It's not necessary that all those terms be precisely as derogatory as <insert whatever term you want to get up in arms about>.
I mean, yeah, "n*****" is one of the worst terms you can call someone in terms of sheer social and personal harm. That doesn't mean that all lesser terms are completely unoffensive. It doesn't mean I'm going to not mind if you call me a big jerk, because it's still a derogatory term used to offend.
But how much damage a slur does is a separate (though related) question from whether we should consider it offensive to begin with. If someone calls me an ass, I'm going to take offense, because the intent is probably to offend me.
Similarly, calling someone a "cunt" is offensive because it's meant to create a negative association between the recipient and a bit of female anatomy. Just as "dick" creates a negative association between the recipient and a bit of male anatomy.
Is "dick" as bad as "cunt"? No, though in the UK it seems to be used practically as punctuation. Are males oppressed? No. If you are grossly offended by the mere word "cunt", irrespective of whatever context it might be in, are you a tremendous hypocrite if you don't also find the use of "dick" or "cock" or whatever offensive? Yep.
If you were right, calling a dude a cunt/whore/pussy/bitch should be no more offensive than calling him a cock/dick/bastard/asshole. Obviously that's not true, though. Why do you think it is that all of the female terms are more offensive than their male or ungendered counterparts?
Hint: It's not because I'm a hypocrite.
Really, though, "bastard" is an even better example. It was once used specifically to denigrate poor folks who were born out of wedlock. They were certainly an oppressed class, once upon a time. So "bastard" should be offensive, yes?
And this is a joke, right? I'm not talking about once upon a time, which you should really be able to pull out of context.
A few people had the audacity to suggest that the woman might not be completely innocent based on some suspicious details about the recordings and the release thereof, but turns out they are all misogynistic. So don't do that, it's like suggesting that America wasn't perfect right after 9/11. "How dare you say that after what just happened!"
Cynicism and women-hating is the same thing in this thread, so just don't bring it up.
Do you work for Fox News or something? One has to admire the linguistic craniorectal inversion that transmutes "wild-ass speculative victim-blaming" and "misandrist" into "cynicism".
(And yes, saying that a woman provoking a man is like stepping into a lion's cage is misandry. Unless you can think of a nicer excuse for the assumption that men are stupid, belligerent animals, who just can't help themselves from popping a woman in the mouth and screaming racist threats at her if she gets lippy.)
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Who else has defended Gibson/assumed the women recording is culpable?
Show yourselves, so I may pigeonhole you.
Pretty sure nobody, though it seems people enjoy beating that strawman to death.
A few people had the audacity to suggest that the woman might not be completely innocent based on some suspicious details about the recordings and the release thereof, but turns out they are all misogynistic. So don't do that, it's like suggesting that America wasn't perfect right after 9/11. "How dare you say that after what just happened!"
Cynicism and women-hating is the same thing in this thread, so just don't bring it up.
Ascribing any amount of blame toward female victims of domestic abuse (in married or unmarried relationships) and in a variety of other situations (rape, for instance) is a long standing tradition of the misogynist crowd.
So, yes, I'm going to assume that the people in this thread promoting the same exact philosophy as their misogynist forefathers are also misogynists, even if they don't realize that's what they are. Also, you don't have to have a blatant hatred of women to be a misogynist.
And even if you're just a cynic, that's nearly as bad if you're going to go around blaming victims for the crimes that are perpetrated against them. I don't really know if anyone in this thread is a misogynist, but yes I think the people suggesting that Oksana may have brought some of this on herself are, at the VERY least, extreme cynics. Which is also terrible.
If you were right, calling a dude a cunt/whore/pussy/bitch should be no more offensive than calling him a cock/dick/bastard/asshole. Obviously that's not true, though. Why do you think it is that all of the female terms are more offensive than their male or ungendered counterparts?
I don't find something like "stop bitching" or "son of a bitch" to be more offensive than calling someone a "cock". I'm pretty sure I don't know a single person who does. Yet apparently as a guy I'm supposed to?
And the "bastard" thing is fair game, if your whole reason for finding it offensive is that the term stems from an attempt to oppress some underclass. That was your reason, right? That "dick" and "cock" don't count because men have never been oppressed as a class?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
A few people had the audacity to suggest that the woman might not be completely innocent based on some suspicious details about the recordings and the release thereof, but turns out they are all misogynistic. So don't do that, it's like suggesting that America wasn't perfect right after 9/11. "How dare you say that after what just happened!"
