Little reason reasonable people are leaving this site. And it was on display here at DKos last week. It surprised me, and frankly, I was shocked by the blatant display of such. It's called "bullying". And I believe it has the power to denigrate DKos, or if we can eliminate it, elevate DKos even further in the global discussion, for all issues.
Here is a good example (remember to set aside the merits of the diaries and concentrate on the tone, the bullying, and the eventual end of the "discussion").
So I've got a question for you ... (0+ / 0-)
.. and it's more philosophical than literal and somewhat in line with the thesis of this diary. Is "bitch" a worse word to employ if I direct it to a man? Apparently the word itself is pretty bad, but does it become worse if I employ it in a way that compounds the insult by diminutizing a man via association with a "feminine" trait?
Beyond that, if a woman is acting horribly irrational, is it so wrong to call that "bitchiness"? That seems to be a somewhat socially acceptable, certainly pervasive term. A man acting similarly could certainly be called a "dick" or an "asshole" .. how is it that "bitch" has earned a special mark of disrespect (above and beyond the obvious disrespect)?
Obviously, when possible, and certainly in civil conversation we should probably avoid them all, but is it necessarily so horrible that we employ different pejoratives for different circumstances or in this case, different "instigators"? Just for clarification I don't think I've called a woman a bitch (certainly to her face) in decades, if at all, largely because of its perceived virulence, but I've called any number of odious men assholes .... is that right? Shouldn't I perhaps feel just as justified, in moments of angry outburst, calling a truly odious woman a bitch as I would a like mannered man an asshole or dick? Wouldn't that, in some ways, be a truer signifier of gender equality?
I think that practically there are obvious problems here, the most obvious being the social status of women and the wider spread misogyny they deal with, but theoretically, philosophically ... is it actually right or beneficial to "tiptoe" around one gender more than another?
by iluvatar on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 02:27:48 AM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to this ]
i can answer that a bit (0+ / 0-)
bitch when applied to a woman means in nagging overbearing woman who won't give anyone any peace.
when applied to a man it pretty much as they same meaning as "pussy" except with a whiny and subservient connotation.
by SetaSan on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 09:51:07 AM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to this ]
Yes of course, I get that .. (0+ / 0-)
My question was this ... there are nagging, overbearing, I'd go further and say downright nasty women out there in the world ... if "bitch" is a term that we've come to associate with that type of woman, is there actually something inherently wrong or misogynistic about the term.
And whether there is or isn't, would it be even worse when applied to a man because in addition to the inherent ugliness of the word, there is also an implied denigration of womanliness by virtue of critically associating a mans actions with that of a woman, a la the basic premise of this diary?
by iluvatar on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 02:25:43 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to this ]
Why justify sexist language? (3+ / 0-)
Why do you want to use the word? And 'nagging' is pretty sexist too----do men ever get called this?
English is an extraordinarily sexist language. There are words which pejoratively describe a woman's sexuality: I can't think of any one that is directed at men, because men are allowed to be sexual creatures. There are more words to describe men, period, than there are women. There are more words to insult women---and more viciously---than there are for men. And given that all this occurs against a backdrop of oppression and bodily harm, this is not mere linguistic concern.
by ginmar on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 04:21:19 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to this ]
Well, well, well ... (0+ / 0-)
I hate to potentially escalate things here, but if "nagging" is pretty sexist ... I think mayhaps you've set your sensitivity level a little high. I understand of course the argument you could lay out, but honestly, I love women, my fiance is successful, intelligent and makes a WHOLE lot more money than I do, and I'm thrilled with that .. which may or may not give me some credence here as NOT being a male chauvinist pig, but men and women are different, physiologically and psychologically, and I've met an order of magnitude more "nagging" women than men. I mean, my god, isn't one of the big critiques of men that we aren't emotional enough, not in tune enough with our desires and our needs and our ability to communicate those desires and needs. That we're too stoic and proud and closed off to the emotional expressiveness of women .. all wonderful traits, and all traits that can lead to nagging by women and away from nagging by men. If we can't agree that women are in general more prone to nagging and that men are more prone to boorishness (just one example), aren't we just closing our eyes to actual social, psychological phenomena?
And you want one word that is directed at men, that describes a man's sexuality .. how about "dick", how about "cock", as in "quit being such a dick/cock!" How about "asshole", not physiologically unique to men, but almost exclusively directed at men. And there are a TON of other words of derogation that we direct almost exclusively at men with little or no connection to emasculation ... "jerk", "boor", "prick", "fucker", "jackass" ... and I could keep going.
