Relationship Wisdom or Sexist Drivel?

The latest from Ms. Communicate

quote: Recently I was at a cafe and noticed a guy reading a book called Love and Respect. “Hmm, interesting,” I thought, eyeing the book. He caught my eye and said enthusiastically that it was really great and passed it to me.
I read the blurb on the back cover, which said, "What a woman needs in a relationship is to feel loved. What a man needs in a relationship is to be respected." The book turned out to be a guide to having a successful, godly relationship.

I found the premise sexist and offensive. I was tempted to tell him that I hoped that all partners should get both those things out of their romantic relationship.

But I didn't. I smiled and nodded and said, "Thanks for showing me this." And then I kept my mouth shut. It still bugs me, though. What should I have done? I feel like I should have spoken out.

Yours Truly,

Too polite

quote:Originally posted by jrose:
The latest from Ms. Communicate

Do all advice columns get these weirdos or just this one?

What is wrong with this person that she feels she needs to correct 100% of people who have different world views? Has she been living in an ultra bubble or something where this is somehow feasible?

Does she not realize that virtually every dating book out there distinguishes between men and women? Does she not realize that regardless of the nature/nurture mix, men and women do turn out different on a statistical basis and so there is validity to these statements?

quote:Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Do all advice columns get these weirdos or just this one?All of them do, but they don't necessarily publish them all.

Some advice columnists even write the letters themselves, to provide an opportunity to expound on some subject that has caught their fancy.

You missed the whole point of the advice. Obviously she's aware that people are different. The point was that she found the book offensive in terms of being a woman.

Don't know how you missed that one.

quote:Originally posted by Stargazer:
You missed the whole point of the advice. Obviously she's aware that people are different. The point was that she found the book offensive in terms of being a woman.

Don't know how you missed that one.

Being offended implies not being desensitized, and for that to be true it might need to be the first time she's ever heard corporate media dating advice.

quote:Originally posted by Stargazer:
The point was that she found the book offensive in terms of being a woman. Exactly, and it shows she is aware of the entrenched sexism in our society, and is looking for ways/means to voice her awareness.

quote:Originally posted by 500_Apples:
What is wrong with this person that she feels she needs to correct 100% of people who have different world views?

quote:Quote of Ms. Communicate:
I feel completely confident that in the future you will encounter more situations in which people with little to no left-wing awareness offer you opportunities to assert your opinion.

I think it would have been okay for the writer to Ms. Communicate to make a comment to the reader of the book. At the same time, sharing “left-wing awareness” with some stranger is a bit like sharing one’s belief in Jebuz with a stranger.

I don’t think a stranger has a right to comment on the book another person is reading. Yesterday, getting out of a taxi, I got a negative comment about reading Jessica Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism. Sure, that’s a very lefty book, and my cab driver was clearly sexist, but what gives him the right to spew negative comments about what I’ve chosen to read, and I think the same courtesy should be extended to those reading books about dating or even a political idea I don’t agree with.

For example, I’ve read Anne Coulter’s book. Do I agree with one word she’s ever said – probably not? But as a lefty, I still have a right to pick up a book from the far-right, read it, let my blood boil, and reference it in conversations about how f’ed up she can be. Does this give anyone the right – righty or lefty – to come spew their political ideas in a coffee shop? I would say no.

Maybe "right" isn't the right word. I'm all for free speech, but what I mean is reading a book isn't an "invitation" for others to come forward with their comments or criticisms, especially when negative.

Well Jro, this case here is not exactly the same as yours, he passed her the book, thus opened the avenue for opinion, be it good or bad.

quote:Originally posted by jrose:
Maybe "right" isn't the right word. I'm all for free speech, but what I mean is reading a book isn't an "invitation" for others to come forward with their comments or criticisms, especially when negative.

If it makes a person feel better to express their moral views (whether political or religious) to a stranger, have at it. But, most people are simply not receptive to listening to a stranger telling them their thinking is wrong, no matter how nice one says it.

quote:Originally posted by remind:
Well Jro, this case here is not exactly the same as yours, he passed her the book, thus opened the avenue for opinion, be it good or bad.

I guess, but that just seems like a nice gesture after he noticed her looking at the book. I personally wouldn't say anything, though of course this woman has every right to start a discussion if she feels it necessary. It just seems belittling to me.

Ms. C.'s advice is rude, at best. Commenting on stranger's reading choices is gauche

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]

Rude to whom? The letter writer or the book owner?

If I'm not mistaken we have many discussions on babble about taking the time to educate people when they make racist comments. Especially if they engage you, which this guy did. The general message was that ignoring racism isn't right. Same goes for homophobia.

But suddenly it's rude to point out sexism? Be polite in the face of sexism? That just seems to be reinforcing the gender sterotype that women should polite gracious always. No one is saying she should tell this guy to "fuck himself" but she could say many things "politely" that would indicate that as a feminist that book is offensive. Then she could walk away. "No thanks guy, that's offensive to me as a women to be generalized about like that. Have a nice day though."

Women didn't get their rights by being nice. And we won't keep them by being nice either. But we can be assertive without being rude. Though why we shouldn't be rude boggles.

We shouldn't be rude because we learned manners in kindergarten.

quote:Originally posted by jrose:
I guess, but that just seems like a nice gesture after he noticed her looking at the book. I personally wouldn't say anything, though of course this woman has every right to start a discussion if she feels it necessary. It just seems belittling to me.

Hmmm, I can see what you are saying, however, he was looking at a book on how to develop a relationship with women based upon a premise, of the author's, on what men and women need. He also said it was "great", as he passed it to her. People look at books I am reading all the time, in public, and I never pass it to them and make comments. So, I believe that he was trying to use the book as a way to get an in with a woman.

The women in question, who read the back flap, obviously felt it belittled women. I would not think it rude of her to say so, under those conditions. Now if she knew the book, and just let loose about it, without any interpersonal interchange, I would have then felt she was rude, and wrong to inset herself into his privacy.

