|
Post by rc on Sept 7, 2010 5:29:42 GMT -5
@p
With the exception of the "slut" comment, I've seen almost no views about the various evil characters in these books through a lens of their sex. I've read every of Mark's blog entries and a number of the comments, and while I wouldn't call the responses "mature", they are by-and-far playful in harmless ways.
What I'm saying is that while there is an ENORMOUS history of women being dragged through the mud solely for being female, and even though that baseless "slut" tangent arose, it isn't abundant in Mark's blog community. I'm noting this, not because I think you're over-reacting, but because it's an isolated incident produced by a solitary idiot.
That said, I have no problem calling Umbridge a complete and utter bitch. She's deplorable, vindictive, spiteful, and malicious. I also have no problem calling her an asshole, a shit, a total fuck, a dick, or any other array of colorful terms; she fits them all well. Am I more likely to call Umbridge a bitch and Voldemort a dick? Probably; both terms are being used to describe how vulgar of a character I think each is (excuse the fact that I'll use both terms jokingly with friends... the context is everything). There is a gender assignment to the term "bitch," and its definition deals entirely with the subject's treatment of others as being vicious. Dolores IS a bitch. A slut or whore? There's nothing to suggest so and using such names is meaningless with the given information.
Not that I disagree with you, P; almost everything you stated is beyond truth.
|
|
|
Post by sbr on Sept 7, 2010 8:55:55 GMT -5
Yeah, I wasn't talking about Mark's blog with that last bit, but moreso Harry Potter fandom on a larger scale, where it is more of an issue.
Also, yeah, it's not okay to call her a bitch. And regardless of any character traits or actions she took in the book, calling her a slut or a whore as an insult would not be okay. Period. It's not okay to attack her femininity as if it is part of what makes her a terrible person; it's not, and that's exactly what these terms do. That isn't okay. Using terminology that primarily insults the fact that's she's a woman moreso than the fact that she's a despicable is really, really not okay.
It almost reads like you're saying that had Dolores taken a break from tormenting and slept with half of the adult population, it'd suddenly be okay to toss on terms like "slut" and "whore" because suddenly, in some bizarro universe slut shaming became okay. It's still not. I don't really know how else to communicate that. Attacks on her gender, of any kind, have no place whatsoever in the discussion of the character and shouldn't be justified because they are completely unacceptable. It doesn't matter how horrible she is. As I've said, there are a million ways to express your disdain for her with resorting to those types of attacks and it would be great if you'd seriously consider looking into them instead of justifying the opposite.
I'm kind of only half awake right now after roughly 4 hours of sleep, so I may not be communicating clearly, but I simply don't see how a term where the entire point of the insult is to be misogynistic is, in any context (when used as an insult) seen as okay. It simply isn't okay. A bitch isn't a terrible person who happens to be a woman. A bitch is a woman who happens to be terrible. When you call her a bitch, you are implying that the fact that she's a woman is part of the problem, part of what makes her bad. You are embracing the idea that being a woman is one of the things she has done wrong.
I'm sorry that you see that as "okay" but it really isn't. It's no more okay than calling her a "slut", a "whore", a "cunt", or any other term that brings her gender to the forefront as part of the insult.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 7, 2010 10:32:40 GMT -5
I'm sorry that you see that as "okay" but it really isn't. It's no more okay than calling her a "slut", a "whore", a "cunt", or any other term that brings her gender to the forefront as part of the insult. Yeah, pretty much. And it really doesn't matter if it's abundant in Mark's blog, it happens everywhere else on the internet, not only for Umbridge, but for every female character (or real life person, hello Sarah Palin!) who ever does anything.
|
|
|
Post by rc on Sept 7, 2010 16:08:49 GMT -5
A bitch isn't a terrible person who happens to be a woman. A bitch is a woman who happens to be terrible. This is where I take issue. I disagree with that reversal entirely, and will use gender specific terms without letting the fact that they refer to a specific gender cloud the actual meaning of a word. This is also why a man can so freely be called a "bitch" in the some vein; because the identity of being "vicious and spiteful" is what defines the heart of the word.
