'Stupid Woman'

[MigL]

You could be right, or, you could be wrong.
If you think I'm the kind of person who would do that, then, yes, you'd be right.
If, on the other hand, you think I'm a decent person and wouldn't stoop to that, then, you'd be wrong.

Does whether you're offended by my behavior depend on your pre-judgement of me ?

( and yes, I'm sarcastically making a point )

Edited January 16, 2019 by MigL

[Ten oz]

56 minutes ago, MigL said:

You could be right, or, you could be wrong.
If you think I'm the kind of person who would do that, then, yes, you'd be right.
If, on the other hand, you think I'm a decent person and wouldn't stoop to that, then, you'd be wrong.

Does whether you're offended by my behavior depend on your pre-judgement of me ?

( and yes, I'm sarcastically making a point )

This thread was created to discuss whether or not "stupid woman" is offensive. I do not think pre-judgements are necessary to understand your use of it, in a thread about it, was sarcastic. 

[MigL]

My use of the term wasn't meant to be sarcastic.
The two choices analyzing your thinking about me, on the other hand, were.

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

My interpretation is that you purposefully used potentially offensive labels to sarcastically my a point. So the disclaimer itself is insincere in my opinion. 

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

My use of the term wasn't meant to be sarcastic.
The two choices analyzing your thinking about me, on the other hand, were.

"Hope I'm not offending anyone's sensibilities." Is a line which seems sarcastic to me. If you actually were interested in not offending anyone's "sensibilities" you could have just altered your post to avoid the potential.

I am not saying you should have altered your post. It is your post to do with as you want. Rather I am merely pointing that you knew "stupid woman" potentially would cause offense and still chose to use it. So you were prepared to potentially offend people which makes the disclaimer sarcastic. 

[MigL]

No, the disclaimer was there for exactly this type of nonsense reaction.
My post specifically identified one woman and one man that are, in my opinion, acting stupid, including their names.
Why would you take that as offensive to women or men ?
Your thinking that I was using sarcasm to make a point, is colored by your impression of me, because up to that point, I hadn't been sarcastic at all, but seriously giving my opinion.

Now this is where the sarcasm comes in...

Your pre-judgemental attitude towards my opinions is demonstrably biased and obviously offensive.
What do you propose to do about it ?

[iNow]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

What do you propose to do about it ?

I propose you both just stop already and get back on topic

[Ten oz]

On 12/20/2018 at 9:06 AM, DrP said:

Jeremy Corbin's latest trouble has been caused by some lip readers claiming he called the prime minister a 'stupid woman' under his breath to the person sitting next to him during the PM question time after she failed to answer his questions adequately.  He claims he was talking about the whole front bench and said that they were stupid people. There has been outrage about it with claims of hypocrisy and sexism and arguments between differing lip readers as to if he said 'people' or 'woman'. The venomous fake moral outrage has been nauseating....  Putting aside the childishness of calling someone stupid just because they cannot or will not see your side of an argument, they were not complaining that he called her stupid, but that he said that she was a woman.  I don't get the fake outrage at all unless it is just a distraction from the rest of the debacle that has been going on over the last couple of years.

 

...although it leads me to question:-    When did it become sexist to call a woman.....  a woman?  Also - do any of the public really care or is it just his political enemies jumping in to try to discredit him as a hypocrite? 

 

 

 

Above is the OP for this thread

7 hours ago, MigL said:

No, the disclaimer was there for exactly this type of nonsense reaction.
My post specifically identified one woman and one man that are, in my opinion, acting stupid, including their names.
Why would you take that as offensive to women or men ?
Your thinking that I was using sarcasm to make a point, is colored by your impression of me, because up to that point, I hadn't been sarcastic at all, but seriously giving my opinion.

Now this is where the sarcasm comes in...

Your pre-judgemental attitude towards my opinions is demonstrably biased and obviously offensive.
What do you propose to do about it ?

16 pages in and you are basically re-asking the same question which this thread started with. Simply reading all the various responses to the OP would provide you some insight on who might be offended and why. Likewise you'll see that pre-judgements of you specifically have nothing to do with it. 

[MigL]

You still don't get it.
( or maybe I'm not explaining properly )

I make a statement that is both factual and properly uses the English language.
You have the option of interpreting it as you will. Either as a factual statement or a sexist statement.
If you choose the latter interpretation, is it not because you have an inherent bias  towards men and think that they are ALL sexist ?
( and this applies to racism and other biases. If you expect to find it, you will )

And is this not sexist itself ?
And yes you can call that 'victim' blaming. But only if you and the interpreter ( victim ) share the same sexist bias.