Women who accept sexism tools, as advanced by patriarchy, because it may be rude or belittling, are doing themselves no favours, nor other women. And indeed they are doing men no favours either, as that man who had the book, could now believe he knows what women need in a relationship, and in fact what he needs. Which clearly may not be the case.

Women's fear of using their voice, because it may be seen as being rude or belittling, to men, is actually an instilled patriarchial control mechanism.

As such, books such as this one, and other material along the same lines, which appear to be rude and belittling to women, should be challenged when a reasonable opportunity presents itself. And I believe this occassion was a reasonable opportunity.

I agree. Regardless of the guy's intentions, he didn't just show the book, he gave it an unrequited glowing endorsement, so he's the original imposer-of-his-views-on-others if we are to be critical of coffee table chit-chat (sort of initiated by the woman in this case).
I think the issue here lies more in the fact that for a women to openly disagree with a man (or a book/ideology promoted by a man) is more chancy than to nod along, especially if you are disagreeing with a book spouting dominant ideology... of men needing Respect, no less! (It was simpler when we could just be dismissed as being from Mars...) [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote: We shouldn't be rude because we learned manners in kindergarten.

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Who sits in a cafe alone reading a book about relationships? What a douchebag.

quote:Originally posted by Catchfire:
Who sits in a cafe alone reading a book about relationships? What a douchebag.

Your typical judgmental arrogance on display.

Lots of people read books in cafes and they don't need nor want your approval. And some people sometimes read books that are about relationships. Personally, among the hundreds of books I myself have bought over the years I admit that one of them is about relationships.

Grow some modesty.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote: Who sits in a cafe alone reading a book about relationships? The guy who finally came out of his mother's basement with carpel tunnel syndrome from all that keyboard action with porn and World of Warcraft???

He may smell like Cheetos and dirty socks, but he can quote all the good Star Wars lines. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

quote: Who sits in a cafe alone reading a book about relationships? What a douchebag.

One who's trying to pick up maybe? Talk about gauche. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

There is something classist and sexist about this need to never be rude.

quote: Grow some modesty.

Of all the words you could have picked, you picked "modesty". I can't even imagine what you meant by it as it seems utterly out of context - I guess you are accusing catchfire of being arrogant? Which is weird and kinda snotty but I guess it maintain a polite facade. It's still a personal attack no matter how polite.

Maybe you should just avoid all threads involving feminism in any way shape or form, then you won't have to put your foot in it by using words like "modesty" in a thread where women are being encouraged to shut up and smile when a guy offers up a slice of sexism to them as to respond would be "rude". It's like a red flag and someone might be rude and gauche. And that is worse than anything else!!!

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:Originally posted by Scout:

Of all the words you could have picked, you picked "modesty". I can't even imagine what you meant by it as it seems utterly out of context - I guess you are accusing catchfire of being arrogant? Which is weird and kinda snotty but I guess it maintain a polite facade. It's still a personal attack no matter how polite.

Maybe you should just avoid all threads involving feminism in any way shape or form, then you won't have to put your foot in it by using words like "modesty" in a thread where women are being encouraged to shut up and smile when a guy offers up a slice of sexism to them as to respond would be "rude". It's like a red flag and someone might be rude and gauche. And that is worse than anything else!!!

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

First of all, as far as I know, you're not the moderator.

Now to address something else,

I think you have some sort of complex with me. I don't really know from where, but you tend to interpret a lot of my posts in some really contrived, sinister way. I find it very frustrating, and at this point I can no longer remember where your hostility originates. Clearly my comment had nothing whatsoever to do with the fashion interpretation of modesty.

It's quite rich of you to criticize me for personal attacks. 100% of your posts where you adress me are personal attacks, so forgive me for not carefully considering your concerns.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

I have a vision of you two arguing in a cafe, surrounded by people reading "Love and Respect" and going "Tsk, tsk...".
P.S.: 500_Apples, you are dead wrong... and lucky that someone takes the time to explain it to you. In a real cafe, you'd have latte down your shirt front...

I sit alone reading in cafes, restaurants, waiting rooms etc. I love to read and if Im alone, I do. so there! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

1-If he had simply been reading, with no interaction with the lady, then to interupt his reading and give her opinion is intrusive and rude, and harassing.
However, having drawn her into his reading world, he deserved to hear her opinion. He was kind of asking for it with his actions. (and I dont mean asking for it as 'he was asking for it' is said when something bad happens to someone, I mean it literally)

quote:Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I have a vision of you two arguing in a cafe, surrounded by people reading "Love and Respect" and going "Tsk, tsk...".
P.S.: 500_Apples, you are dead wrong... and lucky that someone takes the time to explain it to you. In a real cafe, you'd have latte down your shirt front...

I'm against violence and violent people, and I would not associate with the type of person who throws their coffee at someone's lap every time they're unhappy. Certainly that's never happened to me, and the last time I was in a fight was eleven years ago, I was 14.

quote:I would not associate with the type of person who throws their coffee at someone's lap... I wrote "shirt front". Be patient, my friend, we are working on precisely such an application for the forum... Dribble!

quote:Originally posted by Bacchus:
I sit alone reading in cafes, restaurants, waiting rooms etc. I love to read and if Im alone, I do. so there!
Oh I read alone in public all the time. Nothing wrong with that. I was just trying to picture what kind of person would choose to read in public, alone, in public, conspicuously, a book whose subtitle was 'The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs'. And the vision my imagination returned was: douchebag.

quote: First of all, as far as I know, you're not the moderator.

