Fighting misogyny - but "cunt" and "bitch" are still okay words

[thorny_locust]

@UltraVires

That’s simply untrue. I don’t use that word to describe men, but I see what it means. It means that a man should act like a man and a woman should act like a woman. It’s not that the person sees anything wrong with acting like a woman, just that a man shouldn’t act like a woman. If the same person criticizes a woman for being too manly, does he then think that there is something wrong with both being a woman and being a man???

So what behavior, precisely, do you see as being unfit behavior for a woman, and what behavior, precisely, do you see as being unfit behavior for a man?

@UltraVires

If this guy thought there was “something wrong with being womanly” then why does get married or talk to his mother or his sister? He just tolerates them secretly wishing they would act like men?

People all through history have lived with other people who they think of as being lesser than them. They do this for various reasons: if we’re talking about gender, the reasons may have to do with desire for sex, desire for children, desire for somebody to wait on them and do the dishes, and for that matter taking for granted that this is simply what people do.

Genuine affection for people one thinks of as lesser is quite common. Sometimes it’s even reciprocal, especially if the person thought of as lesser also takes the situation for granted.

I do know some couples who have chosen to follow traditional sex roles, not because either of them thinks of, say, housekeeping as less important than, say, earning cash, or as taking less skill or as taking less work or as requiring less intelligence, but just because that’s how it worked out for them, with their particular combination of preferences and abilities. I have never, however, heard any of these people calling someone a “cunt”; don’t ordinarily hear them calling people “bitches”, either; and I have most certainly never heard any of them calling somebody a “pussy”, or anything else, for not following traditional sex roles.

@UltraVires

This part doesn’t make sense either. If my wife doesn’t mind, did she just not get the memo from the other women that voted this in? .

We are not a monolithic unit. Individuals vary. This should not be news to you.

@UltraVires

Her and every single other woman I’ve never known in my entire life except for liberal academics and those looking to be offended.

In other words, every woman except for the ones who don’t, all of whom you’ve pre-emptively stuck in a category of people you don’t think you should have to listen to.

(Plus which, some of those women who haven’t said anything to you may just not figure that that’s the particular fight they’re going to bother to have that day. Just as silence doesn’t automatically mean consent, silence doesn’t always mean agreement, or contentment with a situation.)

@UltraVires

You cannot accuse me of hating women if I “hate” everyone equally.

Why not?

And I didn’t say “hate”. I don’t know that anybody here did. It’s quite common, as I said above, for people to denigrate other people they’re neutral about, or even quite fond of. It’s quite common for people to think of other people as belonging to an entire category that’s in one or more ways “lesser” than their own, and to be emotionally neutral about or even quite fond of those people.

@UltraVires

So where is your evidence, your empirical studies, that “most” women would view the term bitch the way we have been talking about are insulting to all women? You’ve made the accusation that that term used it that context is “misogynistic” and “hateful and demeaning” presumably to an overwhelming majority of women, to the same extent that the term nigger is hateful to blacks.

Let’s see your work because that’s not my experience.

The work shown in this thread is that it’s the experience of a number of women posting on these boards. We’re talking about what is to be considered proper behavior on these boards. We don’t have to prove that the majority of women on the planet even know what the words are. I’m not sure if the majority of women on the planet even speak English, even as a trade language.

And again I don’t believe anybody’s said that “bitch” is equivalent to “nigger”. Stealing somebody’s wallet and all of their clothes and leaving them naked in the street is worse than just stealing their wallet, but that doesn’t make it OK to go around stealing people’s wallets just because you’re in the habit of it.

[Max_S]

@Irishman

Basically, “You are inferior because you are Black.” And there are still plenty of raging racists out there using the term precisely for that reason. “Nigger” is not dissociated from it’s origin in the way “bastard” is.

As I understand it, that particular word has gone through several stages of history. Depending on the year, the prevailing definition could be a black person, an inferior person, an inferior black person, or a person who is inferior because they are black, and I think that is in order from oldest to most recent, with the latter three still in your standard dictionary. Only the last qualifies as hate speech.

