babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Maybe but perhaps there is just a language barrier which keeps our worlds apart.
Quote: Fact is,i thought YOU were being an asshole...
.
Always a fine line between being an asshole and a clever wag with a keen sense of the sarcastic. Now where was that line again?
As far as that particular word goes, I try to look at most things through the lenses of privlige and power dynamics. At babble we do that. I didn't always, but I've learned a lot hanging around here. It's one of the salutory effects my association with rabble has had, but the trick is you have to listen more than you talk. We set a higher standard than a lot of other conversational settings, and while I never use the word douchbag in regular conversation because I think it's crass, I may adjust my idiom, either up or down, depending on place and context. If however I have said something another labels as offensive, I'll try to engage in a moment of self reflection, apologise and not do it again. I am less likely to argue about it.
Quote:
Not having seen your living room OG, I and my little Bacchanae cannot comment
on our behavior. It could be as rowdy as the behavior she showed at your party
.
The aforesaid little Bacchanae is one of the very few people I've met at a party who can be absolutely sweet delightful and charming, while actually throwing up. Say hi to her for me.
Quote:
I can see oldgoat's living room from my kitchen!
I can see skdal's living room from the bushes in front of her house!
The funny thing about many calls to be more tolerant: the onus so often falls on the marginalized to tolerate what they have to tolerate every day in the oppressive context of the dominating culture. It becomes particularly rich when it is people trying to convince us they are allies who demand that we take it, because, well, they *mean* it differently than the status quo does. And we should learn to tell the difference. And we shouldn't be so ... petty.
How is this progressive? Why is it so hard to simply hear: "That term alienates me. It makes me feel bad. It puts me down. It pushes me away. It is silencing. Maybe you don't know it, but that is the effect. Could you stop, if you truly want to have me participate here? If you want me to be comfortable?"
Why is the onus on those who are already so alienated to swallow their hard-fought self-esteem and take the abuse, so that others can remain comfortably ignorant? Is this not the definition of privilege?
For everyone who claims that douchebag is a generic insult, I challenge you to explain why you want to use it so bad, even after hearing that others find it sexist and homophobic. Please give a specific definition that cannotes why it's so good, so evocative. Why it's *perfect*.
I really enjoyed the movie Children of Men. Then all the sudden, the experience was tainted for me. Why? The song Running The World:
I'm sure some folks might be eager to argue that cunt is just a generic insult, with no attached idea of gender/privilege/race, and that they don't see a problem with using the word. And that those who object to its use are oversensitive PC ninnies.
I ain't buying it. I will never buy it. I will ask, as I do every time I hear that particular insult (shockingly often, actually): "What is so bad about birth canals? Why are they used to describe evil, cruel, hard, stupid, ruthless people? What is so hideous about women's bodies to you? Why are the worst people named after my vagina?" In this particular lyric, cunts are shit. Cunts are tyrants. Cunts control, contain and dominate ruthlessly. Cunts are the ultimate oppressor.
I've had very dear friends refer to awful people as cunts. I challenge those friends, as I challenge similar language use elsewhere. So often, it is a man who is called a cunt. Why *not* a dick?
Why are odious males described as female parts? Why are odious males described as intimate tools used by women?
So what is a douchebag? What is a douchebag?
Yeah, I'd definitely trust a Taliban with a gun more than Agent666, just from a competency viewpoint if nothing else. At least the Taliban tell us, quite clearly, whom they would like to kill.
I've never actually used the word aside from my post in this thread. I don't particularly want to use the word in the future. I'm not against people expressing their dislike of words either.
"So often, it is a man who is called a cunt. Why *not* a dick?"
people are definetly called dicks where I'm from. Discussing and empathising with peoples various experiences is what I believe to be most valuable about this forum and see any attempt at establishing a universal truth as futile.
My own constant faux pas is using the word 'stewardess' instead of the correct 'flight attendant'. I don't know why it's so hard for me to change, maybe it's that the term 'stewardess' was so ingrained in the 50s and 60s. And 'flight attendant' sounds so technical. Arrrgh. I probably need a hypnotist to block the offending word out of my vocabulary.
I would add that maybe some discussion comparing the terms "scum bag" vs "douche bag" vs "bitch".
My take would be that "scum bag" is a gender neutral (as far as I'm aware) insult, where "douche bag" is an insult that is indirectly related to gender (in that the insult itself is gender neutral in that it is commonly applied to both genders, but is derived from something that was at one time perceived as being a weakness related to the female gender and considered suitable for use as an insult ... at least that's my assumption on where it came from, but I suppose it could be that everyone, both male and female commonly consider a douche as something unpleasant, and may only be very incidental as to its potential relation to a specific gender,) and "bitch" is a direct gender specific insult that is normally applied to a specific gender.
