It might, actually. Calling a man a woman as an insult either suggests a) that to be a woman is a bad thing, or b) that to act like a woman is a bad thing for a man to do. In the first case that would suggest you don’t like women (or do like them, but find them inferior) and in both cases shows you have a prejudicial view of what “a woman” acts like.
This is one of the things that really started me disliking the whole transvestite a la *The BirdCage * thing; the idea that outrageous behavior that would be completely unacceptable in a man was somehow OK if you were a woman instead. (I’m fully aware that there are many transvestites out there who do NOT indulge in outrageous behavior; my husband was a tv, and then a ts, and was never outrageous or flamboyant in style) It seems to me that some men are attracted to the idea of dressing as a woman because they feel they can then act like assholes without social repercussions.
I happen to be a woman. I’m aware that I differ from men in some of my behaviors that extend beyond sitting down to pee. If I get furiously angry, I tend to get teary-eyed and a little choked up, and I cry ridiculously easily at movies, books, and tv (even some commercials). (Oddly, not in real life though - I almost never cry for actual things). On the other hand, I don’t know that I’ve ever screamed beyond the age of twelve or so, I do my best not to be a prima donna, I conceal my emotions as well as the average person of either sex, etc. I would hold any woman to the same general standards of behavior that I hold a man, and I would expect any man to hold me, as a woman, to them as well.
It just seems that there is a certain subset of transvestism out there which is a definite put-down of women. And there is certainly a lot of anti-female slang in our language. Implying that a man is feminine in his actions is highly insulting; implying that woman is masculine in her behavior is usually either complimentary or neutral. A man wanting to BE a woman is about as shameful a thing as a man can do, and I’ve always considered it an act of magnificent courage that my husband told me.
Oddly, given my age, I’ve almost never encountered sexism at a personal level, except for the protective type which, given that on a good day I MIGHT be able to outrun or beat up an eighty-five year old in a wheel chair (but I wouldn’t make the bet if s/he were pretty spry), did not insult me. So it wasn’t until my husband became a transvestite and subsequently a transsexual that I started thinking about it societally, and realized just how pervasive the anti-female feeling is out there.
I don’t usually notice the language much myself - hell, I’ll even say that someone “lacks the balls” to do something, even though I personally have never had any, at least not attached to me (er, so to speak). But if I bother to think about it, we’re a still a society which, while it officially accepts women as equals in every respect (allowing for generally although not universally less strength), still doesn’t *like * women very much.
Ex (if I may call you that, sir), what I’m saying here is that you may just have to learn to live with it - lag time on stuff like this is long, long, long. You’re both brighter and more knowledgeable than I, but that’s the one thing I have on you - time, experience. My point is, you get used to it, and realize that it has no real meaning in day-to-day life. It’s just part of the language/culture lag, and that simply doesn’t change that quickly. Our language is loaded with idioms that haven’t been relevant in some cases for hundreds of years. And, like women, you may have to settle for gays being accepted officially and (usually) individually, but at a general language level, not liked. I’m not saying it’s good. I’m saying it’s the way it is, and it’s not any more likely to change during your life time than the attitude toward women has changed during mine, even though women’s actual roles in life have changed *hugely * during my fifty years. Yes, there are corporate executive women out there who could buy and sell this entire message board without blinking and female atheletes who could take every member of the board without breathing heavily, but still, no one wants to be a pussy, do they? Not even us women.
The Wiki article cites a lot of pre-1971 usages in song and film, but omits a particularly prominent and unambiguous one: the title of the 1969 film The Gay Deceivers, in which characters pretend to be gay to dodge the draft.
Hey, whatever. You certainly cared enough earlier:
So I gave you a half-dozen of them. If seeing them has made you decide you don’t care after all, then what can I say?
Now that brings up an interesting point. What about idioms that came into existence well before gay had any connection with homosexuality? I don’t even know the origin of “gay deceiver” as a phrase (and I don’t care enough to Google), but it’s certainly been around a long time, and intrinsically has nothing to do with gay as it’s used today. Obviously the movie title was intended as a clever word play for that reason.
So would that now be considered a slur, because gay has come to be associated with homosexuality? Or does it retain special status because it’s an old and known phrase that means, well, I’m not exactly sure? The title of a comedic book, opera or play from the nineteenth or earlier century, I thought, but now I’ve actually Wikipedia-ed it, and they don’t list any such reference.
Scylla, you really are a fucking moron, aren’t you? Reading for comprehension really isn’t your strong suit.
The point, dumbass, is that while you lying Republicans like to spew the lie that John Kerry repeatedly changed his stance on the Iraq war, it’s still a fucking lie.
