Quantcast

«

»

Dec 27 2012

Rick Perry for Dick of the Year

There isn’t an official contest, but maybe there should be. I nominate Texas Governor Rick Perry for the Dick of the Year Award. Granted, Perry’s work was part of a team effort, with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, and a host of conservative Christian Texas legislators giving assistance. Rick and his pals have largely dismantled the Texas Women’s Health Program, a program for low-income women to get reproductive health care. The program has been about 9/10ths Federally funded. Part of the agenda there is to stop unwanted pregnancies as such pregnancies increase federal costs down the road to cover those pregnancies. It is good public policy. Or, rather, was.

The point of contention is that the program would fund Planned Parenthood to provide many of these services, much as it has done with public and private of funding. In the minds of Christians, though, “Planned Parenthood” is synonymous with “abortion.” Yes, Planned Parenthood does provide abortion services, but state and Federal funding are never used for this purpose. In fact, Planned Parenthood works very hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies through its education efforts and providing contraceptives.

Rick and the Christian chorus have argued that because money is fungible, giving any money to Planned Parenthood is effectively funding abortions. By that logic, tax breaks to or public funding of any Catholic organization is equivalent to government funding of an international pedophilia ring.

To make his point, Perry barred funding of Planned Parenthood from the Texas Women’s health program. Planned Parenthood sued, but lost.  Perry’s lawyers argued that to be acceptable to the state, Planned Parenthood would have to change their name and distance themselves from any abortion services. So this is a case of Christians using the power of the state to screw over an organization they have unjustly vilified.

The Obama Administration declined to have its Women’s Health Program hijacked by a bunch of Texas dicks and de-funded TWHP. Miffed, Perry and Abbott sued in Federal court to have the funding restored. Just this week, a Federal court ruled that their attempted exclusion of Planned Parenthood violated Health and Human Services guidelines and threw out their claim. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood has won a temporary Federal injunction from being barred from TWHP funding. I’ll bet someone’s feeling a little blue in the balls over this.  Thankfully, for Rick there will be little political fallout.  His conservative Christian base is cheering him on.

For now, Texas is left to fund the program on its own. Given Texas’ history of ideological sex ed in schools and state funding of Christian-based crisis pregnancy centers that provide manipulation instead of information, I’d be very surprised if Texas properly funded an effective program. Meanwhile, they are doing an effective job of dismantling women’s reproductive health in Texas.  Many smaller clinics have already shut their doors over funding uncertainties.

So Perry deserves the Dick of the Year award.  In a mad quest to prevent abortion, Perry and his Christian pals have sabotaged a public health organization (Planned Parenthood) and a Federal program that would have prevented unwanted pregnancies and women seeking abortions to end those pregnancies. It is well documented that legal restrictions on abortion do not reduce abortion rates, but they do increase the health risks associated with those abortions. Thus, abortion laws mostly serve to increase suffering and death under the pretense of morality. Perry clearly lacks compassion for the women involved, many of whom are poor.  About 3/4ths of women seeking abortion say that they lack the resources to raise a child.

I know of two solutions to the abortion problem. The first solution is to take the claims of Christians at their word and address the lack of resources. Christians say they have a special relationship with an all-powerful god who answers prayers. They also claim to care deeply about the welfare of the unborn child (at least until birth). They claim to follow Jesus, who cared for the poor. Churches even get tax breaks for their alleged charity. So the solution is simply set up a registry where pregnant women who lack the resources to have a child sign up to get financial support for themselves (as care giver) and the child until the child graduates from college or vocational school. In the case of a disabled child, care should be funded until death. Churches and their members would be taxed to provide the necessary funds. Think of it! Poverty would be reduced instead of increased. Christians would have a compassionate way of demonstrating the courage of their convictions. Children would have church and state support instead of the church using the state to punish them and their mothers.  Christian leaders could even offer up one of their own to be killed for women who die in childbirth (i.e. Exodus 21:23). They should want to be held to their God’s laws as an example to their flock.

How would churches find the money for such a program? Simple. They can pray and God will provide. Each Church’s petitioners would pray to God for reimbursement and there would be no net loss to the church. Churches promoting false religions or out of favor with God would not be reimbursed and their assets would be liquidated to cover their share of the program. The ministers of such churches could go out and make an honest wage that go toward the expenses. If that weren’t enough, members could be taxed. I can’t imagine a Christian wanting to have a child that they brought into the world starve or otherwise suffer due to their moral failings.

We know that this is not a viable solution, simply because Christianity is a fraud. We all know there isn’t a god that someone can pray to to get the things they want, despite Jesus’ claims to the contrary. If prayer worked, Christians could simply pray abortion away and not have to hijack the government and uteruses to make future tithers. Everyone knows that God can’t. God also can’t make more sycophant believers, so women’s reproductive organs have to be co-opted to perpetuate the fraud.

The only tools Christians have in their arsenal that really works are manipulation and thuggery.  If they can’t manipulate women into keeping their unborn child (such as through guilt, ultrasound baby pictures, or lies about mental health harm), they can always rely on thuggery, such as vindictive abortion laws, trans-vaginal ultrasounds, intruding in personal and medical decisions, forcing women to bear children they don’t want, risk their lives with child birth, and commit many of them (and their child) to a lifetime of poverty.  Rick Perry and his Christian pals are completely on board with this manipulation and thuggery, making Rick my nomination for dick of the year. To end the year, Rick Perry vowed to outlaw all abortion in Texas.

The second solution to the abortion problem is to make them safe and rare, through reproductive education, contraceptive availability, and family planning.  First world countries do this and they are successful at keeping their abortion rates down without being dicks to the women involved. Rick and his pals would never think to use a proven effective means of reducing abortion. Instead, U.S., Christian conservatives seemingly work to increase unwanted pregnancies, and then wonder why U.S. abortion rates are so high. They are all dicks, in my opinion.  They want the power to make a decision for someone they don’t’ know but they run away from the responsibility of such a decision.

It’s hard to understand these small minds and hearts.  If men like Rick want control over a vagina, they should have a sex change operation. Their god clearly knew they couldn’t handle control over even one.  Perhaps they’re so insecure over their own manhood that they have to cause women to suffer to feel good about themselves.  Perhaps Rick and his pals get some sort of sexual pleasure out of controlling other’s reproduction.  Regardless, he is nothing more than a dick and everyone should know that fact.

132 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat)

    Could do without all the gendered stuff… I agree with the substance, but can we please stop equating general assholishness with male genitalia, and also the whole ‘insecure in manhood’ thing?

    1. 1.1
      Warp

      It’s just an expression. Do not read too much into it.

      It’s the same as if you call someone eg. a douche. That doesn’t mean you are comparing them to a hygiene device. It means you are calling them a smug a-hole.

      1. Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat)

        ACTUALLY, a douche is something useless that harms delicate tissue (be it vaginal or anal tissue.) So you can say that calling a person a “douche” is saying that they are a useless thing that harms people.

        (I don’t like calling people “dicks” for the same reason I don’t like calling people “pussies” or “twats” or “cunts.” Asshole is okay.)

        1. Jason Rebelato

          simple solution…don’t call people dicks, cunts twats or pussies and ignore those who choose to.

  2. 2
    slc1

    There is also the so-far unconfirmed rumors that Rick the dick likes guys.

    1. 2.1
      Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat)

      Can we not do this please? There are enough things to criticize Rick Perry about without the insinuation that he’s gay.

  3. 3
    Tax

    I for one loved this article, and second the nomination.

    As for the comment about the sex change operation, I think it makes the point that Rick Perry isn’t a woman. Call me crazy, but I think it’s kind of messed up that most of the debate about what women are aloud to do with their bodies is had by men, and women who debate the issue are dismissed. I think there is a huge double standard where it’s fine for women who support a ban on abortion to be allowed to speak, but women who support any access to contraceptives or the right to an abortion are demonized and vilified.

    Rick Perry will never be in the position of being a poor woman and having a pregnancy he cannot afford. I think it ridiculous that he has such a strong position on the issue. He is basically telling large segments of the population that he knows what’s best for them and is going to force them to make particular decisions. I think that calling him a dick is an understatement, but for such a person I cannot imagine an insult that would be sufficient.

  4. 4
    jasmyn

    I couldn’t agree more. Ol Dick is clearly insecure. He seems to believe that being male gives him some right over anyone lacking a penis. It’s embarrassing that he’s the.longest serving governor. When I moved from Texas (to NC,not much better) I didn’t want to say where I’m from because he was.running for president. I didn’t want people to associate me with his supporters. The sex non-education is full of lies and fear-mongering. I hope Texans make a better choice for themselves next election cycl.

    1. 4.1
      margecullen

      I hope Texans make a better choice next election but I doubt that will happen unfortunately.

      1. heicart

        The issue in Texas is that we don’t have a run-off system. So, every time the election for Governor happens, there is a high probability Perry will win. He is the Republican candidate, and very generous with large business interests in Texas. So, he’s got plenty of financial backing and the party clout. All those votes are in his hip pocket. Then he has the *active* religious segment as well–people who want to legislate their religion through state promotion. This leaves “non Republicans.” So, you get a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Green Party candidate, and a few ankle biters after that. Perry gets the Republican vote. And his next best competitor has to split whatever s/he gets several ways with others that appeal to more liberal voters. I think last election he won with something like only 35% of the vote–simply because nobody else got better than that. In a run-off state, when the winning candidate does not secure a majority of the vote, they have to have another election with the winner and the first runner up. That way, all the voters that split against him have the choice to say “Well, challenger X wasn’t my first choice, but I’ll take them over Perry!”

        What we have in Texas is a system that does not allow a run off, and so Perry can continue to secure his seat without ever winning a majority of the votes in Texas. How sweet is that for him?

  5. 5
    jnorris

    I am sure I can research this and get the answer, but let me say: It seems to me a lot of poor women will give birth to children they cannot take care of. I believe these women will give up the babies to state care thus creating thousands of orphans.

    And now I ask:

    Does Texas have a privatized prison system? If so, are the companies running the prisons capable of running orphanages? (Short of using C Dickens novels as operation manuals.) Do any of the state legislators own stock in these companies?

  6. 6
    Sonorus

    Their actions expose their sham. If one were hoping to reduce the number of abortions, the best way to do that would be more and better access to birth control. I think everyone here would agree that it would be better to prevent the pregnancy before it happens. But that’s obviously not what Perry and his ilk are after. As always, actions speak louder than words.

  7. 7
    And How

    I recently underwent a voluntary vasectomy. My wife I are in our mid 30′s and have three children, so we are fertile. It follows that my choice will result in the loss future unborn lives just like the choice of the pregnant woman who terminates her pregnancy ends a potential life.

    Before my procedure, should I have been subjected to an invasive procedure, been shown pictures of what my potential children might have looked like and subjected to unwanted counseling? I would have been thorougly pissed if such barriers were in place. Sure counseling should be available to the woman, if requested and also the risks should be explained as well as the procedure itself.

    Bronze age thinkers would have been opposed to my vasectomy as well – isn’t there something about it being a sin it being a sin for a man to allow his seed to fall to the ground. Men and women of that era also thought slavery was perfectally okay and that married women were the property of the husband. They were doing their best with the knowledge they had and I do not judge them. I know I would have been behaving the same way if I were born in that place and time, but that doesn’t mean we should live by those same rules and customs.

    People are entitled to their opinions, BUT when someone’s opinions result in laws which intereferes with the rights of others that is a different matter. Among the youth of today I see them as a whole being much more reasonable about reproductive choices and abortion rights and sex in general. As a whole, they have not been exposed to as much religous indoctrination and also have been exposed to more informaiton on the many underlying issues. I have confidence individual choices regarding reproduction and abortion will prevail and politicians like Rick Perry eventually will be an insignificant minority with no real power. I think it is already that way when looking at the country as a whole………no way someone who thinks as he does has any chance of becoming President.

    1. 7.1
      Lord Narf

      I don’t really share your optimism on this sort of thing. Children are becoming more secular, on average, but the high end of the religious-crazy bell-curve is flattening out, too. Since the 70′s, the crazy fundamentalists have been getting more intense and active.

      We already have a minority of the population dictating our anti-abortion policies. One of the reasons our country is so fucked up is that the moderates who would oppose most of the Republican party’s social agenda tend to stay home. They can’t be bothered to educate themselves about politics. I’ve heard from many people, this past election cycle, that the parties are both the same. It boggles my mind, any time I meet someone so ignorant of the issues.

      1. And How

        I am not clear what you meanby the high end of the religous crazy bell curve is flattening out?

        Yes, the are those who are religous and a few non-religous who are active in the policies regarding abortion. But the fact of the matter is that this matter has been decided. Abortion is protected by federal law and legal in all 50 states, that is not going to change. The only strategy left is to influence policy and make it difficult to obtain an abortion, so this type of legislation is not suprising.

        This is not an apples to apples comparison, but the same dynamic could be seen after the passage of the 13th ammendment abolishing slavery. We had well over 100 years of Jim Crow laws, segragation and other forms of legalized discrimination before blacks actually obtained equal rights.

        It has been 40 years since Roe v. Wade and another landmark case that same year that I can’t remember. I believe the tipping point will be when the youth of today are mixed in with the current voting population still living. I predict that in 20 years any outspoken anti-aborition politician such as Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum or Rick Perry would not be electable in but a very few states. I also believe that the types of obstacles being put in place by politicians such as Rick Perry, will like segragation, be dismantled with time.

        I agree that the youth of today are much more secular, including the youth who are religous. I see them as being less bigoted and not having been indoctrinated so agreesively as past American generations. Reason will prevail on this one, but changing cultural norms and laws is a complex, difficult and slow process.

        1. Lord Narf

          This graphic has an assortment of bell curves, with different values plugged into the equation:
          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Normal_Distribution_PDF.svg
          A flattening of the bell curve would be going from the blue line to the red line, or the red line to the yellow line. When you’re talking about sampling and not a simple mathematical function, you often end up with an imperfect curve, with one side being larger than the other.
          In this case … I dunno. It could very well be a relatively even flattening of the curve, with the atheist percentage growing significantly, in the last 10 or 15 years, too.
          The problem is that the conservatives are growing more and more deceitful. The Republican party is increasingly composed of those at the far right end of the religious bell curve. If you’ll recall the presidential general election, which we just got through, you’ve got a perfect example.
          During the general election, the Republican side didn’t want to talk about social issues, at all. They knew that if they talked about women’s rights, fair pay, abortion, and gay rights, they’d lose, because they’re in the minority on all of them.
          In addition to forcing the focus away from issues they don’t want to talk about, we’ve had an increase in outright lying, from the Republican side. The governor of Michigan, for example, spoke of support for unions, during his run for governor, then turned around and signed a right-to-work (for less) law, recently.

