Political Correctness vs. The strength and security to joke on each other

After witnessing an altercation on a thread in the DU Lounge where a joke on women was pulled by the moderators after some posters started complaining about its "misogynistic" nature, I was compelled to start this thread.

I was under the impression that we, the posters in Democratic Underground, were adults capable of seeing the humor behind jokes on the sexes. I mean, man and woman are different and if we ever fully understood each other, there would be no marriage problems or singles in America today. Like everything else, we sometimes make fun of it all. Some of the jokes can get raunchy as well.

There are some people here who don't want to see the humor in it, but would instead declare it "misogynistic" or "man-bashing." It is as if you can't poke at them or try to crack one without getting accused of being some kind of hateful bastard. How do you sense that? If I used the word "cunt," or if I made a joke on the female anatomy or made several references to "pussy" in a conversation, does this mean that, oh this jerk Rationality must hate women? Of if a woman made some joke on men, would that automatically make her some kind of raging man-hater? If you read the title of this thread, you already know how I feel about this; I find such attitude to be an indicator of insecurity toward your own gender, if not just toward life in general, or perhaps, an indication that the man/woman hater is YOU.

Now, I expect someone to say that it's just as bad as race-baiting, or making fun of certain cultures. To that I respond that again, how do you make that determination? I've heard so many redneck jokes from friends of mine who live with families that can be easily described as "rednecky" (does Jeff Foxworthy remind you of anything?). Then we have the jokes on blacks, Mexicans, Orientals, Jews... white people too. Where was the white man's rage when they were told that they can't jump? Do we see many blacks respond angrily to jokes on them seen in Hollywood or heard among their non-black neighbors?

At least on this board, why is this militant anti-sexism (for lack of a better gender-neutral phrase) so prevalent? Why can't any of you see the jokes in their context before you scream "sexism?" Do you really think stamping down humor is going to make it any better for you, because all you're doing is agitating everyone and introducing real tensions where none existed.

Edit: This argument is stemming from this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=1206610

The joke as well as the initial complaint were pulled so I can't describe exactly how it went, but it was about par with what you'd see on a South Park cartoon.

Do you really think stamping down humor is going to make it any better for you, because all you're doing is agitating everyone and introducing real tensions where none existed.

Sure, then why don't I just put up with a little slap and tickle in the office? If I fight back, it'll just create real tension for everyone.

I don't know what joke you're referring to, as I didn't see the thread. I can take some jokes about women, but others go over the line into misogyny. And if you think teasing the dominant group is exactly the same as teasing the subordinate group, I'd like you to explain why there's a common English word for hatred of women -- misogyny -- but no corresponding word for hatred of men. Misanthropy is hatred of all human beings.

that's the best word for it. It wasn't funny.

"don't pretend you you like it"

- The simpsons

n/t

If what you are saying offends someone else, then it is offensive. There is no definition of that word outside of that. I think that a women's right to surf this board without feeling offended is greater than the right to joke about genders.

"I think that a women's right to surf this board without feeling offended is greater than the right to joke about genders."

I agree emotionally.

But freedom of speech is protected, whereas freedom from feeling offended is not.

Of course, this is a monitored board owned by a private entity - so freedom of speech really doesn't apply here. And that's OK with me.

The ONLY guarantee to free speech in the Constitution is that the GOVERNMENT can't censor your speech. There's simply no nexus between Constitutional guarantees and this discussion AT ALL. None, zero, zip, nada.

Yes, you correctly identified this as a privately-owned board so their rules apply, but I'm taking one step further: it doesn't even come CLOSE to applying. It's a different animal all together.

Further, the type of speech you want to be able to engage in, unrestricted, is harmful to slightly more than half of the world's population. When you engage in speech that denigrates women as a class (which includes using anti-woman stereotypes even if aimed at only an individual woman), you are giving the whole rest of the world "permission" to ACT on the lower-status women have in this world.

Do you really want that on your shoulders? Do you want the pay inequities, employment discrimination, war on reproductive freedom, rapes, domestic violence and the stalking and killing of women, forced slavery and prostitution, rape as a tool of war, on and on to be on your shoulders? YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM if you are not part of the solution. Giving up a few of your favorite "words" seems to me a small price to pay.

It is NOT a fucking free speech issue in any way, shape or form. It's a matter for too many women of life and death, and for ALL women it's a matter of a lesser life versus a fully equal life.

You're reading way too much into my post.

First of all, I never said I wanted to take part in 100% unrestricted speech. Even I understand the limitations of free speech. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Second, you're saying that by stating the fact that no-one has a right NOT to be offended in life that I am somehow harming 50% of the world's population and endorse denigrating women.

Third,....oh forget it, you're way over the top for me to continue.

Wow.

Take care.

This site is over-regulated and flinchy about word 'offense' mainly to prevent verbal road rage. The jacket-and-tie dress speech code is a bit snug around the neck.

Being anonymous and faceless here can lead to the same kind of inhumanity that became evident at Abu Ghraib-unaccountable venting and recreational abuse.

But the idea that you have a right not to be offended is absurd.

Offense, unlike physical contact like Ahnuld Shwarzengroper's molesting of atleast 16 women, is in the ear of the beholder and can't be consistently regulated or prevented.

