reservation" on the chance he might be a racial minority.

[seabeyond]

106. and you would be the white male that does not believe in privilege and patriarchy, right? nt

[MadrasT]

111. Men don't get to tell women what they should not be offended by.

Your opinion about what women should "let people do" doesn't count.

If you aren't offended, yippy skippy for you.

This isn't about you.

[tama]

115. Vagina Monologues and cultural differences

In my language, Finnish, the equivalent of the English word about which "Scholar Germaine Greer has said that "it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock"" (I don't give in this context the Wikipedia link to the word in question, but you can google it) is used in same way as and even more so than the word 'fuck'. Finnish language (and culture) is much less sexist than English and other Indo-European languages with strong inbuilt patriarchal structures, for example we don't differentiate personal pronouns based on gender he/she where the masculine is the general case and feminine gender expresses exception and difference from the general and normative masculinity by morphological addition (s)he or (wo)man.

Against that background, the use of Finnish word for female genitalia the same way as English 'fuck' (by both sexes) is hardly a sign of misogyny. Vagina Monologue contains question, often quoted on DU, why it is so hard to say the word Vagina, but easy to say 'dick' etc. pet names of male genitalia. And having Finnish as my native tongue, I noticed and it did strike me odd, that the author was comparing the Latin clinical word for female genitalia to vernacular English words for male genitalia instead of 'penis'. If the play had been written originally in Finnish, the title would not have been the Latin word but vernacular. I have been well aware of the fact that Germaine Greer mentions for decades (being innocent of the fact once -telling about most common Finnish expletive to an American person - was enough of education ). And now that I checked the Wikipedia article on Vagina Monologues, I found out that the subject is discussed in the play. Fully aware of danger of "shocking" sensitivities, which is not the motivation here, but hoping for best, I take the liberty to quote Wikipedia in this context I've out layed so far. Play also includes part called:
"Reclaiming Cunt, a piece narrated by a woman who illustrates that the word "cunt" itself is a lovely word despite its disconcerting connotations."

With degree from General Linguistics and life long interest in cultural studies, I suggest that the power of n-word and c-word to shock English speakers is for the very reason that racism and sexism are not resolved issues that English speaking cultures have dealt with, but because issues of racism and sexism are so alive and strong and inflammated in various forms, not least because of various forms of denial. The words per se are not the problem, but the problems they remind English speakers of and the emotions they give rise to. People with various hues of brow skin color who identify with 'Black' "race" and culture have no problem with the n-word when it stays in-group, and feminist writers and actors can at least to hope to use c-word in way that does not offend, and/or to lessen the power of a word to offend and anger through means of art.

[seabeyond]

118. when sexisim and racism is live and well, it is only giving credit of use to those that

use it as a weapon to degrade, demean, to dehumanize a human being. the word cannot be owned. it only empowers the negativity fo the word more allowing the more freedom of use.

sexism, misogyny is very much alive.... everywhere, and certainly in the u.s.

it is foolish to think that a woman can "own" a word used to hurt...

[tama]

119. In my experience

what hurts is intent to hurt, simple and direct as that. Emotional trigger mechanisms of words and their connotations etc. symbols can be very easily deactivated, especially when a hurt inside stops hurting self and others. When we stop nurturing and feeding our individual and cultural wounds and accept healing that happens by itself.

[seabeyond]

121. look, it is simple. none of them "hurt" me as an individual. but does as a gender.

i have also had a life where the men in my life are respectful to, and respectful of women. it is that simple. i do not have a single male in my life that would use any of these sexist phrases to abuse women.

and

that is not the point.

language matters. language creates. and what the language today creates is an societal, over all, blanket disrespect and dehumanizing females. and what we have seen over the last decade of hard ass work to dehumanize women is this manner is 20 steps backwards in the womans movement and our younger girls and boys buying into it. it allows the politicians to continually attack women in language desewntizing to such an extent that it is hardly noticed. the last fray of disrespectful discourse of women, even with the outrage, has just pushed the line in what is acceptable to say to women. it feeds. it effects hwo society, men and women, see women.

to pretend that it does not is part of the problem. as a parent we know how effective and manipulative language is with our kids. fox news certainly knows.

we pretend like it does not effect when we want to use it. but, when it is used against us, all of a sudden we are outraged.

we have repeated precedent how language conditions society and it truly amazes me that people continue to find excuses to embrace it.

obviously owning the words slut and bitch and ho has done nothing FOR us as a society. do we keep saying the same damn thing repeatedly even when it obviously is not true?

