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

[Max_S]

@Irishman

It’s like the example dropped in this very thread about “He Jewed me down.” It’s reasonable to accept someone uses that phrase innocently, not thinking about what it means and just using it because that’s what they’ve heard all their lives. But that does not make the phrase less racist. And having that pointed out to you shouldn’t be a moment of “are you calling me a racist?”, but one of “Oh, I didn’t know that was racist, I’ll stop using it.”

No, no. I think you’ve somehow forgotten that we are talking about intentional use of sensitive words as insults. You can leave good faith ignorance out of this conversation. In a normal debate or any other polite conversation, if someone says you are hurting them, you don’t argue or ask what it means to hurt, you just move off their feet. (Meta-conversations such as this one excepted - in law they might issue an injunction until the meta is sorted out)

I’m talking about… what phrase did I use… “Insensitive blockheads.” Imagine there is a random thread in the Pit. Insensitive blockhead says, “X is a *****”. Some woman member says, “Hey, I’m sick of seeing you call people that. Please stop. It is an incredibly offensive and misogynist word.” What do you think the response would be? “No, it’s not misogynist to call people *****, you oversensitive *****.” Blockheads because they don’t care that you think the word is misogynist, they don’t and that’s that. Insensitive because they don’t care that it hurts you.

Now, I almost got hooked on the “we really don’t want this kind of toxicity anyways” argument. That one is, in my opinion, the best out of all the supporting arguments in this thread. Much better than the hate speech route. But the way I see it, the Pit is like a vent for those who would otherwise explode all over the forums. When something devolves into pointless insult-slinging anywhere else in the forums, I have always thought of it as, ‘you two, to the Pit.’ If you don’t want exposure to dirty words, why roll around in the Pit to begin with? If the rest of the board is operating under the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, the Pit is supposed to be no-holds-barred, or something approaching that. If you have a bone to pick, if you have something to rant about, if you just feel like participating in a shouting match, schadenfreude, etc.

Granted, I am new and it’s not up to me to decide what the purpose of the Pit is.

@Irishman

Do you really think there are people so naïve out there that they don’t realize the meaning of using the n-word? If they know the word is hateful to blacks, they know why it is hateful to blacks, and the choice to use it conveys more than “I hate you”, it conveys the whole power dynamic of “I’m white and have all the power and you’re black and do not.”

Same as above, I think you’ve forgotten that we were talking about deliberate insults. No naivette required, only blockheadedness. I had given an ad-hoc definition something along the lines of “you are lesser than me” or “you are a black person who is lesser than me”. I don’t want to drag you into another extended discussion about this after three members left the thread and even you’ve sworn off the topic.

@Irishman

A person may not intend misogyny, but it is still misogynist language.

According to the judgement of whoever reads it, yes, it is possible. We’ll explore this shortly.

@Irishman

I accept there is a distinction between someone using that language to intentionally express misogyny, and not intending misogyny. The point is the language is still misogynist. The point is to make people aware of how hateful the language is, to get rid of the unexamined embedded misogyny in our culture by pointing it out.

My position, should you wish to understand it, is that it is not hateful language if the intent is gone. It could still be misogynist language but that would be equivocating on the term misogynist language, which I have taken to mean misogynist hate speech. If your goal here is to get rid of misogynist language which is not hate speech, we would be having a totally different debate.

That being said, I want to preemptively counter an objection you might have:

‘Max, say your way wins out. You’ve got Pit threads littered with “bitch” and “cunt”. A reasonable person might go in there and be disgusted by misogynist hate speech, but at the same time you can’t reasonably say that any poster intended to come across as misogynists.’

I will show that this is an impossible situation. I don’t want the Pit to become some sort of safe-haven for misogynists who hide behind a fig leaf of perpetual naivette. I’m fine with mods exercising their discretion when someone claims to be naive.

Pretend you are mod in the Pit. You come across a post which uses the forbidden words. Is it possible for you to at once find this post to be misogynist hate speech (my def.), and simultaneously that the poster’s intent non-misogynist? Yes, it is. Now let’s rule out naivette. Is it still possible to find the post to be misogynist hate speech and simultaneously that the poster had non-misogynist intent? No, it is not.

Think of it this way. Under my argument, it’s only “misogynist hate speech” or “misogynist language” when the speaker intended to convey hatred of women. The only way a reasonable person might classify a post as misogynist hate speech when the poster intended otherwise is if the poster made some naive mistake, as in the “Jew them down” example.