Nevertheless I don’t leave the question of whether a given invective qualifies as hate speech to the subjective reaction of the addressee. When you ask whether or not we are dealing with hate speech, I give little weight to the cultural baggage of the specific words in question. Whether or not the one man feels denigrated, or even whether all black people feel denigrated, doesn’t make a difference. My working definition of hate speech outside the legal context is speech that is motivated by hatred for a protected class. The operative word is motivated, and if it is not demonstrated that the speaker is motivated by hatred for a class of people on account of a protected trait, then I do not consider it to be hate speech.

We could attempt to ascertain the speaker’s state of mind. We can ask, but for a hatred of all black people, would this man have called that man a nigger? This particular test comes out negative, and you might disagree with me, but I think you can call a black man a nigger without being motivated by hatred for all black people. It could very well be the nastiest word you can think of when extremely pissed off, for example if the man had punched your wife. It doesn’t actually matter what the word’s dictionary definition is if the motivation for its use was solely its status as the end-all of insults to black people. Even a child can understand how to use words that way, as I was reminded recently in a book I read. It would be an entirely different calculus if our white man had assaulted a black man unprovoked, shouting profanities. But for hatred of black people in general, would he have yelled nigger while assaulting a random black man? Eh, probably not.

@Irishman

What I can perceive is that the root of the word is “you are a woman so you are worthless”.

Don’t mix up etymology with semantics. The etymology of “cunt” is anatomical. The root of “vagina” is “sheath”, as in a sheath for one’s penis. The reason “cunt” is more offensive is because people use that word when they want to be mean.

Banning the word itself will not make that meanness go away, if that was the goal. It won’t make the misogyny go away when the word otherwise would be used to express misogyny. But for reasons described above, I don’t think the word “cunt” always implies misogyny. As such, banning the word means banning expression of certain thoughts which are not misogynistic. If one was to keep score, that’s zero pros and one con.

~Max

[Emiliana]

Have you looked around lately Max? This is really not the time for an exegesis of the potentially neutral uses of the N word.

I am interested in your use of the term female streetwalkers when referring to women walking down the street however.

[Max_S]

@Emiliana

Have you looked around lately Max? This is really not the time for an exegesis of the potentially neutral uses of the N word.

I had been thinking about making that post for a while now, and eventually I decided it is never “the time for” exegesis of non-hate-speech usage of the n-word as an insult. Then today I decided that it was still a conversation worth having.

@Emiliana

I am interested in your use of the term female streetwalkers when referring to women walking down the street however.

I thought I made a post about that but it must not have gone through. nate had been talking about female pedestrians, especially those wearing risque outfits, and I misremembered that as streetwalkers. I messed up further since it was a separate post (and anecdote) where he talked about being distracted by a woman riding a scooter while driving.

~Max

[Emiliana]

@Max_S

I had been thinking about making that post for a while now, and eventually I decided it is never “the time for” exegesis of non-hate-speech usage of the n-word as an insult. Then today I decided that it was still a conversation worth having.

I thought I made a post about that but it must not have gone through. nate had been talking about female pedestrians, especially those wearing risque outfits, and I misremembered that as streetwalkers. I messed up further since it was a separate post (and anecdote) where he talked about being distracted by a woman riding a scooter while driving.

~Max

You are incorrect. It is not a conversation worth having. At least not on this planet.

Interesting how you turned a thread about a man objectifying women is an especially gross way into a thread about risque prostitutes. You might ponder what that means about your view of women.

[Max_S]

@Emiliana

You are incorrect. It is not a conversation worth having. At least not on this planet.

Interesting how you turned a thread about a man objectifying women is an especially gross way into a thread about risque prostitutes. You might ponder what that means about your view of women.

… yikes.

Sorry for bringing it up.

~Max

[thorny_locust]

@Max_S

When you ask whether or not we are dealing with hate speech, I give little weight to the cultural baggage of the specific words in question. Whether or not the one man feels denigrated, or even whether all black people feel denigrated, doesn’t make a difference.

