Curious About A Chick

Post Reply New Topic

depends how you say it, really.
like 'oh you're so pretty' in a nice tone is different to 'you're so pretty.' in a mocking tone - or whatever.

Wow. Wasn't really expecting something [that should be] inconsequential to be such a conversation piece.

For the record, the young lady in question is completely fine with my reference to her as a "chick"--which, for the most part, should be all that matters. I am very respectful towards her in various aspects, while in her presence and otherwise. As I see it, if someone doesn't appreciate being referred to by a certain term, then it is up to them and them alone to say so--it's what we call boundary lines and each person is responsible for enforcing their own, not others'.

Given the ambiguous nature of the term I used (chick), one cannot even legitimately fault me for breaking any sense of decorum, like say had I chose the word, "b***h" (which for the record would never happen).

Likening women to animals aids in creating mental images of certain characteristics--similar to likening men and women alike to anything. Those characteristics, through the course of ever changing language, aren't even necessarily accurate but still provide for the same mental image or association of character traits. Thus, if I say that a woman is foxy the likelihood is very high that most everyone in the room will know that I mean she is very attractive--up to the point of having a seductive look about her (intentional or otherwise). But why not just say she's very attractive? Because "foxy" embodies a certain perception that requires nothing more than a single word. It's the difference between saying:

I will do that.

OR

I will do that.

The italicized "will" indicates a certain seriousness regarding my intent and all I did was slant the word.

Of course, many words simply become part of everyday vernacular, such as chick. Though in my case, as in many, the term often refers to a younger lady of interest. Sorry, but it's less than likely that a 40 year old woman will be referred to as, "chick" (except maybe by a significantly older man).

Applauding Kaziglubey! 'Nuff said.

Q: How do you know when you're living in a post-feminist world?


A: When

"Likening women to animals is sexist and degrading."

is met with

"Not if it reflects a man's positive appraisal of how she looks!"




I also love how according to Kaziglu it's the individual woman's burden to express discomfort at being called animal/food/whatever names,
as opposed to a society considering women's status as equals such a truism that doing so is taboo.

Our feminist ancestors are spinning in their graves.

Actually, you just can't read ... very well. Here's the context of what I actually said, and pay attention this time instead of sifting through my words with your nonsensical ideology:



Note, I said someone; as in, any person be they male or female. In other words, I gave men AND women equal status in that they both are equally obligated to clearly define their own boundaries to those they come in contact with. But wait? Is it fair that they should have to define those boundaries? Answering my own question, absolutely. For example, my actual first name is Daniel; when people ask me what I like to be called (as they frequently do), I specifically tell them anything but Danny--because I don't like it and it's my responsibility to make sure people know what I find acceptable and unacceptable. It is no different when using various terms of reference.

Oh, and since we're talking about equality here. The same young lady I refer to as, "chick" (despite her not being a baby chicken), refers to me quite often as "honey" and "sunshine." For the record, I am neither food, nor sunlight. Call me crazy, but it seems as if we both equally are using terms of reference towards and about each other.

Of course, we could all run around and presume that we know what other people do and don't like to be called--after all, presuming about people is quite rewarding. Personally, I suggest you pick up a book, just about any book really, on boundaries--it ought to be rather enlightening.

On a final note, I find it rather interesting that you seem quite content to interfere with the autonomy of a woman who, on her own volition, has accepted certain words as terms of endearment. I mean, if you wanna talk about taking power from women, well hell, look in the mirror.

Oh, otay! I never knew likening men to animals and edible things was so common when addressing men! Apologies for insensitivity.

While "Danny" might not appeal to you personally,
it certainly doesn't serve to imply or reinforce societally that likening to animals an entire class to which you belong is justifiable.

That's all well and good.
What has that to do with your idea that you're right to address ME (or any woman) as chick/fox/b*tch/cow until I/she corrects you?

I don't quite know what you're talking about, unless you're referring to your earlier tangent about your personal life, which I don't take issue with. I'm sorry you're so emotional about this issue, but it might still help you to look up the "strawman" fallacy.

The point was to illustrate boundaries, which vary from person to person. Thus, some other person named Daniel might be fine with, or even prefer Danny. The nature of boundaries isn't for people to guess, it's for them to be told when the appropriate opportunity arises.