See my other posts. It's not really about a few people feeling "offended." This particular type of "offensiveness" has a NAME -- sexism. There's a reason it has a name, and that's because it's been used as a tool to keep women "less than" and oppressed.

There are plenty of things that get posted here at DU that offend me, and I'm sure every single other DUer feels the same way. Our individual lists would be quite, well, individual. We don't get to complain to the moderators and have them removed. HOWEVER, the types of "offensive" that fit the definitions of sexism, or racism or homophobia or anti-Semitism or religious bigotry DO get removed. Why? Because it goes way beyond offending individual sensibilities to harm whole classes of people.

Get it?

I don't know what the original 'sexist' thread or joke was.
Maybe that leaves me out of context and off-target in the discussion.

Guess the only point I'm trying to posit is that there aren't clear cut lines about what is sexist, racist, homophobic although of course I approve of condemning them, just without deleting them.

Isn't the argument for free speech out in the real world that the best response to percieved hostile words are words of condemnation along with discourse on the topic to enlighten all? That's what I wish was the official policy on the site, not censorship.

The only post I had deleted by moderators was in response to Ann Coulter calling Max Cleland a fraud. I used the 'c-word' to describe her in heated disgust and this was deleted with a note about sexist language as the reason.

I wrote to the moderators that I didn't see messages being pulled for calling a man a dick or a prick or a weenie or any number of male anatomy analogies. What was the difference and where was the consistency? No response and, sadly, none expected. Heck, I think men deserve respect, too.

There is much offense taken at just being admonished for being offensive!

I wrote to the moderators that I didn't see messages being pulled for calling a man a dick or a prick or a weenie or any number of male anatomy analogies. What was the difference and where was the consistency? No response and, sadly, none expected. Heck, I think men deserve respect, too.

Sigh.

Here's the difference: men have an advantage in this world that women do not have. You cannot harm the power or standing of the class known as men by a few negative anatomy-based words tossed around. It'll never happen. That's one reason it's called "Male Privilege." Men have an automatic "leg up," so to speak, that women do not have. Male privilege exists and continues to because women continue to be dehumanized, dissed, put down, and discriminated against as a class and as individuals who belong to that class.

So, while I can agree with you that men deserve respect too, MEN FUCKING ALREADY HAVE MORE RESPECT JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN THAN MOST WOMEN WILL EVER HAVE.

Put another way: when women are fully equal, come back to me and we'll talk about your concern about those words being used re men.

For the record, I rarely if ever use those words myself and don't much appreciate seeing them tossed around here. It's one of those "I find this offensive" situations, discussed in another post in response to another DUer, that makes not a hill o' beans to anyone but me and you and a few others perhaps. IOW: nothing will come of the fact that you and I find them offensive. I don't expect that and neither do you.

But please don't imagine to yourself that the impact of using these words re men is anywhere close to being equivalent when female-gender-specific insults are used re women (or men, for that matter -- using "sissy" and similar words to refer to men is sexist too). There IS no equivalency in your argument. None.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Put another way: when women are fully equal, come back to me and we'll talk about your concern about those words being used re men."

Are you saying we shouldn't be concerned about certain words being used against men until we women have full equality? So it's okay to maintain the status quo when it pertains to men but we have to be up in arms when it pertains to women?

Sexism is sexism whether it's used against women or against men. Neither are right.

That kind of thinking is verboten around these parts! :evilgrin:

Sexism is sexism whether it's used against women or against men. Neither are right.


Not true.

Socialogically speaking (not "dictionary definitions" which cannot explain the whole reality -- for example, the dictionary definition of "orange" cannot convey the essence of what an orange is) --

Sexism is a SYSTEM OF OPPRESSION -- institutionalized, pervasive throughout all of society pretty much around the world (some tribal groups are excluded) which works to keep women "less than," subjected to less than full equality, and in some places far worse. Men are not and cannot be subjected to anything approaching this systemic oppression as a class. Therefore, gender-based insults against men is NOT sexism.


Are you saying we shouldn't be concerned about certain words being used against men until we women have full equality? So it's okay to maintain the status quo when it pertains to men but we have to be up in arms when it pertains to women?


Not really. I think civil discourse is important and I don't like to see anyone victiminzed.

However, what I am saying is that men always like to haul out their own problems whenever women's issues and concerns are raised. "But men are raped too." "But men are physically abused in domestic violence cases too."

It's a red herring. Yes, some of the bad things that happen to women can and indeed do also happen to men. But the percentages of men who fall victim to these ills is so incredibly small compared to what women experience that the argument is not only ridiculous, it's insulting -- AND it's a cruel distraction from the epidemics of these types of violence against women.

So forgive me but no, I don't really care all that much when men try to claim victim status for those issues for which they're almost NEVER a victim and women are victims in, as I said, absolutely epidemic proportions. FURTHER, when men ARE the victims in these types of situations, it's more usually than not that other men (not women) are the perpetrators.

I think the difference between the use of the c-word and the use of prick, dick, etc. is that the c-word has traditionally been applied, by men, to "uppity" women, as a way to keep them in their place.
The reverse is simply not true.

