This is literally the opposite of what Mumei posted earlier. The word is specifically not banned, assuming you use common sense in using it.
Do you use gendered insults for the opposite gender
- Thread starter Bleepey
- Start date
- Status
This is literally the opposite of what Mumei posted earlier. The word is specifically not banned, assuming you use common sense in using it.
They pretty much are. Try calling a poster a dickhead, or arsehole, and see what happens.
In general, the mods do a pretty good job of banning people who insult other posters, especially if they do it often or have other faults.
Consistency in modding is difficult because if you mod by hard-and-fast rules then you will do a bad job and posters will learn to technically follow the rules while still misbehaving. It's much better to be more subjective about it and to try and to catch posters who follow a pattern of behavior rather than single incidents. I would guess that the mods have some kind of software to help them track infractions that aren't explicitly actioned so that the worse posters can be identified more easily. That's how I'd do it, anyway.
My personal picture is my avatar; on multiple occassions, I have stated what city I live in, where I went to school, what my job is, and whom I am dating (my girlfriend is a member of this site). I have stated my political opinions and my religious opinions, and to top it all off, I'm a moderator, which certainly makes me a lightning rod for attention, undue adulation but also undue scorn.
And with that in mind, I must say that your experience has not been my experience. However, this may be largely due to difference expectations and perspectives. People have, as you stated, been harshly critical of my views on many occassions; but when expressed intelligently, that is a good thing, not a bad one. Criticizing each other is, I would argue, the essence of good discussion. It is referred to as "critical thinking" and is not a niche philosophical view to espouse. Coming from a scientific background, I can tell you that the first thing scientists do when a new idea or finding is proposed is to instantly think of any way to tear it apart; it is the ideas which withstand such assault that stand the test of time. Further, while I certainly agree that some people simply will never listen -- as is the nature of the world -- I also find that quite a few people do. More here than in most places. If you're finding that you can convince no one of anything, then it's possible the problem is your argument, and not the people.
Gouty
Bloodborne is shit
I was lead to believe a Gaffer was facing a potential banning over calling Kristen Stewart a bitch, based on everyone's reactions.
It wasn't directed at a member of Gaf which to me means it falls under fair use. Just a few pages later a larger woman was seen crying in a Youtube video which prompted a few remarks concerning her weight and nobody said shit.
That's the inconsistency I'm talking about.
It wasn't directed at a member of Gaf which to me means it falls under fair use. Just a few pages later a larger woman was seen crying in a Youtube video which prompted a few remarks concerning her weight and nobody said shit.
That's the inconsistency I'm talking about.
That somehow dick and dog (in Cantonese) don't count even they rely on first assigning certain negatives as male, but bitch does?
You're completely right and if Eidan was basing it upon historical context instead of the concept of emasculation, I wouldn't take issue.
edit: Nope, still would probably take issue with his belief that there aren't male gendered slurs.
Thanks for responding earnestly. In my experience, when the community calls out "trolls" they really just calling out people they disagree with. Trolling is being disingenuous to try and get a reaction out of somebody. I see the word troll used most often to try and label somebody a malcontent simply for having an unpopular opinion rather than engaging the person to try and understand where they're coming from.
As for your main point, it's probably my own fault for having the experience here that I have. I find it hard to engage with people when they act the way they do here.
It depends on the company I'm in what curse words I throw around. Yes with buddies I do refer to women as "bitches" and "ho's" but we don't mean it offensively. When we hate a woman we refer to her as a cunt. Then again I'm 24 and a dudebro, so it's just how jibber jabber goes down.
Karsticles
Member
Opiate, you're a reasonable poster, but I think you have it backwards here. You are a moderator, and that means people are more careful toward you when responding, not more critical. Just look at what happened a page back when this was posted:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=40264388&postcount=294
Aaaand...he's been banned. I won't argue about whether he should have been banned, but he seems to be contributing his opinion to the discussion in a mature fashion. It's just not a popular opinion. His post prompted several responses that reeked of "don't upset the mods!" If someone is critical of moderators on this site, then I tend to think that person either has a ban-wish, has guts, or is so outraged that he/she feels the need to respond despite your rank. I think the number of people who are extra-critical of what moderators do is much smaller, and people are far more inclined to be overly polite toward moderators out of fear.
