I don’t think you appreciate how inherently sexist words like “shrill” and “harpy” are. Your comparison would be more apt if you had Person A saying they found Obama uppity since he became president, and then protesting that Person B accused him of calling Obama “an uppity Negro” when he never said Negro; never brought his race into it. And while it’s true that Person A didn’t use the word Negro, the fact is that “uppity” and “Negro” have been negatively linked so many times by racists that you can’t use the word “uppity” in relation to a black person without coming off like a racist, even if you would have used the same word to describe a white person acting the same way.
Calling a woman “shrill” and “a harpy” is a tactic used time and time again by sexists to dismiss what women have said by criticising their speaking voice instead of what they have to say. You may not have a sexist bone in your body, but you stumbled into phrasing that is always going to bring sexism to mind for a certain percentage of the population.
For a while the rule outside of the Pit was, “Attack the post, not the poster”. Then the civility bar was raised somewhat.
That’s ok. But there are limits on a board devoted to fighting ignorance. Any strong attack on a position implicitly attacks the poster, since the poster could reasonably be said to hold a dishonorable position. That’s part of the reason why discussion of politics, religion and substantive matters are avoided in certain social circumstances. Which can be all to the good. But the crowd here is a little rougher, much like the town square though not quite as disreputable as the bad parts of the You-Tube comments section.
That’s not to say that certain accusations of racism, sexism or religious bigotry won’t get close to or cross certain lines. They will.
She has earned the nickname. In other words, other people have given her that nickname. Not you. One person cannot establish a nickname.
It is unreasonable to think the person was attacking you directly when you didn’t even clearly use the word yourself. He was talking about those who gave her that nickname, not you.
You weren’t even sure they were attacking you. You started the post with “If you are directing that at me.” Even you realized that an attack on you is not the only explanation.
And, for the record, saying that the word “harpy” is usually used in a sexist manner does not actually call you sexist. There is a difference. In fact, I believe the above, but I do not believe you are a sexist.
I would say that you should avoid using that word to avoid sending a sexist meaning. That’s not being PC. That’s just describing how it is. People see that word as sexist. It’s the same reason I don’t use the word “cunt” anymore. I like it as a word that carries the punch that “fuck” used to, and is actually still used sparingly.
I’ve argued many a sexist positions on these board without any interference from the mods. Of course I take great care and try to never be a jerk about it. Avoiding certain words, being considerate of other posters points and responding positively are just techniques I use to convince the other posters I’m right and they’re wrong.
I think there’s two most common definitions of shrill, only one of which appears in the dictionary.
The first is a sound that is loud, high pitched, and piercing. A whistle or a blaring trumpet can accurately be called shrill. Is Hillary Clinton’s voice shrill? Not by this definition – her voice is relatively low pitched, especially for a woman, and except by amplification, her voice isn’t all that loud.
The second common usage is to insult a woman who is making her views known. Cite,cite,cite.
I contend the use of the term has little to do with the quality of the person’s voice, but much to do with the sex of the speaker. And I completely agree that Clinton is not an adept speaker for prepared remarks – but in no sense is she “shrill” other than that she is a woman who is speaking.
Recently I commented in my at home forum on the tendency of political speakers to use an unnatural tone of voice as if they were trying to be heard in a crowd, as if electronics hadn’t been invented. I don’t remember what politician was speaking at the time, using that political tone. All politicians. As a preacher I tried to avoid the preacher’s tone. Politicians should avoid the politicians tone. Recently I think Hilary is getting hoarse, a result of the politicians’ tone.
If you’re really going to discuss that here, then I will simply say you are wrong. Shrill does not only have two meanings. Or, to be more precise, you have not adequately explained the first meaning. A shrill voice is not necessarily higher pitched. It can be due to harmonics. The voice produced by helium can be called shrill, despite being the same pitch as the person’s normal voice. A shrill voice is merely piercing and unpleasant.
Plus, there’s just the fact that people often lack more specific terms for unpleasant voices. Clinton’s voice is rough and strident when she speaks. I’m genuinely surprised she never got vocal training to learn how to project without sounding that way. I genuinely hope that, as President, she will use her perfectly lovely normal speaking voice, and just rely on amplification to do the rest.
