NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking for a while now about this topic and how pervasive language is at conveying essentially sexist messages, so I've decided to write something up about exploring it and why it still exists today when it's really so obvious. Further, why has such language seen use by the very people who it denigrates without any sense of 'reclaiming' the terms?

To elucidate my point which may not be totally clear at the moment, I'm talking about when we say someone has 'balls' to mean courage, but they're a 'pussy' if they show fear. But as I've said, what I'm interested in is why terms are used by the very people abused by them. Do people not see how this language contributes, albeit in a relatively minor way, to continued sexist views in the world? When anything that has feminine connotations is perpetually given a negative light, ultimately femininity as it indeed still is, is seen in a negative light, whilst masculinity is exalted to the extent that no man could possibly achieve all that it entails without compromising their personality - this harms everybody.

And it's a simple linear path too. once we deem parts of the female body insulting '****', feminine thoughts become undesirable, and it's soon insulting to display aspects of personality designated feminine 'you act like a girl, stop being such a woman', and once that is established, simply falling from masculine ideal becomes insulting. 'boys don't cry.' How can this possibly result in an emotionally well balanced human race where one half of the population has their every action considered derogatarily until it becomes so ingrained that I even hear otherwise equalist thinking women insulting men for 'being girly', as if this is a bad thing to be - but when the shoe is on the other foot, embracing masculinity is quite acceptable. 'tomboy vs sissy'.

So, whilst I re-iterate that this is hardly the be all and end all of the worlds problems, I open it up for discussion. What do the people of NSG think of it all?

I think that language gives people away, and that some prejudices and attitudes are very, very deeply ingrained.

I think you are wrong. Sure some so called femanine aspects are portrayed as bad, but some are not, and the same can be said about the masculine.

I think you are wrong. Sure some so called femanine aspects are portrayed as bad, but some are not, and the same can be said about the masculine.

Sure: name me some. For example, qualities given 'masculine' status are typically, rationality, physical strength, independence and self reliance (the lone wolf), confidence. Your typical "Alpha Male" (a term with positive connotations.)

Typical feminine qualities are: superficiality, fickleness, overemotionality, physical frailty, low self esteem.

I can't think of a single 'feminine quality' that is typically held in high self esteem by everybody' in a way that most 'masculine qualities' I listed are.

(note: I am a firm equalist and do not believe in 'masculine and feminine qualities' as immutable laws that only apply to one sex or the other. human personality is far too complex for that.)

I wholeheartedly support you on this point. Sexism pervades every element of modern life, and it presents a ridiculously archaic point of view, set down long ago by men themselves. Even now, the wage scale between men and women is not equal. For every dollar earned by a man, a woman in the same position earns just 87 cents. For miniorities, the sexual split is even greater. For every dollar earned by a man, only 60 cents is earned by Latino women and black women. Can anyone possibly think this is fair?

I know the wage-scale point was unrelated, but it seemed necessary to say.

If you're a dick or a cock, you're a c unt.

Sure: name me some. For example, qualities given 'masculine' status are typically, rationality, physical strength, independence and self reliance (the lone wolf), confidence. Your typical "Alpha Male" (a term with positive connotations.)

Typical feminine qualities are: superficiality, fickleness, overemotionality, physical frailty, low self esteem.

I can't think of a single 'feminine quality' that is typically held in high self esteem by everybody' in a way that most 'masculine qualities' I listed are.

(note: I am a firm equalist and do not believe in 'masculine and feminine qualities' as immutable laws that only apply to one sex or the other. human personality is far too complex for that.)

Male stereotypical "bad traits": Stupidity, predisposition to violence, lack of hygiene, intolerance...

Female stereotypical "good traits": Intelligence, peacefulness, care, gentleness...

I think that a lot of our language may have sexist origins, but their's really nothing that can be immediately done about it without rewriting the language and penalizing offenders, which would violate all manner of rights. I also suspect that, if people's consious attitudes change, the language will eventually change to reflect that.

Male stereotypical "bad traits": Stupidity, predisposition to violence, lack of hygiene, intolerance...

Female stereotypical "good traits": Intelligence, peacefulness, care, gentleness...

True enough, but even the good traits are 'secondary'. They exemplify the female as the carer and the supporter or otherwise passive, an auxiliary. Your typical male negative traits are spot on though.


And yes ok, fine, brett. But genital oriented insults also branch into fields of their own. what's so wrong with our genitals that almost every word and euphemism for them is an insult. But I refuse to tangent that far.

I know the wage-scale point was unrelated, but it seemed necessary to say.

Really? You think its unrelated, but you still feel compelled to bring it up? Do you normally do that?

Actually, I'd say its related only in the sense that its further evidence of comonplace sexism (and one I'd wager most of the posters here are already aware of). Though you could no doubt make connections between the two if you wished to.

On the issue of negative male steriotypes, they are certainly common, and, while they might not have quite the same history as their female equivallents, are probably (and likely for that very reason) more accepted in our current society.

Come on, don't tell me you haven't noticed. For example, it sometimes seems to me like a rule for all comercials that if their's a man and a woman, the man will be a fat, stupid, lazy slob who sits around watching football or something (and doesn't want kids), while the woman will be smart, attractive, living a healthy lifestyle, athletic, etc. Its like, if someone did a "Ten Commandments of Television," one of them would be "No man shall be smarter than a woman in any context."

Females are said to have better language skills and better social skill than males. It is not so much the feminine qualities. It is feminine qualities in a male that is the kicker. Males are socialized to be tough and abrasive. Think of the role models we have: John Wayne, is there a more perfect example? Rambo, Arnold, Clint Eastwood, Charlton Heston.

None of them got where they are by being nice to people or by using their language skills they kicked butt. So now fast forward a few years what do you have. You have a guy who doesn't say much, keeps his emotions under guard and punches people when they get out of line.

True enough, but even the good traits are 'secondary'.

When did intelligence and peace become secondary?

When did intelligence and peace become secondary?

Intelligence is a gendered quality that's in flux. not long ago at all it used to be a distinctly masculine quality, now it's switching to be more flexible. it's often used in a contrasted role as in the advert example in Romulans post above mine. As a counterexample, the ditzy, superficial airhead girls in almost all teenage dramas in the history of ever. Like, totally.