The reason it is so offensive is that for so long it's been so effective. Men have always been the ruling gender. Women have never had the power. We do not have the ability to degrade you, control you, or keep you in your place, by sneeringly referring to you as a "dick". We do not have that type of power. We may call you a dick, but it's just not that searingly hurtful to you, is it?

As a white person, I could sit and wonder what the big deal is with the N-word. It's just a word, right? But surely you can see that to black people it is WAY more than that. And there is a big difference with a white person calling someone a "nigger" and a black person calling someone a "honky". For a white guy or gal, being called a "honky" is just not that big of a deal, is it? Because it's never had the power to define us.

Equating c**t to dick or prick is really just trying to compare beer to gin. There is no comparison.

We should be judging the message and the words by context rather than through mere face value.

As for words like "nigger," it had a great power through the civil rights era, but today you can hear entertainers use it every third sentence and it's no more powerful than saying "motherfucker." However, if the ear wants to be offended, s/he's giving it power. Same principle applies to a kid getting picked on at school. Usually ignoring it can blunt the impact. Replying with a clever one-up can even make the teasing more of a game than an attempt at bullying. Crying, complaining, and tattling to the teacher, though, will only make the teasing effective.

then go to the nearest largely black populated area and start calling everyone you see a nigger. It's just a word, right? Who could possibly be upset about it?

Report back and let us know how that went, would you?

What's a mulatto?

If you saw me in person I'd appear hispanic though.

Have one of your white friends conduct the same experiment, and see how that works for them. Try to tell me it won't matter. It's just a word, right?

To a group you don't know, which does include DU. I mean doing what you're suggesting would be similiar to saying "the joke in question" to a room full of hardcore feminists.

Eloriel:
"You cannot harm the power or standing of the class known as men by a few negative anatomy-based words tossed around."

bunnyj:
"We may call you a dick, but it's not that searingly hurtful, is it?"

You both equated the historical power men have had over women with making words spoken to an individual man as irrelevant to his self-worth.

You both just validated the idea of reverse-sexism.
Wow. Even I didn't expect you to display that in tandem.

Listen. You have moved on to reveal your own fixated outrage over male dominance of women causing you to treat men as a privilaged offensive group who don't warrant being treated as individuals!!

Sound familar?

You're preaching to the ONLY boy in high school who took the Women's Studies class in 1976 along with 50 girls. My mother was sexually-harassed in the work place and school and prided herself on being one her generation's first 'liberated feminists.' She had to leave an abusive husband.

I learned about male violence from a stepfather who beat me viciously my entire childhood. School bullies beat me all through college.

My girlfriend was raped by someone I knew at work. My best friend had attacked her, too.

My other girlfriend was molested by a DOCTOR while she was injured and I went in to chew him out and HIS FEMALE BOSS who said he did it all the time and 'it was harmless.'

I just spent several days sitting in a poor people's clinic while my pregnant fiance got maternity care. I was surrounded by pregnant teenage Mexican girls with no males in attendance. I read the many pamphlets about domestic violence the nurse said was so common in the community it depressed her.

When a miscarriage was diagnosed, the over the counter pills to induce passing the dead fetus came with nonsensical directions about some other drug because it is illegal to prescribe them due to Republican pandering to the Christian Right wingnuts that affects women's healthcare programs in this country and around the world.

When my fiance was pregnant and disablingly nauseous, she said "if men carried babies in their bodies, they wouldn't be so quick to go to war and destroy lives."

My landlady next door with two children just had to get a restraining order against her abusive husband and has to sell the house since he cut off all child support. My place wasn't registered with the zoning board and I had to move out twice to fake an inspector so she could sell the house and rescue her family from impending bankruptcy.

I'm one of the few people she can talk to about it while she works seven days a week to survive.

So don't preach to me about the plight of women! I'm living with the consequences and doing what I can to protect the women around me from abusive male culture.

I hope you have learned something about men from this post. And yourselves. We are on the same side and you need to reflect on your own attitudes, ok?

I thought I was respectfully trying to explain the difference. I guess that went over your head.

Now, YOU read this carefully: I can assure you, with 100% certainty, that calling me a c**t will be much more hurtful to me as a PERSON AND A WOMAN than calling you a dick would ever be to you as a person or a man. It is inherent in the very word c**t. If you do not see that, you need to get over your own fixated version of what is male dominance.

I am sorry that the women in your life have had such misfortune. Nevertheless,I hope you have learned something about women from this post. But there is stil room for you to examine your own attitude, 'kay?



Being patronized sucks, don't it?

I don't neccessarily agree with everything you and Eloriel said , however , based on usage alone there is a big difference between common male based terms , gender neutral ones (like asshole for example) , and even other female based terms (the term bitch is slightly less offensive... or so I perceive based on common female reaction).

I hear you being angry at percieved patronizing. Maybe I my tone stemmed from feeling patronized myself, hence my lengthy testimonial.

But I don't understand what you wrote.

It appeared to me that you and Eloriel had tried to explain that since men dominate women, insulting men was not significant, along with lengthy descriptions of the victim status of women as a group which I agreed with and corroborated with my own very personal testimonial.

And here you just said it again. 'If you can't see that I'm right, than you should check your bad self out.'

Can you elaborate beyond 'believe me, I'm a woman.' ??