          You’re wrong about the abortion issue. There’s no law that I’m aware of, which makes abortion legal. The only laws dealing with it are restrictive, particularly at the state level.
          With only a Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, the same can ban it completely. If we’d had a president Romney for 8 years, who has promised to appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court, we could have ended up with 2 or 3 appointments by him. Replace Ginsberg or Breyer (who are both quite old), and we’d have every anti-abortion group trying to force a case to the Supreme Court, to overturn Roe v. Wade. If you replaced both of those justices with Romney’s anti-abortion picks, an overturn would be pretty much guaranteed.
          It doesn’t matter how the population feels about something. If the Supreme Court is sufficiently stacked, you can get all kinds of anti-populist things made law. The Supreme Court is the most conservative it’s ever been, right now. All it needs is a good push, and we have effective theocracy.

          1. And How

            Thanks for the information. Very interesting.

            I absolutely understand the concern about a Presidential candidate lying and ending up in a postion of power. I take comfort in that these candidates are vetted very throroughly by the press and I believe that an anti-abortion candidate could not hide that position.

            Obama was very beatable this last election. However, I believe Romney was unelectable because the majority of the electorate does not want for the country do take individual rights seriously and do not want to see us move backwards on the social issues you mention. I live near Ohio and Obama absolutely pounded Romney on the issues of women’s right and it seemed to work. The Republicans have to know this and I believe they are trying to figure out how to dissasociate themselves from the neo-cons, but that will be tricky.

            I don’t trust polls on religion. I went on a fishing trip with five buddies I knew from college. All, but myself, attend various denominations of Christian churches regularly. We were having beers and somehow got on the topic of religion. The conversation took a turn where I felt comfortable sharing with them that I was an atheist and I explained what that meant to me.

            What happened next was all but one of these guys admitted that they were also atheist. One of them admitted his wife was an atheist as well. Their reasons for attending church were mostly social and one felt that it helped reinforce values taught at home to their children. These guys basically did not agree with a huge amount of f their church’s teachings on birth control, abortion, women being church leaders, etc., Only one of them believe in the supernatural aspects of Christianity in that there was life after death or that Jesus performed miracles or Moses parted a sea.

            I guess my point is that these people are likely to show up in a poll as Christians making the results unreliable. According to my fishing trip poll – the percentage of Christians who are actually atheist is 5 of 6 or 85% !! I understand the actual number is much lower, but still it would have to affect the data.

            Thanks for the correction that the Supreme Court legalized abortion. If I remember correctly, what actually happened was the court ruled to strike down a state law in Texas which made abortion illegal. The net effect was that since a state cannot have a law banning abortion illegal, the laws become all about this policy minutia.

          2. Lord Narf

            I take comfort in that these candidates are vetted very throroughly by the press and I believe that an anti-abortion candidate could not hide that position.

            Obama was very beatable this last election. However, I believe Romney was unelectable because the majority of the electorate does not want for the country do take individual rights seriously and do not want to see us move backwards on the social issues you mention. I live near Ohio and Obama absolutely pounded Romney on the issues of women’s right and it seemed to work.

            I have a less flattering interpretation of what happened in this past election. You’re right that the media has gotten better about paying attention during the primaries and bringing it up during the general election. The Republican party has gone so completely fucking insane that the candidates can’t get the nomination without bowing to the Creationist/overturn-Roe-v.-Wade/constitutional-gay-marriage-ban/theocratic base. The things the candidates need to say during the primaries are even more extreme than in previous cycles.

            I don’t think that the swing voters cared about any of that. They just cared that Romney was unlikeable. The things he said about the 47% declared to everyone that he was an elitist dick who feels contempt for anyone who isn’t a millionaire. He and Paul Ryan were just walking gaff-machines. It’s almost like someone in the Republican party bought Romney off somehow, and he took a dive. There was a new, horrifying quote from him at least once a week.

            The swing voters are ignorant. They don’t have the ability to analyze all of the issues, or they just don’t care. They generally vote for the person they like the most, for some intangible reason. I think that if Santorum had been nominated, it would have been a little closer, since he doesn’t radiate dickishness quite as badly. He’s completely insane, but he’s better at talking to people than Romney.

            I guess my point is that these people are likely to show up in a poll as Christians making the results unreliable. According to my fishing trip poll – the percentage of Christians who are actually atheist is 5 of 6 or 85% !! I understand the actual number is much lower, but still it would have to affect the data.

            I think most of us have very skewed sampling, within our social circles.

            Almost everyone I associate with is an atheist. They’re also very well educated, almost all having a 4-year degree, many having a Masters Degree, and a few having Ph.D.’s. Those who aren’t college-educated are all intellectually curious individuals with additional, informal education.

            Of course, since I’ve become more active in my local atheism groups, I’m sure my perspective has become even more skewed than previously.

            Thanks for the correction that the Supreme Court legalized abortion. If I remember correctly, what actually happened was the court ruled to strike down a state law in Texas which made abortion illegal. The net effect was that since a state cannot have a law banning abortion illegal, the laws become all about this policy minutia.

            Yeah, they specifically brought a test case forward, with the intention of bringing it to the Supreme Court. I think the woman was specifically arrested with that in mind.

            In the case of a Romney presidency, we would have the same thing in reverse. The reason we have all of these bullshit TRAP laws popping up, all over the country, is because we’re not sure how a Supreme Court ruling would come down. The liberals can’t bring the laws to court, for fear of overturning Roe v. Wade, with the current court.

            If we lost Ginsberg or Breyer, replacing them with conservative judges, we would have states passing laws to ban abortion outright, forcing them up to the Supreme Court in an attempt to bring the issue to a head. The only reason they’re not doing it now is because they’re not sure how Kennedy will rule, either. They don’t want to reinforce Roe v. Wade, so they’re waiting until they’re sure they can overturn it.

  8. 8
    Jacob Schmidt

    George, you’re a ManlyMan(TM). You’re not responsible for pregnancies. Only women are. Plus all that stuff in the bible was old testament stuff, so it doesn’t count. But we all know Jesus spent a lot of time talking about the importance of women being forced to go through pregnancies they don’t want.

    1. 8.1
      And How

      Crazyzz:

      I am not sure where you are coming from here and maybe your comment is tongue in cheek. But if you are serious, please provide one example of a human pregnancy involving consentual sex (not rape) where the man and woman were not equally responsbile for the pregnancy.

      Also, my understanding is that Christians as a general rule believe that the Old Testament rules do apply, The New Testament eliminaed the need for animal sacrafice because Jesus’s crucifixion eliminated the need to sacrafice animals. Also, Jesus’s resurrection established the concept of life after death, as well as heaven and I assume hell as well. I could be wrong and maybe there is also more to it. Possibly someone will enlighten me on this subject who is indeed an expert.

  9. 9
    Jacob Schmidt

    On a side note, could we all kindly fuck off with gendered slurs please?

    1. 9.1
      Jasper of Maine

      Yes, let’s pick some other random demographic to base slurs upon.

    2. 9.2
      Lord Narf

      What do you suggest as a replacement? I have no problem with anti-male slurs, when they’re the one causing the problems.

      Plus, I’m male, myself, so I’m allowed.

      1. Jasper of Maine

        I think if we take this to its logical conclusion, we’d only be left with slurs like “fuckwad” or “dipshit”… depending on whether anyone gets offended on sex and poop being denigrated.

        1. Lord Narf

          Isn’t dipshit an anti-gay slur, in its etymology? You nasty little bigot, you. :-p

          1. Jasper of Maine

            Is it? Hell if I know where half these words come from.

          2. Lord Narf

            Damned if I know. I’m making it up as I go along. Seems like a slur against those who engage in anal sex. Despite the fact that there are probably way more heterosexual people having anal sex than gay men, it’s still considered a gay activity, by many.

        2. Elspeth

          I try not to use gendered slurs like “dick” and “prick.” Sure, it’s just an expression, a figure of speech — but there’s no need to be sexist about it.

          Assholes. Everyone has one. Rick Perry is one. Surely we can all agree on that much?

          1. Lord Narf

            Like I said, using slurs against your own groupings is acceptable in pretty much any context. Don is fine, under that social convention, as am I.

      2. Jacob Schmidt

        Fuckwad, dipshit, shitbag, douchbag, asshole, asshat, dumbass, moron…

        Seriously. It’s not hard to think of different words to use. What, is it too hard for you?

        1. Lord Narf

          Not as satisfying. I prefer calling him a dick. Try again.

          1. Jacob Schmidt

            For quite a while I preferred “bitch” and “cunt” as insults too. Really wasn’t hard to get over. Honestly, all I hear is, “I’m too lazy to do the right thing. I’d rather not inconvenience my self slightly.”

            Really, it’s not that big a deal, but it’s also a really easy fix, so why not just do it?

          2. Lord Narf

            I’m not female. I don’t get to use those terms without consideration. I am male, so i get to use terms that are gender-specific, against men. So, I will.

          3. Jacob Schmidt

            Literally did not even address the question.

          4. Lord Narf

            Which question? This one?

            On a side note, could we all kindly fuck off with gendered slurs please?

            I already answered that one. No.

          5. Jacob Schmidt

            No, this one: “Really, it’s not that big a deal, but it’s also a really easy fix, so why not just do it?”

          6. Lord Narf

            Because I find your objection invalid, and I don’t care enough to change my choice of words. I feel perfectly justified using it.

          7. Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

            I don’t use gendered slurs. Just as ‘cunt’ or ‘twat’ are female based insults carrying the conotation that being feminine or a woman is wrong, so too does calling someone a ‘dick’. It does not have the same weight of sexism and misogyny behind its use, but it still calls to mind insulting someone with a male centric insult as if being male were bad.
            On a related note, I do not even undrstand why ‘dick’ is an insult. I love dick. I see nothing insulting about dick. To throw that out as an insult when dick=penis*, makes no sense to me.

            *yes, the argument exists that there is some negative definition of dick out there, but which is more common? Also, I find it difficult to remove the sex organ visual, which brings round the question of what is wrong with dick.

        2. Jasper of Maine

          “Douchebag” arguably has ties to sexism. “Moron” is just another version of “retard”, which has been controversial too.

          My point being that you’ve apparently arbitrarily chosen one demographic to care about. Why should I come up with alternatives? Shouldn’t the problem be that I’m calling people names? Shouldn’t the intent matter?

          “Dick” is so tame, to the point where it’s being a “gendered slur” is too diluted to matter. It’s not even on the same level as “cunt” – not by any means – not in the utilized intent.

          Is it hard to come up with alternatives? Yes. I’d have to research all slurs and make sure that the origins of each isn’t denigrating a “protected class”, just like you sloppily didn’t do with your list – but apparently only gendered slurs matter.

          A better question would be, is this even remotely important? I think “cunt” is, as applied to women, based on the intent of oppression behind it. “Dick” just doesn’t have that power behind it.

          1. Lord Narf

            Is it hard to come up with alternatives? Yes. I’d have to research all slurs and make sure that the origins of each isn’t denigrating a “protected class”, just like you sloppily didn’t do with your list – but apparently only gendered slurs matter.

            That’s why I find it easier to pick slurs of known origin and slant. Then, use one that you know you can get away with. The best form of immunity is being within the slandered designation.
            Thus, you and I are perfectly safe calling people dicks.

          2. Jacob Schmidt

            Really, it’s not that big a deal, but it’s also a really easy fix, so why not just do it?

            Did you read that bit? ‘Cause I’m pretty sure I stated outright that “Dick” isn’t a big deal and not on the same level as cunt.

            Shouldn’t the problem be that I’m calling people names? Shouldn’t the intent matter?

            What? So you have no problem with Don calling Perry names, but when I have a problem with the specific insult all names become bad? I’m really asking. I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. And yes, intent matters. My intent is to demonstrate disrespect towards those who support bullshit, bigoted policies. Insults are a great way of doing that.

            “Douchebag” arguably has ties to sexism. “Moron” is just another version of “retard”, which has been controversial too.”

            If you actually have a problem with douchebag, have you ever complained to the writers of this blog for frequently using it? Douchebag has it’s ties to sexism, yes. Their very existence is harmful to women. It’s a rather fitting insult for sexist asshats. As for moron, I’ve literally never heard the word used for mentally disabled people. Historically, certainly. Currently? No.

            A better question would be, is this even remotely important?

            The only time “dick” is ever used is as an insult or to mean “penis.” So yes, it is somewhat derogatory to one specific group. Is it remotely important? I say yes, to a much smaller extant than other common slurs.

            And yes, it is pretty easy to do. Of the 8 insults I gave above, 5 are pretty much impossible to tie to any one group.

          3. And How

            I don’t see where calling a woman a cunt is any worse than calling a man a dick. A female politician who took Rick Perry’s position could just as appropriately be referred to as the biggest cunt ever and I don’t see a difference in a male or female making that statement. Calling someone a dick or cunt has a much stronger meaning than calling someone an asshole.

          4. Jasper of Maine

            Did you read that bit? ‘Cause I’m pretty sure I stated outright that “Dick” isn’t a big deal and not on the same level as cunt.

            Then why are we even discussing this? If it’s not a big deal, then I see no reason to discontinue its use. But apparently I should.. just.. because. Because why not? I guess.

            What? So you have no problem with Don calling Perry names, but when I have a problem with the specific insult all names become bad?

            That wasn’t my point. My point was that if you were going to have a problem, it should be with the fact that he was calling people names, and the fact that particular word is gendered isn’t important.

            And yes, intent matters. My intent is to demonstrate disrespect towards those who support bullshit, bigoted policies. Insults are a great way of doing that.

            Yes, and the history of different words plays a role in what’s offensive.

            I’m not sure what the white version of “nigger” is – I suppose it’s “cracker”. If a bunch of black guys called me that, I’d probably crack a smile because it’s such a silly term. As a caucasian, however, I find “nigger” to be quite offensive, beacuse of its history. It’s a manifestation of oppression. If the vast majorit of position of authority were African Americans, “cracker” would be taken in a different light, because now I’m being oppressed. Since that’s not the world I belive in, “cracker” can easily be laughed off, because I have no investment in its implications.

