DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:You shouldn't operate under the premise that males can't have the non-sexist motivation to insult a woman for her looks....

I'm not really interested in your crusade to be able to call women hags without automatically being labeled a misogynist. Obviously there are some academic cases where a man can call a woman a "hag" and it's not misogynist. But you have yet to demonstrate any that would apply to Woodchip. Woodchip is not a schoolgirl deriding another girl's looks. Woodchip does not live in a remote Pacific tribe where the locals use the title "hag" as a sign of mutual affection. Woodchip's brain is not implanted with a bomb that requires him to periodically call a woman a "hag" or else he and his city block will blow up.

Everyone already knows that Woodchip wasn't just insulting her for her looks. You yourself even said that "calling Hillary a 'hag' is designed to assault the feminine aspect of her." What do you think a sexist slur is?

seems so obvious, doesn't it, Jeff?

It'd only obvious if you want it to be and have a political agenda to promote.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You shouldn't operate under the premise that males can't have the non-sexist motivation to insult a woman for her looks....

I'm not really interested in your crusade to be able to call women hags without automatically being labeled a misogynist.

Is that how you have to frame my comments so that your perception seems to come into focus?

I'm not 'crusading' to effect any change. Im not trying to filter out anything either.
I'm simply offering the basic premise of innocence until proven guilty.

You are clearly offering a profile of Woodchip based on your perception and/or biases that allow you to declare guilt until he proves he is innocent.

That is a standard I think you usually side against. Not one you make use of.

What I'm 'doing' is suggesting the label of sexist is being very loosely justified in a selective manner. Why that is being done is out there for the readers to decide.

Woodchip might be a sexist. But so far no one who says he is has shown any evidence that can prove it.

Jeff250 wrote:... Obviously there are some academic cases where a man can call a woman a "hag" and it's not misogynist. But you have yet to demonstrate any that would apply to Woodchip. ...

There is that 'guilty until proven innocent' standard you have invoked.

Jeff250 wrote:Everyone already knows that Woodchip wasn't just insulting her for her looks.

Yes but there are more than two motives possible. You can't prove your choice is true by virtue of refuting only one of the other possible choices.

It is likely, in my mind, that he wanted to disparage her in a mean way. In a way that plays up just how much he dislikes her and his thoughts on women in general had no part in his formulating the insult. He has her on the radar for her individual characteristics. He has no history here of speaking that way about women in general. The burden of proof is on you to counter that reality.

Jeff250 wrote:You yourself even said that "calling Hillary a 'hag' is designed to assault the feminine aspect of her." What do you think a sexist slur is?

I said that, not Woodchip. I implied she would be sensative to a comment on her appearance and that females in general are sensative that way. I believe that is true. If it is proof of sexism it is mine, not Woodchips.

So your best evidence is not even applicable to Woodchip....
I think a sexist slur (aimed at a women) is one that implies females are inferior.

A woman can be both ugly and an equal to a man and I'm betting Woodchip would agree with that.

There are two similar questions that are being conflated. One question is, is Woodchip a sexist? I don't know, and I'm not interested in proving or disproving that either way. I really wouldn't care if he were as long as he keeps it a secret and I don't have to hear about it. But the other question is, were Woodchip's references to Hillary as a hag sexist? And that's not debatable. As you already said, "calling Hillary a 'hag' is designed to assault the feminine aspect of her." That's the definition of a sexist slur. I don't have to prove that Woody's insult insulted all women. That's not necessary for him to make a sexist remark. I don't have to prove that Woody hates all women. That's not necessary for him to make a sexist remark. I don't have to prove that Woody thinks that women are inferior to men. That's not necessary for him to make a sexist remark. When someone assaults women qua women, that's sexism.

Jeff250 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You shouldn't operate under the premise that males can't have the non-sexist motivation to insult a woman for her looks....

