Two Many Cats, I think you jumped the gun on this one. I agree with everything you said in post 20, except that this particular instance is a good example of the phenomenon.
If you hadn’t jumped the gun, you’d be getting the same reaction from a lot of the same people, I’ll warrant, and I’m sure it’s the kind of response you expected, but in this case I think you need to reexamine how we got there. In my opinion, you actually made the mistake that racists and sexists are constantly wrongly accusing non-racists and non-sexists of making, and the mistake that I’m constantly being accused of making – you assumed facts not in evidence and used them to make an accusation of sexism. Which is just fucking guaranteed to lead to this, because people are so ready to get up in arms about the idea of the hysterical feminist.
Maybe this Madigan believed couching it in terms of women’s rights was insufficient and so she reframed it as a children’s issue because she thinks women’s issues aren’t important or because she’s been cowed into submission by sexist influences; it’s possible. But I don’t think it’s a fair reading of the statement to say that her words were reflective of anti-feminist anything. All we can take from it is that she thinks it’s better PR to say women and children than to say women, which is pretty inarguably the case.
It sucks for me to see you making a sound argument in defense of a bad premise, so here I am. If it wasn’t for that starting point, then I could tell Chessic Sense what an entitled and ignorant jackass I think he is again, because I really don’t think he’s spent more than a minute of his life considering – actually thinking about – whether sexism might be a real thing. But I can’t as it stands, because I think he’s right about this.
In other words, I agree with everything you said, and yet… etc.
“There, there. While I grudgingly concede that your conclusions (such as they can be discerned) are fraudulent and based on horseshit, don’t feel bad. Even if they weren’t, the unenlightened RACISTS AND SEXISTS in this thread would still reject them, because they’re just champing at the bit to marginalize you, so either way your victimhood is preserved. You go, girl!”
You made a simple statement here to point out that what I said about men being stronger than women was not a belief, but a fact. That was true. I had said this fact was a belief, and I was wrong. Bad wording on my part.
Now, if you remember, I made the statements: men are strong, women are not as strong, therefore women are less than men. This is a string of thoughts that we as a culture have deeply held for thousands of years.
When I asked you “But are women less than men as a consequence of that fact?” I wasn’t attacking you. This is not a personal discussion. I was asking your opinion about some deep-seated cultural beliefs. Whether these cultural beliefs are your views or not, I have no idea. That’s why I’m asking.
Well, before that point can be discussed, a working definition of “less” needs to be hammered out. Less strong, sure. If you have a broader (heh) use of the word in mind, please define it.
Sure, over human history woman have been pushed into various degrees of second-class (or even third- or fourth-class) citizenship by various cultures. I’d guess that with a few rare matriarchal exceptions, women in the modern liberal democracies are freer and more equal before the law than they’ve ever been.
The question is meaningless until “less” gets a meaning (heh). Lots of cultures have had lots of beliefs, but, fortunately, we can start stripping away the stupider ones, at least in a handful of liberal states, in one of which I am very lucky to live. Women aren’t “less” than men in some spiritual sense, but they’ve certainly been treated as such. Heck, entire empires have been built around beliefs in Gods that have no objective evidence.
As for the word “allow”, I think it would’ve been closer to what I meant if I had said “Would it bother you to have someone question these beliefs?” More bad wording, quickly typed.
I’m simply trying to see where the anger starts. Some of it may be from misunderstood meanings and bad wording, but not all of it.
Of course, even if they were my beliefs, I have no means or interest in silencing you. It’s not my] mesage board.
I’m not angry with you. At worst, I was mildly and briefly annoyed. If others are angry, I’m sure they’ll be glad to explain, given half an invitation.
Well, you did say you could not tell me where I was wrong or why. I can only conclude that you are convinced that I must be wrong somewhere. How else can I interpret this statement?
The poster who made the comment about Saudi women, ah yes. Let’s say you’re at a restaurant, and your steak comes to you well done but you wanted medium rare. When you call the server over, the server says, “You know, if this were Darfur, people would slit your throat to get a well done steak.” My guess is you wouldn’t leave that server a tip.
And the feminism not focusing on women comment. I did change my mind about this flippant comment of mine, and what it now means to me is that sexism affects both men and women and should be fought as such. Perhaps the term feminism should be changed to genderism.
Well, the response is directed towards the situation.
I had called the word “chick” a sexist slur. I feel that the name chick can be dismissive towards women, and I still do. Perhaps the term’s meaning has changed in the last few years. It’s a minor point.
Just like medium rare versus well done is a minor point.
Then, someone posted that I should tell Saudi women how horrible being called a chick is, meaning that Saudi women are oppressed far more than American women. And since they are that oppressed, I should be glad that I only have to deal with hearing the word “chick” bandied about.
Just like if someone said you have no right to complain about how your steak was cooked, because people in Darfur are starving. Just shut-up, eat your steak, and be glad you have a steak to eat.
That’s all that I meant.
I would like to thank everyone for participating, but I think this is becoming a matter for Great Debates. Thank you, and have a nice day.
Complaining about how the food has been cooked is one of the most mundane thing at a restaurant.
Complaining how terribly sexist “chick” is ? That’s the first time I’ve ever heard that. And believe me, I’ve heard my fine share of damn stupid things in my life.
You have the right to ask for a new steak, but if you then jump onto the table and begin railing against the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the injustice of society’s ingrained “blood culture” that wants to force you to eat rare meat, and interrupting other diners by demanding a “yes or no” answer to questions like “can a woman eat steak the way she wants?” Well, then… yeah, I’m going to think you probably need to get some perspective.
Is “chick” sexist? Maybe, a little. It’s a gender-specific and casual term, not appropriate for all situations, possible to use dismissively—on the other hand, it’s a term in wide use by men and women alike, like “guy” or “dude,” and certainly isn’t inherently a slur. Pick your battles, and I promise to bring you a new steak if you’ll get down off the table.
It is if you grew up on an a healthy dose of Jessie Spano screaming at A.C. Slater for calling girls “chicks.” That Liz Berkley was a really great icon for young women, amirite?
You really believe this? I mean, it’s not at the top of my list of things to be offended about, but if you were in a business meeting referring to a female boss or client would you really use ‘chick’ where you would ‘guy’? ‘The chick from corporate thinks we need to reformat our time sheets blah blah blah’?
Not in a boardroom, but I wouldn’t use “guy” or “dude” (the latter is probably more equivalent on the informality scale) either. I just disagree that “inappropriate in a formal setting” equates to “sexist slur” in this case.
That said, anyone is entitled to personally object to “chick” or any other term they don’t want to be called. I don’t think it needs to be cleansed from society’s lexicon, though.
Vinyl Turnip has it right. “Chick” isn’t sexist, it’s simply informal. Now, a reasonably common form of sexism is using informal or familiar terms in inapropriate circumstances. But that doesn’t make the term itself sexist. It’s like, If I call my girlfriend “sweetie,” that’s not sexist. If I call my secretary “sweetie,” I’m a sexist asshole.