            Likewise, “cunt” or “slut” has a history of oppression, whereas “dick” has no such power.

            You don’t seem to have a problem with gendered words. I don’t see you suggesting that people stop using the terms “man” and “woman”. You weren’t advising people against using slurs. Bizarrely, it’s specifically words that are both gendered AND slurs that, inexplicably, out of the blue, all of a sudden “dick” became a banned word… even though it’s apparently not a big deal.

            Your position is incoherent, arbitrary and unintelliglble.

            If you actually have a problem with douchebag, have you ever complained to the writers of this blog for frequently using it? Douchebag has it’s ties to sexism, yes. Their very existence is harmful to women.

            I’m not the one here who seems to have a big problem with calling people names specifically when it’s gendered, although simultaneously not a big deal, apparently. As I stated above, I’m more concerned about the intent, and “douchebag” tends to be applied to men, who aren’t in danger of being oppressed anytime soon. I’ll worry about it then.

            It’s a rather fitting insult for sexist asshats. As for moron, I’ve literally never heard the word used for mentally disabled people. Historically, certainly. Currently? No.

            “Retarded” was supposed to be an improvement over “moron”, historically. Definitionally, calling someone “moron” is to be implying that they’re stupid – i.e. mentally deficient. It’s a pejorative that operates by negatively comparing a person to those who are mentally retarded. That’s the point.

            How does “dick” not qualify under these standards of yours? It’s roughly equivalent to calling the person a “male asshole”, which has a function that operates not upon denegrating males, but denegrating someone who just happens to be male. It’s simple word choice as much as deciding to call him a “man”, due to his gender.

            The only time “dick” is ever used is as an insult or to mean “penis.” So yes, it is somewhat derogatory to one specific group. Is it remotely important? I say yes, to a much smaller extant than other common slurs.

            I get it – it’s a much smaller extent remotely important issue, and also not a big deal. I think that roughly equates to “not important.”

            Let me know when it’s used to oppress men.

            And yes, it is pretty easy to do. Of the 8 insults I gave above, 5 are pretty much impossible to tie to any one group.

            Yes, if, as your “standards” dictate, it’s okay as long as there’s at least one step in the etymology of a word, and is also specifically a word that’s gendered and also a slur.

            I’m still not sure why, if it’s not a big deal, why I should bother banning it from my repertoire. Why should I bother doing anything? Merely because you say so?

          5. Jacob Schmidt

            Then why are we even discussing this? If it’s not a big deal, then I see no reason to discontinue its use. But apparently I should.. just.. because. Because why not? I guess.

            I get it – it’s a much smaller extent remotely important issue, and also not a big deal. I think that roughly equates to “not important.”

            Dafuq? When did “not a big deal” start to mean “devoid of any importance”? It’s not a big deal when my phone company screws me outta 10 bucks. Still gets me to call them and get it back if I have the time.

            Like I said, even if it’s not of huge importance, it’s really easy to do. Seriously. I’ve done it.

            That wasn’t my point. My point was that if you were going to have a problem, it should be with the fact that he was calling people names, and the fact that particular word is gendered isn’t important.

            Why should I care about calling people names?

            Yes, and the history of different words plays a role in what’s offensive.

            Have I disputed that anywhere? Why are you bringing this up?

            I’m not sure what the white version of “nigger” is – I suppose it’s “cracker”. If a bunch of black guys called me that, I’d probably crack a smile because it’s such a silly term. As a caucasian, however, I find “nigger” to be quite offensive, beacuse of its history. It’s a manifestation of oppression. If the vast majorit of position of authority were African Americans, “cracker” would be taken in a different light, because now I’m being oppressed. Since that’s not the world I belive in, “cracker” can easily be laughed off, because I have no investment in its implications.

            Likewise, “cunt” or “slut” has a history of oppression, whereas “dick” has no such power.

            This bit isn’t directed to Jasper. This is for you George. This is why it’s inappropriate (to say the least) to call women “cunts”.

            You don’t seem to have a problem with gendered words. I don’t see you suggesting that people stop using the terms “man” and “woman”. You weren’t advising people against using slurs. Bizarrely, it’s specifically words that are both gendered AND slurs that, inexplicably, out of the blue, all of a sudden “dick” became a banned word… even though it’s apparently not a big deal.

            Your position is incoherent, arbitrary and unintelliglble[sic].

            Again, dafuq? Why do I have to be against all slurs equally in order to be against gendered slurs?

            “Retarded” was supposed to be an improvement over “moron”, historically. Definitionally, calling someone “moron” is to be implying that they’re stupid – i.e. mentally deficient. It’s a pejorative that operates by negatively comparing a person to those who are mentally retarded. That’s the point.

            See, now I don’t like moron so much. I guess that ones out too. Oh well.

            Yes, if, as your “standards” dictate, it’s okay as long as there’s at least one step in the etymology of a word, and is also specifically a word that’s gendered and also a slur.

            Can I go ahead and assume that there was supposed to be a “not” between “that’s” and “gendered”? Otherwise I have no idea what the fuck your are talking about. And no, I’m not particularly concerned with etymology, though it is an issue. More so with the current common usage of the term and to whom it applies.

    3. 9.3
      And How

      Crazyz:

      Words have meaning and I believe examining and clarifying our use or words is important.

      I think Mr. Baker might have used gender neutral language and substituted the word asshole for dick and called Mr. Perry the biggest asshole ever and got the same message across without offending you, but that said I don’t see the problem in using gender specific language.

      I somewhat see the point about dick not being as offensive as cunt. The use of the phrase “man up” vs. quit acting like a ‘woman” comes to mind.

      There are female politicans out there who are as dangerous as Rick Perry. I can think of one female politician in particualr who is now retired from politics that was more of a threat ito the nation than Rick Perry. I would have had no problem had Mr. Baker blogged about this female politician with her being referred to as the world’s biggest cunt. I do not see that as any more offensive than Mr. Perry being referred to as the world’s biggest dick. What part of this do you not get?

      I do not deny that women have been opressed in the past. I understand women are being opressed in more subtle ways today, but that doesnot mean ALL women are being opressed. There was absolutely no evidence that this particular female politican was ever opressed and even if she had been, she gets no pass from me.

      Shall I refer to her as the world’s largest Lady Dick? Would that be less offensive to you?

      1. Jacob Schmidt

        I do not deny that women have been opressed in the past. I understand women are being opressed in more subtle ways today, but that doesnot mean ALL women are being opressed. There was absolutely no evidence that this particular female politican was ever opressed and even if she had been, she gets no pass from me.

        And to you I give a hardy fuck you. The fact that you’re unable to recognize some women’s oppression is irrelevant. The fact that you’d like to reinforce the oppression of other women by legitimizing the language used to do so, regardless of whether or not the specific women in question is being oppressed, makes you and ignorant shitbag.

        1. Jacob Schmidt

          That should be “an ignorant shitbag”. My ring finger has an odd affinity for the letter “d.”

          1. And How

            You seem like someone who strongly identifies with the oppressed and someone who carries a boulder sized chip on their shoulder.

            Political debate is not an arena for those with thin skin. I’ll assure you that if Rick Perry knows about this blog that he has not lost one wink of sleep over being nominated for “dick” of the year. And I would also suggest that any female politician worth her salt would also also not lose any sleep if she was nominated on an internet blog for “cunt” of the year over one of her political postions. I further do not believe believe that a female politician that was worth her salt would see a nomination for cunt of the year as a denegration to all females. I

            f the rule for criticitism in politics is that gendered slurs ferring to private parts is okay for male politicians, then I’ll say it once again, it is no more offensive that a female politicans be referred to with gendered slurs referring to her private parts. Equality means everyone, men and women, play by the same rules in politics, the workplace or any other organization.

            You want the rule to be that there are no gendered slurs referring to body parts, I get it. I’ll reread your points with an open mind and give it some thought. In the meantime, lighten up and consider increasing your meds.

  10. 10
    coragyps

    “When state lawmakers passed a two-year budget in 2011 that moved $73 million from family planning services to other programs, the goal was largely political: halt the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood clinics.

    Now they are facing the policy implications — and, in some cases, reconsidering.

    The latest Health and Human Services Commission projections being circulated among Texas lawmakers indicate that during the 2014-15 biennium poor women will deliver an estimated 23,760 more babies than they would have as a result of their reduced access to state-subsidized birth control. The additional cost to taxpayers is expected to be as much as $273 million — $103 million to $108 million to the state’s general revenue budget alone — and the bulk of it is the cost of caring for those infants under Medicaid.”

    – The Texas Tribune, 28 December 2012

  11. 11
    busterggi

    “The only tools Christians have in their arsenal that really works are manipulation and thuggery. ”

    True but you listed them out of order – thuggery has always been the first choice.

  12. 12
    soul_biscuit

    “Douchebag” arguably has ties to sexism.

    A douchebag is an unnecessary product dreamt up in the context of antiquated notions of women as inherently unclean. In fact, it’s harmful to women. It’s an apt metaphor for anti-feminists and a perfectly serviceable insult.

    “Dick” isn’t as problematic as the c-word, of course, because of the privilege differential. But it’s still problematic, and better not used.

    1. 12.1
      And How

      I am trying to understand the difference between a male being referred to as a dick and a woman being referred to as a twat or cunt. What does privilege differential mean?

      1. brianpansky

        if I were to go far into my limited knowledge of language and how it works, I’d probably go something like:

        many men in our society who are friends with each other call each other X all the time. it is common for it to be not serious, and laughed about by both friends. it is rare for X to induce anxiety.

        Y is most commonly used seriously by men towards women. Y is rarely directed at people in non-conflict situations. it is common for Y to induce anxiety.

        now let X=dicks and let Y=cunt

        please notice that X is not equal to Y

        also note that meaning comes from the context usage we have been exposed to, so it would be different for different people. I do however think that most people in north america share my experience.

        1. Lord Narf

          Sounds about right, yeah.

  13. 13
    kacyray

    It’s a smorgasbord of political correctness.

    I’m waiting for the part where people start calling each other names because they can’t agree on what terms are offensive.

    *popcorn*

  14. 14
    Chandrese

    Please don’t forget that every state has a Safe Haven law. It’s a tough decision, but for any woman who has been forced to have a child, from 3 days to 60 days (depending on the state) she can turn that child over to the state with no repercussions for her decision. The state then has full legal, medical, educational, etc., responsibility for that child for the next 18 years. This will be particularly helpful for women who have children with severe, lifelong medical conditions and no insurance. The state, i.e., the taxpayers, will be responsible for that child’s lifelong care.

    1. 14.1
      Lord Narf

      That’s part of what we’re complaining about. Women are being forced to do something that affects their body, burdens the state (and thus us all), increases the overpopulation of our planet, and turns out people who are more likely to be miserable, maladjusted members of society. I don’t see the upside.

  15. 15
    Jacob Schmidt

    Responding down here because the threading got pretty ugly.

    Seriously, George. This is what happened. You stated that there’s not much difference between calling a man a dick and a women a cunt (you never touched “bitch”, oddly enough). I then quoted Jasper, seeing as Jasper’s explanation was good enough, if not intended to address your statement. The gist was that the histories and current of the two words are different. “Dick” is used to insult men. Bitch, cunt and twat however are used not just as insults, but to dehumanize women. It’s similar to the way “nigger” has been used and still is used by an unfortunately (to say the least) large group of people.

    You then [1] responded with some stuff about Rick Perry, how [2] some women are bad, and how you don’t [3] believe that one particular women was being oppressed. You then [4] said because she wasn’t being oppressed as far as you can tell (as if you’re able to discern the totality of any oppression she’s faced), she’s fair game for words like “cunt”.

    1) Rick Perry doesn’t matter. Bringing him up is pointless.
    2) Some black people are bad, too. Calling them “niggers” is still not justified.
    3) The fact that you’re unable to see sexism she’s experienced does not matter. This one is pretty bad. I don’t see it =/= it’s not there.
    4) The language you advocate using, even if the women in question is not personally oppressed, is the same language used by others to oppress many, many women. To support and legitimize such language is reprehensible.

    Point 4, the history and use of the terms, has already been pointed out to you. Instead of addressing it, you ignored it and stated that because you personally didn’t see the sexism this women has faced, it wasn’t a big deal. So yes, I was rude to you in my response.

    You then went on another tirade about Rick Perry, and how it’s ok to call this women “the biggest cunt of the year”. Again without addressing point 4. While implying that taking offense to such language is due to thin skin rather than the recognizing the historic and current dehumanizing use of the word. While assuming my motives was that I “strongly identify with the oppressed” (As if that were possible in my case. It’s just basic empathy.) and condescendingly telling me I had chip on my shoulder. At this point, I see a definite pattern of you ignoring whats actually being said.

    You then ended it all by implying that I must need medication in order to be acting in a way you don’t like, thus further stigmatizing people with a mental illness.

    Now maybe you genuinely don’t understand the difference in privilege men and women have. Men don’t have to deal with dehumanizing slurs used to strip them of their humanity. “The bitch had it coming’ is used to justify beating women. “She shouldn’t have dressed like a slut” is used to blame women for the rape of which they are a victim. Men don’t face this. Ever. And this is just a fraction of all the shit women have to face that men simply do not. Now, had you actually responded to what I (Jasper, really) said, I wouldn’t have been rude. Maybe I shouldn’t have been so rude the second time around.

    At this point though, having ignored everything that was said and restating the same thing over again?

    Fuck you, you ignorant shitbag.

  16. 16
    And How

    Oddly enough, that I did not refer to the word bitch? In my understanding of, language, bitch is the female equivalent of bastard. Mr. Baker did not refer to Mr. Perry as a bastard, so I saw no reason to address the term bitch.

    You Imply the term “cunt” rises to the level of being called a “nigger”. Come on, were women ever been taken against their will and enslaved?

    You state that it is reprehensible to refer to a woman as a “cunt” or “twat” implying that is somehow far worse than calling a man a “dick” or “cock”. Evidently the word “cunt” has such meaning for you that it is use is an affront to just not the woman it is used against, but to the “many, many” women who have been deligitamized in the past and present. Now, that is a powerful word. I cunt (sorry typo) can’t even imagine twat (sorry typo again) what kind of reaction you would have had if Mr. Baker had nominated Mr. Perry for “Cunt of the Year”. I am not the authoritative dicitionary on vulgar slang, but I don’t see the difference in referring to a man as a dick vs. referring to a woman as a cunt. They are the same as bitch and bastard to me.