As for peacefulness, that's passivity, something I did mention in an earlier post. it's very flexible too. peacefulness sounds positive, passivity sounds negative - and serenity has often, when applied to females, has been used to imply submissiveness. So it's again in flux but I'd argue it isn't positive. (or negative)

I've been thinking for a while now about this topic and how pervasive language is at conveying essentially sexist messages, so I've decided to write something up about exploring it and why it still exists today when it's really so obvious. Further, why has such language seen use by the very people who it denigrates without any sense of 'reclaiming' the terms?

To elucidate my point which may not be totally clear at the moment, I'm talking about when we say someone has 'balls' to mean courage, but they're a 'pussy' if they show fear. But as I've said, what I'm interested in is why terms are used by the very people abused by them. Do people not see how this language contributes, albeit in a relatively minor way, to continued sexist views in the world? When anything that has feminine connotations is perpetually given a negative light, ultimately femininity as it indeed still is, is seen in a negative light, whilst masculinity is exalted to the extent that no man could possibly achieve all that it entails without compromising their personality - this harms everybody.

And it's a simple linear path too. once we deem parts of the female body insulting '****', feminine thoughts become undesirable, and it's soon insulting to display aspects of personality designated feminine 'you act like a girl, stop being such a woman', and once that is established, simply falling from masculine ideal becomes insulting. 'boys don't cry.' How can this possibly result in an emotionally well balanced human race where one half of the population has their every action considered derogatarily until it becomes so ingrained that I even hear otherwise equalist thinking women insulting men for 'being girly', as if this is a bad thing to be - but when the shoe is on the other foot, embracing masculinity is quite acceptable. 'tomboy vs sissy'.

So, whilst I re-iterate that this is hardly the be all and end all of the worlds problems, I open it up for discussion. What do the people of NSG think of it all?

I agree with pretty much all of this, and have spent a fair amount of time thinking about it as well.

Another interesting point with insults - when a man acts like a jerk, more often than not, he's called a jerk or an asshole or a bastard - all non-gendered terms. When a female acts like a jerk, more often than not, she's called a bitch, a term which describes the same behavior but inherently adds, "not only was she obnoxious, but she's a GIRL!" It's a weird and slightly troubling quirk of language.

And, too, there's a reason why Jolt censors "c u n t" but not "prick" or "cock" or "dick." Being called a dick is generally considered vastly less offensive than being called a ****. It's a bit bizarre and rather sad.

I wholeheartedly support you on this point. Sexism pervades every element of modern life, and it presents a ridiculously archaic point of view, set down long ago by men themselves. Even now, the wage scale between men and women is not equal. For every dollar earned by a man, a woman in the same position earns just 87 cents. For miniorities, the sexual split is even greater. For every dollar earned by a man, only 60 cents is earned by Latino women and black women. Can anyone possibly think this is fair?

So, every Latina and black woman who has the exact same job as a man, performs exactly the same duties as a man, and works exactly the same number of hours as a man for as many years as a man, earns 60 cents to every dollar the man earns?

Then why isn't every business in this country firing every man, replacing them with Latinas and black women and saving 40% on labor costs?!

The obvious answer is, because that is a bogus statistic that compares apples to horseshoes.

So, every Latina and black woman who has the exact same job as a man, performs exactly the same duties as a man, and works exactly the same number of hours as a man for as many years as a man, earns 60 cents to every dollar the man earns?

Then why isn't every business in this country firing every man, replacing them with Latinas and black women and saving 40% on labor costs?!

The obvious answer is, because that is a bogus statistic that compares apples to horseshoes.


You apperantly do not know how averages work.

I think that language gives people away, and that some prejudices and attitudes are very, very deeply ingrained.
This.^^

Also:

Male stereotypical "bad traits": Stupidity, predisposition to violence, lack of hygiene, intolerance...

Female stereotypical "good traits": Intelligence, peacefulness, care, gentleness...
And yet I can't think of a single word in English to describe or suggest those positive traits that is itself a reference to something female.

The OP's point is that, if you want to say someone's got a lot of nerve and daring, you say he has "balls." A reference to male anatomy. If you're talking about a woman, you might say "she is ballsy."

But there is no similar word referencing female anatomy if you want to describe someone who is very smart or caring, etc. No, such words are only used to describe bad traits, like "pussy" is used to describe someone who is weak, fearful, etc.


I think that a lot of our language may have sexist origins, but their's really nothing that can be immediately done about it without rewriting the language and penalizing offenders, which would violate all manner of rights. I also suspect that, if people's consious attitudes change, the language will eventually change to reflect that.

As an alternative to rewriting the language and penalizing offenders, all of us English speakers could, you know, think about the words we use. For a change.

In my language, one of the more common curses literally translates to "Your mother is a prostitute". Regardless of whether the person you hate is male or female, it's usually his/her mother that will be called a prostitute. Haven't heard fathers being called prostitutes... yet.

Most of our genital-oriented curses are of equal strength (as I and most others around me use it), though people tend to use "your mother's genitals" when people want to insult someone's parents. Breasts are not an insult here.

Most of our curses, however, are gender-neutral. Perhaps that's because our language is gender-neutral in the first place. (As opposed to languages in which almost everything seemed to have gender).

And, too, there's a reason why Jolt censors "c u n t" but not "prick" or "cock" or "dick." Being called a dick is generally considered vastly less offensive than being called a ****. It's a bit bizarre and rather sad.

I don't see any reason to presume sexism in that case. Pussy, minge and twat is fine. The reason Jolt censors c u n t, is because c u n t is the most offensive swearword in the UK, where Jolt is based.

Also, I believe being called a 'pussy' is an insult, possibly because 'pussy's always get fucked'. Balls produces testosterone, and so having small balls implies less testosterone no? And testosterone has always previously been associated with strength etc...

I don't see any reason to presume sexism in that case. Pussy, minge and twat is fine. The reason Jolt censors c u n t, is because c u n t is the most offensive swearword in the UK, where Jolt is based.

That's my point. We see "c u n t" as being far more offensive than "prick," the closest male equivalent. Being called a penis is mildly insulting; being called a vagina is extraordinarily offensive.

Typical feminine qualities are: superficiality, fickleness, overemotionality, physical frailty, low self esteem.




They're all true aren't they? :p

That's my point. We see "c u n t" as being far more offensive than "prick," the closest male equivalent. Being called a penis is mildly insulting; being called a vagina is extraordinarily offensive.

Even so, in this case, at the very least, Jolt specifically is not being sexist, as that word is already in the status of the most offensive word. Perhaps the reason it got to that status in the first place was because of sexist reasons (or perhaps it's for other reasons, like its very harsh sound, and it not being used as regularly, making it rarer).

