Funny, I don’t picture orangutans as screamers.
Chimps, though… shaddup!
Nearby thread in which I count, so far, three posters self-identifying as “male” and three posters self-identifying as “female”.
Oh, come on, all of you!
You can hate PC all you want, but I know for a fact that each and every one of you understands that “Hamlet then went up to a female to discuss his troubles…” or “Some females fought for suffrage in the 1910s” is at the least slangy and inappropriate usage for a college assignment.
You know this. Seriously. It doesn’t damage your anti-PC creds to admit it.
I’m guessing this usage has come up before. Every English teacher has some usage that just gets their goat (I had a teacher that would fail you if you put “something” in an essay) and its not unusual for them to flag that with students.
Do you know the difference between a noun and an adjective?
We don’t need to go this far. The issue is one of cultural baggage not definition. Or are still people demanding to know the difference in meaning of “nigger” and “African-American person”?
Essentially, yes. The PC police would like, and are attempting, to prevent those who disagree from expressing an opinion. Therefore, they (somewhat arbitrarily) define some common term as racist or sexist or homophobic so that they can play the trump card to spare themselves the effort of defending a position.
I say “Michael Brown was a thug”. The PC police can then ignore that Brown had just robbed a store and assaulted a clerk, that he was walking down the middle of the street with the stolen goods in his hand, and that the evidence showed that he punched a police officer in the face, tried to grab his gun, and everyone who claimed that Brown was shot in the back trying to escape were either lying or mistaken. Labelling “thug” as racist gives the PC types an out - they can change the subject from “Brown was a thug” to “you are a racist”, and ignore everything else.
If we are talking about illegal immigration, and I make a reference to “illegal aliens”, same thing. Immediately the other side stops talking about the topic and begins repeating the accusation of racism. It gives them a reason to ignore everything else I said, and thus (in their minds) win the discussion by default.
It’s lazy argumentation, but given the weakness in many instances of the PC position, any excuse is going to have to be good enough.
Regards,
Shodan
Based on this paragraph, I daresay someone might have grounds to justifiably dismiss your arguments.
Isn’t it pretty well known that in English, adjectives describing a class of people can be given a pejorative tone by using them as nouns (look at those blacks, those gays, those illegals, those females), and vice versa (he’s a democrat politician)? This isn’t some kooky hypersensitive PC thought-police thing, it’s a rule of usage I learned in high school. Nonstandard use of a word is done for convenience or effect, and in emotionally-charged discourse it’s probably effect.
Anyone who genuinely wonders whether this is a real or arbitrary distinction is welcome to follow the Twitter cite earlier in the thread, and see whether they can discern any difference in tone or content between tweets that use “females” versus “women.”
It seems like a real stretch to say that being aware of pejorative language is “preventing those who disagree from expressing an opinion”… when we’re talking about students who enrolled in a gender studies college class.
I would seriously wonder about somebody who would take a gender studies class, insist on using terms that are pejorative and nonstandard in the field, and then complain that the teacher is telling them how they’re supposed to think. Of course the teacher is telling you how you’re supposed to think. It’s a classroom. Would these students sign up for a physics class and insist on the right to their own opinion about what protons and neutrons are called? Why would you do it in a social sciences class?
That would certainly be easier than actual debate.
Regards,
Shodan
The “male”/“female” thing is hardly new; from the early days of my medical training, more than one attending encouraged the use of “man” or “woman” in patient presentations for exactly this reason (“A 63 year old man with chest pain”). One liked to say that “man” and “woman” are both one letter shorter than “male” and “female”, and more informative in that they also indicate the patient’s species. I encourage my residents to do the same, but it’s hardly something I police for or consider a big deal.
If something oddly specific shows up in a syllabus, it’s often a response to something that happened before. It wouldn’t shock me to find that the professor in question has had an asshole student or two who liked to sneer about the “feeemales” and she wants to get out ahead of it.
I think there’s some value in limiting the scope of a class discussion. Consider this forum and our old friend Libertarian. In his earlier days as a poster, he had a talent for turning any thread about anything into a discussion about his utopian version of libertarianism. You’d start a thread comparing the various ways that European countries have implemented single-payer health care, and he’d drop in with “Why can’t we just allow peaceful honest people to pursue health care in their own way?”, and a page later it would be the same argument that was happening in every other GD thread.
Similarly, if your class is about the experiences of people of color as expressed in literature, it would suck to have one Bill O’Reilly-type in there who would turn every class into an argument about whether white privilege exists. So I think it would be fine to head that off up front, but there’s not a good way to word something like that on a syllabus. “Defer to the experiences of people of color” is not quite right, but it’s a start.
N/M
I believe it’s “Sherman,” and evidently you weren’t informed, but you aren’t supposed to refer to African-Americans as “articulate” because it implies that they are exceptions to the rule. You also clearly imply that a black man being pleasant and well-informed is noteworthy. I’m sure you didn’t intend offense, but please try to police your language more carefully in the future to avoid making derogatory and racist statements like these.
