Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[WillyWonka]

...Why would you want to insist on a dictionary definition when the discussion is around A+ and whether they consider THEIR INTERPRETATION to be a gender-based insult?

This does make a lot sense. In the same vein, their definition of "Atheism" is for any religion supported by The Patriarchy, so brown people religions need not to be included.

 

[squealpiggy]

The image that comes to mind when somebody uses the word "douche" is of a douche. A douche is not, as you asserted, "a disgusting excretion of women".



You'll have to do more than simply assert that it is sexist if you want to convince me that it is.

I've always considered the word "douche" to be vulgar because of their use in close proximity to manky lady's Video Jockeys.

The dictionary definition is rather unhelpful, don't be a shortened affectionate pet name for Richard.

See what I did there?

The A plus definition strikes me as more illustrative of their aversion to admitting that they are wrong. They called a bunch of people "douche" and were challenged on it and so produced a post-hoc rationalisation for using a gendered slur because otherwise they may have to say "Wow, the douchebag is right!"

 

[zooterkin]

At this point it strikes me as stating the obvious.

How about if, instead of bland disagreement, you explain your interpretation of the word, and we can move forward from there?

What do you think was the original meaning of the word "douche," and why it's a disparagement?

I recommend Montagu's "The Anatomy of Swearing." It explains a lot about the etymology of such expressions.

For those of us outside the US, the original meaning is "shower".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

At this point it strikes me as stating the obvious.

So that's a "no" on being able to substantiate your claim, then.

How about if, instead of bland disagreement, you explain your interpretation of the word, and we can move forward from there?

Leaving aside the notion of burden of proof, I have already done this by referring to ceepolk's explanation of the word. If you want me to paraphrase it, then I can.

A douche is a feminine hygene product. Not only is it unnecessary, but it can actually cause health problems for both the woman and any unborn children, and may also cause fertility problems. It has been used as a way to lay the blame for sexual dysfunction in a relationship at the feet of the woman.

And the thing with that definition is that it's backed up by the evidence. There are, for example, many sources which outline the medical dangers of douching, including medical organisations such as the NHS.

I'm sure that my interpretation of the word is correct, because the evidence supports it. I will happily change my opinion that your interpretation is incorrect if you provide evidence to support that.

I recommend Montagu's "The Anatomy of Swearing." It explains a lot about the etymology of such expressions.

I don't own that book, but if you feel that the entry on "douche" is relevant here, then please feel free to quote it. Board rules allow you to do so. In the mean time, I can quote the Online Etymology Dictionary, which states:

douche (n.)
1766, "jet of water," from French douche (16c.), from Italian doccia "shower," from docciare "to spray," from Latin ductionem "a leading," from ducere "to lead" (see duke (n.)). Meaning "vaginal cleansing" is from 1833. The verb is first attested 1838. Related: Douched; douching.

That supports my definition of the word and not yours.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Or you could just go by the A+ explanation for why it is NOT a gender-based insult.

I do. It seems reasonable. I'll happily change my opinion, should anybody offer up a reasonable counter-argument. So far all I've seen offered as a counter-argument is bald assertion that they're wrong.

And if you do not think that the vast majority of people think of douching as the process that women apply, then you are mistaken.

Firstly, this is just bald assertion again. And, secondly, it seems irrelevant as not only doesn't it contradict the A+ definition of the word, their interpretation of the word relies on what you say being true.

Why would you want to insist on a dictionary definition when the discussion is around A+ and whether they consider THEIR INTERPRETATION to be a gender-based insult?

Because the dictionary definition agrees with their interpretation. If you want to assert that another interpretation is more correct, then you will have to provide evidence which supports that assertion.

 

[Mr. Scott]

So that's a "no" on being able to substantiate your claim, then.

"Douche" brings an image of female genitalia to mind, just as "dick" brings an image of male genitalia to mind. Either could get you kicked out of a tech conference.

If you want to interpret my boredom with your demand that I substantiate the obvious as a win for you, you are welcome to it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"Douche" brings an image of female genitalia to mind, just as "dick" brings an image of male genitalia to mind.

"Dick" is a synonym of "penis". "Douche" is not a synonym of "a disgusting excretion of women".

Either could get you kicked out of a tech conference.

Perhaps. I don't see the releavence.

If you want to interpret my boredom with your demand that I substantiate the obvious as a win for you, you are welcome to it.

I'm not playing a game and don't think the idea of winners has any place in reasoned discussion. You made a claim and I'm asking you to substantiate that claim. This is, I think, not an unreasonable request on a board dedicated to scepticism and critical thinking, and in a thread which has had a fair number of posts criticising another group of people for their lack of scepticism and critical thinking.

 

[Diogenes]

...

Because the dictionary definition agrees with their interpretation. If you want to assert that another interpretation is more correct, then you will have to provide evidence which supports that assertion.

Regardless it is being used as an insult and as a way to discount arguments without actual counterargument. It is certainly not being used as a complement and not even as a neutral descriptor. Defending whether or not it is a gendered insult is secondary in my opinion. The intent is to attack, to demean to marginalize.

 

[squealpiggy]

For those of us outside the US, the original meaning is "shower".

"A spider"



From 2m47s

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Regardless it is being used as an insult and as a way to discount arguments without actual counterargument. It is certainly not being used as a complement and not even as a neutral descriptor. Defending whether or not it is a gendered insult is secondary in my opinion. The intent is to attack, to demean to marginalize.

I've not argued differently. I've simply questioned some assertions made in this thread and have been attempting to get people to substantiate and/or explain the reasoning behind those assertions.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I do. It seems reasonable. I'll happily change my opinion, should anybody offer up a reasonable counter-argument. So far all I've seen offered as a counter-argument is bald assertion that they're wrong.