Are there ways to describe Dolores without resorting to "bitch?" Of course! That doesn't make her any less of one. You're looking at this term as though it exists to disparage women simply for being women, when the definition is anything but. Gender assignment exists everywhere because we have a need to reference each of the sexes. I understand that you're saying a person's sex need not be addressed when considering their actions and attitudes...
I get where you are coming from. Bigotry is a very real and widespread issue (especially on the internet), and women have felt the brunt of that discrimination longer possibly than any other subsection of humanity. I typed the above without quite finishing (which explains why some lines of thought lead nowhere). I suddenly don't exactly know what I think about this, mostly due to that bolded sentence. I started asking myself "Would I be able to use a term that described a deplorable and vicious black person? A deplorable and vicious Christian? A deplorable and vicious Canadian?" Under my initial reasoning, yes, but now I'm considering the scope a bit more thoroughly, and wondering if the description naming characteristics other than the malice draws too much focus away from said malice. At this point, I have no conclusion. If you'd like to talk some more about it, I'm definitely willing to hear some well-placed reasons. My major conflicts are (1) does the need to reference subsections of humanity hold a place when describing their malice, (2) when using a term that both describes a person's subsection and actions/emotional output, is an association created claiming that one influences the other, and (3) does current common adaptation of a term to use the actions/emotional output of a term while disregarding its other associations make it acceptable? I honestly am opposed to bigotry and specifically sexism, but this issue over "bitch" and similar terms hasn't crossed my mind so vividly before. Sorry for helping sidetrack our HARRY POTTER thread.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 7, 2010 17:59:27 GMT -5
It hasn't crossed your mind because you are a man (I'm assuming from your profile?), it doesn't HAVE to cross your mind. Bitch is a gendered insult against women, the fact that you don't really think it is or that sometimes people use it against men doesn't change that. There isn't a great need to ruminate or expand very much, its pretty simple.
EDIT: also, if you feel that you need to clarify that you "hate sexism," you probably don't hate sexism or other such bigotry quite as much as you think you do.
|
|
|
Post by kr on Sept 7, 2010 18:03:42 GMT -5
Yep. Yes, it CAN be used against men, but you KNOW it's mostly directed at women. And when it's directed at men it's usually for being *~*catty*~*/snippy/spiteful/emotional/whatever other negative shit is mostly associated with women.
|
|
|
Post by rc on Sept 7, 2010 19:00:44 GMT -5
Neither of you are getting what I'm saying, apparently. Had I known the "calling a man a bitch" sidenote would cause this conversation to meander wildly I wouldn't have brought it up. I never disagreed that "bitch" is a disparaging term aimed at women. What I said was that the term isn't defined such that being a woman is the cause of one's malice, but rather that it is a subsection of who the malice is located in. Like calling a man a "prick"; his viciousness and spite is what causes him to be a prick, and the term references also that we're talking about a man rather than a woman. This is what I'm attempting to compromise: is there a need for the subsection classification to exist or not? It hasn't crossed your mind because you are a man (I'm assuming from your profile?), it doesn't HAVE to cross your mind. Thanks for completely missing the point and assuming something about me because of my gender. Marvelous. EDIT: also, if you feel that you need to clarify that you "hate sexism," you probably don't hate sexism or other such bigotry quite as much as you think you do. So, everything I write I ultimately feel less passionate about because... you say so? Honestly, wtf?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 7, 2010 19:13:13 GMT -5
What? I gave you an absolutely concrete reason for saying what I said, it in no way reads anything like "BECAUSE I SAY SO." If you have to literally state that you hate sexism that's a pretty good indicator that whatever else you said was either not getting that across or exactly the opposite of "hating sexism." Arguing with women about what is and isn't sexist when you are a man IS SEXIST. It's unexamined male privilege at it's finest, which you clearly have oodles of. You do not get to say that bitch isn't a sexist word and have the ladies just back down and agree, or even hear you out. Period. I don't go around telling gay men that faggot isn't that bad of a word because people have called me and other people who aren't gay men faggots before.