On a forum that so often has white male privilege as its center discussion, I'm surprised you're looking at it the way you are.
Shouldn't it be, with the given logic? My "place as a man" is insinuated with the phrase.
First, a lot of those words would be bannable; if you'd like to refer to someone else in this thread as a "dick and an asshole," you're welcome to try and see what happens.
Context matters.
Second, I regret to inform most here that Devolution has the right of this (although Devolution is not always right, don't worry). The word "bitch" has specific connotations which make it especially prickly to work with. If I call a girl a "dick," I'm not suggesting she has man-like qualities which make her inferior to other women, I'm saying she's a mean person. However, if I call a man a "bitch," it is very frequently intended to imply that he is weak (e.g. if some guy complains about hard work, one might tell him to "stop being a little bitch.") or overly emotional, or effimininate in other ways, and to imply that this is bad.
This does not mean that "bitch" can never be used; again, context matters. If you are mad at the outcome of a sports game and post "son of a bitch! We almost won!" You will not be banned -- but it is an especially thorny word to use, relative to the other examples given like "jerk" or "asshole." So I'd be careful when using it. That's all.
This of course means that the rules are not hard, fast, clean, and simple to understand. We know this. We are trusting in your ability to be an adult and reasonably understand when a word is contextually inappropriate and when it isn't, and you're relying on us to know the difference. None of us are perfect; it's possible someone will be unustly banned on occassion (And we do rescind bans), while otherwise reasonable people sometimes say unreasonable things, but strict, simple codes of conduct are much worse, in my opinion. They assume you're incapable of understanding nuanced rules and provides an easy out for juvenile people who quickly figure out how to not technically break the rules, but still be an enormous jerk. If the rules are hard and fast, we can't moderate those people, unless they are breaking those rules in a clear, precise manner.
Criticism is one of my favorite things. I have listed it as a primary interest, along with learning, on many online profiles. I'm not exactly sure where you got the idea that I dislike criticism and I want to simply convince people that I'm right. I must have expressed myself poorly. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I want to understand people; to know them. I want to learn. I want to find out that everything I know is wrong. I want people to tell me when I'm wrong and why.
I agree with you that my experience is largely due to my own perspective.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
No.
But is "douchebag" a gendered insult? I like that one.
But is "douchebag" a gendered insult? I like that one.
I know nothing about Cantonese slurs, and haven't attempted to discuss anything besides my own cultural experiences, so if you say "dog" in Cantonese specifically insults masculinity, then I'll take your word for it, and be the loudest advocate for banning it. This is a victory for men everywhere.
As for "dick", as I said before, I've always associated it with being a jerk. Some posters here have said that they consider it associated with a kind of brashness that is linked to masculinity. I guess I could understand that, though I haven't encountered it used in that context much myself. I have shown what my personal litmus test for this kind of thing is in my previous posts. If you called a woman a "dick", is the insult that she is like a man?
blahblah...blah
Member
I'd like to hear Opiate's response to this. It seems unfair to have banned that guy.
This is such a big forum though, I can totally see experiences differ just depending on your interests and the respective threads you'd read or contribute to.
Karsticles
Member
If you call a woman a "dick", the association absolutely is with man-like qualities. "Dick" is used in situations opposing that of "pussy". For example, someone is called a "pussy" if he is weak and does not assert him/herself, takes a beating, etc. The association is made between female genitals and how they take on the force of a man's. You call someone a "dick" when he/she is being overly forceful and self-absorbed. For example, someone will be called a "dick" if he/she tries to swerve into your lane suddenly, takes the last candy out of the bowl, etc. You would never, ever refer to a person who suddenly swerved into your lane a "pussy", and you would never refer to someone who takes a beating from someone else as a "dick".