I'm not really interested in your crusade to be able to call women hags without automatically being labeled a misogynist. Obviously there are some academic cases where a man can call a woman a "hag" and it's not misogynist. But you have yet to demonstrate any that would apply to Woodchip. Woodchip is not a schoolgirl deriding another girl's looks. Woodchip does not live in a remote Pacific tribe where the locals use the title "hag" as a sign of mutual affection. Woodchip's brain is not implanted with a bomb that requires him to periodically call a woman a "hag" or else he and his city block will blow up.

Everyone already knows that Woodchip wasn't just insulting her for her looks. You yourself even said that "calling Hillary a 'hag' is designed to assault the feminine aspect of her." What do you think a sexist slur is?

Perhaps Jeff, before you start assuming the term Hag is based on looks, you should at least look up the definition of the word instead of flinging out your misconstrued philosophy:

"A hag is a wizened old woman, or a kind of fairy or goddess having the appearance of such a woman, often found in folklore and children's tales such as Hansel and Gretel.[1] Hags are often seen as malevolent, but may also be one of the chosen forms of shapeshifting deities, such as the Morrígan or Badb, who are seen as neither wholly beneficent nor malevolent."

A number of options there eh. Now read my brain and tell me why my term "Hag" does not fit in the political sense and somehow is a slam against women. Maybe you would prefer I call her a Dick but then that would be a slur against all the males in the audience.

dance, little sister, dance!!! What a disingenuous pile of crap that was, Woody.

callmeslick wrote:dance, little sister, dance!!! What a disingenuous pile of crap that was, Woody.

And your comments are what my little Hillary promoter.

as I said, I'd prefer other Dems, so NOT a Hillary promoter. In fact, I made that clear in the OP........my commentary was around the fact that she comes off as a person of substance, and concern, while the field arrayed against her comes off as a bunch of mean-spirited, now maybe sexist, jerks. Which one do you think wins?

Jeff250 wrote:?.. the other question is, were Woodchip's references to Hillary as a hag sexist? And that's not debatable. As you already said, "calling Hillary a 'hag' is designed to assault the feminine aspect of her." That's the definition of a sexist slur. ....... When someone assaults women qua women, that's sexism.

There is the problem. Your definition of sexism has been expanded.
Sexism is defined as the belief that the gender of the target (female in this instance) is inherently inferior.

sexism definition. The belief that one sex (usually the male) is naturally superior to the other and should dominate most important areas of political, economic, and social life. Sexist discrimination in the United States in the past has denied opportunities to women in many spheres of activity.

I don't believe we should expand that to protect Hillary from criticism that doesn't fit the proper definition. We are about to experience that 'fun ride' slick alluded to where every criticism of her will be said to be born of sexism. I'm not buying into the game.
Vanity is not gender specific. Just because females tend to be more sensative about their looks due to social constructs doesn't make them inherantly more vain.

What she looks like is open game just like it always has been for republican targets. The pop culture leaning left isn't the arbiter of definitions in my book.

like I said, we're at the point where stupid, blind Obama-hate dovetails with equally stupid, blind, Hillary-hate. Fun times!

callmeslick wrote:like I said, we're at the point where stupid, blind Obama-hate dovetails with equally stupid, blind, Hillary-hate. Fun times!

Which dovetails with stupid blind Gop hate

Will, you're still conflating the question of whether Woodchip is a sexist with whether his insult was sexist. Your definition might be a good definition for deciding whether someone philosophically espouses sexism, but people who aren't sexists can make sexist remarks, and it's not clear how to apply your definition to judging whether an insult is sexist, especially if the remark was made off the cuff, in poor judgment, or in the heat of the moment.

If you call a black person a lazy n***er, barring some very academic scenarios, that's a racist insult, even if you scientifically believe that black people aren't inferior to other races and even if you didn't mean to insult all black people and just that one. It's racist because it assaults a black person for being a black person.