Let’s look at (fictional) examples, following my blueprint:
[ul][li]In a thread about mall shopping, out of the blue, “Stop by Starbucks. Bitches love Starbucks.”[/li] I think it’s intentional. The implication is that all women are bitches.
[li]Same thread. “Some girls just like wasting your money on useless stuff. Watch out for those bitches, pay cash if necessary.”[/li] Not misogynist intent. In context, “bitches” is a subset of “girls” who “like wasting your money”, which is not a protected trait.
[li]After linking the mayor’s decision to reopen L.A. a post reads, “She’s a stupid cunt.”[/li] Not necessarily misogynist intent. Why is she a stupid cunt? It could be because she is a woman (protected trait, therefore misogynist intent). It could also be because of her decision (not protected trait, not misogynist intent).[/ul]

@Irishman

Funny, my experience with people who drop the n-word is that they are comfortable being called a racist.

It must be different where I live.

~Max

[Babale]

Max – focus on your third example. If you disagree with someone’s decisions you may call that person stupid, so the “stupid” insult likely comes from there.

What about her actions led you to the word “cunt” in this hypothetical, other than her gender?

[Max_S]

@Babale

Max – focus on your third example. If you disagree with someone’s decisions you may call that person stupid, so the “stupid” insult likely comes from there.

What about her actions led you to the word “cunt” in this hypothetical, other than her gender?

That is a good point, but I don’t believe the redundancy of using two insults implies two separate things are behind each insult. Compare “you stupid idiot”. In your “but-for” analysis, you need to ask “but-for his hatred of all women, would he have used those words?” and not “but-for the fact that the mayor is a woman, would he have used those words?”

~Max

[Babale]

@Max_S

That is a good point, but I don’t believe the redundancy of using two insults implies two separate things are behind each insult. Compare “you stupid idiot”. In your “but-for” analysis, you need to ask “but-for his hatred of all women, would he have used those words?” and not “but-for the fact that the mayor is a woman, would he have used those words?”

~Max

You don’t have to hate women or be a misogynist in order to do misogynistic things, though.

[Sherrerd]

@Max_S

“You are a bitch” and “you are a cunt” does not clearly convey the intent of the speaker, at least not to the point where we can rule for or against misogyny.

Your claim here is unsupported, and, I believe, quite false.

“You are stupid” conveys the message ‘there is something wrong with your intelligence.’

“You are selfish” conveys the message ‘there is something wrong with your conduct which demonstrates self-absorption.’

“You are arrogant and entitled” conveys the message ‘there is something wrong with being overbearing.’

“You are a cunt” and “you are a bitch” convey the message ‘you are female, or acting like a female, and there is something wrong with that.’

It would appear that you like having the option of policing others by either labeling them as female, or comparing them to females, and that the benefit to you of so doing is the negative connotations involved in either being female or being like a female. And you will continue to defend this practice.

But if you make unsupported claims, you have to expect that this will be noted.

(my emphasis in the quote)

[Riemann]

@Max_S

“You are a bitch” and “you are a cunt” does not clearly convey the intent of the speaker, at least not to the point where we can rule for or against misogyny.

Once again, this is the heart of your (astonishing) failure to grasp the way language works. Meaning is contained in the words themselves, not in the intent.

Again, consider that I have had a stroke, and that the language center of my brain has been rewired so that I now think the word “blue” means the color yellow. Suppose I now say “The banana is blue.” My intent was to say that the banana is yellow. Is it really your belief that I have described the color of the banana accurately?

That’s preposterous on its face. The Monty Python phrasebook comes to mind. If someone intends to ask for half a pound of butter, but the sentence that comes out of their mouth is “Your hovercraft is full of eels”, is it really your contention that they asked for half a pound of butter, because that was their intent?

The meaning of words is defined objectively by cultural consensus, not by subjective intent. You cannot strip away the semantic content of the word “cunt” by intending to use it to mean something else.

[Irishman]

@Max_S

It is not nonsensical to say “quit being such a bitch” to a woman (or girl) who is acting scared or shy or indecisive. Here the unspoken statement is that the woman is a bitch because she is acting scared/shy/indecisive. But it is still an insult to call her a bitch, which no doubt contributes to the speaker’s choice of that particular word. Why is it still an insult?

I don’t know if this helps or hurts your argument or ours, but being shy or scared or indecisive is not typically what gets a woman labeled a “bitch”. Assertiveness, being loud, not accepting someone’s argument, not accepting someone’s come ons, standing up for herself - those are the typical traits that earn the label “bitch”. In fact, I can only see being shy or scared or indecisive as being labeled “bitch” if it has something to do with her not reacting positively to sexual advances.