Max, you can make up the world in your own head that way if you want. But in the world all the rest of us are living in, the cultural baggage of the words is exactly the point, and can in no way be divorced from their meaning.

And do you realize that when you say that even if all black people feel denigrated you don’t see that it makes a difference you’re saying that your lone individual opinion is the only thing that matters, and harm done to anyone else is entirely unimportant? That’s massively insulting in itself, whatever words you use to say it in.

@Max_S

Don’t mix up etymology with semantics. The etymology of “cunt” is anatomical.

I don’t think anyone here, other than possibly you, is mixing up etymology with semantics. Irishman was talking about the use of “cunt” as an insult, not about its use in, say, 1500, or currently by people trying to reclaim it, as a neutral term for anatomy.

And Nate was not talking about women wearing “risque” outfits. He was talking about women wearing clothing that’s currently entirely ordinary. The risque-ness of those was all in his mind, and apparently in yours.

[Max_S]

@thorny_locust

And do you realize that when you say that even if all black people feel denigrated you don’t see that it makes a difference you’re saying that your lone individual opinion is the only thing that matters, and harm done to anyone else is entirely unimportant? That’s massively insulting in itself, whatever words you use to say it in.

I didn’t realize that, and I fear I may have miscommunicated. I am not saying harm done or offense taken is unimportant in every sense, only that it is unimportant when determining whether a given insult is hate speech.

~Max

[Max_S]

@thorny_locust

I don’t think anyone here, other than possibly you, is mixing up etymology with semantics. Irishman was talking about the use of “cunt” as an insult, not about its use in, say, 1500, or currently by people trying to reclaim it, as a neutral term for anatomy.

My main argument was that “cunt” isn’t necessarily hate speech for the same reason “nigger” isn’t necessarily hate speech. I will readily admit that if the one is inherently hate speech, the other must be, but I deny the premise. If one calls a woman a “cunt”, the implication on the speaker’s side is that she is meaner or overbearing or otherwise worse than normal women, otherwise what would be the insult? “I respected you as a man before, but now I see you for what you are, a woman with a vulva”? Historically, that could pass for an insult. Today…? I don’t think that is what someone means when they call a woman a “cunt”. You may recieve that meaning of course, perhaps justifiably so, but that is probably not what the speaker meant.

In my opinion, the word is still offensive because it is used as an insult, not because cultural baggage indicates an insulting and misogynistic connotation. It has lost whatever misogynistic meaning it had, not because of desensitization, but rather the opposite: the word has almost exclusively been used as an insult, and so the historic meaning faded away. People still want to use the word as an insult long after the overt misogyny ceased to be insulting. You are of course free to disagree with me, this is just my opinion.

~Max

[Irishman]

For anecdotal support, I asked my sister about the word “cunt” and it’s use as an insult. She has heard it used, apparently she runs with a rougher crowd than I do. (I.e. my brother-in-law.) She said that she has a visceral reaction to that word, one she doesn’t get from “bitch” or “asshole” or any other term. Her perception is that it is that extreme, that even people who are comfortable dropping motherfuckers will avoid that word. Take it for what it’s worth.

@Max_S

My working definition of hate speech outside the legal context is speech that is motivated by hatred for a protected class. The operative word is motivated, and if it is not demonstrated that the speaker is motivated by hatred for a class of people on account of a protected trait, then I do not consider it to be hate speech.

We could attempt to ascertain the speaker’s state of mind. We can ask, but for a hatred of all black people, would this man have called that man a nigger? This particular test comes out negative, and you might disagree with me, but I think you can call a black man a nigger without being motivated by hatred for all black people. It could very well be the nastiest word you can think of when extremely pissed off, for example if the man had punched your wife. It doesn’t actually matter what the word’s dictionary definition is if the motivation for its use was solely its status as the end-all of insults to black people. Even a child can understand how to use words that way, as I was reminded recently in a book I read. It would be an entirely different calculus if our white man had assaulted a black man unprovoked, shouting profanities. But for hatred of black people in general, would he have yelled nigger while assaulting a random black man? Eh, probably not.