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I make a statement that is both factual and properly uses the English language.
You have the option of interpreting it as you will. Either as a factual statement or a sexist statement.
If you choose the latter interpretation, is it not because you have an inherent bias  towards men and think that they are ALL sexist ?
 

I don't think so (other than in extreme cases). I think it is taken as a sexist statement due to its historical use as such.

Calling someone a dirty Jew may be both factual and a proper use of the English language, but due to history, it should surprise no one if the Jewish person who just finished gardening might take offense. That is why many of us simply avoid using some factual, proper English.

Edited January 16, 2019 by zapatos

[Ten oz]

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

I make a statement that is both factual and properly uses the English language.
You have the option of interpreting it as you will. Either as a factual statement or a sexist statement.

Beyond the proper use of English your statement has a relationship to this thread's topic and the many other posts in the topic. Whether or not you consider  "stupid woman" sexist several other posters have indicated they in fact do. You are aware of those posts, aware some do consider it  sexist, and still chose to use "stupid woman".

That is your choice but I think it is disingenuous to pretend like you were stirring the pot.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And is this not sexist itself ?

I find it sarcastic and a bit indifferent towards sexism in society at large. Not sexist outright in itself. That is just my opinion. Others might find it extremely sexist while other still might chuckle and think it clever. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And yes you can call that 'victim' blaming. But only if you and the interpreter ( victim ) share the same sexist bias.

I have no idea what this bit is about. Did you mean this for someone else? 

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Calling someone a dirty Jew may be both factual and a proper use of the English language, but due to history, it should surprise no one if the Jewish person who just finished gardening might take offense. That is why many of us simply avoid using some factual, proper English.

Right, now imagine someone using that known epithet for a Jewish person 16 pages into a thread debating that very epithet. It would come across as  deliberate. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

None of us know all possible contexts of potentially offensive remarks. We didn't all grow up together in the same areas of the World.

Ideally we eventually won't need to, and we can get along OK with our partial ignorance as long as we mean well.

 But to some degree we are stuck with our history. Zapatos has given a good example of that, though it is not clear why religious tie would be mentioned at all in that case (maybe in a group of gardening priests and rabbi's, where many priests were dirty but only one rabbi?)

Edited January 16, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[Ten oz]

On 12/20/2018 at 8:27 PM, Ten oz said:

 If you interpreted offense in my last post than I would guess we (you and I) view the world very differently. It wouldn't make you wrong. What offends you offends you. I have no right to say what you should or should not be offend by. That is why it is very important to know and understand ones audience when speaking. Different things upset different people. Very few things, perhaps nothing, in this world are interpreted the same way by everyone. 

 

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

None of us know all possible contexts of potentially offensive remarks. We didn't all grow up together in the same areas of the World.

Ideally we eventually won't need to, and we can get along OK with our partial ignorance as long as we mean well.

 But to some degree we are stuck with our history. Zapatos has given a good example of that, though it is not clear why religious tie would be mentioned at all.

This conversation has almost made it back to where it was nearly a month. Different stuff offends difference people. If one cares (no one is obligated to) about being causing offense it would be best for them to avoid things known to cause offense. 

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

None of us know all possible contexts of potentially offensive remarks. We didn't all grow up together in the same areas of the World.

 

Seriously? Did you state that because you feel that we are expecting everyone to be omniscient?

MigL seems to either not know that the term "stupid woman" might be offensive to some (even though it's been stated about 50 times in this thread), or that because it is factual and a proper use of the English language that perhaps the person who is offended is a sexist.

And now your defense of the terms seems to be a plea to ignorance, even though it's been stated around 50 times in this thread.

If you don't care to modify your speech to avoid offending someone then don't. But don't act like you don't know some might be offended.

[J.C.MacSwell]

40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Seriously? Did you state that because you feel that we are expecting everyone to be omniscient?

MigL seems to either not know that the term "stupid woman" might be offensive to some (even though it's been stated about 50 times in this thread), or that because it is factual and a proper use of the English language that perhaps the person who is offended is a sexist.

And now your defense of the terms seems to be a plea to ignorance, even though it's been stated around 50 times in this thread.

If you don't care to modify your speech to avoid offending someone then don't. But don't act like you don't know some might be offended.

No. Just trying to make a point. Sorry if you feel I didn't think you would understand that.

What terms, exactly, am I defending? I'm generalizing that through ignorance any one of us could say something potentially offensive to some people.

