badnewzxl wrote:Big Red Machine wrote:badnewzxl wrote:Slut STILL means dirty or slovenly; promiscuity implies those very things. And if you type it in on dictionary.com you'll get the following definition: (
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slut)
slut /slʌt/ Show Spelled[sluht] Show IPA
noun
1. a dirty, slovenly woman.
2. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute.
Nobody cares about Chuacer; he's irrelevant, as are the origins and old definitions of the other words you mentioned. It really comes down to the way things are viewed and how words are taken NOW. You said yourself that ignorance is no excuse; neither is a wealth of knowledge. Just bc you know that the N-word wasn't originally created to offend ppl, doesn't mean it was never used to offend folks, nor does it make the word NON offensive. I've met a lot of white folks who try to follow the Chris Rock approach and point out the difference between Black ppl and N*ggas; are they then NOT racist bc they aren't disrespecting the race as a whole? OF COURSE THEY ARE; just bc you ain't calling ME a n*gga doesn't mean I'm okay with you calling someone else the word. The fact is, some folks are offended by THE LANGUAGE, not the intent. Just like one would try not to curse in front of one's mother, one should try not to refer to women as sluts in front of other women BC THOSE OTHER WOMEN MIGHT NOT LIKE THE WORD. That's what makes something offensive; not it's origin. It's about how ppl take the word. If someone tells you they are legit offended by something; that thing is offensive. The ONLY proof that a word is offensive is testimony from the offended party.
And to your point about none of the ppl who find wrestling degrading to women stepping up and stating that is the same for men, that goes back to MY point: YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR A GROUP YOU ARE NOT A PART OF! The women who feel degraded by wrestling can't speak for the men who are degraded BC THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S DEGRADING TO MEN! Most things that are degrading to one sex are appealing to the other. I can't sit here and say I don't enjoy the lingerie pillowfights and evening gown matches; but I absolutely hate posedowns like HHH v. Steiner. When a man IS offended, then he should by all means step up and say so; nobody's stopping him. The reason no one addresses wrestling being degrading towards men is bc no one has complained as so; females HAVE. Women have STATED that it is an issue for them, so it IS. you can't dismiss one groups argument just bc the other side doesn't have one or hasn't made one yet.
You are missing my point about the n word (as well as c*nt). The actual word might not have been created to offend people, but using the word in the way that it is use was done to offend people. "Negro" originally (and still does, as it is used every day by Spanish school children) meant black, as in the color. Using it to refer to "black people" makes it derogatory because you are reducing that person/that group to a superficial trait implying otherness.
My point with the word slut is that (when used to describe a particular woman or group of women) it is not offensive to the entirety of womanhood as a whole. It is the difference between saying "I'm going to go pick up some b*tches" and "Jenny is being such a b*tch today." One is degrading the entirety of womanhood by referring to them in a derogatory manner solely because they are female, while the other dis degrading Jenny because of the way she is acting. Anyone who is upset by the latter example should also be upset anyone calls anyone else an idiot, because the insultee is a human being, thus making it (in their mind) degrading to human beings.
Should testimony from the supposedly offended group be considered? Of course! But there is also the issue of reasonability. There are people who will be offended if you refer to someone else as being "Taiwanese" or "Israeli" because they don't think that those countries have the right to exist. There are people who will be offended if I refer to G-d by a specific name, or even if I mention G-d at all. A lot of things will offend somebody or another.
And I 1000% disagree with the sentiment that you can't speak up for someone else. There was a time in our country where women were not considered to be smart enough to vote. And the majority of the women at the time had no problem with that. Were the Suffragettes wrong to speak up on their behalf and say that it was degrading to all women? Just because the victim doesn't recognize an offense doesn't mean that it isn't there.
that argument itself falls on it's face bc NEGRO has never been used in a negative way; N*gga is what you are referring to. When white folks used N*gga and N*gger to be derogatory , Black folks used Negro instead.
and you miss the point yet again. It's not about whether or not you're generalizing or calling all women sluts; it's about the fact that SOME women are offended by the mere mention of the word. I personally hate it when someone uses the word 'ghetto;' it pisses me off bc ppl always use it in a negative sense. I grew up in a ghetto and I have a LOT of positive memories of my old neighborhood. Some women are offended by the word slut bc it's a negative term DEFINITIVELY (as in defined by the dictionary) exclusive to women; when a man is promiscuous in the same ways, he's called a player, which has a positive connotation.
I understand your point of reasonability; but I don't see how you can REASONABLY deny that wrestling is more degrading to women than towards men. If it weren't then why have women actually stood up and said so, where as men have not?
And your final point completely ignores mine. Of course the Suffragettes could speak on behalf of women; THEY'RE WOMEN! THAT WAS MY POINT. What proof do you have that MOST women had no problem being subservient to men? The fact that they didn't speak up about it? Is that not dispelled by the overwhelming support and success the Suffragettes received? If the sentiment was not shared by a majority of women, then how did the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA become amended in their favor? This is the land of majority rule; how could such a thing happen without support from the majority of the ppl it affects?