I disagree. Someone willing to use “nigger” as an insult for a black person simply because it is the most hateful word they can think of has no problem being thought of as a racist. If you are not a racist, you don’t use that word simply because you know it will get a reaction, because you come off like a raging Klan member. That word is only the meanest thing to say to a black person precisely because it is inherently a racial slur. There’s no way to use that word as an insult without meaning to be racist.

[BigT]

@Max_S

I didn’t realize that, and I fear I may have miscommunicated. I am not saying harm done or offense taken is unimportant in every sense, only that it is unimportant when determining whether a given insult is hate speech.

~Max

But it very much is. A term doesn’t get labeled hate speech if it doesn’t cause harm and significant offense. It’s not the only factor, mind you, but it is a very important one.

I also note that your response seems to have possibly been a misunderstanding of my advice. Not every statement with “I’m sorry” is an apology. “I’m sorry I asked” is incredulity that someone would are get mad at you.

And I do worry I erred in my advice. You were being very considerate of feelings in the other thread, so I assumed that, when you brought up contentious topics, you would continue to do so, being self effacing. But here you appear to be doing the opposite, assuming that you know more about it than everyone else.

My new suggestion is to take the opposite tact. If you seem to be at odds with the consensus (either in the world or just in the thread), try approaching it from the idea that you are the one who is wrong, but just don’t understand why.

AS for your argument–it is not good. You missed something important: why would that person think the n-word is the worst word they can think of? Heck, why would they know the word at all? If you know the word, you’ve been told the definition. You know that saying it will hurt black people. If you don’t care about that, then you’re being racist.

The criteria for racism is not complete and utter hatred of another race. It can just be a callous indifference. That’s still a form of hate.

There just aren’t any non-racist contexts for the n-word, other than the reclaimed usage. That isn’t quite true of “cunt,” so you can’t compare them on those issues.

As for that word, you’re completely backwards on the usage. The term is only now being recognized as sexist. It’s not a term that used to be sexist. It’s a term that is currently being noticed to be used in a sexist way. That’s why it seems to be on the same trajectory as the N-word.

Ugh. It’s kinda exhausting explaining things to you. I recommend you do better reading on these subjects, so the basics don’t have to be explained. Read up on why “cunt” is considered misogynistic, and read up on people offering your exact counteraguments, and how those are argued. Read up on the concept of hate speech, and why the n-word is considered such.

These are contentious topics, and coming in ill-informed can be difficult to distinguish from willful ignorance and excuse-making.

And if you need help on where to read up on this stuff–now that is an excellent type of question to ask.

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

A compromise is when both side agree to give a little. What are you willing to give for this rule adjustment to happen?

Again, I repeat: * What rule were you speaking of? The rule against using the c-word was rescinded some time ago. or didnt you know that?

Currently the rule is you can use it vs other posters in the Pit, and vs anyone else anywhere else. Unless the Mod in that forum thinks you are out of line for doing so, of course.

I was suggesting only politicians, anywhere. Isnt that a compromise on the current rules?*

Are you going to respond or just duck the question?

[thorny_locust]

@Max_S

I didn’t realize that, and I fear I may have miscommunicated. I am not saying harm done or offense taken is unimportant in every sense, only that it is unimportant when determining whether a given insult is hate speech.~Max

The entire point of words is communication. If you insist on using words with a different meaning than nearly everyone else uses them with, then there isn’t going to be just miscommunication, there’s going to be no communication.

Part of the meaning of words is exactly what you’re calling their “cultural baggage”. It’s not separable from their meaning.

The meaning of hate speech involves offense and harm. Claiming you’re the sole judge of when and whether they matter is still insulting.

[Max_S]

@BigT

But it very much is. A term doesn’t get labeled hate speech if it doesn’t cause harm and significant offense. It’s not the only factor, mind you, but it is a very important one.

