If we’ve established that your question (for the moment, at least) is about the use of the word “cunt,” and whether it should be allowed on the SDMB as a generic insult, then what do you think about this example?–
versus
The latter is shorter. I’m guessing you would argue that it’s “better” because of the brevity. And if you were arguing honestly, you’d probably defend it on the basis that shock value makes for a better post than does accurate description. (The latter, which of course I’m attributing to you only hypothetically [and possibly incorrectly] is probably not a universally-endorsed view.)
The main point about the second construction, though—which I think you’re either missing, or dismissive of—is that its message is NOT that the Las Vegas mayor is deplorable because of particular actions and policy positions. Its message is that the Las Vegas mayor is deplorable because she’s female.
Likewise, the construction “Piers Morgan is a cunt” is a claim that Piers Morgan is deplorable not for particular actions or words he’s responsible for, but for being ‘like a female’. The fact that this is the ultimate insult is pure misogyny.
As others in the thread have said, hatred and dislike of the female is part of our culture. It’s the air we breathe. Many people don’t notice it until it’s pointed out, and even then greatly resist any suggestion that there might be some negatives involved in embracing it. (In this case, the negatives being the fact that many women who might otherwise support this message board, don’t feel welcome in the face of some “casual insults” used here—and therefore that potential support is lost.)
I don’t think that’s an entirely accurate conclusion to draw. I am certainly considering their opinions and those of others. That I didn’t immediately capitulate to an argument is not an indication that I’m not taking their arguments seriously.
I do indeed use it for brevity in certain cases where a short, sharp rebuke is fitting and in context where everybody is aware of why an insult is warranted. It’s not always necessary to re-state the obvious.
In insulting P.M., I do not use the term because I think the use of a female gender based insult is somehow worse than a male gender based term. What I’m thinking is, he’s a Brit, it’s not uncommon to hear that kind of insult in the UK, it’s fitting.
And that is certainly regrettable. I obviously don’t want to think of myself of having contributed to that sort or exodus. Most especially because I don’t believe I’ve ever espoused misogynistic views. As I’ve pointed out, my personal experience in my interactions with women has been a mixed bag. Which is why I don’t entirely/immediately agree that a gender based insult used agnostically is inherently misogynistic. But I’m taking in what you and others have said and will continue to evaluate my position.
I always thought that the expression meant that while there is some phallic similarity between a dick and a cigar, sometimes we should overlook the secondary metaphorical meaning and not try so hard to find hidden intent where there is none.
I don’t have an opinion on what words are OK that is worth wasting your time over. All I can say is that modding is a tough, thankless job and everybody who thinks they know exactly where the lines should be drawn would get eviscerated but others who are sure they are idiots.
I can only ask that mods be open-minded, not take things personally, and do as good a job as they humanly can; admit mistakes when they occur. I think we have that and the modding here is about as good as any I’ve encountered. The rest of us need to chill out on occasion.
The problem with being provocative is that you’re likely to provoke people.
Yes, exactly. We’re swimming in it; and not everybody notices the water, because we’ve been swimming in it our whole lives.
The fact that it’s considered normal doesn’t indicate that it’s not a problem. The fact that it’s considered normal indicates the size of the problem.
I don’t think I can reasonably be accused of being a callow youth; though in any case I’ll note that being older doesn’t always mean being more correct. And the conclusion I’m drawing from the above post is that you don’t mind offending all the women who do find it offensive; including those of us on these boards.
It’s also not uncommon to hear “git” or “twit” in the UK. Other frequently-heard and authentically British insults: “berk” and “prat” and “chuffer”. “Wanker” and “tosser” may denote an activity often attributed to men, but of course practiced by women as well, so they could count as non-gendered.
I’ll leave aside the clearly-gendered terms (knob, twat, slag, bell end, etc.).
But there is a richness in the non-gendered list. So if you’re concerned to produce a culturally appropriate slur on Mr. Morgan, why must it be one that compares him to a female body part? Why is that the ultimate put-down?
Okay. And having been informed by some women that they find that language offensive, what have you done? Do you continue to use the word in their presence or do you adjust your language?
You are quite correct. So how is the expression “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” applicable to using words for genitalia as a slur? The model you propose with literal and metaphorical meanings does not apply here. We are obviously never literally saying that somebody is a vagina or a penis. How do we know that calling somebody after genitilia is even a bad thing at all without cultural context? They are not intrinsically bad things - in principle, in some other culture they could signify something virtuous like fertility.
The import of what words like “cunt” and “prick” signify in our culture is all there is.
When determining whether speech is hate speech, I think you’re giving more weight to opinions of the insulted, whereas I’m giving more weight to the intention of the speaker. We can agree to disagree on that. I can certainly see it your way.
No, because the symmetry you claim is an illusion that could only have any validity if the speaker operated in a social vacuum, entirely ignorant of any unintended consequences of his choice of vocabulary. If a term is insulting to a class of people, and the speaker knows this, at that point the only possibilities are either that his primary intent is to insult them, or that he doesn’t give a shit if he insults them as collateral damage.
Fair point. I adjust my behavior to conform to a reasonable request.
It applies in the following way:
We appear to be in general agreement that insults using male or female slurs for genitalia are culturally common and significant.
While there is a misogynistic or misandristic (?) meaning to these words, this is not always so because there are common examples in our culture in how they are used gender agnostically.
Therefore, a sexist meaning is not always implied nor should it always be assumed.
So when I call Pierce Morgan a “cunt”, I’m not trying to emasculate him or say he is something less in the sense of his social standing based on gender. I’m just using a cuss word that is part of the cultural lexicon.
So when I call a white politician the “N” word, I am not commenting on his color or racial background. I’m just using a cuss word that is part of the cultural lexicon.
QED: A “No Smoking” area is always a “No Smoking” area.
Why not use whinging or whining? There are always, always other insults that could be used. You don’t have to use a word founded in misogyny. You don’t have to use a hate word. Really you don’t.