    Do I understand the privlege difference between men and women? I said that I did not see it with this female politican and still don’t. I also said that even if it does exist, she gets no pass from me if she has the power to influence the laws we all have to live by. I stand by all that.

    I also said that I do recognize differences in the way men and women are treated as it relates to reproductive rights issues in the State of Texas in that I would assume a man would not be required to jump through those types of hoops when having a vasectomry. I don’t live in Texas, so this could never impact me personally, plus I am not a woman, but I think thiis does not line up with my views on the matter and I would like to see these policies changed even though I don’t live in Texas.

    Priviledge difference. I have never even heard of that term, so I googled it. No, I do not recognize a priviledge difference which exists today between men and women in the United States. If there is one, please enlighten me.

    I have two daughters and a son. I do not see extra priviledges or rights offered by governent or society avaialbe to my son which are not also availabe to my daughters. I have noticed nil difference in the education my daughters received vs. what my son is receiving. My daughters and son receive equal amounts of our time and attention with homework etc. from her mother and myself. The household rules and priviledges are the same for all. i see no evidence that our our nation’s laws protect men and women eqaully.

    I understand about the suffrage movement, the hisotry of how families used to be patriarchial to the extent that women were even once considered property. I understand that there are older women in the US who are still alive that had to fight for equality in the workplace and education.

    I understand that women are treated like second class citizens and still considred proprty in some parts of the world.

    That said, I see no evidence that it is some big problem in the US today. I think there is plenty of opportunity for my daughters to realize their goals and that there are not any barriers standing in their way because they are females and that males somehow have an easier time of it because they have extra pvilidges.
    I do not want them viewing our culture that way either, for fear they would blame any setback they have in life in that things were somehow unfair for them and there is a priviledge difference.

    As I stated, I believe our words matter I beleive you feel we should draw the line on insults used against politicans to exclude private part gender remarks in that you had a problem with Mr. Perry being nominated as “dick” of the year.. If I remember right you were okay with the use of other gender reference vulgar slang insults like bastard or gender neutral like asshole.

    In a typical workplace, we don’t allow people to go around calling other people assholes, dicks, bastards, cunts, etc. Maybe, it is because politicans have influence over laws and policies and that as citizens we can’t be “fired” there is a difference in what we view as acceptable in airing our grievances with politicians. Still, aren’t we the ones who “hire” these politicans, but I guess if we didn’t vote for them then they are fair game. We also have the issue of free speech and I guess slamming politicans gives us tan outlet to just rip someone else apart.

    Being in politics is an thankless carrer in my opinion, but some people like Mr. Perry are drawn to it. That is why I stated that any male or female worth their salt, especially on a state or national stage, better have some thick skin as well. Not only are they going to be subjected to nominations such as “dick of the year”, but they are also looking at being the target of mentally ill assasins. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter where they stand on the issues, If everyone on this blog loved Mr. Perry because he were a staunch pro-life politican there would be a group of neo-cons blogging out there that would villify him as Satan’s helpmate in order to make their point in an attempt to promote their agenda.

    Next, your comments about rape. How is rape relevant to this discussion? I was addressing whether it is somehow worse to nominate a female politican whose postions one does not agree with as “Cunt of the Year” vs. nominating a male politician whose positions one does not agree with as “Dick of the Year”? Rape is a violent action and not just words, it has nothing to do with this question.

    But since you brought it up and expanded, I think I understand the path you were going down with the bitch deserved it remarks and you concluded that men don’t face abuse at the hands of women ever. You are very WRONG. I realize there are crazy, psychophant males out there who inject all kinds of unspeakable harm and abuse women. But here is a news flash for you, there are crazy, psycho females out there who are abusive to men as well. It tends to be more psychological with women vs. physicall, so it is not as in our face.. I believe you are implying that men are as a gender more abusive than women and I am not buying any of it. .

    I told you I would re-read the post and acknowledge that I went down this pathy with you by mistake and my intial comments were really directed to Japer. In regards to tall the fuck you and ignorant shitbag remark, it is tepting to respond by calling you a name, but frankly I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think about me. If you were a flesh and blood person in my life, I would care what you thought, but this is the internet and I’m just bouncing some ideas around. I’ve taken something productive away from conversing with you, thank you for your time and am signing off on this topic.

    1. 16.1
      Lord Narf

      Do I understand the privlege difference between men and women? I said that I did not see it with this female politican and still don’t. I also said that even if it does exist, she gets no pass from me if she has the power to influence the laws we all have to live by. I stand by all that.

      You’re demonstrating that you don’t understand the first thing about privilege. How is that woman treated, compared to her male peers, in the legislature? What percentage of that legislative body is female? Are they being forbidden to speak, like the female legislator in Michigan who dared to say the word “vagina” while protesting the abuse of her reproductive rights?

      Even the small percentage of women who manage to claw their way to the top are generally abused by the dickheads who are their peers.

    2. 16.2
      Lord Narf

      I understand about the suffrage movement, the hisotry of how families used to be patriarchial to the extent that women were even once considered property. I understand that there are older women in the US who are still alive that had to fight for equality in the workplace and education.

      That said, I see no evidence that it is some big problem in the US today. I think there is plenty of opportunity for my daughters to realize their goals and that there are not any barriers standing in their way because they are females and that males somehow have an easier time of it because they have extra pvilidges.

      Then you need to open your eyes. There’s opportunity for your daughters, but there’s nothing approaching equal opportunity. If you think that the fight for equality in the workplace and in education is over, then you don’t have a very good perspective of the workplace. Some companies are fairly progressive and equal-opportunity. Many are not.

      Even outside of the workplace itself, there’s the social pressure for women not to excel financially. A woman who has a successful career at the expense of being a wife and mother is considered a failure, by too large a portion of the population. That factors in, as well.

      If your daughters are still very young, we might have the system straightened out a little better, by the time they enter it … assuming the Republicans don’t succeed in bringing us back to the 1980′s or earlier, as they’re trying to do.

  17. 17
    Lord Narf

    Oddly enough, that I did not refer to the word bitch? In my understanding of, language, bitch is the female equivalent of bastard. Mr. Baker did not refer to Mr. Perry as a bastard, so I saw no reason to address the term bitch.

    Not even close. A bitch is a female dog. A bastard is an illegitimate child, born out of wedlock.

    You Imply the term “cunt” rises to the level of being called a “nigger”. Come on, were women ever been taken against their will and enslaved?

    Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.

    You really don’t see the irony in your choice of words, do you? Have women ever been taken against their will? You’re seriously asking that? Do I need to pull up rape statistics for you?

    Were they ever enslaved? Are you not aware of the millennia during which women were bought and sold as brides? Hell, that’s still the situation in some countries, like India. Specifically, in India, you have to pay someone to take this worthless person off of your hands, if you want her husband to treat her with anything approaching humanity. Life is hell for a bride without a good dowry.

    As for privilege: it’s been discussed in other comment threads, all over this blog. Here, go read up a bit, and get back to us:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_privilege
    Check out each of the links under Specific Types of Privilege.

    1. 17.1
      And How

      Same comment about the rape as to crazyzz. I don’t see how that is relevant to whether it is any worse to call a female politican you don’t agree with a twat or cunt vs. calling a male politican you don’t agree with a dick or cock.

      I understand your point about these other cultures such as India and I would mention China as well. That said, I wish there was some magic which would allow these other cultures to change immediately and it is extremely difficult to accept. My comments were about American culture.

      You elude in your earlier reply that women politicans are silenced by male legislators in Michigan. First, I would like to say that I understand most legislators in the Michigan legislator are likely male. But, that said aren’t these legislators also lawyers? Maybe, I’m making too many assumptions here, but I would think that trained lawyers would understand what it means to be non-discrinatory. Isn’t it also true lawyers are coming from a profession where over 50% of the graduates are females – you would think they would that these guys would be versed in intelligent debate irrelevant of gender, so involging both men and women by virture of their education. Do you also believe that male doctors treat their female colleagues in similiar manner or is this problem of women being silenced unique to politics or just Michigan politics?

      We are not likely to ever have equal numbers of females in positions of power in either business or politics because I believe that there are more females who are interested in staying home and raising the kids than men who would choose to do so.

      My eyes are open and I believe we are on the brink of having a culture where there is equal opporutnity for men and women and non-discrinatory practices. That is what I want (and see) for my daughters and my son. And there is a saying that helped me establish myself in my career and deal with having no experience and no clients. Sometimes you just have to fake it until you make it, even if things aren’t completely equal we are going to have to just work towards that and keep beating back on these problems. I would suggest your legislators involved in silencing a female colleague be impeached.

      I do understand your point about differing workplaces. I can see where it would be risker for them to go tow work for a small business that did not have clearly defined policies where they may be viewed as nothing more than secretaries. It would be safer for them to work for a large company where the policies are clealy defined or be self-employed.

      Thanks for your reply and I’ll take a look at the link you provided.

      1. Lord Narf

        Same comment about the rape as to crazyzz. I don’t see how that is relevant to whether it is any worse to call a female politican you don’t agree with a twat or cunt vs. calling a male politican you don’t agree with a dick or cock.

        I made no such connection between the abuse of female politicians and your usage of derogatory words that slander women by labeling them as being defined by their genitalia. I’m happy to let you use the word, as long as you know that it makes you look like a dickhead.

        I understand your point about these other cultures such as India and I would mention China as well. That said, I wish there was some magic which would allow these other cultures to change immediately and it is extremely difficult to accept. My comments were about American culture.

        Dude, it’s not just India and China. If you think there’s no discrimination against women, here in America, you’re horribly deluded. We still need another 20 or 30 years for the bigoted old assholes, who are currently at the tops of the ladders, to die off.

        You elude in your earlier reply that women politicans are silenced by male legislators in Michigan. First, I would like to say that I understand most legislators in the Michigan legislator are likely male. But, that said aren’t these legislators also lawyers? Maybe, I’m making too many assumptions here, but I would think that trained lawyers would understand what it means to be non-discrinatory. Isn’t it also true lawyers are coming from a profession where over 50% of the graduates are females – you would think they would that these guys would be versed in intelligent debate irrelevant of gender, so involging both men and women by virture of their education. Do you also believe that male doctors treat their female colleagues in similiar manner or is this problem of women being silenced unique to politics or just Michigan politics?

        http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/brown-kicked-out-for-saying-vagina/index.html

        You have many incorrect assumptions here. Of course most Michigan legislators are male, because the Republican party is currently dominating the state legislature, thanks to grotesque Gerrymandering, just like is happening all over the country. The Republican party is mostly composed of white males, despite their love of waving around their handful of token minorities and women.

        Nowhere near a majority of legislators are lawyers. “Previously, attorneys had been the largest occupational group but that profession has decreased substantially over the last three decades from about 25% in the mid-seventies to only about 15% today.” (from http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/legisdata/legislator-demographics.aspx)

        Funny you should mention doctors. Male doctors are often dismissive, overly-paternal pricks who treat their adult, female patients like little children who aren’t capable of making their own life decisions. It’s better than it was in, say the 50′s, but it’s still pretty bad.

        Surgeons in particular tend to be egregious assholes, in part because of the massive ego necessary to do their job. The one aggressive, prolonged case of sexual harassment that my girlfriend has been subjected to, which could have ended in a significant lawsuit if she was the litigious type, was from a surgeon at the hospital where she worked.

        The situation in Michigan is the only case of that specific flavor of oppression of a legislator, that I’m aware of, but there are many examples of other oppressive behavior in conservative states all over the country. Do you remember the huge blowup over Sandra Fluke? That was a federal incident. She was abused all throughout the conservative media, after she attempted to testify before congress, on what was otherwise an all-male panel of clergy and theologians, speaking about women’s reproductive health. The slut-shaming coming from Limbaugh was the most impressive example, but plenty of others were doing it, too.

        We are not likely to ever have equal numbers of females in positions of power in either business or politics because I believe that there are more females who are interested in staying home and raising the kids than men who would choose to do so.

        You’re very wrong here, too. Given the current college statistics, there should be more women in positions of power than men. There are a lot more women with advanced degrees than there are men.

        http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/a-us-gender-milestone-more-women-have-advanced-degrees-than-men/237913/#

        There aren’t as many women advancing as highly, partially because of sexism in the corporate culture. We still need a lot more of the old-boys at the top to die off.

        My eyes are open and I believe we are on the brink of having a culture where there is equal opporutnity for men and women and non-discrinatory practices.

        You have a very loose definition of ‘brink’.

        1. And How

          I agree with you in another 20 to 30 years that there will less men in America who have bigoted tendancies and things will improve. You sort of summed up what I meant by brink, although you disounted it as a loose remark.

          Your statistics do not address that women drop out of the workforce and go in and out more frequently which effects the resume. I see a lot of woman who are female graduates defeinietly have the potential to become upper management and executives and often they will wed, become preganant and make the decision to drop out of the workplace and raise their children. Women also drop in and out of the workplace which impacts their years of experience and resume. I do not judge their decision at all and in some ways I think raising kids is more difficult that working a career or business.

          I think a lot of surgeons and doctors (especially younger ones) would take great issue with your assessment of their character. I think we need to be careful about the streotyping and gender slamming. I’ll keep my eyes open , right now I have reason to feel optimistic that progress is being made.

          You give men very little credit. Thanks for the reply.

          1. Lord Narf

            Your statistics do not address that women drop out of the workforce and go in and out more frequently which effects the resume. I see a lot of woman who are female graduates defeinietly have the potential to become upper management and executives and often they will wed, become preganant and make the decision to drop out of the workplace and raise their children. Women also drop in and out of the workplace which impacts their years of experience and resume. I do not judge their decision at all and in some ways I think raising kids is more difficult that working a career or business.

            And plenty of women drop out for maternity leave, take a year off, and come right back. They end up paying a career cost for doing so. Allowances need to be made for the biological reality of the situation.

            I think a lot of surgeons and doctors (especially younger ones) would take great issue with your assessment of their character. I think we need to be careful about the streotyping and gender slamming. I’ll keep my eyes open , right now I have reason to feel optimistic that progress is being made.

            My family members and I have been in the medical profession (me only tangentially, being in I.T., often working for medical companies) for years. They all share my opinions. How many doctors and surgeons do you know personally?

            You give men very little credit. Thanks for the reply.

            I look at statistics. Statistically speaking, men are far more likely to be the offender, in a sexual conflict situation.

