A series of questions for both sexes

Post Reply New Topic

Now THAT is probably a misogynistic comment! Except for the part where he's a comedian and probably didn't say it with hate in his heart at all, but rather the intent to make the audience laugh. [edit] That makes it potentially dickish, but not inherently misogynistic unless he hated women for the fact.



Wasn't a problem. Insightful, thank you.

Last edited by Shau on 31 Jan 2013, 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

that definition is not complete. my definition was better. but it still fits - considering that "whore" is indeed an insulting word in our society (perhaps unfairly, but nonetheless).

the comment is misogynistic whether or not the source intended it that way, there isn't really any other way to explain that. sometimes children get into trouble for insulting someone, even though they didn't intend the comment as an insult. they are told to apologise even though they didn't mean it in a bad way because it is hurtful outside of their intent. it is insulting regardless of whether they are actually intending to be mean. this is no different to that.

another dullard, another wind up merchant, another day of excrement to trawl through

Sure there are kids of low social standard, that have the misadvantage of getting no good education. You have this kids everywhere, and they are trying to raise their self esteem, by raising their role into their surrounding group, by using words in the meaning to show their surroundings, how they dare to go against social agreement of normal language. But I do not understand, why I should idol someone and copy this behaviour, when I instead pity them?



I dont know what you are talking about, or trying to discuss about? A whore is per definition another term for a prostitute. A prostitute is someone offering sexual services against financial a fee, which is agreed from both sides.

So sure it is definite a wrong statement to say that all women would be whores, as it is a wrong statement, that all men are pilots. There are lots of women who do other jobs, there is really no two ways about this.

If you yourself are giving the term another meaning, you cannot just insist, that a statement of you was right, with the new meaning you yourself invented. Its as if I´d say: "From now on the colour blue becomes a nwe name, and I name it red." and insist because of this, that I was right, if I told other people, that the sky was red. ^^

So if you want to invent, rejecting the existing correct definition of the word, that a physical normal womans is called a whore for you, it may be so. But just because of you deciding to use words in a wrong meaning, it does not mean that your message, based on inventing new meanings into words and some unsocialized teenager guys, that have the pity of not receiving the education they would have needed, to understand that they are mistaken, agreeing you with that, becomes correct because of that. If I want, I can say that I want to call the sky red from now on, for me alone. Its ok. But it doesnt change anything, that in agreement to the accepted use of the word "red" this message is wrong. And insisting, when talking to others, that they had to accept your meanings chance, is weird.

1- unsure, but i think not; i want my sex to have an emotiopnal connection
2- nah, to each his/her own
3- see 2
4- see 2

Hey speaking of Australia and misogyny, guess what the Macquarie Dictionary is doing to the word's definition upon realising that the current definition (which is essentially nothing more than an etymological translation) is overly-simplified to the point of sparking debate whenever somebody in the public eye dares to use it? They're expanding it to reflect the way the word is actually used in the modern day, and Merriam-Webster is considering following suit (link).

Last edited by ruckus on 31 Jan 2013, 8:26 am, edited 3 times in total.

Apparently the professionals involved in making dictionaries disagree. [edit] Or maybe not! (In response to what Ruckus posted)



Disagree completely. A statement isn't capable of possessing hatred on it's own, only an intent of hatred from a speaker. No intent = no hatred = no misogyny.





You can insult someone without intent, so it's different. You can't be misogynistic without intent.

Are you the bf trying to be alpha here? I notice the linked accounts.

It was a crazy statement - apply actual sentences to it and its easy to see many examples that are not the realms of misogyny.

It is a crazy statement - yours is ad hominem

i assume she told you to post that and you did? cracks whip :

as you lick cats and are trawling through excrement as you put it, here is a link:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/fe ... rocks.html

Last edited by answeraspergers on 31 Jan 2013, 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

It does require intent and CANT be strict liability imo aswell.

No question really

Shau, comments are commonly sexist without knowing the intent. an example would be a person repeating things that they heard from popular media (i.e. men are only after sex), but without fully thinking about what the comments mean to the gender. or someone may simply spout the comments they heard at home from the older generation without pausing to reflect on whether those comments are true or correct. simply speaking misogynistic comments doesn't speak to the intent of the comments, and we don't know about the true beliefs of the speaker. that doesn't negate the misogyny of the comments themselves, though.

but really, i am just letting you know so that you can have a greater awareness. there isn't much point in continuing to explain this because i don't think you misunderstand. i also don't think you'd be so silly as to make blanket statements about all women like that, because i think you know it is neither accurate nor fair.