Cynicism and women-hating is the same thing in this thread, so just don't bring it up.
Do you work for Fox News or something? One has to admire the linguistic craniorectal inversion that transmutes "wild-ass speculative victim-blaming" and "misandrist" into "cynicism".
(And yes, saying that a woman provoking a man is like stepping into a lion's cage is misandry. Unless you can think of a nicer excuse for the assumption that men are stupid, belligerent animals, who just can't help themselves from popping a woman in the mouth and screaming racist threats at her if she gets lippy.)
I think you mean "misanthropy"
Also I have no idea where your second paragraph came from. I'm assuming you are talking to someone else, or... something?
(And yes, saying that a woman provoking a man is like stepping into a lion's cage is misandry. Unless you can think of a nicer excuse for the assumption that men are stupid, belligerent animals, who just can't help themselves from popping a woman in the mouth and screaming racist threats at her if she gets lippy.)
I dunno, I think that provoking Mel Gibson is stepping into a lion's cage. Of course, so is dating him. Or failing to walk across the street to avoid having to pass within 20 feet of him. Because the dude is violently crazy.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
A few people had the audacity to suggest that the woman might not be completely innocent based on some suspicious details about the recordings and the release thereof, but turns out they are all misogynistic. So don't do that, it's like suggesting that America wasn't perfect right after 9/11. "How dare you say that after what just happened!"
Cynicism and women-hating is the same thing in this thread, so just don't bring it up.
Do you work for Fox News or something? One has to admire the linguistic craniorectal inversion that transmutes "wild-ass speculative victim-blaming" and "misandrist" into "cynicism".
(And yes, saying that a woman provoking a man is like stepping into a lion's cage is misandry. Unless you can think of a nicer excuse for the assumption that men are stupid, belligerent animals, who just can't help themselves from popping a woman in the mouth and screaming racist threats at her if she gets lippy.)
I think you mean "misanthropy"
Also I have no idea where your second paragraph came from. I'm assuming you are talking to someone else, or... something?
No, he means misandry, which is hatred of men. It is similar to misogyny in its gender specificity.
And I believe he is referring to Nucker's "jumped in a lion cage" shtick. By attempting to draw an analogy between a lion and a man, Nucker is reducing men to primal beasts. That is a definite misandrist belief and argument.
(And yes, saying that a woman provoking a man is like stepping into a lion's cage is misandry. Unless you can think of a nicer excuse for the assumption that men are stupid, belligerent animals, who just can't help themselves from popping a woman in the mouth and screaming racist threats at her if she gets lippy.)
I dunno, I think that provoking Mel Gibson is stepping into a lion's cage. Of course, so is dating him. Or failing to walk across the street to avoid having to pass within 20 feet of him. Because the dude is violently crazy.
I think that's silly. As much of a crazy asshole as Mel Gibson may be, he's clearly a high functioning crazy asshole capable of making intelligent, adult decisions. He just chooses not to.
Who else has defended Gibson/assumed the women recording is culpable?
Show yourselves, so I may pigeonhole you.
Pretty sure nobody, though it seems people enjoy beating that strawman to death.
A few people had the audacity to suggest that the woman might not be completely innocent based on some suspicious details about the recordings and the release thereof, but turns out they are all misogynistic. So don't do that, it's like suggesting that America wasn't perfect right after 9/11. "How dare you say that after what just happened!"
Cynicism and women-hating is the same thing in this thread, so just don't bring it up.
Ascribing any amount of blame toward female victims of domestic abuse (in married or unmarried relationships) and in a variety of other situations (rape, for instance) is a long standing tradition of the misogynist crowd.
So, yes, I'm going to assume that the people in this thread promoting the same exact philosophy as their misogynist forefathers are also misogynists, even if they don't realize that's what they are. Also, you don't have to have a blatant hatred of women to be a misogynist.
And even if you're just a cynic, that's nearly as bad if you're going to go around blaming victims for the crimes that are perpetrated against them. I don't really know if anyone in this thread is a misogynist, but yes I think the people suggesting that Oksana may have brought some of this on herself are, at the VERY least, extreme cynics. Which is also terrible.
I never blamed her for his abuse towards her, who the fuck does that? That's like somebody punching you in the face and then saying it was your fault for being lippy. Maybe someone else in the thread said that but it wasn't me.
