DescentBB

Jeff250 wrote:I see no issue with that.

I see ambiguity in your answer.

I don't want to put 'words in your mouth' so, to be clear since definitions are in question throughout this thread, are you saying it is a sexist statement but only if it isn't based on truth?
And, in your opinion, is sexist the proper word to describe that use of that statement?

Poor Will, he’s so confused, making the mistake of actually trying to make sense of this.

Dude all you need to know is they are rearranging context in an attempt to paint us as sexist’s, once you understand that…it all become clear.

You can’t win this debate, because actually defining sexism properly is not their goal.

ah, so Spidey feels the need to lie blatantly to make a point, too(see TB and his nuke whopper elsewhere). Jeff has been VERY patiently trying to establish a common sense definition. No one is trying to pin you all into anything. If you can't attack Ms Clinton's policies without using '★■◆●', 'hag' or the like, you are stone-cold idiots, whose participation in any serious political debate is dubious at best.

I appreciate that Spidey and it isn't lost on me but Jeff has a genuine and legitimate disagreement with my interpretation. So where he and I find common ground can be a good filter to the noise makers in this thread that you are alluding to...

I think Jeff finds "Hag" to be inherently a slur on 'womanhood' an attack 'on a woman for being a woman'. Where as I find it to be a descriptor of appearance and sometimes implies fictional 'magical' characteristics. I think you can compare a person to that character without implying they posses those negative traits *as a result of* 'being a woman' thus the sexist label doesn't apply.

So as far as the 'Hag' debate thats where he and I stand and I have to recognize my definition is subjective. Words change meaning over time although I believe strongly in this case the popular definition of the word Hag hasn't changed, just the pop cultures intolerance for anything they deem is offensive if it is spoken by a conservative. Sarah Palin=open game...Hillary Clinton=hands off... So they try to attach labels to the speaker to remove the voice by default.

Which leads us to the real reason the noise makers are yelping in this thread...begging for the moderator to shut it down....declaring the thread over instead of sincerely addressing the points raised etc....They don't have a solid foundation to make a case so they are trying to ride the coat tails of an out of control political correctness meme. Kind of like remora pretending they are sharks.

Well JFTR I have never used the term “★■◆●” to describe her policies, I use the term to describe her demeanor, and the insensitive remark she made during the Clinton Admin.

Jeff may be making an honest attempt here…but others…not so much.

Spidey wrote:Poor Will, he’s so confused, making the mistake of actually trying to make sense of this.

Dude all you need to know is they are rearranging context in an attempt to paint us as sexist’s, once you understand that…it all become clear.

You can’t win this debate, because actually defining sexism properly is not their goal.

the only thing clear is this libel.

Good luck with that, but I wouldn’t pay my lawyer too much up front.

Ferno wrote:

Spidey wrote:Poor Will, he’s so confused, making the mistake of actually trying to make sense of this.

Dude all you need to know is they are rearranging context in an attempt to paint us as sexist’s, once you understand that…it all become clear.

You can’t win this debate, because actually defining sexism properly is not their goal.

the only thing clear is this libel.

You should definitely pursue that!

Will Robinson wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:I see no issue with that.

I see ambiguity in your answer.

I don't want to put 'words in your mouth' so, to be clear since definitions are in question throughout this thread, are you saying it is a sexist statement but only if it isn't based on truth?
And, in your opinion, is sexist the proper word to describe that use of that statement?

I don't see anything sexist about saying that a woman was hired for her appearances even if it turned out that you were wrong. I don't see why being right or wrong would have anything to do with it at all actually! You're not taking a jab at her for being a woman even if it turns out you were wrong if it was a good faith assertion.

you can make that same assertion about either gender, too, Jeff. I've heard it applied to male hires in my sales department going way back.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:I see no issue with that.

I see ambiguity in your answer.

I don't want to put 'words in your mouth' so, to be clear since definitions are in question throughout this thread, are you saying it is a sexist statement but only if it isn't based on truth?
And, in your opinion, is sexist the proper word to describe that use of that statement?

I don't see anything sexist about saying that a woman was hired for her appearances even if it turned out that you were wrong. I don't see why being right or wrong would have anything to do with it at all actually! You're not taking a jab at her for being a woman even if it turns out you were wrong if it was a good faith assertion.

Now I think you are off the reservation! It is a pretty common complaint from feminists that women are acused of getting a job or job promotions based on looks instead of merit.
If you genuinely think making that kind of statement without just cause is NOT sexist then I have given you too much credit in this discussion.