I think you are saying that I have the wrong definition for hate speech. I will admit that my entire argument falls apart if harm and significant offense were important factors in determining what is or is not hate speech. You haven’t explained why you think my definition is wrong, but that’s fine since this isn’t a debate over the definition of hate speech. I might make such a thread later on. At this point, I just want to have in my head a consistent mental model of everyone’s arguments. So far, for you I have ‘BigT: hate speech involves harm and significant offense and other factors.’ If you are willing, I would love to see a more complete definition.

@BigT

I also note that your response seems to have possibly been a misunderstanding of my advice. Not every statement with “I’m sorry” is an apology. “I’m sorry I asked” is incredulity that someone would are get mad at you.

That response to Emiliana wasn’t an apology, it was my attempt to make a response more substantial than the elipses. She seems upset with me as a poster. It would be hypocritical for me to apologize without permanently bowing out of the thread and related topics. Even I can recognize that it would be highly insensitive of me to argue whether it is appropriate for me to discuss what I am discussing in this topic. I [DEL]could[/DEL]should have gone without responding, but that thought did not occur to me at the time. I can apologize for that.

@BigT

But here you appear to be doing the opposite, assuming that you know more about it than everyone else.

This is never my intention, and tells me that I have definitely miscommunicated.

@BigT

AS for your argument–it is not good. You missed something important: why would that person think the n-word is the worst word they can think of? Heck, why would they know the word at all? If you know the word, you’ve been told the definition. You know that saying it will hurt black people. If you don’t care about that, then you’re being racist.

Why do we insult others? I generally think the goal is to hurt them, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. If you approach the situation knowing that the speaker’s goal is to hurt his target through invective, doesn’t it make sense that the speaker chooses the most hurtful words he can think of? The hypothetical under discussion involves a white man insulting a black man who had punched the white man’s wife. He might have said, “Did you just punch my wife, ******?” Those asterisks could be any vulgar word, but I think it is within reason for some people in that situation to pick the n-word just because it is the most hurtful, shocking word they could think of.

The context is one where the norms of civility are already broken down. I am not saying it is okay to walk into a black church and start cursing at people. We’re talking about a situation where someone’s wife was punched.

And then of course, the dictionary definition of this particular word is not “an ethnic slur that implies all black people are subhuman”, but rather, a perjorative for a black person. Some dictionaries even mention that it is racially charged. Until high school I did not know a thing about the meaning of the word aside from “a really bad word for black people, unless in music or used among friends and pronounced with an ‘a’”. Even in high school, I learned about it from news stories about Huckleberry Finn, it’s not like they taught the history of the n-word during Black History Month. And the word was so verboten we never asked anybody about it.

@BigT

The criteria for racism is not complete and utter hatred of another race. It can just be a callous indifference. That’s still a form of hate.

Perhaps we could have a separate thread about that one.

@BigT

As for that word, you’re completely backwards on the usage. The term is only now being recognized as sexist. It’s not a term that used to be sexist. It’s a term that is currently being noticed to be used in a sexist way. That’s why it seems to be on the same trajectory as the N-word.

You are right, that is completely counter to what I learned. I had thought “cunt” was obscene since the days of Shakespear at least, with the same meaning as it has today. If I remember correctly he used some sort of euphanism or pun to get the word into one of the plays. Unless you are pointing out that recognizing sexism is a recent development…?

@BigT

Ugh. It’s kinda exhausting explaining things to you. I recommend you do better reading on these subjects, so the basics don’t have to be explained. Read up on why “cunt” is considered misogynistic, and read up on people offering your exact counteraguments, and how those are argued. Read up on the concept of hate speech, and why the n-word is considered such.

These are contentious topics, and coming in ill-informed can be difficult to distinguish from willful ignorance and excuse-making.

And if you need help on where to read up on this stuff–now that is an excellent type of question to ask.