So, I get where this diary is coming from, I understand all the arguments and I'm not unsympathetic to them given the very real, unfortunate history of gender inequality, but as is often the case when we attempt to employ double or differing standards to protect a "marginalized" class, we have to be very careful we don't carry that analysis past a point of responsible application. I don't know exactly where that point is, but given the makeup and tenor of this diary and this comment thread I simply thought it might be worthwhile to provide a slightly less stringent perspective.
by iluvatar on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 06:18:43 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to this ]
sexist troll; a little too sensitive? (1+ / 0-)
Too sensitive? Here's a clue, pal: You don't get to tell me how to feel or if what I feel is appropriate to the goddamned situation when you haven't lived that life. You're not worth trying to educate.
by ginmar on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 06:56:04 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to this ]
Silly, so very silly .. (0+ / 0-)
I'm sorry to have apparently offended you simply by pointing out a, relatively minor, perceptual shift in the principle argument laid out here .. but you're reaction to what I've said is almost comically charicatured, and it kind of puts me in a position where there doesn't seem much more to say.
The "you don't get to tell me how to feel" line, when I implied nothing of the sort, is such weak sauce in what I thought was a discussion of legitimate and philosophical merits .. obviously I was wrong, at least on your behalf. Your above "escape" clause is really rather juvenile and serves more as an indictment of your entire position, ie. your inability to rationally argue it, than it does any improprieties on my part.
by iluvatar on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 07:29:40 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to this ]
Shitty not-apology with too much defensiveness and (0+ / 0-)
too much protesting.
Hey, you know? You hit every variation of "But some of my best friends are black!" and "I have sex! With a woman!" there is. Congratx.
by ginmar on Mon Jul 04, 2011 at 08:16:24 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to this ]
You're off your rocker, just amazing .. (0+ / 0-)
Shitty not-apology, you're goddamned right, mainly because I don't really have anything to apologize for. Your arguments and your pissiness at my posts is, again, almost comical. There may have been a sincere effort at peacemaking a couple threads up, but at this point, I just don't find your commentary credible enough to dignify with a full-throated anything.
I thought there might be potential for an actual, intelligent conversation, but I'm now suspicious that might not exactly be your forte. Hope the anger and indignation and perceptual blinders work out for you.
by iluvatar on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:55:44 AM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to this ]
Actually, it means to men like you (0+ / 0-)
ANY woman who doesn't kiss your feet and tell you how wonderful you are. In other words,any woman smarter than you--which, from what I've seen of you.
You REALLY dislike women who don't worship you.
.
by irishwitch on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:30:05 AM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to this ]
I'd frankly rather hear someone called a pain in (1+ / 0-)
the ass than a bitch--because it's gender specific. And I've had men who raised bitchiness to a height Scarlett O'Hara couldn't compete with--self-centered, nasty, obnoxious.
I msotly don't care what you say privately--but I am REALLY tired of hearing anyoen woman who differentiates herself from a doormat called a bitch. It's the old "Men are assertive; women are ballbusters" double standard.
Actually when someone calls me a bitch it's because either I wouldn't kowtow to some guy who thinks possessing a penis makes him my superior ot because I won't back down when I know I'm, right. In those two situations, it;'s a compliment, though they don't realize it. My hsuband says BITCH is an acronym for Babe In Total COntrol of Herself.
by irishwitch on Tue Jul 05, 2011 at 12:28:00 AM EDT
Hard to know where to start here. iluvatar was agreeing with her for the most part, made a nice argument, gave her many times to come around to civil discourse, which only increasingly brought out the bullying. And on a sidebar issue, what is with Irishwitch's husband saying that bitch stands for "Babe in Total Control of Herself"? How would you have handled yourself if I had said it? What if my headline said, "Bitch stands for Babe in Total Control of Herself"? But I digress...
Here is a snippet of the juvenile, schoolyard, blind bullying rage from the comments in my diaries. I was called: a dick, dumb dick, stupid, idiotic, told to shut up, thick as a Redwood (do you really want me to go there with that one), liar, frat boy, bet you fart in a movie theater, etc. All of it in it's intent worthy of a middle school playground (provided those are still around). And not one damn one worthy of civil discussion. It really is like a middle school at times.
There was also the comment calling my parody "performance art" (thank you) however followed with "Just ignore it and it will go away". Just like all the wingnuts who won't watch the Daily Show?
Or the commenter that deleted their rant after they recognized that when telling me to take my act to a men's magazine, that it begged the same question for the original diary.
A sexist insult trying to make a point concerning sexism. That is pretty twisted..and there were many more. Hate so thick that they were blind to the fact that they themselves were committing the same sexism that my parody mimicked and mocked.
Maybe some of us will think twice about bullying before hitting post? Because if you don't care anyway, you still end up looking foolish, not to mention the dumbing down of the discussion. And if you think this is a progressive blog site, you should start by acting like an adult.
Given that it was a parody, I am willing to give most of the bullying a pass on this one. Sexism is a white hot topic. One VERY worthy of discussion. But as you all know you can't rationalize with a bully. Consider it to be a lost opportunity for the vast majority of those reading and not participating in the childish name calling...I don't blame you for turning away from such.
PS: Hat tip to snafubar who weathered the attacks with intelligent and thoughtful reasoning..