I didn't demand you do anything or threaten or email a moderator, I made a suggestion. You seem to put your foot in it a lot when talking about Feminism and usually somebody flips out on you. You could ignore a suggestion I don’t care. But a moderator has asked you to stay out of the FF, so it seems your work around is to comment outside the FF when most people would clue in that they just shouldn’t discuss of Feminism all together. Most people would be polite enough and modest enough to stop forcing their company where it obviously isn’t appreciated. I was hoping you’d explain why you used the word before this thread exploded.

quote:I think you have some sort of complex with me. I don't really know from where, but you tend to interpret a lot of my posts in some really contrived, sinister way. I find it very frustrating, and at this point I can no longer remember where your hostility originates. Clearly my comment had nothing whatsoever to do with the fashion interpretation of modesty.

I addressed what you said and how it could totally be misconstrued because the word "modesty" is a loaded word when it comes to feminism and I explained that in context of this thread where being polite is being stressed “modesty” was an odd choice. That you still don't know that either shows continued ignorance or you’re being disingenuous. Instead of explaining your poor choice of word you have decided that just plain old attacking me is a better idea. You seem somewhat hysterical actually.

That you still haven’t cleared up why you picked a word I just explained you was a bad choice and why and instead have flown of the handle at me makes me wonder even more if you used the word to cause shit. It’s such an odd choice. My bad that I took your bait.

quote:It's quite rich of you to criticize me for personal attacks. 100% of your posts where you adress me are personal attacks, so forgive me for not carefully considering your concerns.

Did I make a personal attack in my previous post? I don’t think so – calm down dude.

quote:Originally posted by Scout:
I didn't demand you do anything or threaten or email a moderator, I made a suggestion. You seem to put your foot in it a lot when talking about Feminism and usually somebody flips out on you. You could ignore a suggestion I don’t care. But a moderator has asked you to stay out of the FF, so it seems your work around is to comment outside the FF when most people would clue in that they just shouldn’t discuss of Feminism all together. Most people would be polite enough and modest enough to stop forcing their company where it obviously isn’t appreciated. I was hoping you’d explain why you used the word before this thread exploded.

I addressed what you said and how it could totally be misconstrued because the word "modesty" is a loaded word when it comes to feminism and I explained that in context of this thread where being polite is being stressed “modesty” was an odd choice. That you still don't know that either shows continued ignorance or you’re being disingenuous. Instead of explaining your poor choice of word you have decided that just plain old attacking me is a better idea. You seem somewhat hysterical actually.

That you still haven’t cleared up why you picked a word I just explained you was a bad choice and why and instead have flown of the handle at me makes me wonder even more if you used the word to cause shit. It’s such an odd choice. My bad that I took your bait.

I think if I had used the bolded terms in a post of mine you would have attacked me and given me a lecture, called me sexist, et cetera. I'm not sure if you did it on purpose to make a point or by accident, so I won't comment further.

Modesty means different things in different contexts and I have no idea how Catchfire dresses. I was referring to what I consider his incredible arrogance. That he passes judgment on a complete stranger based on one snapshot in time.

Wow, leave a discussion for a few hours and see how it explodes. It seems as though threads about Ms Communicates communications are never dull.

Wonder what it about them that causes such controversy? I should look back over them to see if there is a pattern, as I suspect there is, but am not sure what exactly it is.

Perhaps a key could be in mspector's post above, where he says:

quote:Some advice columnists even write the letters themselves, to provide an opportunity to expound on some subject that has caught their fancy.

As it would seem, though admittedly it may not be, there is some sort of exception being taken to a woman offering advice.

quote:Originally posted by Scout:
Of all the words you could have picked, you picked "modesty". I can't even imagine what you meant by it as it seems utterly out of context - I guess you are accusing catchfire of being arrogant? I suspect that he is using the word modesty, as pertaining to it being used to define conceit and vanity characteristics.

In respect to catchfire's comment about the guy with the book being a "douchebag", I take his comment meaning the same position as mine, the guy was alone in a coffee shop reading this book for the sole purpose of using it for a pick up gimick. That is why he noticed her looking at him reading the book. If he was actually reading the book, he would not have noticed her looking at it, as that is usually how it goes when you are alone reading a book in a public place. You are there to tune out and read, and nothing more.

As such, I do not see catchfire's comments as being arrogant, nor judgemental. In fact, I believe he was being pretty damn accurate in his perceptions of what said guy was up to.

Having said that, I really must take exception to catchfire's use of the word "douchebag". I find its use as troubling, as 500_apples use of modesty, when in a discussion on a feminist topic, and women's actions.

Though I understand, that he meant nothing sexist by saying that.

Really, I just wanted to point out an internalized word that really is something that pertains only women, but is used to denigrate, both males and females, by both males and females, and I would suggest that people when they perceive themselves using a gender biased term, to denigrate another, that they reject the use of it, and find an non-biased word to denigrate with. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Now, 500_apples I do not believe, your perceptions of self, as stated by you, as follows:

quote: I'm against violence and violent people, and I would not associate with the type of person who throws their coffee at someone's lap every time they're unhappy. Certainly that's never happened to me, and the last time I was in a fight was eleven years ago, I was 14.

are quite accurate, in respect to your statement that you have not had a fight since you were 14.

This could in part be because you appear to have some misconceptions surrounding "violence", and what denotes violence and violent actions by people, as it appears that you think that violence is only the physical act of being violent.

quote:From the original letter: I was tempted to tell him that I hoped that all partners should get both those things out of their romantic relationship... For all we know, the reader might have agreed. No harm done in convivial raising of sights a little.

quote:Originally posted by Catchfire:
And the vision my imagination returned was: douchebag.Babbler discourse is certainly odd today. In a thread about stupid relationship books this is the descriptor?

As a matter of fact the only book I found that attracted unsolicited comments by women as I was reading it alone was the first Harry Potter book. I had at least three women make comments in passing and chat a bit about the book. Don't remember this happening with any other book.

quote:Originally posted by Caissa:
We shouldn't be rude because we learned manners in kindergarten.I flunked kindergarten so I went to law school.

quote:Originally posted by remind:
Now, 500_apples I do not believe, your perceptions of self, as stated by you, as follows:

are quite accurate, in respect to your statement that you have not had a fight since you were 14.