It is not nonsensical to say, “watch out for X, he’s a real bitch when it comes to Y” and refer to his assertive nature. The unspoken statement is that X is a bitch because he is too assertive or overbearing. But it is still an insult to call him a bitch in this context, hence why the speaker chose that particular word. Why is it still an insult?

Are the speakers in these examples simply confused in their understanding of the word “bitch”? Are these sentences nonsensical to you? If I look in my dictionary the literal definitions of “bitch” are not actually gender-exclusive.

Okay, so let’s explore the history of the word. “Bitch” first meant a female dog, especially in heat. Then it became a slang word for an easy woman. Then it became a general purpose insult for women, especially overbearing or strident ones. “Bitching” became slang for complaining about something as an extension of women being overbearing. Slang then extended to describing difficult situations as “a bitch”. Slang in hop-hop uses “bitch” as a general purpose word for woman along with “ho” - whore. Finally, slang attributes subservience to “bitches”. Yes, a man can be a bitch by being subservient, like the hip-hop attitude of what women should be.

I’ve pointed out before, “bitch” seems to be the general purpose insult for women equivalent to “bastard”, “dick”, “asshole”, “prick”, “ass”, “son-of-a-bitch”, etc. So, does the gendered nature of the insult suggest that “woman” is a part of the insult?

Au contraire, it is an insult to call a woman a cocksucker and it is an insult to call a man or woman a motherfucker. I will not contest the reality that people attach a homophobic undercurrent to “cocksucker”, but neither do I believe choosing the word as an insult necessarily implies any intention to disparage homosexuals. My theory is that many insults are used just because they are known to be insulting.

Au contraire, most men want their women to be cocksuckers. The only reason that would be an insult to women is, once again, because it addresses them as women.

It may be true that many people choose insults out of habit and simple awareness they are offensive words, without necessarily considering the nature of the insult. That’s just what we say to be offensive. However, that does not remove the nature of the insult from the words. At best, it says the person speaking is ignorant of the word’s meaning. It could also mean the person is aware and doesn’t care - but that’s the same thing as intending the insult.

@Max_S

No, no. I think you’ve somehow forgotten that we are talking about intentional use of sensitive words as insults. You can leave good faith ignorance out of this conversation. [snip]

I’m talking about… what phrase did I use… “Insensitive blockheads.” Imagine there is a random thread in the Pit. Insensitive blockhead says, “X is a *****”. Some woman member says, “Hey, I’m sick of seeing you call people that. Please stop. It is an incredibly offensive and misogynist word.” What do you think the response would be? “No, it’s not misogynist to call people *****, you oversensitive *****.” Blockheads because they don’t care that you think the word is misogynist, they don’t and that’s that. Insensitive because they don’t care that it hurts you.

Then they are misogynist blockheads, because even if they don’t intend misogyny, they are using it. They don’t care.

Now, I almost got hooked on the “we really don’t want this kind of toxicity anyways” argument. That one is, in my opinion, the best out of all the supporting arguments in this thread. Much better than the hate speech route. But the way I see it, the Pit is like a vent for those who would otherwise explode all over the forums. When something devolves into pointless insult-slinging anywhere else in the forums, I have always thought of it as, ‘you two, to the Pit.’ If you don’t want exposure to dirty words, why roll around in the Pit to begin with? If the rest of the board is operating under the Marquess of Queensberry Rules, the Pit is supposed to be no-holds-barred, or something approaching that. If you have a bone to pick, if you have something to rant about, if you just feel like participating in a shouting match, schadenfreude, etc.

So racism is perfectly acceptable in the Pit, because that’s what the Pit is for? If we’re restricting some kind of language as unacceptable, as too toxic, then surely it is acceptable to evaluate what types of language fit that criteria.

Separately, I and some others have pointed out that the Pit doesn’t really work the way it is ideally portrayed. Instead of working as a safety valve, to let other areas of the board be hostility free, it builds and festers and animosity to where it is harder to not partake in other forums. But that’s an argument for a different thread.

Same as above, I think you’ve forgotten that we were talking about deliberate insults. No naivette required, only blockheadedness. I had given an ad-hoc definition something along the lines of “you are lesser than me” or “you are a black person who is lesser than me”. I don’t want to drag you into another extended discussion about this after three members left the thread and even you’ve sworn off the topic.

No. A blockhead is not able to dismiss the racism of a racial slur simply because he’s a blockhead and doesn’t understand or care about the racism. Ascribing a person to lesser status by denigrating the whole group is not limiting that insult to a particular person or subset of the group.