When did intelligence and peace become secondary?

Intelligence is fairly gender-neutral. Women usually get 'intuitive' rather than 'intelligent' - so, again, it can be dismissed as 'a feeling'.

Peace is secondary because it is an absence of something - it would be considered a weakness in a stereotypical assessment of male strengths.

In my language, one of the more common curses literally translates to "Your mother is a prostitute". Regardless of whether the person you hate is male or female, it's usually his/her mother that will be called a prostitute. Haven't heard fathers being called prostitutes... yet.

Most of our genital-oriented curses are of equal strength (as I and most others around me use it), though people tend to use "your mother's genitals" when people want to insult someone's parents. Breasts are not an insult here.

Most of our curses, however, are gender-neutral. Perhaps that's because our language is gender-neutral in the first place. (As opposed to languages in which almost everything seemed to have gender).

Where I'm from, a breast reference would be insulting, if only mildly. Someone might be called 'a tit'. The point of femininely-gendered-as-insult still stands.

Even so, in this case, at the very least, Jolt specifically is not being sexist, as that word is already in the status of the most offensive word. Perhaps the reason it got to that status in the first place was because of sexist reasons (or perhaps it's for other reasons, like its very harsh sound, and it not being used as regularly, making it rarer).

Oh certainly, I'm not trying to suggest Jolt is being sexist, simply that there's a reason that society, including Jolt, deems that word particularly offensive.

Oh certainly, I'm not trying to suggest Jolt is being sexist, simply that there's a reason that society, including Jolt, deems that word particularly offensive.

Ah, fair enough.

im a guy and ive been called a lot of things pertaining to my anatomy that are bad

there are bad things pertaining to a girls anatomy too, so its all fair and square to me

im a guy and ive been called a lot of things pertaining to my anatomy that are bad

there are bad things pertaining to a girls anatomy too, so its all fair and square to me

'cause I'm bored and it's another excuse not to study-

male:

dick
cock
penis
bollocks
balls
prick

female:

pussy
twat
c u n t
quim
queef
tit

I know there are more but I can't think right now (feel free to suggest some more), I just want to compile a list and see which gender actually has it worse.

'cause I'm bored and it's another excuse not to study-

male:

dick
cock
penis
bollocks
balls
prick

female:

pussy
twat
c u n t
quim
queef
tit

I know there are more but I can't think right now (feel free to suggest some more), I just want to compile a list and see which gender actually has it worse.

Might need to find someway of highlighting the inflection.

You can balls something up, and you can tell someone 'bollocks' - but they also are used in strongly positive senses "you got balls, mate" or "it's the (dog's) bollocks".

I'm not aware of any similarly positive uses of, for example, 'quim'.

The way we use our language is competitive. We evolved from a competitive species. The fact that we notice that people are different according to gender isn't wrong it's just another variable we have as humans. In the end, I find that the competition is quite good. It gives us a reason to advance the way we do. So could you imagine a world without that competitive streak? It would be very much different from our own.

Might need to find someway of highlighting the inflection.

You can balls something up, and you can tell someone 'bollocks' - but they also are used in strongly positive senses "you got balls, mate" or "it's the (dog's) bollocks".

I'm not aware of any similarly positive uses of, for example, 'quim'.

Well, I've been called a 'magnificent c u n t' before.

Well, I've been called a 'magnificent c u n t' before.

Yeah... but it wasn't meant to be taken as a compliment.

;)

Yeah... but it wasn't meant to be taken as a compliment.

;)

I absolutely like the way c u n t sounds. It has such a powerful sound.:D

Females are said to have better language skills and better social skill than males. It is not so much the feminine qualities. It is feminine qualities in a male that is the kicker. Males are socialized to be tough and abrasive. Think of the role models we have: John Wayne, is there a more perfect example? Rambo, Arnold, Clint Eastwood, Charlton Heston.

None of them got where they are by being nice to people or by using their language skills they kicked butt. So now fast forward a few years what do you have. You have a guy who doesn't say much, keeps his emotions under guard and punches people when they get out of line.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/exhibits/portraits/images/371.jpg
http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/images/d/d8/Jesus_Christ.jpg
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=78620&rendTypeId=4
http://practicaleq.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/29/martinlutherking_2.jpg



Maybe we burly men should start using achievers, rather than actors, as our role-models.

I absolutely like the way c u n t sounds. It has such a powerful sound.:D

I agree, actually. It's one of my very favourite English language words, and not just because of it's attractive biological references.

I find it very strong and unequivocal. I wish more women would take it on as a sign of empowerment.

I agree, actually. It's one of my very favourite English language words, and not just because of it's attractive biological references.

I find it very strong and unequivocal. I wish more women would take it on as a sign of empowerment.

Well, we do rule with our c u n t s. No doubt about that. But I do understand where the usage of this word can be construed as ''an offense''.

Your argument falls apart because you need to contend with negative male anatomical words like cock, dick, prick. These are not signs of greatness or anything positive.

And not all languages use the body as the highest profanity. Italian, for example, is more inclined to religious blasphemies.

I've been thinking for a while now about this topic and how pervasive language is at conveying essentially sexist messages, so I've decided to write something up about exploring it and why it still exists today when it's really so obvious. Further, why has such language seen use by the very people who it denigrates without any sense of 'reclaiming' the terms?

To elucidate my point which may not be totally clear at the moment, I'm talking about when we say someone has 'balls' to mean courage, but they're a 'pussy' if they show fear. But as I've said, what I'm interested in is why terms are used by the very people abused by them. Do people not see how this language contributes, albeit in a relatively minor way, to continued sexist views in the world? When anything that has feminine connotations is perpetually given a negative light, ultimately femininity as it indeed still is, is seen in a negative light, whilst masculinity is exalted to the extent that no man could possibly achieve all that it entails without compromising their personality - this harms everybody.

And it's a simple linear path too. once we deem parts of the female body insulting '****', feminine thoughts become undesirable, and it's soon insulting to display aspects of personality designated feminine 'you act like a girl, stop being such a woman', and once that is established, simply falling from masculine ideal becomes insulting. 'boys don't cry.' How can this possibly result in an emotionally well balanced human race where one half of the population has their every action considered derogatarily until it becomes so ingrained that I even hear otherwise equalist thinking women insulting men for 'being girly', as if this is a bad thing to be - but when the shoe is on the other foot, embracing masculinity is quite acceptable. 'tomboy vs sissy'.