But here, since you’re such a goddamn idiot, I’ll spell it out more clearly. . .
Flip-flopping charge unsupported by facts
200 speeches and statements were examined and not a single, actual, inconsistency to support such an accusation was found. But we’re supposed to believe your new lie that you weren’t really talking about the standard Republican lie about “voting for the war before voting against the war,” but some other, I dunno, obscure set of changes that only you are privvy to, but that can’t be found in over 200 sources. We aren’t supposed to believe you were referring to the most predominant Republican lies based on your exact words of, “Kerry’s Iraq stance. . . tended to change quite a bit and contradict itself.”
It Didn’t Change At All.
So you’re either a fucking liar to continue to repeat that, or an utter drooling imbecile for actually believing such a demonstrably false allegation.
Either way, you’re the ooze on the pustule that has become the Republican party, and we can never hope to have honest political discourse in this country so long as the likes of you continue to vomit lies in your disgusting smear campaigns against your opponents.
Now go fuck off.
I scored a 100% on your quiz. How can you say that?
Maybe this time you’ll quote John Kerry.
The San Francisco Chronicle concluded Kerry didn’t flip-flop? Wow that’s really surprising and compelling. Rush Limbaugh and Foxnews conclude he did. How can this be possible? Surely all these sources are impartial and devoid of political motivation. If it’s in the San Francisco Chronicle, it must be true, right?
What a highly intelligent, evolved and reasonable stance you have I mean, you don’t even have to ask where I think Kerry contradicted himself. You already know it’s false and are resistent to any argument that contradicts your stance. Anybody that does, must be an idiot, right?
I’m less reasonable. I would prefer to think for myself. Personally, I think Kerry’s prewar stance was very consistent. I strongly agree with you in your analysis of this. Kerry authorized the use of force to give Bush the leverage he needed to force the issue. It was clear that he felt this authorization was to be used as a weapon of last resort only after all possible chances of a diplomatic solution had failed.
He was highly critical of the war and Bush’s decision to invade Iraq because, he argued, all Diplomatic solutions and alternatives had not been exhausted. Bush had made a bad decision and rushed to war.
This changed in Columbia, SC in 2003 during a Presidential debate when John Kerry proclaimed that going to war was the right decision and he would have done it too, just better and with a true coalition.
“I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him”
A few months later he makes a statement that contradicts this
“But the president and his advisors did not do almost anything correctly in the walk-up to the war. They rushed to war. They were intent on going to war. They did not give legitimacy to the inspections. We could have still been doing inspections even today, George.”
Now, perhaps you or the San Francisco Chronicle can resolve this in your mind. It’s probably no harder than resolving all the Highlander movies.
This is one way in which I support my statement that Kerry contradicting himself and having a changing policy is a valid criticism.
I’m sure you’ll win me over with your calm and rational analysis.
I’m sitting here thinking about how Sublight said I am extremely hostile and don’t do much but hurl insults so that I can be the Big Swinging Dick.
I think Sublight should stand next to Shayna at the urinal, because she sure has one huge cock, doesn’t she?
Actually, this kind of meta-comment is, in my opinion, in line with Sublights’s insightful analysis.
Seems you’ve fairly predictably poked at others more than once in this thread, and then stepped back to tsk tsk in a manner befitting Eddie Haskell as to their il-mannered and intemperate dispositions.
However, I care not for your approbation. So, may I offer you a hearty fuck you to you, a pathetic little trolling pig sphincter of a person.
Wonderfully insightful post, Oy!. I’ve noticed this too in my short 30 years. When my daughter was 6 she and a couple of other girls were part of a co-ed T-ball team. When the (male) coach would try to “encourage” the boys to throw better he would yell at them “You throw like a girl!”. His intention was not to belittle the girls because as soon as he realized what he was saying & the fact that he had little girls on his team he stopped saying it. But the fact that he said it so reflexively spoke volumes.
Maybe one day.
Now I’m confused. Is that good or bad?
I almost forgot.
Whatever does in your experience mean, anyway? You’ve been very vague about your actual experience.
In my experience, it was required for a major in English. One of my old English grammar textbooks was within reach as I read your post: A Short Introduction to English Grammar by James Sledd, 1959. (Not short enough for me!) At least it was considered rather progressive at the time. (Peabody College, now of Vanderbilt University, Class of 1969)
You forgot to mention what it was that I said about your writing that was inaccurate. I’m willing to have others examine my critical comments in the light of your claimed “expertise” in linguistics and my own claims to have spent twenty years as an English teacher. It might make for an interesting IMHO thread.