        2. And How

          Lord Narf, I wanted to say that I appreciate and enjoyed looking at the links you supplied. I am receving the message that you feel I am too naive or optimistic. I want to say also my comments are limited to American culture and only what I am observing in the Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio area and I have some connection to what is going on in other sates as well through news, etc. There are problems, but reasons to be hopeful as well. I see where you acknowledge in your response that things have improved in some areas.

          1. Lord Narf

            Come down to the southeast, sometime. It’s a whole different world. The southern Midwest and southwest are also a lot more misogynistic, culturally speaking.

          2. And How

            Lord Narf:

            If you have time I was wondering whether you could answer something for me.

            Which states are the southeast? Is this Florida, Georgia, etc.

            I think I know what you mean about southern midwest being Kentucky, Tennesse, Arkansas

            Southwest? Which states are those, because by the time you get to California my impression is that misogyny is overly pervasive.

          3. Lord Narf

            It’s all a bit of a blur, with wide boundaries. Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana are southeast. Tennessee and Kentucky are boundaries. I’m not as sure about Tennessee. Virginia and North Carolina are boundaries. North Carolina is about to get a lot worse, with the new Republican governor. That’s one of the reasons I’m planning on moving.
            You start hitting the southwest at Texas. Then there’s New Mexico and Arizona. Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, and Nevada are … I dunno. What’s the west and what’s the southwest?
            Once you hit the Pacific states, you’re in another area entirely.
            I’m not sure how in the hell I would group Arkansas.

  18. 18
    Jacob Schmidt

    I was gonna respond to every point, but holy christ, I’m not dealing with that whole wall of text.

    You Imply the term “cunt” rises to the level of being called a “nigger”. Come on, were women ever been taken against their will and enslaved?

    Sold as brides, sold as prostitutes, being unable to divorce their abusive and rapist husbands…

    You state that it is reprehensible to refer to a woman as a “cunt” or “twat” implying that is somehow far worse than calling a man a “dick” or “cock”.

    I did not imply it, I stated it outright. Calling a women a cunt or twat of slut or bitch is worse than calling a man a dick or a cock. I’ve already explained why. So has Jasper. So has Narf (sorry Narf, I recognize no Lord).

    I cunt (sorry typo) can’t even imagine twat (sorry typo again)…

    You realize that some children have already outgrown this kinda thing, right?

    I am not the authoritative dicitionary on vulgar slang, but I don’t see the difference in referring to a man as a dick vs. referring to a woman as a cunt. They are the same as bitch and bastard to me.

    I’ve literally explained this to you 3 separate times.

    Do I understand the privlege difference between men and women? I said that I did not see it with this female politican and still don’t.

    How could you see it, really? How would you know what discrimination she’s faced? And why does this even matter when the issue is that the word is used by others to dehumanize other women besides this particular women. Legitimizing the language they use to do so only helps them along. That’s 4 times now.

    I also said that even if it does exist, she gets no pass from me if she has the power to influence the laws we all have to live by. I stand by all that.

    Irrelevant. See above.

    Priviledge difference. I have never even heard of that term, so I googled it. No, I do not recognize a priviledge difference which exists today between men and women in the United States. If there is one, please enlighten me.

    Here’s one: I also said that I do recognize differences in the way men and women are treated as it relates to reproductive rights issues in the State of Texas in that I would assume a man would not be required to jump through those types of hoops when having a vasectomry.

    The household rules and priviledges are the same for all. i see no evidence that our our nation’s laws protect men and women eqaully.

    Household duties are not shared equally between men and women.

    I understand that women are treated like second class citizens and still considred proprty in some parts of the world.

    In all parts of the world. Bullshit policies pushed by asshats like Perry make women second class citizens.

    That said, I see no evidence that it is some big problem in the US today.

    Your inability to see it right in the OP is not evidence that it’s not there.

    As I stated, I believe our words matter I beleive you feel we should draw the line on insults used against politicans to exclude private part gender remarks in that you had a problem with Mr. Perry being nominated as “dick” of the year.. If I remember right you were okay with the use of other gender reference vulgar slang insults like bastard or gender neutral like asshole.

    Yes. Insults are awesome in general. My issue of using genitals as insults is that it places some seeming importance on the fact that this person has a penis or vagina. This sort of weird obsession with genitals makes many transgender people uncomfortable. Also, using gendered slurs in general just seems in bad taste to me, but that’s just me.

    Next, your comments about rape. How is rape relevant to this discussion?

    Words like “bitch” and “cunt” enable the dehumanzation of women. It’s part of why rape is so prevalent

    I realize there are crazy, psychophant males out there who inject all kinds of unspeakable harm and abuse women.

    It’s not just crazy men. Many men treat women in demeaning was. Words like “bitch” and “cunt” enable this.

    But here is a news flash for you, there are crazy, psycho females out there who are abusive to men as well.

    True. Again, it’s not crazy women. And they are not enabled by dehumanizing slurs.

    If you were a flesh and blood person in my life, I would care what you thought, but this is the internet and I’m just bouncing some ideas around. I’ve taken something productive away from conversing with you, thank you for your time and am signing off on this topic.

    Good to know you have the privilege to treat this as “just the internet.” The women that suffer from people throwing around these slurs do not.

    1. 18.1
      And How

      I can’t know for sure, but you and I actually probably agree on more than we disagree. Yes, I look at the internet as bouncing ideas with an open mind. It is not like we are standing in a public forum or courtroom.

      I am going to try another approach with this cock, dick vs. twat, cunt business. If my female neighbor got really made at me for blocking her in the driveway and she decided to solve the problem by knocking on my door and she said “Listen, Dickhead and launch into the problem. Here is what I can assure you will be my reply. “Twat, get off my porch and come back when you can be civil”. She gets no pass from me. If my wife hears the altercation…..cunt, bitch and some other words will be thrown in as well. In my use of vulgar slang they are analagous terms. This neighbor lady who decides to handle the situation in that manner will be treated no differently than the male neighbor who knocks on my door and calls me a dickhead, although he is more likely to be called an asshole. If the theoretical lady who was mad called me an asshole, then she would be called an asshole in kind. I concede the point, that if Mr. Perry was Mrs. Perry and Mr. Baker nominated her for “Cunt of the Year” that because women are in midst of the gaining equality that it is more inappropriate. I really like Don Baker and have watched a lot of his work on the Atehist Experience, but I will say there was too much gender slamming in his article for me on this one.

      If this theoretical front porch incident were to occur and the lady does get referred to as a twat or cunt, the following will not happen. 1. I am not going to rape you or feel the urge to beat her. 2. I won’t develop the urge to rape or beat another woman 3. If I tell all the other guys on my street what happened, they are not going to start raping or beating women 4. Nor would it have be viewied as an insult to all women past and present.

      You suggest the term dick is harmless? Let’s say same thing happen and you knock on my door and I am a crazy guy and you call him a dick and either him or his wife is crazy we’ll say. Likely, a brawl will ensue, a really “crazy” person might pull a gun. But yet you say the word “dick” is just a simple harmless term. Call a crazy woman a twat, you might get a really nasty, not just verbal battle. Our words do have mean and words can potentially produce unintended reaction and dilute our messages.

      To make your point about these words, present problems, past problems are brought into the discussion. We travled to India and I threw in China to demonstrate how women have been deligitizmed at the expense of men. Selectively, we leave out more progressive cultures like Sweden, Denmark, and I would assume you would at least agree the United States is making progress.

      I am going to touch on “nature” vs. “nuture”. I do not believe that men by their “nature” are wired to rape, hold people as slaves, nor do they view women as less than equals. I believe it actually takes a lot of time, socialization by parents and culture reinforcement to produce such men. I also believe it is very hard to reverse the conditioning and socialization we receive as children.

      My heart bleeds for those young ladies in those countries that are being brutalzied. That said, it bleeds as much for the innocent boys who are conditioned in the madras, raised to be “warriors” are dead at 16 figting for beliefs that were not their own. These boys also never get to experience life and a chance at hapiness. They are raised to be little more than a step above an animal. They are just as brutalized and dead inside as the young ladies in those cultures. That said, there is also the issue of mental disorders and there are people who have brain disorders, that cause some of the chaos in the world and I don’t see every situation where someone is abusive as being a result of culture, parenting and socialization and we touched on that we talked about there are crazy men and crazy women..

      I think we need to be careful about too much male bashing. Men are not the enemy, it is the cultural norms and attitutudes and these are not simplistic issues. I think we need to be careful about blaming current generations for sins of the past or associating other cultural practices as if they are our own.

      We can change. People in the 40′s hated the Japs. How many anti Japanese people do you know?

      1. katenrala

        It’s neurotypicals who must take the blame for the destruction they cause each other, as it is you’re nature to harm fellow life. Quit pinning it on “crazy” people who are victimized by neurotypicals as well and in vast numbers.

        And yeah, men and male persons are the enemy so long as they continue their oppression of women, not-men, and female and intersexed persons.

        1. And How

          Katerala:

          I appreciate your reply, I am not familiar with the term neurotypical. I looked it up and think I understand.

          Do you not believe that sometimes people with mental illenss act out and cause hard, an extrmeme example would be school shootings?

          I believe we all need to work together to better our culture, but I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you that men are the enemy of women, not-men (not familiar with term) and intersexed persons.
          I will agree with that SOME men might have a sexist or bigoted attitude towards the classes you mention. There will also be some women who will be bigoted against those classes you mention. Sometimes, people can be self-loathing and they think others are against them and they really aren’t.

    2. 18.2
      Lord Narf

      So has Narf (sorry Narf, I recognize no Lord).

      I AM THE LORD!

      ^.^

      (I dunno, was that recognizable as a Judge Dredd derivation?)

      1. Jacob Schmidt

        Not sure if you’ve ever played Baldur’s Gate, but I read that like this. Unfortunately it’s a bad example.

    3. 18.3
      Jacob Schmidt

      I can’t know for sure, but you and I actually probably agree on more than we disagree.

      Probably. I may not have conveyed this, (in fact, looking back I almost certainly didn’t) but my insults toward you are specific to this issue only. I did not mean them as a total indictment of your character.

      If this theoretical front porch incident were to occur and the lady does get referred to as a twat or cunt, the following will not happen. 1. I am not going to rape you or feel the urge to beat her. 2. I won’t develop the urge to rape or beat another woman 3. If I tell all the other guys on my street what happened, they are not going to start raping or beating women 4. Nor would it have be viewied as an insult to all women past and present.

      Ok. 1-3 are all irrelevant. I didn’t suggest that any of that would happen. As for 4, well, no. But you are legitimizing the language used to oppress those women, past and present.

      You suggest the term dick is harmless?

      I actually didn’t. I’m not sure why you think I did.

      Our words do have mean and words can potentially produce unintended reaction and dilute our messages.

      One of those unintended results of using sexist slurs like “bitch” is to reinforce a culture that dehumanizes women.

      I am going to touch on “nature” vs. “nuture”. I do not believe that men by their “nature” are wired to rape, hold people as slaves, nor do they view women as less than equals. I believe it actually takes a lot of time, socialization by parents and culture reinforcement to produce such men. I also believe it is very hard to reverse the conditioning and socialization we receive as children.

      Words like “bitch” and “cunt” are part of the nurturing that produces men that beat women. This is why they should be removed.

      That said, there is also the issue of mental disorders and there are people who have brain disorders, that cause some of the chaos in the world and I don’t see every situation where someone is abusive as being a result of culture, parenting and socialization and we touched on that we talked about there are crazy men and crazy women.

      Yes. Mental disorders exist and they can contribute to the poor treatment of others. The fact of the matter is, a sexist culture, of which words like “bitch” are part, enables the abuse of women. Whether a mental disorder is a factor is not relevant, even if the majority of cases were driven by it. Culture is definitely a factor, and we should work to mitigate it.

      I think we need to be careful about too much [1] male bashing. Men are not the enemy, it is the cultural norms and attitutudes and these are not [2] simplistic issues. I think we need to be careful about blaming [3] current generations for sins of the past or associating other cultural practices as if they are our own.

      1) I’ve never done this, nor have I seen any in this thread. Please point it out to me if it’s happened.
      2) Some aspects of the issue are.
      3) We are guilty of some past transgressions. Slut shaming, the gate keeping and demonization of simple medical procedures and sexists slurs come to mind.

      We can change. People in the 40′s hated the Japs. How many anti Japanese people do you know?

      Too many.

      1. And How

        So, what are you saying. We can’t change, seems cynical.

        You say, I am still legitimizing the language used to opress women? No, I am not. I am responding to this lady calling me a dickhead with the equivalent vulgar term. If that happens, “twat” is coming her way. I don’t agree with you that the word itself condones in any way the oppression of women.

        You did say that using the word cunt is far worse and not that dick is harmless. I’ve already conceded your point that in the female of nominating the female politican. I do not concede your assertion that in the context of the theoretical incident I gave above an angry female knocks on my door and calls me a dick that if she is called a twat that is worse. .

        I find it interesting that you didn’t address all the young men who are raised to become warrior instead of civil men and I think you imply that some of this is simple. More men have died in battle in man and woman’s journey to be civilized. Did the females have any hand at all or were they just along for the ride getting raped and brutalized.

        You say words like bitch and cunt lead to rape. No, in fact they don’t. It is not the words themselves – those are simply words and have nothing to do with it at all. Bitch could just as easily mean hot dog and cunt mean ketchup. Can you imagine. I go to the ball park concession stand and say – Could I have one bitch with cunt? Now, come on you have to admit that is just a little funny. But I understand that those are such loaded words for you that you won’t. But my point is they are really just words.

        Women can be predators as well. I work closesly with Human Resources with my job. Last year, 4 sexual harrassment complaints leading to termination. 2 were men harrassing females. 2 were females harrasing males. If women were capable of raping men, I believe it is not out of the realm of possibilites that could occur.

        I was hoping you would address my point about how little boys are socialized in these other cultures. We are a species of male and female. You dodge the point, why? Do you believe men by their nature, are just a bunch of knuckle dragging neanderthals? Do you think women have anything at all to do with producing men who go war, rape and murder? What are the root reasons these things occur? If we don’t frame the problem correctly, it will only be solved if we are extremely lucky (which is highly unlikely). We need to understand a problem to solve it.

        As far as male bashing, no you have not male bashed. But I’m seeing it with the stereo typing and over simplifications from other posters.

