Women (over)react to catcalling

[Shot_From_Guns]

I find it amusing that this thread about harassment in a public place is being hijacked by a discussion of profanity directed at a person in a private area that has this as one of its major purposes.

@Freudian_Slit

You couldn’t construct an argument without resorting to crude language?

I presented many solid arguments, which curlcoat discounted, as she does. I also insulted her in an over-the-top manner, because it’s the Pit and I find her to be a terrible person. She doesn’t listen to logic, so I might as well try to shut her up another way.

@Rubystreak

Really? I think that’s a very thin pretext for calling someone a slut or a whore nine times in one thread, because by her own admission, she’s doing it because she enjoys it, not because she really thinks there’s any validity to it.

You don’t read very well, do you? The insults were because I enjoy tearing into someone who I find to be such a terrible person. The form of the insults was influenced by curlcoat’s own hypocrisy.

There are a lot of ways to insult someone, but she chose this particular way, which is very female-specific and meant to degrade.

I also called her retarded a lot. And a moron. And yes, it’s meant to degrade–that’s what’s insults do. Duh?

I also strongly doubt if she’d used such sexually loaded language against a man

That’s because men don’t respond to it as viscerally as women. If I were in a fist-fight with a woman, I wouldn’t try to knee her in the balls, either. Am I sexist for not trying to ball-punch women?

though here, when she’s trying to insult magellan01, she decides to call his mother a “syphilis-ridden whore.”

Yes, I found a way to vary how I called someone stupid. See, in this case, I was attributing his mental deficiencies specifically to congenital syphilis, which he had to have acquired from his mother (can’t get it from your dad, 'cause he doesn’t have a uterus to carry you in), which she would have gotten by having unprotected sex, and the best chance of that happening would be if she were a prostitute. I could draw a diagram if you like.

Again, using sexually loaded language, attacking a man’s mother’s sexual integrity as a way to hurt him. This, from someone who is soooo against sexism when it’s directed at her on the street in the form of catcalls. If you don’t find that hypocritical, or your own defense of her disingenuous, then I guess that’s your prerogative

Do you also think that people who participate in boxing matches should be charge with assault? You do understand the difference between public and private, and between consensual and non-consensual activities, don’t you?

@Rubystreak

Oh, for fuck’s sake, she was working when she married him and subsequently became disabled. When one partner in a marriage gets sick or hurt and is supported by the other partner who loves them, that does not make them a whore, and you bloody well know it.

Duh? I have no problem with people being on SSDI, and I have no problem with people being supported by their spouses. I do have a problem with disgusting hypocrites like curlcoat, who spent that entire thread decrying imaginary legions of lazy people who leech off the government… while she does nothing to support herself.

You’re accusing ME of ad hominem attacks? Wow, that’s rich, considering that I posted multiple examples of your own virulent ad hominem style of debate.

That’s not my debate. That’s my behavior in the Pit toward someone I find loathesome. But please do feel free to dig up any example of me using similar language outside of that forum here.

@Freudian_Slit

It definitely reads like it’s a kid who’s just discovered profanity and is trying to find the easiest way to hurt or piss someone off.

I like profanity. I like all language. And you’re right, I was trying to find the easiest way to hurt or piss off curlcoat. Because I find her attitudes disgusting, and I think this forum would be a much better place if she decided to leave. I don’t follow her from thread to thread, and I don’t attack her in this way outside of the Pit. She is free to stop posting in the Pit, put me on ignore, or leave the SDMB at any time.

In summary:

Public harassment of a class of people because of their gender is in no way comparable to private harassment of an individual because of their opinions. I don’t disagree that I used much stronger language than most people would–but I dare anybody to read that thread and come away liking curlcoat.

[Shot_From_Guns]

Side note:

I do not disagree with the basic premise that words like *slut *and *whore *can be used in sexist ways, especially when they are used to shame women for behavior that is considered acceptable, the norm, or even laudable if the person engaging in it is male.

[Shot_From_Guns]

Relevant question:

Is exploiting a cultural sensitivity rooted in sexist double-standards itself sexist?

I think the problem here might be that **Rubystreak **would say yes and I would say no.

[Rubystreak]

@Shot_From_Guns

I find it amusing that this thread about harassment in a public place is being hijacked by a discussion of profanity directed at a person in a private area that has this as one of its major purposes.