I feel like every time you reply to my posts you are replying to someone else. Why don't I just give you a list of things I never said, for your reference:
- Never said Mel Gibson's words or actions were defensible
- Never said context changed his words or actions
- Never said she somehow brought this on herself
If you were right, calling a dude a cunt/whore/pussy/bitch should be no more offensive than calling him a cock/dick/bastard/asshole. Obviously that's not true, though. Why do you think it is that all of the female terms are more offensive than their male or ungendered counterparts?
I don't find something like "stop bitching" or "son of a bitch" to be more offensive than calling someone a "cock". I'm pretty sure I don't know a single person who does. Yet apparently as a guy I'm supposed to?
You're being really disingenuous here. Neither of your examples involve a man being called a bitch, which is what I said, and also the context of this conversation. Do you have an argument for what I actually wrote, or is that it?
And the "bastard" thing is fair game, if your whole reason for finding it offensive is that the term stems from an attempt to oppress some underclass. That was your reason, right? That "dick" and "cock" don't count because men have never been oppressed as a class?
I never said "stems from". If "bastards" were an extant oppressed class, yeah, I'd have a problem with it. Woo?
Who else has defended Gibson/assumed the women recording is culpable?
Show yourselves, so I may pigeonhole you.
Pretty sure nobody, though it seems people enjoy beating that strawman to death.
A few people had the audacity to suggest that the woman might not be completely innocent based on some suspicious details about the recordings and the release thereof, but turns out they are all misogynistic. So don't do that, it's like suggesting that America wasn't perfect right after 9/11. "How dare you say that after what just happened!"
Cynicism and women-hating is the same thing in this thread, so just don't bring it up.
Ascribing any amount of blame toward female victims of domestic abuse (in married or unmarried relationships) and in a variety of other situations (rape, for instance) is a long standing tradition of the misogynist crowd.
So, yes, I'm going to assume that the people in this thread promoting the same exact philosophy as their misogynist forefathers are also misogynists, even if they don't realize that's what they are. Also, you don't have to have a blatant hatred of women to be a misogynist.
And even if you're just a cynic, that's nearly as bad if you're going to go around blaming victims for the crimes that are perpetrated against them. I don't really know if anyone in this thread is a misogynist, but yes I think the people suggesting that Oksana may have brought some of this on herself are, at the VERY least, extreme cynics. Which is also terrible.
I never blamed her for his abuse towards her, who the fuck does that? That's like somebody punching you in the face and then saying it was your fault for being lippy. Maybe someone else in the thread said that but it wasn't me.
I feel like every time you reply to my posts you are replying to someone else. Why don't I just give you a list of things I never said, for your reference:
- Never said Mel Gibson's words or actions were defensible
- Never said context changed his words or actions
- Never said she somehow brought this on herself
Cynicism and women-hating is the same thing in this thread, so just don't bring it up.
You clearly think there is something wrong with my assertions about misogyny or you wouldn't have said the above. I mean, I know you didn't post that in direct response to me, but that doesn't mean I'm not aware of what you were alluding to, or that I can't respond to it. So now you know the proper framework for all the responses I've directed at you.
I said something similar early in the thread when someone commented about her 'surprising calmness', and someone else replied with "You don't want to provoke someone who is already beating the shit out of you." Well, why would you keep hanging around someone who is beating the shit out of you in the first place? The woman's not insane, she obviously knows that violence crosses the line, ergo the split and domestic violence charges. Why didn't she report the incident immediately and then get away from him the first chance she got? Because she wanted to do her own reconnaissance so she could selectively record conversations. Even if she is 100% right, that's still not a very fair way to go about it.
I said something similar early in the thread when someone commented about her 'surprising calmness', and someone else replied with "You don't want to provoke someone who is already beating the shit out of you." Well, why would you keep hanging around someone who is beating the shit out of you in the first place? The woman's not insane, she obviously knows that violence crosses the line, ergo the split and domestic violence charges. Why didn't she report the incident immediately and then get away from him the first chance she got? Because she wanted to do her own reconnaissance so she could selectively record conversations. Even if she is 100% right, that's still not a very fair way to go about it.