[tama]

136. "language matters. language creates."

Yes, and my background in general linguistics and work as translator and poet has taught me that it does so in more ways than we can imagine, and that all we can imagine language can create. But language is also sticky and slow to change like rest of nature. And the structures of English that we consider today morally harmful or offensive or rather reflecting and recreating such states go far beyond mere words and most plain and visible semantics. More devious and hard to cognize structures and meanings of self-recreation are on levels of syntax, morphology and even phonetics. Lots of feminist literature and academic and other study and art has concentrated on sexism in language during recent decades, it's worth getting into if you haven't already been doing that.

But there are also questions and possibilities of identities that can go beyond all identities of race, gender and nationality and even species. No identity or self-image is eternal and set in stone, and linguistic and symbolic identities are ultimately work of playful creation and exploration, which our children will continue. That is one of the main reasons why I don't believe that we need or should much concentrate protecting our children from the flood of information we consider harmful and negative, but in freedom to learn responsibility and of course also media savvy critical thinking and non-violent forms of communication if and when they get into stuff like that. And more aware of emotions, their causes and inter-actions.

My most valuable linguistic upbringing according to our ancestral tribal traditions consisted of being lied a lots of blatant lies by my mother and other relatives in rather humiliating ways, but always in good humor that didn't intend to really hurt, but just to ridicule so that I learn to be laughed at and laugh at myself with others without taking myself too seriously. Those have been good lessons for which I'm ever grateful for my late mother and our matrilinear etc. ancestral traditions. In her work in business life and local activist to protect cultural heritage of our home city she had to fight lot's of snotty patriarchal patronizing idiots and male egos. She soon found the wisdom of not trying to oppose them openly and especially to lose her cool, but always in good cheer she was master in feeding ideas that especially certain stupid alpha male types started to consider their own ideas taking credit for them. She wasn't in it for ego, but she was sure as hell proud of her feminine ability to manipulate what he considered weaker sex and get things done she considered really important. She was also a translator and poet, and as a feminist she was and is my role model.

She died a year ago and I miss her badly. Teary eyed now... thanks for a nice chat, friend.

[hlthe2b]

67. this is a safe haven group... Telling others to "leave and don't come back" that you disagree with .

is grounds for your being blocked from participation in this group. You may certainly offer your own opinions, but only in a civil manner.

I will give you a bit of time to edit your post. I hope that you comply.

hlthe2b
co-host, History of Feminism

[DontTreadOnMe]

80. You just drove me away from EVER participating in "your" group

way to win over people!

Go feel safe now.

[hlthe2b]

88. As you wish...

Certainly don't want you to feel you HAVE to be civil, now do we?

Member has been blocked consistent with his expressed intent and desire.

[seabeyond]

109. um. you made it damn clear that you had no interest even considering, let alone being won over.

it was all about telling women what to fuck accept cause it is your world.

[MadrasT]

79. No.

If people want to cling to their precious right to free speech, I claim the very same right to free speech when I speak up against it.

The "word police need to shut up" argument is an utter failure and inherently contradictory.

It essentially says "Other people can say whatever they want but you can't."

Hilarious, really.

[whathehell]

90. Stop telling people what to do..Words ARE policed here, duh, as you'll find out quickly if you

ever bothered to read the fucking rules and/or try to defame any of the "favored" groups.

And, no offense, bro, but who the fuck are YOU to tell me anything?...In case you haven't noticed,

I've been here a hell of a lot longer than you have, so maybe you should "leave and don't come back".

Get used to RULES, honey -- even the best democracies have them.

P.S. You might want to get used to Spell Check too, unless you think Carlin was named "Gorge".

[PassingFair]

146. Actually, he's been here since 2008....5 YEARS longer than you.

Which is weird.

[whathehell]

169. Nope, I've been here since 2008 as well.

You don't imagine I racked up 9,000 plus points in one year, do you?

[PassingFair]

172. Oops, I meant to type 2003 ....

Because he's actually been here since then.