So, whilst I re-iterate that this is hardly the be all and end all of the worlds problems, I open it up for discussion. What do the people of NSG think of it all?

Calling a man a pussy for being a pussy is not sexist. Men have to keep up to standards of masculinity. This is in the best interest of society. We cannot have our young men be cowards or weaklings. At the very least this is a national security issue but it is also much more than that.

If men do not act like men, this would be very disruptive to our society. Our society has gender expectations that are part of our cultural legacy. If men stopped acting like men then there will not be any good male role models. We will simply have a bunch of sissies nancing about and that does not do anybody any good.

It is quite a stretch to say that calling a cowardly man a pussy is an insult to women. It is the man who is insulted. Nobody has a problem with vaginas, the problem is with cowardly men. The linear path you mentioned exists only in the mind and is not a real reflection of the world. It is more of a mental construct than anything else.

Men can be very emotionally healthy and not be sobbing pussies. I am not saying that men should never cry but this is certainly not a manly trait that should be exalted. I am a man and I have cried quite a bit in my life. I would not want any children to ever see a man cry. It would be terribly unhealthy to their devellopment of proper traditional gender role psyches.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/exhibits/portraits/images/371.jpg
http://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/images/d/d8/Jesus_Christ.jpg
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=78620&rendTypeId=4
http://practicaleq.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/29/martinlutherking_2.jpg



Maybe we burly men should start using achievers, rather than actors, as our role-models.

It is all the same. John Wayne's hero was a Green Beret war hero. Although I am not going to dignify Rambo, I will say that there is an element of art imitating life in John Waynes portrayals of soldiers. The Westerns of course are a whole different ball of wax as they are pretty much samurai movies adapted to the myth of the cowboy and the drama of the Wild West.

Green Berets can be anybodys heroes. This might be a bit of a thread drift but I was absolutely shocked by how awesome they are.

I agree, actually. It's one of my very favourite English language words, and not just because of it's attractive biological references.

I find it very strong and unequivocal. I wish more women would take it on as a sign of empowerment.

Congratulations on your 30,000th post! :eek2:

Your argument falls apart because you need to contend with negative male anatomical words like cock, dick, prick. These are not signs of greatness or anything positive.

No, it doesn't I'm afraid. Because firstly that's a tiny amount of male negativity to fly in the face of overwhelming negativity towards females. Plus insults on the genitals seem to come from their own inexplicable origins.

It's like saying the argument for gravity falls apart because of lagrange points.

Glorious Freedonia: Ken Zucker? is that you?

Calling a man a pussy for being a pussy is not sexist. Men have to keep up to standards of masculinity. This is in the best interest of society. We cannot have our young men be cowards or weaklings. At the very least this is a national security issue but it is also much more than that.

If men do not act like men, this would be very disruptive to our society. Our society has gender expectations that are part of our cultural legacy. If men stopped acting like men then there will not be any good male role models. We will simply have a bunch of sissies nancing about and that does not do anybody any good.

You know, when most people try to argue against someone's point, it usually helps not to prove it for them. But hey, if your going to fail, why not make it epic, huh?

It is quite a stretch to say that calling a cowardly man a pussy is an insult to women. It is the man who is insulted. Nobody has a problem with vaginas, the problem is with cowardly men. The linear path you mentioned exists only in the mind and is not a real reflection of the world. It is more of a mental construct than anything else.

Men can be very emotionally healthy and not be sobbing pussies. I am not saying that men should never cry but this is certainly not a manly trait that should be exalted. I am a man and I have cried quite a bit in my life. I would not want any children to ever see a man cry. It would be terribly unhealthy to their devellopment of proper traditional gender role psyches.

So, there is nothing wrong with the vagina, but to call a man a vagina is to imply he is a coward? Tell me, do you think before you write, or is all of this a copy/paste? I ask, because it goes back to proving the point you are arguing against. You are doing a much better job of PROVING sexism then you are of refuting it.

You apperantly do not know how averages work.

You apparently can't answer the question.

If Latinas and black women are not performing exactly the same functions as men, for the same amount of time and for the same number of years, then the mere fact that there is a pay difference is not sufficient to allege unfair treatment.

The only valid comparison is between a man and, say, a Latina employed by the same employer, with the same duties, working the same number of hours, for the same number of years, and with the same record of performance while employed. If the man is still being paid more, then there would be an argument for unfair treatment.

Otherwise, there are far too many factors other than "unfair treatment" that can account for the pay disparity.

You apparently can't answer the question.

If Latinas and black women are not performing exactly the same functions as men, for the same amount of time and for the same number of years, then the mere fact that there is a pay difference is not sufficient to allege unfair treatment.

The only valid comparison is between a man and, say, a Latina employed by the same employer, with the same duties, working the same number of hours, for the same number of years, and with the same record of performance while employed. If the man is still being paid more, then there would be an argument for unfair treatment.

Otherwise, there are far too many factors other than "unfair treatment" that can account for the pay disparity.

Ok, what the fudge are you trying to explain with this dastardly ridiculous argument?

Ok, what the fudge are you trying to explain with this dastardly ridiculous argument?
Well, you know, "other factors" like the well known fact that women are not worth as much as men, that women don't do any work on the job anyway, and hell, they don't even need the money because they all have men to pay their way. Anyway, we all quit our jobs as soon as we become pregnant. Which we all do. So even when we're not pregnant and quitting, we shouldn't get paid as much because we're going to quit anyway.

And of course, you can prove that female workers are not doing the same work as male workers because even though there are both female and male officer workers, their functions are different because when a man types, he does it in a man way, while a woman types in a woman way. So...different. And not worth as much. 'Cause some guy said so.

Therefore there is no such thing as sexism and women should just shut up.

As you can probably tell, I've heard this argument before.

I have a theory that the reason many men are so horrified of the being called "gay" is that it is, in the mind of the dominant culture, equated to being "feminine". Any man who displays too much emotion etc. is a fag, therefor not really a man, and any woman who seems too ambitious etc is a dyke, therefor not really a woman--hence preserving our precious cultural norms.

Practice gender neutrality; call people 'arseholes'.

I have a theory that the reason many men are so horrified of the being called "gay" is that it is, in the mind of the dominant culture, equated to being "feminine". Any man who displays too much emotion etc. is a fag, therefor not really a man, and any woman who seems too ambitious etc is a dyke, therefor not really a woman--hence preserving our precious cultural norms.

