The Language that We Use
Andrew Usher
and shaped by the language that is used to describe them. This ideally
should not be the case, but it is and we need to deal with it.
The phrase that's been repeatedly pointe out here as biased is 'he got
me drunk'. It should be easy to recognise the fallacy of that, and
similar responsibility-abdicating phrases like 'I just found myself at
his place'. It's perhaps less easy to see that 'he got me pregnant'
has the same problem as 'he got me drunk'. While it may be factually
accurate, it is used (in most cases) to assign responsiblity solely to
the man, while it can't be doubted that both partners share equal
'blame' for a pregnancy. For it should be evident that a woman can say
'no' to sex at least as easily as a man, and she can insist he wear a
condom as easily as he can choose to use one.
I'm sure you can think of other good examples of biased language we
ought to aboid and argue against, and I would appreciate it if you
added to this thread with such.
Now I am brought to the phrase that inspired me to write this, related
to 'he got me pregnant': 'he is/will be taking financial responsiblity
for his child' and grammatical and semantic variants of that. This
takes for granted the justice of requiring monetary child support in
all cases of a child born out of wedlock, and is largely responsbile
(I should say) for the consensus in our society in favor of such laws.
I know that most masculists believe that at least some cases of child
support are unjust, and some like me believe that all are.
I am not going to say that that is the most important issue to us,
though it is quite important (because it is NOT 'only about money'),
but the fact that it best illustrates the idea that language forms a
considerable obstacle to us. Therefore, it is necessary to object to
such linguistic constructs and whenever we have a chance to complain,
for instance, about that use of 'financial responsibility' in a news
article or elsewhere.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
innovation, one whose purpose is to inspire hatred against those men
unfortunate enough to be so classified.
The reason 'sex offender' is inappropriate is just because it is too
vague: it leaves no distinction between serial paedophiles and men
that were simply caught naked in the wrong place. It's as if we were
supposed to refer as 'violence offenders' to anyone convicted of
anything from brutal murder to simple assault.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > The reason 'sex offender' is inappropriate is just because it is too
> > vague: it leaves no distinction between serial paedophiles and men
> > that were simply caught naked in the wrong place.
>
> ROFLMAO!!!
>
> Like where???????? Where can you be caught naked in the wrong place?
If you followed the news at all, you would surely have come across at
least one such case.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> X-No-Archive:
> anything of substance. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my
> entire life as someone being "caught naked in the wrong place".
So I guess all the men convicted of exposing themselves (something
that women never are!) just don't exist, according to you.
> You said it, now back it up!
I would think your assertion that no one is ever 'caught naked in the
wrong place' is more in need of proof.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > Such as???????? You are always giving glib replies, but you never post
> > > anything of substance. I have never heard anything so ridiculous in my
> > > entire life as someone being "caught naked in the wrong place".
> >
> > So I guess all the men convicted of exposing themselves (something
> > that women never are!) just don't exist, according to you.
>
> What is your point? Men who expose themselves are committing an
> offense.
Well you just contradicted yourself then. Since the definition of
exposing oneself is nakedness, you've agreed that men are convicted of
it and declared 'sex offenders'.
> They are also likely to go on to commit more serious offenses
> such as rape.
You, probably inadvertently, also just did give a reason for disparate
treatment of men and women: men that expose themselves are more likely
to commit other sexual crimes, whereas women are usually not. I must
admit this is true. However, it's not a good basis for criminalisng
anything: for example, if it could be shown that teenagers that listen
to metal are more likely to commit a school shooting than those that
don't, that could not possibly justify restricting heavy metal.
> You really are very good at presenting men in a very bad
> light Andrew. No wonder you get up the noses of the men on this NG.
I believe I present both men and women in a true light, to the best of
my ability.
> > > You said it, now back it up!
> >
> > I would think your assertion that no one is ever 'caught naked in the
> > wrong place' is more in need of proof.
>
> You are the person who said it in the first place, so it is your
> responsibility to provide the proof. Are you really that stupid? YOU
> ARE THE PERSON WHO MADE THE INITIAL STATEMENT! For "one of the
> smartest men in the world", you do a great impression of an idiot!
Since you just conceded my point, this is moot. But nonetheless, I can
say that I have seen it said that in some states, men have been added
to the 'sex offenders' list for public urination, which is not a
sexual activity in the way you have considered 'exposing oneself' to
be.
Finally this argument still is beside my point about the implications
of the phrase 'sex offender'.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
violence is necessarily justified, but what does that phrase connote?
That the violence was unprovoked and for no reason. To see the sex
bias in that, just think about it said with the sexes reversed i.e.
saying a woman 'beats her husband'. Do we ever? No, and it's not
because women don't commit violence, but because the feminist norms
want us to explain a woman's violence in nuanced ways, but a man's
violence as completely unjustified and just proof of his evil.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
either blames or insults men for their wives' adultery. That dates far
before feminism but of course is not the only one: 'he got her
pregnant' and similar is just as old.
Andrew Usher
Society
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b09a5945-e3f7-4c40...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's the truth that most people's views on social
> and political issues and shaped by the language
> that is used to describe them. This ideally should not
> be the case, but it is and we need to deal with it.
>
> as biased is 'he got me drunk'. It should be easy
> to recognise the fallacy of that, and similar
> responsibility-abdicating phrases like
> 'I just found myself at his place'.
Implicit in those phrases you identify as "responsibility-
abdicating," Andrew Usher, is the belief that the
masculine will has great power over weak minds.
Also implied is that females have no self-control,
self-responsibility, or even 'self.' As moral actors,
this makes females even lower than children. What
are feminists and other female-firsters trying to
get away with when they use responsibility-abdicating
language?