I can think of quite a few Repubs I have some high regard for.....none seem to get much air time on Fox. Given that I've donated money to GOP campaigns twice in the past decade, no blind hate here. Most reaction I see on the net is to GOP members making dimwitted public remarks(note, just yesterday, Imhofe brought a snowball into the House chambers to disprove global warming ). Look, if they wish to be the party symbolizing stupidity, rejection of intellect or education and negativity, they deserve the response. Note, the critiques are about SUBSTANCE, not calling people hags, or closet Muslims or 'not loving America'. Substance is what political debate ought to be about.

Jeff250 wrote:Will, you're still conflating the question of whether Woodchip is a sexist with whether his insult was sexist. Your definition might be a good definition for deciding whether someone philosophically espouses sexism, but people who aren't sexists can make sexist remarks, and it's not clear how to apply your definition to judging whether an insult is sexist, especially if the remark was made off the cuff, in poor judgment, or in the heat of the moment.

If you call a black person a lazy n***er, barring some very academic scenarios, that's a racist insult, even if you scientifically believe that black people aren't inferior to other races and even if you didn't mean to insult all black people and just that one. It's racist because it assaults a black person for being a black person.

kudos for trying to parse the matter, Jeff, but all woody and will are doing is dodging your rather obvious point.

So what are Hilliary's stellar qualifications?

woodchip wrote:So what are Hilliary's stellar qualifications?

She can “come off” as a caring person.

woodchip wrote:So what are Hilliary's stellar qualifications?

involved in healthcare and other human services for over 20 years.
US Senator
Secretary of State

That should trump anyone in the opposition, so far.
As I stated, I would prefer other Dems to her, but she is so well positioned at this point, on so many levels, as to be tough to challenge
in a primary, so will have to do.

Jeff250 wrote:.... If you call a black person a lazy n***er, barring some very academic scenarios, that's a racist insult, even if you scientifically believe that black people aren't inferior to other races and even if you didn't mean to insult all black people and just that one. It's racist because it assaults a black person for being a black person.

★■◆● is racist by origin. It has no meaning other than to suggest an inferior race of man. The word was invented to serve that purpose.

Hag is gender specific but not sexist. On its face it is merely a description of appearance. It doesn't come with any inherent inferiority implied. It implies unattractive appearance. So if someone offers it off the cuff you should not assume they have sexist motivations.

Is it now sexist to have an opinion of a woman appearance?!?

Just because it also sounds like a comment a sexist would utter to you doesn't mean your criteria is the standard.
Letting that criteria that defines 'sexism' be so easily altered, like a wiki page, is great for Hillary because she gets to throw all her critics under that heading the way Obama got to label his critics as all just a bunch of racists mad that a black man was in charge.

The definition hasn't changed. Any insult that insults women qua women is sexist. That's the way it's always been.

However, for the sake of progress in this discussion, if you're so hung up on my usage of that word, I'll even go so far as to use a different word to describe that kind of insult. With the word "sexist" being the only possible contender to describe remarks of that sort, we'll use a new word to describe it: woodchipping.

woodchip /ˈwʊdˌtʃɪp/
verb.
to assault women qua women, black people qua black people, or any demographic qua that demographic
Example: "Hillary is an old hag."

Even if woodchipping is different than making sexist remarks, it's just as contemptible, and it's not something that you should be doing to people.

Lol!
I love it.

But tell me, using the standard you applied here, since it is definitely the contention of sexists that women are inferior intilectually, are we all going to be sexists every time we question her policy?
I don't see how it can be construed any other way if we are to adopt your standard....

And of course that is where they plan to go with it.

Will Robinson wrote:Lol!
I love it.

But tell me, using the standard you applied here, since it is definitely the contention of sexists that women are inferior intilectually, are we all going to be sexists every time we question her policy?
I don't see how it can be construed any other way if we are to adopt your standard....

