Tee, I hear what you’re saying. You chimed in above with this quote:
I didn’t understand that you took my outrage at the deliberate slander as being directed at those on that thread. If I read FranticMad’s response right, neither did he.
Just to clarify: That’s not what I meant. I meant that I am outraged that politically-motivated feminists make a habit of touting figures that I believe to be absurd in pursuit of their ends. Of course it doesn’t necessarily follow that everyone who believes their figures shares their agenda.
Hopefully we can now stop talking at cross-purposes.
If you have to explain, then perhaps it wasn’t funny.
You continue to dance around the edge of the issue without addressing the actual problem. I really don’t care how many derogatory words for homosexuals you know. Until and unless you have a rapport with the gay members of this board, when you use any of those terms, we can only assume you mean them to be offensive.
Still tap-dancing. What do you mean by the term and how has it been detrimental to society? If you had clarified this from the beginning, then perhaps we could have discussed that issue instead of this. This term, regardless of whether some consider it offensive and others don’t, is the crux of the matter.
I didn’t assume you are a misogynist because of this term by itself. Neither would I have made that conclusion based on the individual quotes I listed. However, taken as a whole, I think they do indicate you hold a negative opinion of women, or at least those who aren’t content with the the social structure of the 1950s.
Each of your responses, since I first asked for clarification, has been to nitpick or misdirect. Some people may be impressed by the volume of words that you spew forth. Verbosity, however, doesn’t impress me.
Don’t have to go that far. Just eliminate the parts I don’t like.
Perhaps it is ill-advised of me to make my first post on such a questionable-value thread, but I have two things to offer. One is in context, one somewhat out (but interesting because it’s disturbing).
First:
Often, in the course of everyday speech, I wonder why I use a particular turn of phrase. Realizing the question at hand could be answered by etymological insight, I did a quick scan of sources at hand (literally at fingertip). What I’ve learned is that “pussy” in english, as referred to above, possibly has the same root as “pusillanimous.” The Latin word “pusillus” means tiny or petty. Alternatively, the word could come from “pursy,” which means short of breath.
Basically, the association with female anatomy is inferred in today’s vulgar slang, but only has a circumstantial relationship to the colloquial aspersion.
Second:
As an example of how I work, I was wondering the other day where the phrase “the short end of the stick” came from. A quick search of the internet provided:
Prior to the 20th century, the majority of Americans lived on small farms. When a cow or a horse got sick, the most common way of administering treatment was by means of suppositories. Often, this required the use of a stick. As you can imagine, many jokes circulated about farmers, who, due to some unanticipated twist of fate, ended up holding the “shit end of the stick.” Today, these jokes have largely lost their relevance. The few that do survive have been sanitized into the “short end of the stick.” (here)
Ew. I don’t know if it’s true, but I do know I’ll never use that phrase again.
I have no idea why I’ve been reading this, but since I HAVE read it I feel an overwhelming urge to leave my mark…kinda like a dog pissing against a tree I guess…so here goes.
No offence intended. Ya see, Homebrew was lambasting me for having anything at all to say about whether or not there is a homoerotic subtext in The Lord of the Rings:
so I was all set for her to take issue with my assuming that she was a lesbian, whereupon I should of course have taken her to task for her own lesbophobia.
“Not funny to me” and “not funny” are not the same thing. You have to have a seriously over-developed sense of your own importance to believe otherwise. I’ve not only explained why it was intended as a joke, I’ve explained the joke itself. I think that’s far more than I owe you on this issue. Who died and made you the world authority on humour, anyway?
Too bad that at least one gay member of this board thinks differently. That must come as a real disappointment to you. Incidentally, did you know that “inflated ego” is an anagram of “feel a tin god”?
Ehh, then you wasted entirely too much time earlier on in this thread attempting to defend your foolish assertion that the term itself was offensive. Btw, I loved your line about an essential characteristic of bio-females. What the fuck other kind of female is there?
shrug And I am answerable to you for such in what way? Your own sophistry’s showing here, in case you hadn’t noticed. I spoke somewhat, in my earlier, too-verbose-for-your-precious-approval reply, of what I think of the marginalisation of men in present-day society, with its particular effect on young men and adolescents, and you choose to interpret this - if you read and understood it - as a negative opinion of women, or at least those who aren’t content with the the social structure of the 1950s.
I suppose I shouldn’t find this surprising. The stock answer to anyone who dares to claim that the social changes occasioned by feminism aren’t free of downsides is to accuse him of wanting to return womankind to the evil days of the 1950s when, as everyone knows, all women were the meek, voiceless, disenfranchised, disempowered, defenceless, downtrodden victims of brutal men. I’m sorry, but by no means surprised, to learn that you can’t do better.
Ah, you appear to have mistaken me for someone who attaches the least importance to trying to impress you. Given what you have revealed of your personality in this thread alone, this isn’t entirely unexpected.
One thing I am grateful to you for however is the revelation that to use a figure of speech that assigns the characteristics of class A to a member of class B is an implicit insult against members of class A. In that case, I’m astonished that you started out by calling me a Dumbass. Of course you produced a little piece of “What I say is right, what you say is wrong” sophistry to justify yourself:
Au contraire. First of all, using dumb to mean “intellectually challenged” perpetrates a thoroughly abominable slander against non-speaking persons. Secondly, granted the innocent use of the idiom without intended offence against n-s p’s, to use dumb as an insult is derogatory towards the “differently clever” - for if you intend offence, it is plain to see that you consider being “comprehensionally disadvantaged” as something to be ashamed of.
I am, however, as I say, grateful to you for this insight, for now I can say: “To call you hog stupid would be an insult to the hog”, whereas otherwise I… well, you figure it out.