I have done what I consider to be basic research on the subjects, not just for this thread but for previous threads too. I will read any links you forward my way, probably not books though. Most of the literature I could find on hate speech is narrowly tailored to the legal context, which means incitement to violence, fighting words, etc. I have my own reasons for settling with a definition that relies on motivation rather than reaction. As to why “cunt” is a misogynist slur, you are correct, I have hardly anything to go on except the naive theory that it’s misogynist because misogynists use the word. Unless, of course, we misunderstand eachother as to the meaning of “misogynistic”.

~Max

[Max_S]

@thorny_locust

The entire point of words is communication. If you insist on using words with a different meaning than nearly everyone else uses them with, then there isn’t going to be just miscommunication, there’s going to be no communication.

Part of the meaning of words is exactly what you’re calling their “cultural baggage”. It’s not separable from their meaning.

I think there are multiple issues here. One, I operate under a fundamentally different theory of semantics than you and Riemann. Two, I live in a totally different world than you and Riemann. I don’t see an appeal to common sense or the popular opinion convincing me that calling a person “bitch” is necessarily misogynistic hate speech, because that is directly counter to my experience around men and women in real life. People say “bitch” here more than they say “damn”. I know it’s not like this everywhere but it is very foreign to suggest to me that the word itself is necessarily hate speech. Like saying you don’t eat grits, or you have a basement, or you have snow tires, or you are a registered Democrat - these are totally foreign concepts to me.

Likewise to a lesser extent, I don’t hear “cunt” very much but I know “nigger” is still occasionally used by the elderly and, unfortunately, by the young.

@thorny_locust

The meaning of hate speech involves offense and harm. Claiming you’re the sole judge of when and whether they matter is still insulting.

I apologize for the miscommunication. The only thing I am the sole master of is my own opinion.

~Max

[Max_S]

First, what I understand of Northern Piper’s opinion. My assumptions in parenthesis, guesses in brackets.
Calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is always expressing hatred (towards women [in general?]). (Expressing hatred towards women [in general?] is always misogynist speech). What is misogynist speech is always hate speech. What is hate speech should always be banned. Therefore, calling a woman “bitch” and “cunt” should always be banned.
My question for Northern Piper is this: is it misogyny to hate a single woman, or must one hate women in general to qualify as a misogynist? I ask because while I concede that calling a woman a “bitch” or “cunt” expresses hatred, I am not so sure that such an expression of hatred necessarily counts as misogyny or hate speech. If I say to a woman, “I hate you”, that doesn’t necessarily mean I am a misogynist. I think I would need to hate the woman because she is a woman in order to qualify as a misogynist, or put another way, I would need to hate women in general.

Assuming you agree with me, is it true that calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is always expressing hatred towards women in general? I’m not talking about reclaimed usages, I’m talking about as insults like, “The bitch wouldn’t let me through, so I had to wait forever”, or “You fucking cunt, get the hell out of my sight!” I’m not asking whether all women would feel offended if they were the subjects of these lines, I am asking whether these lines in and of themselves are their composer’s expression of hatred towards women in general.

Northern Piper’s second line of argument, as I understand it, is basically that misogynist speech should be banned because it is like racist speech and racist speech is banned. This isn’t really a separate argument, misogynist speech is like racist speech because they are both (I assume) hate speech, and the reason racist speech is banned is because it is hate speech. It makes more sense to cut out the middle man and just stick with the first argument.

Next up, Miller’s counter-arguments, as I understand them.
Calling a woman “bitch” is not always an expression of hatred towards women in general.
(Calling a woman “cunt” is not always an expression of hatred towards women in general.)
Calling a woman “cunt” is not always (an expression that passes a certain threshold of offensiveness). Hate speech is (always) an expression that passes a certain threshold of offensiveness. Therefore, calling a woman a “cunt” is not always hate speech.

Next is my own counter-arguments.
Calling a woman “bitch” is not always an expression of hatred towards women in general.
Calling a woman “cunt” is not always an expression of hatred towards women in general.
Hate speech is always expressing hatred based on a protected trait. Calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is not always expressing hatred based on a protected trait. Therefore, calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is not always hate speech.

