I am actually VERY MUCH against teh forced secularization of Christmas, because it implies that for some reason I WANT Christmas, and if only that Jesus guy wasn't there, I would eat it right up. It';s frankly insulting to assume that about me, and incredibly disrespectful, i feel. Like I said earlier, everyone knows what a snowman wearing a green and red scarf MEANS. Don't try to sell me your secularized religious holidays, fucking let me choose not to participate, because I'm just not interested.
While I have no argument against your observation that Christmas has more or less become a secular, ultra-capitalistic holiday, don't you think life would be rather dull without something to look forward to at the end of every year? A tradition of togetherness. A tradition of temporary aesthetic change (red/green, lights, ornaments). A tradition that lets you buy shit guilt-free?
I'm very, very much in favor of the secularization of Christmas. Of course it doesn't HAVE to be "Christmas" but there should be SOMETHING, anything. Events like this serve an important psychological/sociological purpose. They are equivalent to cemeteries, and coliseums/jousts/tournaments/contests/etc. I think there's a specific word for it, but I can't recall what it is right now. Maybe a sociology major (ha, ha) will wander by and drop the name for me, if there is one.
Also, nobody is individually forcing you to celebrate. Sure, we might call you Scrooge McDuck and throw pies at you, but a pie in the face isn't really "forcing" you to do anything. Unless you're allergic to pie. Which would be pretty sad.
And can you please stop asking for people to put topics to rest? Topics die when they die. Nobody's forcing you to read a topic you don't want, but you act like the mere existence of it is some kind of skin irritant.
I'm very, very much in favor of the secularization of Christmas. Of course it doesn't HAVE to be "Christmas" but there should be SOMETHING, anything. Events like this serve an important psychological/sociological purpose. They are equivalent to cemeteries, and coliseums/jousts/tournaments/contests/etc. I think there's a specific word for it, but I can't recall what it is right now. Maybe a sociology major (ha, ha) will wander by and drop the name for me, if there is one.
It sounds like concepts of "secular, state religion" (I don't think that's the right term, exactly), i.e. cultural traditions which are built on communal membership as opposed to being based on any sort of expressly "theistic" approach.
The Superbowl is probably the best example. We have rituals (beer, wings, big TVs, lots of friends, commercials) and it is a day of cultural celebration.
I am actually VERY MUCH against teh forced secularization of Christmas, because it implies that for some reason I WANT Christmas, and if only that Jesus guy wasn't there, I would eat it right up. It';s frankly insulting to assume that about me, and incredibly disrespectful, i feel. Like I said earlier, everyone knows what a snowman wearing a green and red scarf MEANS. Don't try to sell me your secularized religious holidays, fucking let me choose not to participate, because I'm just not interested.
While I have no argument against your observation that Christmas has more or less become a secular, ultra-capitalistic holiday, don't you think life would be rather dull without something to look forward to at the end of every year? A tradition of togetherness. A tradition of temporary aesthetic change (red/green, lights, ornaments). A tradition that lets you buy shit guilt-free?
I'm very, very much in favor of the secularization of Christmas. Of course it doesn't HAVE to be "Christmas" but there should be SOMETHING, anything. Events like this serve an important psychological/sociological purpose. They are equivalent to cemeteries, and coliseums/jousts/tournaments/contests/etc. I think there's a specific word for it, but I can't recall what it is right now. Maybe a sociology major (ha, ha) will wander by and drop the name for me, if there is one.
Also, nobody is individually forcing you to celebrate. Sure, we might call you Scrooge McDuck and throw pies at you, but a pie in the face isn't really "forcing" you to do anything. Unless you're allergic to pie. Which would be pretty sad.
And can you please stop asking for people to put topics to rest? Topics die when they die. Nobody's forcing you to read a topic you don't want, but you act like the mere existence of it is some kind of skin irritant.
I like to call it "Thanksgiving".