Women historically are idealized as possessing passive roles. Men, active ones. Thus the insult of "pussy" is more generally applied to men, because it emasculates them. The title of "dick" is associated with being overly assertive of oneself, and is directly associated with phallic symbolism and traditional masculinity. It simply cannot be the case that a woman gets called a "dick" without any overtones of masculine qualities being insinuated. It's far too ingrained into the word and its relatives.
Yes. I like it too, but it is a gendered insult.
The guy was going on a 'fat people deserve to be ridiculed' rant. Those tend to be poorly received, especially in threads where they are not that relavent.
blahblah...blah
Member
The real issue to me is how seriously everyone takes these things though. You could call me every rude word under the sun and I wouldn't care that much because to me it's just senseless arguing over an internet forum. Why people get so upset in these situations is confusing - I can understand a real life confrontation being upsetting, but not this.
Great point.
I HATE it when people say pussy instead of coward. FREAKIN' DESPISE IT! Don't hate anything more than that and I'd like to do extremely horrible things to the person who thought it'd be an awesome idea to replace the word coward with pussy. MAN!!!
That being said I have no problem using words like cunt and cock teasingly, I do that with some of my (very close) friends all the time.
That being said I have no problem using words like cunt and cock teasingly, I do that with some of my (very close) friends all the time.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but when you state something in that way I find it very disagreeable. "I regret to inform you that you are wrong." Really? You're not making a case, you're declaring it to be true by fiat. But I might be overly sensitive about this. Just pointing it out.
Your reasoning for why the word is inappropriate assumes that being weak or emotional are inherently feminine traits. If you don't hold that to be true, then it must also not be true that insinuating a person is whiny or emotional or weak is also tacking on the "like a woman."
Certainly people are capable of implying that, but just by using the word bitch to call somebody whiny does not automatically mean they are also saying those traits are feminine ones. To assume they do is to betray your inner sexist.
But you're operating from a position of privilege, the same kind that is frequently derided here. As a moderator, you might be a lightning rod for scorn, but there's a certain comfort in your position because people will approach you and your status in a different way. Furthermore, you and the rest of the moderation team have ways to deal with unreasonable posters (though to your credit, you often don't use it). I don't really feel as though your experience is similar to our's at all.
It's not about what individual people may or may not believe, since they're inconsistent self-reporters anyway, but about the societal, and kyriarchal, conception of femininity. The reason that "bitch" means "whiny, emotional and weak" is BECAUSE it's a word that has "female" as part of its original definition. (In a sense. It's worth noting that people frequently use the word bitch to mean totally different criticisms, depending on whether they apply it to a man or a woman. This should emphasize the gendered nature of the term!) For example, the second definition of "womanish" is "suggestive of a weak character," but it would be absurd to call people "womanish" and say that you just meant they had a weak character and it had no misogynistic component at all.
cutmeamango
Banned
You either ban on the fact it is an insult or you don't.
This tiptoe of "what I think it means to me" is of an impressive idiocy.
This tiptoe of "what I think it means to me" is of an impressive idiocy.
Words don't have set, concrete meanings. When you use words to communicate, you have an idea in your head that you're trying to also place in another person's head. You use words to try and translate that idea, and hope that the result is the same as the original.
A word is just a tool to try and express your ideas. Let's say I use the word "bitch" to try and express that a person is acting in an annoying, whiny way. If you try and tell me that I am insulting women with my usage, I would have to disagree. I didn't say anything about women. What entered your head was not what I intended. You can say that I should avoid using that word, as it may often result in unintended ideas in people's heads. I would say that if a person believes that being whiny is implying that they're effeminate and that being effeminate is bad, then that person should probably examine why they think that.
When it comes down to it, words are imprecise tools. If a person uses them in one way, and a lot of people interpret them in another, there's a problem. If the misinterpretation is an offensive one, the solution is not to reinforce the offensive meaning and demand the tools stop being used. It's to ask the speaker to be more precise about what they meant, and when it's discovered that no insult was intended, be happy that the miscommunication was resolved and move on.