When the accusation happens out of resentment instead of evidence, then the feminists are right! But there's nothing wrong with making that accusation per se.

Now you just contradicted your previous post where you said 'it doesn't matter if you are wrong there is no sexism either way'!

You are all over the place here...

Will, don't be intentionally obtuse.

Suppose you were accidentally cc'd an email where a manager makes a comment about having hired a woman for her appearances. If you accused him of hiring her for her appearances, then that wouldn't be sexism, because after all, he did, so how could it be, right?

Now suppose after your accusation it comes to light that someone actually faked that email in order to get the manager in trouble. So now it turns out that your accusation was wrong. But that doesn't somehow retroactively go back in time and make your accusation sexist, does it? Obviously not, because whether you ended up being right or wrong, the accusation was made in good faith, not out of resentment for or to insult women, which is and always has been the determining factor.

Spidey wrote:Good luck with that, but I wouldn’t pay my lawyer too much up front.

nah, I'm not gonna do that. but what I will do is call to fact a bald-faced and obvious lie.

'sides, we talked about this sort of thing before. people getting sued over what they said on a bb and such due to a new law. remember that?

Jeff250 wrote:Will, don't be intentionally obtuse.

Suppose you were accidentally cc'd an email where a manager makes a comment about having hired a woman for her appearances. If you accused him of hiring her for her appearances, then that wouldn't be sexism, because after all, he did, so how could it be, right?

Now suppose after your accusation it comes to light that someone actually faked that email in order to get the manager in trouble. So now it turns out that your accusation was wrong. But that doesn't somehow retroactively go back in time and make your accusation sexist, does it? Obviously not, because whether you ended up being right or wrong, the accusation was made in good faith, not out of resentment for or to insult women, which is and always has been the determining factor.

I wasn't trying to be dense, your comments were looking like they conflicted. And that explanation is one convoluted way to indirectly-sort-of-correct it.
Be that as it may however, I think I'm now following you to say that someone making a statement that a woman was hired/promoted for her looks instead of the merit requisite for the position is only sexist if the motive was out of resentment or as an insult to women.

One problem jumps out there...resentment and accurate are not mutually exclusive.

Example of something that happens often:
A female employee gets promoted by a male supervisor because he has the hots for her and the female's male co-worker, who was more qualified and passed over for the same job, is resentful but due to your definition of sexism his resentment disqualifies him from suggesting the promotion was unjust 'because his accusation would be sexist'?!?

I think resentment isn't going to work there...
Contrary to what you said earlier, accuracy matters a great deal. In fact it makes the sexist charge inappropriate completely.

And the other motive you cited, of 'purposefully insulting to women'? That's it? That is sexist?
Equally problematic, far too broad. You have expanded the proper definition of 'sexism' to a ridiculous point.
Are women really that fragile in your mind that you need to construct this kind of extreme-protection for them? That sounds kind of sexist of you.

You said the definition of sexism is determined by a comment: "out of resentment for or to insult women, which is and always has been the determining factor".
You are wrong. That has not always been the determining factor. That is what you have reduced the criteria to...

The definition is: "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.".

The basis of sex is kind of important thus the name sexism. It doesn't mean anything insulting 'to women' and it doesn't mean anything uttered 'with resentment'.
Sexism certainly will be insulting to most of them but it isn't the only thing that is insulting. Sexism is tied to the gender by definition.

When you start tweaking the proper definition of sexism you have to be careful. Or, you should if you are sincerely trying to be just, and aren't simply trying to create a weapon to haphazardly wield in a political arena that is...

Will Robinson wrote:Example of something that happens often: A female employee gets promoted by a male supervisor because he has the hots for her and the female's male co-worker, who was more qualified and passed over for the same job, is resentful but due to your definition of sexism his resentment disqualifies him from suggesting the promotion was unjust because his accusation would be sexist?!?

I think resentment isn't going to work here....

Will, I specifically said out of "resentment for women." Obviously, out of resentment for being legitimately injusticed doesn't apply here.

Will Robinson wrote:And the motive of 'purposefully insulting a women'? That is sexist? Equally problematic, far too broad.

Throughout this thread, I've said insulting women for being women or something synonymous. In one post, I accidentally abbreviated it, and so you jump on it. Instead of trying to take every opportunity to make technical victories over my typos, how about you try taking a few minutes to understand what I'm saying?