You would have to actually be a woman to truly understand it. Just as you would have to be non-white to truly understand racism. It is fine for us to empathize, and truly believe that we know how it feels, but the fact is, we don't. If you haven't walked in those shoes, you cannot fully understand the impact of the words.

We ARE on the same side in this, hopefully we can all work toward greater understanding. Peace.

It seems clear to me that the c-word is indeed typically used in a more hateful way. It isn't a common curse word. It is one that is "saved" to be used in the most hurtful, hateful situations.

"Men don't ask for directions", "women take too long to get ready"
The so-called joke in the Lounge thread was mean and about a subject that has been used to put down and separate women since biblical times.

We can debate whether or not it would be safe for children to listen to, but in context there was nothing particularly hateful about it.

n/t

Clearly what was written was offensive. The appropriate thing for you to do is rethink your definition of offensiveness, not attack others because they dared to be offended by something you think is not offensive.

If I recall correctly, the joke had something to do with never trusting anything that bleeds but doesn't die. Or something like that.

If you cannot see how some could find that offensive, then there is probably not much that could change your mind. Just remember, the ruling majority often has problems identifying with the oppressed minority. To many in the latter category, there is nothing funny about it. Labeling it as PC run amok may relieve your conscience, but doesn't make the problem go away.

whether it was offensive enough to be removed, including the Moderator(s).

Wonder why that is? Could it be that your take on it is, um, shall we say "less evolved" that it ought to be for participation here at DU? (And believe me, the bar is set pretty damn low on that score where sexism and racism -- and some would say homophobia -- are concerned.)

... why do I even pay attention?

When somebody posts something I feel shows insensitivity, which I equate with morans, I put them on ignore.

before trying to snuff us out.

As such, I really don't have anything to add to what you said, except that far too many liberals need to LOOSEN THE FUCK UP!!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...sad

I shoot the shitwith Nightrain on DU. Yet, all I know about him is he lives in CT and digs music and has an italian background.

Yet, from one post you've made a decision on his whole life.

If he's male, he benefits from Male Privilege. If he's white, he benefits from White Male Privilege.

Didn't read any of the links, didja?

Shall I atone for the sin of being male by castrating myself and FedExing you my genitals?

Hating men doesn't help anything. Nor does hating white men. I'm a white male and quite poor at the moment.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and you've done some volunteer work, your sexism is okay. I get it.

I salute you if what you say you've done (volunteer work, etc.) is true. But it doesn't give you a pass on your dismissive treatment of women's concerns about sexist jokes here at DU. Sorry, it just doesn't. And, as someone else pointed out, that very dismissiveness is itself sexist since that's one of the classic "defenses" any time women's concerns are brought up.

Nor does it change the fact that if you're male, you DO benefit from Male Privilege. Period. One of the benefits of Male Privilege is not having to even see its existence.

As for classism, I despise it myself. Do I benefit from it? You bet. Do I do what I can to minimize the benefit I get from it? I try. One of my first experiences of it was when my first husband completed OCS (back in the early 70s). The next time I took my son to the Army Medical Clinic, that "2nd Lt" on our Medical cards completely changed the way I was treated. Suddenly, the Army doctors figured I had a brain. Suddenly, I got more respect than ever before. It was appalling and disgusting to me. And a valuable lesson. I was enraged then, and I'm enraged now.

But none of that has to do with sexism. What I would hope people who believe they are as sensitive to the issues as you are would understand is that it's ALL of a piece -- racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, ageism, ableism, etc., etc. -- they're all used to keep certain classes of people down. AND, they're used too to pit SOME people's concernsagainst other people's concerns. Why are you buying into that crap?

May I see it?

Perhaps because I inadvertently earned the trust of those women who lived at the shelter, Eloriel assumed that I was taking advantage of the emotionally vulnerable in an attempt to get laid? :shrug:

Wouldn't be the first time somebody as sensitive as a safecracker's fingers had misinterpreted my compassion as being something more sinister! :eyes:

That penis is nothing more than the creation of woman haters everywhere.

used to ignore women's concerns instead of hearing them and dealing with them. And this one's pretty insulting too. But you knew that. Let's see, you've done the dismissive treatment ("lighten the fuck up"), now ridicule. Which one is next?

You've been ranting, raving, on and on, and people are getting turned off by your hypociritical screaming over this subject.

Also, you openly declare that misandry isn't anything to worry about. By doing that, you lose credibility.

Seems to me you're the main one "turned off." Wonder why that is?

Such as "Don't worry your pretty little head about it" that you posted to me before?

So, does being a woman give you the right to be a hypocrite as well? Sorry, I'm a bit rusty on the rules.

Please tell me you are incapable of recognizing the sarcasm inherent in using a patronizing phrase which has been stereotypically used against women in a discussion with a man? If you interpret that as "hypocirsy," Lord knows I can't help you.

Until you burn up all that hatred and join those who fight the just cause.

Despite the claim of another poster in this thread, there actually is a word in the English lauguage for man-hating.

You know, we could go back and forth about this all weekend, but I have other things to do with my limited leisure time--like prepare for my upcoming move. So I hope you'll forgive me if I stop engaging in this intellectual masturbation and do something constructive instead.

but I could probably be persuaded to go all the way. Keep working on it.