And I just did, and explained to you that it's because of an overarching societal structure that seeks to implant that idea in people's heads, consciously or un-, and that one of the tools it uses is vocabulary organized around gender roles and judgement, and that by using that vocabulary as if it has no context you're just playing into its hands?
I actually agree with this post, and I do agree with the notion that "dick" is gendered because of it (and the fact that obviously men usually have them and women usually don't). This blog post is a good explanation of, among other things, the argument you were just making with regards to the status of the word as gendered, though it also argues that the word is not a slur, using the same reasoning - it lacks the societal and kyriarchal connotations of real slurs - that pigeon made in his last post.
So while I don't know if you agree with the overall message of that post (though he does make the same argument as you with regards to dick / pussy), it does describe my personal position very well.
I don't think he's wrong, and I was a regular user for six and a half years before becoming a moderator just over a month ago.
Now I would never deny that people walk on eggshells around moderators. I have been in disagreements with moderators before becoming one myself (Opiate, even! Sorry, Opiate.
) and I know it can feel uncomfortable because of that difference in status and feeling the pressure of needing to be particularly tactful in what you say. I have even eschewed arguing with moderators because I worried that my remarks would be taken the wrong way and it did not seem worth risking my account for. And I say this as someone who takes great pains to try to be tactful in general and (I think) has a reputation as someone who does not have a habit of making intemperate remarks. I think that is something that is simply unavoidable when there is a difference in status and power, and there is little one can do as a moderator to completely eliminate that.But even before becoming a moderator, I have had many arguments with people in which I was actually trying to understand their position (though I was not interested in coming to an agreement with it), and I was interested if not in convincing that person, I was at least interested in communicating my position to people who were reading the topic but not actively arguing in it. I cannot speak to whether they were approaching the argument in the same good faith I was (and I questioned whether they were when they repeatedly misrepresented my or other people's arguments), but I generally behaved as if I assumed they were, and I think that help.
I think usea is too negative about the possibility of genuine conversation and debate here*. He is right that there are posters who are not interested in communicating their position or having a good faith argument and are simply trying to draw the other person into saying something that will get them banned. But to suggest that that is all there is is to be overly pessimistic.
* Is this not what we are doing right now?
You said those things, but it doesn't mean they made any sense. Society is not a being with intent. It can't seek anything or use tools.
Both of your posts assume that words have strict meanings that cannot be disputed, that you know and I don't. I am trying to explain to you that this is not the right way to look at it. To say that words have a strict meaning is a way to avoid understanding people. Instead of seeking truth and understanding, you want to label and categorize, make assumptions and move on.
I certainly don't mean to imply it doesn't happen. I meant that I find the forum in a general sense to be far more leaning toward the one side. But certainly I agree that my view is probably overly pessimistic, and I also probably reap what I sow. If I put more in, as in your example, I might be surprised. My view of the forum is not an excuse to be distant and closed-off. This is not a revelation to me, and I have even posted about the subject before. Sorry if I was unclear before.
Moral Panic
Member
Don't you think you are being a bit too concrete here? I could easily say that calling a girl a dick you are saying that she is behaving like the sexual organ of a man - that is acting selfishly towards its own pleasure or satisfaction. In any case it sends the message that men's dicks are bad things and you certainly wouldn't want to be associated with one. The word bitch is often used colloquially to refer to to a man who is a complainer rather than an effeminate or "unmanly" person (there are more obvious insults of that nature). It is also used very often to refer to a woman who isn't very nice - the same way that dick/dickhead is used to refer to men who aren't very nice.
Karsticles
Member
The basic argument is the same, but I feel as though he and I differ in three places:
1) The valuation of the status quo.
2) How different "dick" and "pussy" are from each other.
3) How much we can hold "the zeitgeist" responsible for these things.
Also, another thought:
"Bitch", interestingly, has multiple pejorative connotations:
1) "Bitch" meaning "overly aggressive". A woman who has been given the run-around by a company for an hour, and yells at someone out of frustration, will be called a "bitch".
2) "Bitch" meaning "weak and effeminate". Used to describe social relations like "Karsticles is my bitch in this game", meaning the other person has domination over me.