This could in part be because you appear to have some misconceptions surrounding "violence", and what denotes violence and violent actions by people, as it appears that you think that violence is only the physical act of being violent.

You're right. I've had many fights, many that I remember. 14 is the most recent fight I recall that involves a physical component, was against another guy. In light of comments I've made in a different thread sometime back about violence I should have included the adjective "physical".

quote:I just wanted to point out an internalized word that really is something that pertains only women, but is used to denigrate, both males and females, by both males and females, and I would suggest that people when they perceive themselves using a gender biased term, to denigrate another, that they reject the use of it, and find an non-biased word to denigrate with. and while they're at it, avoid calling it "denigrate". [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:Originally posted by martin dufresne:
and while they're at it, avoid calling it "denigrate". [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
OMG, martin good catch, it is so, so easy, not to see/perceive latent and entrenched sexism and racism, in our thought patterns and common word usage.

Well, that word will now be struck from my vocabulary! [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:Originally posted by remind:

OMG, martin good catch, it is so, so easy, not to see/perceive latent and entrenched sexism and racism, in our thought patterns and common word usage.

Well, that word will now be struck from my vocabulary! [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]

I had to look up the etymology...

... and the etymology will show you that the word comes from the Latin verb denigrare, meaning to blacken. It has nothing to do with racism at all.

quote:Originally posted by M. Spector:
... and the etymology will show you that the word comes from the Latin verb denigrare, meaning to blacken. It has nothing to do with racism at all.LOL LOl Dense today are we? Or did you just think it was time to wear your black hat and be the villain.

quote:Originally posted by M. Spector:
... and the etymology will show you that the word comes from the Latin verb denigrare, meaning to blacken. It has nothing to do with racism at all.

That reminds me of the ruckus over "niggardly". The etymology of "niggardly": Middle English nigard, perhaps from nig (stingy person) of Scandinavian origin.

quote:Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
LOL LOl Dense today are we? Or did you just think it was time to wear your black hat and be the villain.Only a fool would seek to expunge from the English language all references to the colour black, out of a combination of ignorance and white liberal guilt.

quote:Originally posted by M. Spector:
Only a fool would seek to expunge from the English language all references to the colour black, out of a combination of ignorance and white liberal guilt.Just the negative references that are clearly racist. So I hope that white cloud you are under lifts soon so that you can have a nice day.

Edited to add: Only a fool is a personal attack. Your debating style could use an upgrade from its current white trash style.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

quote:Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Only a fool is a personal attack.It's only a personal attack on those who seek "to expunge from the English language all references to the colour black, out of a combination of ignorance and white liberal guilt". They are fools.

Only you can decide whether you fit into that category.

quote:Originally posted by M. Spector:
Only a fool would seek to expunge from the English language all references to the colour black, out of a combination of ignorance and white liberal guilt.

What about the very use of the word "coloured"?

quote:
Pat, would you please make a [b]coloured copy of this presentation for us?[/b]

Using the word “coloured” is a direct use (no etymological analysis required) of a word that was used to label people of African orgins.

Certainly, the word “coloured” should be avoided if the word “denigrate” should be avoided.

quote:Originally posted by M. Spector:
It's only a personal attack on those who seek "to expunge from the English language all references to the colour black, out of a combination of ignorance and white liberal guilt". They are fools.

Only you can decide whether you fit into that category.Wow you are really clever. I bow to your ability to obfuscate anything you write to be able to attack with both sides of your keyboard simultaneously. Do you work for Harpo the Grovel?

Right Sven take someone else's argument and reduce it to an absurdity. You are right up there with your buddy when it comes to debating issues. I see this same thing in most right wing politicians especially people like George II and Harpo's attack dogs.

LOL

quote:Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Right Sven take someone else's argument and reduce it to an absurdity.

When an argument is absurd to begin with, there's no reason to take the additional and unnecessary step to "reduce it to an absurdity".

Seriously, kropotkin1951, should people avoid using the word "denigrate" but continue to use the word "coloured"?

If so, what is the logic of such an admonition?

So Sven the idea that language can be hurtful and racist is an absurd argument? One thing for sure it is obviously not registering in your head. But then you probably never had people use your general characteristics as synonyms for bad and evil.

Why do you want to ride in on your white horse to slay any attempt to change our language into something respectful and inclusive. Would you rather we all reverted to the good old days when good old boys could sully anyone that didn't look like them.

quote:Originally posted by M. Spector:
... and the etymology will show you that the word comes from the Latin verb denigrare, meaning to blacken. It has nothing to do with racism at all.

Just looked up the etymology, to make certain my perception of "denigare" as being the root, was the correct one. It is, "denigare's" root is niger and is an adjective meaning literally, negro. As well, ni means underneath, or down. So it seems, in historical language context it was created as a racial slurr.

There would be a different contextual value if it came from the Latin negare, meaning to deny, but it doesn't.

quote:Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
So Sven the idea that language can be hurtful and racist is an absurd argument? One thing for sure it is obviously not registering in your head. But then you probably never had people use your general characteristics as synonyms for bad and evil.

Why do you want to ride in on your white horse to slay any attempt to change our language into something respectful and inclusive. Would you rather we all reverted to the good old days when good old boys could sully anyone that didn't look like them.

I'll answer that with the following:

quote:Originally posted by Sven:
Seriously, kropotkin1951, should people avoid using the word "denigrate" but continue to use the word "coloured"?

If so, what is the logic of such an admonition?

quote:Originally posted by Sven:
Seriously, kropotkin1951, should people avoid using the word "denigrate" but continue to use the word "coloured"?