I said something similar early in the thread when someone commented about her 'surprising calmness', and someone else replied with "You don't want to provoke someone who is already beating the shit out of you." Well, why would you keep hanging around someone who is beating the shit out of you in the first place? The woman's not insane, she obviously knows that violence crosses the line, ergo the split and domestic violence charges. Why didn't she report the incident immediately and then get away from him the first chance she got? Because she wanted to do her own reconnaissance so she could selectively record conversations. Even if she is 100% right, that's still not a very fair way to go about it.
Oh hi there
Oh hi, you mean the thing I admitted to being wrong about
You know what? I don't know what it is like to be in an abusive relationship, and so I will rescind that argument. It's true; I am willing to admit to being wrong on the internet! I still think my other claims are valid though.
Similarly, calling someone a "cunt" is offensive because it's meant to create a negative association between the recipient and a bit of female anatomy. Just as "dick" creates a negative association between the recipient and a bit of male anatomy.
Well, no. Discussions about oppressed class aside, "cunt" (at least in the US) isn't simply referring to human nether regions, but is a magnified version of "bitch" - somebody is not merely being loathesome, but is despicable in a female way. In the US, "cunt" and "bitch" are very much gendered insults. They're not the equivalent of "asshole". Other than, perhaps, "whore", there's not really a nastier term you can throw at a woman.
"Dick" is, too, but it's much less incendiary than the female equivalents; stereotypical behavior associated with men (being aggressive, loudmouthed, arrogant, obnoxious, etc).
Really, would you describe the exact same behavior in the exact same person with any of those three terms interchangeably? Maybe in the UK, but not in the US.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
0
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
This has been a weird look into the ragged depths of an imploded human being. I think Mel Gibson needs to hide in a room full of pillows and order take out, and just, I don't know, maybe stay there for the next ten years.
Cynicism and women-hating is the same thing in this thread, so just don't bring it up.
You clearly think there is something wrong with my assertions about misogyny or you wouldn't have said the above. I mean, I know you didn't post that in direct response to me, but that doesn't mean I'm not aware of what you were alluding to, or that I can't respond to it. So now you know the proper framework for all the responses I've directed at you.
Ascribing any amount of blame toward female victims of domestic abuse (in married or unmarried relationships) and in a variety of other situations (rape, for instance) is a long standing tradition of the misogynist crowd.
- Never said Mel Gibson's words or actions were defensible
- Never said context changed his words or actions
- Never said she somehow brought this on herself
Newsflash: Suggesting an explanation does not equal justification or endorsement.
Newsflash: offering an opinion backed up with your own personal experiences is not merely playing devil's advocate, 'suggesting an explanation', or whatever backpedaling you're currently engaging in. "I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that she's manipulating this for personal gain" is not merely a suggestion; it's an expression of an opinion.
Isn't this Glenn Beck's shtick, anyway? Offer wild speculation, and then when you get called on it, indignantly insist that you were just asking questions?
But "Offering an opinion on her actions does not justify or endorse his actions. That's all his quote says.
Why can't it be possible that they are both wrong? Is that really analogous to saying "She asked for it?"
Cynicism and women-hating is the same thing in this thread, so just don't bring it up.
Who the hell were you were referring to, if it wasn't me, and what were you trying to imply?
It could have been you, I really didn't pay much attention to who was posting what when I came back to this thread today to read what had been posted since I left. But basically there was a whole lot of "misogyny" and allusions to misogyny being thrown around that were often unwarranted.
I've explained why I don't particularly like Oksana, there's a summary on the top of page 12 if you want to read it. And if you think that is misogynistic then I don't know what to tell you.
Either way, I am getting the hell out of this thread, because I seriously can't stand to argue in circles or argue things I never said in the first place anymore.
Imagining hypothetical scenarios so you can draw equivalency between the abuser and the victim is a what the fuck type of thing to do.
Absolutely nothing, and anyone that suggests she is in any way not snow white is a woman hater.
A slightly more serious answer would be:
Illegally taping those conversation without consent (if that is indeed illegal in CA)
Leaking the tapes which went against a court order.
Procreating with a nutjob (what if that shit is genetic?!?!)
I'm just wonder why this whole thing needs to be a zero sum game? Why can't they both be assholes?
Imagining hypothetical scenarios so you can draw equivalency between the abuser and the victim is a what the fuck type of thing to do.
Absolutely nothing, and anyone that suggests she is in any way not snow white is a woman hater.
A slightly more serious answer would be:
Illegally taping those conversation without consent (if that is indeed illegal in CA)
Leaking the tapes which went against a court order.