[niyad]

110. on the other hand, if you don't like bad behaviour being called out, you are also free to leave

which, I see, you have. byeeeee

[whathehell]

171. Precisely. Bravo!

[Chemisse]

72. It seems to be referring to Cher, not the OP

But it is a pretty nasty word to call a woman.

[whathehell]

83. Yes, that's what I mean and it should NOT be accepted, just as other slurs are not. n/t

[demosincebirth]

85. I've seen a lot alerts sent about other subjects, especially degrading one's personal religious

beliefs and all have been "leave it." Now, when called for jury duty, except for trolls, I say "leave it."
We are all adults, I hope.

[whathehell]

93. How about alerting on slurs on race, ethnicity or sexual orientation?

Are you good with that, too?.

Just curious, but when did tolerance for bigotry, bullying and insults, start indicating that one

was an "adult".

[demosincebirth]

131. let me ask you something:what position do you take when a whole thread is devoted

to trashing a certain religion (s)? Do you speak up or do you join the fray?

[whathehell]

133. I most certainly DO step up

and I've been deionized, mocked, insulted, called a "fundy", a right wing troll, and had all manner of laughably

false assumptions made about me (I'm an agnostic) because of it

With all the religious forums on DU, I often wonder, in fact, why I'm generally so "alone" in the struggle.

[seabeyond]

134. bringing any kinda balance into the religious threads is as combative as going head on in a sexist

thread. it truly is.

i may not jump into those threads anymore, (i am tired of being beaten up and their posts allowed to stand), but, i am not in the sexist threads that much either, on du3 where there are no rules.

[whathehell]

143. Yep, in fact I think it may be worse.

Why are the bullies allowed to win?...As I just said on another post,

"no rules" will make this place pointless, as only the most aggressive,

insensitive, and bullying type personalites will be willing to post here....It will become

just another shit site like "Yahoo" or something.

[demosincebirth]

137. You're agnostic, just think how Catholics/Christians on Du feel stepping into a fray to defend

their faith?

I had you pegged wrong. Sorry.

[whathehell]

141. Believe me, that doesn't help...As I said, most of them

reference "Jesus" and tag me as some right wing fundamentalist.

I think people should simply stop ALLOWING insults. period.

Having said that, I do appreciate your apology.

[seabeyond]

113. i have never seen so many adults acquiesce responsibility in creating a world of sexism,

racism and homophobia. you are part of the problem.

[demosincebirth]

127. Are you the problem, also, I see, promoting religious bigotry on DU...and maybe else where.

[seabeyond]

130. no. i am not. i am consistent. i do not say things like, they let the sexist terms go so i

am going to let the racist, homophobic and yes, even religious slurs go. i think that is simply, childish behavior. and my conscious cannot allow me to turn my back on a group because the group i participate in is allowed to be demeaned, degraded continually.

[whathehell]

170. No, she's not part of the problem and she's not promoting any bigotry whatsoever.

[pnwmom]

92. I just read the series of tweets (?) and I will now admit that I would have had no idea

that there was a potential double meaning to the word "twat."

I would definitely have thought it was just some derivative of tweet, twit, etc.

I know the C- word, but not that T-word. Maybe the tweeter was just as naive as me.

[niyad]

112. generational differences, perhaps? I was certainly familiar with the word as a slur against women,

had never heard it used with reference to twitter.

[tama]

117. From what I've understood,

it also has different meanings in British English and American English. What the different meanings are exactly, I still don't really know as non-native speaker, because native speakers seemingly abhor to clearly explain.

[Major Hogwash]

105. Tell Skinner.

Send him a PM and the link to that thread.

That's all we can do now.

[whathehell]

145. Thanks for that suggestion...Yes, we will do this.

[chknltl]

135. To my fellow DUers who post in this group:

(While reading this very thread I sense a bit of discouragement, this very lengthy post is created in hopes of combating that).

First let me say: To those of you working hard to educate your fellow DUers about our subconscious acceptance of misogyny: THANK YOU. Thank you very much, you keep me grounded in reality, I suspect I am not the only DUer who can say that so please PLEASE keep at it and don't be discouraged.

My thoughts here come from my own growing but less than adequate enlightenment on the topic of misogyny. Combined with an education in cultural anthropology that is now decades old please take my counsel for what it is worth.