If so, what is the logic of such an admonition?Coloured in the usage you used it means coloured paper. The verb "to denigrate" includes the concept that black is bad or evil. Coloured paper is not the same. Nor is it offensive to say that my chalkboard is black. You seem to have the ability to understand some concepts but others you struggle with. Respect and courtesy are good starting points in any community.

quote:Originally posted by remind:
Just looked up the etymology, to make certain my perception of "denigare" as being the root, was the correct one. It is, "denigare's" root is niger and is an adjective meaning literally, negro. As well, ni means underneath, or down. So it seems, in historical language context it was created as a racial slurr.

Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, “denigrate”:

Origin: 1520–30; Latin dйnigrātus (ptp. of dйnigrāre to blacken), equiv. to dй- DE- + nigr(āre) to make black + -ātus -ATE.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

Latin dēnigrāre, dēnigrāt-, to blacken, defame : dē-, de- + niger, nigr-, black; see nekw-t- in Indo-European roots.

And, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary:

1526, from L. denigratus, pp. of denigrare "to blacken, defame," from de- "completely" + nigr-, stem of niger "black," of unknown origin.

The etymology of "denigrate" makes no reference to people of African orgin.

The word doesn't have to refer to people of African origins to associate blackness with defamation, degradation. Which in a racist society such as ours is adding insult to injury and ought to be avoided by people who care to be part of the solution.
quote:"to blacken, defame,"

So Sven if blacken simply means to defame what does whiten mean? Black is bad and the man with the white skin and hat is good and righteous. I get the meaning and I don't like the usage, anymore than I like the usage of most sexist terms. I try to use respectful language that IMO is neither foolish or absurd.

quote:Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Coloured in the usage you used it means coloured paper. The verb "to denigrate" includes the concept that black is bad or evil. Coloured paper is not the same. Nor is it offensive to say that my chalkboard is black. You seem to have the ability to understand some concepts but others you struggle with. Respect and courtesy are good starting points in any community.

So, “coloured” may be used if it’s used in a neutral or positive sense but not if it’s used in a negative sense.

“Coloured” paper is okay (it’s neutral) but “denigrate” is not because, (1) by definition, it is a term used in a negative sense and (2) it is rooted, etymologically, with the word “black”.

“His nasty and sarcastic speech last night painted the entire event in an ugly colour.”

That use of the word “colour” in that context would be off-limits because it, essentially, meets the two-step rule above, right? The “two-step rule” in this latter case would be (1) it’s being used in a negative sense and (2) it is a word that was used to label persons of African origins.

You should probably avoid (like the plague itself) George Carlin's work.

Sven when you show that you have 5% of the talent of the late great Carlin I'll cut you some slack. I mean Holy Fuck Batman don't you think context means anything?

Sven, your reasoning is false on both counts. The word colour in your sentence isn't used in a negative sense by itself since you have to preface it with ugly to make your (pathetic) point. As for your second point, you changed horses in mid-stream. Many words can be used to "label people of African origins" and very few of them are pejorative. I don't think that the noun "colour" makes that grade, as "denigrate" clearly does, for the reason pointed out in the definition you quoted.
Indeed, exploring the relationship of negativity with blackness could take us way earlier than the slavery of 400 years back. When someone was black-balled (excluded) in ancient Greece, that use of the colour black probably referred to the common use of African slaves in this "birthplace of democracy," that pillaged African peoples.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I mean Holy Fuck Batman don't you think context means anything?

Are you saying that every word that, etymologically, is rooted with the concept of "black" should be avoided if the word is used in a negative context?

quote:Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Just the negative references that are clearly racist.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]

Hmmm, I recently tried making this point, using this very word (nobody caught it then), and was hauled onto the carpet and had rocks chucked at me.

quote:Are you saying that every word that, etymologically, is rooted with the concept of "black" should be avoided if the word is used in a negative context? If the word itself is what carries the negative charge, yes. Otherwise, saying someting like "The Black Hawks really blew it yesterday" clearly is no problem... unless you're talking to a fan. And of course, a non-metaphoric usage ("My fingernail is turning black") is painful but OK.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:Originally posted by martin dufresne:
If the word itself is what carries the negative charge, yes. Otherwise, saying someting like "The Black Hawks really blew it yesterday" clearly is no problem... unless you're talking to a fan. And of course, a non-metaphoric usage ("My fingernail is turning black") is painful but OK.

"His speech last night really gave his party a black eye."

Would that metaphoric use be off-limits?

Back-edited: I don't think so, because "a black eye" is a real natural occurence, it's not the word "black" adding a pejorative tinge to the word "eye," as would the expression "his speech was a black mark on" or "blackened" his party's reputation". See the distinction? Or do you want to go on pretending you don't?

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:Originally posted by martin dufresne:
When someone was black-balled (excluded) in ancient Greece, that use of the colour black probably referred to the common use of African slaves in this "birthplace of democracy," that pillaged African peoples.

Do you have a link for that?

The unabridged dictionary.com says that the term's orgin was in 1760-1770 and signified a negative vote to a club ("a black ball placed in a ballot box signifying a negative vote").

The Online Etymological Dictionary supports that (a vote to exclude a prospective member from a club by placing a black ball in a container).

The American Heritage Dictionary says: "A rejection of an applicant's membership in a private organization, such as a club or fraternity. The term is derived from the traditional practice of members voting anonymously on admitting new members, using either a white marble (acceptance) or a black marble (denial). Acceptance must be unanimous; therefore, one black marble in the ballot box is enough to keep the applicant out of the organization."

quote:Originally posted by martin dufresne:
When someone was black-balled (excluded) in ancient Greece, that use of the colour black probably referred to the common use of African slaves in this "birthplace of democracy," that pillaged African peoples.Instead of speculating about where words "probably" came from, you should do your homework.

The Greeks never "black-balled" anybody. That was invented centuries later, and it is a reference to an actual black ball. Nothing metaphorical about it at all.

And the vast majority of slaves in ancient Greece where white Europeans.

Not that slavery has anything to do with it.

quote:Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Back-edited: I don't think so, because "a black eye" is a real natural occurence, it's not the word "black" adding a pejorative tinge to the word "eye," as would the expression "his speech was a black mark on" or "blackened" his party's reputation".