I tend to agree with you about Micheal Brown. That he was a violent criminal. I agree that he fought a police officer and tried to take his gun. He was seen acting aggressively in public directly prior to that incident, which, the officer had no awareness of but, if, we are going to take it into account that part of the skill set of being a good law enforcement officer is reading body language and deportment, then we can say the officer accurately diagnosed Brown as an aggressive, potentially violent individual. Brown trying to steal his gun only proved that. Brown being shot and killed is a debate for another day, I am going to work now, limited time to respond, but, suffice it to say, I believe the officer’s account that Brown was charging the officer when Brown was shot and killed is accurate. Show me clear proof he was not charging and I will join my fellow liberals in denouncing the officer.
Do I think African Americans are profiled and harassed by the police? Of course they are. Again, a debate for another day.
So, my question now is:
1- Do you think it was accurate to call Micheal Sherman a thug?
2- Do you think labeling him thus was/is really more or less a giant “angry black man” epitaph he did not deserve, in other words, do you agree that the label in that situation was not only inaccurate, but also racist?
I agree with you that the PC Police have created a (mildly) oppressive form of group think where you can be frowned or shunned and in some cases fired or made into a demon on national media for making comments that are out of proportion to the amount of controversy and retribution they create. I would not disagree with this assessment at all. Where you and I will differ, I think, is I see it as a acceptable, for lack of a better term, overcompensation to set right a bad situation, ie, the decades and decades and decades where white men could get away with the most sexist bigoted oppressive language and comments and habits.
Thanks for your comments. Talk with you later…
Speaking of race and dehumanization, another fun evolution I’ve noticed over the years is you’re a racist shitbag if you call anyone “colored” or refer to “colored people.” But now it’s perfectly acceptable to throw around the abbreviation “PoC” every other sentence.
The major difference I noticed is that black and hispanic people use “female” a lot more than whites do. I already knew that, though. Many of them were women speaking to other women. I didn’t notice any generalizations that would be made better if they had used “women” instead. Presumably if you say something misogynistic it isn’t made better by saying “women.” I did think of one misogynistic saying that would be odd with a switcheroo though: Female, make me a sandwich! I don’t know if that’s worse, but it sure sounds funny. Probably because it’s a well known saying.
Well, it might be reasonable to think that from my perspective, I’m debating a person named (for example) “Doshan”, and I will challenge Doshan’s points and possibly call Doshan’s character snd/or the basis of Doshan’s beliefs into question, while thinking that Doshan doesn’t see ME as an individual but just part of an amorphous blob of “people Doshan dislikes” and regardless of what I say, if I’m actually winning the debate at any point, Doshan will just make another general comment about the people Doshan dislikes.
It would be like playing chess with someone who describes how he likes to kick the board over when he’s being ganged up on. It doesn’t really matter how good a player he is when he is not board-kicking or even if I’m the only opponent, it might be reasonable to assume that somewhere along the way pieces are likely to fly.
Really, this is the only difference you noticed? Maybe you got extremely lucky in the set of top tweets when you looked. Here. These are the top 5 tweets by “women” and “females” that I just pulled right now. No editing or cherry picking, just the top 5 from the page.
“Women”
- Clinton far more popular among women of color than among white women
- There is no rational reason why women should be earning 78 cents on the dollar compared to men. That has got to change.
- UN Women is the #UN entity for #genderequality & women’s empowerment.
- In association with @NYTimes. Convening women leaders, activists & change-makers to share stories & offer solutions for a better life for women…
- 8 women who are redefining design in the Middle east.
“Females”
- RACHEL: “i don’t want to compete with other females for a man’s attention” DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT SHOW YOU ARE ON
- XXL: 20 Reasons Why Lira Galore Is One of Hottest Females in the Game
- Females only and I’m down
- It be the most prettiest females with the most nastiest attitudes
- All of the hottest females in the world.
Can you see any difference in tone and content between these two groups of statements?
Actually it would be more like saying “I don’t have to beat you at chess - you’re a racist” as soon as you lose your queen.
Regards,
Shodan
Sounds to me that it’s more like playing someone who says “I’m not going to play you because you’re just going to call me a racist if and when you lose”.
Since I love your confidence so much, let’s play. I’ll gladly debate you on any number of topics (this particular one, about university writing guidelines, is a tad too snoriffic for me, though) if we agree that the first person to label the other (“you’re a racist/homophobe/Marxist/whatever”, unless the person has already used the term in self-description) or try to cast the other into a group or “ilk” (ilks get a lot of play on this board, I’ve observed), instantly loses and must admit the loss and may be subjected to scorn and ridicule about the loss, to which they cannot reply.
The specific terms of losing conditions are open to debate, as is the topic of the debate itself.
Speaking generically, I can picture someone presenting a dozen winning arguments and adding “and if you are STILL clinging to your views despite me utterly demolishing them, all I can say is that you’re probably a racist.”