You guiltlessly buy shit at Thanksgiving? :P
I think there is value in a "Christmas" in a capitalistic country. It's hard to swallow considering the potential pitfalls and evils that can come about due to capitalism but the fact is, a once-a-year economic boost in retail is not a bad thing for society as a whole. Also, it gives kids something to look forward to. Whether or not it is a "good thing" for kids to look forward to getting gifts once a year is certainly up for debate, but I don't personally see it being harmful. I'm agnostic (not atheist) but even if I was atheist, I would still be pro-Christmas, because I think despite its flaws it's not so bad, brings people together, gives kids something to look forward to, kisstletoe, etc.
I'm very, very much in favor of the secularization of Christmas. Of course it doesn't HAVE to be "Christmas" but there should be SOMETHING, anything. Events like this serve an important psychological/sociological purpose. They are equivalent to cemeteries, and coliseums/jousts/tournaments/contests/etc. I think there's a specific word for it, but I can't recall what it is right now. Maybe a sociology major (ha, ha) will wander by and drop the name for me, if there is one.
It sounds like concepts of "secular, state religion" (I don't think that's the right term, exactly), i.e. cultural traditions which are built on communal membership as opposed to being based on any sort of expressly "theistic" approach.
The Superbowl is probably the best example. We have rituals (beer, wings, big TVs, lots of friends, commercials) and it is a day of cultural celebration.
Yes. But I would argue that the Superbowl is almost more of a theistic tradition at this point than Christmas, considering how some people talk about it.
There seem to be alot of misconceptions about what a dowry was.
It wasn't that they were trying to sell her (someone compared it to a toxic asset, lol) or that she was bought (although I'm sure this happened on occation); but, that inheritance went to sons. The dowry was the daughters inheritance that she got "up front", as it were; because once she was married, she joined the husbands family. Families wanted to make sure that the family (husband) their daughter was joining was worth the inheritance she was about to receive. Sometimes this was more strategic and other times out of concern for the daughter.
Namel3ss on
May the wombat of happiness snuffle through your underbrush.
I'm curious as to what people's stances on the words "Fag" and "Gay" are as pejorative words. Gay used to mean happy, has also meant you are a homosexual, as well as your are lame/stupid, in the same way that Fag is.
So my question to you is can we draw a parallel between our current discussion and this term? For instance, many people say "I'm not a homophobe, I have no problem with homosexuality, but that dude is a total faggot!" or "I use gay to mean lame or stupid, not anything else," but I would say that this is ignoring the suggestive nature behind the word, and that is to say that first of all homosexuality isn't okay, and two, a man taking on feminine characteristics is not okay, where as it is okay in our society today for a woman to take on masculine characteristics (to a limited extent, ie: an assertive woman is still considered a "bitch").
Now, my partner is a teacher, and as such she hears the word "fag" thrown around a lot by teenagers who have little understanding of how absolutely offensive that term is to those of us who grew up in the pre-2000 world. Back when I was in school, late 90's early 2000's, if someone called someone else a "fag" there was a distinct inference of pejorative "homosexual" attitudes.
Typically, these days, kids are pretty ignorant of the real effect of the word, and there are two sides to the coin. On one hand, it is losing it's blatantly homophobic overtones, and the use of "gay" is almost entirely subsumed as a stand-in for "stupid". While this is horrific, in and of itself, it is also the result of a redefinition that is entirely still in process. I have gay friends who freely throw around the term "faggot" without negative connotations.
While marriage and sexism has been evolving toward more equitable conditions and frameworks, homosexuals are just beginning the process of winning cultural gains in the "collective unconscious". Women won some huge cultural victories in the last 10-20+ years.
I agree. I suppose what bugs me about kids using the term "faggot" and "gay" is that while they may insist that it means stupid or lame, in our society it is still not okay to be a homosexual - extremely so. So when kids go around using faggot or gay in that way, it correlates a negative connotation with homosexuality, whether intentionally or not.
It's kinda how the term "pussy" is used. When you call someone a pussy, you are essentially saying that they are a wimp, weak, emotional, what have you. Those are all traits attributed to the feminine gender. Furthermore, the word pussy is also the term for the vagina - so it is essentially correlating being weak, a wimp, emotional with being a woman, which sets up some really bad cultural norms. The word itself is inherently sexist in its use, similar to how "just grow a pair of balls" as a phrase is.
