Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Rrose Selavy]

Didn't they start out with "don't be a dick" before switching to "douche"?

I seem to recall defense of "don't be a dick"...

oh, hey, it was in the posting rules, has that changed?

[qimg]http://thunderf00tdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/dont-be-a-dick.jpg[/qimg]

Unless you happen to be addressing old white males, when dismissive slurs are apparently fine over at APlus.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Unless you happen to be addressing old white males, when dismissive slurs are apparently fine over at APlus.

By some standards, a sexual insult against any privileged class is fair game, though against an underprivileged one is deeply offensive. "Douche" slips through this via some tricky gymnastics that in my opinion cannot stand up to rigorous critical thinking.

Someone explain to me how "dongle" is sexist to women when it references the male sex organ, whereas similar slang for female sex organs would no doubt be similarly sexist to women. Why must they have it both ways?

 

[Mr. Scott]

Thanks for those. They certainly make the issue far less clear-cut for me.

Cool. I'm wondering if what is obvious to me (and almost everyone else here) is not obvious to you because you are either young (under 30), not American, or English is not your first language?

 

[adamwho]

Reddit is kicking the bee hive again with the resurection of the anti-atheismplus group rebranded as /r/againstatheismplus

The plusser are jumping with joy at the hope of fresh opresion and opportunties to mine criticism for crypto-threats.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Reddit is kicking the bee hive again with the resurection of the anti-atheismplus group rebranded as /r/againstatheismplus

The plusser are jumping with joy at the hope of fresh opresion and opportunties to mine criticism for crypto-threats.

Addicted to victimhood? So much crying wolf. What are they going to do when real oppression comes to call?

 

[adamwho]

Addicted to victimhood? So much crying wolf. What are they going to do when real oppression comes to call?

Well the believe the wolf is knocking with Jason Vacula attending the women in secularism conference.

 

[dasmiller]

Addicted to victimhood? So much crying wolf. What are they going to do when real oppression comes to call?

"Real oppression?" Why, just a few months ago, Glob posted a poem that included the phrase "young lady." Are you suggesting that oppression can be even more real than that?

 

[qwints]

And here I thought personal experience was the very heart and soul of Atheism+. Are you implying that these black police officers' stories are nonsignificant because they do not buy into the evil-racist-cop-white-privilege meme? What happened to listening to minority voices?

I think their experiences are valuable information. I'll note that the article also blithely disregards countless other experiences and statistics, and forces the experiences it does recount into a rather simplistic narrative. The article also seemed to also make some dire predictions about how reforms designed to address systemic problems would affect the crime rate, given that it has continued to decline over the intervening eleven years.

Glad to see you recognize the importance/validity of personal experience as an intellectual tool.

 

[Mr. Scott]

"Real oppression?" Why, just a few months ago, Glob posted a poem that included the phrase "young lady." Are you suggesting that oppression can be even more real than that?

Hahaha. It really shows one's privilege if one's undergarments get bunched up by "young lady."

 

[qwints]

What are they going to do when real oppression comes to call?

Hopefully join you in fighting against it. At least they'll have had some practice.

 

[RandFan]

I honestly don't understand the point of you asking, and I'm sensing the set-up for some kind of trap. Why don't you explain why you're asking?

I honestly and sincerely want to understand you. There is no trap. What makes something misogynistic? I'm not sure why that seems like a trap or why it seems there is some ulterior motive. There isn't. I'm confused by what you said and I want to know, what makes something misogynistic?

It's gender-specific, sure. But nobody has said that it isn't. The specific charge against the term was that it was misogynistic, as clarified by Zeitgueist in his/her second post in the linked thread.

What makes any gender specific term misogynistic?

The same thing that makes anything misogynistic.

See, I don't know what that "thing" is, same or not. What the hell is it?

It's not a joke. It's not a trap. It's not me being obtuse. I'm simply asking what makes something misogynistic? Obviously being gender specific doesn't make something misogynistic, so what does?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Cool. I'm wondering if what is obvious to me (and almost everyone else here) is not obvious to you because you are either young (under 30), not American, or English is not your first language?

I'm a Briton.

Obviously being gender specific doesn't make something misogynistic, so what does?

Being disparaging towards women.

I mean, I don't think it's a clear and easily defined concept, I think it has a lot of factors and will be fuzzy round the edges. And, of course, it's subjective.

But being gender-specific alone? No. If it were, then you could make a case for "mammal" being a misogynist term. Or, perhaps, misandrist. Either way, I hope we can agree that that would be an incredibly silly case to make.

Why, how would you define it?

 

[RandFan]

Being disparaging towards women.

Thank you. We are getting somewhere now. So, let's go back, you said:

The specific charge against the term was that it was misogynistic, as clarified by Zeitgueist in his/her second post in the linked thread.

...