I have quoted that premise and also cited it in my comments previously so I am not trying to get around the 'assaulting a women for being women' foundation of your point. And my comments above don't rely on that foundation being removed. Walk yourself through it again without the assumption that I was doing that.
I am suggesting you are squeezing a lot of assumption into the girdle of that foundation that doesn't fit.

So, for one part, you are relying on divining 'motive'...you get to arbitrarily declare it is the worst case when you want to? If the words could be used in a sexist context they therefore must-have been delivered with that intent?
That is part of what I am pointing out.

And in the specific example how can it not be said the man resented the way the woman got over him by virtue of being a woman? He is made to be a sexist by the event under your criteria.
The protection of 'the sexist charge' is too broad and vague the way you have applied it.

I heard a movie star complain that the interviewer was sexist for asking her male co star about method acting and asked her about how she liked being a blonde in the movie. Well certainly hers was a fluff question by comparison but "sexist"? I don't think so. women are very outward in tweaking their appearance, movie stars more so. But since his motive might have been to imply she wasn't smart enough to answer deeper questions then 'he must have had a sexist motivation for asking that'...
Bullcrap. He knows his audience thats all.

Is it 'possible' he is sexist? Sure, but it's also quite possible he asked the question 'in good faith'.

It's possible Woody just wanted to jerk your chains with out any resentment or insult intended for women at large...

Classic Will. Half way there buddy, keep it up!

1. Get caught in a jam.
2. Bombard opponent with wall of nonsensical text that resembles religious apologetics
3. Throw in favorite philosophical sounding words like "premise" and "assertion" to try and sound intelligent.
   
   done
   ------
   todo
4. Be sure to mention an "agenda" and refer to "pimps" and "handlers."
5. Romantically cite the Founding Fathers.
6. And when all else fails, ask someone to disprove your subjective, postmodern reality.

We might see something new this time, vision.

Mocking someone’s debating style doesn’t make you right. But it does sort of dovetail with the point I was making.

The idea that some on this board will accept any explanation from certain other people is a freakin joke, because they know that the usual suspects will back them up, regardless of how correct that explanation may be.

Now feel free to call me a liar again…but I have to call it the way I see it.

There is nobody here in a neutral position to make a call as to who is right and who is wrong, so like every internet debate, people have to declare themselves the winner, but try not to hurt yourselves patting yourself on the back. (because you haven't won, you just said so)

Will Robinson wrote:I have quoted that premise and also cited it in my comments previously so I am not trying to get around the 'assaulting a women for being women' foundation of your point. And my comments above don't rely on that foundation being removed. Walk yourself through it again without the assumption that I was doing that.

So then just to make sure we're on the same track, you're still contending that insulting a woman for being a woman isn't sexist?

Will wrote:And in the specific example how can it not be said the man resented the way the woman got over him by virtue of being a woman? He is made to be a sexist by the event under your criteria.

To clarify, by out of resentment for women, I mean out of resentment for women per se or in themselves. So although he might resent her for being a woman because of her unfair situational opportunity, this isn't out of resentment for women per se.

Will wrote:So, for one part, you are relying on divining 'motive'...you get to arbitrarily declare it is the worst case when you want to? If the words could be used in a sexist context they therefore must-have been delivered with that intent?
That is part of what I am pointing out.

First, I want to point out that how you tell whether a remark is sexist is a different question than what is a sexist remark, just like how performing an autopsy is a different activity than writing a law against murder!

Will wrote:It's possible Woody just wanted to jerk your chains with out any resentment or insult intended for women at large...

He took a jab at her for being a woman, and I think you've already acknowledged as much earlier in the thread. Unless I misunderstood you or unless you're going to backtrack on that, I think we already have enough common ground to say that what Woody did wasn't cool. Aside from the possibly still ongoing dispute as to what word to call it, whether it be a sexist remark or "woodchipping" or what have you, it was pretty lame, and you should expect to be called out when you do that.

Except that calling someone a hag, doesn’t qualify as insulting someone because they are a women…it attacks a women because of some specific attributes.

Being gender specific doesn’t qualify as sexist.

...................

Woody even tried to explain that he wasn’t using the remark to insult her because she is female, but you guys wouldn’t take his word for it, but instead started some semantic campaign against him. (which in my opinion is wrong, because of using improper reasoning equating gender specific with sexism)

Spidey wrote:Except that calling someone a hag, doesn’t qualify as insulting someone because they are a women…it attacks a women because of some specific attributes.