My position, should you wish to understand it, is that it is not hateful language if the intent is gone.

Yes, I understand that is your position. I disagree with it. Hateful language carries the baggage of history and culture with it.

It could still be misogynist language but that would be equivocating on the term misogynist language, which I have taken to mean misogynist hate speech. If your goal here is to get rid of misogynist language which is not hate speech, we would be having a totally different debate.

Could you elaborate on misogynist language that is not hate speech?

@Max_S

That is a good point, but I don’t believe the redundancy of using two insults implies two separate things are behind each insult. Compare “you stupid idiot”. In your “but-for” analysis, you need to ask “but-for his hatred of all women, would he have used those words?” and not “but-for the fact that the mayor is a woman, would he have used those words?”

Okay, but for the fact the mayor is a woman, why would he have used those words? Why “cunt”, except that she’s a woman? How does that not express hatred of women?

[MrDibble]

@Irishman

Slang in hop-hop uses “bitch” as a general purpose word for woman along with “ho” - whore. Finally, slang attributes subservience to “bitches”. Yes, a man can be a bitch by being subservient, like the hip-hop attitude of what women should be.

Why single out hip-hop? If anything, I’d associate casual use of the word “bitch” for all women with biker culture (and not just outlaw bikers, either), before I’d think of hip-hop.

[Irishman]

Fair enough. Both cultures are inundated with casual misogyny.

[Riemann]

@Babale

You don’t have to hate women or be a misogynist in order to do misogynistic things, though.

Exactly. Max is obsessed with intent. He seems to be under the impression that what’s important here is to undertake a deep psychological analysis of the speaker, to try to discern whether they are really a bad person who hates all women, or whether they just hate this woman, or whether maybe they should get a pass because they had a troubled childhood. And that… what, if we can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every speaker is really evil, people should be free to use the word “cunt” (and even the worst racial slurs), because some people might not really intend these words in the way that true misogynists and racists mean them?

This utter nonsense should have been dismissed pages ago, instead it has become an extended and pointless hijack of the purpose of this thread.

[Riemann]

The only thing that matters in this debate is the following:

@Miller

…I try to moderate based on contemporary social standards on how these words are used…

Nobody is concerned with the motivation or intent of any particular speaker, that’s speaks only to whether people are being inadvertently misogynistic or racist, or doing so maliciously.

The point is that words mean things, they have objective meaning defined by cultural consensus, sometimes including complex semantic baggage that reflects our social history. And our concern here is the impact of certain vocabulary on people who are exposed to it, not the intent of the speaker. The question is whether certain vocabulary creates a hostile environment for women members. And whether a trivial restriction on freedom of speech is worthwhile to foster a more inclusive and diverse community.

[Sherrerd]

@Riemann

Exactly. Max is obsessed with intent. He seems to be under the impression that what’s important here is to undertake a deep psychological analysis of the speaker, to try to discern whether they are really a bad person who hates all women, or whether they just hate this woman, or whether maybe they should get a pass because they had a troubled childhood. And that… what, if we can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every speaker is really evil, people should be free to use the word “cunt” (and even the worst racial slurs), because some people might not really intend these words in the way that true misogynists and racists mean them?

This utter nonsense should have been dismissed pages ago, instead it has become an extended and pointless hijack of the purpose of this thread.

Note that Max’s reliance on “intent” as a defense of using misogynistic language is closely related to the “it was just a joke” defense used by many who get into potential legal trouble for language (and sometimes actions) that offend.

In fact, the first hit for “it was just a joke” on Google, as of today, is a law firm’s site. The page describes a number of court cases in which sexual or other types of harassment resulted in serious financial consequences for the company employing the person who insisted on his (usually) “right” to say whatever he pleased. From the introduction:

Almost all harassers claim that they were “just joking.”

It Was Just A Joke | Boardman Clark

The person who claims that offensive comments were “a joke” is claiming that because his or her intent was not to offend, but instead to provoke laughter, that he or she should not be held responsible for the comments.

The “intent” defense appears to be just as disreputable as its cousin, the “just joking” defense.

[thorny_locust]

@Riemann

The only thing that matters in this debate is the following:

Nobody is concerned with the motivation or intent of any particular speaker, that’s speaks only to whether people are being inadvertently misogynistic or racist, or doing so maliciously.

The point is that words mean things, they have objective meaning defined by cultural consensus, sometimes including complex semantic baggage that reflects our social history. And our concern here is the impact of certain vocabulary on people who are exposed to it, not the intent of the speaker. The question is whether certain vocabulary creates a hostile environment for women members. And whether a trivial restriction on freedom of speech is worthwhile to foster a more inclusive and diverse community.