|
|
|
Post by kr on Sept 7, 2010 19:15:19 GMT -5
Thanks for completely missing the point and assuming something about me because of my gender. Marvelous. How's it feel?
|
|
|
Post by rc on Sept 7, 2010 19:34:37 GMT -5
I don't want you to back down and agree. I just want us to be discussing the same thing. I understand that being a white, straight, American male puts me in a HIGHLY socially privileged position, and that undermining such helps no one, least of all myself. What I am trying to get across (and hasn't yet actually been addressed, although it is the central thought of everything I've stated) is that "bitch" is a disparaging term against a MALICIOUS, SPITEFUL WOMAN, but that her being a woman has nothing to do with the actual MALICE AND SPITE. Suppose that we consider for a moment that "asshole" in a nongender specific term to describe someone who is MALICIOUS AND SPITEFUL. Two subsections of this would include "bitch" (a MALICIOUS AND SPITEFUL person that happens to be a woman) and "prick" (a MALICIOUS AND SPITEFUL person that happens to be a man). What I'm stating is that the terms are used to add extra description to the MALICIOUS AND SPITEFUL person, not to determine the cause of such hatred. What I am attempting to compromise is whether that extra description draws too much attention away from the MALICE AND SPITE. That is all I'm addressing. Yes, "bitch" is a disparaging term aimed at women. Yes, I see why it is considered a sexist term. But sexism is defined as "negative views or actions toward another based on one's sex", and what I'm outlining above is different. It's the same as calling a woman a "waitress" and a man a "waiter"; the function of each is a server, and the different words exists only to classify one as male and the other as female. Thanks for completely missing the point and assuming something about me because of my gender. Marvelous. How's it feel? I really don't want to get in an argument about this, but note that I haven't made a single assumption about anyone in this thread based on their sex. I haven't been sexist; I've been discussing sexism and language.
|
|
|
Post by kr on Sept 7, 2010 19:41:35 GMT -5
It's the same as calling a woman a "waitress" and a man a "waiter"; the function of each is a server, and the different words exists only to classify one as male and the other as female. What? No.
|
|
|
Post by rc on Sept 7, 2010 19:45:16 GMT -5
It's the same as calling a woman a "waitress" and a man a "waiter"; the function of each is a server, and the different words exists only to classify one as male and the other as female. What? No. Do you think what I'm discussing is too ignorantly sexist to discuss? Did you pull this analogy out without the context attached? I'm curious because it doesn't seem like you actually want to discuss this with me.
|
|
|
Post by kr on Sept 7, 2010 19:46:39 GMT -5
Just...do you really think that it's the same? I don't understand. One is obviously sexist and filled with hate and one is a job title, albeit a kind of bleh one (I prefer server).
|
|
|
Post by rc on Sept 7, 2010 19:54:41 GMT -5
I didn't say they were the same; I said that each is created to separate a larger idea by what gender they fit into. If "asshole" is a "person that is malicious and spiteful", then "bitch" would be a female asshole and "prick" would be a male asshole. In a similar vein, if "server" is a "person that takes orders and delivers food", then "waitress" is a female server and "waiter" is a male server. That's all I'm saying: that the above terms exist to note gender.
|
|
|
Post by sbr on Sept 7, 2010 20:00:16 GMT -5
I really do think it is best for Casey to address most of this, if she wants to, because at the end of the day, I'm a guy. I'll never be able to honestly speak about the term from the perspective of a female and I'll never be able to comment completely on what it means and why on any level beyond what has been communicated to me by the people most horribly impacted by these things.