Nobody has even attempted to put forward any argument that it is, instead declaring it to be "obvious", and getting into a huff when asked to provide a better argument.

So, what would such an argument look like? If I call a woman a douchebag is that disparaging to her?

I mean, I don't think it's a clear and easily defined concept, I think it has a lot of factors and will be fuzzy round the edges. And, of course, it's subjective.

But you seem to confidently know when a term is misogynistic and when it isn't. I'd like to know how you have such confidence.

But being gender-specific alone? No. If it were, then you could make a case for "mammal" being a misogynist term. Or, perhaps, misandrist. Either way, I hope we can agree that that would be an incredibly silly case to make.

Why, how would you define it?

The same way you defined it. To be disparaging to women. But in my world disparaging a woman by calling her a douche bag is as misogynistic as any other term that could be considered misogynistic.

 

[Wildy]

Hahaha. It really shows one's privilege if one's undergarments get bunched up by "young lady."

Does this mean it's time to rehash the limerick discussion again?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So, what would such an argument look like?

I'd imagine it would be somewhat similar to the one that Tsukasa Buddha posted upthread which made me modify my stance.

Other than that I don't know. Are you seriously expecting me to argue both sides in this discussion?

If you think you have one, then you could give it a go and see what happens. If you believe something to be the case, then I'd assume that you have some reason for believing it to be the case. Why not try explaining that reason? Who knows, I might agree with you. You might change my mind, maybe a little, maybe a lot. Maybe not at all. But you certainly won't change my mind by saying that your opinion is different without offering any support for your opinion or argument as to why I should share it.

If I call a woman a douchebag is that disparaging to her?

I don't know. What's the context?

But you seem to confidently know when a term is misogynistic and when it isn't. I'd like to know how you have such confidence.

From where are you getting the idea of "confidence"? Is it from my repeated statements that I was open to persuasion if presented with evidence or cogent arguments which ran counter to my opinion, or from my statement that due to the presentation of evidence and a cogent argument I didn't think the issue was clear cut?

The same way you defined it. To be disparaging to women. But in my world disparaging a woman by calling her a douche bag is as misogynistic as any other term that could be considered misogynistic.

Firstly, I'm not sure why you're limiting the discussion to a woman being called a douchebag, when the discussion has thus far been about people of either gender being called a douchebag. And, secondly, if you want me to agree with things which occur in "your world", then I'd suggest explaining your reasoning, rather than just stating it to be the case. If, that is, you're interested in actual dialogue on the subject. As it is, I'm at a loss as to what kind of response you were expecting to that statement.

 

[RandFan]

Firstly, I'm not sure why you're limiting the discussion to a woman being called a douchebag...

Firstly, you and I were talking about "misogyny", remember? Being disparaging to a man isn't misogyny, right?

I have an idea, let's stop the discussion between you and I. We are not communicating and I see no attempt on your part to try and communicate. Playing obtuse about misogyny (why limit the discussion to women when talking about misogyny?) when we are clearly talking about misogyny is just further hands over ears humming loudly. I've no time for that. Goodbye.

 

[RandFan]

Just in case you forgot:

Obviously being gender specific doesn't make something misogynistic, so what does?

Being disparaging towards women.

This all started when I asked you what made something misogynistic, remember? THAT'S the context of our sub thread. Misogyny. Nothing else.

Firstly, I'm not sure why you're limiting the discussion to a woman being called a douchebag...

 

[squealpiggy]

Hopefully join you in fighting against it. At least they'll have had some practice.

What role precisely would the sort of person who gets anxiety attacks because of an unsolicited private message play in the fight against real oppression? Mine sweeper?

Being disparaging towards women.

You see I don't think that mere disparagement counts as misogyny. If that were the case then TV commercials showing useless and clueless men would count as misandry, and that would be pathetic.

My reading of the word is an utter loathing of women on the basis of nothing more than their womanhood. A misogynist must necessarily detest women, must loath them completely, seeing them as value only for vessels to have children and to satiate the desires of men.

This misuse of the term "misogyny" to apply to anybody who does not agree with their particular brand of feminism has become the SJW equivalent of Godwin's Law, surely.

 

[RandFan]

This misuse of the term "misogyny" to apply to anybody who does not agree with their particular brand of feminism has become the SJW equivalent of Godwin's Law, surely.

Agreed.

 

[recursive prophet]

This misuse of the term "misogyny" to apply to anybody who does not agree with their particular brand of feminism has become the SJW equivalent of Godwin's Law, surely.

Astute observation imo. This is not to say disparaging women is OK, but it can certainly fall way short of misogyny. But we should remember women are still dealing with the legacy of misogyny every day, and try and be empathetic if they are a little sensitive on this issue.

Makes me so sad when posters I enjoy reading and nearly always agree with fall out.