Know what I mean? I think while people may not believe they are being homophobic when they say someone is "gay" or a "faggot," I still think it helps perpetuate really negative attributes about homosexuality. And I think I would need the contextual information surrounding your friends use of the word - I mean, are you talking about having a "fag," which is a cigarette in some cultures?
Also, I think you're making a false assumption by saying that the N-Word has shifted from anything that isn't offensive. It's still has offensive as it used to be, which is why we can't actually spell it out on these boards, however the oppressed group has taken it upon themselves to use it amongst their circle as a way of destroying the power it once had over them. It's a matter of desensitization. I know that when it is used amongst minorities that it still carries very negative connotations, even though at times, it can be a term of endearment as long as you are a part of that social circle.
It's complicated and there's a lot of factors feeding into why it has become more mainstream.
I'm curious as to what people's stances on the words "Fag" and "Gay" are as pejorative words. Gay used to mean happy, has also meant you are a homosexual, as well as your are lame/stupid, in the same way that Fag is.
So my question to you is can we draw a parallel between our current discussion and this term? For instance, many people say "I'm not a homophobe, I have no problem with homosexuality, but that dude is a total faggot!" or "I use gay to mean lame or stupid, not anything else," but I would say that this is ignoring the suggestive nature behind the word, and that is to say that first of all homosexuality isn't okay, and two, a man taking on feminine characteristics is not okay, where as it is okay in our society today for a woman to take on masculine characteristics (to a limited extent, ie: an assertive woman is still considered a "bitch").
Now, my partner is a teacher, and as such she hears the word "fag" thrown around a lot by teenagers who have little understanding of how absolutely offensive that term is to those of us who grew up in the pre-2000 world. Back when I was in school, late 90's early 2000's, if someone called someone else a "fag" there was a distinct inference of pejorative "homosexual" attitudes.
Typically, these days, kids are pretty ignorant of the real effect of the word, and there are two sides to the coin. On one hand, it is losing it's blatantly homophobic overtones, and the use of "gay" is almost entirely subsumed as a stand-in for "stupid". While this is horrific, in and of itself, it is also the result of a redefinition that is entirely still in process. I have gay friends who freely throw around the term "faggot" without negative connotations.
While marriage and sexism has been evolving toward more equitable conditions and frameworks, homosexuals are just beginning the process of winning cultural gains in the "collective unconscious". Women won some huge cultural victories in the last 10-20+ years.
I agree. I suppose what bugs me about kids using the term "faggot" and "gay" is that while they may insist that it means stupid or lame, in our society it is still not okay to be a homosexual - extremely so. So when kids go around using faggot or gay in that way, it correlates a negative connotation with homosexuality, whether intentionally or not.
It's kinda how the term "pussy" is used. When you call someone a pussy, you are essentially saying that they are a wimp, weak, emotional, what have you. Those are all traits attributed to the feminine gender. Furthermore, the word pussy is also the term for the vagina - so it is essentially correlating being weak, a wimp, emotional with being a woman, which sets up some really bad cultural norms. The word itself is inherently sexist in its use, similar to how "just grow a pair of balls" as a phrase is.
Know what I mean? I think while people may not believe they are being homophobic when they say someone is "gay" or a "faggot," I still think it helps perpetuate really negative attributes about homosexuality. And I think I would need the contextual information surrounding your friends use of the word - I mean, are you talking about having a "fag," which is a cigarette in some cultures?
Also, I think you're making a false assumption by saying that the N-Word has shifted from anything that isn't offensive. It's still has offensive as it used to be, which is why we can't actually spell it out on these boards, however the oppressed group has taken it upon themselves to use it amongst their circle as a way of destroying the power it once had over them. It's a matter of desensitization. I know that when it is used amongst minorities that it still carries very negative connotations, even though at times, it can be a term of endearment as long as you are a part of that social circle.