The hostility toward females in this sub-forum is kind of ridiculous, and talking about it just garners ten times more hostility and it's BS and impossible to have a conversation about it without the thread devolving into a bunch of people just arguing in circles that they aren't misogynists, some of them going all victim-complex mode... all the while maintaining the misogynistic/sexist language they use and defending it.

That said, saying "Oh, it's OK for me to say whore because of my intent" doesn't change the character of the statement "All women are whores/promiscuous", because the world doesn't revolve around you, and you are responsible for your words once you put them out there.

Someone can say it's OK to use a racial slur amongst friends who know you don't mean it with malice(I have friends who call me a dirty Jew all of the time) but beyond the people who understand your personal intent, you're going to be perceived as racist. If your method of dealing with that is saying "I didn't mean it in a racist way." that's not really very effective, because you said something offensive and HURTFUL regardless of how you meant it. It means different things to different people. You are responsible for considering your audience.

Here's a quote I'm having an impossible time locating the source of:
"I don’t expect gay people to prove to me, a straight person, that there’s actually homophobia. I don’t expect poor people to prove to me, a Harvard grad, that hunger and poverty are widespread problems. And if someone asked me, as an Asian person, to “prove” to them that racism exists, I would laugh all the way back to Chinatown. Marginalized groups are not responsible for explaining their marginalization to you. If you are actually concerned, you would take the initiative to do some research yourself instead of showing up at some oppressed group’s door step demanding a list of citations for things (racism, sexism, etc.) that are proven time and time again in the real world."

No one has to prove to you that the word whore is sexist, misogynistic, and it hurts. You're posting on a forum full of people of different genders and expecting people to see those words and believe/understand your intent, but the thing is, the great majority are likely not your close personal friends who will extend to you the benefit of the doubt or assume you really aren't sexist/misogynistic etc.

This isn't meant to be an attack on you, I'm trying my damnedest to explain why it hurts to see someone say that word is OK to use casually, because the word itself carries meaning in culture and society that goes way beyond your personal intent. It's not OK.

THAT SAID, I have no desire to censor your speech, but you can't dictate how people feel/react to your speech, so feel free to be offended, but please don't act like you aren't responsible for what you say.

Well done. And no, I'm about as alpha as.. erm something that is not alpha. I don't subscribe all that to evo-psych drivel


You have a different opinion. There are nice ways of expressing that and there's dickish ways of doing it
no, can't say i'm into that sort of thing ;) i happen to have a mind of my own


The cat link made me smile, thanks. (it actually did)

I said pretty early on that this was down to a complex called madonna whore - MEN suffer a great deal from this complex and it does not help us at all. Its a lose lose for both sides.

its not that whore is socially acceptable

in fact the word really was to shame female sexuality and all that

but nevertheless that definition sucks - mens rea is required imo.

I like this statement

"Marginalized groups are not responsible for explaining their marginalization to you."

Maybe this place needs a mens room so we can be honest without offending anyone.

1. NO. I don't get erections around women I don't know (believe me I've tried). And I always get emotionally attached to the people I have sex with. Maybe I could have two girlfriends at the same time, that would be cool.
2. No, it's not misandry, it's true.
3. They would take the opportunity
4. No, it's not wrong.

Question 1 is different for men and women. It assumes certain beliefs and behaviours. Why?
All the other questions are about how the reader judges others' beliefs and behaviour.
I have heard both men and women say what is proposed in Q2 for men and Q2 for women. That is their opinion but I can't tell without further explanation why they hold that opinion. Because they believe it doesn't make it true for everyone else.

I think generalisations like "most men" or "most women" are unhelpful. Generalising is a key part of prejudice, discrimination and demonisation of those who are "other".
How can it be useful to perpetuate negative value judgements that do not take individual circumstances or choices into account, and which denigrate people for the choices they make based on prejudicial generalisations?

Some men are promiscuous, some women are too. So long as they are honest with their partners about their intentions and wants and take care not to harm or deceive then that is their own choice. Their choices may change through their lifetime according to circumstance, or they may not.

Women:
1. No, because I know now, that personality is the key. I'd have to love him, inside and out for who he is. Looks aren't important to me. I'm with someone now, and he is the most wonderful guy. I know his flaws, he knows mine. But we accept it. Friendship, true love, commitment is the key to amazing sex, and most importantly to an amazing life.
2. I believe that every one of us is different, so I honestly don't think I'd be offended.
3. If the woman was like me, she wouldn't take the chance. I'm not very sure what other woman would do, it all depends on her personality and her idea of love, lust.
If she was a person who only judged people on their looks and nothing else, yes I guess she would take the chance.
4. Honestly.. yes. But it's their own decision.