        1. katenrala

          When a person who is of a privileged position in society uses certain slurs against those who are underprivileged in the same society, the result is not equal. Society backs you up as the privilege individual while you freely get to ignore whatever the other person says as they do not hold power over you.

          The other person is unable to dismiss your remarks so easily as they are coming from a person with real power over themselves, and these slurs have violent histories attached to them for the marginalized group, as members of their group have been attacked, imprisoned, murdered, by those who say such slurs. The slurs are a reminder of the hate and terrorism they endure from the privileged groups.

          1. And How

            I repectfully disagree with some of what your reply.

            I am a white male and if I make a racist comment in front of a group of white people of any significant number, here is what is going to happen.

            1) I will NOT be backed up and people will very quickly tell me that racist remarks are not appropriate. If i do it at work I will lose my job. Now I am not saying there aren’t individual bigots and maybe there are pockets of people that are still like this but it isn’t like this where I live or among the people I associate with. You are making a very sweeping statement when you say “society” backs me up.

            Next, If I make a sexist remark in front of a group of men or women or mixed of any size, here is what is going to happen

            2) I will Not be backed up and I will very quickly be told that my sexist remarks are not appropriate. If I do something like this at work, I will be fired. And again, I am not saying there aren’t individual bigots and pockets of people that are still like this but it isn’t like this where I live or among the people I associate with and again I would argue you are making a very sweeping statement saying society would back me up.

            I can’t speak for ALL white men, but when someone tells me that I have said something offensive, I do not freely ignore because we are talking about another human being.

            The rest of what you said makes perfect sense.

          2. Lord Narf

            I will NOT be backed up and people will very quickly tell me that racist remarks are not appropriate.

            I will Not be backed up and I will very quickly be told that my sexist remarks are not appropriate.

            I would qualify those statements by saying that that would be the case, if you made those comments about a non-privileged classification. If you made sexist, racist comments about white men, particularly in jest, it could be received quite well.
            It depends upon degree and context, of course.

      2. Jacob Schmidt

        So, what are you saying. We can’t change, seems cynical.

        Literally did not say this anywhere. I’m saying we should change. Why would I say that if I thought we couldn’t? And, in any case, cynicism is not grounds for rejection.

        You say, I am still legitimizing the language used to opress women? No, I am not. I am responding to this lady calling me a dickhead with the equivalent vulgar term. If that happens, “twat” is coming her way. I don’t agree with you that the word itself condones in any way the oppression of women.

        Finally. A response to the actual main point of all of this. It’d be nice if it wasn’t just you asserting that you’re right without any sort of argument. What if it was a black women on your doorstep? Would you call her “nigger”? You are legitimizing the language. You’re saying it’s perfectly OK to use these words. That’s legitimizing.

        I find it interesting that you didn’t address all the young men who are raised to become warrior instead of civil men and I think you imply that some of this is simple.

        Those young men aren’t relevant. I find it deplorable that such things happen, but it has nothing to do with the current discussion.

        More men have died in battle in man and woman’s journey to be civilized. Did the females have any hand at all or were they just along for the ride getting raped and brutalized.

        Tell me, what’s the ratio of influential men to influential women, historically?

        You say words like bitch and cunt lead to rape.

        No I didn’t. Where did I say this? Please quote me on it if I have. I said those words enable rape, not that they lead to it. No, it’s not the same thing.

        Bitch could just as easily mean hot dog and cunt mean ketchup. Can you imagine. I go to the ball park concession stand and say – Could I have one bitch with cunt? Now, come on you have to admit that is just a little funny. But I understand that those are such loaded words for you that you won’t. But my point is they are really just words.

        Are you just screwing with me now? If they are just words, why did you get upset when I called you an ignorant shitbag? The “just words” argument is a ridiculous argument.

        Women can be predators as well. I work closesly with Human Resources with my job. Last year, 4 sexual harrassment complaints leading to termination. 2 were men harrassing females. 2 were females harrasing males. If women were capable of raping men, I believe it is not out of the realm of possibilites that could occur.

        Oh, men are raped by women sometimes. Nowhere near to the extant that men rape women, though. Part of this is because of a dehumanizing culture.

        I was hoping you would address my point about how little boys are socialized in these other cultures. We are a species of male and female. You dodge the point, why?

        Show me a culture where boys are raised to be warriors and I’ll show you a culture where women are barely a step above property. Hell, the most prominent was Sparta, where women were literally claimed as wives by being raped.

        Do you believe men by their nature, are just a bunch of knuckle dragging neanderthals?

        Why do you think I might? I’ve said nothing bad about men once among my 12+ posts. You even admit this. Do you expect me too just because I argue against sexist slurs?

        Do you think women have anything at all to do with producing men who go war, rape and murder?

        I think women’s influence on the matter was much less than men’s influence. After all, it was male dominated cultures and the assumption of feminine weakness that fostered such attitudes. Hell, even now in the US there are fewer women in the military, despite generations of feminists fighting for equality. With women having to fight just to get in the military, do you honestly think the blame is 50/50 split?
        What are the root reasons these things occur?

        I don’t know. Discrimination and sexism are a major part of it, though.

        As far as male bashing, no you have not male bashed. But I’m seeing it with the stereo typing and over simplifications from other posters.

        From Narf? Narf’s the only other poster who’s addressed this topic at any length. Please quote these stereotypes and oversimplifications, ’cause I don’t see them.

        1. And How

          Thanks for the reply, I want you to understand that I understand about the dangers of men referring to women with the words we are discussing and completely get it. That said, if a white neighbor knocks on my door and provokes me without really good cause and calls me a dickhead, twat or bitch is heading her way. If a black woman knocks on my door and is the same situation, twat of bitch is also heading her direction. I would NEVER refer to a black lady as a Nigger, that is too loaded of a word, and I’ve decided CUNT is also not an analalagous repsonse in this situation. CUNT is also in English a very loaded word.

          My head is starting to spin, so I don’t want to address every point, but would like to ask you about something that has me the most curious to hear your reply.

          I would like to propose a theoretical:

          If there had been a 100% females queens steering this crazy ship of human evolution and if families would have been matriarchial do you believe that the queens who ruled would have prevented all the shitty stuff from happening (slavery, bondage of women, men killed in wars over land) ?

          Specifically,

          Would females have been able to manage things in such a way there would have been no wars at all? .

          Assuming the answer to #1 is NO, could you also comment on the following:

          Do you think is it possible that women would have still been sold as brides,taken as slaves, sold as prostitutes etc because the queens would have just considered it spoils of war?

          Would women have been raised to be warriors?

          Do you think female queens would have forbidden peoples from conquered territories to be taken as slaves?

          Finally, if the females had steered this ship would everything just have remained calm and no conflict or terrible things would have happened and we would be standing here today with our daisies in hand singing “We are the World” ? This one is meant to be funny, but I think you understand what I am asking.

          Is there any grain of truth to the adage of “She who rocks the cradle, rules the world”?

        2. Jacob Schmidt

          I would NEVER refer to a black lady as a Nigger, that is too loaded of a word, and I’ve decided CUNT is also not an analalagous repsonse in this situation. CUNT is also in English a very loaded word.

          I’m not sure what you’re saying. You’re admitting that “cunt” is loaded, but you seem to be saying it’s ok to say anyway. In any case, we have to recognize that our intent is not magic, and the doorstep incident does not exist in a vacuum. This women was likely called cunt before; possibly by an abusive boyfriend or husband, or simply by some douchbag at a bar who got mad when she wouldn’t sleep with him on the spot. By calling her cunt, you are bringing up those incidents. Those incidents are what decide the weight behind the word. What it means to you does not really matter. What it means to her is what’s important.

          Even if that particular women has no problem with the term, many do. Many are harmed by it’s use. We should not, in any circumstance, legitimize it’s use. To do so legitimizes the dehumanizing culture women have to live with.

          Also, it’s not for you to decide that the word is loaded. It is. You can recognize it, or you can ignore it. The decision is out of your hands. I assume you’re simply deciding for yourself, but it does not read that way. To me at least.

          If there had been a 100% females queens steering this crazy ship of human evolution and if families would have been matriarchial do you believe that the queens who ruled would have prevented all the shitty stuff from happening (slavery, bondage of women, men killed in wars over land) ?

          No. I think the tragedies the befell each gender would change, but the tragedies would remain.

          Specifically, Would females have been able to manage things in such a way there would have been no wars at all? .

          Absolutely not. I’m not proposing women are some magical peaceful creature that are better than men. I’m saying that we live in a culture that dehumanizes women.

          Assuming the answer to #1 is NO, could you also comment on the following:

          Do you think is it possible that women would have still been sold as brides, taken as slaves, sold as prostitutes etc because the queens would have just considered it spoils of war?

          I don’t know. I do know that men have been historically sold as slaves. Likely prostitutes as well, in some limited ways. The question should not be “would they be sold as slaves?” It should be “would they be sold as brides, prostitutes and slaves to the same extant they have been?” The answer is almost certainly no.

          Would women have been raised to be warriors?

          Maybe. Or maybe men would still be raised as warriors and soldiers would simply be relegated to a lower class.

          Do you think female queens would have forbidden peoples from conquered territories to be taken as slaves?

          No.

          Finally, if the females had steered this ship would everything just have remained calm and no conflict or terrible things would have happened and we would be standing here today with our daisies in hand singing “We are the World” ? This one is meant to be funny, but I think you understand what I am asking.

          No.

          Is there any grain of truth to the adage of “She who rocks the cradle, rules the world”?

          No. Women have been relegated to “rocking cradles” for thousands of years. Unless you’re going to assume it’s their fault their stuck with this dehumanizing culture, it cannot possibly be said that, as a group, they “rule the world”. I’m not sure where this adage comes from, but it makes no sense given the history of the matter.

          You have to recognize that language affects our thoughts. That link does not deal with this issue explicitly, but it does demonstrate that labels enable us to put things and people into boxes. Labels will enable these stereotypes to exist, and these stereotypes are harmful to women.

          1. And How

            Here is what I’ve come up with after all these posts regarding the front porch incident.

            I was thinking under the an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth justification that if a woman lodges a gender slur towards me then I am justified to throw right back at her an analagous gender slur. And my logic was saying dickhead or cockhead = twat.

            I’ve decided that for me I would apply the moral code of two wrongs do not make a right to this theoretical situation. It would be wrong for a woman to use a gender slur against me and it would be just as wrong for me to use one against her.

            Appreciate your help on this matter.

          2. And How

            I’d like to share some thoughts on your reply.

            #1. I agree. Of couse, this is entirely speculation, but I am not sure the tragedies that befell each gender would be drastically different. Do you believe women in charge would have been as imperialistic as the kings? Would there have been fewer wars?

            #2. I agree.

            #3. Ok. I am curious as to why you believe that the extend of selling men, women and children would have been less.

            #4. I believe that with primitive peoples that women were involved in the battles. But, I believe that as modern man progressed that only the men would have gone to war. The biological realities are that men are 2.5 times on average in upper body strength than a female (women are 95% to men on lower body). Because men are on average larger and the effects of testosterone men can run faster, throw harder, etc. Since, battles were fought hand to hand, and men were physically stronger, faster, could throw harder they would have gone. With modern war machinery, there is no reason women cannot be soldiers.

            #5. I agree.

            #6. I agree.

            #7. I think the adage might be “THE hand that rocks the cradle, rules the world”. I can think of a lot of different ways that this could be interpreted. I gave it to you as “She who rocks the cradle, rules the wold” and you believe it to mean I’m trying to imply women are born to be mothers. I agree with your thoughts here.

          3. Jacob Schmidt

            It would be wrong for a woman to use a gender slur against me and it would be just as wrong for me to use one against her.

            I’m glad you think it’s wrong but… jesus fuck, no. The two terms are not equal. That’s the whole point of all of this. Yes, gendered slurs are wrong in general, but not all slurs are equal.

            Please, tell me, given the difference in history and current application (“cunt’ and “bitch” used to dehumanize while “dick” is merely an insult) how they could be equal.

            Do you believe women in charge would have been as imperialistic as the kings? Would there have been fewer wars?

            Yes and no. Imperialism and wars are a human thing, not a male thing.

            The biological realities are that men are 2.5 times on average in upper body strength than a female (women are 95% to men on lower body).

            Citation needed.

          4. And How

            You are all over the place with this dick, cock, cock, twat business. First you were arguing against gendered slurs and I agreed with you and we went through all these posts and you explained how use of the word and its history and I said ok.

            Now, you want me to accept that the current use of the word dick could not create an equally harmful mindset against men. I am a guy and I do not want to be strereotyped in this manner. I have seen some very sweeping statements on here that I simply reject. The males in the boardrooms today with females – just a bunch of dicks. Surgeons – another bunch of dicks. The males in the Michigan lesislature – another bunch of dicks. Keeping using that word over and over again and guess, and men are dehumanized the same way that you argue females have.

            We want to do this slamming against men because it’s okay for me to do it because I am a guy or because of this priviledge thing I keep seeing pop up. Sorry, I am not buying it and I am not sending my daughters out into the world saying the men are out to get you honey, nor am I sending my son out into the workplace saying the women are just there to be your servant. This is not the 50′s or the 60′s and people realize that.

            Here is the reality:

            Some male surgeons are bigoted against women, some male surgeons are bigoted against other men, some female surgeons are bigoted against men, and some female sugeons are bigoted against other females. Finally, some male and felmale surgeons treat everyone the same and believe decisions, promotions, etc. should occur based on merits and resume. I believe in the latter.

            And I guess we can go on and on throwing in sexual preferences and everything else. The stereotyping is dangerous and not accurate.

            In our other exercise we were going through, I think we were at least heading towards a place where you and I agreed that male and female nature is such that had queens been in charge we’d probably still have the same problems. That is good to know.

          5. And How

            I forgot to say in my earlier posts that some male surgeons are bigoted against men and women colleagues because they might have the type of narcissistic personality that only allows the to think of themselves and have no concept of how their actions affect others.

  19. 19
    Valde

    Women are still enslaved around the world. With little to no rights. Kidnapped at the age 12, forced to bear children, to cook and to clean, and beaten if they do not obey.

    Life is better for women in the USA, but they are still not considered 100% equal.

  20. 20
    Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat)

    Although there is a privilege differential between men and women (men are largely privileged in society) referring to one’s genitals as an insult infers that those in possession of said genitals are inherently bad.