This isn’t a private area. This is a public forum, viewable by everyone. A hell of a lot more people witnessed you attacking curlcoat than have witnessed most of the catcalling in this thread. Of course, you can fall back on “this is the Pit, I can be as mean as I want,” but that doesn’t exonerate you from charges of sexism.

I presented many solid arguments, which curlcoat discounted, as she does. I also insulted her in an over-the-top manner, because it’s the Pit and I find her to be a terrible person. She doesn’t listen to logic, so I might as well try to shut her up another way.

First of all, calling her a slut and a whore was not going to shut her up. You could have used a wide variety of insults, but you chose gender-specific ones to shame her. Also, you were just getting your rocks off being cruel and vile, which normally I wouldn’t care about, except that you’ve set yourself up as some gender crusader in this thread, only to be conspicuously sexually degrading to another woman in another thread.

You don’t read very well, do you? The insults were because I enjoy tearing into someone who I find to be such a terrible person. The form of the insults was influenced by curlcoat’s own hypocrisy.

I read fantastically, thanks. The insults were sexist. You claim to be against sexism. Therefore, you are also a hypocrite.

I also called her retarded a lot. And a moron. And yes, it’s meant to degrade–that’s what’s insults do. Duh?

So, when you feel you can no longer use logic, you degenerate into vile, sexist insults, and somehow you manage to feel superior to curlcoat? I think she got the better of you in that argument because you lost your shit and said some really stupid, disgusting things, while she was just wrong.

That’s because men don’t respond to it as viscerally as women. If I were in a fist-fight with a woman, I wouldn’t try to knee her in the balls, either. Am I sexist for not trying to ball-punch women?

What a stupid analogy. IME, men react pretty viscerally when someone calls their mother a syphilitic whore. But way to make some really sweeping generalizations about gender… more hypocrisy.

Yes, I found a way to vary how I called someone stupid.

By attacking the sexual integrity of his mother. Irrelevant, sexist, and pathetic.

Do you also think that people who participate in boxing matches should be charge with assault? You do understand the difference between public and private, and between consensual and non-consensual activities, don’t you?

No, oh Queen of the Shitty Analogy, it’s you who doesn’t know the difference between public and private. The internet? Not private, not by any means, and definitely not a message board with thousands of members. And just because you CAN use degrading sexist insults doesn’t mean you SHOULD, especially if you’re trying to hard to make men stop being sexist and degrading women in public. I mean, you know, if you’re going to demand others walk the walk, you should walk it too.

Duh? I have no problem with people being on SSDI, and I have no problem with people being supported by their spouses. I do have a problem with disgusting hypocrites like curlcoat, who spent that entire thread decrying imaginary legions of lazy people who leech off the government… while she does nothing to support herself.

So call her a disgusting hypocrite. Point out the factual flaws in her argument. Call her on her weak ideology. But resorting to absurd charges about the nature of her marriage, and bludgeoning her with the words “slut” and “whore” do nothing but make you look like a frothing at the mouth jerk who has a streak of misogyny. Very ironic considering your stance in this thread.

That’s not my debate. That’s my behavior in the Pit toward someone I find loathesome. But please do feel free to dig up any example of me using similar language outside of that forum here.

It’s not allowed in any forum outside the Pit, and like I said, there are so many ways to attack someone’s argument that don’t involve sexist ad hominem attacks. You do your own position no service by expressing it that way, and you totally undermine your point in this thread via that sort of attack.

Public harassment of a class of people because of their gender is in no way comparable to private harassment of an individual because of their opinions. I don’t disagree that I used much stronger language than most people would–but I dare anybody to read that thread and come away liking curlcoat.

I cannot freaking stand curlcoat. I am sure I dislike her as much as you do, if not more. That’s not what this is about. I can still object to your treatment of her and your hypocrisy despite my feelings about her. If you wanted to insult her privately, you should have used PM. What you did was very public and just as vile as what you claim she is saying. Moreso, because you tried to make it extremely personal and attack her marriage and sexual integrity, while all she did was being obstinately, obnoxiously wrong about public policy.

[Rubystreak]

@Shot_From_Guns

Relevant question:

Is exploiting a cultural sensitivity rooted in sexist double-standards itself sexist?