So one would think that the reaction to these insults would have vastly different justifiable reactions.
Reading the original thread from which this one is a result, I believe that the word was originally used without intention of being "sexist", but some people considered it as a word that could be considered "sexist" (but not to my knowledge stating that it was meant as such in this case) and gave the appropriate level of reaction (ie: explaining that it is considered an offensive word with sexist connotations and politely asked to refrain from using it.)
Things seemed to escalate from there and didn't turn out too well, but I can't say I have any criticism for how the mods handled the situation ... especially the original reaction to the word, which seemed totally within bounds and reasonable.
Thanks contrarianna.
One of the things, I think, that leads to the kind of blow-up that started this thread and the subsequent slippery slope arguments is the operative logic that assumes Maysie and I have some sort of anarcha-feminist list of verboten terms that we apply like automatons to babble discussions. That's not the case. Moderating, at least as I see it, is much more organic and historical: it depends on how a picture of the community has developed over time with an eye on our policy statement; that is, babble, at its essence, recognizes inequality in the world and believes it's not too late to change it.
It means that we desire to protect the oppressed and marginalized and offer a platform in which their voices can be heard. At the heart of this is the tacit admission that we're not there yet, and we are always in the process of working out how to get there. Sometimes that means asking babblers not to use certain terms, or at least to think about their usage with regards to privilege and power--as Freedom 55 points out, I'm as guilty of this as anyone. It's not easy, and it's a state of constant becoming. With that in mind, al-Q's statement above about changing the culture of babble is quite right, because the culture of babble is always changing. So rather than a "slippery slope," the path of babble (almost ten years old!) is a series of slopes and gullies, hills and valleys--some are slippery and some are very, very rough. I look at some of the discussion that are happening in the FN forum, the tenor of the discussion in threads about the Middle East, and the feminism forum and I marvel at the changes. I don't think it's all been good--I don't think rabble is as good as it used to be at LGBT issues, and we clearly have a lot of work to do across the board, despite improvements. Perhaps others think things have gone downhill. So it goes, and that too is part of the process.
It's this process that I try to keep in mind whenever I make an intervention. Not working from some list of bannable or censurable offences, but keeping in mind both babble culture and babble policy, the context of the discussion and the posting histories of the babblers involved. It's tricky, but that's what I try to do. Perhaps babblers could keep this in mind instead of reducing this job to "PC police" or some other pejorative.
I know what we had in mind when we created babble. I know what we had in mind when we drafted the first babble policy. I know that Catchfire and Maysie are greatly honouring the intent of this forum, and I thank them. Deeply.
Well, that says it very eloquently for me as well.
Actually, I don't believe that I've ever heard a man referred to as a 'cunt'. Generally, they ARE referred to as 'dicks'. Actually, come to think of it, why aren't you complaining about that? Isn't it sexist to call a man a 'dick' in the same sense that it would be to call a woman a 'cunt'? Well, in my opinion, no. I would argue that both are equally acceptable. Are they gender specific? Yes. Does that make them bad? Not unless you only use one and refuse to use the other. So, in my opinion, as long as I use the word 'dick', there should be no problem with using the word 'cunt'.
Now, my question to you, writer, is... How many men have you called 'dicks'? Do you use the word 'cunt' when insulting women? If you call men 'dicks', but don't call women 'cunts', is it a case of cognitive dissonance, or do you actually feel that it is okay to ridicule men, but not women?
mmm not really. Scum bag=used condom
I like dick. Why would I call a man I dislike a dick?
I like cunt. Why would I call a woman I dislike a cunt?
I like body parts. I see no sense in degrading them in a body-hating / body-obsessed / body-commodifying culture like ours. I think there are better descriptives for odious people. Like odious.
I *have* heard cunt used by men to insult other men. Many many times. And I find it more than curious that this is the term that comes to mind, when it's not even gender appropriate. It reveals something about our culture, that a man is so horrible, he is a woman's sexual organ.
And women who are called cunts in a sexist society are not the same as men called dicks in a male-privileging world.
Quote: I would add that maybe some discussion comparing the terms "scum bag" vs "douche bag" vs "bitch".
I had to look up the history of the word "scumbag" (ok, gross!) It's basically a used condom. I guess posters above are suggesting it as some sort of gender reverse equivelent of 'douchebag', so if one's banned why not the other. I would simply invite people to think of what's been said above about privlige and power dynamics. There's no equivilant. Read writers post. Hell, read it twice!