WE are all products of our culture.

I was once taught that aspects of and technologies within a culture can be charted graphically through time as a lens. On the left of this lens would be the origin of the technology or of the aspect of culture's practice. The lens thickens as the practice or technology gains acceptance and plateaus in the center where we find peak acceptance or use. Passing center our lens plateau narrows as the practice or technology falls out of use narrowing further to the right where it eventually ends as the aspect of culture or technology is no longer accepted.

Applying this chart to the culture of acceptance of using the 'n' word we find on the left of the lens the earliest use of the term back in the early 17th century America. As the word came into more common usage our lens thickens only to flatten out through the 18th, 19th and early 20th century where it was at its most common usage. As the word 'colored' comes to replace it early in the 20th century our lens begins to thin out again tapering even further as the word 'colored' begins to be replaced by the word 'black' during the mid 20th century. Our lens narrows even further through the 21st century as the 'n' word becomes utterly unacceptable by many of us.

The 'n' word's use as a crude slur will keep it active for a while longer but we can see our lens has narrowed out at this point, not quite to the same narrowness that it was back in the early 17th century but closing in on that.

From this example we see the lens model of a cultural change. The model works to track technological change even better, buggy whips and hulla hoops are almost complete lenses while 'smart phones' are still an incomplete open-ended lens.

My apologies for the length of this but it is important to me that you understand this lens model as it does apply to YOU and your efforts to bring about (much needed) cultural change to not only the Democratic Underground but to America and arguably to the world.

When it comes to misogyny and its ugly sister sexism, thanks to YOUR EFFORTS America is journeying past the center of the lens of cultural change. It may not seem like it to you because we are all mired thickly in our culture and can hardly look at it without our cultural blinders on! (This phenomenon even has a name, it is called 'cultural bias').

What you do here IS having an effect! Proof of this can be found by reading the escalating posts both pro and con on the myriad aspects of misogyny and sexism that YOU are revealing to us.

As awareness is the first step in bringing about deliberate change in the addicted, awareness of sub-conscious misogynistic words, terms and thinkings is filtering through the DU due to YOUR posts. (See how that works?)

We have a crudely honed sense of right and wrong within each of us. It took decades, and arguably a century for the majority of us to feel in our hearts that the use of the 'n' word is just plain WRONG. Many within our culture (sadly), would be hard pressed to say why its use is wrong but even they now accept its wrongness subconsciously.

We are still just getting there when it comes to misogyny and sexism. In my case, it is still easy to slip and post a misogynistic comment or a sexist joke. I sincerely thank you when YOU are there to call me out on it. I know in my heart the difference between right and wrong, misogyny is in the 'wrong' column for me. I will never see you as calling me out, instead I see you to be my safety net.

Of course others here will not perceive things this way. There will be those who challenge you for calling them out, this thread being example prime discussing that very item!

Like all of us, those who challenge you when called out for promoting misogyny are products of our culture, it is all taking place on a sub-conscious level for them. They are just as mired in our culture-our cultural bias as any of us. They too have a crudely honed sense of right and wrong and eventually most of them WILL 'get it' too. Arguably YOU have tasked yourselves to aid in that transition. (Thank you for that).

Do you see how this works and do you see your place in the bigger scheme of things? When it comes to misogyny and sexism, we are beginning to accept in our hearts that they are both WRONG. Most of YOU in this thread and this forum are beyond that, YOU easily get the comparison of sexism to racism!

Most of your fellow DUers may not be there yet but thanks to our sense of right and wrong, thanks to YOUR efforts and due to where we are on the lens of cultural change we are getting to where YOU are already at!

So keep hammering away at us and take courage in the knowledge that YOU are on the correct side of this much needed cultural change! Just don't despair over much because just like our usage of the 'n' word, this change YOU work so hard for can not happen overnight.

[seabeyond]

148. sigh...

this is such a kick ass post.... thru real thought and knowledge.

and it truly was really needed. by me anyway.

my husband and son were standing in the room when i opened your post. i read

(While reading this very thread I sense a bit of discouragement, this very lengthy post is created in hopes of combating that).