There is one great advantage which women have
over men: _they have a choice_ -- a choice
between the life of a man and the life of a
dimwitted, parasitic luxury item. There are
too few women who would not select the latter.
Men do not have this choice.
Esther Vilar, "What is Woman?"
in _The Manipulated Man_ (original title,
_Der dressierte Mann_, English translation
by Eva Borneman and Ursula Bender)
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, publishers (1972)
page 19.
> It's perhaps less easy to see that 'he got me pregnant'
> has the same problem as 'he got me drunk'.
If it's less easy to see, it's only because the word 'pregnant'
is - for too many people - more deeply pregnant with
a connotation of female-only victimhood.
As an aside, I'll note that the connotations carried by
the word 'pregnant' are oddly varied; just the day before
yesterday I noticed one of the women's interest magazines
had the phrase "revenge pregnancy" emblazoned on its
cover. Hmmm. IIRC, this phrase was used in the context
of some Hollywood skank trying to manipulate a man.
> While it may be factually accurate, it is used (in most
> cases) to assign responsiblity solely to the man,
> while it can't be doubted that both partners share equal
> 'blame' for a pregnancy.
The purpose of _every_ form of the Female-As-Child trope
is "to assign responsibility solely to the man" whether he
jointly participates in her foolish choices or was just an
innocent bystander.
> For it should be evident that a woman can say 'no' to sex
> at least as easily as a man, and she can insist he wear a
> condom as easily as he can choose to use one.
It would be evident if everyone thought as men do.
Woman: How can you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away
reason and accountability.
from _As Good as It Gets_, Sony Pictures
directed by James L. Brooks (1997)
<http://moviesoundscentral.com/wavs/as_good_as_it_gets/asgood10.wav>
> I'm sure you can think of other good examples
> of biased language we ought to avoid
> and argue against, and I would appreciate it
> if you added to this thread with such. [...]
When Whoopi Goldberg tried to distinguish between 'rape!'
and 'rape rape!' on national television, she gave away the
feminist game of making the word mean anything the female
wants it to mean. (Sheesh.)
--
I ran across this little anecdote about
the poet Gershom Gorenberg whose poetry
submissions to "Tikkun" magazine had been
censored by the editor who said; "I am not
fond of how you write about women."
Gorenberg searched his poetry for whatever
it was that was offensive to the editor
and then realized "...the inquisitor is
succeeding admirably: the very vagueness
of the charge has driven me to search
for my sins, incriminate myself, confess."
from "Men, Women and 'The Net' "
by Richard Prosapio
http://www.menweb.org/dpinet.htm
Andrew Usher
wrote:
> > The phrase that's been repeatedly pointed out here
> > as biased is 'he got me drunk'. It should be easy
> > to recognise the fallacy of that, and similar
> > responsibility-abdicating phrases like
> > 'I just found myself at his place'.
>
> Implicit in those phrases you identify as "responsibility-
> abdicating," Andrew Usher, is the belief that the
> masculine will has great power over weak minds.
Would that women were so easy to manipulate ;) Anyway, I think that
while women may be inferior to men here, they are not totally
incapable of responsibility: the primary reason they do 'abdicate
responsibility' is that we allow them to.
> Also implied is that females have no self-control,
> self-responsibility, or even 'self.' As moral actors,
> this makes females even lower than children. What
> are feminists and other female-firsters trying to
> get away with when they use responsibility-abdicating
> language?
I think this pretty much answers itself.
> There is one great advantage which women have
> over men: _they have a choice_ -- a choice
> between the life of a man and the life of a
> dimwitted, parasitic luxury item. There are
> too few women who would not select the latter.
> Men do not have this choice.
>
> Esther Vilar, "What is Woman?"
This is the point that so few articulate, and we need to at every
opportunity until people really accept it: women have options that few
men do, and most women do choose to exercise them, proving that they
are not wholly undesirable at least.
> > It's perhaps less easy to see that 'he got me pregnant'
> > has the same problem as 'he got me drunk'.
>
> If it's less easy to see, it's only because the word 'pregnant'
> is - for too many people - more deeply pregnant with
> a connotation of female-only victimhood.
Interesting, I think, the pregnancy should be though of as a
victimisation of women when they are marked more likely to desire it
than men are.
> As an aside, I'll note that the connotations carried by
> the word 'pregnant' are oddly varied; just the day before
> yesterday I noticed one of the women's interest magazines
> had the phrase "revenge pregnancy" emblazoned on its
> cover. Hmmm. IIRC, this phrase was used in the context
> of some Hollywood skank trying to manipulate a man.
What was this about? To me, 'revenge pregnancy' seems to suggest the
purpose was to extract child support from the man.
> > While it may be factually accurate, it is used (in most
> > cases) to assign responsiblity solely to the man,
> > while it can't be doubted that both partners share equal
> > 'blame' for a pregnancy.
>
> The purpose of _every_ form of the Female-As-Child trope
> is "to assign responsibility solely to the man" whether he
> jointly participates in her foolish choices or was just an
> innocent bystander.
Right again; the point, though, is that we need to convince men that
this 'trope' is a problem. As long as you get that, you've understood
me.
> > I'm sure you can think of other good examples
> > of biased language we ought to avoid
> > and argue against, and I would appreciate it
> > if you added to this thread with such. [...]
>
> When Whoopi Goldberg tried to distinguish between 'rape!'
> and 'rape rape!' on national television, she gave away the
> feminist game of making the word mean anything the female
> wants it to mean.
If you're talking about what I'm thinking about, this was an attempt
to say that 'statutory rape' isn't really rape, which is quite
reasonable and correct, with the best definition of rape. I agree,
though, that the phrase 'rape rape' makes it seem juvenile.
Andrew Usher