Would calling an event a "blackout" be okay when the power goes out in a city or region?

Personally, I would disagree with that use of the term in that context. Really, it would be more correct to call it a "lightout" rather than a "blackout" when the lights all go off—when the lights all come back on, one could properly say that a "blackout".

quote:Originally posted by martin dufresne:
The word doesn't have to refer to people of African origins to associate blackness with defamation, degradation. Which in a racist society such as ours is adding insult to injury and ought to be avoided by people who care to be part of the solution. According to my Houghton Mifflin etymology source, niger, which is denigare's root, is in fact an adjective directly referenced to a state of "something" being black.

Going to look at Merriam Webster on line and see what they say...

quote:Main Entry: den·i·grate
Pronunciation: \ˈde-ni-ˌgrāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): den·i·grat·ed; den·i·grat·ing
Etymology: Latin denigratus, past participle of denigrare, from de- + nigrare to blacken, from nigr-, niger black

Date: 1526

1 : to attack the reputation of : defame
2 : to deny the importance or validity of : belittle

Perhaps we are actually close to the origins of the term "negro", as niger's roots lay in both Latin and Sanskrit.

"Blackmail" (from the Online Etymology Dictionary):

1552, second element is M.E. male "rent, tribute," from O.E. mal "lawsuit, terms, bargaining, agreement," from O.N. mal "speech, agreement;" related to O.E. mжрel "meeting, council," mжl "speech," Goth. maюl "meeting place." From the practice of freebooting clan chieftains who ran protection rackets against Scottish farmers. Black from the evil of the practice. Expanded c.1826 to any type of extortion money. Verb is 1880.

What about: "You can only purchase those items on the black market"?

"The company's income statement was in the black" is okay, presumably, because it's meant in a positive sense (as opposed to an income statement that is "in the red").

Pejorative use of black stones in ancient Mediterranean cultures:

quote:Black and white stones were used in Greek culture in a voting system - a white stone for "yes", a black stone for "no". (Maggi Dawn, « Theology, Life and Faith in the U.K. ». http://maggidawn.typepad.com/maggidawn/2006/06/white_stone.html [75] )

An explanation of a variant idiom, ‘albo lapillo notare diem’ (‘to mark the day with a white stone’), links Scott’s first and second (rejected) interpretations (Nil Desperandum: A Dictionary of Latin Tags and Useful Phrases, Eugene Ehrlich, BCA, 1992, p35):
For the Romans, white was the symbol of happiness, black of misfortune. Thus, in a trial a vote for acquittal was cast with a white stone, for condemnation a black one; a happy day was marked with a white stone, an unhappy day with a black one. The latter procedure was this: at the end of each day, a Roman — according to Pliny the Younger, this superstitious practice dated back to the Thracians — would judge whether the day had been happy or unhappy. Once decided, the Roman would drop a pebble of the appropriate colour into an urn, so at the end of the month he could empty the urn and be able to look back over the month past.
(http://jacketmagazine.com/24/keery.html [76])

Apostle Paul often wrote about this issue. (1 Cor. 8:1-12; 10:14-33)
(…)
--"To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it."
(…)

(2.) "I will also give him a white stone"--a widely used symbol for victory or special privilege, here referring to an eternal reward and acceptance by God.

--White stone was mined at Pergamum and was a commercial product. Jesus knew exactly what He was saying when He said this in His letter.

--Black and White stones were used by juries in courts. If they believed that a person was guilty, they symbolized this by offering their black stone. If they believed they were innocent, they would offer their white stone. The White stone therefore may speak of our innocent status before God once we are forgiven. (…)

--They were given to a man freed from slavery as proof that he had been made a citizen of the province. The white stone then speaks of our citizenship of heaven. (…) (http://www.lifepointenazarene.org/Lifepointe/message.aspx?id=23 [77])

The term "melancholy" should almost certainly be avoided, given its etymology (from the Online Etymology Dictionary):

quote:
c.1303, "condition characterized by sullenness, gloom, irritability," from O.Fr. melancholie, from L.L. melancholia, from Gk. melankholia "sadness," lit. "black bile," from melas (gen. melanos) "black" (see melanin) + khole "bile" (see Chloe). Medieval physiology attributed depression to excess of "black bile," a secretion of the spleen and one of the body's four "humors." Adj. sense of "sullen, gloomy" is from 1526; sense of "deplorable" (of a fact or state of things) is from 1710.

Clearly, "melancholy" has a negative meaning and it's rooted in the word "black". This word, therefore, seems to fit nicely within the rule that dictates the ban of the use of the word "denigrate".

quote:Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Pejorative use of black stones in ancient Mediterranean cultures:

That's all very well and good, Marty, but where does it say anything about "blackballed"?

Wow, Sven, are you having a bad day? Not only have you quoted yourself, several times today, you are now conducting an argument with...yourself.

The term "sordid" (from the Online Etymology Dictionary):

quote:
1584, "festering," from L. sordidus "dirty," from sordere "be dirty, be shabby," related to sordes "dirt," from PIE base *swordo- "black, dirty" (cf. Goth. swarts, O.E. sweart "black"). Sense of "foul, low, mean" first recorded 1611.

Just like "melancholy" and "denigrate", "sordid" has a negative meaning and it's rooted in the word "black".

Avoid "sordid" from now on, please.

For the Francophones: Avoid bкte noire.

The word "necromancy", as remind kindly pointed out with regard to the word "denigrate", is rooted in "niger":

quote:
c.1300, "divination by communication with the dead," from O.Fr. nygromancie, from M.L. nigromantia (1212), from L. necromantia "divination from an exhumed corpse," from Gk. nekromanteia, from nekros "dead body" (see necro-) + manteia "divination, oracle," from manteuesthai "to prophesy," from mantis "prophet" (see mania). Spelling infl. in M.L. by niger "black," on notion of "black arts." Modern spelling is c.1550 from attempts to correct M.E. nygromauncy.