Good luck with your move. And your masturbation ( :wtf: ), I guess.

If I used the word "cunt," or if I made a joke on the female anatomy or made several references to "pussy" in a conversation, does this mean that, oh this jerk Rationality must hate women?

You bet your ass. A lot of anti-woman sentiment out there masquerades as "jokes." (In fact, one of the easiest ways to demonize and DEHUMANIZE a target population is ridicule, aka: JOKES and caricatures. See for example Nazi "comic books" about the Jews.) Some of it masquerades as pornography. Some of it masquerades as job discrimination, pay inequality, etc. Some of it masquerades as the "pro-life" movement. Some of it masquerades as rape, domestic abuse and other violence against women.

There is no separation between sexist language, even in "jokes," even if innocently proffered, and the worst types and effects of anti-woman discrimination. ALL of it is of a piece. Your use of what I consider some of the ugliest and most hurtful words in the English language -- along with nigger, for example -- not only betrays your attitudes toward women, it helps anchor all the other types of sexism in existence, up to and INCLUDING the wholesale, mindless, war crime killing of brown women and their children in Iraq. Your anti-woman attitudes may be so deeply embedded that you're not fully conscious of them, but they're there for all the world to see. If you didn't hold anti-woman attitudes, you wouldn't think to use those words (or if you did, you'd think better of it quick), and you certainly wouldn't be defending your use of them.

Language like that and sexist remarks of any kind have NO place on a progressive discussion board.

I'm weary of reading the same old fights here over and over again, and I thank you for taking the time to rebut each one as they arise. I do not have the strength for it.

You mentioned in a thread I read yesterday that there are some folks here who "gleefully" use offensive, sexist language, and you are right. Sadly, some of these same folks are otherwise great DUers, and their attitude on this particular subject puzzles me.

I've got a sense of humor, I see the differences between the genders, and readily acknowledge that many of these differences are quite funny. Being told to "lighten the f--- up" is not only infuriating, it's also disheartening to see on a progressive board.

It is hard to acknowledge one's own prejudices. I am grateful to you and a few other female DUers who have the stamina to challenge it when you see it. I'm usually too weary to deal with it.

She's dividing the "brown women and children" as being more important than the men getting killed in Iraq to prop her message, and that's just wrong...

And, BTW, thanks for telling me to read more carefully. That's not TOO patronizing, is it?

It's incredibly wearying because it's a psychic attack, hurts right down to the spirit.

It's disheartening -- heartBREAKING, really -- that we even have to have such conversations here at DU. Sometimes it affects me so deeply I have to go away, or avoid the discussions. One reason I tend to stay out of abortion threads.

I'm not that strong, all in all.

Being told to "lighten the f--- up" is not only infuriating, it's also disheartening to see on a progressive board.

It's also one of the several key ways women's issues and concerns are always dealt with:

* ridiculing
* dismissing
* minimizing

EVERY single goddamn time we raise these issues we can count on those "responses" from our brothers and even some of our sisters. "Oh, this isn't important. What's the matter with you, here are people dying in Iraq, for heaven's sake." Or, some version of "Whatsamatter, honey, cantcha take a joke?" Or, "Lighten up" and the ever-popular "Get over it."

NO! I WON'T lighten up. I WON'T get over it. My generation of women fought too hard for what little we have, and there were generations of women behind us who fought even harder for something as simple s the vote. No, I won't get over it and I won't lighten up.

And let's not forget the faux outrage (the best defense is a good offense): "How dare you impose on MY freedom of speech?"

Makes me sick. And tired too.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Because I find it troublesome that people like you want to act as thought police when I use petty words, you somehow come to the conclusion that I am a sexist? My "anti-woman attitudes," as you put it, are deeply embedded so that I'll never notice it. Wow, I never thunk it! How do you do that? Are you a certified Internet psychologist? Where's your license?

You try to make it seem as if someone making a sexual joke is out to destroy womanhood, the way you try to relate this to the Nazis. How do you make that connection? Given, there is a disparity between what men and women in the same field earn, but just to name one example, female tennis players make more than their male counterparts. Players like Steffi Graf grossed more in their touring than the Pete Sampras's, and they play only three sets to the five required by the men. I don't hear you complaining about that! And why aren't you going after entertainers like Dave Chappell, who can't go two sentences in his show without saying "nigger?"

Please, we don't need the hypocrisy to go with the political correctness here. Either is bad enough by itself.

While I'm at it:

"...it helps anchor all the other types of sexism in existence, up to and INCLUDING the wholesale, mindless, war crime killing of brown women and their children in Iraq."

How about the civilian men in Iraq getting killed in the crossfires and the misdirected bombs and gunfire from both sides? They're not worth mentioning? Only the "brown women and children?" And it's caused by misogynism??? That is utter bullshit, Eloriel! Your hyjacking the war for this cause sickens me.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/1945863.stm

Organisers of the Wimbledon tennis championships have increased this year's prize money in the singles competiton by 5%.

But the disparity between the men's and women's competitions remains.

