Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Mr F. said:
However, despite my lack of being a linguistics professor, I am still infuriated when people try and make the baseless claim that words lack any meaning. Its a very, very stupid argument. If it held true, communication would be impossible. And there are those within this very thread who are attempting to make that claim (You are not one of them.)
Wait... what?
I don't think people are claiming that words have zero meaning, on the contrary, I think that most people are arguing that they have multiple meanings... many of which don't get considered when it comes time to compile a dictionary because they're too regional, or potentially controversial. "Controversial" not being a synonym for "wrong".
"Appropriate language" is informed by cultures, which develop their own brand of humour which is itself subjective and forever evolving. It's all in flux. It's simultaneously meaningful and not. So I can't really begrudge anyone for not showing deference to the sanitised, formal iteration of a language that is handed to them. Language is ours, it doesn't belong to dictionary publishers, and different perspectives are valid. Especially considering that the people who tend to get offended, tend to get vocal, and they end up being the people that need to be appeased. It doesn't make them right, it just makes them awkward.
This comes back to my context content argument. I am not saying that everyone who uses the term is sexist, nor that everyone using the term is intending to be sexist. But, much like using the term "Retard" instead of "Idiot" is ablest, regardless of intent, using the term "****" to mean, well, ANYTHING negative is sexist. ****** is homophobic, regardless of intent (Unless it is being used in literature that predates the use as a negative way of referring to a homosexual).
You see the logic here? Its the associations, the meaning of the word. Yes, it can currently be used to mean something else, but that does not change why it is sexist. That is actually why it is sexist. The same logic follows for using "Gay" to mean "Bad" (Used by a hell of a lot of people, including quite a few gay guys that I know.), its homophobic. The fact that they are using it does not change it away from being homophobic.
I am not saying stop using the word, I am not trying to sanitize the word, or your use of language. I am simply trying to explain why it is an insult and why the fact that it is an insult shows that it is sexist. If it is being used as an insult, it is sexist. If gay is being used as an insult, it is homophobic.
Language IS ours. But it is also the creation of hundreds of years of history. One day if the word lacks any form of baggage, perhaps it will no longer be sexist. But until that day, until the day (In this case) that women and men are truly equal and that feminine traits are not seen to be negative, it is a sexist term.
Because I tire of this endless discussion, I would just like to close this by saying "Go read some Judith Butler."
I find it annoying how some people seem to think this sorta stuff is massively open to discussion by everyone. I do not claim to understand Physics. Its a closed book to me. In comparison to my friend, who is doing a masters in the subject, I know nothing. I will not try and claim that he is wrong since I do not have a fucking clue. I have not read the literature. Yet people are so willing to try and claim a fixed understanding of linguistics and identity without having done the reading. Read some Butler, Lawler, Goffman, Garner, although Garner did lots of work on Race, his stuff on Identity as an 'othering' experience is quite interesting and applies somewhat to the topic of this discussion. (This is not directed specifically at you and I do not mean to be insulting).
Meh. I should get out of this thread. I am starting to sound elitist. I guess my standpoint is 'Either accept that it is a sexist term and just live with it or go and do the reading around the subject and then try and have a discussion on the matter.'
If you are interested I could probably send you a few of the readings. *reads the copyright notice at the start of the Goffman* Actually, I can't. Its being used under licence for my course and although I can retain electronic copies, they must be 'strictly for personal use' and 'no further copying, storage or distribution (including by email) is permitted.'
Not claiming to be an expert (Yet. One can dream) just saying that I am probably ever so slightly more well read on the subject.
FalloutJack said:
*Two pages later*
Whelp, Mr. F didn't get a warning for being a deliberate irritant towards me. You know, trying to make a statement about mere words when I don't even get ONE TENTH as annoyed at words over action (such as the internet VS real life) is silly. No, **** is just a word. Much like F is just a letter. Though, it WAS a devious plot. If his words were really that much impact when he insulted me, the mods would've decked him for it. And if they didn't - which is what happened - then he's proven wrong. I love being me.
The reason I did not get a warning is because I did not insult you. I stated that your ARGUMENT was stupid, not that you were stupid. Smart people make stupid arguments all the time. Look at our politicians. That is why I did not get a warning, not because you are right, not because the mods think I was wrong or anything. Because I did not, and will not, insult you for being wrong.
Interesting note, apparently a lot of what gets flagged up for mods is just stuff that people disagree with.
At no point am I stating that words are worse then actions, or that actions matter less then words. But words are actions, your choice of language reflects who you are. I am not getting, nor is anyone else who is making the same or similar arguments to mine, more annoyed at words then actions. I am, again, simply trying to explain to people why the term is sexist. Because it is sexist, inarguably so.
I would have got moderated if I violated the CoC. Which I did not.