    Example: calling a person a “pussy” is a way to say they’re weak, passive, and uncourageous. It infers that the possession of said characteristics is in some way similar to a vagina, or to the possessor of said vagina. It states that one is ‘unmanly’ if they do possess those characteristics, and it reduces a person to genitals that are inferred to be bad.

    “Dick,” “twat,” “cunt,” all these are bad for the same reason, as are other slurs like “bitch” and “slut.”

    I tend to use much more colorful, creative terminology for when I’m finding fault with someone. I’ve been rather fond of the term “jackhole” lately.

    1. 20.1
      Tax

      Jack is a mans name, Jackhole from my perspective is basically saying “manhole” and is no different. Asshat in the same way degrades a part of the human anatomy, and therefore implies that humans in general are bad.

      I don’t think it’s as easy to avoid using gendered insults as you think it is. Almost all insults I’ve ever heard are linked to part of the human anatomy. I suppose we could just start calling people we don’t like “shits,” but from my experience that’s far less socially acceptable than any of the terms we’ve talked about thus far.

      1. Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat)

        @Tax:

        Well, humans are kinda bad in general. Generally we’re petty, arrogant, self-serving, mean, and spiteful. That we are capable of changing and acting in opposition to that is impressive.

        And gendered insults are precisely those which only one gender shares – although technically they should be called sex-based insults since gender is a social construct and sex is biological but I digress. So it’s easy enough to avoid. Calling someone an asshole – while yes reducing them to a part of their body – is not the same as calling someone a dick – since everyone has an asshole (I hope o.o) and only 49% of the population (IIRC) have dicks.

        (Also, asshat is just funny cause I’ve heard the etymology explained as such – they’ve got their head so far up their rectum they’re wearing their ass for a hat.)

        1. Tax

          I’m going to have to disagree with you about humans being bad. I think nearly all of the particularly negative aspects of humanity are only such a problem that people feel this way because of the ass backwards way we’ve chosen to organize our society.

          Particularly the whole notion that greed is good laid the framework for creating incentive structures that motivate people to do things that are counter-productive to our goals as a society. As a society were not comfortable with a lot of nuance or moral ambiguity. So the idea that a desire to have more, or for things to be better for yourself, is not understood by a lot of people as being distinctly different from a desire to have these things regardless of what it does for or to other people.

          This lack of nuance is particularly obvious in our political discourse, where we pretend that the only economic models that exist are free market capitalism (which isn’t really a particular thing but this isn’t understood by people that don’t study economics in depth) or Marxsim (which isn’t a specific thing, but this also isn’t understood by the general public).

          There is a lot of study that indicates that people are naturally very empathetic to the problems of others, and that willingness to use violence and lack of empathy are traits that have to be developed. I realize this is a huge tangent for a small comment, but I believe that the view that humans are generally bad is harmful to society.

        2. And How

          I really enjoyed this discouse, you both make excellent points.

          Figure this one out and you’ve won yorself the nobel peace priz for sure. I believe as they learn more about brain anatomy they’ll be some more inroads on this question.

        3. Lord Narf

          (Also, asshat is just funny cause I’ve heard the etymology explained as such – they’ve got their head so far up their rectum they’re wearing their ass for a hat.)

          In the NPR episode that digressed into the subject, I like the one derivation they came up with: sphincter-fedora.

      2. Jacob Schmidt

        “Jackhole” comes from “jackass,” not the name Jack. Also, Jack is a common diminutive for Jacqueline.

        Ooh, “jackass.” There’s another good one not based on genitalia.

        Sorry. I’ll stop posting so much.

        1. Tax

          What have you got against donkeys cray?

          1. Jacob Schmidt

            Got kicked by one as a child. Now they all must pay.

    2. 20.2
      Lord Narf

      Although there is a privilege differential between men and women (men are largely privileged in society) referring to one’s genitals as an insult infers that those in possession of said genitals are inherently bad.

      … which is why I only use genitalia-based insults in reference to men, yes. ^.^

      I’m male. I’m allowed to be a misandrist.

  21. 21
    jacobfromlost

    I noticed many more posts on this thread than I did a week ago, so thought I would read the many erudite responses to Don’s critique of Rick Perry. lol

    The only point I have is that some of these words have different connotations in different English speaking countries.

    So don’t “root” for your favorite team in Australia.

    (Also, the easiest way to get people to continually say something over and over again is to tell them not to say it.)

    1. 21.1
      And How

      Too funny ! And isn’t it true that in Australian people frequently refer to beloved females like their grandmother as cunts. I’ve said the words dick, cock, cunt and twat so many times disucssing this subject I think I’ve developed full blown Tourette’s. I typically probably only cuss about once a month and it is shit or damn.

      1. katenrala

        Stop being ableist CuriousGeorge. It’s not funny, and the realities of disabled people are not your punchline.

        1. And How

          Had to look that one up. You are right, mental health issures are not funny at all Won’t happen again.

  22. 22
    Jackie, all dressed in black

    Please, no more gendered slurs.

    1. 22.1
      Lord Narf

      You’re a little late to the discussion. Read the rest of the comments.

  23. 23
    mike

    @jackiepaper

    I for one prefer gendered insults so to each his/her own!

    Rick Perry is definitely a Dick and then some, he’s a Dickhead!!

    Well said Don.

  24. 24
    Jackie, all dressed in black

    Narf, I read it. I’ve read all that crap before. This isn’t new and the privileged apologists have nothing new to say. Gender based insults are no different from racist or ablest insults. Please, let’s stop using them.

    Mike, it is not a matter of “to each his/her own”. The bigotry is blatantly and factually there. If you want to use racist speech, I suppose that is your prerogative. It is mine to rightly call you out for racist speech and ask that you stop. Why? Because racist and sexist speech create an atmosphere that is chilly to the disadvantaged and makes bigots feel welcomed and vindicated. If you tell, laugh at or defend “rape jokes” You are enabling rape culture. If you feed into the sexism in our culture and use gendered insults you are contributing to a real problem. It really is not hard to grasp. So please, just stop.

    1. 24.1
      Lord Narf

      Then you’ve read my comments about being free to use them against my own groupings, and why I have no intention of stopping doing so.

    2. 24.2
      And How

      Lord Narf:

      I want to say again I am on here trying to learn something and bounce ideas around. But, in my opinion, your comment about the few females that claw their way into the corporate boardrooms of America was the most sexist comment on this topic. It was sexist against BOTH men and women.

      First, you wholesale the men in the boardrooms of America as being a bunch of sexists and then you imply that a woman who makes it to that level would 1. put up with it and 2. somehow be of a personality type that men would acutally bully her. This is not ture.

      The women who make it to the boardrooms of corporate America are highly intelligent, very well educated, confident, great strategic thinkers, and are mentally tough. These are women who not only get respect, the COMMAND respect through their accomplishments and hard work.

      I also believe that in modern America the misogynists bigots you describe who cannot work with women and treat them as PEERS and fellow colleagues I won”t say always (but usually) they don’t make it.

      Call men gendered slang terms if you want, but let’s be careful about the stereotyping.

      1. Lord Narf

        First, you wholesale the men in the boardrooms of America as being a bunch of sexists and then you imply that a woman who makes it to that level would 1. put up with it and 2. somehow be of a personality type that men would acutally bully her. This is not ture.

        Two words: Susan Rice.
        She got fucked, and she took it, for whatever her personal reasons were.

        The women who make it to the boardrooms of corporate America are highly intelligent, very well educated, confident, great strategic thinkers, and are mentally tough. These are women who not only get respect, the COMMAND respect through their accomplishments and hard work.

        Which doesn’t say anything about the ones who aren’t allowed into those boardrooms, because of the sexist culture, or the ones who are drummed out by the greater numbers of misogynistic assholes who are also in that boardroom. It’s getting less common, but it still happens.

        Your statements make it sound like no CEO’s and board members are ever scapegoated and driven out, for things that had nothing to do with them. This happens for all sorts of reasons. Being a woman can be one of them.

        I also believe that in modern America the misogynists bigots you describe who cannot work with women and treat them as PEERS and fellow colleagues I won”t say always (but usually) they don’t make it.

        And you’re allowed to maintain your skewed perspective of corporate America.
        And we’re allowed to point out how silly and skewed your perspective of corporate America is.

        Yes, the new guard coming into the corporate board rooms are less misogynistic than the old guard, but there are still a lot of ultra-conservative, white men in their 60′s and 70′s who think that that uppity woman needs to go take care of someone’s house and raise his children, as she should be doing.

        Call men gendered slang terms if you want, but let’s be careful about the stereotyping.

        There’s a difference between summarizing what’s happening in a large number of boardrooms around the country and stereotyping, as you mean it. Or, to put it another way, stereotyping is only bad if you’re inaccurate and if you use that stereotype as a template for how you treat everyone, regardless of individual variation.

        If you’re using stereotypes (which I don’t accept as a fair label for my statements about the situation) as a way to point out a systemic problem, it’s quite different.

        1. And How

          I stand behind what I said. Your comments about women in the board rooms of America being abused by men was a sexist remark against both women and men.

          You do at least acknowledge that hardcore bigots are likely to be 60 to 70 years old. If this is the case, these are men who are so high up the ladder they are not hiring new management and are appointing very few executives also.

          Women who make it to the board rooms of America are a force to be reckoned with and I’ll assure they aren’t serving coffee to the good old boys. Guess what, sometimes she might serve the coffee and guess what it is just as likely the men might serve the coffee to them.

          These are well educated professional people.

          Thank you for your reply.

          1. Lord Narf

            I stand behind what I said. Your comments about women in the board rooms of America being abused by men was a sexist remark against both women and men.

            Bullshit. I don’t think you know what the word means.

            You do at least acknowledge that hardcore bigots are likely to be 60 to 70 years old. If this is the case, these are men who are so high up the ladder they are not hiring new management and are appointing very few executives also.

            More likely to be, yes. We still get misogynists who were trained to be so by their fathers and grandfathers. It takes a great deal of social pressure to iron out that last 10% or 20%. Fraternities are doing a lot to keep up the small percentage of dickheads who make it out of the current collegiate climate with their misogyny intact.

            Women who make it to the board rooms of America are a force to be reckoned with and I’ll assure they aren’t serving coffee to the good old boys. Guess what, sometimes she might serve the coffee and guess what it is just as likely the men might serve the coffee to them.

            Oh, sure, you get that tiny percentage. I’m not worried about them. Joan of Arc did okay for herself, although she still got burned at the stake. That 0.001% will do okay, for the most part, in any social climate. I’m worried about the other 99.999%.

          2. Lord Narf

            God dammit, open tag. Let me format that again.

            I stand behind what I said. Your comments about women in the board rooms of America being abused by men was a sexist remark against both women and men.

            Bullshit. I don’t think you know what the word means.

            You do at least acknowledge that hardcore bigots are likely to be 60 to 70 years old. If this is the case, these are men who are so high up the ladder they are not hiring new management and are appointing very few executives also.

            More likely to be, yes. We still get misogynists who were trained to be so by their fathers and grandfathers. It takes a great deal of social pressure to iron out that last 10% or 20%. Fraternities are doing a lot to keep up the small percentage of dickheads who make it out of the current collegiate climate with their misogyny intact.

            Women who make it to the board rooms of America are a force to be reckoned with and I’ll assure they aren’t serving coffee to the good old boys. Guess what, sometimes she might serve the coffee and guess what it is just as likely the men might serve the coffee to them.

            Oh, sure, you get that tiny percentage. I’m not worried about them. Joan of Arc did okay for herself, although she still got burned at the stake. That 0.001% will do okay, for the most part, in any social climate. I’m worried about the other 99.999%.

          3. And How

            Lord Narf:

            I have another comment here and would enjoy hearing your reply.

            You say fraternites are doing a lot of keep up the small percentage of dickheads who make it out of the current collegiate climate with misogyny intact. I understand your point and don’t disagree.

            I would also add to the that problem some additional problems that I see. I see it being what is going on at these party schools especially. The way that both the males and the females behave – we have the binge drinking, 10 Red Bulls and grain alcohol, video imagery of the BOYS GONE WILD,GIRLS GONE WILD. Reality TV and the expression of pretty out there male and female narcassistic behaviors.

            I am not a prude and both my wife and I drink. We enjoyed parties in college and still enjoy meeting male and female friends at bars and going to cocktail parties. That said, when I was in college in the 80′s no one’s top (male or female) ever came off like I am seeing on TV.

            I am not hanging around college campuses and I can’t I can’t know if the images I’m seeing on television are indeed what is going on, but I tend to think it is true. I just can’t see how you have these young people interacting in what is already a sexually charged culture and then add to it the binge drinking, really strong alcohol and drug use. It just seems like a recipe for disaster.

            Every time I have broached the subject of that I believe we have problems in the way we are socialiing both males and females as parents and a culture it is playing out as if I am someone who victime blames. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

            The areas I feel good about young people is that as a whole they seem less racist, less bigoted towards gay people and more secular. I think there is reason to be hopeful.

            I’d really enjoy hearing your thoughts.

        2. And How

          Lord Narf:

          I want to ask you something about what your perspective on this response particularly in terms of the US workplace. I am not going to cite my statistics because I just don’t have the time, but I work in this area and feel like I have them correct in regards to US corporations.

          47% of workers are female. 52% of lower management, upper level, and professional roles are female, 14% of executive level is female and there are very few females CEO’s, but there are a few. Is this the way you understand it.

          Also, I am curious about your take on pay gap. I’ll share my perspective first. It doesn’t exist. Jobs are assigned a pay grade and you are started at or near the bottom and given merit raises annually. Doesn’t matter whether you are a male, female or a martian.

          1. Lord Narf

            Also, I am curious about your take on pay gap. I’ll share my perspective first. It doesn’t exist. Jobs are assigned a pay grade and you are started at or near the bottom and given merit raises annually. Doesn’t matter whether you are a male, female or a martian.

            That might be closer to how it works in a union, only without necessarily the merit part. Merit raises can be both arbitrary and insufficient.
            In reality, there are a huge number of arbitrary pay adjustments. My girlfriend just got about another $3/hour, because she asked for it. She’s one of the more aggressive, outgoing sorts.
            Part of the problem is that initial pay is lower, on average, for women who are less so than my girlfriend.

            Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States. Lots of interesting conjecture there.

          2. And How

            What I am commenting about with pay grades is how it works in a typical US corporation. Understood, corporations are a subculture within the American workplace. But still, they aren’t without significance and might supply a template for how to straighten some of the problems out. In my experience though, because jobs are assigned pay grades it eliminates this problems at all levels. Entry level, lower management, upper management, professional and executive.

