I am not taking a position on the OP. However, I will say that there are occasions, regardless of whether this is one or not, where it is legitimate to take offense where none was intended.
Here is an example: in a thread I read recently, someone harked back to the old saying about the only way a (male) politician could lose an election is if he was caught with a live boy or a dead girl. I can’t remember whose post it was, but I am 100% certain the writer did not intend the reference as an anti-gay slur.
Yet, it is. Note that it’s not a reference to the unacceptability of pedophilia - if it were, the phrase would go something like “caught with a child under 18 or a body under his back yard.” Nope - in the original phrasing, it is clearly implied that if the girl is alive, it’s okay. But it’s not okay if the boy is alive - in other words, it’s the homosexuality that is unacceptable.
So, I think it is legit to - well, not take wild-eyed foam-at-the-mouth offense where none was intended - but legit to politely say, “hey, I bet you didn’t mean it that way, but can you see how that phrase is offensive to gay people? I’m hoping you won’t use it anymore, at least unless you make it clear that you think the politician’s constituents are homophobes and that’s why sex with a male would ruin his career.”
(FTR, I did not post anything in the thread where I saw it, both because I was busy and because the moment had passed - the comment was over a week old and dozens of new posts had been made.)
Granted, but keep in mind that there are words that are acceptable to say for people within a culture but totally unacceptable to say for people outside of that culture. The “N”-Word is a classic example. If I had 100 dollars for every time a comedian or some other Black person has used that word, I’d be a millionaire, but it is totally forbidden for a white person to utter it.
I agree. However, it is also fair to say that there are a great many other occasions where one has to work really hard to find offense where none was intended and indeed, where none exists from the perspective of any objective observer.
Well, if you define Jews as a “race” (which is wrong, but people do it), then the term is clearly racist against all non-Jews. It has absolutely not a specific reference to the Indian subset of non-Jews, however.
I’m pretty sure the post in question was talking about a Republican politician, so the implication was specifically that that politician’s voters are homophobes.
The idea that homosexuality is unacceptable is an obvious part of that saying, but I wouldn’t call it an “anti-gay slur.” It’s not endorsing the idea that there’s a double standard, just recognizing that it exists.
Just a data point: Jason Robert Brown, Jewish composer of Broadway shows, wrote this song, “Shiksa Goddess”, as part of his semi-biographical musical The Last 5 Years.
It’s clear that different folks are going to feel differently about it, but as @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness says, after sharing that Salon article, it’s complicated.
My take is that while in the “real world” things might be complicated, it’s appropriate for a message board like this to adopt more narrow guidelines, gently applied, to avoid putting mods or community members in positions where they have to constantly do heavy lifting and explaining every time possibly questionable words are used.
Look, context is everything. We don’t use the Nword, but if I am quoting Mark Twain, then it is sometimes necessary. We don’t like “Bitch” but it is fine when talking about people bitching about stuff or a female dog. And so forth.
In that context the OP is bitching about, the use was not a big deal.
Also, calling the Mods here racists- that is very wrong, and IMHO should be modded. It is fine to disagree about a call, but not by calling the Mod a name.
I could see the argument that shiksa as a sexist, since it’s specifically employed against women who aren’t Jewish enough. Compared to gentile, which just means non-jewish without the same “…but they SHOULD be Jewish” connotation. Imagine if I made a post about my wife calling her “my bitch” or some other gendered insult in an affectionate way, would that pass by without notice as well? Perhaps, but it would be just as likely to offend as the post the OP cites.
That said, I think the OP characterizing it as a racist remark muddies the waters. I don’t think it’s a racist term, because Judaism isn’t a race, and as far as I know if the wife in question was Jewish, she wouldn’t be referred to as a shiksa, except perhaps in a “she still isn’t Jewish enough” connotation.
Meh. If someone uses a k-word to refer to Jews, and someone else calls them racist, I’m not gonna quibble. It wouldn’t be the first time that a racist described Jews as a race.
But that’s not what happened here. It’s not racist, because it’s not used in any sense to refer to racial characteristics. If I’m reading correctly, there is no racial group a woman could belong to and be a fully observant, practicing, religious Jew and be called “Shiksa” by anyone who used the term according to its meaning. It refers to religious and cultural characteristics, and it might be nasty and it might be bigoted and it might be misogynistic, but it’s not a race-based term.
According to the linked article, it’s sometimes used by orthodox/devout Jews to describe Jewish women who aren’t considered sufficiently devout/orthodox. Again, it’s a gross usage, but it’s about behavior and religion, not about race, not even with that wrong definition of race. (assuming that “race” is used here to refer to immutable membership in a group).
Nah. He didn’t call the mods “racists.” He described actions and approaches as “racism,” and that’s real different, and it’s absurd to suggest–as you have for years–that that word should somehow be off-limits when describing actions and statements and the like. The OP was wrong in this case, but not moddably wrong IMO.
I think that’s the thing. In mainstream American culture, including among Jews who don’t have rabbis, it isn’t really considered a slur anymore. It’s a very unusual case where the only group of people who realize how offensive the term actually is – religious Jews – are the only people it would never be directed against!
Relatedly, did you know schmuck in Yiddish is a very, very rude word for “penis”?
I’m not religious by the way and outside of weddings and funerals haven’t been to shul in many years. I did get religious training as a child (and I suppose man after I turned 13)
So if I talk about how
Mrs. Cad is my n****r, she’s always got my back.
My friends are my n*****rs just we just get crazy on Saturday nights.
Those n…rs next door are the best neighbors ever.
and I’m white, which of these are moddable and which are not?
Oh, I figured YOU did, I was addressing the Teeming Masses collectively there. And I was trying to think of a word for “not necessarily religious but having at least had some religious education at some point”, but decided I was overthinking it.
I think of it as a mild slur directed at non-Jewish women. There’s a masculine form that’s almost never used. The usual context is “I wish my son would have found a Jew, instead of this non-Jew he is partnered to”.
If others find it more offensive than I do, then it’s best if posters don’t use it. But please don’t take offense from some misguided notion that it somehow applies to Indians and not to WASPs, or any other ethnic or racial group. It’s used to refer to WASPs more than to any other ethnicity. And my opinion as a moderator was certainly not influenced by the race of the partner in question.
That’s only relatively innocuous. If you’ve ever been on the receiving end (either of the receiving ends) of that mother’s disapproval, you might find it a lot less innocuous. That mother does not mean it in a neutral or innocuous way at all. She is angry at her son and demeaning of his wife.
The term is derogatory. It just is. It’s neither neutral nor positive. It never has a polite or kind connotation. It can be used affectionately, in an insider group, or humorously, but the affection and the humor both rely on the negative meaning of the word for their force.
It’s not racism (although the entangled history of racism and anti-semitism is worth exploring), but that semantic quibble doesn’t make it a word that’s just plain fine.
But:
I think that would have been the best way to go, definitely.
@DocCathode, I understand if you don’t want to be in this mess any more than you have to, but if you’re willing to answer a question, I’m curious: does your wife self-describe that way?