I'm having a hard time believing you are this dense. Let me see if I can clarify it for you and the rest of you dimwits. One of those "specific attributes" is being a woman.

If you want to call a woman ugly or evil, then call her ugly or evil. However, if you say a woman is "an ugly, evil, woman" (a hag) you are interjecting gender. You are insulting her as a woman for being a woman. That is a sexist remark. This is something a child can understand. I know this because I've actually explained sexism to children with little problem. Does making a sexist remark make you a sexist? Not necessarily, but at the very least it makes you either ignorant of, or insensitive to, important gender issues. That is your starting point. Where you go from there is your business.

Spidey wrote:Being gender specific doesn’t qualify as sexist.

Yes it does. That's the whole point.

Spidey wrote:Woody even tried to explain that he wasn’t using the remark to insult her because she is female...

See above. In this case he is ignorant of important gender issues. Ignorance is not an excuse, and we get to call you out on it. That's how this works. If you don't like getting called out on sexism, go post in a men's right forum.


Preemptively to Will: I won't be reading your convoluted wall of text reply, so save your fingers the work. You have no foundation to stand on.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Except that calling someone a hag, doesn’t qualify as insulting someone because they are a women…it attacks a women because of some specific attributes.

I'm having a hard time believing you are this dense. Let me see if I can clarify it for you and the rest of you dimwits. One of those "specific attributes" is being a woman

Except that is not the one being attacked. A very important distinction you seem to be too stupid to understand.

Easy there vision, calling them "dimwits" is bad form.

Spidey wrote:Being gender specific doesn’t qualify as sexist.

That's actually the very definition of sexist.

For a remark to be sexist, you have to target a gender. which is what the word 'hag' does.

[remark]ugly=not sexist
[remark]evil=not sexist
[remark]ugly <and> evil=not sexist
[remark]ugly <and> evil <and> woman=sexist.


on a related note; I wonder how long this thread will go on til the losing side gives up....

Since we are going to use definitions….

1. sexist
[ séksist ]
ADJECTIVE
believing that one sex is inferior to the other in a variety of attributes
resulting from or relating to the belief that one sex is inferior to the other in a variety of attributes

By using vision’s looney logic any negative remark directed at a woman is sexist, but the problem is…sexism is defined along much narrower terms.

It just doesn’t involve simple insults, without the proper context.

...........................................................

Summary….

Sexism is the belief that one sex is inferior to the other…therefore for a remark to be sexist, it must be based on that belief.

Ferno wrote:Easy there vision, calling them "dimwits" is bad form.

Spidey wrote:Being gender specific doesn’t qualify as sexist.

That's actually the very definition of sexist.

For a remark to be sexist, you have to target a gender. which is what the word 'hag' does.

[remark]ugly=not sexist
[remark]evil=not sexist
[remark]ugly <and> evil=not sexist
[remark]ugly <and> evil <and> woman=sexist.

You are wrong Ferno. It has to be targeted at a gender AND it has to imply an inferiority due to the gender.
To say a female is an ugly old woman is not sexist. Yet that meets your criteria above...

What is at odds is the definition of Hag.

Is hag a description that implies some gender specific inferiority?
Or does it imply ugly old woman by alluding to the 'hag' referenced in countless stories about an ugly old woman, a female obviously, but there is no history of the gender of Hillary Clinton having anything to do with causing Hillary Clintons appearance or circumstance. That part is a fabrication of you guys in this thread.

Jeff250 wrote:Will, don't be intentionally obtuse.

.

this begs for commentary,but I'll start the week by being good for the time being......

note, that while my original post dealt with the far more palatable tone of Clinton's rhetoric, our discussion here has devolved into several pages around the use of sexist descriptives. If this is the extent of intellect that will be deployed against her, she and Bill can just measure the drapes for the White House redecoration now.

vision wrote:...If you want to call a woman ugly or evil, then call her ugly or evil. However, if you say a woman is "an ugly, evil, woman" (a hag) you are interjecting gender. .

That is ridiculous. The comment "She is an ugly old woman" does not contain any attack based on gender.
It ends with an identifier, and that is all the word 'woman' serves as in that sentence.
Also, the word 'she' serves in concert with the word 'woman' To single out a particular woman thus removing the on all women trigger...

English....do you speak it?

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I have quoted that premise and also cited it in my comments previously so I am not trying to get around the 'assaulting a women for being women' foundation of your point. And my comments above don't rely on that foundation being removed. Walk yourself through it again without the assumption that I was doing that.

