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.
Is calling someone Attention Whore acceptable?
June 1, 2012 - 6:48pm
would "Attention Worker" be ok as an alternative?
(on edit: No, I didn't mean that as a serious suggestion.)
In addition to being an epithet that is directed toward sex trade workers, it's also applied to women who, while not being sex workers, are considered freely sexually active, or simply not conforming to a very narrow definition of what a 'feminine' woman should be.
It's one of those words that, because of precedent and prejudice and a whole bunch of other things, men don't get a free pass on. Women also need to consider why they use the word and for what effect.
You should ask yourself why you feel this powerful urge to call your sisters awful names. Critique them, call them out on, but why stoop to the level of schoolyard bullying?
Gastromancers?
Lagatta is my sister. She is not a "sister" to the two other drecks that she mentioned.
More hateful attitude towards women. Moderators notified.
So this is the kind of attack I have to endure just because I'm Jewish? Wait till I tell my brother David Frum!
PS: This is called sarcasm. No, it's not ironic racism. It's sarcasm. If buttonwood can say I'm hateful toward women for calling Margaret Wente and Barbara Kay "drecks", I think I'm entitled to ridicule that kind of mindless personal attack. Thanks.
Buttonwood, since you're clearly here to stir things up, I suggest you stop. Trolls are not tolerated here.
ETA: Drecks works for me.
Semantic slippage has transformed metaphors like "attention whore," or "douchebag" into general insults. The use of such hackneyed phrases reflects laziness and a lack of imagination rather than hidden misogyny IMV.
Here's an insult generator: http://www.insult-o-matic.com
buttonwood, you must be made aware that only the correct sort of feminism is acceptable at babble. Threats will immediately be made if you err.
Demeaning women who have an opinion counter to the pervading thought is perfectly acceptable, challenging privileged male wisdom or lack there of (or the male's fawning posse) on feminist discourse is not.
If privileged males or their admirers want you to express an opinion on sensitive matters, they will issue you with one.
Double standard, anyone? The reigning junta will disagree most strongly, accompanied by threats most vile if the offender doesn't immediately recant but the victims of double standard never respond because they are not here. The privileged cannot appear to fathom why racial and oppressed minorities take a pass on babble. The privileged are seemingly blind to the fact that calling another woman names for political or ideological reasons is precisely the sort of incident that makes this place unsafe for all but the privileged males and their doting posse.
I appreciate this sentiment, but the examples you've given, particularly the first one, are only "general" to those people who have no lived experience in where their meaning is generated from. It's not about intent -- I have no interest in excavating secret misogynists on babble, contrary to popular belief. It's about how those words affect readers whose experiences are vastly different from our own. Buttonwood, if I recall correctly, has a few friends who have worked as sex workers against their will. I can see why she would prefer not to see the word "whore" bandied about as a casual (or "general") insult amongst those who claim to be allies.
Personally, I would sooner respect that preference than worry about what name I could call Margaret Thatcher.
Yeah, that's me alright - always on the side of male privilege.
I get the sense that your definition of feminism is a very particular one. Here we try to embrace as wide a variety of feminist perspectives as possible. You might want to take a look at older threads where we mods attempt to explain privilege and anti-woman perspectives before you refer to us and those who share a similar POV as the "reigning junta".
Oh, so sensitive.
And thanks for the lecture on how babble works. Always nice to hear from the experts.
You might want to revisit your eager grasp of demeaning women you don't agree with in the context of the reactions of minorities to your name calling. Minorities who may wonder what you call them behind their backs when you don't agree with them.
Well, you're demeaning me, a woman you don't agree with. How does that sit with you?
I suppose to a privileged white male sensitivity is a weakness but to those who will never experience the sense of superiority that white male privilege bestows, your sarcasm only reinforces the use of sensitivity as a survival skill.
I apologise for the lecture. I'm sure someone of your stature is secure in their ability to only denigrate those who truly 'deserve' it.
How so?
I guess you get to throw around terms like "blind" as a word of contempt, but that's ok, because... Umm... Well, tell me why it's ok?
Sometimes this term is acceptable. I would only use to describe males and as an insult obviously. But this phrase has its uses.
This is getting, or is, nasty, and I'd like to see a real discussion of the word "whore" as opposed to the thread degenerating into a nasty shit-flinging fest.
Horis ... a position within an ancient religious rite. Comment?
Actually Hoar (as in hoary) is an old family name of mine,
Changed to Hoard some time in the 1700s. There's a small place in Ontario named after the part of the family which crossed the line around the time of the revolution.
The connotations of the word "whore" is obviously different from prostitute and sex worker and may not have any connection to sex.
@ jjuares
I have to disagree with you there. I know it is used to refer to other things, but one could just as easily use the more technical word prostitute and it is no different. It is a put-down implying that one sells one's self, sexually or otherwise
And so long as there are people who are identified as "whores" rather than as seen as people separate from their work, I can see how some of them might take great offense at the association.
Smith- I agree that the word is offensive. Indeed the last time I used the word was in the phrase "corporate whores". And yes, I used the word to describe people in this case shilling for the oil industry. I would never use it to describe a sex trade worker.
Sure, and I understand it has a broader meaning. But regardless of how its usage has morphed, and how one is careful to not insult sex trade workers, the fact remains that the whole shaming nature of that word has to do with selling one's body sexually, and I don't think that is going to ever go away as it sort of has with some other words.
Ah. I didn't mean it personally, per se. What I do mean is that an individual's credibility as an ally is strained when they use oppressive words directed at any individual. Calling anyone a "whore', "dreck" etc is wrong, period.
As an aside, Rebecca West, why is it that whenever the reigning orthodoxy is questioned, the white folks immediately assume victimhood? Its all about you. I'm not demeaning you as a woman, I'm questioning why you consider it ok to demean individuals you do not agree with such as Ms.s Wente and Kay.