I think the problem here might be that **Rubystreak **would say yes and I would say no.

Oh yeah, that’s what you were doing. You were making a political statement about the sexist double standard rooted in the words “slut” and “whore.” :rolleyes: Just when I thought you couldn’t get any more disingenuous. You were just doing it because you were frustrated with curlcoat’s obstinate idiocy, and you lost your shit. Unfortunately for you, the way you lost it runs counter to your stated stance in this thread about sexism. IYou’re a language person, you knew exactly what you were doing, and you chose to devolve into ad hominem instead of staying on topic and making meaningful points. So, curlcoat won that round because you came off looking irrational and hateful.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Rubystreak

This isn’t a private area. This is a public forum, viewable by everyone.

Ah, apparently you don’t understand. This is a privately owned forum. The admins can set any rules they want, and they can remove you at any time for any reason. “Please remember that you are our guest here, and that we reserve the right to exclude you at our whim, for any or no reason whatsoever.” You will note that rules like free speech don’t apply in internet forums. Anyone can register here, but that does **not **make it public in the same way that a street corner is public.

The insults were sexist. You claim to be against sexism. Therefore, you are also a hypocrite.

See the question I posed that you blew right by. I don’t think that promiscuity is acceptable in men but deplorable in women; I don’t think that prostitution is wrong or shameful; I do think that many people in our society hold these views.

Oh, and here’s some proof of what I’ve been saying about why I was calling her a whore.

So, when you feel you can no longer use logic, you degenerate into vile, sexist insults, and somehow you manage to feel superior to curlcoat?

When logical arguments have been demonstrated to be ineffective because the other party refuses to engage, I sometimes like to poke them with a stick. I never commented on whether it makes me better or worse than my target. You may draw your own conclusions about what that says about me as a person.

But way to make some really sweeping generalizations about gender… more hypocrisy.

So… because I agree with **your statement **that terms like whore and slut are “very female-specific and meant to degrade” (your words), **I **am the one making sweeping generalizations about gender?

By attacking the sexual integrity of his mother. Irrelevant, sexist, and pathetic.

I will give you a cookie if you think of a way for someone to have developmental problems related to congenital syphilis without getting it from their mother. Cookie #2 comes in where you show me that having safe sex doesn’t dramatically decrease your chance of contracting syphilis. And you win your third cookie when you show me that prostitutes don’t have more sex than the general population, thus leading to a higher chance of infection. Bonus chocolate chips if you can show that prostitutes insist on condoms.

And just because you CAN use degrading sexist insults doesn’t mean you SHOULD, especially if you’re trying to hard to make men stop being sexist and degrading women in public.

This is an entirely different debate, and one I’d be interested to engage in, if you could stop the hyperventilatory personal attacks for five seconds.

If you wanted to insult her privately, you should have used PM.

Really? You think it’s more appropriate to privately send someone a bunch of insults? That strikes me as creepy and borderline stalker-ish.

@Rubystreak

Oh yeah, that’s what you were doing. You were making a political statement about the sexist double standard rooted in the words “slut” and “whore.”

That’s not what I said at all. I am looking for an actual discussion of the distinction between *using loaded words because you believe the cultural stigmas attached to them *and using loaded words because you know how someone will react based on the cultural stigmas attached to them. But feel free to not engage with me and actually debate this, and perhaps even convince me to change my stance, if you’re prefer to continue frothing at the mouth.

You’re a language person, you knew exactly what you were doing, and you chose to devolve into ad hominem instead of staying on topic and making meaningful points.

Actually, I often threw in ad hominems right alongside my logical arguments. You seem to be kind of fractured, here–the **relevant **argument would be about the **content **of the insults themselves, but you appear to want to go off-topic about whether or not I should have made the insults at all. If you’re pissed 'cause you think I was undermining the people who were sticking to just making (futile) rational arguments, that’s a whole 'nother thread, or perhaps a topic for a PM.

[Freudian_Slit]

@Shot_From_Guns

See the question I posed that you blew right by. I don’t think that promiscuity is acceptable in men but deplorable in women; I don’t think that prostitution is wrong or shameful; I do think that many people in our society hold these views.