What I can offer some perspective on is the parts of your comments where you point out that a man can also be called "bitch." I find it fascinating that you can note this, note the problems with the term, and acknowledge so many things while completely disregarding the most basic, simple point of it.
I've been called "bitch" before. I'm sure many men had. Every time I've been called those things, it wasn't simply because I was "malicious and spiteful." It wasn't because I was an "asshole." It was because, in the view of the person calling me that, I was engaging in some activity that was, by their definition and standard, feminine in nature. That is the absolute, undeniable root of this. You can reject this statement:
You can reject it as much as you want. The reality is that it doesn't matter because your rejection doesn't change the fact that when someone is called a "bitch" the focus is on characteristics of negative behavior that are deemed "feminine" or representative of women. A bitch is a not a crying person who happens to be a woman, a bitch is a woman who happens to be crying. A bitch is not a person who slapped you and happens to be a woman, a bitch is a woman that happened to slap you. A bitch is not a person who made a comment you disagreed with who also happens to be a woman; a bitch is a woman who happened to make a comment that you disagree with and so forth and so on.
That is reality. No matter what your intent is, on a meaningful, larger scale, calling someone a "bitch" is not an attack against any negative trait, which is honestly evidenced by the simple fact that "bitch" is a catch-all term applied to women for anything you disagree with or is applied to any man displaying any trait deemed both negative and feminine.
You keep throwing up the words "malice and spite." The bottom line is that the term is a an umbrella term for women, not simply a synonym "malicious and spiteful person." Your wife is your bitch. The cashier that looked at you funny is a bitch. The girl crying for reasons you aren't privy to is a bitch. Etc, etc.
I don't really now how to phrase this to better illustrate that the term is used to attack things that are deemed feminine and thus negative. I was randomly listening to the radio the other day and heard, "Up next, we have Godsmack with "Cryin' Like a Bitch."
We know that the term bitch is reserved for women or men behaving in a manner deemed feminine because all things that scream "woman" are negative. We know that crying is one of these things. In this example the word "bitch" is obviously a substitution for "woman." Because, you know, women cry a lot. And that's one of the many horrible things about being a woman.
I just honestly don't know how else to communicate that being a woman or womanly is the key negative point of the word "bitch." A bitch is not a person who does anything and happens to be a woman. A bitch is a woman who happens to do anything.
|
|
|
Post by Bang on Sept 7, 2010 20:05:46 GMT -5
I've been following this, it's interesting. First of all, rc, I do get what you're saying. While Casey referred to your "unexamined white male privilege", it seems to me that this conversation started because you're doing exactly that: examining your very privileged standpoint and trying to gain some insight into the perspective of other groups of people, specifically women. And I respect you for that. Okay so that said, I did want to answer your main question. But this is purely from my standpoint. What I'm stating is that the terms are used to add extra description to the MALICIOUS AND SPITEFUL person, not to determine the cause of such hatred. What I am attempting to compromise is whether that extra description draws too much attention away from the MALICE AND SPITE. Personally, the idea that you would used gender-specific terms as an "extra description" is something I disagree with. It's related to where this originally stemmed from: calling a woman a "slut" just because you don't like her. Choosing that word makes out like that part of her personality that you don't like is directly related to her gender. If her behaviour has nothing to do with her gender, then it shouldn't be necessary to highlight it. I'd almost liken it to saying "so I saw this black guy..." when the rest of your story has nothing to do with the guy's colour. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Pillars of Aaron on Sept 7, 2010 20:08:51 GMT -5
I haven't been sexist; I've been discussing sexism and language. Advocating the use of "bitch" to describe anyone as malicious and spiteful is sexist given the term's history of being used toward WOMEN to describe them as mean and vindictive. Just because you don't recognize that/choose to ignore it doesn't make it any less sexist. We could make it simpler. If you don't think the word identifies with a gender, then lets look to the word's definition in the dictionary. " Female dog."