Procreating with a nutjob (what if that shit is genetic?!?!)
There is no proof she leaked anything, just speculation.
I guess women are also supposed to have abuser radars and never get involved with a person who later becomes abusive. And when he does, they are supposed to leave right away no matter the consequences. If they don't, well I guess they are complicit in the abuse somehow.
I think the everyone is aware she did the taping. Nobody is claiming that it was an accident, that she just tripping over a tape recorder and got hours of conversation with Mel Gibson on the phone.
Even though it is illegal, and it is, she is justified. And she is justified in leaking them too, AND lying about leaking them. She is fighting for her kid, and against this asshole these kinds of tactics are ok by me if that's what it takes to get complete custody. You would be an asshole not to do this and allow your kid to fall into even partial custody to this blackhole of a human being.
There is no proof she leaked anything, just speculation.
She is the source of the recordings, how did they get out if she did not leak them. Notice I didn't say she gave them to the media. Do you think she released them to the courts and they got leaked from there?
I guess women are also supposed to have abuser radars and never get involved with a person who later becomes abusive. And when he does, they are supposed to leave right away no matter the consequences. If they don't, well I guess they are complicit in the abuse somehow.
I guess you like using a straw man, over and over again. It's really my fault, I made you do it by disagreeing with you.
It was the most effective way to protect herself from an abuser.
This I do not agree with. It's the most effective way of convicting him in the court of public opinion. It could go either way as far as protecting herself.
There is no proof she leaked anything, just speculation.
She is the source of the recordings, how did they get out if she did not leak them. Notice I didn't say she gave them to the media. Do you think she released them to the courts and they got leaked from there?
I don't know so I'm not going to assume to know and then impute a motive to her?
I guess women are also supposed to have abuser radars and never get involved with a person who later becomes abusive. And when he does, they are supposed to leave right away no matter the consequences. If they don't, well I guess they are complicit in the abuse somehow.
I guess you like using a straw man, over and over again. It's really my fault, I made you do it by disagreeing with you.
You're the person who said it's okay to ask why she had a kid with this person. What exactly are you implying by that statement, hm? Why would you ask that question if you weren't saying she had some blame for the situation here? She should have just left, right?
It was the most effective way to protect herself from an abuser.
This I do not agree with. It's the most effective way of convicting him in the court of public opinion. It could go either way as far as protecting herself.
1) Everyone believes her now. The cops are launching a criminal investiation, the public is decrying Gibson, there is no doubt or whispers or sniggers that would detract from her case. She's proven without a shadow of a doubt that Gibson is an abuser and that justice of some sort will come to him.
2) She is, I guarantee it, a paparazzi target now. What's a better way to keep an abuser away than to surround yourself with constant witnesses with cameras and recorders?
It was the most effective way to protect herself from an abuser.
This I do not agree with. It's the most effective way of convicting him in the court of public opinion. It could go either way as far as protecting herself.
1) Everyone believes her now. The cops are launching a criminal investiation, the public is decrying Gibson, there is no doubt or whispers or sniggers that would detract from her case. She's proven without a shadow of a doubt that Gibson is an abuser and that justice of some sort will come to him.
2) She is, I guarantee it, a paparazzi target now. What's a better way to keep an abuser away than to surround yourself with constant witnesses with cameras and recorders?
You make good points, I guess the only bad possibility I was thinking of with "go either way" was if he went OJ on her.
Really, would you describe the exact same behavior in the exact same person with any of those three terms interchangeably? Maybe in the UK, but not in the US.
Honestly? Yes. If I hear a random person described as a "cunt" or a "dick" or a "giant cock" or a "complete asshole," they all mean pretty much the same thing to me. This is possibly because I am used to hearing brits throw "cunt" around more nonchalantly than their American counterparts; the term just doesn't faze me. Hell, after being on the internet for the last 15 years there are few things left that do faze me.
At the end of the day, I still don't buy the implication that because white males are dominant in society, any word you choose to belittle or denigrate them is automatically inoffensive. Whatever the nature and origins of "cracker" may be, a black dude using that to describe a white dude in a non-joking manner is still a racist ass.
Really, I think some people are conflating why a given word is offensive with why it has power. "N*****" has tremendous power while "cracker" has very little, but the two words are offensive for pretty much the same reasons - to wit, they are used by racist assholes to insult another race. Ditto "cunt" versus "dick".