But you’re still using those viewpoints to insult. If you’re using the word “whore” to mock someone, you’re accepting that as a woman, having a lot of sex/sex for money is a bad thing. Saying that you’re just doing it because it’ll piss them off kind of strikes me as the argument that a lot of people use to justify racial slurs. I.e., I’m not racist, I just knew calling him _____ would piss him off.

[DianaG]

@Shot_From_Guns

Relevant question:

Is exploiting a cultural sensitivity rooted in sexist double-standards itself sexist?

Inasmuch as it tends to validate the double standard, yes. Frankly, you’re probably not a sufficiently gifted ironist to pull it off. Most people aren’t.

“Misogyny: Okay when a woman does it to score points.” Um, no.

[amarinth]

@tdn

So honest question, and take this in the most generic sense. You guys all agree that nothing ever works, ever, everything has been tried, and life in general sucks. What if there were some sort of strategy to cope with the douchebags – and stop your objections now – we’re just pretending – would it be worthwhile to at least find out what that might be?

There are situations in life where coping strategies are useful tools and then there are other situations that just have to be, for lack of a better word, endured. The ability to distinguish between the two is an important skill.

This morning, while waiting for the bus, some guy yelled something unintelligible at me. At the same stop, someone had failed to pick up after their dog. While I wish that both of those people had behaved differently and that they would stop and while I was mildly annoyed at both people, I don’t need coping strategies to deal with the douchebags. It is not worthwhile to spend time to explore the issue and figure out how my behavior might be altered to deal with either the spewer of verbal shit or the leaver of literal shit.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Freudian_Slit

But you’re still using those viewpoints to insult. If you’re using the word “whore” to mock someone, you’re accepting that as a woman, having a lot of sex/sex for money is a bad thing. Saying that you’re just doing it because it’ll piss them off kind of strikes me as the argument that a lot of people use to justify racial slurs. I.e., I’m not racist, I just knew calling him _____ would piss him off.

@DianaG

Inasmuch as it tends to validate the double standard, yes.

Hrm. From my perspective, *I *know that *I *don’t believe these things; however, an outside observer would have no such knowledge, absent a familiarity with my opinions. So I can see how that would be problematic, in terms of reinforcing the cultural expectations and biases.

Would you see the situation changing at all if the listeners were aware of the opinions of the speaker?

@DianaG

Frankly, you’re probably not a sufficiently gifted ironist to pull it off. Most people aren’t.

I never said I was trying for irony–**Rubystreak **ascribed that motive to me. If I were trying for funny or ironic, believe me, you’d know.

[Rubystreak]

@Shot_From_Guns

Ah, apparently you don’t understand. This is a privately owned forum.

Privately owned, viewable by anyone with an internet connection. At last count, that thread had been viewed over 50,000 times. You consider that a private situation? Bullshit. This is a meaningless, disingenuous distinction.

See the question I posed that you blew right by. I don’t think that promiscuity is acceptable in men but deplorable in women; I don’t think that prostitution is wrong or shameful; I do think that many people in our society hold these views.

More disingenuous argument. You know damn well that “slut” and “whore” are meant to degrade women, your highly enlightened personal stance on them notwithstanding. You were using words you know are used to belittle women to belittle someone who disagrees with you. There was nothing nuanced or high minded in your attacks on curlcoat.

So… because I agree with **your statement **that terms like whore and slut are “very female-specific and meant to degrade” (your words), **I **am the one making sweeping generalizations about gender?

I’m merely pointing out common usage. Also, your intention is very clear, so your personal views on prostitution and promiscuity are irrelevant, as you were very obviously meaning the words in the traditionally insulting way. To claim otherwise? Lying.

I will give you a cookie if you think of a way for someone to have developmental problems related to congenital syphilis without getting it from their mother. Cookie #2 comes in where you show me that having safe sex doesn’t dramatically decrease your chance of contracting syphilis. And you win your third cookie when you show me that prostitutes don’t have more sex than the general population, thus leading to a higher chance of infection. Bonus chocolate chips if you can show that prostitutes insist on condoms.

I’ll give you a fucking banana split sundae if you admit that none of this is relevant, since magellan01’s mother isn’t a syphilitic whore. You were just trying to be a vile and insulting as possible, and attacking a person’s mother is a time tested way to do that.