I'll give you an example of my ignorance. Until recently I would not have expected anyone to take offence to wearing black make up on Halloween in a genuine attempt to say dress up as an African American/Canadian. (Wear a black face...as opposed to "blackface" with exaggerated features)

I don't fully understand the problem with doing that, and believe it is regrettable, but at least now I am aware it can be offensive to some.

On topic "stupid woman", I think I understand that can be taken either way, a derogatory word followed by an identifier, or derogatory term.

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

 

Quote

I'm generalizing that through ignorance any one of us could say something potentially offensive to some people.

Yes. Everyone knows that. You seem to be telling us that as part of your defense of using the term "ignorant woman".

No one is suggesting that no one can ever unintentionally be offensive. The problem I have is with those who KNOW it can be considered offensive to some, yet continue to defend its use because "you are too sensitive" or "it was proper English" or "not everyone knows what is offensive" or "it was factual". It feels to me that people who use such arguments are being obtuse.

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by zapatos

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

Yes. Everyone knows that. You seem to be telling us that as part of your defense of using the term "ignorant woman".

No one is suggesting that no one can ever unintentionally be offensive. The problem I have is with those who KNOW it can be considered offensive to some, yet continue to defend its use because "you are too sensitive" or "it was proper English" or "not everyone knows what is offensive" or "it was factual". It feels to me that people who use such arguments are being obtuse.

 

Is this a joke? Where has this term been mentioned?

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is this a joke? Where has this term been mentioned?

Sorry. "Stupid woman".

[MigL]

This was my 'offensive' post.

"Well, that particular 'stupid woman' ( T May )has just lost the vote on the BREXIT deal and may face a no-confidence vote.
But at least she's not as bad as that particular 'stupid man' ( D Trump ) in the White House."

I don't see how much clearer I can make it, to identify one specific woman and one specific man.
NOT all womankind or mankind.
Are we going to toss context out the window too ?

Some are so focussed on sexism that they'll find it no matter what.
And even go to the extent of being sexist in their criteria.

( also, you 'll notice a lot of objections to 'stupid woman' but not a single complaint about " stupid man' )
 

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

This was my 'offensive' post.

"Well, that particular 'stupid woman' ( T May )has just lost the vote on the BREXIT deal and may face a no-confidence vote.
But at least she's not as bad as that particular 'stupid man' ( D Trump ) in the White House."

I don't see how much clearer I can make it, to identify one specific woman and one specific man.
NOT all womankind or mankind.
Are we going to toss context out the window too ?

Some are so focussed on sexism that they'll find it no matter what.
And even go to the extent of being sexist in their criteria.

( also, you 'll notice a lot of objections to 'stupid woman' but not a single complaint about " stupid man' )
 

That's what people seem to be doing as they ignore the historical context of sexism.

[Raider5678]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

"Well, that particular 'stupid woman' ( T May )has just lost the vote on the BREXIT deal and may face a no-confidence vote.

She faced that vote about half an hour ago. I watched it live. SHe won, by the way.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I don't see how much clearer I can make it, to identify one specific woman and one specific man.
NOT all womankind or mankind.
Are we going to toss context out the window too ?

I another discussion in another thread you ignorance plea would make better sense to me. Here, in a thread literally about people being offended by that very thing, the ignorance plea has no creditability. 

[StringJunky]

48 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I another discussion in another thread you ignorance plea would make better sense to me. 

Your quality control in your writing appears non-existent. Don't you ever check it?

[naitche]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

That's what people seem to be doing as they ignore the historical context of sexism.

Historical context of sexism.

I think its a mistake to bring that context into the present, with out evidence its the same context today. 

Conditions change and that  needs recognition too. 

I think its agreed (here)  that sexism is some thing that needs to be changed .  

Seems to me this is mostly about how individuals react to that expectation.

By direction, that allows for individual conditions/conditioning, or by universally  imposed conditions/conditioning .

I think an assumption of sexism where the evidence does not clearly support that asks that  we adhere  to conditions rather than respond to  conditions presented, as best we can. That history shouldn't decide conditions today.

Like DrP, I think stupid is more insulting than 'woman' and as a singular it should not be taken as a slur against women in general.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Your quality control in your writing appears non-existent. Don't you ever check it?

It is a huge flaw of mine for sure. I mostly post from my phone. Words auto fill or correct on me often and I am not careful enough. 

Edited January 16, 2019 by Ten oz

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It is a huge flaw of mine for sure. I mostly post from my phone. Words auto fill or correct on me often and I am not careful enough. 

Can't you turn them off? Phones are a PITA for this stuff I reckon. It's so clunky to go back and correct. I don't want to distract the thread but just wanted to say it really messes up your posts sometimes.