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I don't find something like "stop bitching" or "son of a bitch" to be more offensive than calling someone a "cock". I'm pretty sure I don't know a single person who does. Yet apparently as a guy I'm supposed to?
You're being really disingenuous here. Neither of your examples involve a man being called a bitch, which is what I said, and also the context of this conversation. Do you have an argument for what I actually wrote, or is that it?
If calling someone a "bitch" is necessarily comparing them to a female, then wouldn't saying that they are "bitching" necessarily mean that they are engaging in an expressly female behavior? Or is it okay to use an offensive word as long as you change the part of speech?
I never said "stems from". If "bastards" were an extant oppressed class, yeah, I'd have a problem with it. Woo?
So when women are considered as equal to men as fatherless children are to children with two parents - that is, close but still no cigar - we can start using "cunt" and "bitch" with impunity, yes?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
warbanWho the Hoof do you think we are?Registered Userregular
edited July 2010
One of the podcasts (A Conspiracy theory one..) I listen to was talking about Mel Gibson and one of the hosts was going on about how he thinks Mel Gibson is on Chantix. A stop smoking drug that apparently has some nasty mood side effects.
Right now they are just making this guess of one of his comments on the phone recordings where he makes a comment about wanting to smoke again. Would be interesting if he turns of to be actually is on this drug.
Does being a victim give you the right to do something illegal to someone who has committed a crime against you?
If something illegal has been done to you, is it right for investigators to automatically assume that you have not committed any illegal acts related to the crime committed against you?
If a member of a couple is being abused, is it morally acceptable for the abused person to commit illegal acts to get out of the abusive situation?
I specifically left out gender pronouns--these questions are not about gender, they are about legal and moral culpability.
One of the podcasts (A Conspiracy theory one..) I listen to was talking about Mel Gibson and one of the hosts was going on about how he thinks Mel Gibson is on Chantix. A stop smoking drug that apparently has some nasty mood side effects.
Right now they are just making this guess of one of his comments on the phone recordings where he makes a comment about wanting to smoke again. Would be interesting if he turns of to be actually is on this drug.
It's not that interesting.
I've been on Chantix, It fucked with my moods hard. I woke up pissed off. It's still not a valid excuse.
If a member of a couple is being abused, is it morally acceptable for the abused person to commit illegal acts to get out of the abusive situation?
Morality and legality frequently overlap but they aren't the same thing. I think self defense is always morally acceptable although it might not be legal or wise.
themightypuck on
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
If something illegal has been done to you, is it right for investigators to automatically assume that you have not committed any illegal acts related to the crime committed against you? .
If you have no idea whether an act is legal or illegal, or what investigators are or are not "assuming" about it, is it right to pull not-really-hypotheticals out of your ass?
LA police are investigating the tapes and it is not entirely clear whether the recording was, in fact, illegal under the circumstances.
What's particularly amusing is if she hadn't taped his calls, at least half of the people attacking her here would be arguing that she was full of shit, has no proof and why didn't Miss Smarty tape his phone calls if he kept calling and making threats, huh?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Posts
If you were right, calling a dude a cunt/whore/pussy/bitch should be no more offensive than calling him a cock/dick/bastard/asshole. Obviously that's not true, though. Why do you think it is that all of the female terms are more offensive than their male or ungendered counterparts?
Hint: It's not because I'm a hypocrite.
And this is a joke, right? I'm not talking about once upon a time, which you should really be able to pull out of context.
Do you work for Fox News or something? One has to admire the linguistic craniorectal inversion that transmutes "wild-ass speculative victim-blaming" and "misandrist" into "cynicism".
(And yes, saying that a woman provoking a man is like stepping into a lion's cage is misandry. Unless you can think of a nicer excuse for the assumption that men are stupid, belligerent animals, who just can't help themselves from popping a woman in the mouth and screaming racist threats at her if she gets lippy.)
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Ascribing any amount of blame toward female victims of domestic abuse (in married or unmarried relationships) and in a variety of other situations (rape, for instance) is a long standing tradition of the misogynist crowd.
So, yes, I'm going to assume that the people in this thread promoting the same exact philosophy as their misogynist forefathers are also misogynists, even if they don't realize that's what they are. Also, you don't have to have a blatant hatred of women to be a misogynist.