Please avoid using "necromancy".

quote:Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Pejorative use of black stones in ancient Mediterranean cultures: Thanks for that Martin, it would seem some really want to keep the notion of "whiteness" equals goodness, and "blackness" equals badness, alive and well.

And Sven, if you were really interested in the concept, use and actual meanings of words from how they were derived, it could've been done, intellectually, and enlightingly. But apparently both of those scopes are beyond you, and whatever motives you may have.

quote:Originally posted by remind:
And Sven, if you were really interested in the concept, use and actual meanings of words from how they were derived, it could've been done, intellectually, and enlightingly. But apparently both of those scopes are beyond you, and whatever motives you may have.

I'm just pointing out how silly it is to avoid the word "denigrate" because of its etymology.

quote:Originally posted by remind:
OMG, martin good catch, it is so, so easy, not to see/perceive latent and entrenched sexism and racism, in our thought patterns and common word usage.

Well, that word will now be struck from my vocabulary! [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]

And, you couldn't stop there cuz you'd also have to get rid of whole lot of other words, like "melancholy" and "sordid" (see above), because the same "logic" applies to those words as well.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Sven ]

Wow, a friendly suggestion from an ally to another who only says they will try to eliminate from "my" vocabulary leads to this.

I don't a flying fuck about etymology. Remember they who win the wars write the etymology.

Hang onto your niggardly words with pride.

I think I can live with the pejorative character of the word "Svengali"... [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:Originally posted by Sven:
And, you couldn't stop there cuz you'd also have to get rid of whole lot of other words

and....your point to not getting rid of them, from regular conversational use, would be what?

Because I can see very many good reasons of why we should get rid of many. Moreover, language is not static. Words come and they go, some come back, while others fade away, they are not a finite thing, where we say; "we now have 3 million words to our language, no more shall be created, and none shall fall away."

If the etymological meaning is rooted in negative stereotypes and biased meanings, against peoples, while being for others, that have been carried forward with a word, it should be discouraged in its use, until it falls into disuse.

Semantics matter and words carry power.

quote:Originally posted by remind:
If the etymological meaning is rooted in negative stereotypes and biased meanings, against peoples, while being for others, that have been carried forward with a word, it should be discouraged in its use, until it falls into disuse.

I agree with that. Hence, I agree that the "N word" should not be used because the word itself was used as a racist term.

Denigrate, however, is not one of them. Ditto for sordid, melanoma, and melancholy (and niggardly, for that matter). None of those words, as far as I know, has a history of being based on racism or sexism. The worst people can say about those words is that they are (1) words with negative denotations and (2) rooted in the word "black").

It's a hell of a stretch to call them racist words.

Sven, please just think how the word niggardly may sound to a person of African descent or even your average European person upon hearing the word for the first time.(I only learned of the word on babble)

If you can't get that, I'm not sure I have anything else to offer.

If you're talking amongst intellectuals, maybe a pass. On a public forum promoting progress, not cool.

quote:Originally posted by Sven:
Denigrate, however, is not one of them. Actually, upon investigating further denigrate is one of them. As is the term "thug".

quote: Ditto for sordid, melanoma, and melancholy Now, can't make a comment on those words, as I did not even bother with any of posts, where you were busily addressing yourself. Didn't want to interupt your own little personal strawman building session, with yourself, and destroy the fun you would have by kicking them down to your own satisfaction. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

However, I will say, I dislike the use of melancholy because of the negative way it was used mainly for women, historically.

quote:(and niggardly, for that matter). You may be correct about its roots, but you are not correct about its recent historical usage and what it implied racially.

quote:None of those words, as far as I know, has a history of being based on racism or sexism. I pointed out 3 of them that had. And come to think of it, I kinda dislike sordid too, as it has been used often, perhaps too often, to define women's perceived bad actions. Joyce was pethaps the most prominent historical exception to that though. He loved to use it to describe men.

Oh, and the root words for melenoma, and melancholy come from a different root word for black, than does denigrate. As I see you forgot to mention that.

quote:The worst people can say about those words is that they are (1) words with negative denotations Well, I think that is a fairly significant state of being that would suggest, quite reasonably in fact, that they need to fall into disuse. The very fact that they have commonly understood negative denotations means they are an effective tool of patriarchy, eh?!

quote:and (2) rooted in the word "black"). The "negative denotation" lies in the root words, or not in the root words, or current common usage.

quote:It's a hell of a stretch to call them racist words.

Damn, and now I have to go look up the root for sordid to see if it has a racist root besides its sexist use.

Yep, it does have racist roots, and come to think of it, it has classist implications, as well, as sexist. Though, as point of interest, its racist root word is different than denigrate, too.

All in all, I think melanoma, is the only word that can be salvaged. And by your owm admission, there is "negative denotation" attached to all it appears, except melanoma.

So....why would we want to keep alive and in use words that are used by white patriarchy to re-enforce it?

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:Originally posted by remind:
So....why would we want to keep alive and in use words that are used by white patriarchy to re-enforce it?

Let's take "sordid" as an example.

You assert it is a word "used by white patriarchy to re-enforce it".

Other than pulling that thought straight from your arse, what tortured logic would lead you to such a conclusion?

If you asked 1,000 people what comes to mind when they think of the word "sordid", how many people would say, "Well, when I think of the word "sordid", one of the things that comes to mind is that it is used by white patriarchy to re-enforce it"?

Now, in contrast, I can honestly see where someone who is ignorant of the denotation of the word "niggardly" would, based on phonetics alone, think it might be a racist term.

But, "sordid"?

Now, I kinda think that butterfly, grapejuice, and newsprint are homophobic words, but that's another discussion entirely...

No, let's take "niggardly" and why you seem to think you have the privilege to keep using it.

Fucking prick.

quote:Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
No, let's take "niggardly" and why you seem to think you have the privilege to keep using it.