Hear, hear!

(Are the moderators hearing?)

[Max_S]

@Babale

You don’t have to hate women or be a misogynist in order to do misogynistic things, though.

Whether that is true or not, my position is that misogynistic hate speech must be motivated by hatred towards women as a class.

I’m not itching for a debate over the definition of misogyny and we are probably on the same side anyways. If you would label something as misogynist (misogynistic?) when there is no intentional hatred of women, that seems reasonable and it is compatible with my argument about hate speech. If there is such a thing as misogynistic speech where the speaker is neither naive nor motivated by hatred of women, then it is my a priori position that said speech is not misogynistic hate speech.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Sherrerd

Your claim here is unsupported, and, I believe, quite false.

[…]

“You are a cunt” and “you are a bitch” convey the message ‘you are female, or acting like a female, and there is something wrong with that.’

If the meaning is as you say, it does follow that those quotes are hate speech. I think our point of disagreement is right there: I don’t think that’s the meaning of those words, and you do.

@Sherrerd

It would appear that you like having the option of policing others by either labeling them as female, or comparing them to females, and that the benefit to you of so doing is the negative connotations involved in either being female or being like a female. And you will continue to defend this practice.

Please don’t misunderstand my motivations. [POST=22301665]A claim was made[/POST] that “bitch” and “cunt” (and “nigger”) should trigger the hate speech restriction, and I am here to argue against that claim. I am not here because I like belittling or disparaging females.

~Max

[Max_S]

@Riemann

Once again, this is the heart of your (astonishing) failure to grasp the way language works. Meaning is contained in the words themselves, not in the intent.

Again, consider that I have had a stroke, and that the language center of my brain has been rewired so that I now think the word “blue” means the color yellow. Suppose I now say “The banana is blue.” My intent was to say that the banana is yellow. Is it really your belief that I have described the color of the banana accurately?

Welcome back to the discussion. I don’t think you described the color of the banana accurately, but you did think you described it accurately, at least at the moment the words passed your lips. The meaning I recieved is different from the meaning you intended, hence instead of communication we get miscommunication.

It’s not so much my failure to grasp what you are saying as it is my disagreement with what you have said. While I don’t think the side discussion on whether the n-word is hate speech counts as a hijack (this was a central claim in the OP’s argument), I do think a full-on debate over our theories of semantics would be.

I have conceded that your argument follows from its premises, my improper usage of the word “always” notwithstanding, I believe I fully understand your position in this debate and you appear unwilling to continue on that front. I cannot say whether you fully understand my position, but no progress to that end can be made if you insist on flat out denying the premises even for the sake of argument. Now it is my turn to ask that you kindly drop the subject.

~Max

[Jasmine]

@MrDibble

And that prescriptivist language pedantry tack doesn’t work with e.g. homophobia, why would you think it would be any better with misogyny?

Say what you will, but I still consider misogyny to be considerably ramped up from run-of-the-mill sexism. I’ve seen and experienced both. There’s all the difference in the world between, say, a sexist asshole like Pence and many of the “Incels” out there who truly hate women and would probably kill them if they had a real chance to get away with it.

[thorny_locust]

@Jasmine

There’s all the difference in the world between, say, a sexist asshole like Pence and many of the “Incels” out there who truly hate women and would probably kill them if they had a real chance to get away with it.

I don’t think anybody’s said anything different. That doesn’t mean we’re not entitled to call people on being, or on sounding like, sexist assholes.

Let me quote myself from slightly earlier in the thread:

@thorny_locust

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.

– And a general background climate of it’s being perfectly fine to sound like a sexist asshole, whether or not the person’s doing so unthinkingly, encourages the acceptance of not only of asshole sexism, but of its worse manifestations.

[MrDibble]

@Jasmine

Say what you will, but I still consider misogyny to be considerably ramped up from run-of-the-mill sexism. I’ve seen and experienced both. There’s all the difference in the world between, say, a sexist asshole like Pence and many of the “Incels” out there who truly hate women and would probably kill them if they had a real chance to get away with it.

Pence, who won’t even be in the same room by himself with a woman? That’s the example you want to use for “not a misogynist”?

[Irishman]

@Max_S

If there is such a thing as misogynistic speech where the speaker is neither naive nor motivated by hatred of women, then it is my a priori position that said speech is not misogynistic hate speech.

Could you please elaborate on what kind of speech is misogynistic but not motivated by hated of women?