As for my lady friend? I mentioned this entire thread to her and she seemed rather perplexed that it was even an issue. Even more, she questioned me on whether I took any issue with the terms, "honey" or "sunshine." I reiterated to her the same thing I said some time ago.

If something she says or does bothers me, I'll let her know and if I don't, then shame on me for not being honest. Other than that, she ought not worry and I would expect the same from her.

As I see it, this approach is much more fruitful. First, it allows each person to see who the other truly is by allowing them to assume certain behavior is acceptable until otherwise told. This is especially so when dealing with behavior that isn't intrinsically negative. For example, referring to a female as, "chick" is generally seen as a compliment whereas something like, "b***h" is not. Second, it reinforces the notion of setting one's own personal boundaries and properly informing others of them--something I see as quite problematic anymore.



Nope, not emotional; just wasn't expecting people to harp on the use of the word, "chick" as degrading and try to impose their own personal standards upon others.

I believe you said the following:

I also love how according to Kaziglu it's the individual woman's burden to express discomfort at being called animal/food/whatever names, as opposed to a society considering women's status as equals such a truism that doing so is taboo.

First, you assumed an inequality and in reality there was not. Second, and even worse, rather than let each woman decide for herself what terms of reference she finds acceptable and impose upon her, and her alone, the duty to enforce her boundaries; you suggest that such personal autonomy is a "burden." Instead, we should apply a blanket approach to all women and consider such terms taboo--regardless if certain women find it acceptable or enjoyable (some women enjoy being called a fox, etc). That's not empowering women, that's telling them what to accept.

booh booh, taboo, graves ......what a load of apocalyptic drama.

Guys also love to be called tiger, lion, my bear, furball or whatever.

The 'chick' naming is not a some global conspiracy against the female gender.




Animal words are also used to insult men such as dog, donkey, mule , pig, horse, weasel .....and words of sexual organs such as dick and cock..

Precisely. Don't "guess" that women are okay with being called cow/b*tch/slut/cookie what have you, until they TELL YOU SO.

Once more,
I COULD NOT CARE LESS ABOUT THE BOUNDARIES OF YOUR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS IF I TRIED. Not sure if you threw this in because you wanted to tell someone about your day, or because you thought it was relevant. In the case of the latter DO NOT STRAWMAN ME AGAIN, SIR, by implying I'm objecting to consenting individuals calling each other whatever the hell they want once an environment of acceptability has been established.

Nothing EXISTS which is "intrinsically negative" or positive. Those are valuation judgments assigned by the individual. As you're seeing currently, likening women to animals is thus not "intrinsically" neutral- some view it as extremely offensive.

Quite the comical assertion, since this exchange is about you imposing on women your belief that being likened to animals is "intrinsically" acceptable until they tell you otherwise.

Yet another of your opinions that's true "intrinsically", I suppose?

In what you suggested, the burden IS upon the woman to correct someone, as opposed to society erring conservatively on the side that calling her pet names is patronizing unless she explicitly consents.

Oh I see. So it's more empowering to a woman for
society to ASSUME she's comfortable being called something, forcing the dissenters to opt OUT,
than for society to ASSUME she's not, allowing those who find it acceptable to opt IN.

Gotcha.

Next thing you'll be telling me is that assuming a woman does not agree to sex unless explicit consent is given is an attack on our sexual autonomy.

Last edited by Bethie on 29 Oct 2010, 9:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, it's a quite blatant example of how the sexist origins of language serve to reinforce sexist attitudes,
and create an environment so heavily entrenched in it that some deny it even exists.
Nothing conspiratorial about it.

"To insult". As opposed to "to refer to them generally, using insulting vocabulary ".
I'm not actually arguing as to whether calling someone X or Y is demeaning. Merely whether one should ASSUME he or she is comfortable being called X or Y until told otherwise. Gender has little to do with the question.

Not only did you fail at calling out a straw man (which is two words by the way not one, since we're being pedantic and all), but you made one yourself. I never implied anything on your part after an “environment of acceptability.” In fact, this whole time I’ve spoke explicitly and quite clearly regarding anytime before that point.

So, since you fail at reading, fail at understanding straw man fallacies and fail at applying them, we’re done here.

Good day.