My theory is that being called gay is an insult because it's telling the person, usually male, that his behavior attracts the wrong sex, that he's "doing it wrong". Basically, calling a man gay is telling him that he should be because he won't be able to attract a woman.

Yes, it has to do with cultural norms. Though the cultural restrictions on women have been relaxed a bit (it's very common nowadays to find married, working women), men haven't been so lucky. Feelings, other than indifference and anger, are pretty much frowned upon. Men are practically forbidden to show sadness anywhere outside a funeral and have to try their best to hide any sign of pain so that they aren't labled "weak". Stay-at-home dads likely have it worse than stay-at-home moms, seeing as how the former is likely to be labled a "pedophile".

But I'm not complaining like some Jonny Sissypants, mostly because I hope to attract a female mate. The women frown on weakness and complaining=weak.

As for the bodyparts thing, yeah, calling a man a female bodypart is insulting. Few men wants to fail at being male. Same thing with women and male body parts. They don't want to be "doing it wrong".

Well, you know, "other factors" like the well known fact that women are not worth as much as men, that women don't do any work on the job anyway, and hell, they don't even need the money because they all have men to pay their way. Anyway, we all quit our jobs as soon as we become pregnant. Which we all do. So even when we're not pregnant and quitting, we shouldn't get paid as much because we're going to quit anyway.

And of course, you can prove that female workers are not doing the same work as male workers because even though there are both female and male officer workers, their functions are different because when a man types, he does it in a man way, while a woman types in a woman way. So...different. And not worth as much. 'Cause some guy said so.

Therefore there is no such thing as sexism and women should just shut up.

As you can probably tell, I've heard this argument before.

Don't forget that we choose jobs that pay less, since we're going to get pregnant and quit anyway. Even though a greater percentage of us are college-educated. That's only so we can find a man with money.

Don't forget that we choose jobs that pay less, since we're going to get pregnant and quit anyway. Even though a greater percentage of us are college-educated. That's only so we can find a man with money.

Well, of course. What other reason could you possibly have for going to college?

Well, we do rule with our c u n t s. No doubt about that. But I do understand where the usage of this word can be construed as ''an offense''.

:rolleyes:

Don't speak for all of us, please.

Is is possible that you're completely wrong on the usage of the word "pussy?"

Throughout this conversation, everyone has forgotten the other definition of pussy: cat. By calling a man a pussy, it could be not that you're insinuating that he's part of a woman's body, but that he's so weak that you have to pick a tiny animal to compare him to.

As for how it would come to relate to female anatomy: Stop and think about it.

Oh, and more fun: "dork" is another word for a whale's dick. Think about that the next time you call someone such.

Is is possible that you're completely wrong on the usage of the word "pussy?"

Throughout this conversation, everyone has forgotten the other definition of pussy: cat. By calling a man a pussy, it could be not that you're insinuating that he's part of a woman's body, but that he's so weak that you have to pick a tiny animal to compare him to.

As for how it would come to relate to female anatomy: Stop and think about it.

Do you envision cats when someone calls you a pussy?

Do you envision cats when someone calls you a pussy?

How many people invision the other when being called it? I don't know any who do. They do envision being a coward, being weak, being lesser. I can even provide an example of how the usage could have come about.

"You're scared? Of that? You're not a man! Hell, you're not even human! You're nothing but a scared little coward. A weak little animal. I bet you get beat up by tiny girls all of the time. See that cat over there? You're as weak as that cat! You're nothing but a giant, ugly pussy."

There. That's how it could have come about.

How many people invision the other when being called it? I don't know any who do. They do envision being a coward, being weak, being lesser. I can even provide an example of how the usage could have come about.

"You're scared? Of that? You're not a man! Hell, you're not even human! You're nothing but a scared little coward. A weak little animal. I bet you get beat up by tiny girls all of the time. See that cat over there? You're as weak as that cat! You're nothing but a giant, ugly pussy."

There. That's how it could have come about.

Ironical.

Sure, it could have. Or, you know, it could have arisen from the same source as the other insults enumerated in this thread which are clearly ONLY related to the vagina. But if you're set on pretending otherwise, knock yourself out. I'll be over here getting paid 86 cents to the dollar.

Ironical.

Yay! You caught it! :D

Sure, it could have. Or, you know, it could have arisen from the same source as the other insults enumerated in this thread which are clearly ONLY related to the vagina. But if you're set on pretending otherwise, knock yourself out. I'll be over here getting paid 86 cents to the dollar.

Not set on pretending otherwise. Just bringing up a possibility for discussion.

There's also a perfect problem presented in these: Animal associations. Certain sexes tend to get associated with certain animals. How many times have you heard a guy referred to as a stallion or a woman referred to as a cow?

If the worst thing you have to worry about is whether or not the insults someone is using are 'sexist' or not, you're a very lucky person. The majority of the rest of the world is consumed by vastly more important problems, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to change.

If the worst thing you have to worry about is whether or not the insults someone is using are 'sexist' or not, you're a very lucky person. The majority of the rest of the world is consumed by vastly more important problems, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to change.
Firstly, the fact that there others suffer greater problems does not lessen the impact of sexism.

Secondly, why the scare-quotes around the bolded?

Firstly, the fact that there others suffer greater problems does not lessen the impact of sexism.

Secondly, why the scare-quotes around the bolded?

Insults are supposed to be insulting. Why worry if insults are sexist? The more offended one is by an insult, the stronger the insult's impact. They're just words, weapons that are as powerful as the victim(s) let(s) them be.

Firstly, the fact that there others suffer greater problems does not lessen the impact of sexism.

Yeah it does, for much the same reason that hospitals treat patients with collapsed lungs before they do the ones with headaches. Sexism or ageism or whatever-the-hell-ism is what people worry about when they don't have real problems. You think people in Somalia or Darfur or Bosnia worry about 'the impact of sexism?' Not really, because as C.S. Lewis said, 'five minutes of real tooth-ache cures any amount of imagined heart-ache'

You think people in Somalia or Darfur or Bosnia worry about 'the impact of sexism?'

Quite often, given the prevalence of violence against women in war zones.

It's nice of you to imply that sexism is "imagined," though. Charming.

Quite often, given the prevalence of violence against women in war zones.

I think 'violence against women in war zones' would fall under the heading of 'war crimes' or 'atrocities', and not 'sexism.' There's quite a bit of difference between being sold into a life of sexual torture and slavery and sitting in coffee shops complaining about how 'the patriarchy' is holding you down.

