Hey, I’m someone who gets up in arms when any group of people is compared to animals in a rude manner. I don’t see why it’s necessary to make those kinds of generalizations.
Yet we do…and in particular we do with women. Why? Why is it “ok” (not for you, but for many, many people) to refer to a woman as a bitch, or a bad looking woman as a dog - but when we use an analogy that compares men to dogs, apparently several men find it very disturbing?
Granted, I suppose there is the referring to a man as a “cur” - but its rather archaic - both to refer to men and dogs.
Well, I think there are people objecting to both. There are women who object to that kind of pejorative language against women and men who object to it against men. It bothers me when people only care when it’s targeted against their own gender.
Calling someone a bitch isn’t analogous to what whatshername said. If I call you a bitch, I’m not literally saying that you’re a dog. When I call you a bitch the idea of a canine doesn’t enter my mind for a second. It’s just a generic insult. If you have a problem with women being called bitches, fine, but those two situations aren’t the same.
She didn’t literally call men dogs, either.
No, she made an analogy. I’m not making an analogy between you and a dog, comparing you to one, if I call you a bitch.
This. This times a thousand.
Jesus Christ.
If we’re going to be as literal as everyone here is apparently being: yes, yes you are, actually.
See how stupid that is to read the statement literally? Ok, now: what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. The same rule applies to both.
OMG! Why are you talking about BIRDS, here?!?!?!?!?!?! Are you calling him a GOOSE? They are notoriously mean and nasty! You are horrible!
OMG! Are you literally calling me ugly?!?!?!?!?! Well, I never!
An analogy was made, then expanded upon. This analogy has been used to describe men for many years and I, personally, find this analogy to be insulting.
Again, it is only my personal opinion, and I am sorry that my personal opinion offends you, and because the overreaction to this opinion(see posts #427 and #428 to name a couple) seems to be throwing this thread off course, I will not post on the matter further.
Agree. I guess I don’t care about the dog thing either way. I’d personally rather not be insulted - but if I’m going to be insulted, bitch doesn’t tend to bother me. Its a pretty mild insult (and sometimes a compliment!)
(Body parts do - whether you are referring to a woman as a cunt or a man as a wanker - I find that offensive).
WHAT? You realize that is exactly what the word bitch means right? Its a female dog. Its still used that way as a perfectly respectable use, it isn’t like its an obscure word origin.
:rolleyes:
When I call you a bitch, I promise you I’m not thinking of a dog. At all.
And when I call you bitch, even if I was really calling you a dog, I wouldn’t be calling all women dogs, like whatshername did to men, I’d be calling you a dog.
Czarcasm, for what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s that you personally dislike the analogy that’s the problem. And I’m sure no one would object to you having an opinion on the analogy or its validity (although, obviously, they may not agree).
The problem, as I see it, is not that people don’t like the analogy, it’s that the comments that some - not necessarily you - have made seem to be divorced of the context in which the analogy was used in this thread. Personally, I had difficulty with the comments which have essentially said that the use of that analogy (used as a response to a specific comparison that was brought up as part of a conversation) meant that the woman who used it and those of us who thought it apt were bitter hysterical, over-emotional men-haters, whose reports of their own experiences in this thread were clearly out of place. It isn’t about you expressing an opinion about an analogy.
FFS. CCL didn’t call all men dogs. I’m going to try and write this in small words, to see if that helps. Wesley said he was scared of dogs. CCL took that and tried to help him understand the fear we were talking about, by relating it to experiences he would understand. This involved dogs. And, since we had been talking about men, it involved men too. It didn’t say, or even imply, that men were dogs. Or that men were any of the characteristics CCL attributed to dogs. She was using one scenario (that meant something to the person she was talking to) to illustrate another one (which didn’t). The relationship between the two is not in the characteristics of the objects of discussion.
I think you’re wasting your time. He thinks that calling women “bitch” is somehow better than calling a man “dog”.
And also, repeatedly entering a thread about rape and assault to whine about some unintended insult is pretty low.
Jesus christ, people.
I promise you that I interpret it to mean you are calling me a bitch - a female dog. Reception and interpretation are just as important as your intent, or you are not managing to communicate. If you do not mean to refer to women as dogs, you might want to avoid using the word bitch, which has that specific meaning.
Moreover, while you may be innocent of the construction, the phrase “women are such bitches” is common enough that if you are offended by CCL’s analogy, that should be of the same concern. As Freudian Slit says, if its offensive toward one gender, it should be offensive both directions.
I’m just trying to point out that “bitch” is a common enough way to refer to a woman, or women in general, that it seems like an odd double standard to take umbrage to in this particular thread.
Fair enough. I’ll keep that in mind but you should remember that men use “bitch” to refer to one another, too. A lot.
When Czar has a problem with the analogy, it’s fine but when I have a problem with it you call me a moron. I’m done with the thread.
:rolleyes:
Wait, the dog was chasing a man, wasn’t it? If CrazyCatLady was calling all men dogs, and Wesley is a man, then that means she was calling all women men. And if all women are men… and all men…
My god, it’s dogs all the way down!