It's complicated and there's a lot of factors feeding into why it has become more mainstream.
Language evolves. In some cases the change is hard to accept because its occurrence is clouded by the fact that a word takes on new meanings without necessarily losing the old ones. For a lot of people it is perfectly possible for the word 'gay' to mean both literally 'homosexual' and 'stupid' without conflating the two into 'homosexuals are stupid'. It's very similar to the modern usage of the word 'bitch'. It can mean 'female dog', 'aggravating person', 'domineering person', or 'self-empowered woman'. One person is fully capable, and frequently will, use the one word to mean different things in different situations. And I put 'person' above because I frequently hear it being applied to men these days as well as women, without any necessary indication of perceived 'womanishness' or similar.
The N-word is still offensive to pretty much everyone who isn't a flaming racist, except when used by black people toward other black people in certain contexts. It's even worse than 'bitch' because not only is it generally considered offensive (which 'bitch' is, in my view, largely losing) but the same person can potentially use it either to perpetuate the racist stereotype that goes along with it or as a term of solidarity with no internal dissonance.
Various homosexual pejoratives taking on meaning as generic slang for 'bad' gets a lot of attention because homosexual people are in a pretty rough place, culturally. But barring the association of 'fag' with some universally reviled public entity (like the N-word and racist groups) I don't really see anything effectively halting the evolution of the term. "Nauseous" means something like "having the property of causing nausea" but it has effectively become synonymous with "nauseated" while still maintaining its actual definition when the world needs a word for nausea-inducing. "Irregardless" is becoming a word. It annoys me, but language changes and you really can't stop it.
To return to the topic: the same thing happens to cultural rituals, which is the central point of this thread. At one time you actually needed a woman's parents' permission to marry her. Society has changed but the ritual has remained, so now you ask for the parents' support of the marriage without any actual transaction being necessary. Daily life is full of traditions born out of things that are no longer relevant: the handshake, the hat-tip, the post-sneeze blessing. We continue to do them even though we've lost or abandoned the import originally behind them because the ritual itself now carries import. Not blessing someone after a sneeze or refusing an offered hand is rude not because of an implication that you want that dude to keep his demons to himself or that you have a concealed weapon but because of an implication that you are ignoring or dislike the person. Not asking the parents' blessing/support/permission/whatever when that ritual is a familial tradition is the same thing. You aren't upsetting them by the implication of property theft, you're upsetting them by an implication that you don't give a shit about their feelings. You may really not give a shit, and if your spouse doesn't either then fine, but usually that is not a connotation you want to give.
Posts
I like to call it "Thanksgiving".
It sounds like concepts of "secular, state religion" (I don't think that's the right term, exactly), i.e. cultural traditions which are built on communal membership as opposed to being based on any sort of expressly "theistic" approach.
The Superbowl is probably the best example. We have rituals (beer, wings, big TVs, lots of friends, commercials) and it is a day of cultural celebration.
You guiltlessly buy shit at Thanksgiving? :P
I think there is value in a "Christmas" in a capitalistic country. It's hard to swallow considering the potential pitfalls and evils that can come about due to capitalism but the fact is, a once-a-year economic boost in retail is not a bad thing for society as a whole. Also, it gives kids something to look forward to. Whether or not it is a "good thing" for kids to look forward to getting gifts once a year is certainly up for debate, but I don't personally see it being harmful. I'm agnostic (not atheist) but even if I was atheist, I would still be pro-Christmas, because I think despite its flaws it's not so bad, brings people together, gives kids something to look forward to, kisstletoe, etc.
Yes. But I would argue that the Superbowl is almost more of a theistic tradition at this point than Christmas, considering how some people talk about it.
It wasn't that they were trying to sell her (someone compared it to a toxic asset, lol) or that she was bought (although I'm sure this happened on occation); but, that inheritance went to sons. The dowry was the daughters inheritance that she got "up front", as it were; because once she was married, she joined the husbands family. Families wanted to make sure that the family (husband) their daughter was joining was worth the inheritance she was about to receive. Sometimes this was more strategic and other times out of concern for the daughter.
