kaylasdad99:
Maybe I need to read the thread under discussion (although I kinda doubt it), but the way I read Hampshire ’s remark was as a general complaint that the rhetorical deck seems to be stacked against women in the public sphere. I certainly never heard of a guy being called a harpy; and in fact if there is a single pejorative that gets leveled against a male political aspirant that is based primarily on the tone, timbre, and cadence of his speaking style, let’s just say it doesn’t come easily to mind.
For this reason alone, it’s not surprising for anyone to consider the word “harpy” problematic. I certainly consider it so. Maybe (MAYBE) it would have been appropriate for Hampshire to have been mod-noted for allowing the use of the word “harpy” to inspire that complaint in the Elections thread as not germane, but even that would have gotten a bit of a :dubious: from me.
Good on you, Saint Cad , for being non-sexist enough to be annoyed on your wife’s behalf when sexism undermines her status as a responsible adult member of society, and in her career. But if you’re willing to call anyone a harpy for anything OTHER THAN
then you probably don’t share my distaste for the term (and maybe also Hampshire ’s). In such a case, perhaps it’s no surprise that when you see “people,” you’d be inclined to perceive it as a weasel word, deployed to give plausible deniability to someone who wants to accuse you, specifically.
Doesn’t mean you’re right, though.
Huh. I suppose I was wrong to rely on Measure for Measure ’s summary of the post that initiated the unpleasantness, then. But waitaminute, that post was directly quoted!
Please pardon me for not seeing the distinction between the word “harpy” and the word “harpies.” Particularly when he states that Secretary Clinton earned the nickname of their queen.*
*anyway, shouldn’t it be President of the Harpies? We’re Americans; we don’t have queens…