And I must add that the inherent flaw in your argument is the fact that you are using the worst argument; by that I mean you are using the Socratic method of debate and simply attempting to disprove points, while proving none (check out Aristophanes' "Clouds," it'll explain exactly what I mean).
quote="badnewzxl"]
Big Red Machine wrote:badnewzxl wrote:Slut STILL means dirty or slovenly; promiscuity implies those very things. And if you type it in on dictionary.com you'll get the following definition: (
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slut)
slut /slʌt/ Show Spelled[sluht] Show IPA
noun
1. a dirty, slovenly woman.
2. an immoral or dissolute woman; prostitute.
Nobody cares about Chuacer; he's irrelevant, as are the origins and old definitions of the other words you mentioned. It really comes down to the way things are viewed and how words are taken NOW. You said yourself that ignorance is no excuse; neither is a wealth of knowledge. Just bc you know that the N-word wasn't originally created to offend ppl, doesn't mean it was never used to offend folks, nor does it make the word NON offensive. I've met a lot of white folks who try to follow the Chris Rock approach and point out the difference between Black ppl and N*ggas; are they then NOT racist bc they aren't disrespecting the race as a whole? OF COURSE THEY ARE; just bc you ain't calling ME a n*gga doesn't mean I'm okay with you calling someone else the word. The fact is, some folks are offended by THE LANGUAGE, not the intent. Just like one would try not to curse in front of one's mother, one should try not to refer to women as sluts in front of other women BC THOSE OTHER WOMEN MIGHT NOT LIKE THE WORD. That's what makes something offensive; not it's origin. It's about how ppl take the word. If someone tells you they are legit offended by something; that thing is offensive. The ONLY proof that a word is offensive is testimony from the offended party.
And to your point about none of the ppl who find wrestling degrading to women stepping up and stating that is the same for men, that goes back to MY point: YOU CAN'T SPEAK FOR A GROUP YOU ARE NOT A PART OF! The women who feel degraded by wrestling can't speak for the men who are degraded BC THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S DEGRADING TO MEN! Most things that are degrading to one sex are appealing to the other. I can't sit here and say I don't enjoy the lingerie pillowfights and evening gown matches; but I absolutely hate posedowns like HHH v. Steiner. When a man IS offended, then he should by all means step up and say so; nobody's stopping him. The reason no one addresses wrestling being degrading towards men is bc no one has complained as so; females HAVE. Women have STATED that it is an issue for them, so it IS. you can't dismiss one groups argument just bc the other side doesn't have one or hasn't made one yet.
You are missing my point about the n word (as well as c*nt). The actual word might not have been created to offend people, but using the word in the way that it is use was done to offend people. "Negro" originally (and still does, as it is used every day by Spanish school children) meant black, as in the color. Using it to refer to "black people" makes it derogatory because you are reducing that person/that group to a superficial trait implying otherness.
My point with the word slut is that (when used to describe a particular woman or group of women) it is not offensive to the entirety of womanhood as a whole. It is the difference between saying "I'm going to go pick up some b*tches" and "Jenny is being such a b*tch today." One is degrading the entirety of womanhood by referring to them in a derogatory manner solely because they are female, while the other dis degrading Jenny because of the way she is acting. Anyone who is upset by the latter example should also be upset anyone calls anyone else an idiot, because the insultee is a human being, thus making it (in their mind) degrading to human beings.
Should testimony from the supposedly offended group be considered? Of course! But there is also the issue of reasonability. There are people who will be offended if you refer to someone else as being "Taiwanese" or "Israeli" because they don't think that those countries have the right to exist. There are people who will be offended if I refer to G-d by a specific name, or even if I mention G-d at all. A lot of things will offend somebody or another.
And I 1000% disagree with the sentiment that you can't speak up for someone else. There was a time in our country where women were not considered to be smart enough to vote. And the majority of the women at the time had no problem with that. Were the Suffragettes wrong to speak up on their behalf and say that it was degrading to all women? Just because the victim doesn't recognize an offense doesn't mean that it isn't there.
that argument itself falls on it's face bc NEGRO has never been used in a negative way; N*gga is what you are referring to. When white folks used N*gga and N*gger to be derogatory , Black folks used Negro instead.
and you miss the point yet again. It's not about whether or not you're generalizing or calling all women sluts; it's about the fact that SOME women are offended by the mere mention of the word. I personally hate it when someone uses the word 'ghetto;' it pisses me off bc ppl always use it in a negative sense. I grew up in a ghetto and I have a LOT of positive memories of my old neighborhood. Some women are offended by the word slut bc it's a negative term DEFINITIVELY (as in defined by the dictionary) exclusive to women; when a man is promiscuous in the same ways, he's called a player, which has a positive connotation.
I understand your point of reasonability; but I don't see how you can REASONABLY deny that wrestling is more degrading to women than towards men. If it weren't then why have women actually stood up and said so, where as men have not?