Meanwhile, I’ve been off-duty for seventeen years. You got a freebie, you ungrateful little boy. You shan’t have another.
I would bet against it in your lifetime as much as I would in mine, sad to say. It’s too pervasive to die readily.
And you’d still be FUCKING WRONG, you lying asshole. Try, for once in your idiotic life, finding out the full CONTEXT of the quotes you use to form your decisions. Maybe then you can make intelligent ones! (HA HA FUCKING HA!)
NOT contradictory. NOT inconsistent. “[T]he most egregious example. . . of using edited quotes in a way that changes their meaning and misleads voters.”
That’s the last rebuttal you’ll get from me. I think you derive a sick pleasure from intentionally contorting facts to suit your twisted dislike of John Kerry, and I won’t let you derive any more out of me. You make me sick.
Shayna, Queen of the Jungle, is brought to you by Wheaties! Shayna’s had hers today, shouldn’t you?
Republicans don’t need no stinkin’ context!
Of course, they seem to prefer stupid decisions, which might explain it.
Have you considered getting a rabies shot?
This is so typical. You throw a hissy fit over a perfectly innocuous and noninflammatory statement of mine:
“I think Kerry’s Iraq stance is a major policy issue for the voters and the fact that it tended to change quite a bit and contradict itself was a valid criticism”
This is not the kind of thing that normally sets people off into blind rages. Anyway, you attempt to rebut it between insults and disjointed statements by quoting George Bush and some other guy about their opinions on Iraq. What this proves about what John Kerry said or didn’t say, is precisely nothing.
I think an intelligent and reasonable person might have simply asked how I supported my opinion. You apparently, are neither.
Your next rebuttal was again, not to find out what I thought was a contradiction, but to show me an article from the San Fran Chronicle which says Kerry is an honest guy. I point out that your source his hardly compelling and I actually do you the favor of showing you a contradiction I saw in Kerry’s stance.
You respond in rabid fashion blasting some ad that Bush made 2 years ago or so. This ad uses a quote that I used. However, it contrasts it with different quotes than the one I used. This is funny, because I said I preferred to think for myself and I showed you two quotes that I found to be contradictory. Your blast attack is countering a specific argument that I haven’t made and ignored the one I have.
This is three times in a row that you have completely and utterly failed to actually respond to the argument that I actually made.
Finally, your initial and ongoing responses are really completely off the wall on the hostility meter. Do you like hate me for something from the past, or are you a recent fan?
Ok
If you were to ask me, I would tell you that I genuinely dislike John Kerry for what I see as his betrayal of his fellow soldiers upon his return for Vietnam.
I merely think that his changing and contradictory stance towards Iraq was a valid criticism and an issue for voters, but it really doesn’t bother me all that much. There’s nothing that says people can’t change their mind or react to new information. It’s displaying adaptability or flexibility. So, to me this was not a major issue which was I phrased my initial statement on the subject as blandly as I did.
Little did I know that you were out there, a time bomb, waiting to go off.
Get over it, grow up, and realize that not everybody shares your opinion and it’s childish to fly off the handle in an impotent rage when someone says something you disagree with.
Did you, or did you not, use an altered quote to support your position? Only question there is here, no?
Absolutely not. I altered no quotes, and I put them in fair context. The sentence that was ommitted from the Bush ad, I actually added when I put the quote into context before I quoted it. I said:
“It was clear that he felt this authorization was to be used as a weapon of last resort only after all possible chances of a diplomatic solution.”
What Shayna and factcheck.org claim was unfairly ommitted was:
“I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”
Shayna and Factcheck.org may have a point concerning the ommitted context of the quote in the Bush ad. I don’t think that applies to my usage since I took pains to put the quote in the context of Kerry’s larger position. My contextual placement is substantively the same as the ommitted sentence.
This is one of the reasons why I think Shayna is batshit. I put the proper context in. Shayna bitches me out because another source that she finds didn’t. Her position also doesn’t make sense because the part that she claims is ommitted is a part I actually included contextually and do not take issue of find contradiction in.
So. No. Again. I did not. Absolutely not. No fucking way did I do that.
I see. You are suggesting that I provoked Shayna into her current 'roid rage deliberately so I could sit back, “tssk tssk” and claim victory.
An interesting hypothesis.
Let’s see what did I say that started the rage? I said, and she quoted this as the source of her umbrage:
“I think Kerry’s Iraq stance is a major policy issue for the voters and the fact that it tended to change quite a bit and contradict itself was a valid criticism.”
In your opinion, does that statement merit rage?
On second thought, why I am asking you?