I've been gone a few days swamped at work and this is what I come back to?

[TeamsterDem]

87. You're missing all of the points I've made, I'd argue intentionally

With respect to Bob McDonnell, I was saying that although he doesn't say the word (in public) he's passing laws which are horrifically sexist. Objectively so: They demean women based entirely upon their gender. That's sexism. Your argument is that if a man ever utters the C word he's automatically a sexist, wholly failing to account for his motivations behind the word, and ignoring that most sexists who have actual impact on women's lives don't even say the word.

No one in the world could reasonably or credibly say that a white person saying the N word "wasn't thinking racist thoughts" because the word literally only has that definition; there's no "good way" of saying it; there's no "innocent" definition. So no, there is no equivalence between the C and N words. None. One is literally ALWAYS meant to degrade a person based upon their race, the other has no less than 3 common uses - only one of them being sexist. Try as you might you simply can't make the two words the same because of that very difference: That one has no "innocent" definition whereas the other does. And when there are multiple possibilities in a given situation, defaulting to the worst of them is a judgment, likely one made by you about the gender of the speaker. In a way it's sexism, you're assuming that men simply aren't capable of using the other 2 definitions, that they simply must be using the other either because you're incapable or unwilling of grasping the difference, or because you think men are thusly uncapable.

And what I note you're rather reticent about, that women ALSO use the word. Why the silence? Could it be because that necessarily refutes your argument? Or is it that you think women should have a right to that word that men don't? Why? Wouldn't that be a form of sexism? If not, why? I thought we wanted equality of the sexes, not that one would have special privileges that the other doesn't also enjoy. That wouldn't be equality, it'd be an ersatz societal experiment in which we call inherent inequality its opposite and hope no one notices the striking hypocrisy.

You most certainly do not have the right to call me a sexist. I am not a sexist in any way, shape, or form. I don't accept *YOUR* interpretation of that word, nor do I accept *YOUR* supposition that it's universally offensive in that way irrespective of intent. You don't have the right to tell me that if I don't speak in the way you like that you get to label me with a term which demeans and defames my character. I haven't done that to you, and I resent you doing it to me as callously as you've done.

I'm perhaps the perfect feminist inasmuch as I want absolute equality. I want women to be paid EXACTLY the same for the same job. I want women to have EXACTLY the same opportunities that a man has. I want women to be considered by men as equals in EVERYTHING. I don't want women being singled out by laws based upon their gender, as I wouldn't want to be singled out by laws for being a man. That is equality, and it's the cornerstone of what being a feminist is. Not some silly insulation from a multiple-definition word which many women use to each other AND in reference to us. That wouldn't be equality. In fact I don't even know what that would be called. What you want is some fantasy world in which every group offended by some word gets to libel the speaker ... well actually not even the speaker in this case, you've libeled me and I never even said the word. Where you got that sense of grand entitlement I have no idea, but please note that some of us see it for what it is. And what it is is pathetic.