        3. And How

          I am re-reading the previous posts with an open mind here trying to learn something. I think saying you are stereotyping is unfair and I will apologize to you for that below as well, because I do think the discussion of how men and women are interacting within the workplace in modern America is improving. I think you see it that way as well. The executive level positions is what is getting the controversey, but if I am reading correct you aren’t all that concerned about that statistic because we are talking about a female who is already making a lot of money and you are more concerned about what is going on with females as a whole. I don’t want to make assumptions, but if that is the case I see your point.

          1. Lord Narf

            … because I do think the discussion of how men and women are interacting within the workplace in modern America is improving.

            Yeah, it’s generally getting better, at most times. There’s the occasional bit of backsliding, though. I was afraid that we were due for another one, if the extremist Republicans managed to win in 2012. Fortunately, the Republicans nominated someone as unlikeable as Romney, which made up for the horrible state of the economy.

            The executive level positions is what is getting the controversey, but if I am reading correct you aren’t all that concerned about that statistic because we are talking about a female who is already making a lot of money and you are more concerned about what is going on with females as a whole. I don’t want to make assumptions, but if that is the case I see your point.

            Somewhat. Improving the percentages on the executive level will probably help elsewhere, too. We might accomplish a lot by addressing that disparity. I view that area more as a tool for change than a specific concern, if you know what I mean.

    3. 24.3
      mike

      @jackiepaper

      No, I do not want to use racist or sexist speech but that is not what we are dealing with here. Just as racism is prejudice toward or insulting someone based on their race, sexism is being prejudiced and/or insulting one based on sex alone. We are not bashing Rick “The Dick” Perry because he is a man, we are bashing him based on his policies and actions, we are insulting the person not his maleness or colour of his skin.

      My “to each his/her own” comment had to deal with the selection of insulting terms, here Don chose to use the term “Dick” which I think is short for “Dickhead” Perhaps he chose this cuz it rhymes with Rick? I dunno but it seems perfectly apt, and others have stated that they have no intentions to stop using it.

      What should be discussed as Lord Narf (or was it Curious George?) brought up was an elimination of ALL insulting terms. Name-calling just provokes anger and does not help in a civil discussion and doing away with all these terms might lead to more productive conclusions.

  25. 25
    Jacob Schmidt

    You are all over the place with this dick, cock, cock, twat business.

    Gendered slurs are wrong, “cunt” is worse than “cock”. Everything I have said is in line with this. Everything I have said supports that idea. I have not once deviated from that position.

    Now, you want me to accept that the current use of the word dick could not create an equally harmful mindset against men.

    I did not say that. Maybe it could. But the fact of the matter is that the harmful mindset against women is already in place. That’s why “cunt” is worse than “cock”.

    I am a guy and I do not want to be strereotyped in this manner.

    So am I. We haven’t been. Give me a quote if we have been, ’cause I missed it.

    I have seen some very sweeping statements on here that I simply reject. The males in the boardrooms today with females – just a bunch of dicks. Surgeons – another bunch of dicks. The males in the Michigan lesislature – another bunch of dicks. Keeping using that word over and over again and guess, and men are dehumanized the same way that you argue females have.

    a) I never said I was OK with “dick”. Narf did. Take that up with him.
    b) Not being OK with “dick” does not mean that i’m so delusional as to assume sexism against men is even close to that of women. It does not even approach dehumanization. I literally can’t even think of an example of men being dehumanized.

    We want to do this slamming against men because it’s okay for me to do it because I am a guy or because of this priviledge thing I keep seeing pop up.

    Again, that would be Narf so take it up with him. I disagree (christ, it’s that disagreement that started this whole thing).

    This is not the 50′s or the 60′s and people realize that.

    No, but blatant sexism still exists and most of it is against women.

    Some male surgeons are bigoted against women, some male surgeons are bigoted against other men, some female surgeons are bigoted against men, and some female sugeons are bigoted against other females. Finally, some male and felmale surgeons treat everyone the same and believe decisions, promotions, etc. should occur based on merits and resume. I believe in the latter.

    Cool. You got any citations to back that up, or am I to simply accept that assertion on faith?

    And I guess we can go on and on throwing in sexual preferences and everything else. The stereotyping is dangerous and not accurate.

    Again, women are the ones most often stereotyped. That’s why it’s worse to pile on with slurs like “cunt”.

    Lord Narf:

    … in my opinion, your comment about the few females that claw their way into the corporate boardrooms of America was the most sexist comment on this topic. It was sexist against BOTH men and women.

    Hahaha, no. Narf had citations to back that one up.

    First, you wholesale the men in the boardrooms of America as being a bunch of sexists and then you imply that a woman who makes it to that level would 1. put up with it and 2. somehow be of a personality type that men would acutally bully her. This is not ture.

    Women do tend to put up with sexist behaviour. When sexism is ubiquitous, there’s not much alternative. The relevant quotes from that link are:

    In none of the demographic circumstances studied did women students talk as much as men.

    Numerous studies have demonstrated that in mixed-sex conversations, women are interrupted far more frequently than men are.

    Moreover, once interrupted, women sometimes stayed out of the discussion for the remainder of the class hour. Thus there were considerably more one-time contributors among women than men.

    Secondly, sexism is ubiquitous. It has nothing to do with personality types. I mean fuck, look what happened to Ophelia, Greta and Rebecca. Neither of those three women put up with bullying or sexism and they still receive a fuck ton of it.

    I will say this once: saying that sexist bullying is based on the victims personality is victim blaming. That will not be tolerated by me, nor will it be tolerated by most of this blog network, if not all.

    Finally, men are sexist. All of us. You, me, the guy down the street and his son etc. We grew up in a sexist culture. It was inevitable. The only thing we can do now is to realize it and correct it. Yes, women are sexist too. No, that’s not relevant to what we’re talking about, at least not directly.

    These are women who not only get respect, the COMMAND respect through their accomplishments and hard work.

    I also believe that in modern America the misogynists bigots you describe who cannot work with women and treat them as PEERS and fellow colleagues I won”t say always (but usually) they don’t make it.

    And yet, men keep on interrupting them when these respected women try to speak. Isn’t that odd. (see link above) Plus, a huge chunk of politicians want to take away women’s bodily rights. These bigots are successful.

    Call men gendered slang terms if you want, but let’s be careful about the stereotyping.

    Literally no stereotyping as far as I can tell.

  26. 26
    And How

    I want to say first before I start that I enjoy talking with you, but I’m going to take issue with a couple of your comments.

    I am just to accept Narf’s citations as proof of what is going on in American Boardrooms with women and men working together? I know he is a Lord and all, but you have got to be kidding me? . You can find all kinds of crazy shit to offer “proof” to support your point of view and you can also misinterpret and misread statistics.

    Who the hell is Ophelia, Rebecca and Greta? I’ve also heard Joan of Arc brought into this. What do the stories of these people have to do with modern day America? Susan Rice – one example and I am supposed to accept that as proof of what is happening in the board rooms of America.

    I firmly believe the females execs and upper management of these companies would disagree with you that they are inerrupted more and not allowed to speak. I have been in a lot of meetings with women in upper management and board rooms. Not true.

    Thanks for your reply

    The line about you are going to say this once I am not going to even address

  27. 27
    Jacob Schmidt

    I am just to accept Narf’s citations as proof of what is going on in American Boardrooms with women and men working together? I know he is a Lord and all, but you have got to be kidding me? . You can find all kinds of crazy shit to offer “proof” to support your point of view and you can also misinterpret and misread statistics.

    How is any of Narf’s evidence inadequate? For that matter, how is mine in adequate? Sure, you can misrepresent data, but you have to demonstrate that misrepresentation is actually going on. You can’t just reject the finding of a study.

    You seem to be assuming your position in all of this without bothering to demonstrate it’s validity. If women aren’t being interrupted, if there is no sexism in corporate culture, than demonstrate it. Show us the studies that demonstrate this.

    Who the hell is Ophelia, Rebecca and Greta? I’ve also heard Joan of Arc brought into this. What do the stories of these people have to do with modern day America? Susan Rice – one example and I am supposed to accept that as proof of what is happening in the board rooms of America.

    Ophelia and Greta write on this blog network. Rebecca writes for another network called “Skepchicks”. All three have suffered from massive amounts of sexism in the past few years.

    I firmly believe the females execs and upper management of these companies would disagree with you that they are inerrupted more and not allowed to speak.

    Then give me a quote of them saying that, or a study demonstrating that. If you assert without evidence, I will simply dismiss you as an intellectually dishonest twit.

    1. 27.1
      Jacob Schmidt

      Ophelia Benson

      Greta Christina

      Rebecca Watson, among other women bloggers.

      1. And How

        Thank you for these links. I haven’t had the time had the time to look at what is going on with these ladies. Are the sexism issues workplace related? Still, I am sorry to hear that your friends are having these difficulties.

        When you cited the stories of Ophelia, Rebecca and Greta in your previous post I thought you were referring back to the Greek godess Ophelia, the Biblical character Rebecca and I was totally reaching on Greta, that’s why I asked who the hell they were.

        I was on vacation last week & had more time to reply. Back to work, but do have some thoughs I’d like to share concerning your last reply & will do so when I return. .

        By the way, in terms of insults does an intellectually dihonest twit rank better or worse than an ignorant scumbag? Seems like a lateral move, to me anyway.

        1. Lord Narf

          They’re atheist bloggers who have suffered a lot of abuse from the more misogynistic, aggressive elements within the atheist community.

    2. 27.2
      And How

      I’m not sure why you think a study of students at Harvard conducted in the 80′s is any proof of how men and women are interacting in American corporate culture. The entire study is so far removed from the topic we are discussing it just doesn’t apply. Here are the reasons and I would also contend that some of the results make my point about how men and women interact in these settings.

      1. The study says that female professors (authority figures and analagous to managers at all levels and executives) spend just as much time lecturing as male professors. That does make sense and I would contend that when women have leadership skills and are in that position, it is no problem for them to lead.

      2. This study was conducted in the 80′s. These females would have been socialized in the 60′s and 70′s. I believe parents and our culture is overal doing a better job instilling the quality of assertiveness into females and not drumming out that quality in females who are just naturally assertive.

      3. The study talks about women taking turns when alone and they are more egaltarian. In a typical business meeting, there is an agenda and reporting cycle which takes place first. Men and women alike are taking turns and offering thought and then there is an open discussion. In otherwords, the reporting function (taking turns) sets the stage for who is the holder of the information needed to make the decision. This is no secret, because the men and women in the room know that anyway.

      4. Men and women in a typical American corporation work as TEAMS to strategize, plan and meet company objectives. They are expected to do so and trained to do so. The higher up the ladder the more responsibility and the higher the stakes. Let’s say we are in a boardroom with a male who is in charge of sales for the Eastern half of the United States and a female who is in charge of the Western half of the United States. Both the male and female have a tremendous amount of reponsibility. These men and women have absolutely no reason to be butting into someone else’s job and taking on additional responsibility. Might be “fun” to dominate a classroom conversation for some domineering personality, but that does not translate into the business world.

      I also said that I believe a hardcore mysoginistic personality would fail. Here is the reason. A company of any size will review all employees, all level of management and executive level annually to tell everyone what they are doing right and wrong. This is done by a process where CONFIDENTAL reviews are conducted from below, laterally (by peers) and from above. A mysoginistic male who is bullying people is going to score very low and the problem is going to show up. Same with a domineering female.

      You seem like a guy who could work with females in this type of setting and be respectful. I have no problem doing it myself. Why is that you presume that the men in corporate America cannot do so, ESPECIALLY since there is financial incentive (scores and bonuses) and controls in place to make sure they are doing so.

      We are discussing a subculture within the American economy where 47% of workers are female, 52% of lower, upper, and professional staff is female and 14% is executive level. (Executive level is getting controversery and I shared some comments about this above with Lord Narf). I also shared comments about pay grades as well.

      I am not saying everything is perfect in a typical American corporation. I am just saying things are improving within this subculture. Stiall, I am not sure how any of what corporations have been able to accomplish in this areas to level the playing field translate well to the problems of other subcultures such as would be found among the poor. I am saying that because corporations have motivation being that females are just as good overall at business as men) and leverage (lose your job if you misbehave) to affect change. Zero tolerance policies work very well to modify behavior.

      I’m done with the topic of gender slurs. You and I agree on substance and I appreciate the information. I’ll share with you a gender slur that I use sometimes against males or females that you have probably heard, but just in case you haven’t. It is to call someone a Dictator. It only works in verbal convervsation and the trick is to prounounce the first syllable DICK – long pause – then say TATER.

      Anyway, I’m not on here to prove anything, just gain some perspective and share some thoughts. Thanks.

  28. 28
    patricksimons

    THE WHOLLY HOLY MACHO MAN
    An ode to Rick Perry, the not so beloved governor of Texas.
    © Patrick Simons

    His name is Rick Perry,
    And it rhymes with Scary,
    And Americans should be wary,
    He is the wholly holy macho man.

    Rick loves Jesus, guns, and greed,
    And he says that’s all we need,
    He cares not if kids can’t read,
    He is the wholly holy macho man.

    Rick pays no mind to mere facts,
    As long as the wealthy pay no tax,
    And social programs get the ax,
    He is the wholly holy macho man.

    If for prez he does run,
    The country will be in for fun,
    Those having less will then have none,
    He is the wholly holy macho man.

    He’s like George Bush, just not as smart,
    But he has Jesus in his heart,
    He’s shan’t put his ass behind the cart,
    He is the wholly holy macho man.

    He knows the needy are a bane,
    They are just a money drain,
    To care for them would be insane,
    He is the wholly holy macho man.

    Let the poor sleep in the rain,
    Rick has no reason to explain,
    Why the rich should feel no pain,
    He is the wholly holy macho man.

  29. 29
    Reginald Selkirk

    How many layers are there to this? Do you actually have to be named Richard/Rick/Rich/Dick to be eligible? Or was that just a coincidence?

  30. 30
    changerofbits

    Aren’t there supposed to be drones and stealth helicopters hunting down backward fuckers like Mullah Rick Perry?
    Fuck The American Christaliban for supporting this asshat.

  31. 31
    Tony! The Fucking Queer Shoop!

    God. These nested comments suck!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite="" class=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>