This is an entirely different debate, and one I’d be interested to engage in, if you could stop the hyperventilatory personal attacks for five seconds.

My god, you are such a hypocrite. GET IT STRAIGHT, babe-- you are the one spewing hyperventilatory personal attacks, in that thread with curlcoat. I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy. I haven’t engaged in any ad hominem attacks, as I have called you out for what you actually said. I didn’t make up bullshit, disingenuous excuses for incredibly personal but irrelevant remarks meant only to insult. You are the one who is out of line here. I know it’s painful to be taken to task for your words, but don’t try to paint yourself as a victim here. You’re not. You’re the victimizer, even though curlcoat handled the situation with far more dignity than you did, and didn’t allow you to get to her. I can’t believe I’m praising her, but she is flame proof, I gotta hand it to her.

Really? You think it’s more appropriate to privately send someone a bunch of insults? That strikes me as creepy and borderline stalker-ish.

I don’t think it’s EVER appropriate to call another woman a whore. YOU are the one making this specious distinction between public and private. Sorry, the SDMB is public, even if it’s privately owned, just like the mall is privately owned, but if someone catcalls you there, it’s still “in public.” A truly private exchange would be over PM. I’m not recommending that course of action. I’m recommending you stop calling other women whores because they disagree with you.

That’s not what I said at all. I am looking for an actual discussion of the distinction between *using loaded words because you believe the cultural stigmas attached to them *and using loaded words because you know how someone will react based on the cultural stigmas attached to them. But feel free to not engage with me and actually debate this, and perhaps even convince me to change my stance, if you’re prefer to continue frothing at the mouth.

You aren’t looking for any sort of “actual discussion.” You are looking for ways to change the subject, because you know damn well that you used loaded words, and how you used them, and why, and all the backpedaling and disingenuous excuse-making in the world isn’t going to change that. As for frothing at the mouth, well, again, you make me laugh, since there’s no froth coming from me, only facts. In that UHC thread, it was YOU that was frothing at the mouth. You admitted as much.

Actually, I often threw in ad hominems right alongside my logical arguments. You seem to be kind of fractured, here–the **relevant **argument would be about the **content **of the insults themselves, but you appear to want to go off-topic about whether or not I should have made the insults at all. If you’re pissed 'cause you think I was undermining the people who were sticking to just making (futile) rational arguments, that’s a whole 'nother thread, or perhaps a topic for a PM.

Does the content of a catcall matter, or is it the fact that a man had the temerity to catcall you at all? No, it’s not “off topic” at all to say that I think it’s sexist to call a woman a whore simply as a way of shaming her into shutting up.

I never said I was trying for irony–Rubystreak ascribed that motive to me. If I were trying for funny or ironic, believe me, you’d know.

I never ascribed you irony as a motive. I have ascribed the desire to degrade, shame, and belittle with sexist language to you, as a way of silencing an opinion expressed by a woman that offends you. I give you no credit for irony or humor here. Try again.

[MeanOldLady]

This thread has been hijacked twice. Awesome.

[DianaG]

@Shot_From_Guns

Hrm. From my perspective, *I *know that *I *don’t believe these things; however, an outside observer would have no such knowledge, absent a familiarity with my opinions. So I can see how that would be problematic, in terms of reinforcing the cultural expectations and biases.

Would you see the situation changing at all if the listeners were aware of the opinions of the speaker?

Well yeah. Then I might think to myself "Huh, she’s not a racist/misogynist/sexist, she’s just kind of an asshole.

Because really, what are you looking for me to say, here? That it’s okay to use racist/sexist/misognynist cultural biases to hurt people’s feelings, as long as you don’t really believe them? Because that would make it perfectly okay for the guy who yells obscenities at you on the street to do so, provided he doesn’t really *believe *that women are nothing but an assemblage of body parts to be rated by strangers.

[tdn]

@MeanOldLady

This thread has been hijacked twice. Awesome.

Yeah, but it took 15 pages to do it. I remain unimpressed.

[Freudian_Slit]

@Shot_From_Guns

Hrm. From my perspective, *I *know that *I *don’t believe these things; however, an outside observer would have no such knowledge, absent a familiarity with my opinions. So I can see how that would be problematic, in terms of reinforcing the cultural expectations and biases.