And your final point completely ignores mine. Of course the Suffragettes could speak on behalf of women; THEY'RE WOMEN! THAT WAS MY POINT. What proof do you have that MOST women had no problem being subservient to men? The fact that they didn't speak up about it? Is that not dispelled by the overwhelming support and success the Suffragettes received? If the sentiment was not shared by a majority of women, then how did the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA become amended in their favor? This is the land of majority rule; how could such a thing happen without support from the majority of the ppl it affects?
And I must add that the inherent flaw in your argument is the fact that you are using the worst argument; by that I mean you are using the Socratic method of debate and simply attempting to disprove points, while proving none (check out Aristophanes' "Clouds," it'll explain exactly what I mean).[/quote]
"N*gger" is just a corruption of the pronunciation of Negro. And black people only referred to themselves as such because that is what their ancestors were told the English word for them was when they were brought over. That is the only word they had known. I'm certain it isn't the word they would have chosen for themselves, if given the choice (as we see now in the term "African American."
I understand your point, I just disagree with it. Ghetto is a negative word, as it means a place where a specific group is socially confined to because of race, ethnicity, religion, or economic status. You might have good memories of your childhood neighborhood, but I doubt that they were because of the fact that you lived in a ghetto, rather than the people you were with or the specific locations in your neighborhood that you enjoyed hanging out it.
(At least here on the east coast) slut and player are both negative words, and have different meanings. They are people being condemned for different types of behaviors. A slut is being condemned for promiscuity. A player is being condemned for untrustowrthiness.
Furthermore, that this double-standard of language exists (and I agree with you that it does)... does not refute my point about the use of the word "slut" in this context. There plenty of other insults that only apply to one gender or the other that no one would complain about such as bimbo or meathead for which the same principle applies. It is an insult of a sexual nature directed at one singular person. As I said before, there is a huge difference between saying "I'm going to go pick up some b*tches" and "Jenny is being such a b*tch today." The former is degrading to women. The latter is degrading only to Jenny.
Because men don't complain about these things. Partially because men don't find the things offensive, and partially because of the inequality in the way that our society is taught to view inequalities. People rarely bring up issues of discrimination against or abusive treatment of white people or males because they would get laughed at. The "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" controversy proves this. The fact that opposition to those t-shirts was even "controversial" proves this (and trust me, for me to agree with Rush Limbaugh and Laura Schlessinger, the thing in question must be ridiculously wrong. All three of us like Democracy and hate Nazis, and those are things I have in common with those two). There was a sequence on Scrubs were a woman went around kicking guys in the balls for no reason. And that gets laughs. Can you image what the reaction would have been if it were a man going around punching women? The feminists would flip a f*cking shit. Why is Radical feminism is considered okay in society, but if a man espoused similar views, he would be labelled a sexist? How many "men's studies" courses do you see on a college campus?
Males and whites (and Protestants, and any other dominant social group) have been trained not to complain because of some ridiculous notion of guilt. Two wrongs don't make a right. Having whites and men who are otherwise qualified not get into the college of their choice because of affirmative action does not make up for slavery, and will never erase the scars of racism and sexism in this country. So why do we accept these things? Why is it okay to portray all Southerners on TV as racist homophobes? Because we are taught the of terrible abuses committed to other people, but in this new generation we forgot to teach that
we, the younger generations living now (pretty much everyone under age 50), were not the ones responsible for the crimes.
It took over seventy years for women in the US to get the right to vote, so I think its fair to say that the majority of women disagreed with the Suffragettes in the beginning... thus making the Suffragette's "wrong" and not representing the views of women when the movement first started. If they were "wrong" shouldn't they have given up? Which is why that view is ridiculous. As for how such a thing could happen without the support of the majority of people it represents... a lot of the decisions to grant women the right to vote were not made for reasons as pure as we would like to believe. A lot of it had to do with the major influx of immigrants, combined with the loss of white male lives in World War One, so those trying to keep whites in political control advocated giving women the right to vote, so as double the white voting population. Other times it was just a political machine wanting to keep a more solid hold on its power. I'm not saying this happened everywhere, but it did happen some places. Furthermore, the voter turnout in 1920 was the lowest in US history up until that point, because, while the number of eligible voters was approximately doubled, only about 33% of women voted (and the "voting-habit" theory doesn't work here, as women in newly enfranchised areas and women in areas where women were already allowed to vote turned out in roughly equal percentages)
Speaking up for someone else is entirely possible. There are many, many men in this world (myself included) who came to the conclusion that a woman should have right to determine what goes on in her own body before having read or heard any abortion literature. And you are saying that just because I'm not a woman, I can't speak up on the concept of abortion unless a woman lays out the facts for me first, because I don't have a womb? I think we can all agree that is ridiculous.
Look at it this way. If there are two people who speak different languages, and one calls the other an idiot, the other won't understand that he is being insulted because he doesn't speak that language and thus doesn't understand that he has been called an idiot. But me, as someone who also speaks English, can understand that the first person has insulted the second. The insult is there either way, even if the insultee doesn't realize it, and an outsider can point it out to him/her.
Your points and mine are often diametrically opposed. By disproving yours (that it is impossible to judge something to be degrading to someone else) I am proving mine (that it is possible to judge something to be degrading to someone else)