I can be a complete asshole as long as I use the right weasel words and the mods will back me. EDIT: since this board can not figure out how to use nested quotes please see post 15 for any clarification.
While there is some truth to that, the general “don’t be a jerk” rule helps us to cover cases where folks use weasel words and rules lawyering to try to get away with something that they shouldn’t.
I’m guessing the OP would have preferred more weasel words :
*hey I’m sure this was totally an accident but your post included some historically sexist language there. I mean, of course you weren’t making a sexist statement, but i think you’re probably unaware that throughout our political history, women often get criticized based on speaking voice and are told they are shrill or harpies. I know you absolutely could not have meant to sound that way, and you didn’t! But some people may hear it that way, so you may want to rethink that comment. *
No, the part I bolded is certainly not correct. In any case, Saint Cad’s claim that another poster had insulted him using “weasel words” was incorrect. The other poster neither insulted him personally, nor used any dishonest construction in criticizing his post.
The principle in general is you may criticize the post but not the poster personally (outside the Pit). We frequently moderate or warn posters who attempt to insult people using oblique language. So don’t try it.
I would further remark that if your intent is to determine just how much of an asshole you can be without drawing a warning that that rarely works out well for the poster who makes a habit of it.
Perhaps you’re being sarcastic, but that seems to me not to be weasel words but an accurate assessment of the situation (and in fact a very polite way to address the subject).
There was some sarcasm there, i’ll admit. I do think it’s excessively indirect, if not weasel words precisely. If the original comment had included historically racist terms, like uppity, The polite way to handle it would no doubt be to gently explain that it’s historically a loaded term, and while I’m sure the poster didn’t mean it, amd I’m sure some of his best friends are black, but please do be careful with racially charged words because perception may be inaccurate.
Or one could point out directly that’s it’s a racially charged word.
I don’t think the original comment that drew fire from the OP of this thread was impolite, or used weasel words to attack him.
Saint Cad posted this on the other thread he started on the subject but I think it’s better to address it here since this is where I made the remark.
If it were me, what I would say would be something along the lines of “I’m sorry for using words that some people might regard as sexist. I am not a sexist, and don’t want to be viewed as such. In the future I will try to avoid using such words to avoid giving the impression I might be sexist.”
If you don’t want to give the impression you are sexist, then the best thing is obviously to avoid using language that might be perceived that way. And if you do use it, you should apologize for giving the wrong impression.
I said it has two main meanings, not two meanings to the exclusion of any other possible meanings.
Mike Bloomberg has a voice that is extremely annoying to me, and I bet others as well, and I’d say he speaks in a slightly higher register than most men – but nobody calls him shrill. I contend that it is because he is a man. Just like how it only seems to be women who get called “bossy.”
Actually, I think that’s not a great response. There are three responses that I think are better.
“That’s not remotely sexist language. ‘Harpy’ can be used to describe men or women equally; the fact that it’s a gendered monster is no more significant than the fact that ‘bull-headed’ refers to a gendered animal, but is another term used to describe men and women equally.” [This response is incorrect IMO, but can lead to further discussion].
“Huh. I’d not really thought about it before, but I can see what you mean. I would never describe a man as ‘shrill,’ unless I were attempting to impugn his masculinity, and ‘harpy’ is clearly a term used just for women to denigrate women who speak loudly. Thanks for pointing out that sexist language! Now that I’m aware of it, I’ll avoid it in the future.” [The response I’d prefer to see, natch ]
“Sexist? Really? Can you explain why? I’m not convinced either way.”
The apology you offered is basically an apology for what other people did, i.e., perceived the speaker as sexist. Unless you’re convinced that your language use doesn’t perpetuate sexist stereotypes, and also are convinced that using it is going to muddle conversation, it’s a bad apology.
I said specifically that that was how I would respond. And one of the two responses you give you yourself say is incorrect; one is similar to what I said; and the third is vague. I don’t see how any of them are “better.”
]