# Does (nearly) everything have to be qualified nowadays? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 27, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308 "2005-04-27T02:59:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/81 "2005-04-28T04:51:28Z")
> [@Elysian](#): > > Eh, I was tempted to leave the thread alone at first, but then I noticed that _some_ of it wasn’t a lighthearted or a sting-with-a-guffaw. Some of it seemed angry and accusatory and bitter, It was my post which you were primarily responding to when you made that statement, a post which I’d gone out of my way to point out was tongue in cheek. The fact that you’re determined to see a joke thread as “angry and accusatory and bitter.” says much more about where your mindset than the thread. > [@Elysian](#): > > It’s to be expected, though. Men (here _I’m_ generalizing!) do have a sore spot when they are accused of being even mildly sexist and tend to overreact. I love it. Demonize acts of “sexism”, (from using the word bitch to liking porn), change the landscape of popular culture so that sexism is a sin, and then point out that a man gets annoyed when you accuse him of it. That’s like when women point out that, lo and behold, men get defensive if you accuse them of being potential rapists. Sexism is a bad thing, don’t play the victim card when you insult someone and they’re insulted. > [@Elysian](#): > > I just wish they hadn’t gotten their hackles all a-raised before considering the issue and being rational about it. How about… no. You were the one who turned a _joke_ thread into something which wasn’t funny. That was what most people were objecting to. You took it way too seriously. > [@Elysian](#): > > Funnily enough, I’m not easily offended. I’m very laid-back, most people have never seen me upset/angry/excited. So being accused of being easily offended just makes me laugh! Come on guys, can’t you do better than that! Okay… you were uptight, humorless, and tried to squash a rather funny and playful thread out of some misguided idealism. And I’m mad that the adjective ‘offenderati’ has already been slung, because I’d hoped to have been original. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/82 "2005-04-28T05:20:38Z")
> [@lightingtool](#): > > Well, I see your point, but I don’t think there is a _real_ sense of gender-blame there. Yeah, I understand it’s open to debate. From where I’m looking, it just seems that if there wasn’t some preexisting issue of this kind, it just seems so random to say “I’m having communication problems in my relationship… it must be because of my partner’s -” _spin the roulette wheel_ “-gender!” ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/83 "2005-04-28T05:45:59Z")
**Matt** , Deborah Tannen and others have found differences in the conversational habits (statisticaly valid, not universal), in both men and women. We can pretend they don’t exist all we want, but some things are innate, and some things are socialized, and men and women do end up communicating a lil’ bit differently. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/84 "2005-04-28T05:59:34Z")
[A PDF](http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1473-4192.00045/abs/) [A bit on gender and interaction/conversation](http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/151/6/586) [Another brief article.](http://digilander.libero.it/linguaggiodelcorpo/mulvaney/) [Gender differences in (irony of ironies) computer mediated conversation.](http://www.nord.helsinki.fi/clpg/CLPG/Susan%20Herring.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/85 "2005-04-28T06:10:06Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > **Matt** , Deborah Tannen and others have found differences in the conversational habits (statisticaly valid, not universal), in both men and women. We can pretend they don’t exist all we want, but some things are innate, and some things are socialized, and men and women do end up communicating a lil’ bit differently. Is it not the case that there is way more variation among the members of a gender than between the genders? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/86 "2005-04-28T06:17:45Z")
I’m not quite sure, **Matt** , that the issue is about variation exactly. There are certain patterns and habits that tend to be seen often in various genders, and not others. It’s not a statement of innate ‘suchness’, but it is an accurate way to describe how some people act after being socialized to accept a certain role. For instance, from the second cite: > [@](#): > > Female physician visits were 29% longer than those of male physicians (P \< .001). Compared with male physicians, female physicians engaged in more social exchange (P \< .01), more encouragement and reassurance (P \< .01), more communication during the physical examination (P \< .05), and more information gathering (P \< .01) with children . Are there men who acted more in tune with how many of the women acted? I’m sure. But this is a statement about a general trend within a socially constructed class, and the research seems to bear it out. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/87 "2005-04-28T06:31:09Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I’m not quite sure, **Matt** , that the issue is about variation exactly. There are certain patterns and habits that tend to be seen often in various genders, and not others. It’s not a statement of innate ‘suchness’, but it is an accurate way to describe how some people act after being socialized to accept a certain role. Fine, but I don’t understand why this makes it humorous, appropriate, or helpful to stereotype men and women in a certain way. I mean, if we both acknowledge that a given behaviour is present in both genders, what’s the point of going: “Behaviour X is funny! Oh, those wacky womenfolk, LOL!”? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/88 "2005-04-28T06:41:37Z")