I agree. I suppose what bugs me about kids using the term "faggot" and "gay" is that while they may insist that it means stupid or lame, in our society it is still not okay to be a homosexual - extremely so. So when kids go around using faggot or gay in that way, it correlates a negative connotation with homosexuality, whether intentionally or not.
It's kinda how the term "pussy" is used. When you call someone a pussy, you are essentially saying that they are a wimp, weak, emotional, what have you. Those are all traits attributed to the feminine gender. Furthermore, the word pussy is also the term for the vagina - so it is essentially correlating being weak, a wimp, emotional with being a woman, which sets up some really bad cultural norms. The word itself is inherently sexist in its use, similar to how "just grow a pair of balls" as a phrase is.
Know what I mean? I think while people may not believe they are being homophobic when they say someone is "gay" or a "faggot," I still think it helps perpetuate really negative attributes about homosexuality. And I think I would need the contextual information surrounding your friends use of the word - I mean, are you talking about having a "fag," which is a cigarette in some cultures?
Also, I think you're making a false assumption by saying that the N-Word has shifted from anything that isn't offensive. It's still has offensive as it used to be, which is why we can't actually spell it out on these boards, however the oppressed group has taken it upon themselves to use it amongst their circle as a way of destroying the power it once had over them. It's a matter of desensitization. I know that when it is used amongst minorities that it still carries very negative connotations, even though at times, it can be a term of endearment as long as you are a part of that social circle.
It's complicated and there's a lot of factors feeding into why it has become more mainstream.
Language evolves. In some cases the change is hard to accept because its occurrence is clouded by the fact that a word takes on new meanings without necessarily losing the old ones. For a lot of people it is perfectly possible for the word 'gay' to mean both literally 'homosexual' and 'stupid' without conflating the two into 'homosexuals are stupid'. It's very similar to the modern usage of the word 'bitch'. It can mean 'female dog', 'aggravating person', 'domineering person', or 'self-empowered woman'. One person is fully capable, and frequently will, use the one word to mean different things in different situations. And I put 'person' above because I frequently hear it being applied to men these days as well as women, without any necessary indication of perceived 'womanishness' or similar.
The N-word is still offensive to pretty much everyone who isn't a flaming racist, except when used by black people toward other black people in certain contexts. It's even worse than 'bitch' because not only is it generally considered offensive (which 'bitch' is, in my view, largely losing) but the same person can potentially use it either to perpetuate the racist stereotype that goes along with it or as a term of solidarity with no internal dissonance.
Various homosexual pejoratives taking on meaning as generic slang for 'bad' gets a lot of attention because homosexual people are in a pretty rough place, culturally. But barring the association of 'fag' with some universally reviled public entity (like the N-word and racist groups) I don't really see anything effectively halting the evolution of the term. "Nauseous" means something like "having the property of causing nausea" but it has effectively become synonymous with "nauseated" while still maintaining its actual definition when the world needs a word for nausea-inducing. "Irregardless" is becoming a word. It annoys me, but language changes and you really can't stop it.
To return to the topic: the same thing happens to cultural rituals, which is the central point of this thread. At one time you actually needed a woman's parents' permission to marry her. Society has changed but the ritual has remained, so now you ask for the parents' support of the marriage without any actual transaction being necessary. Daily life is full of traditions born out of things that are no longer relevant: the handshake, the hat-tip, the post-sneeze blessing. We continue to do them even though we've lost or abandoned the import originally behind them because the ritual itself now carries import. Not blessing someone after a sneeze or refusing an offered hand is rude not because of an implication that you want that dude to keep his demons to himself or that you have a concealed weapon but because of an implication that you are ignoring or dislike the person. Not asking the parents' blessing/support/permission/whatever when that ritual is a familial tradition is the same thing. You aren't upsetting them by the implication of property theft, you're upsetting them by an implication that you don't give a shit about their feelings. You may really not give a shit, and if your spouse doesn't either then fine, but usually that is not a connotation you want to give.