So then just to make sure we're on the same track, you're still contending that insulting a woman for being a woman isn't sexist?

No, I'm suggesting you have played loose and fast with what fits under the umbrella of ..for being a woman

Jeff250 wrote:

Will wrote:And in the specific example how can it not be said the man resented the way the woman got over him by virtue of being a woman? He is made to be a sexist by the event under your criteria.

To clarify, by out of resentment for women, I mean out of resentment for women per se or in themselves. So although he might resent her for being a woman because of her unfair situational opportunity, this isn't out of resentment for women per se.

I'm suggesting that because she 'stole his job' by virtue of a feminine quality: 'desirability to his boss/male' he certainly resents her the individual and the nature of the situation which is based on her gender. So he is open to the charge, which will come as a defense acusing him of being a sexist who implies she isn't qualified to take a man's job... A defense that is commonly offered in these circumstances.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will wrote:So, for one part, you are relying on divining 'motive'...you get to arbitrarily declare it is the worst case when you want to? If the words could be used in a sexist context they therefore must-have been delivered with that intent?
That is part of what I am pointing out.

First, I want to point out that how you tell whether a remark is sexist is a different question than what is a sexist remark, just like how performing an autopsy is a different activity than writing a law against murder!

Ok....and then you are going to ....what?
You failed to deliver anything that tells me your being the 'arbiter of motive' is a good thing.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will wrote:It's possible Woody just wanted to jerk your chains with out any resentment or insult intended for women at large...

He took a jab at her for being a woman, and I think you've already acknowledged as much earlier in the thread.

No. I said it was my opinion that he knew women are sensative to attacks on appearance...vanity. But I also said that vanity isn't a gender specific weakness. So I can't say that calling a woman ugly is sexist. And even if I believe it hurts females more than men to assault their vanity we don't know if Woody has the same perception as I do and since insulting someone's appearance isn't sexist on its own your charge that he was sexist is based on your guess as to his motive. A guess that you were quite sure of...'We all know Woody was...'

Jeff250 wrote:Unless I misunderstood you or unless you're going to backtrack on that, I think we already have enough common ground to say that what Woody did wasn't cool. Aside from the possibly still ongoing dispute as to what word to call it, whether it be a sexist remark or "woodchipping" or what have you, it was pretty lame, and you should expect to be called out when you do that.

Absolutely what he said was mean, uncool, etc. he did so on purpose and you can bet it wasn't for Hillary's eyes that he typed it...
Since I agree with his observation as well as his sentiment I am not offended. Others feel a need to construct a defense for Hillary.
I think it is quite appropriate to give us grief for our rude comments. I only jumped in to highlight the coming storm of the 'New world order of sexism re-defined'.

Just look at how low vision and Ferno have set the bar in their most recent posts.

And below see my comment on Hag for what I think is the crux of the disagreement you and I have.

What is at odds is the definition of Hag.

Is hag a description that implies some gender specific inferiority?

Or does it imply ugly old woman by alluding to the 'hag' referenced in countless stories about an ugly old woman, a female obviously, but there is no history of the gender of Hillary Clinton having anything to do with causing Hillary Clintons appearance or circumstance. That part is a fabrication of you guys in this thread.

Will wrote:I'm suggesting that because she 'stole his job' by virtue of a feminine quality: 'desirability to his boss/male' he certainly resents her the individual and the nature of the situation which is based on her gender. So he is open to the charge, which will come as a defense acusing him of being a sexist who implies she isn't qualified to take a man's job... A defense that is commonly offered in these circumstances.

If this situation causes you to resent women in themselves, then yeah, that is sexist, and if your accusation was motivated by your resentment for women in themselves, not for the evidence of the matter, nor for the injustice of the matter, nor for that woman in particular, then yeah, that accusation is sexist as well.

If your question is what if there are mixed motivations, some sexist and some evidential, then is the accusation sexist? I don't know. Split the difference and say it's half-sexist? I don't think the question is that interesting to think about, and the existence of grey areas shouldn't be taken to mean that the concept itself is flawed. It's just the nature of morality.

Will wrote:You failed to deliver anything that tells me your being the 'arbiter of motive' is a good thing.

I was hoping that since we both knew it was a strawman that we would silently let it slip for both our sakes, since I've obviously never claimed to be a divine arbiter of motive or whatever you're demanding I defend myself against!