Fucking prick.

Fuck you, moron.

Can't answer my question, EH?

fffft, thwffft, ugh, had to pick that straw out it is getting everywhere.

Doesn't matter if 1000 people do not recognize the word for what it is, another 1000 will.

The use of sordid re-enforces a classist notion, with rascist roots and it has historically and currently been used as a "negative denotation" against women's actions. A societal control mechanism, and most societal control mechanisms are there to re-enforce patriarchy, and patriarchy, as we know it, is a white male construct, to benefit mainly white males. until such "loaded" terms fall into disuse, they will impact upon peoples in a unnecessary and negative way.

But I know you know this Sven, just as you know most people do not recognize such loaded terms for what they are, and it appears you really do not like them to know. Notwithstanding of course, is the evidence of this contained in the fact you stated you knew their "negative denotations".

That you believe that the "negative denotations" they have, should not mean they should fall into disuse, says much.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:Originally posted by remind:
fffft, thwffft, ugh, had to pick that straw out it is getting everywhere.

Doesn't matter if 1000 people do not recognize the word for what it is, another 1000 will.

The use of sorid re-enforces a classist notion, with rascist roots and it has historically and currently been used as a "negative denotation" against women's actions. A societal control mechanism, and most societal control mechanisms are there to re-enforce patriarchy, and patriarchy, as we know it, is a white male construct, to benefit mainly white males. until such "loaded" terms fall into disuse, they will impact upon peoples in a unnecessary and negative way.

But I know you know this Sven, just as you know most people do not recognize such loaded terms for what they are, and it appears you really do not like them to know. Notwithstanding of course, is the evidence of this contained in the fact you stated you knew their "negative denotations".

That you believe that the "negative denotations" they have, should not mean they should fall into disuse, says much.

Thanks remind.

quote:Originally posted by remind:
As is the term "thug".

Based on the Hindi word "thag" (meaning rogue or cheat).

quote:Originally posted by Sven:

Based on the Hindi word "thag" (meaning rogue or cheat).

You know this is the 21st century, right? And we use modern definitions, not etymology?

You do, right?

quote:Originally posted by remind:
fffft, thwffft, ugh, had to pick that straw out it is getting everywhere.

Doesn't matter if 1000 people do not recognize the word for what it is, another 1000 will.

The use of sorid re-enforces a classist notion, with rascist roots and it has historically and currently been used as a "negative denotation" against women's actions. A societal control mechanism, and most societal control mechanisms are there to re-enforce patriarchy, and patriarchy, as we know it, is a white male construct, to benefit mainly white males. until such "loaded" terms fall into disuse, they will impact upon peoples in a unnecessary and negative way.

But I know you know this Sven, just as you know most people do not recognize such loaded terms for what they are, and it appears you really do not like them to know. Notwithstanding of course, is the evidence of this contained in the fact you stated you knew their "negative denotations".

That you believe that the "negative denotations" they have, should not mean they should fall into disuse, says much.

I think you're making up negative connotations that no one else on the planet has ever considered or would seriously consider even if you kindly and eagerly pointed it out to them.

The negative denotations are only a dictionary away:

1. morally ignoble or base; vile: sordid methods.
2. meanly selfish, self-seeking, or mercenary.
3. dirty or filthy.
4. squalid; wretchedly poor and run-down: sordid housing.

For example, remind:

 The sordid speeches at the RNC convention made me ill with their lies and hypocrisy.

 The sordid conditions the tenants had to endure at the hands of their slumlord are outrageous.

So, yeah, I can see why the word "sordid" should not be used. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:Originally posted by martin dufresne:
If the word itself is what carries the negative charge, yes. Otherwise, saying someting like "The Black Hawks really blew it yesterday" clearly is no problem... unless you're talking to a fan.
[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Or a Red Indian?

As for "niggardly," despite its sounding like a familiar racial slur, it has a nice Old Norse etymology that has nothing whatsoever to do with that horrible word with which it assonates.

One may be "progressive" and well-intentioned in opposing its use, but that doesn't make one any less dense.

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:Originally posted by Sven:
Based on the Hindi word "thag" (meaning rogue or cheat). It came into being because of the British occupation of India, originally used in reference compare to the Thugs in India who were professional assassins who killed by throat cutting. It was and is a swarthy skinned perjorative. Brought back into common use by the Bush admin in reference to those swarthy skinned Muslims who are behaving like Thugs.

Main Entry: sor·did
Pronunciation: \ˈsȯr-dəd\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sordidus, from sordes dirt — more at swart
Date: 1606
1: marked by baseness or grossness : vile
2 a: dirty, filthy b: wretched, squalid
3: meanly avaricious : covetous
4: of a dull or muddy color

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sordid

swart

Main Entry: swart
Pronunciation: \ˈswȯrt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English sweart; akin to Old High German swarz black, Latin sordes dirt
Date: before 12th century
1 a: swarthy barchaic : producing a swarthy complexion
2: baneful, malignant

And that is saying nothing about its classist constructs as you so brilliantly exampled with:
quote:The sordid conditions the tenants had to endure at the hands of their slumlord are outrageous.

Considering the first thought that people have would be judgement along the lines of base behaviour, not just upon the part of the slumlords but upon those who inhabit them. It sets a tone of superiority and marginalization, by the user of it, that is condescending and denotes a not wanting to be helpful. Just tsk tsking their plight.

Now, your other strawman regarding the RNC, I do not imagine it would be called, or referred to as, sordid, by anyone, including yourself. As sordid sets a conceptual framework of dirty deeds done in squalid conditions like a seedy motel. Plus a few others that would readily come to mind, and none would be an accurate way to conceptualize the RNC.

Anyhow, no further commentary is needed it is quite clear you want to continue to use "loaded" ism words with impunity.

Because this thread is now over 100 posts, continued here...

ne'er mind.

[ 22 September 2008: Message edited by: jas ]

Closing for length.