Is that right? I disagree rather strongly. It it one thing for one of your friends to jokingly insult you by calling you a “Bitch”. It is quite another thing for a stranger to do so.
Take a poll then, I think you’ll find a majority will agree that an insult from a random stranger is not likely to be taken as a joke.
Is what right, you can’t be saying all gay people on this board agree with each other, especially on matters of gay politics, or whatever it is this is about. I thought you were being impossibly PC by getting worked up over “pussification”, but I’m totally aware I’m likely to be in a small minority by failing to be offended by it. I’m sorry, I didn’t see where he called you a bitch; that’s a serious insult from a stranger, I agree.
He didn’t call me a bitch (that was used hypothetically, sorry that wasn’t clear). He did, however, refer to homosexuals as “shirtlifters”, a derogatory term. If someone whom you don’t know uses a derogatory term, then do you assume they are joking or do you take their comments at face value?
Is “shirtlifter” such a terrible term that all feeling people need to be offended by it? I’m gay and I read what he wrote. Yet I’m really not offended, sorry. Anyone can lift a shirt. I’ll save my taking offense for the really hateful terms and attitudes.
But I’m sorry, Homebrew, your dispute with Malacandra is really none of my business. I object when somebody throws around the weight of all the gays on the board, as I perceived you doing, as though all statements have to be approved by the gay committee to pass muster. I’m just announcing that I’m not on the committee, that’s all.
Masonite, don’t sweat it. Not only does Homebrew[ feel it necessary to appoint herself as the supreme authority on what is or isn’t an acceptable mode of expression, but she needs to assume the voice of some collective entity in order to lend weight to her increasingly frantic witterings. She has made up her mind that everything I say is grossly offensive to women and to gays and no doubt if I go on for long enough she’ll find something to pull me up for over racism or disablism or lord knows what. Mere facts haven’t swayed her yet in this thread and I doubt they’re going to do so in future.
Homebrew, conduct your own opinion polls, if you think it’ll serve any purpose. It’s not as though you’re going to change your mind if the figures turn out not to reflect your own bizarre view of reality. I wouldn’t even bother posting this reply, except that I’m now entertaining hopes of seeing this thread with my name on it crack the 100 barrier.
I think you misunderstood my point. Shirtlifter in the UK, where Mala hails from, is in the same group of terms as fudge-packer, faggot and shit-stabber. Are you saying you aren’t at least annoyed when some random fucker you don’t know uses those terms?
I’ve not attempted to speak for you, gobear, Esprix, Mockingbird or anyone else in the board’s Gay Mafia. What I’m saying is that when someone uses a derogatory term, how are others supposed to know it’s a “joke” if we don’t have a rapport already?
Now, back to the object of my initial ire: I think your continued posting in the Blue John thread only confirms my impression of you. I’m finished with you. But I’m sure, given enough time, someone else will deal with your attitude again.
Fair enough, Homebrew. I’d be offended by the other terms, yes, and I didn’t realize “shirtlifter” is in the same category. It’s not a term I was familiar with previously; I took it at approximately the same level of mock-insult as “Friend of Dorothy”.
When someone I don’t know says something, I try to initially ascribe the best possible intentions to the speaker; I just didn’t feel the gay-hate from Malacandra (and I definitely know what the gay-hate feels like). But it’s possible I was being deeply insulted (indirectly; I wasn’t even here) and was too ignorant of UK terminology to realize it.
And I am now out of this thread too. Are we all finished with each other? See you both around, but perhaps not in the same threads.
Homebrew, you’re still not getting it. You have completely failed to appreciate the difference between:
“Sir Ian McKellen sees a homoerotic subtext between Frodo and Sam? That is hardly surprising, given that…”
a) “he is a raving shirtlifter” ← deliberate if somewhat mild insult
b) “he is a ravi snip” ← deliberate pre-planned interrupting of self for comic effect
I’ve explained it all very clearly, but your determination to prove that I am a homophobe is blinding you to the very plain and obvious facts.
You are utterly convinced, Oleanna-like, that any form of expression other than that which you have approved as the properly sanitised and acceptable one is deliberately offensive, hurtful, and evidence of bigotry - and even the acute shortage of volunteers to join in your witch-hunt has failed to persuade you differently. I pity you. It must really suck when you bravely start a pitting on such a worthy subject and find so few people joining in, and so many telling you that you’re creating a storm in a tea-cup.
My continued posting on the BlueJohn thread? Sorry, but before you can advance that as supporting your position, you need to complete the following three steps:
a) point out what it is I said that offends you;
b) point out the errors of fact in my statement;
c) demonstrate satisfactorily that such errors could be explained only by misogyny.
Merely waving your hand vaguely in the direction of the thread and assuming that in some way this makes out your case for you is lazy to say the least. Am I at liberty to assume that this is the best you can do, and draw the obvious conclusion? :rolleyes:
Footnote to masonite: I recommend you get your info on idiomatic Brit English from a Brit, not a Texan. “Shirtlifter” - which was a word I pulled out at random to fill out the above quote, and not necessarily foremost in my mind when I decided to cut myself off in the middle of saying “raving” - is a fairly mild and humorous euphemism; we have several expressions that are more venomous. “Faggot” is seldom used in its US sense, though we just about understand it when the context is made clear. Where I was brought up, in the South-West, it refers to a kind of meatball, delicious both hot and cold. See ya
Just to back up Malacandra. I’m a Brit, and “shirtlifter” is more in the “friend of Dorothy” category here, rather than malicious (though I’m not gay and can’t really tell people what offends them, I suppose).
For the record, I also got the humour Malacandra intended with his Sir Ian “ravi” remark, but I’m not certain I can lay claim to a great sense of humour so YMMV.
masonite - I think you were right not to take offence in the first place because I don’t think any was intended. This is all very silly.
See you both around, but perhaps not in the same threads.