<snip>

"There are no other tournaments with equal prize money and we are not sure there are many other sporting events with equal parity in terms of men and women."

http://espn.go.com/tennis/atp/rankings/money.html
Men

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/earnings?sport=WO
Women

from your own post:

Rank Player Name Country Total Money
1 Roger Federer Switzerland $1,994,592
2 Guillermo Coria Argentina $1,014,429
3 Carlos Moya Spain $880,080
4 Andy Roddick United States $863,415
5 Marat Safin Russia $711,200
6 Lleyton Hewitt Australia $565,675
7 Fernando Gonzalez Chile $510,031
8 Tim Henman Britain $501,892
9 David Nalbandian Argentina $403,900
10 Nicolas Massu Chile $399,646

1 Justine Henin-hardenne BEL $1,341,379
2 Lindsay Davenport USA $636,117
3 Kim Clijsters BEL $596,116
4 Amelie Mauresmo FRA $587,885
5 Venus Williams USA $484,238
6 Serena Williams USA $474,075
7 Svetlana Kuznetsova RUS $453,473
8 Paola Suarez ARG $397,838
9 Anastasia Myskina RUS $361,595
10 Nadia Petrova RUS $358,746

What exactly am I missing here??? There is not a single tournament, AFAIK, in which women get paid as much as men for finishing in the same place.

Women play until they win two out of three sets.
Men play until they win three out of five sets.

Women happen to get better television ratings in tennis...

your original assertion was that women get paid more than men even though they only play up to three sets whereas men play up to five, and that assertion was wrong. I don't know nearly enough about the topic to go into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of it.

There's some stuff I need to look at on that matter now, after seeing those listings. I could've sworn the women were paid more than the men because the TV ratings favor women's tennis over the ATP...

Try. Try to see the larger point. Your description of your words as "petty" defines the issue for you, and reinforces that you DO NOT notice the problem.

It does not define the issue for me at all. They are NOT petty words to me.

This floored me. I had posted something critical about Ahnuld Schwarzengroper which excoriated him for his treatment of women.

Another du-er (who I mistakenly assumed was a man) chided me for dissing him for 'petty boyish pranks of no seriousness.'

I ripped into this du-er for being immature and ignorant about all the harm and terror that male abuse of women inflicts citing the women I've known who have been raped, molested, beaten etc.
I wrote to this du-er repeatedly. And even in other threads.

Eventually this other du-er wrote "for pete's sake-I AM a woman!

I guess this reminded me that what you infer in someone's postings can be wrong or atleast not the worst case scenario.

My girlfriend (we are both 43) has experienced abusive men and recovered from the experience. Neither she nor I have any taboo words or topics or jokes because we know what our values are and we enjoy the theatrical richness and irony of language. But then we know each other well and that allows both freedom and accountability.

I also work with people of color in the arts (I'm caucusoidal) and we can discuss and joke about style, culture, and skin color without flinchiness because it is a common topic amongst mature respectful people, not something to be avoided as taboo lest someone get offended. In fact, jokes about 'race' are common in 'mixed company' because everyone is friendly and respectful and this teasing is used to indicate a form of social intimacy and vulnerability at the same time. Not hostility or condescension or ignorance. It says "we are all human here and silly jokes are just that, silly jokes, not reality."

Now this is amongst musicians and artists who are emotionally intelligent and highly evolved who have worked in close quarters with diverse strangers for years.

We assume non-offense rather than the other way around and it is healthier in my experience. I wish that were the case on this site.

"I also work with people of color in the arts (I'm caucusoidal) and we can discuss and joke about style, culture, and skin color without flinchiness because it is a common topic amongst mature respectful people, not something to be avoided as taboo lest someone get offended. In fact, jokes about 'race' are common in 'mixed company' because everyone is friendly and respectful and this teasing is used to indicate a form of social intimacy and vulnerability at the same time. Not hostility or condescension or ignorance. It says "we are all human here and silly jokes are just that, silly jokes, not reality." "

This is how my friends and I play it off. We are all pretty diverse, but we throw racial jokes at each other with the same idea as you have - it indicates a sort of social intimacy because the CONTEXT is in the right place. I think the other thing that is humorous about it is that you can't help but laugh at the fact that there are morAns out there that actually believe in the racist remarks they use. I mean it is sad that they can use such remarks and mean it, but I still laugh at them for being morAns.

That particular joke has bee told to me by women,,,probably more than men. I know girls that would laugh like hell reading that, as long as they understood it was just ribbing...daring...but ribbing. While it is crude, and I'm not attacking the joke or standing up for it, it is funny to some. Of both sexes.

Now, I know we need to be sensitive to others. But, how much harm can a comment do to anyone... if someone posts something I really dislike that is meant to be funny, I will on occasion say something. But most of the time I just think "What a shithead."

It's not my place to tell someone what should be funny to them, or what should be offensive to them. And it is not someone else's place to tell me what I can consider funny. Someone attempting that is the most offensive thing I can think of.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is the key to the discussion as I testified about my own experience in post #38.

You also share that off-color or harsh jokes are benign amongst people who KNOW that they don't indicate genuine cruelty, just as I shared about my workplace and loved ones.

So perhaps the crossed words and intents in this thread stems some from some people (like you) seeing this as a PUBLIC FORUM where words can be taken to indicate callousness and potential cruelty, while others on this site see it as a PRIVATE FORUM where lack of sexism, racism, etc. is to be ASSUMED as though among friends, thereby making it ok to share off-color or edgy or questionable taste items without it being mistaken for cruelty.