Here is what I can understand of QuickSilver’s argument for most of the thread.
Calling a woman “bitch” is not always an expression of hatred towards women in general.
Calling a woman “cunt” is not always an expression of hatred towards women in general.

And here is what I understand of Riemann’s argument.
Calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is always an expression which a certain threshold of people find highly offensive. An expression which a certain threshold of people find highly offensive is always something which probably creates a hostile environment. Something which probably creates a hostile environment is always something which should be banned. Therefore, calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is always something which should be banned.
My counter to this is that the final premise doesn’t apply to the Pit.

And here, iiandyiiii’s argument as I understand it based on this and previous conversations. I actually think his position is close to Riemann’s.
Calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is always an expression which reminds most women of oppression, sexism, and misogyny throughout history. An expression which reminds most women of oppression, sexism, and misogyny throughout history is always (an expression that encourages sexism and misogyny). An expression that encourages sexism and misogyny is always an immoral expression that is beyond-the-pale. An immoral expression that is beyond-the-pale is always something that should be banned. Therefore, calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is always something that should be banned.
I think Miller preempted this argument when he said “I try to moderate based on contemporary social standards on how these words are used. I don’t try to moderate to create new social standards on how they’re used.” I most certainly disagree that all sexist or misogynist expressions are beyond the pale, especially not in the Pit.

These are, from what I can tell and in my humble opinion, all of the major on-topic arguments put forward in this thread.

---

The side discussion

Let’s look at one of my arguments again.
[ul][li]Hate speech is always expressing hatred based on a protected trait.[/li][li]Calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is not always expressing hatred based on a protected trait.[/li][li]Therefore, calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is not always hate speech.[/ul][/li]When I made this argument, I drew an analogy like so:
[ul][li]Hate speech is always expressing hatred based on a protected trait.[/li][li]Calling a black man “nigger” is not always expressing hatred based on a protected trait.[/li][li]Therefore, calling a black man “nigger” is not always hate speech.[/ul][/li]
These are the counter arguments to that, as I understand them.

Riemann & thorny locust:
The semantic meaning of words is based on objective social consensus, specifically, calling people “nigger” or “cunt” is always expressing hatred based on a protected trait.
I just plain disagree with that theory of semantics, but I will concede that if true, it follows that both words should be banned as hate speech.

Irishman:
Expressing hatred based on a protected trait is not hate speech; expressing something that is percieved as hatred based on a protected trait is hate speech.
Similar to above, I can see this argument and will concede that if true, it follows that both “nigger” and “cunt” should be banned as hate speech. I don’t agree on principle because with this definition we can only determine whether a statement is hate speech after-the-fact.

~Max

[Emiliana]

Here’s the thing, Max. You’ve taken over a thread on board misogyny to argue, at remarkable length, that you can use the term nigger as an insult without being a racist.

We are in the midst of extraordinary turmoil over police violence against African Americans. The president has just called on the military to open fire on American citizens protesting police racism and violence.

We are also in the midst of a pandemic which has disproportionately affected African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, due to the deeply racist and inegalitarian nature of the United States.

But hey, let’s talk about how acceptable the N word is.

You indicated in the other thread that you don’t understand the concept of empathy. You definitely don’t understand how language works. I can only image that you have but limited social interactions at the best of times.

What really boggles my mind is that the mods consider this to be a good look for the board.

Way to achieve peak whiteness, dudes.

[thorny_locust]

@Max_S

I live in a totally different world than you

That’s for sure. And I recommend that you stop trying to insist that your world is the only one that matters.

@Max_S

it is very foreign to suggest to me that the word itself is necessarily hate speech. Like saying you don’t eat grits, or you have a basement, or you have snow tires, or you are a registered Democrat - these are totally foreign concepts to me.