Would you see the situation changing at all if the listeners were aware of the opinions of the speaker?

I’d see them as a hypocrite, probably. If you’re so upset about someone using that term on you, why would you do the same to someone else? Obviously when a man uses that term to denigrate you, you feel bad–why would you want to make someone else feel that way? And if the answer is that you dislike the person because of stuff they’ve said, then why not use what they have said to argue with them instead of just spewing off hateful speech?

[Shot_From_Guns]

@DianaG

Because really, what are you looking for me to say, here? That it’s okay to use racist/sexist/misognynist cultural biases to hurt people’s feelings, as long as you don’t really believe them?

No, I’m looking for actual debate and discussion, because I actually want to debate and discuss this, because I think you guys might have a valid point. Therefore, because I like learning, and because addressing root causes is more important than addressing symptoms, I want to figure out I felt it was not sexist to insult curlcoat like that, but other people had such a strong objection. But if you want to go ahead and just make stupid comments instead, that’s cool. I’ll keep churning my own mental wheels back here without input from you.

@Rubystreak

Privately owned, viewable by anyone with an internet connection. At last count, that thread had been viewed over 50,000 times. You consider that a private situation? Bullshit. This is a meaningless, disingenuous distinction.

No, it’s not. It’s a very important one, because you seem to have two different issues here: the fact that I insulted curlcoat at all, and the words I used to do it with. If you’d stick to a discussion of the specific words, we could leave out the “public versus private” issue.

A woman out in public cannot escape being harassed for being a woman. A person on a message board can escape being harassed for their opinions by leaving that thread or the area of the message board where inter-personal insults are allowed. Don’t you think, to use one of your favorite words, that it’s disingenuous to conflate the two? As I’ve said, you can debate the words used, but you can’t legitimately equate the situations.

I haven’t engaged in any ad hominem attacks, as I have called you out for what you actually said.

You’re calling out my arguments in this thread based on insults I’ve made in another one. I’d call that an ad hominem attack.

My insults against curlcoat there have absolutely **no bearing **on **this **thread, **except **as a personal attack against me. None. Whatsoever. You didn’t like it, you thought it was sexist, so you decided that the best way to publicly shame me for it was to derail this thread instead of starting a new one or sending me a PM to express your displeasure.

I don’t think it’s EVER appropriate to call another woman a whore.

See, now we’re getting somewhere. Isn’t discussion fun?

How about men? If curlcoat were a male poster in the same situation (married, partner has a six-figure income, on SSDI, complaining about vast legions of public moochers), and I called him a whore, would we be having this discussion?

Sorry, the SDMB is public, even if it’s privately owned, just like the mall is privately owned, but if someone catcalls you there, it’s still “in public.”

The Pit is primarily designated as a place for posters on this board to insult each other in a way that is not permitted elsewhere on the board or in polite society. Anyone can clearly see that those are the rules for this forum. Anyone who would prefer not be be personally attacked would do best to stay the fuck out of the Pit. This is not a person walking through a darkened alley at night getting mugged–this is someone walking into a boxing ring and getting punched in the teeth. It might not be pretty, but it comes with the territory.

You aren’t looking for any sort of “actual discussion.” You are looking for ways to change the subject, because you know damn well that you used loaded words, and how you used them, and why, and all the backpedaling and disingenuous excuse-making in the world isn’t going to change that.

Yes, I’m not looking for an actual discussion… Which is why I’m discussing this, and have been putting serious thought into it all day. You fucking moron.

I never ascribed you irony as a motive.

Sorry, I didn’t mean that you actually **thought **I was attempting to be ironic, but that you asserted that I was claiming that motive for myself, which is what the poster was then remembering and responding to. “You were making a political statement about the sexist double standard rooted in the words ‘slut’ and ‘whore,’” was what you said, with an eyeroll.

@Freudian_Slit

I’d see them as a hypocrite, probably. If you’re so upset about someone using that term on you, why would you do the same to someone else? Obviously when a man uses that term to denigrate you, you feel bad–why would you want to make someone else feel that way? And if the answer is that you dislike the person because of stuff they’ve said, then why not use what they have said to argue with them instead of just spewing off hateful speech?

This is the single best post you’ve made in this entire thread, IMO. My only objection to your arguments so far is that I don’t think you have to accept the validity of the premise of an insult to use it, only acknowledge its presence in society. For instance, Hitler didn’t necessarily think that Jews were responsible for all the ills of German society–but they were a convenient scapegoat, so he exploited existing prejudices. (Using Hitler as an example there was for the benefit of anyone trying to avoid actually talking about this by making bullshit accusations that I’m just trying to wiggle my way out of it.)

Time for me to log off and go home, so I don’t know if I’ll get a chance to read anything more that’s posted here before I’m back to work on Tuesday. So, with that four-day weekend gap in mind, here’s the jist of the conclusion I’m coming to right now:

Regardless of my personal beliefs and intent, to exploit the cultural prejudices and gender favoritism inherent in a word like *whore *probably does serve to reinforce those prejudices on some level.

[Rack-a-Bones]

@MeanOldLady

This thread has been hijacked twice. Awesome.

I hadn’t checked back on this thread in awhile. It sure jumped the rails.
ETA: :smack:

[Rubystreak]

@Shot_From_Guns

No, it’s not. It’s a very important one, because you seem to have two different issues here: the fact that I insulted curlcoat at all, and the words I used to do it with. If you’d stick to a discussion of the specific words, we could leave out the “public versus private” issue.

If you insulted curlcoat in a venue that was actually private, then I wouldn’t know about it to comment on it, would I? The fact is, you did it here, on this message board, in the same place where you’re lecturing men about sexist language and behavior. This opens you up to a discussion of your word choice, and the disparity between your stated beliefs and your actions.

A woman out in public cannot escape being harassed for being a woman. A person on a message board can escape being harassed for their opinions by leaving that thread or the area of the message board where inter-personal insults are allowed. Don’t you think, to use one of your favorite words, that it’s disingenuous to conflate the two? As I’ve said, you can debate the words used, but you can’t legitimately equate the situations.

I’m not conflating them, I’m comparing your attitudes towards sexism in each of these contexts. You say that because these comments are made in different contexts, your behavior in the UHC is acceptable, whereas the men’s behavior you’re criticizing is not acceptable. The fact that a woman who is catcalled “can’t get away” is a bit ridiculous, because in most cases she can, or the catcalling ends; if not, it’s not just a catcall anymore, it’s escalated into something more sinister. Also, this idea that it’s OK that you’ve made these sexist attacks because curlcoat can just stop reading them is also pretty vile, because if she does, then she’s let you and your vicious attacks defeat her. She’d be rewarding your shitty behavior by letting you silence her with your insults. Is that really what you want to be doing, silencing other women via virulent sexist attacks? Not very feminist of you.

You’re calling out my arguments in this thread based on insults I’ve made in another one. I’d call that an ad hominem attack.

Then you’ve made it clear, once and for all, that you do not understand what an ad hominem attack is. I’m calling out your stance in this thread, where you’ve very much painted yourself as a crusader against sexism, based on your behavior in another thread. That is not an ad hominem attack. It’s an attack on the validity of your stance in this thread. Is it a hijack? Sure, I’ll cop to that, but the entire thread is a hijack of the OP anyway.

My insults against curlcoat there have absolutely **no bearing **on **this **thread, **except **as a personal attack against me. None. Whatsoever. You didn’t like it, you thought it was sexist, so you decided that the best way to publicly shame me for it was to derail this thread instead of starting a new one or sending me a PM to express your displeasure.

Well, you can say “None. Whatsoever.” all you want, but you are incorrect. If a person is a hypocrite, it absolutely has bearing on the credibility of their arguments. Do you think you are a different person from thread to thread, with no history? That’s not how this place operates, and that’s not how the real world operates either. I could have just Pitted you in a separate thread, and maybe I should have, but it’s too late for that now. Had no idea this would turn into such a huge discussion, but maybe I should have. As for PM’ing you, no thanks.

How about men? If curlcoat were a male poster in the same situation (married, partner has a six-figure income, on SSDI, complaining about vast legions of public moochers), and I called him a whore, would we be having this discussion?

If you did it with virulence and repetition with which you attacked curlcoat, yes, most definitely. It’s not OK to call a person, male or female, a whore, for the sole purpose of shaming them into silence. It’s also not OK for you to call someone’s mother a whore for the same reasons. Is it your goal to be so unpleasant and nasty that no one wants to disagree with you for fear that you’ll launch a vicious ad hominem attack against them?