First let me say: To those of you working hard to educate your fellow DUers about our subconscious acceptance of misogyny: THANK YOU. Thank you very much, you keep me grounded in reality, I suspect I am not the only DUer who can say that so please PLEASE keep at it and don't be discouraged.

yes... i shouted out to the guys. and read it to them. we had a bit of conversation then i continued reading, only to realize you are a man. and said to hubby in amazement, this is a man who wrote this.

sigh

thank you for your post. you may not realize how important it was for me to read this. or, maybe you do realize how important it was for me to read this.

thank you

[chknltl]

152. Thank You For Your Service.

They say that to us veterans a lot lately. Many of us suffer PTSD. Well you don't have to have ever been in combat to be diagnosed with PTSD. I have it and never came within a thousand miles of a war zone. I spend a lot of time at my local VA hospital because I am diagnosed with it. I am around lots of other vets who have it even worse than me. It affects how we interact with .....well pretty much everything! It is the number one cause of suicide among us vets.
PTSD sucks.

Actually one does not even have to have been in the military to suffer from PTSD. There is no doubt in my mind that being born a female in much of the world, from the earliest moments of recorded history right on through to today, means a significantly higher risk of getting PTSD than one would think. It would not surprise me to learn that the majority of women on this planet who reach the age of thirty, suffer from some form of PTSD!

You, and those like you who post in this forum, those of you who are fighting for what you already know is a much needed cultural shift, are NOT taking the status quo as being static.
This fight is generational, the changes are imperceptible because it goes on so slowly AND because we have our cultural blinders on.

In a very real sense we can thank the GOP for escalating hostilities. They wake America up to the utter wrongfulness of 'what was' and 'what still is', forcing even more of us, both male and female to rise, to do combat against them in order to bring about the cultural change we sense needs to happen.

Most of us men may not get what I am trying to say here but deep inside we begin to feel it. We do NOT want our mothers, sisters aunts cousins friends daughters wives and etc being treated like....well less than human frankly. Thanks to the feminists, we are waking up to it and deep inside we don't want to see the suffering! From this position of selfishness, many of us join the battle for true equality when an opportunity presents itself.

It is still the feminists who lead the fight, I was awakened by a fellow DUer, a feminist. We had a pretty good fight, I tried to be civil but with hindsight I was just another dumb-ass spouting crap that I was culturally ingrained to spout. She was patient with me and in the end my eyes were opened....just a little bit.

Once opened there was no turning back-there will be no turning back. I may be a guy but before that I am a human being! I can see a little of the suffering you, who are my fellow humans are going through. For those of you who fight back, for those of you who choose to battle for true equality, I now cheer you on and accept your leadership when it is offered. You have been in the fight a hell of a lot longer than I and understand it from a vantage point I can never fully appreciate.

The PTSD was rampant in this thread, it is why I offer up what moral support I can. Now that you understand where I am coming from, you can understand why I chose the title to this post. To you and to all the feminists out there fighting the good fight: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE!

[seabeyond]

160. I may be a guy but before that I am a human being!

bottom line.

this was another insightful post, very interesting.

thanks. again. lol.

[whathehell]

159. Thank you so very, very much.

I don't currently have the time to respnd fully to your post, to do it justice, but I've read

enough to see your depth and sincerity and now the tears are coming. You have NO idea how rare and precious

your words, words of understanding, good faith and empathy are to me, and, I think

I can say, to all of us.

[Drunken Irishman]

153. Stephen Colbert coined the term 'twat' as a form of 'tweet'...

[whathehell]

154. Actually, he said "twatted" and the snickering response makes it's sexist meaning clear.

[seabeyond]

155. i love colbert. he also has no problem at all using sexist terms.

are you suggesting this makes it really about tweeting?

[Drunken Irishman]

156. I think it's a play on words...

Since twat is a similar sounding word to tweet or twit. I don't think he's trying to be sexist when using it, and certainly isn't targeting women, but rather just using a salty word to get a laugh.

[seabeyond]

158. " just using a salty word to get a laugh". absolutely targeting women and purposely sexist by

" just using a salty word to get a laugh"

he used a sexist term, well aware what he was doing, at the expense of women, to get a laugh.

again, it does not make me dislike that man. it shows how willing we are to use degrading language toward women for a laugh... or any other reason we can justify.