3) Non-gendered (I think): "Bitch" is sometimes used to describe a person in a situation that I'm having difficulty generalizing. For example, if someone were to post about how happy they are that a game I like is failing, I might think "Wow, you're a bitch", but it doesn't have the connotation to me that either of the above have.
It's interesting that the word carries opposing connotations within itself.
No, they don't. They assume that words have a meaning that is determined through social agreement rather than a priori. Because they pretty much have to if they are to have any utility as an instrument of communication. Your argument seems to be the Humpty Dumpty argument:
Lewis Carroll said:
But that's not really how communication works, because you have to apply theory of mind.
What you're saying is that you shouldn't investigate a person's intent regarding communication. You should judge them based on your view of what "society" thinks their words mean. "It doesn't matter what you meant, I have here a list that says the word you spoke means you are racist." Do you really think this is a reasonable view? Or please correct my misunderstanding.
Aha. Thanks for the clarification.
And I think as regards your conversation with pigeon, his argument is that the meaning of the words you use is not determined by you as an individual (or by me, or even by him), but are determined through how they are used socially. This is what he means when he says that the the societal and kyriarchal conceptions of femininity are being invoked when they refer to a man as a bitch or a woman as a bitch (either by emphasizing the man's femininity or the woman's absence of). The argument he made about this actually emphasizing the gendered nature of the slur is an argument I have made in the past, as well.
So while you can use "bitch" to describe someone who is acting in an annoying and whiny way, and not mean to imply anything about femininity generally, because of the way the word is socially situated, you are.
It is the same reason why describing things or situations or people you dislike as "gay" is implicitly an insult against gay people, even if you are using "gay" as a substitute for "dumb" or "stupid." Or why one cannot call their straight friends "fag" as an insult without it also implicitly being an insult against gay men. And the basic difference between your position and his (and mine) is that you seem to believe that the meaning of words is determined individually by the speaker, and as I said above, we think that the meaning of words is determined socially.
cutmeamango
Banned
No, speech determines meaning.
If it is not the root definition, common definition, or if it is not a widely adopted one, it does not matter. Of course, you cannot expect people to comprehend your message if it is codified outside norms.
If it is not the root definition, common definition, or if it is not a widely adopted one, it does not matter. Of course, you cannot expect people to comprehend your message if it is codified outside norms.
This is not at all what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is that the effect of the words you use on the people in your environment is not determined by your intent when using them, but by their context in a wider social setting. The question of whether a person is racist or not is an entirely different topic -- although, if you believed that your words had an effect on the people in your environment, and you weren't racist, presumably you would make an effort to moderate your vocabulary in light of that knowledge, no?
I'm not saying that saying "bitch" inherently makes you a misogynist. I'm saying that saying "bitch" reinforces the misogynist structures of society, whether or not you intend to do so, and I wish you wouldn't do that, because those structures are basically terrible.
Mumei's post is right on.
storafötter
Member
I don't at all. I really dislike the B word since there is no male equivalent and therefor I wont use such an insulting word. However everyone else seems to enjoy using it uncritically.
Moral Panic
Member
You use speech to convey meanings by using commonly shared understandings of the words. Everything else is scoietal noise which distracts the overeducated. If an anime fan calls something "moe", I do not need to know the original meaning of the word and the context in which it was developed, and the societal issues surrounding the word. I only need to call upon the shared understanding of what moe is, and what it is not.
The same goes with the game "Katawa Shoujo" - it is a very derogative way to refer to disabled people in it's original language, but the English speaking community doesn't and shouldn't care that society decided it was a bad word unless they are talking to someone who understands it to be a unsuitable word.
If you refer to your friend as a bitch, fag, nigger, why cannot these same rules apply? If the understanding between your friends that the words have a certain meaning when used between yourselves, what right does someone else have to go and ascribe other meanings to them?
The same goes with the game "Katawa Shoujo" - it is a very derogative way to refer to disabled people in it's original language, but the English speaking community doesn't and shouldn't care that society decided it was a bad word unless they are talking to someone who understands it to be a unsuitable word.