I've also seen lots of male-bashing in my day and gotten a bit sensitive myself to women who assume a man is a jerk because of a word. Heck, male-bashing is the primary plot device of most sitcoms on TV! Lots of men respond in kind to accusations of sexism as a kind of reverse-racism.

I see lots of offense taken at being accused of offensiveness and this might be the contextual dissonance. As I mindful man who excoriates cruel attitudes myself, I know what it means to be wrongly accused of something one also reviles. It's weird and takes lots of words to straighten out.

Anonymous glyphs lead to ambiguity and that might validate your admonitions to adhere to stricter decorum to avoid being 'misunderestimated.'

About some seeing this site as private.

Where we would poke fun at the super-earnest or dour nature of some of our fellow leftys...sort of the old "If I cant dance I dont want to be a part of your Revolution" takin-it-easy attitude vs the "OMFG They're clubbing the little baby seals..and you need to join me NOW in a hunger strike!!!!" super- earnest attitude.

This old original usuage probably dates from the 1970s or early 1980s....

Nowadays I think we can poke fun at the sorehead right for being the new "PC" crowd, as they are closer to that super earnest attitude that was originally meant by the term.

the reason there is no outrage to sayings like 'white man can't jump' or calling someone a dick (as opposed to 'cunt') is that racism/sexism is not just about the words used, its about the power structures behind them. When a man makes a 'sexist' comment, its not the words themselves that cause the offence, its the fact that they invoke centuries of opression and subjugation of females in society. A woman making an offensive comment about a man simply does not, cannot, have that dimension attached to her words, and for this reason they can never be as offensive. The same goes for racism.

Now I won't try to pretend that I don't use the words 'cunt' etc. in conversation - I use them on an almost daily basis. But I am concious that they cause offense in public, and I do try my best not to use them when I am in a group of strangers. You wouldn't call someone a cunt in a room full of people who you had never met before, would you? That is what this message board is - its a public forum for discussion with strangers. And in public, we all have the responsibility to watch our language. No-one is perfect, and I'm not saying that someone using this kind of language is automatically a women hater. But they do offend people, and its not just about those people getting a thick skin - its about understanding why these terms cause such offence.

;-)

It's all anyone can ask.

I have a relative who works in a place where racist and sexist jokes are commonplace. He can't seem to understand that his willingness to laugh at and make such jokes himself, is the only thing that enables him to keep his job. He thinks it is his ability, which is actually the last thing they care about. When I tried to call him on it, he pointed to a black coworker and a female supervisor, and said that they didn't mind, and that they laughed at and told such jokes also. I stopped speaking to the moran quite a few years ago.

dicks?

If you don't like the joke, just ignore the user/thread. It's that simple.

Let's say that person X says something that person Y finds offensive. Person X might, in fact, hate the group that person Y belongs to. Or not. X might honestly have no negative feelings towards the group in question, and just found the joke funny. All we know is what we can observe.

So does X apologize? If X does sincerely apologize, it's unlikely that X actually hates the group, since if X did, X wouldn't be apologizing sincerely.

That does not, however, indicate that if X does not apologize, X must hate the group. X could, as my subject line indicates, just be a jackass. You don't have to hate a group to tell a joke about that group, and you don't have to hate a group to be a jackass about not apologizing.

Therefore, telling a bad joke about bleeding and not dying does not make a misogynist. Being unrepentant about said joke offending others does not make a misogynist - it makes one a jackass.

If your examples are NOT misogynists, what are? Just curious.

;-)

Sorry, trying to lighten the load

You're okay. Don't be scared of women. Ms. Right will walk up to you one day and knock your socks off! And you'll be beside yourself with joy! ;)

Damn Bunny - you'e alright!
:toast:

To one of my favorite Duers! :toast:

A determination of misogyny (or misandry, for that matter) takes more than one joke.

To be a misogynist, one has to hate women. Telling a joke from time to time that insults women does not indicate that one hates women. Hell, I have a friend that consistently tells insulting jokes about me, or other friends of his. He doesn't hate any of us - he's just a jackass.

I think determining whether or not a person hates women should be along the same lines as determining whether or not a person hates a specific person - a consistent pattern of behavior.

One can quite innocently tell a joke that others find offensive. But instead of defending it, and minimizing the concerns of the offended by telling them to lighten up, perhaps they should examine the nature of what they've said, and see if there is any validity to the complaint. It is often difficult to step outside of yourself and try to see another point of view.

There was a point when the racial sterotypes of Steppin' Fetchit and Charlie Chan were seen as quite funny, most typically by the ruling majority. Through education, most folks of good will have come to see how offensive these stereotypes really are. Others have at least learned to keep their stupid comments to themselves.

The day will come when offensive comments about women will be handled in the same way.

One can quite innocently tell a joke that others find offensive. But instead of defending it, and minimizing the concerns of the offended by telling them to lighten up, perhaps they should examine the nature of what they've said, and see if there is any validity to the complaint.

Right. All I'm saying is that not doing that does not mean that one hates a specific group - to hit the refrain again, it just makes one a jackass.

