DescentBB

Spidey wrote: That means….

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

wrong. again.

you used positive words. I used negative. they are not equal, and you sir, are guilty of conflating two opposing words into one idea.

negative<>positive.

So to be clear...only negative words can be sexist.

How about this…

How bout we agree on something…

How bout we agree that this is a case of different interpretation of a definition…and leave it at that?

Spidey wrote: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.

Wrong again. Being a "simple insult" does not exclude that statement from being sexist. And as several of us have pointed out, a single sexist comment does not make you a sexist, however, those making sexist comments are much more likely to be sexists than those who do not. At the very least they are ignorant of sexism.

Spidey wrote:How bout we agree that this is a case of different interpretation of a definition…and leave it at that?

No, because this is not a matter of interpretation. Sexist insults are easily identifiable — easy, because they include the gender of the person insulted. Whether or not someone is a sexist or just ignorant or insensitive is a different matter, though it usually doesn't take much to figure out which of the categories one falls into. In woody's case I'm guessing ignorant and in Will's case insensitive, though latent sexism permeates our entire culture. It takes a fairly introspective individual to root it out of themselves.

Spidey wrote:So to be clear...only negative words can be sexist.

If they're used to target the female gender.

Spidey wrote:How about this…

How bout we agree on something…

How bout we agree that this is a case of different interpretation of a definition…and leave it at that?

uhhhhh, no. It's either you understand the written definition, or you don't.

Here's an example. If I called tunnelcat here "a stupid woman" or if I say "all women drivers are the cause of accidents", would that not be sexist?

A stupid woman = no

All women drivers are the cause of accidents = yes

Ferno are you saying that 'calling TC a stupid woman' is a sexist remark? Or offering that as an example of a non sexist remark?

I would say it depends on the emphasis used.

If the emphasis is on "stupid", then you are essentially calling her stupid among women. If the emphasis is on "woman" then you are calling her stupid because she is a woman = sexist.

Spidey wrote:A stupid woman = no

All women drivers are the cause of accidents = yes

why is this so hard for you to understand?

Do you need a woman to come in here and tell you what we've been telling you, or what?

If you said "stupid like a woman" that would be sexist.

Or if you said tc is stupid because she is a women, that would be sexist as well.

Or perhaps “just a stupid woman”.

They would all be sexist because they all imply she is stupid because she is a woman.

X is a stupid woman, could be a simple statement of fact.

Ferno is stubborn like a mule he won't let himself see he is wrong.
Oops, mule-ism!

Will Robinson wrote: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.

Woodchip knew what he was doing. Calling a woman a slur like "hag" isn't like calling a female waiter a "waitress." He hates Hillary so much that he will take any jab at her that he can, including for her being a woman. I don't think that he hates women in general. When it comes to sexism, he's just an opportunist.

Will Robinson wrote:She isn't worthy of this kind of extreme protection.

Neither is Woodchip. For what it's worth, I have no intention of voting for Hillary or any Democrat in 2016.

People said I hated Obama. To clarify once again, I never hated Obama. Infact I suspect we'd get along famously at a beer summit. The difference with Hillary is I wouldn't want to go to a beer summit with her.

I wasn't defending Woodchip per se, he doesn't need my help.
I was being an opportunist too...taking the opportunity to address the tactic of perverting the definition of sexism to create a shield for some politician the way the definition of sexual harassment was rewritten for her husband's benefit. The way the false charge of racism is often used to shield Obama from critics, etc.

As to your not voting for a Dem, good on you. Half way there, now don't vote Repub either and the country will be better off for your effort!

I haven't voted for either in a long time.

I vote every election, sometimes holding my nose. The alternate is more scary.

Interesting. Why does "I haven't voted for either" tend to get interpreted as "I haven't voted"?

Foil wrote:Interesting. Why does "I haven't voted for either" tend to get interpreted as "I haven't voted"?

Usually the people who don't vote at all simple say "I don't vote" without tacking on "for either." Personally, I vote for people, not parties. However, if a candidate is too stereotypical I tend to gloss over them and focus on people who acknowledge conflicting viewpoints and show a balanced understanding of issues.