I think 'violence against women in war zones' would fall under the heading of 'war crimes' or 'atrocities', and not 'sexism.' There's quite a bit of difference between being sold into a life of sexual torture and slavery and sitting in coffee shops complaining about how 'the patriarchy' is holding you down.

It's the same thing, they just vary in severity.

Sexism or ageism or whatever-the-hell-ism is what people worry about when they don't have real problems.
So sexism, ageism, racism, et al, aren't real problems?

...as C.S. Lewis said, 'five minutes of real tooth-ache cures any amount of imagined heart-ache'
Sexism is not imagined, and more than heartache.

Yes, you're right to point out that people in other parts of the world need to think about their survival before their semantics, but we are in the happy position of relative stability. Thus, we can discuss and critique sexist language.

Unless you're suggesting that no-one should care about any problem less severe than the worst any human has to deal with, I don't see what point you are trying to make.

So sexism, ageism, racism, et al, aren't real problems?



They're not problems at all if you're not affected by them.


Et al? What does that mean?

They're not problems at all if you're not affected by them.
They're not problems for you if you're not affected by them.

Et al? What does that mean?
It's an abbreviation of the Latin phrase et alii, which means 'and others'. You can use it in bibliographies or lists of persons/things.

So, if a piece of scientific research was conducted by many different persons, I could refer to the authors as 'Smith et al' ('Smith and others'). In the context above, I use it as a shorthand to refer to the other 'isms' that afflict society.

Thinking on it, it's similar to using 'etc.', although et al suggests a more definite list of things you're abbreviating.


Insults are supposed to be insulting. Why worry if insults are sexist?
We're not just talking about insults though.

Moreover, though I may want to insult someone, I don't want to do it in a sexist manner. For example, I may want to call my friend a coward for not going through with the bungee jump they had planned, but I wouldn't want to equate cowardice with femaleness.

I'm insulting my friend, not every woman.

They're not problems for you if you're not affected by them..

I wasn't defending him/her. I was pointing out the fact that if one has not eperience any of these things then it is quite likely for them to say they were imagened ( though this seem perfectly nonsensicaly to me).
It's an abbreviation of the Latin phrase et alii, which means 'and others'. You can use it in bibliographies or lists of persons/things.

So, if a piece of scientific research was conducted by many different persons, I could refer to the authors as 'Smith et al' ('Smith and others'). In the context above, I use it as a shorthand to refer to the other 'isms' that afflict society.

Thinking on it, it's similar to using 'etc.', although et al suggests a more definite list of things you're abbreviating.

I'm learnig so many new words on this forum.

I wasn't defending him/her.
Wasn't suggesting you were.

Apologies if it looks that way.

I'm learnig so many new words on this forum.
Which can only be a good thing.

Though I'd warn you, my use of the term is perhaps not the greatest.

Wasn't suggesting you were.

Apologies if it looks that way..
S'ok.
Which can only be a good thing.

Though I'd warn you, my use of the term is perhaps not the greatest

KKTY.

It is a good thing, but I just don't get it. All these new words seem to just pop out of the ground. If I didn't know better I'd think you lot were just making them up.

It's the same thing, they just vary in severity.

No, it's really not. Not only is it not in the same ballpark, it's not in the same stadium, hell it's not even in the same game.

Yes, you're right to point out that people in other parts of the world need to think about their survival before their semantics, but we are in the happy position of relative stability. Thus, we can discuss and critique sexist language. Unless you're suggesting that no-one should care about any problem less severe than the worst any human has to deal with, I don't see what point you are trying to make.

I'm saying that if we have the overwhelming urge to 'fix' something in society, or have 'constructive dialogues' or just make life better then we should maybe direct those energies towards dealing with genocide or starvation or insane totalitarian maniacs. Once we have those problems solved, then the language police can run around making sure no-one's feelings are hurt because they were called a 'pussy.'

No, it's really not. Not only is it not in the same ballpark, it's not in the same stadium, hell it's not even in the same game.


It is, sexism is... well, sexism. It doesn't mater to what extent it goes to. It just isn't recognised as sexism over there due to all the other atrocities that go on there.

I'm saying that if we have the overwhelming urge to 'fix' something in society, or have 'constructive dialogues' or just make life better then we should maybe direct those energies towards dealing with genocide or starvation or insane totalitarian maniacs.
And I'm saying that expending energy towards combating authoritarianism and expending energy towards combating sexism aren't mutually exclusive.

And I'm saying that expending energy towards combating authoritarianism and expending energy towards combating sexism aren't mutually exclusive.

True, but there are priorities and scales of importance. If I'm a cop, and I see a house fire and a jaywalker at the same time, I'm going to take care of the house fire before I ticket the jaywalker.

True, but there are priorities and scales of importance. If I'm a cop, and I see a house fire and a jaywalker at the same time, I'm going to take care of the house fire before I ticket the jaywalker.
I don't think these either/or analogies work very well.

If we're trying to create a society without oppression, then we've got to combat both the totalitarianism and the sexism. It's not as if we face a choice between one or the other -- as the cop in your example does -- we can do both.

If we're trying to create a society without oppression, then we've got to combat both the totalitarianism and the sexism. It's not as if we face a choice between one or the other -- as the cop in your example does -- we can do both.

Yes, we can do both. I can clean my .45 and cook chili at the same time too. But, since one of these has greater potential to go horribly wrong if I don't pay attention than the other does, I would argue that it deserves the lion's share(if not more) of attention, and that when that is done, then I can turn my full attention to the chili, which has(speaking of feminists)been slowly simmering.

Yes, we can do both. I can clean my .45 and cook chili at the same time too. But, since one of these has greater potential to go horribly wrong if I don't pay attention than the other does, I would argue that it deserves the lion's share(if not more) of attention, and that when that is done, then I can turn my full attention to the chili, which has(speaking of feminists)been slowly simmering.
Could you explain why combating authoritarianism and declaring sexism to be unacceptable are impossible to achieve simultaneously?

You keep making these vague analogies, but I don't see how they apply.

EDIT: For clarification, I don't see what's so problematic about complaining about one bad thing and another, arguably lesser, bad thing.

If the worst thing you have to worry about is whether or not the insults someone is using are 'sexist' or not, you're a very lucky person. The majority of the rest of the world is consumed by vastly more important problems, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to change.