If it’s genuinely a totally foreign concept to you that not everyone in the world lives exactly the same way as you do, then that is something that you ought to fix.

You’ve picked four examples of utterly ordinary things, all of which can easily be proved to exist in the world and in human society, as being beyond your comprehension. Your analogy is backfiring on you.

@Max_S

I apologize for the miscommunication. The only thing I am the sole master of is my own opinion.

I don’t think it is a miscommunication. I think that you’re communicating quite clearly that you think your opinion ought to override other people’s injury.

And I agree with Emiliana. I’ve said what I have to say to you on this, Max. I don’t think it’s remotely useful to continue.
I would like to know whether the mods are paying any attention to this thread, and whether there will be any response to it.

[madmonk28]

I would like to know that too. I would hope that the thread is allowed to remain open, as misogyny on the SDMB is an important topic that comes up again and again.

[Riemann]

@Max_S

…always…always…always. always…

Your insertion of “always” thirty times is a misrepresentation of the issue, and elucidates nothing.

@Max_S

…is it misogyny to hate a single woman, or must one hate women in general to qualify as a misogynist? I ask because while I concede that calling a woman a “bitch” or “cunt” expresses hatred, I am not so sure that such an expression of hatred necessarily counts as misogyny or hate speech. If I say to a woman, “I hate you”, that doesn’t necessarily mean I am a misogynist. I think I would need to hate the woman because she is a woman in order to qualify as a misogynist, or put another way, I would need to hate women in general.

You seem to be under the bizarrely mistaken impression that the meaning of words is somehow changed by your intent or your individual state of knowledge. If you had a stroke that rewired the language center of your brain so that you thought the word “cat” referred to a banana, would that make it so? Of course not. Words mean what they mean because of broad social consensus on their meaning. Individual people do not get to choose their own special meanings for words. Semantic content can be a matter for scientific debate among linguists, by it is an empirical question with an objectively correct answer in a given culture/dialect.

Of course saying “I hate you” to a woman is not misogynistic, nobody has suggested that. It is the use of certain specific vocabulary that is misogynistic, because of the semantic baggage associated with that specific vocabulary in our culture. Its use carries objective meaning in our society that is entirely independent of the speaker’s intent. You cannot magically strip away that semantic baggage just by intending your own special meaning, any more than you can make “cat” mean banana. The only relevance of intent would be in whether you were being ignorantly misogynistic or maliciously misogynistic.

@Max_S

Here is what I can understand of QuickSilver’s argument for most of the thread.
Calling a woman “bitch” is not always an expression of hatred towards women in general.
Calling a woman “cunt” is not always an expression of hatred towards women in general.

And here is what I understand of Riemann’s argument.
Calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is always an expression which a certain threshold of people find highly offensive. An expression which a certain threshold of people find highly offensive is always something which probably creates a hostile environment. Something which probably creates a hostile environment is always something which should be banned. Therefore, calling a woman “bitch” or “cunt” is always something which should be banned.
My counter to this is that the final premise doesn’t apply to the Pit.

No. Once again, this always vs not always distinction that you have manufactured in your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what I have said (and in your broader gross misconceptions about language) is not the point at all.

The correct distinction is objective vs subjective. The semantic content of words, including their cultural baggage, is certainly something that may vary over time and among cultures. But it is still an objective empirical phenomenon, not a subjective one. Individual people do not get to choose what words mean, and subjective intent does not change the meaning of words.

The specific word under discussion here signifies misogyny, because that’s the objective semantic cultural baggage of the word in U.S. culture. That empirical claim is the only issue that might in principle be open to dispute. But what is complete nonsense is your notion that there are special circumstances where a speaker’s subjective intent can strip away semantic baggage to give a word some different or narrower meaning. If you want to tell a specific woman that you hate her, then tell her so by saying “I hate you”, or using some less loaded slur. If you want to convey the additional meaning that you don’t give a shit about misogyny, and you want to create a social environment that’s hostile to all women, then throw around the word “cunt”. Because in the real world, that’s what these words mean.