If you refer to your friend as a bitch, fag, nigger, why cannot these same rules apply? If the understanding between your friends that the words have a certain meaning when used between yourselves, what right does someone else have to go and ascribe other meanings to them?
No, I don't believe the speaker determines meanings of words. Words aren't physical objects on another plane with some exact definition; they are information in our brains. Since our brains are not linked, we each have our own individual definition stored. Each person holds their own meanings for words in their head. Those meanings are not strict with definite edges, they are imprecise and fuzzy. As they see others use those words, they slightly adjust their meanings over time. We use tools like teachers and dictionaries to try and get everybody on the same relative page with meanings, so that communication is effective. However, those tools are also imprecise, so each person's personal definition is slightly different.
Words do not have an inherent meaning. Their meanings are emergent and fluctuating.
Secondly, you cannot tell a person what they are implying. If you infer something from speech, that does not necessarily mean the speaker implied it. They are separate processes. If I use "bitch" and only intend a descriptive, gender-neutral meaning, you cannot argue that I meant something I did not. Words do not define intent, they only attempt to communicate it. Therefore you cannot use choice of words to prove intent, only to make guesses about it.
Similarly, I can call my friends gay without insulting homosexuals. Words don't define intent. If I do not intend to insult homosexuals, then I am not doing so. You might misunderstand me, and that misunderstanding might be very reasonable, but it doesn't change my intent or my meaning.
The word "meaning" illustrates my point somewhat. It means both the intended expression and the actual expression. It refers to the 'thing' trying to be expressed. Words are not this thing, they are just tools to try and implant the same thing in other people's brains.
Thanks for explaining what you meant.
I agree with everything you said, except I'm not sure that using the word bitch reinforces misogyny in society. However, I definitely feel that disallowing the word or reacting strongly to it reinforces its misogynistic meaning.
Also to clarify, I don't use the word bitch and I generally avoid using words that I think will offend people. I even use words carefully to try and make as few assumptions about people as possible. I am not arguing that using the word bitch is a reasonable course of action in any context. I'm arguing that it's unreasonable to disallow it and it's unreasonable to assume you know for sure what a person means when they say it.
Tribes of Trusty
Member
My first language uses genders for all adjectives, so if I call someone something, it'll be according to their apparent gender.
I think that this is exactly the opposite of the case. If "bitch" is associated with misogyny, which it clearly is regardless of whether individual uses might not be misogynistic (though they usually are, but whatever), then allowing its casual use creates an environment that suggests that casual misogyny is acceptable, and attentively policing its use makes it clear that such behavior is unacceptable. This is the Broken Windows theory in full effect -- people look to small things to determine how to behave on larger issues.
I am a strong believer in the broken windows theory. But in my opinion the word's use over time in non-misogynistic ways removes that meaning from the word. I suppose our disagreement comes from the fact that we disagree about when it's being used in a misogynistic way.
You see its use as being misogynistic by default, where I do not. And if you look at this thread for evidence, there are a great deal of people who also express they never intended or viewed the word that way.
My point is that to say you know the True Meaning of the word is fallacious, and basing your arguments on that is going to cause people who see it differently to disagree.
What's your basis for this theory, exactly?
cutmeamango
Banned
It's how the process works. Because a word's meaning is emergent and communicated primarily through usage, if people use a word in a certain way often enough, the meaning shifts or grows to accommodate. That's how all of the words we use today got their meaning. Language is alive.
Yes, yes, I'm a descriptivist too, you don't have to keep trying to convert me on that. It's not the question at hand. How do you expect people using the word in a derogatory but not intentionally misogynistic way to change its meaning when it is, from the perspective of an outside observer, indistinguishable from people using the word in a derogatory and misogynistic way? I mean, that's actually what you've been arguing this whole time -- even if you see somebody say "bitch" and it seems misogynistic, you don't really know what they're thinking. So how do you expect people to intuitively understand that when some people say "bitch" it ISN'T misogynistic?
- Status