And even if you're just a cynic, that's nearly as bad if you're going to go around blaming victims for the crimes that are perpetrated against them. I don't really know if anyone in this thread is a misogynist, but yes I think the people suggesting that Oksana may have brought some of this on herself are, at the VERY least, extreme cynics. Which is also terrible.
I don't find something like "stop bitching" or "son of a bitch" to be more offensive than calling someone a "cock". I'm pretty sure I don't know a single person who does. Yet apparently as a guy I'm supposed to?
And the "bastard" thing is fair game, if your whole reason for finding it offensive is that the term stems from an attempt to oppress some underclass. That was your reason, right? That "dick" and "cock" don't count because men have never been oppressed as a class?
I think you mean "misanthropy"
Also I have no idea where your second paragraph came from. I'm assuming you are talking to someone else, or... something?
I dunno, I think that provoking Mel Gibson is stepping into a lion's cage. Of course, so is dating him. Or failing to walk across the street to avoid having to pass within 20 feet of him. Because the dude is violently crazy.
No, he means misandry, which is hatred of men. It is similar to misogyny in its gender specificity.
And I believe he is referring to Nucker's "jumped in a lion cage" shtick. By attempting to draw an analogy between a lion and a man, Nucker is reducing men to primal beasts. That is a definite misandrist belief and argument.
I think that's silly. As much of a crazy asshole as Mel Gibson may be, he's clearly a high functioning crazy asshole capable of making intelligent, adult decisions. He just chooses not to.
I never blamed her for his abuse towards her, who the fuck does that? That's like somebody punching you in the face and then saying it was your fault for being lippy. Maybe someone else in the thread said that but it wasn't me.
I feel like every time you reply to my posts you are replying to someone else. Why don't I just give you a list of things I never said, for your reference:
- Never said Mel Gibson's words or actions were defensible
- Never said context changed his words or actions
- Never said she somehow brought this on herself
You're being really disingenuous here. Neither of your examples involve a man being called a bitch, which is what I said, and also the context of this conversation. Do you have an argument for what I actually wrote, or is that it?
I never said "stems from". If "bastards" were an extant oppressed class, yeah, I'd have a problem with it. Woo?
I'm responding to this:
You clearly think there is something wrong with my assertions about misogyny or you wouldn't have said the above. I mean, I know you didn't post that in direct response to me, but that doesn't mean I'm not aware of what you were alluding to, or that I can't respond to it. So now you know the proper framework for all the responses I've directed at you.
Oh hi there
Oh yeah and there's that as well.
Oh hi, you mean the thing I admitted to being wrong about
I'm glad you guys are so forgiving.
Well, no. Discussions about oppressed class aside, "cunt" (at least in the US) isn't simply referring to human nether regions, but is a magnified version of "bitch" - somebody is not merely being loathesome, but is despicable in a female way. In the US, "cunt" and "bitch" are very much gendered insults. They're not the equivalent of "asshole". Other than, perhaps, "whore", there's not really a nastier term you can throw at a woman.
"Dick" is, too, but it's much less incendiary than the female equivalents; stereotypical behavior associated with men (being aggressive, loudmouthed, arrogant, obnoxious, etc).
Really, would you describe the exact same behavior in the exact same person with any of those three terms interchangeably? Maybe in the UK, but not in the US.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Who the hell were you were referring to, if it wasn't me, and what were you trying to imply?
But "Offering an opinion on her actions does not justify or endorse his actions. That's all his quote says.
Why can't it be possible that they are both wrong? Is that really analogous to saying "She asked for it?"
Imagining hypothetical scenarios so you can draw equivalency between the abuser and the victim is a what the fuck type of thing to do.
It could have been you, I really didn't pay much attention to who was posting what when I came back to this thread today to read what had been posted since I left. But basically there was a whole lot of "misogyny" and allusions to misogyny being thrown around that were often unwarranted.
I've explained why I don't particularly like Oksana, there's a summary on the top of page 12 if you want to read it. And if you think that is misogynistic then I don't know what to tell you.
Either way, I am getting the hell out of this thread, because I seriously can't stand to argue in circles or argue things I never said in the first place anymore.
Absolutely nothing, and anyone that suggests she is in any way not snow white is a woman hater.
A slightly more serious answer would be:
Illegally taping those conversation without consent (if that is indeed illegal in CA)
Leaking the tapes which went against a court order.
Procreating with a nutjob (what if that shit is genetic?!?!)