[Drunken Irishman]

161. He did use the term...but I don't think his intent was to be sexist...

I think that is a big difference. It doesn't justify it, but I don't automatically think of Stephen Colbert as sexist for it.

[seabeyond]

165. "no problem at all using sexist terms". i do not imagine he is sexist, either.

that is why i am stating, used sexist term, and not calling him a sexist.

a lot of people use sexist slurs, and they are not sexist.

i can agree with that.

but, that just feeds into the misogyny. and it is what is happening today that i think allows an environment for the repugs to do what they are doing.

but again, i think for the third time i will say, i do love me some colbert. he is very witty, fast thinking, funny

[whathehell]

178. How does one determine "intent"?

Maybe Colbert wasn't "intending" to be sexist, but frankly, it's immaterial. With most of these guys

they're not necessarily "intending" to be hurtful, it's more a matter of "not caring" if they are;

the feelings of women are something they just don't think about much....It's a "low priority"

and that's because the CULTURE in general is run by men and leans toward what THEY want and like,

we women are very much an afterthought -- unless they can make money on us, of course.

Generally speaking, though, this business of using offensive words but claiming "innocence"

is bs.....Do you know how many times white people have used the N-word and then said

"but I'm not racist"?

[seabeyond]

179. it's more a matter of "not caring" if they are;

Last edited Tue Aug 28, 2012, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

this is really the bottom line. and the men tell us this enough, that though obvious, is just simple knowledge. we hear it repeatedly. so lets not pretend it is something else, when it is to the mans advantage. he willingly, clearly, forcefully, repeatedly say it to us they do not care when that meets his wants.

good post.

[whathehell]

180. Thanks, Seabee

and please don't think I have overlooked you pm -- Quite the contrary...I find it VERY interesting

and I just waiting to be able to give myself enough time to reply in a way that does it justice.

[seabeyond]

181. it was info. put out. messy, too, lol.

it doesnt warrant or not warrant a reply. i get that. it is all cool

[whathehell]

182. No, It's definitely getting feedback from me.

I was VERY surprised at what you've told me and I defintiely have more

to say and ask about.

[seabeyond]

183. k. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

157. I've served 45 times and though 90% of

the time I've coincided with the jury, like in the courts it's baffling how people reach conclusions on some things.To me it's obviously misogynistic, some here on DU find the most caustic way to say things.

[whathehell]

163. Thanks for that, orpupilofnature57.

This site IS full of angry, caustic people, and it does seem to be deteriorating.

You're successfully married to someone of a completely different religious viewpoint,

and maybe that is what's helped make you one of the kinder, wiser people here.

[orpupilofnature57]

164. Thanks, that's very kind.

[whathehell]

173. You're more than welcome, orpupil - I'm just telling the truth as I see it.

[TorchTheWitch]

166. misogyny has always been a staple of DU

And why I never have and never will give one damn penny to this site.

I wish I was surprised. I'm not surprised at all. Not one single bit.

[ismnotwasm]

167. Wow

Work 12 hours and miss all this? What's up with all the visits to the history of feminism forum over a word? Why bother? I see critiques of the 'word police' nasty ass comments, some decent discussion, but mostly a lot of trouble making from folk who usually don't bother to comment here.

Anyway, since I'm dog tired and the fights just about over, my contribution is to look for the etymology of the word 'twat'.

I found this page. Interesting reading.

Almost all legitimate dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary and the Unabridged Merriam-Webster, mark the rude slang word as “of obscure origin” or “origin unknown.” I don’t think so. My personal etymological proposal below is clear, cogent and concise.

The word twat is related to the Old Norse word thveit ‘a piece of land’ but literally in Old Norse ‘a piece cut off’ or more provocatively for our modern slang word, ‘a place cut up,’ a place of cutting,’ ‘a place cut off.’ The Old Norse verb thvita ‘to cut off’ had a relative in Old English thwitan ‘to cut off.’

By this explanation, a twat is a woman’s “cut,”a woman’s piece. Twat may hark back to an ancient chauvinist notion of the most ignorant anatomy in which primitive men, observing female genitals, thought the pudendum was the wound site of something cut off by nature, namely a penis! Similar thoughts abide in modern slang terms like gash.

