Page 6 of 9 [ 140 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Dec 2013, 6:11 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
A metaphorical pat on the head, then. Some token or expression of appreciation. No touching, and no tactile/kinesthetic stimulation.

'Hey, good job,' or 'quick thinking,' or 'I can tell you worked hard on that report, thanks,' accompanied by a nod or a handshake, are all welcomed by most women and men alike in the workplace or school.
Quote:
Women are indeed mysterious creatures. It is impossible to fathom what that "mystical, nice-smelling collective" really wants sometimes.

Women are not "creatures." We're humans, just like men are, and we're no more likely to smell good or bad than men are. If we're hard to understand, it's because humans are complex and hard to understand, men no less than women.
Quote:
Interesting metaphor. So, display nothing that could be construed as chivalry to a lady, or you are confining her to a cage?

More like putting her on a very narrow pedestal.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

31 Dec 2013, 8:35 am

LKL wrote:
Women are not "creatures." We're humans, just like men are,


Before I get convicted of sexism once again:

The American Heritage Dictionary Definition of Creature wrote:
1. Something created.

2. a. A living being, especially an animal: land creatures; microscopic creatures in a drop of water.
b. A human.
c. An imaginary or fantastical being: mythological creatures; a creature from outer space.

3. One dependent on or subservient to another.


Under Definition 2.b.: both men and women are creatures.

And, thanks for providing another example of Feminists getting overly-sensitive about words.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

31 Dec 2013, 8:38 am

Venger wrote:
I don't think AP is a troll. He just acts weird/silly often like a true person with AS should.


Yeah. I don't know what to make of all these non-weird, non-silly people who show up from time to time on WrongPlanet. Maybe some of them are neurotypical T-words, out for a laugh?



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

31 Dec 2013, 8:41 am

starvingartist wrote:
"There's a fine line between being a strong woman and being a difficult woman."

"Difficult" woman????

Do I need to explain to anyone why this is problematic?


Please proceed.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

31 Dec 2013, 9:12 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulVdGZ0sf_0[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90XGW4iZYWc[/youtube]



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

31 Dec 2013, 10:29 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
LKL wrote:
Women are not "creatures." We're humans, just like men are,


Before I get convicted of sexism once again:

The American Heritage Dictionary Definition of Creature wrote:
1. Something created.

2. a. A living being, especially an animal: land creatures; microscopic creatures in a drop of water.
b. A human.
c. An imaginary or fantastical being: mythological creatures; a creature from outer space.

3. One dependent on or subservient to another.


Under Definition 2.b.: both men and women are creatures.

And, thanks for providing another example of Feminists getting overly-sensitive about words.
AP, read that whole definition please, and repeat that I'm being over-sensitive. The word is rarely used to mean 'human.'



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

31 Dec 2013, 10:49 am

People have to make a positive effort to avoid perpetuating sexist stereotypes through commonly accepted language. This condition even effects professional wordsmiths, as shown in the Coverage of Mary Barra's Appointment as CEO of General Motors:

Quote:
Many news stories about female CEOs and other high-achieving women are coded with a set of reliable clichés: they lucked into their new roles (and thus do not deserve them), inherited them from male relatives or spouses (and thus do not really hold the reins of power), or will not be there for long. If all else fails, coverage concentrates so narrowly on gender that a woman’s very leadership is weakened


None of the language that the stories use is uncommon, it just isn't commonly applied to men.


(Edited to highlight clickable link to full story)



Last edited by jrjones9933 on 31 Dec 2013, 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

31 Dec 2013, 11:02 am

LKL wrote:
AP, read that whole definition please,

Done.

LKL wrote:
and repeat that I'm being over-sensitive.

You're being over-sensitive.

LKL wrote:
The word is rarely used to mean 'human.'

I concede that the word would rarely be used in Feminist literature to mean "human." However, the dictionary does not characterize definition 2.b. as a "rare" use of the word. Hence, using the word "creature" to mean "a human" is a perfectly legitimate use of the word. Moreover, as humans are a subset of living beings, we would also fit under definition 2.a., being land creatures. And, creationists regard us as having been created (definition 1). Thus, humans fall within most of the definition of the word "creature."



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

31 Dec 2013, 12:33 pm

Image



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

31 Dec 2013, 2:52 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Quote:
Many news stories about female CEOs and other high-achieving women are coded with a set of reliable clichés: they lucked into their new roles (and thus do not deserve them), inherited them from male relatives or spouses (and thus do not really hold the reins of power), or will not be there for long. If all else fails, coverage concentrates so narrowly on gender that a woman’s very leadership is weakened



They're talking about CEOs, who are the scum of the Earth to begin with. I'm not going to cry any tears over anyone making a less-than-fawning assessment of a CEO, whether male or female.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

31 Dec 2013, 3:24 pm

Way to completely ignore my point about language, AP, and go off on a tangent with zero relevance to the topic at hand!



Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

31 Dec 2013, 3:43 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Way to completely ignore my point about language, AP, and go off on a tangent with zero relevance to the topic at hand!


*Chuckles* So, feeding the troll?


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

31 Dec 2013, 3:55 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Way to completely ignore my point about language, AP, and go off on a tangent with zero relevance to the topic at hand!


*Chuckles* So, feeding the troll?


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

31 Dec 2013, 5:21 pm

You think that a CEO shouldn't be subjected to criticism, or perhaps to certain types of criticism, by virtue of being female. You are demanding chivalry and sexism, but on your own terms.

She's a damned CEO, and a public figure. She can take it.



jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

31 Dec 2013, 6:33 pm

Incorrect, I don't think that a woman should be subjected to particular criticisms that are applied exclusively to women, even if she is a damned CEO. If the journalists making those criticisms provided any evidence of a basis for them, that would be an affirmative defense, but AFAIK they did not.

Being a public figure certainly makes criticism appropriate, but not falsehoods, and especially not falsehoods based on stereotypes about their basic qualities. It's a brief article, and your arguments might make more sense if you actually read it.



ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 116
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

31 Dec 2013, 7:00 pm

jrjones9933 wrote:
Incorrect, I don't think that a woman should be subjected to particular criticisms that are applied exclusively to women, even if she is a damned CEO. If the journalists making those criticisms provided any evidence of a basis for them, that would be an affirmative defense, but AFAIK they did not.


As far as you know. You didn't read the articles to which your over-sensitive looking-to-be-offended Feminist author was referring.

jrjones9933 wrote:
Being a public figure certainly makes criticism appropriate, but not falsehoods, and especially not falsehoods based on stereotypes about their basic qualities. It's a brief article, and your arguments might make more sense if you actually read it.


You don't know if they were falsehoods. They might have been truehoods.

In the case of Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the Supreme Court basically established that you can make patently false statements about public figures and get away with it.

Image

Certainly falsehoods based on stereotypes about Jerry Falwell's basic qualities were used in this piece. Why shouldn't female public figures be subject to similar treatment? Because the Feminist Code of Chivalry would be violated?

Fox "News" makes patently false statements all of the time, and they get away with it.