And of course that is where they plan to go with it.

are you unable to question her policies without referring to her appearance or gender? Seems easy enough to me. I don't refer to John Boehner as 'that fake bottle tanned white guy' every time I point out how incompetent he is. I don't refer to Imhofe with some male descriptive when he does something stupid. So, feel free to criticize her policies. You're likely to have 8 years to do so.

Okay, when even Jeff250 is calling you out for your BS, that should be a sign that you should reel it in.

Hilarious. Will sticking up for woody like a big brother, but actually digging the hole deeper. I love how they are offering the definition of hag while ignoring it's cultural context, which is precisely why woody chose to use it in the first place. Quality entertainment. I got a good chuckle.

The incredible leaps of logic I saw from both of them just had me in stitches.

Ferno lets see you actually walk us through any leap of logic you found....

Slick, I think you are purposely misrepresenting the point I raised... that appearance as well as intellect are attributes that you must not touch on if you want to avoid the sexist label according to Jeffs benchmark for crossing the sexist threshhold.

So if appearance is off limits based on his threshold criteria then so is intellect...
And we both know that is a protection you and the other lefties will try to invoke. Just as you did with racism for Obama.

So Larry Moe and Curly tell Will and I we are wrong so I guess we should just bow down to the might of their logic.

vision wrote:Hilarious. Will sticking up for woody like a big brother, but actually digging the hole deeper. I love how they are offering the definition of hag while ignoring it's cultural context, which is precisely why woody chose to use it in the first place. Quality entertainment. I got a good chuckle.

Yes, I suggest they behave the way you do when you get called out for using insults.

Spidey wrote:

vision wrote:Hilarious. Will sticking up for woody like a big brother, but actually digging the hole deeper. I love how they are offering the definition of hag while ignoring it's cultural context, which is precisely why woody chose to use it in the first place. Quality entertainment. I got a good chuckle.

Yes, I suggest they behave the way you do when you get called out for using insults.

OH SNAP!!

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno lets see you actually walk us through any leap of logic you found....

okay. Hag not equating a disparaging sexist remark would be valid if this was the 1920's.

But this is 2015. Hag these days denotes an old ugly woman, mostly used to disparage all woman of a certain age. To make a leap of logic to any other conclusion is hilarious. But jeff already told you guys that.

How come when I search "women qua women" I get lots of pictures of beautiful Asian women.

Spidey wrote:How come when I search "women qua women" I get lots of pictures of beautiful Asian women.

Filter Bubble.

Not likely.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Ferno lets see you actually walk us through any leap of logic you found....

okay. Hag not equating a disparaging sexist remark would be valid if this was the 1920's.

But this is 2015. Hag these days denotes an old ugly woman, mostly used to disparage all woman of a certain age. To make a leap of logic to any other conclusion is hilarious. But jeff already told you guys that.

Ok, so what definition of "sexist remark" are you operating under and then once you establish that criteria explain how saying 'Hillary is stupid for doing x,y or z' isn't sexist under the same rules you used to prove calling her a hag is...

Don't take jabs at women for being women.

Jeff250 wrote:Don't take jabs at women for being women.

BAM!

/thread

Jeff250 wrote:Don't take jabs at women for being women.

Lol, not even the most die-hard sexist takes a jab at women just because they are women.

That is the same kind of false reasoning that leads people to say a racist hates black people because of the color of their skin.

No, in fact there are other things at work in the minds of a bigot or sexist…mainly things like women/blacks are stupid or inferior or some such.

No, thread still here because, in spite of the cheeky response, the substantive question remains unanswered....

Will Robinson wrote:No, thread still here because, in spite of the cheeky response, the substantive question remains unanswered....

It's been answered repeatedly. You just won't listen, and that's not something new from you either.

Will Robinson wrote:Ok, so what definition of "sexist remark" are you operating under and then once you establish that criteria explain how saying 'Hillary is stupid for doing x,y or z' isn't sexist under the same rules you used to prove calling her a hag is...

really? are you seriously asking me this? I'd consider this a loaded question, but it comes off as much, much more; and is suspiciously familiar.