And, although Freud’s ‘penis envy’ has been repudiated by most psychiatrists as an artifact of rather oinky Viennese provenance, we know from some vaginal words in other languages that this was a not uncommon notion in the minds of the ruling primitive men who made some of the world’s earliest words and thought some of the world’s earliest primitive thoughts.

We have existing evidence of Old Norse thveit becoming Scots twat in the Scottish place name discussed below.

http://www.billcasselman.com/unpublished_works/twat.htm

[seabeyond]

168. vulgar term for a woman’s privates.when ranking crudity and rudeness, twat is not quite as offensive

as the c word.

a bunch of primitive thinking the womans body an open wound cause a penis was cut off

right

nothing offensive there.

lighten up women.

thanks ism.... you have had a long day.

[patrice]

176. There are people who think "stupid" is a legitimate critique; apparently you don't "get it". Let's

Let's see if I can get there from here:

There is a perspective that says ANY and all speech is, or should be, acceptable and they only way that we are going to get there, i.e. get to that acceptability, i.e. a situation in which anyone can say anything and everyone else can deal with whatever is said appropriately (validly, functionally, rationally and emotionally constructive ((which implies deconstructively as an initial pre-REQUISITE))) ... that is, the only way that we are going to get there is by going ahead and doing it: say anything and let the reactions to all of that just go ahead and work themselves out. Sound familiar? Kind of like laissez faire Capitalism?

Because I know that intellectual development does not develop without challenge, I have some sympathy for the point-of-view sketched above, BUT - this perspective is built upon the presumption that everyone has the same aptitudes and opportunities to work their reactions to words, like "twat" or like the n-word, out to achieve for themselves as individuals valid, functional, rational, constructive etc. processing and, even if they don't have those opportunities and, thus, suffer and cause suffering in their more dysfunctional reactions, that's all okay, because even that will result in the best forms of adaptation and growth . . . . wherein lies the flaw in this line of reasoning and why, therefore, I have adapted it for myself in ways that I consider more honest and therefore valid.

People bring different tools to their abilities to process language, images, and memes. Some people have enough of what it takes to experience challenges and to net-out some form of development, growth, improved personal functionalities. Others don't and to say that doesn't matter presumes that those who don't, those who cannot process certain words or memes, are not near, nor will ever achieve, critical mass, such that their dysfunctions inhibit the functional development of others. I think the no-holds-barred free speech proponents either don't consider this possibility, or they don't care.

Perhaps you recognize the rational argument that prohibits "shouting fire in a darkened crowded theater without enough exits" (or with exits that are not identified. I think this case has relevance not only to free-speech, but also to gun-ownership, financial regulation, and attitudes toward sexuality.

So, what to do when one encounters loaded terminology like "twat"? If the basic value is that people should become as functional as possible, hiding from challenges does not help them do that. OTH, if a person hasn't learned algebra, no matter how many times you demand (by far most) of them do algebra, all you're going to get is pain and frustration and a hatred for algebra. Therefore, challenges MUST be challenges, but they also MUST be appropriate challenges, which in an environment such as DU, is nearly impossible, because we are on the internet and the possibility of causing pain is, to all practical intents and purposes, nearly infinite.

I don't think this excuses us from challenge, but I do think it means something other than just throwing whatever words and images and memes out there without ANY concern for the damage that they can cause and which then systemically oppresses others, making them also incapable of responding functionally to such challenges too and, thus also, "necessitating" further censorship.

[caseymoz]

186. I would vote to hide it.

I have to admit, it took me longer thinking about it than I've taken on any jury. Here's why:

At best, the most charitable we can be of the poster's intentions is that it wasn't an insult aimed at anyone, it was a joke.

So, it's entertainment.

As a entertainment, it might make some people laugh a little, at the cost of some other people having their blood pressure rise.

Also, as entertainment, the poster intended that the word doesn't mean anything, therefore we can drop it from the discussion without any loss.

So, if won't be missed, would it do more harm to leave it there? I think so. Reason is: it erodes discussion here closer to the level where the word becomes accepted, as an insult, with it's usual meaning.

Also, the comedy was slight. It offends more people than it entertains.

So, I would have voted to hide it. I'm not sure I would have voted that way an hour ago. I try to defer to free speech, being a writer and all.

[whathehell]

189. Nice to hear and

your reasoning is sound.