I'm just wonder why this whole thing needs to be a zero sum game? Why can't they both be assholes?
There is no proof she leaked anything, just speculation.
I guess women are also supposed to have abuser radars and never get involved with a person who later becomes abusive. And when he does, they are supposed to leave right away no matter the consequences. If they don't, well I guess they are complicit in the abuse somehow.
It was the most effective way to protect herself from an abuser.
Even though it is illegal, and it is, she is justified. And she is justified in leaking them too, AND lying about leaking them. She is fighting for her kid, and against this asshole these kinds of tactics are ok by me if that's what it takes to get complete custody. You would be an asshole not to do this and allow your kid to fall into even partial custody to this blackhole of a human being.
She is the source of the recordings, how did they get out if she did not leak them. Notice I didn't say she gave them to the media. Do you think she released them to the courts and they got leaked from there?
I guess you like using a straw man, over and over again. It's really my fault, I made you do it by disagreeing with you.
This I agree with 100%
This I do not agree with. It's the most effective way of convicting him in the court of public opinion. It could go either way as far as protecting herself.
I only with I, and others in this thread where given such just and noble treatment by you.
1) Everyone believes her now. The cops are launching a criminal investiation, the public is decrying Gibson, there is no doubt or whispers or sniggers that would detract from her case. She's proven without a shadow of a doubt that Gibson is an abuser and that justice of some sort will come to him.
2) She is, I guarantee it, a paparazzi target now. What's a better way to keep an abuser away than to surround yourself with constant witnesses with cameras and recorders?
It's getting kind of tiresome, listening to her try and defend indefensible things
You make good points, I guess the only bad possibility I was thinking of with "go either way" was if he went OJ on her.
Honestly? Yes. If I hear a random person described as a "cunt" or a "dick" or a "giant cock" or a "complete asshole," they all mean pretty much the same thing to me. This is possibly because I am used to hearing brits throw "cunt" around more nonchalantly than their American counterparts; the term just doesn't faze me. Hell, after being on the internet for the last 15 years there are few things left that do faze me.
At the end of the day, I still don't buy the implication that because white males are dominant in society, any word you choose to belittle or denigrate them is automatically inoffensive. Whatever the nature and origins of "cracker" may be, a black dude using that to describe a white dude in a non-joking manner is still a racist ass.
Really, I think some people are conflating why a given word is offensive with why it has power. "N*****" has tremendous power while "cracker" has very little, but the two words are offensive for pretty much the same reasons - to wit, they are used by racist assholes to insult another race. Ditto "cunt" versus "dick".
If calling someone a "bitch" is necessarily comparing them to a female, then wouldn't saying that they are "bitching" necessarily mean that they are engaging in an expressly female behavior? Or is it okay to use an offensive word as long as you change the part of speech?
So when women are considered as equal to men as fatherless children are to children with two parents - that is, close but still no cigar - we can start using "cunt" and "bitch" with impunity, yes?
Right now they are just making this guess of one of his comments on the phone recordings where he makes a comment about wanting to smoke again. Would be interesting if he turns of to be actually is on this drug.
Does being a victim give you the right to do something illegal to someone who has committed a crime against you?
If something illegal has been done to you, is it right for investigators to automatically assume that you have not committed any illegal acts related to the crime committed against you?
If a member of a couple is being abused, is it morally acceptable for the abused person to commit illegal acts to get out of the abusive situation?
I specifically left out gender pronouns--these questions are not about gender, they are about legal and moral culpability.
It's not that interesting.
I've been on Chantix, It fucked with my moods hard. I woke up pissed off. It's still not a valid excuse.
p.s. Dont use Chantix, quit cold turkey.
Morality and legality frequently overlap but they aren't the same thing. I think self defense is always morally acceptable although it might not be legal or wise.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
If you have no idea whether an act is legal or illegal, or what investigators are or are not "assuming" about it, is it right to pull not-really-hypotheticals out of your ass?
LA police are investigating the tapes and it is not entirely clear whether the recording was, in fact, illegal under the circumstances.
What's particularly amusing is if she hadn't taped his calls, at least half of the people attacking her here would be arguing that she was full of shit, has no proof and why didn't Miss Smarty tape his phone calls if he kept calling and making threats, huh?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
What? The first line of that story says that both parties must consent. I think you are confusing illegality with admissibility as evidence.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck