It’s only derisive if you start from the assumption that “chick” is a slur. Reasonable people don’t assume that a communciation shorthand that aptly, pithily, and accurately describes both the type of entertainment and its target market is meant to be an insult. Anyways, if we replace “chick flics” with . . . oh, hell, I dunno . . . “female empowerment films”, how long until you’re in here moaning that that is derisive?
And you’d be wrong on that, too.
:rolleyes:
Ow.
Pillow-biter?
Yes, how dare I register displeasure at all? I mean, won’t I ever just shut up?
And wouldn’t “female empowerment films” just reek of feminazism, and be heaped with scorn?
You can see what we’re facing here.
Stop being so hysterical. There’s no effort to stop you from getting your ovaries in a twist, just ridicule for your choice of target.
Yeesh, women!
My dear, it was women with shoulder chips that brought the fight for equality this far. And the battle is far from won, though many among us refuse to see it or resort to fighting battles under banners that no one can disagree with, so that so little progress can be made.
If you have never had to prove your worthiness in what is still largely a straight white male world, you have either had everything handed to you, or are living in cheerful naivete in a fool’s paradise.
Stop being hysterical, but go ahead and get your ovaries in a twist.
Nope, no contradiction there.
Nice uterine imagery though.
Well, I strive for consistency, and I did coin the term “uterocracy” right here on this message board.
But addressing the thread topic in a more serious light, I too am tired of the “think of the children” crap. Trouble is, an emotional appeal can get more traction than a boring but accurate technical one, i.e. increase funding to law enforcement to pay for evidence testing, arguing that most crime is committed by a small percentage of the population, and rapid identification and incarceration of these individuals will cut crime.
Nice word. I once coined the word “fauxmosexual” to refer to someone who prefers sex with imaginary companions. I don’t believe anyone’s used the term besides myself though. Not even my imaginary companions.
But anyway, yes, an emotional appeal sometimes can have more traction than an appeal to pure reason. But please, the "think of the children’ meme has been so severely blunted by overuse, it’s become a parody of itself. Even you called it crap just now.
I like your idea about arguing that rapists are a small percentage of the population, and thus can be more rapidly identified if only we had the funding for a national database to keep track of the results of increased evidence testing.
Of course, I could mention here that we would be reassigning this women’s issue to a crime issue, but I’ll restrain myself. Anything to get something done.
Well, it is a crime issue. I’m having trouble imagining why it wouldn’t be.
Male homosexual who engages in anal sex as the penetratee. From the stereotype that the recipient is face-down and biting the pillow to suppress squeals of pain at initial penetration (even though engaging willingly). I have no first-hand knowledge of any of the above.
Talking of rape, I wish I had a ten-spot for every report I’ve read of a false-rape accuser being scolded by the judge for making it harder for other women to be believed. While that’s incontestably so, I find it hard to understand why that’s a higher priority than saying “Don’t accuse someone of a horrible crime when he didn’t do it. That’s wicked and evil.” :rolleyes:
Tell that to the Saudi women, how so horrible and oppressing is to hear the word “chick”. They’ll surely empathize with you suffering through this ordeal.
Then you haven’t been paying attention to the point of this thread. And wonderfully illustrating that point I might add.
Remember, as long is someone is worse off than you, you never (ever!!) have a right to complain. How happy we are to live in this wonderful, complacent world.
Genders aside, please don’t be stupid. While I agree that invoking children is a pointless digression, rape is indeed a crime issue, and a backlog of unprocessed rape kits are a law-enforcement funding issue. One could argue that because this particular crime issue has a significant (indeed, near-total) percentage of female victims, it’s not treated as seriously nor funded as thoroughly as other crime issues, but claiming it is not a crime issue is simple foolishness.
In fact, casting it as a woman’s issue is more likely to hurt attempts to get more funding to deal with it.
Bingo! So you have been paying attention.
OK, then, why are women’s issues more deserving than men’s? Shouldn’t law enforcement be sufficiently funded to effectively process the evidence of crimes against all people?
Well, pity the poor little vagina-bearers, but calling something a “woman’s issue”, inasmuch as it applies to half the human race, is far too vague to be useful. It’s a convenient way to write off an issue as too undefinable to approach. The more accurate and specific description of rape as a crime issue indicates exactly who should be dealing with it, namely the people who deal with criminals - cops, prosecutors, judges, prison guards and parole officers and (in regard of the even more specific issue of unprocessed rape kits) forensic scientists. And once we’ve identified the group with the specific skill sets, we can seek to increase their number and their funding and their access to tools to make their jobs easier and the crime problem smaller.
I didn’t say women’s issues are more deserving than men’s. And of course crime evidence should be processed without regard to gender.
What I’m stating is that feminism has become so toxic in our culture, that a mere whiff of an association with “women’s issues” is enough to torpedo any attempt to rectify the injustices of sexism. It has become so even among we women ourselves. We have become that self-loathing. And I think it’s a tragedy.
If the problem were simple vagueness, I doubt the subject would raise this much ire. You would not feel compelled to use such terms as “poor little vagina-bearers” or your own gem, uterocracy. Or indeed even the dismissive “chick”.
I suppose that if you’re referring to the type of feminism that considers the word “chick” to be hate speech, you’re probably right. That’s the type of feminism that’s expounded by the obsessed and unreasonable.
The type of feminism that demands equal opportunity and equal respect without demanding special attention and special allowances–that type is growing stronger every day.