Laughable. This argument (the ever eloquent 'you're stupid shut up', gambit) was dismissed in my OP when I indicated that no, this is not the greatest threat humanity faces. Also, there are six billion of us, mostly individuals, so I'm pretty sure that we can multitask pretty well, and solve problems of greater AND lesser importance, and anyway, to claim that sexism doesn't claim lives the world every single day is quite absurd. Any way we can combat the scourge of inequality should be examined. If even one person has read this post and realised that they're guilty of it and to stop (and I hardly think I'm such a persuasive writer to get much more than one or two people to think suchly), it's a good thing. After all it required a small amount of effort on my part to write it, and it would require even less effort for people to fix it.

To elucidate my point which may not be totally clear at the moment, I'm talking about when we say someone has 'balls' to mean courage, but they're a 'pussy' if they show fear. ...

True.

I'll give some examples in Italian.

Omaccio (pejorative of "uomo", man): big rough fellow
Donnaccia (pejorative of "donna", woman): female prostitute

Zoccolo (masculine noun): sabot
Zoccola (feminine noun): female prostitute

Verro (masculine): male pig
Troia (feminine): female pig, also female prostitute

Passeggiatore (masculine): a person who likes strolling around
Passeggiatrice (feminine): female prostitute

Toro (masculine): bull
Vacca (feminine): cow, also female prostitute

Putto (masculine): tiny angel figure used to ornate items, expecially in baroque
Puttana (feminine): female prostitute


Historical stratification of language, etc etc.

True.

I'll give some examples in Italian.

Omaccio (pejorative of "uomo", man): big rough fellow
Donnaccia (pejorative of "donna", woman): female prostitute

Zoccolo (masculine noun): sabot
Zoccola (feminine noun): female prostitute

Verro (masculine): male pig
Troia (feminine): female pig, also female prostitute

Passeggiatore (masculine): a person who likes strolling around
Passeggiatrice (feminine): female prostitute

Toro (masculine): bull
Vacca (feminine): cow, also female prostitute

Putto (masculine): tiny angel figure used to ornate items, expecially in baroque
Puttana (feminine): female prostitute


Historical stratification of language, etc etc.

Such a funny language.

For every dollar earned by a man, a woman in the same position earns just 87 cents.

Now you know how us Canadians feel.

On the issue of negative male steriotypes, they are certainly common, and, while they might not have quite the same history as their female equivallents, are probably (and likely for that very reason) more accepted in our current society.

Come on, don't tell me you haven't noticed. For example, it sometimes seems to me like a rule for all comercials that if their's a man and a woman, the man will be a fat, stupid, lazy slob who sits around watching football or something (and doesn't want kids), while the woman will be smart, attractive, living a healthy lifestyle, athletic, etc. Its like, if someone did a "Ten Commandments of Television," one of them would be "No man shall be smarter than a woman in any context."

That's only sitcoms and commercials for cleaning products. Who do you think the target audience for this is? If it's laundry detergent or a cleaning product, selling it to women as "something even your husband will not mind doing" is still reinforcing the idea that the only thing women are particularly good (or better than men) at is cleaning/taking care of a home, and these products make this so easy that even men can do it.

Hell, not even all sitcoms have this (though they may have their own stereotypes). In Fresh Prince of Bel-Air for instance, all of the characters had their own flaws and the only main characters who were generally portrayed as being relatively intelligent most of the time were uncle Phil/aunt Vivian and Geoffry (partly because some of the other characters were children)... but you certainly can't claim that Hillary is portrayed as smart.

Further, if you look at shows like Law and Order or even CSI, men are typically smart, as are the women. However, more of the cast is men and usually the main protagonist (in the case of CSI, the main protagonist is usually a very well-rounded genius and good at putting together the pieces) is a man.

So maybe shows which are intended to be funny and centered on a family in the home show women who are smarter than their husbands, but shows that are outside the home, serious and don't have the context of a family are male-dominated.

So basically, the only time women are smarter than men on television is when the show is about the home, which is clearly the only place where women can be smarter and more competent than men. This is the message that television sends. And you're complaining that it's sexist against men?

I have a theory that the reason many men are so horrified of the being called "gay" is that it is, in the mind of the dominant culture, equated to being "feminine". Any man who displays too much emotion etc. is a fag, therefor not really a man, and any woman who seems too ambitious etc is a dyke, therefor not really a woman--hence preserving our precious cultural norms.

No doubt about this one. The reverse is also true. The more masculine the woman the more likely the word Dyke comes out.

I also agree partially that men are "doing it wrong". This comes out when the person is unaware of the signals they are sending.

Do any of you remember Murphy Brown. There was a character on the show, a male reporter Frank Fontana, any way there is the one episode where he has a panic moment that he is turning gay. The reason being that several gay men mistakenly see him as a gay man. The whole wearing your watch backwards and they way you dress.

Doing it wrong only applies if you are unaware of the signal you are sending.


This is why they are called stereotypes because they are sometimes true but not always.

It is also a defense mechanism for men. If you look through a catalog and you see a male model that is better looking than you what do some men think? They think he is gay. Why should we go to the gym and workout like he does he is obviously playing for the other team.

Men come automatically a birth knowing how to program a VCR, setup and configure HD TV, program a computer, fix a car no matter how badly treated this vehicle was. If you are not there is obviously something wrong with you.

I think 'violence against women in war zones' would fall under the heading of 'war crimes' or 'atrocities', and not 'sexism.' There's quite a bit of difference between being sold into a life of sexual torture and slavery and sitting in coffee shops complaining about how 'the patriarchy' is holding you down.

The desire specifically to hurt women, the desire to "put them in their place," the desire to prove your "manliness" through acts like gang-rape, those have nothing to do with sexism? Are you also going to argue that lynching had nothing to do with racism?

The desire specifically to hurt women, the desire to "put them in their place," the desire to prove your "manliness" through acts like gang-rape, those have nothing to do with sexism? Are you also going to argue that lynching had nothing to do with racism?

Of course lynching had nothing to do with racism, some white dude got drunk and decided to hang some peeps, it was a perfect coincidence that the ones who were hanged were black.:rolleyes:

I've been thinking for a while now about this topic and how pervasive language is at conveying essentially sexist messages, so I've decided to write something up about exploring it and why it still exists today when it's really so obvious. Further, why has such language seen use by the very people who it denigrates without any sense of 'reclaiming' the terms?

To elucidate my point which may not be totally clear at the moment, I'm talking about when we say someone has 'balls' to mean courage, but they're a 'pussy' if they show fear. But as I've said, what I'm interested in is why terms are used by the very people abused by them. Do people not see how this language contributes, albeit in a relatively minor way, to continued sexist views in the world? When anything that has feminine connotations is perpetually given a negative light, ultimately femininity as it indeed still is, is seen in a negative light, whilst masculinity is exalted to the extent that no man could possibly achieve all that it entails without compromising their personality - this harms everybody.

And it's a simple linear path too. once we deem parts of the female body insulting '****', feminine thoughts become undesirable, and it's soon insulting to display aspects of personality designated feminine 'you act like a girl, stop being such a woman', and once that is established, simply falling from masculine ideal becomes insulting. 'boys don't cry.' How can this possibly result in an emotionally well balanced human race where one half of the population has their every action considered derogatarily until it becomes so ingrained that I even hear otherwise equalist thinking women insulting men for 'being girly', as if this is a bad thing to be - but when the shoe is on the other foot, embracing masculinity is quite acceptable. 'tomboy vs sissy'.

So, whilst I re-iterate that this is hardly the be all and end all of the worlds problems, I open it up for discussion. What do the people of NSG think of it all?

Quit being a pussy and grow a pair.

That's only sitcoms and commercials for cleaning products. Who do you think the target audience for this is? If it's laundry detergent or a cleaning product, selling it to women as "something even your husband will not mind doing" is still reinforcing the idea that the only thing women are particularly good (or better than men) at is cleaning/taking care of a home, and these products make this so easy that even men can do it.

Hell, not even all sitcoms have this (though they may have their own stereotypes). In Fresh Prince of Bel-Air for instance, all of the characters had their own flaws and the only main characters who were generally portrayed as being relatively intelligent most of the time were uncle Phil/aunt Vivian and Geoffry (partly because some of the other characters were children)... but you certainly can't claim that Hillary is portrayed as smart.

Further, if you look at shows like Law and Order or even CSI, men are typically smart, as are the women. However, more of the cast is men and usually the main protagonist (in the case of CSI, the main protagonist is usually a very well-rounded genius and good at putting together the pieces) is a man.

So maybe shows which are intended to be funny and centered on a family in the home show women who are smarter than their husbands, but shows that are outside the home, serious and don't have the context of a family are male-dominated.

So basically, the only time women are smarter than men on television is when the show is about the home, which is clearly the only place where women can be smarter and more competent than men. This is the message that television sends. And you're complaining that it's sexist against men?


Since when has the media every done anything good.

I never realized that what I was saying could be considered sexist. Definitly should try to change that. As for the rest of the world, do we even know if they realize insults could be sexist?

You apperantly do not know how averages work.

More relevantly, he does not know how labor market discrimination works, either, or any other kind of discrimination for that matter.

I take it we are talking about the English language..
What do you expect of a society that has only allowed women the right to vote in the last 100 years. Along with all the other changes that have given women more rights than they have enjoyed in many centuries. The reality is that the English language changes, and over time, (several hundred years) thing will change. Evolution (of a language) does not occur overnight.
The greater concern should be for those women trapped in societies that continue to enslave women. For women will not be truely free and in control of their own destiny until all religions, and governments recognize their equal rights.
But that is never going to happen, since they are controlled by men that fear that by giving women rights, the will end up like American women. Scary thought......

Such a funny language.

Yep. I can easily thing of about italian 10 synonimes for "whore", more or less the same amound for "penis"... you know, the possibilites of italian are almost infinite.

Anyway, in Italian, when you want to insult heavily a woman you call her "puttana" (whore)... when you want to insult heavily a man you call him "figlio di puttana" (son of a bitch).
Yay, this is sexism at its finest, I think.

the will end up like American women.

Why is it that America is inherently seen as a beacon for freedom worldwide only,funnily enough, by Americans?You'd swear the rest of us still travel around on horse and carts,oh how i wish i had the freedom to own a gun and go to war at 18 but not drink untill 21....

Maybe in the interest of insult equality we should tie all gender specific ones under asshole,that way everyone's happy and nobodies left out...grow up thy're words and they are only sexist because you see them as sexist,most people do not see it like you do,most people see it as black and white-this word means this,that word mans that and what women fought for was not the meaning of words but peoples attitude towards them and their right to be equal on every footing as men-maybe there are things left to improve,but whethr or not some women find insult because of words not meant to insult them(along with the fact this hurts you only in a ricochet self manufactured sexist way) is not somthing ,if i was a woman ,that i would be too worried about.



''Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!''

That's my point. We see "c u n t" as being far more offensive than "prick," the closest male equivalent. Being called a penis is mildly insulting; being called a vagina is extraordinarily offensive.

I like vaginas much more than penises so I tend to think that being called something on the phalus family to be more insulting.

And yet I can't think of a single word in English to describe or suggest those positive traits that is itself a reference to something female.

The OP's point is that, if you want to say someone's got a lot of nerve and daring, you say he has "balls." A reference to male anatomy. If you're talking about a woman, you might say "she is ballsy."

But there is no similar word referencing female anatomy if you want to describe someone who is very smart or caring, etc. No, such words are only used to describe bad traits, like "pussy" is used to describe someone who is weak, fearful, etc.


Which is the only word we can think of that has a positive connotation towards either gender's anatomy. I have absolutely no doubt that it's a fluke--rather than a reflection of a gendered preference in language. There are substantially more insults pertaining to the male genitalia than there are compliments.

Which is the only word we can think of that has a positive connotation towards either gender's anatomy. I have absolutely no doubt that it's a fluke--rather than a reflection of a gendered preference in language. There are substantially more insults pertaining to the male genitalia than there are compliments.

I don't think there is a single good way to use genetals when refering to a person...

Further, when compounding other non-gendered sex words, we find that the body of insult terminology is derived from things that are present in the pants, or are part of the lower body. I find that it's indicative of a broader, gender-irrelevant societal aversion to sex, rooted in pre-modern health controls and societal norms--which leads to all of the stupid problems we continue to have today on the matter of sex. The extraordinary body of terminology referring to sex--even the accepted scientific and academic terminology--is considered to be some sort of profane or insulting by the vast bulk of people. I feel that while there is not doubt that sexism exists--the only way you can find sexism in the language is if you exclude the broader picture.

I don't think there is a single good way to use genetals when refering to a person...

Agreed, but you and I are not society.