The word bitch. If I used that here as a pejorative I would expect to be taken to task, and rightly so. I will find it depressing if I have to explain why. That word use does not belong on babble. Now, I spoke above about context. Some years ago, Michelle received an abusive email which among other things used the term "censurious bitch". We mods usually share these little epistles among ourselves for laughs. A couple of times, when meeting in person, I called her that jokingly in reference to the email. I think that in the context I used it it was ok, and I feel that if Michelle had felt otherwise she would have said so. Power dynamics did not enter into that circumstance.
So, there is no list of verboten words to which the mods refer. There are guiding principles and standards, which evolve over time, and we do our best to do our jobs in a manner consistant with those standards and principles.
ETA: Cross posted with at least three people
As someone who has spent some time in the construction industry, I've heard men referred to as both male and female genitalia, and a subtle distinction in meaning between the two is understood.
One argument in this thread is turning Orwell's thesis in "Politics and the English Language"and Nineteen Eighty-Four on its head. Orwell's contention is the fewer words we are allowed to use to express ideas, ultimately the fewer ideas we'll have.
An argument here is that the fewer words we're allowed to use, the better our thoughts will be; not that Orwell would call anyone a "douchebag" in print, mind you. He'd probably suggest we come up with our own, imaginative insults.
Well, I can't honestly say that I've heard men called 'cunts', so its difficult for me to argue with you. As for men as 'dicks' and women as 'cunts', can you at least see that it is clearly not sexist? If you want to apply the labels ""body-hating / body-obsessed / body-commodifying", I have no real issue with that. But to say that they are sexist is purely disingenuous.
Red_and_Black, I have no interest in arguing with you. I don't know who made you royalty for the day, resulting in your confident announcement about what's sexist and what isn't. I'd say the consensus amongst feminists is that cunt is deeply sexist, although some make an effort to reclaim the word, and Germaine Greer has an affection for it that I do understand.
Take up your argument with feminist movements, I guess. I can't communicate clearly enough just how insulting it is to have someone announce that women fighting for equality and human rights are being purely disingenuous on this count.
I am not looking to you for permission about what I can apply where.
"Red and Black": Here's the definition of sexism.
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
If we can agree on a basic, dictionary definition, one that acknowledges who holds the power and who is discriminated against, then I'm sure it's easily obvious why calling a man a dick is not sexist, and calling a woman a cunt is. It's about who's discriminated against by who, and how that affects words.
And yes, I've heard men call each other cunts, always in association with accusation of "effeminate" behaviour" or in association with someone acting like a real jerk. I've never heard women call each other dicks. Which in my mind speaks to my point above.
Or put another way, props to Writer in #63. Words do hurt/ exclude or worse and it shouldn't be up to people getting hit with oppression day in and day out to explain that. Endlessly. It's up to those with power to recognise the impact of their choices.
Hence the Babble policy.... we don't need to waste time opening this stuff up again and again as though it's undecided.
Orwell also said that language can corrupt thought. That euphemstic jargon can "make murder respectable and give the appearance of solidity to pure wind." He's talking particularly of authority in language, from language spoken from a position of power. Of course, no one is forbidding the use of the word "douche bag" (I'm confused as to what idea the prohibition of this word would prevent, but I suppose it's the princible) but rather the usage of it in a particular context, as a feminizing pejorative. If anything, Orwell would object to the stale, tired meaning we prescribe to "douche bag" (which is negative and oppressive) thus preventing it from fulfilling its etymological potential in new, abstract and exciting ways. Sure, that's a tall order for "douche bag," but let's use Orwell correctly if we're going to use him at all.
ETA: and Red & Black, discussing whether or not calling men and women cunts is sexist is not happening on babble. We've decided. It is. Green Grouch and writer have made the case sufficiently. You can take it or leave it.
Thank you for this, and it needs to be repeated, as apparently some newbies still do not get it, along with surprisingly some oldies, though on second thought, perhaps not so surprisingly.
Nor did I say that you needed it, such is the beauty of free speech
With regards to my "confident announcement of what is sexist and what isn't", if you look back through my posts, you'll notice several instances of the word 'opinion', a word which I didn't notice anywhere in yours.
As for the feminist movements, it seems to me that they've run their course in certain parts of the world if all that they are fighting for is to stop people from using certain words, but thats a different argument.
Gotcha O'Brien, which is why I said that Orwell would prefer we come up with our own insults.
Sheesh. R&B, babble is a feminism-friendly space in soldiarity with feminists here and around the world. That means we don't subscribe to neo-con tropes like "feminism is dead", nor do we belittle the massive struggles Western feminists (let alone third-world feminists) face everyday. Take a look at the revived abortion debate in this country, pay inequality and child care if you need help getting a clue. For the record, that "different argument" is not happening here. Ever. Ok? Go to the National Post if you're interested in that line of thinking.