I mean, if you’re saying that behaviour X is funny, why is it relevant that the behaviour might happen to be more frequently present in one gender than another, any more than that the same behaviour might happen to be more present in (say) one race, income class, or shoe size? What’s the connection? Why does it even come up? If I was to discover that some humorous trait happened to be more present in women than men or vice versa, but that it _wasn’t_ stereotypically associated with gender. And then I said, “My friend Ros _committed humorous act X_! Aren’t women funny?” Nobody would understand why I brought up her gender in connection to that act. Even if I attempted to justify it – “Don’t you know that women are much more likely to commit humorous act X?” – still, people wouldn’t get it, because it’s not stereotypically connected to gender. The point of the thread is not to say “Women are more likely to commit humorous act X! Aren’t women funny?” The point was to say, “Humorous act X! And now, a completely gratuitous appeal to a stereotype of women! Aren’t women funny?” ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/89 "2005-04-28T06:44:35Z")
I don’t quite know how to answer you, to be honest. You take it seriously and don’t find it funny, I don’t take it seriously and do find it funny. Ya know what they say, if you have to explain a joke to someone then it’s no longer funny. I guess the understanding gap is, in this case, one which cannot be bridged. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/90 "2005-04-28T06:53:41Z")
> [@](#): > > You take it seriously and don’t find it funny, I don’t take it seriously and do find it funny. Yeah, that seems to be a pretty good assessment. I, of course, think you’re misguided for not taking it seriously, because I think that this type of humour, though potentially funny\*, bespeaks certain serious problems, as I’ve said. We do a lot of things (not everything) in jest or in play that reveal attitudes and problems that we might otherwise repudiate. Since sexual essentialism is something I take seriously, I didn’t think I could let a raft of such talk go by without challenging what I regarded as the underlying assumptions. YM obviously V. [sub]\*Though not necessarily. I mean, honestly, some of these are old enough that _The Flintstones_ ripped them off.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/91 "2005-04-28T06:58:06Z")
Resolved: We shall agree to disagree (and think the other person is misguided 😃 ). ---
**Author:** ![Elysian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c77e96/32.png) [@Elysian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elysian)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/92 "2005-04-28T12:29:00Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > It was my post which you were primarily responding to when you made that statement, a post which I’d gone out of my way to point out was tongue in cheek. The fact that you’re determined to see a joke thread as “angry and accusatory and bitter.” says much more about where your mindset than the thread. I dug up the thread, and yes, it did appear that your post was the angriest one of the bunch. But my response wasn’t directed completely at you, and if you took it that way, I’m sorry. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > I love it. Demonize acts of “sexism”, (from using the word bitch to liking porn), change the landscape of popular culture so that sexism is a sin, and then point out that a man gets annoyed when you accuse him of it. > > That’s like when women point out that, lo and behold, men get defensive if you accuse them of being potential rapists. > > Sexism is a bad thing, don’t play the victim card when you insult someone and they’re insulted. Strangely enough, sexism isn’t a sin. It’s everywhere in popular culture. It’s everywhere in humor. Sometimes it’s too subtle to readily be seen, if you are used to that kind of humor. I encourage you to read a few books on what sexism really is, and formulate some ideas of your own. If you are serious when you say that sexism is a sin, perhaps you might want to find out what sexism really is. Then you can see where it is in your own self. (I actually catch myself from time to time!) If you believe that sexism is a bad thing, then perhaps you might want to temper your own humor in the future. I wish you would take this post in the spirit that it’s meant. I’m not attacking you, I’m trying to encourage you to learn about something you already say is a “bad thing.” > [@FinnAgain](#): > > How about… no. > You were the one who turned a _joke_ thread into something which wasn’t funny. That was what most people were objecting to. You took it way too seriously. > > Okay… you were uptight, humorless, and tried to squash a rather funny and playful thread out of some misguided idealism. And I’m mad that the adjective ‘offenderati’ has already been slung, because I’d hoped to have been original. Yes, it’s very easy to label someone isn’t it? As I’ve already said, usually I turn a blind eye to these kinds of things and decided that this time I was going to stand up for what I believe in and say something. Some of it was a joke and some of it was seriously meant, and that was what I was replying to. I didn’t see it entirely as a joke thread. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/93 "2005-04-28T12:58:30Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > Yeah, I understand it’s open to debate. > > From where I’m looking, it just seems that if there wasn’t some preexisting issue of this kind, it just seems so random to say “I’m having communication problems in my relationship… it must be because of my partner’s -” _spin the roulette wheel_ “-gender!” I would conversely argue if that the situation didn’t actually exist (minor communication differences between genders), it wouldn’t be possible for so many people to make jokes about it, on both sides of the gender aisle. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/94 "2005-04-28T17:07:00Z")
> [@Elysian](#): > > I dug up the thread, and yes, it did appear that your post was the angriest one of the bunch. You really need to dial back the offend-O-meter. My post ended with a specific disclaimer that I was being tongue in cheek, along with a smiley. It was playful and in-good-fun. > [@Elysian](#): > > But my response wasn’t directed completely at you, and if you took it that way, I’m sorry. S’all good, didn’t think it was completely directed at me, just primarily. Which as I say, was odd, seeing as how I went out of my way to indicate that I was just being tongue in cheek. > [@Elysian](#): > > Strangely enough, sexism isn’t a sin. If you doubt that sexism has become a sin, I invite you to visit virtually any American college and sit in on one of their (mandatory) diversity classes. Hell, you don’t even need to sit in on a diversity class, just listen to how them thar “Eeeeeevil white males” are referred to, pretty much constantly, and their list of Eeeeeeeeevil crimes is trotted out. So I’ll give you that much, sexism isn’t a sin when it’s directed against someone who’s male, and racism isn’t a sin when it’s directed against someone who’s white, but other than that they’re seen as pretty sinful. > [@Elysian](#): > > It’s everywhere in popular culture. It’s everywhere in humor. Sometimes it’s too subtle to readily be seen, if you are used to that kind of humor. No, I really don’t think you’re right. People do sometimes make fun of ways that, statistically speaking, lots of men or women act, but that’s not sexism. (If you need me to post more research I’d be happy to. ) > [@Elysian](#): > > I encourage you to read a few books on what sexism really is, and formulate some ideas of your own. Luckily enough, the 12 credit hours in ‘multiculturism’ and 8 hours in ‘globalism’ I was forced to take when I was still in college didn’t have me reading any of them thar books. > [@Elysian](#): > > If you are serious when you say that sexism is a sin, perhaps you might want to find out what sexism really is. Luckily enough, I couldn’t possibly have a clue. > [@Elysian](#): > > Then you can see where it is in your own self HAH! Oh, that’s rich. You’ve just accused me of being sexist. But guess what? I’ve taken the classes, I’ve done the reading, and I’d treat people as individuals even if I hadn’t. So maybe you can go see it in your self, eh? > [@Elysian](#): > > (I actually catch myself from time to time!) Wherein lies the problem. Liars think everybody else lies. Thieves think everybody else steals. Those who have momentary flashes of sexism… > [@Elysian](#): > > If you believe that sexism is a bad thing, then perhaps you might want to temper your own humor in the future. Hell no. Because my humor and sexism have nothing to do with each other. > [@Elysian](#): > > I wish you would take this post in the spirit that it’s meant. I’m not attacking you, I’m trying to encourage you to learn about something you already say is a “bad thing.” See… it’s kinda hard not to take this as an ‘attack’, as you’re accusing me of being sexist. And ignorant to boot! ‘encourage me to learn’ indeed! > [@Elysian](#): > > Some of it was a joke and some of it was seriously meant, and that was what I was replying to. I didn’t see it entirely as a joke thread. Mind pointing out what was seriously meant? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/95 "2005-04-28T17:17:54Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > If you doubt that sexism has become a sin, I invite you to visit virtually any American college and sit in on one of their (mandatory) diversity classes. Hell, you don’t even need to sit in on a diversity class, just listen to how them thar “Eeeeeevil white males” are referred to, pretty much constantly, and their list of Eeeeeeeeevil crimes is trotted out… Can I just raise a puzzlement here? I have sat through, and given, a very large number of diversity acceptance seminars, and I have never heard anyone deprecated on the basis of their gender or race by any leader of such a seminar. I’m unsure as to where this comes from – probably from the same place where “huperson” or “personuscript” as examples of nonsexist language comes from. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/96 "2005-04-28T17:52:32Z")
Sure, raise puzzlements all ya like. You are, evidently, good at your job. Other people? Not so much. (Or maybe it’s just different in the frozen north) I very nearly pitted one of my graduate profs here at UT for telling me that if I thought insulting white people for being white was bad, then I must be a neo-nazi or skinhead. His exact words: “If you think that blaming white people is a bad idea, then you’re like people who become neonazis or skinheads because they believe in white pride.” When I was at SUNY Binghamton, it was fairly routine to talk about how white males “couldn’t have empathy for minorities.” or how being white and/or male meant you had to be constantly apologetic and take the sins of humanity onto your shoulders. I don’t know if the instructional process has changed, but I sort of doubt it. As a side note: the idea that ‘white european male’ culture is the only historicaly ‘naughty’ one is laughable. Every continent that has people has a history of people behaving like monsters towards other people. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/97 "2005-04-28T18:06:27Z")
> [@](#): > > **matt\_mcl** said: > (I also note, in passing, that a lot of the “manspeak” entries seemed to be just as meanspirited against women as some of the “womanspeak” entries.) So apparently sexism against men is a problem because it hurts _women_? Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. > [@](#): > > **JohnT** said: > Sounds like “bitching” to me! And in the words of the Eagles: > [@](#): > > All this whinin’ and cryin’ and pitchin’ a fit > Get over it, get over it > [@](#): > > **matt\_mcl** said: > In general, I just don’t understand why people are so quick, in general, to attribute everything a person might do to their gender, either because of it or in spite of it. Yes, I realize this makes me unusual. Making a few lighthearted jokes about poor communication does not mean ‘attributing everything a person might do to their gender.’ It must really suck to live a life in which you compulsively seek out things to be offended and pissy about. C’mon, satisfy my curiosity. Does it? Here’s a tip. Read the topic line. If you know you won’t like the thread, click somewhere else. > [@](#): > > **Elysian** said: > Men (here I’m generalizing!) do have a sore spot when they are accused of being even mildly sexist and tend to overreact. Yeah, imagine that, people don’t like to be accused of being sexist for no good reason. Of course, if they deny it, you’d probably just continue to shriek at them, so they go out of their way not to piss you off and you still think they’re wrong. Do you get along well with men at all? > [@](#): > > **FinnAgain** said: > That’s like when women point out that, lo and behold, men get defensive if you accuse them of being potential rapists. And it’s apparently different if, since the majority of people who kill small children are women, I accused any random woman of being a potential child killer. > [@](#): > > **matt\_mcl** said: > Fine, but I don’t understand why this makes it humorous, appropriate, or helpful to stereotype men and women in a certain way. Yet another example of what I meant when I said that people get their goddamn BVDs in a ball over anything remotely offensive to women but ignore the shit out of the _exact same behavior_ directed at men. Oh, unless that behavior directed at men offends _women_. Do you take it seriously when it’s directed against men too, or is there some other reason you keep mentioning _women_ specifically as the wronged parties? ---
**Author:** ![lightingtool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/57b2e6/32.png) [@lightingtool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lightingtool)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/98 "2005-04-28T18:30:03Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Here’s a tip. Read the topic line. If you know you won’t like the thread, click somewhere else. You know, this attitude really pisses me off. ‘Keep out if you’re going to be offended.’ That’s stupid. **matt** has calmly and clearly stated again and again how he feels about the thread, and why he posted in it. He thinks that we went past humor and became insulting, so he said something. ( **matt** , sorry if I’m mis-representing your position here) You can’t have a thread on this board where only like-minded people respond, and if you did it would be incredibly boring. You post something, people are going to talk about it. I’m actually finding this conversation with **matt** pretty interesting, and I’m glad when people who don’t agree with an OP post in a thread. It’s a conversation. If you don’t want people to discuss something, post it on a blog. **matt\_mcl** , in response to your puzzlement, I’ve had the same experience as **FinnAgain** in a British Lit. class I took in college. We spent the entire semester discussing how sexist people like Chaucer were, instead of discussing the work. My complaints to the professor regarding the curriculum got me labeled as a ‘sexist pig.’ Luckily, my complaints to the department chair were better received, and her class was called ‘Feminism in Early British Literature’ from that point on (a title that I disagree with, but that’s another thread). ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/99 "2005-04-28T18:40:16Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Yet another example of what I meant when I said that people get their goddamn BVDs in a ball over anything remotely offensive to women but ignore the shit out of the _exact same behavior_ directed at men. Oh, unless that behavior directed at men offends _women_. > > Do you take it seriously when it’s directed against men too, or is there some other reason you keep mentioning _women_ specifically as the wronged parties? What in the last cold hell are you talking about? WHERE YOU QUOTED ME, I SAID “MEN OR WOMEN.” ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308/100 "2005-04-28T20:28:54Z")
[QUOTE=Anastasaeon] > [@Tastes of Chocolate](#): > > Not to answer for **JohnT** (and if I’m wrong, **John** , please correct me), but I think he’s saying that the word “bitching” is sexist, not that you used the word “sexist”. Nope, bitching isn’t sexist. It’s an attitude. Either gender can apply for the position. Ya know, I have no problem being called a bitch or being told I’m throwing a snit or being the butt of a joke, BUT it’s got to be because of something I’ve done. Not because I’m female. I’ve long told my friends “I want to be evil in my own right, not just because I’m female.” It saddens me somewhat that when people explain that a line of jokes is objectionable to them, the majority response here is to jump on them with both feet and call them whiners and humorless. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-nearly-everything-have-to-be-qualified-nowadays/301308.md?page=6)