Will wrote:No. I said it was my opinion that he knew women are sensative to attacks on appearance...vanity. But I also said that vanity isn't a gender specific weakness. So I can't say that calling a woman ugly is sexist. And even if I believe it hurts females more than men to assault their vanity we don't know if Woody has the same perception as I do and since insulting someone's appearance isn't sexist on its own your charge that he was sexist is based on your guess as to his motive.

To be honest, I don't think that Woodchip had any specific meaning of "hag" in mind when he used it. He has yet to even commit to one except to say that he has multiple "options". In fact, if he denied any of his "options" in his post, he actually seemed to deny that he used "hag" to insult her appearances, although he seemed to use enough weasel words so as to reserve being able to fall back on that option too if he absolutely needed to!

He knew it was a common slur used against women. He knew it would feel good for him to say it, and he knew that if anyone pressed him on it, he could use plausible deniability to mount a defense.

Now I'm imagining you're about to pounce on me again about "innocent until proven guilty" and that I don't have 100% proof. First of all, the bar has has never been set that high on this board, and people, yourself included, routinely accuse others of more with much less! But more importantly, if you're requiring that I must assume the best case motives of those in this thread who have called Hillary a hag, a shrew, and a ★■◆● and that those weren't sexist remarks but entirely legitimate criticisms of Hillary or her policies, then you're asking me to carte blanche allow the men of this forum to call women hags, shrews, and bitches whenever they want, knowing full well that I will never be able to "divine" their motives either whenever they use those words, prohibiting me from ever being able to call them out on it.

You could choose option 3 since there are more than the two you are suggesting you are left with.
I believe slick saw that was the proper path right away And he didn't have to give Woody or me a pass.

At the core Im simply saying the charge of Sexism is one that should be reserved for cases where there is more harm done than insult a woman without discriminating against her 'for being a woman' nor attribute any negative characteristic as a result of her being a woman. Identifying the target of the insult as generically female is not an indictment of the gender.

It was a mean insensitive statement. Politicians suffer it all the time, Hillary is the one who created the term "bimbo eruption" and led the team to discredit all of her husbands bimbo's so they wouldn't intrrupt his and her ascension to power.

She isn't worthy of this kind of extreme protection.

callmeslick wrote:note, that while my original post dealt with the far more palatable tone of Clinton's rhetoric, our discussion here has devolved into several pages around the use of sexist descriptives. If this is the extent of intellect that will be deployed against her, she and Bill can just measure the drapes for the White House redecoration now.

Based on the extent of discussions here, if Hillary Clinton is voted in at least I will have some interesting fun times pointing out her foibles, missteps and reasons why she should of divorced Herr Klinton when she had the chance. Every Star Wars movie needed the Mad Emperor, and with Hillary we will have that in spades. Who cares if America is run like a bordello with Hillary as the head Madam, it will be fun as hell commentating.

As to my "Hag" comment being sexist, I told my daughter about this thread and she thinks you guys trying to label me as sexist are idiots.

so, that makes it all ok, woody? Please, I have every confidence that you WILL be spending the next 8 years whining about the Clinton presidency with the same bitterness mixed with ignorance that has marked your contributions during the Obama terms.

callmeslick wrote:so, that makes it all ok, woody? Please, I have every confidence that you WILL be spending the next 8 years whining about the Clinton presidency with the same bitterness mixed with ignorance that has marked your contributions during the Obama terms.

Why are you starting to whine so early on?

nice dodge

Spidey wrote:

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Except that calling someone a hag, doesn’t qualify as insulting someone because they are a women…it attacks a women because of some specific attributes.

One of those "specific attributes" is being a woman

Except that is not the one being attacked. A very important distinction you seem to be too stupid to understand.

I'm not sure how much simpler I can explain this. When you use the word hag to insult a woman it is automatically a sexist remark because womanhood is a qualifier for being a hag. All hags are women, by definition. If you still don't understand, you might want to get some sensitivity training from a professional. Maybe that will help.

Obviously you don’t understand the difference between a simple insult aimed at a single person and the concept of believing that an entire gender is inferior.

“entire gender”<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<real important part

Sexism has a very specific definition and does not apply to every single comment just because it is aimed at a woman.

If I said she was a “fox” would that be sexist?

According to Ferno…

[remark]ugly=not sexist
[remark]evil=not sexist
[remark]ugly <and> evil=not sexist
[remark]ugly <and> evil <and> woman=sexist.

That means….

[remark]pretty=not sexist
[remark]sexy=not sexist
[remark]pretty <and> sexy=not sexist
[remark]pretty <and> sexy <and> woman=sexist.