Thank you, writer, for post #63. It was passionate and excellent.
At the height of second-wave feminism, I heard the late Pierre Berton in a radio commentary talking about words. "I believe in feminism," he said. "I believe in equal pay for equal work, accessible child care, reproductive choice etc. ... but when the feminists start to mess around with my language ..."
That's what he said. My language. I knew then and I know now that that's the issue we're still dealing with. Leave my language alone, girlies.
Always a fine line between being an asshole and a clever wag with a keen sense of the sarcastic. Now where was that line again?
Right beside me, I think. Some think I'm on the asshole side, but trust me, it's just paralax error due to their vantage point.
I remember using the word "harpy" in the feminist forum years ago. It got an interesting result. I very honestly thought it wasn't particular to a gender. And wondered why all the hub bub. Someone told me to look it up. Ah. Quite.
And yes I said sorry a jillion times.
And I do not understand why we want to make pejoratives of body parts and sexual acts that we all actually like. Well, I do know, but in understanding why, we find out that we're a stupid and twisted bunch of little monkeys.
Anyway. We're here to communicate ideas. You want to be understood. Pick the words which will best make yourself understood.
It's really quite not at all something one would consider to be, or put in the catagory of or otherwise characterise as difficult.
I think the use of the word "cunt" as an insult is largely a British thing. I hear Brits using it (almost always in reference to other guys) a lot more than I hear American using it (who tend to use ""pussy" as an insult quite regularly, especially on the basketball court). I don't think that "cunt" is as "shocking" as it is here (where I often detect audible gasps from people who hear it).Perjorative terms have different "degrees of offensiveness" depending on the culture, I think. Like, the word "shag" in England is apparently the equivalent of the word "fuck" in North America in terms of being not allowed.
This is an interesting thread in general. It made me think that a lot of people using certain words are probably unaware even as to the origin of that word or even if they are, it's not necessarily used in that original context. So, for example, I had no idea that "scum bag" referred to a used condom and when I first heard the the term "douche bag" had no idea what that actually meant, and would assume quite a few of the people who use it still don't. A word like "bastard" literally refers to someone born out of wedlock which used to be far more of a controversial prospect than it is today, but "bastard" these days just generally gets used as a vague, general put-down. Also, it occurs to me that I don't think I've ever heard a woman referred to as a "bastard" though, as far as I know, the literal meaning of "bastard" is not gender-specific.
Well, it would seem that I have a disagreement with that 'dictionary definition' then. You make a blanket statement of "who holds the power", but is this true in all situations? I would argue that it is not, and as such, it should be treated with regards to the individual situation, not through the generalized statements which have been put forth in this thread.
And again, I have to repeat myself that I haven't heard men called cunts. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm just not commenting on it as I have no personal experience with that situation.
Furthermore, I would argue that restricting the ability to use words is much more oppressive than having the words used against you, so long as the words do not lead to actions.
Lastly, if its a waste of time for you, then don't discuss it. Why would you voluntarily join a discussion which you consider a waste of time.
Hopefully my comments here don't get me banned faster than they did from the National Post site
I guess I should have had a better understanding of scumbag lol ... anyway, I completely agree regarding the consideration of "Power Dynamics"
--- a special shout out to catchfire for her post above, I think it does an wonderful job explain the Mods position.
That said I don't think this issue is necessarily just about how the Mods go about their job ... matter of fact the mods largely take the time to consider the history, the words themselves, and the context, and adjust as required as to whether a specific post should be ignored, politely warned, strongly warned, or nipped in the bud with a ban or suspension... the bigger problem is some regular posters who don't bother to consider any of that and as soon as they figure out how to connect a word in under seven degrees of separation to something sexist or racist, then they automatically jump to the the most extreme conclusion ... no history of the poster, no context, just accusations ... and yes, I realize that I may be just as guilty as anyone in jumping to conclusion (usually I think my weakness is jumping too quickly to the conclusion that someone is a right winger, based on not a lot of "probing" into what they are presenting.)
Actually, I was banned from the National Post for making comments which reflect my anarcho-mutualist (not neo-con, as you slander) opinions. You also slander me again by making claims about my positions on abortion, pay inequity, and child care, which you clearly know nothing about.
For the record, sending very left leaning people to the National Post lends great eveidence to the point which the original poster made about dividing the left. Simply because someone disagrees with one part of what is a very broad ideology, you send them away?
I find it odd that somehow this thread became about feminism, and not the general concerns expressed in the opening post.