Firstly, this is just bald assertion again. And, secondly, it seems irrelevant as not only doesn't it contradict the A+ definition of the word, their interpretation of the word relies on what you say being true.



Because the dictionary definition agrees with their interpretation. If you want to assert that another interpretation is more correct, then you will have to provide evidence which supports that assertion.

We're talking at cross-purposes. You're citing Ceepolk (that should set off alarms, right there), and I'm citing other posts in the thread. If you don't agree that it's a product of patriarchy specifically because it helps clean up that yukky smell that those patriarchs don't like, then you missed a whole slew of TV commercials featuring just that selling point for feminine hygiene products. Douching is merely one of them.

The Urban Dictionary has quite a different take on the word "douche" than your Merriam Webster. Which one would I prefer for a research paper? Merriam Webster, of course. Which one is more likely to be appropriate in an internet forum full of douches? Urban Dictionary.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douche

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

You're citing Ceepolk (that should set off alarms, right there), and I'm citing other posts in the thread.

It's certainly surprised me that she gave a rational, coherent, reasoned explanation for why the word means what she and others use it to mean. But, much as I dislike her usual style of posting and think that she usually displays a shocking lack of intelligence and critical thought, I won't allow that to bias me away from a fair assessment of what she says. I'm saying that her explanation is reasonable because it seems reasonable to me. If you want to convince me that it is not reasonable, then you should offer up a counter-argument, rather than an ad-hominem.

If you don't agree that it's a product of patriarchy specifically because it helps clean up that yukky smell that those patriarchs don't like, then you missed a whole slew of TV commercials featuring just that selling point for feminine hygiene products. Douching is merely one of them.

Again, this doesn't contradict anything that I've argued.

The Urban Dictionary has quite a different take on the word "douche" than your Merriam Webster. Which one would I prefer for a research paper? Merriam Webster, of course. Which one is more likely to be appropriate in an internet forum full of douches? Urban Dictionary.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=douche

I don't see any definitions that contradict anything I've argued for, but I haven't read all 27 pages. If there's a specific one you're thinking of, then could you please quote it and explain why you believe it is a counter-argument to my posts.

 

[Diogenes]

I've not argued differently. I've simply questioned some assertions made in this thread and have been attempting to get people to substantiate and/or explain the reasoning behind those assertions.

I get that, it looks like quibbling over whether or not calling someone a poopyhead is meant literally or figuratively. Whether or not their justification with respect to sexism is reasonable or unreasonable using "douche" as a "counterargument" is already wrong. We're apparently just trying to hash out if it is hypocritical or not when using insults in-and-of-itself is already hypocritical to the claim of using critical thinking.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I get that, it looks like quibbling over whether or not calling someone a poopyhead is meant literally or figuratively. Whether or not their justification with respect to sexism is reasonable or unreasonable using "douche" as a "counterargument" is already wrong. We're apparently just trying to hash out if it is hypocritical or not when using insults in-and-of-itself is already hypocritical to the claim of using critical thinking.

Their unproductive attitude has been remarked upon several times in this thread. I entered this particular tangent in response to a post which was specifically about their use of the word "douche", and their explainations for why it wasn't contrary to the tenets of feminism. I'm specifically addressing statements that people have made. Is it your contention that I should not comment on these if I believe the A+ers' use of the word to be counterproductive for other reasons?

 

[Diogenes]

...Is it your contention that I should not comment on these if I believe the A+ers' use of the word to be counterproductive for other reasons?

No, just framing context, I suppose. If I thought you should not comment maybe I'd call you a "douche" in a non-sexist in-line with feminism though contrary to the application of critical thinking way if I were an A+ acolyte.

Instead I see your point but consider it a minor tangent in my opinion. Discuss away to your heart's content, of course.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I don't see any definitions that contradict anything I've argued for, but I haven't read all 27 pages. If there's a specific one you're thinking of, then could you please quote it and explain why you believe it is a counter-argument to my posts.

The lead definition. Right there on the top of the page I linked to. Do you see the reference to a product used to clean a woman's vagina? Do you see that that is rather "gender specific"?

This has devolved into pedantry. You may continue playing whatever game you're playing by yourself.

 

[Mr. Scott]

"Douche" Urban Dictionary 2:2 "Product used to sanitize an unpleasant, dirty vagina."

What's disparaging or sexist about that? I don't see it. It implies cleanliness! Should be a complement.

 

[Kochanski]

I agree, and I've not seen anyone here or on A+ who've negated that. So, that distinction is a non-issue. More related to the given issue, do you think it is fair to call most muslims evil, or most cops, or most... (well, you get the drift) based on what a notable minority thereof does? On A+, the irrational mode of critique they condemn islamophobes, racists and misogynists for is what they themselves are guilty of with regards to, in this case, cops. The only thing missing was the icing on the cake; "go away cop-lover!".

Would you call that reason, qwints?

Easy answer to the question is that cops have power and privilege which makes them evil incarnate according to A+.

I wonder how they would respond if the cop in question was not part of the old white boy network

 

[theprestige]

Easy answer to the question is that cops have power and privilege which makes them evil incarnate according to A+.

I wonder how they would respond if the cop in question was not part of the old white boy network

<cough>Uncle Tom</cough>

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The lead definition. Right there on the top of the page I linked to. Do you see the reference to a product used to clean a woman's vagina? Do you see that that is rather "gender specific"?

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. And the response to that charge was "it is in no way anti-anyone's-gender".

Good arguments for why it's not have been put forward. 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.