Not all jackasses are sexist and/or bigots. I think we've actually reached an agreement!

So, where do we go from here? ;)

there could be the possibility that person Y was looking for a reason by person X's joke because person Y has some kind of agenda that s/he wants to beat over audience U and person X's heads. Another person Z notices this, and decides to call out person (or crowd) Y.

I consider myself to be acting the role of person Z.

Person X: Jackass
Person Y: Ideological zealot
Person Z: Nosy bystander
Audience U: Ignoring all of them.

Everybody wins!

... especially when it comes to their own pet causes.

And other people are always looking for excuses to take a poke at those people's hypersensitivity, or push back against their social aggression.

It becomes a vicious circle, each side pushing the other's buttons, then the other side counter-pushing, until we end up with hard feelings and bruised egos everywhere.

Take it to the larger scale, and that dynamic also provides a *big* opening for the RW to sow discord among progressives, by encouraging and inflaming both sides in the (not unfounded) hope that these petty squabbles will blind us to our common enemy.

I've seen enough of it.

To the hypersensitives: back off. We're all on the same side, and we need to be working together. Litmus tests, dogmatism and attacks on your neighbors hurt us all in the end. Enough.

To the button-pushers: back off. It's as much your responsibility as theirs to stop doing things that you know will set off your neighbors and lead to discord and infighting, which hurts all of us in the end. So enough from you, too.

Now: take five and reflect.


MDN

"take five"

Don't you know that white males are only capable of evil? Get with the program already! :P

Blame the victim.

In this case you're saying that those of us who object to institutionalized sexism in the world and dare to call people on their participation in it are the ones responsible for handing the RW a tool to divide us.

WRONG.

If those on the left would become fierce defenders against sexism (and racism and homophobia) -- that is, do their leftish jobs -- the right would have nothing to use. If the schisms weren't already there, thanks to the fact that too many on the left refuse to give up their own sexism, racism and homophobia (that is, their own White/Male Privilege), there'd be nothing to exploit.

You just exemplified *exactly* what I was talking about.

(hypersensitivity + verbal aggression) is NOT what defeats racism, sexism or any other ism. Screaming at people *who are your allies* and accusing them of secretly harboring subconscious (or conscious?) hatreds against you isn't what does it either. If more of the "left" understood this, we might actually not have wasted the last 20 years bickering amongst ourselves while the RW machine dug itself into every corner of America.


MDN

on edit : *please* don't take this as being overly harsh or personal, El. I've enjoyed your posts here for as far back as I can remember, and I have great respect for you and your contributions here. But on this one, I really, really have to take exception. Strongly.

Joking "on" and joking "with" are two very different things - although, in all honesty, I've seen plenty of instances where the latter also get complained about.

Still, more people get their eyes poked out, with the former. Unless you've got someone outrightly volunteering to be the butt of a joke, it's generally not a good idea here.

They are vulgar and often convincing"

We have an oscar wilde thread going in the lounge.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and scream "anti-Christianity."

The same goes to rabid feminists who try to manufacture sexual tensions out of someone's attempt at humor.

And you, like Eloriel, have a very wide definition of sexism, may I add.

Calling people names isn't really a good indicator
of empathy.

You have made up your mind, and rational (ha ha), reasonable
arguments on this thread have been dismissed as the ravings
of lunatics.

Nice going.

I noticed you went back to edit your original
post. What was wrong with it? Did you forget
to remove the "rabid"?

I never mentioned my view of sexism. I only weighed
in here to say that if you were more empathetic to
the views of others here, you might get farther in
your arguments.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It is my experience that such jokes contribute to a generally sexist environment. Not are they sexist in themselves but they seem to encourage sexism in a general sense.
I prefer to work at places where sexist jokes are not told. At what point are things jokes and at what point are they outright insults. At what point are they harassment. At what point does gender stereotyping jokes reinforce the beliefs that women are less capable of certain jobs or abilities. Why should I be put down by jokes that put down me and all women because we are female? For some reason this is acceptable.
Perhaps, not everyone who tells sexist jokes are sexist just as perhaps not everyone who tells racist jokes are racists. When a person knows little or nothing about the person telling the joke and is offended, the feeling is that person is sexist.
I will tell you that myself and other women are genuinely offended. Perhaps all women are not, but no one can tell individuals whether or not they are offended. Certainly women who have been discriminated against significantly or experienced violence in conjunction with sexist language are more offened than women who have not experienced violence or freely choose a more traditional path or grow up in more enlightened areas where they have not experienced this. The "n word" is much more offensive to blacks that have experienced it in the context of violence or harsh discrimination than it is to many black teens growing up in either predominately black communities or enlightened communities. Either way, it is wrong to tell anyone that they should not be offended when one is not them, especially when one is not a member of the oppressed group.

We have had plenty of discussion about this topic. If you see a post which you think is bigoted, hit alert. The mods will evaluate it. If it is removed, they agree with your assessment. If it is not removed, they disagree with your assessment. If you think they're wrong, bring it to an administrator who will give the final word on the matter.

But we've had so many of these discussions lately, and they've solved nothing. Both sides appear to be too set in their own beliefs to appreciate the other side's point of view, and these threads just turn into flame wars.