The Pit is primarily designated as a place for posters on this board to insult each other in a way that is not permitted elsewhere on the board or in polite society. Anyone can clearly see that those are the rules for this forum. Anyone who would prefer not be be personally attacked would do best to stay the fuck out of the Pit. This is not a person walking through a darkened alley at night getting mugged–this is someone walking into a boxing ring and getting punched in the teeth. It might not be pretty, but it comes with the territory.

You keep trying to fall back on this, but it’s just bullshit. Sure, in the Pit you can insult people. Yes, we all know this. However, you can’t portray yourself as a gender warrior in one thread and then behave like a sexist troglodyte in another and expect not to get called on it. The Pit allows you to make insults, but it doesn’t dictate what type of insult you make. There are lots of ways you could have expressed your displeasure with curlcoat that would have raised nary an eyebrow, but you went the sexist route, which makes you a hypocrite because of your stance in this thread. Isn’t that clear?

Yes, I’m not looking for an actual discussion… Which is why I’m discussing this, and have been putting serious thought into it all day. You fucking moron.

Bolding mine. See, now THERE’S an ad hominem attack. Now you can do a comparison between what I’m doing and what you’re doing.

Regardless of my personal beliefs and intent, to exploit the cultural prejudices and gender favoritism inherent in a word like *whore *probably does serve to reinforce those prejudices on some level.

I’m glad you can acknowledge this, which is my main point. You undo your work in a thread like this by behaving as you did in the other thread. Also, if you want men to behave a certain way, and spend over a dozen pages lecturing them about it, you better be sure you come correct.

[Bosstone]

@Rubystreak

If you insulted curlcoat in a venue that was actually private, then I wouldn’t know about it to comment on it, would I?

This is a silly sidetrack. It’s pretty clear that in this context, “public” means an area where wholly random strangers can come up to you out of nowhere, while a “private” area is someplace where people converse and get to know one another a bit better. It’s the same thing as disliking someone for their opinions = okay, disliking them for their skin color or gender = not okay. That, I believe, is the distinction SFG is making, that what she’s calling curlcoat is okay because it’s due to cc’s opinions and individual personality, not her gender.

Bolding mine. See, now THERE’S an ad hominem attack. Now you can do a comparison between what I’m doing and what you’re doing.

Not quite. She would have to say, “you’re a fucking moron, therefore your argument is weak,” for it to be ad hom. “You fucking moron” is merely a gratuitous insult. Ask Cecil, he knows the difference.

[Rubystreak]

@Bosstone

This is a silly sidetrack. It’s pretty clear that in this context, “public” means an area where wholly random strangers can come up to you out of nowhere, while a “private” area is someplace where people converse and get to know one another a bit better. It’s the same thing as disliking someone for their opinions = okay, disliking them for their skin color or gender = not okay. That, I believe, is the distinction SFG is making, that what she’s calling curlcoat is okay because it’s due to cc’s opinions and individual personality, not her gender.

So we’re not wholly random strangers here, eh? I guess that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but from my POV, I don’t know any of you, really. Would you consider attacking someone in a classroom, or at a party, where everyone sorta knew each other “public” or “private”? And would the distinction actually matter? Would you be more or less hurt by an attack in a place where people are not totally anonymous, or would the effect be basically the same? And again, if SFG wanted to attack curlcoat for her opinions, she should have stuck to attacking her opinions, and not gone on this rampage of calling her a whore repeatedly. Do you doubt that she chose the word “whore” because curlcoat is a woman, and “whore” is almost always a woman-specific insult? She as much as admitted it. Also, it wasn’t just one post, made for effect, trying to show curlcoat as a hypocrite. It was a campaign of using the word repeatedly, nastily, every time curlcoat said anything. That’s when it stops being topical and starts being just plain nasty for its own sake.

Not quite. She would have to say, “you’re a fucking moron, therefore your argument is weak,” for it to be ad hom. “You fucking moron” is merely a gratuitous insult. Ask Cecil, he knows the difference.

She was saying my argument was weak because I was a fucking moron. Notice that “fucking moron” comes after she disagrees with my argument. Context, you know.