|
|
|
Post by kr on Sept 7, 2010 20:11:17 GMT -5
It was because, in the view of the person calling me that, I was engaging in some activity that was, by their definition and standard, feminine in nature. y. No matter what your intent is, on a meaningful, larger scale, calling someone a "bitch" is not an attack against any negative trait, which is honestly evidenced by the simple fact that "bitch" is a catch-all term applied to women for anything you disagree with or is applied to any man displaying any trait deemed both negative and feminine. We know that the term bitch is reserved for women or men behaving in a manner deemed feminine because all things that scream "woman" are negative. We know that crying is one of these things. In this example the word "bitch" is obviously a substitution for "woman." Because, you know, women cry a lot. And that's one of the many horrible things about being a woman. Important points. This is what I was trying to say but all my brain could do was go "no, you're wrong."
|
|
|
Post by Bang on Sept 7, 2010 20:18:08 GMT -5
I haven't been sexist; I've been discussing sexism and language. Advocating the use of "bitch" to describe anyone as malicious and spiteful is sexist given the term's history of being used toward WOMEN to describe them as mean and vindictive. Just because you don't recognize that/choose to ignore it doesn't make it any less sexist. I think this is a valid point. While reading this thread I thought about my own use of gender-specific insults and realised that while it's very unlikely to hear me ever call anybody a bitch, I throw the word "dick" around like it's going out of fashion. It's not something I've done consciously, so why am I so okay with using a male-specific term to refer to both genders (under the 'asshole umbrella'), but not a female? Simply, I think it's because a female-specific term is considered so much worse to use. Men hate it because it implies femininity, women hate it because it focuses on femininity. And that in itself proves that, even if you personally don't say it with any malicious intent towards women, it still exists primarily in that derogatory form.
|
|
|
Post by Tommy on Sept 7, 2010 20:36:19 GMT -5
I've never actually thought about if bitch was sexist or not, but it makes sense. I don't know, I guess I just use bitch when speaking of girls, and dick/prick when talking about guys. I guess I'll try to watch my language from now on. but We know that the term bitch is reserved for women or men behaving in a manner deemed feminine because all things that scream "woman" are negative. We know that crying is one of these things. In this example the word "bitch" is obviously a substitution for "woman." Because, you know, women cry a lot. And that's one of the many horrible things about being a woman. I just want to say that every time I've heard bitch said to a guy it involves them being emotional, which is clearly misogynistic. on the other hand, every time I've heard the term targeted at girls it has nothing to do with that and has almost always had to do with the girl being a "malicious and spiteful" person, and the intended point was not to point out their femininity. I'm not saying that makes it okay, but that's just what I've noticed
|
|
|
Post by rc on Sept 7, 2010 20:36:41 GMT -5
I really do think it is best for Casey to address most of this, if she wants to, because at the end of the day, I'm a guy. I'll never be able to honestly speak about the term from the perspective of a female and I'll never be able to comment completely on what it means and why on any level beyond what has been communicated to me by the people most horribly impacted by these things. What I can offer some perspective on is the parts of your comments where you point out that a man can also be called "bitch." I find it fascinating that you can note this, note the problems with the term, and acknowledge so many things while completely disregarding the most basic, simple point of it. I've been called "bitch" before. I'm sure many men had. Every time I've been called those things, it wasn't simply because I was "malicious and spiteful." It wasn't because I was an "asshole." It was because, in the view of the person calling me that, I was engaging in some activity that was, by their definition and standard, feminine in nature. That is the absolute, undeniable root of this. You can reject this statement: You can reject it as much as you want. The reality is that it doesn't matter because your rejection doesn't change the fact that when someone is called a "bitch" the focus is on characteristics of negative behavior that are deemed "feminine" or representative of women. A bitch is a not a crying person who happens to be a woman, a bitch is a woman who happens to be crying. A bitch is not a person who slapped you and happens to be a woman, a bitch is a woman that happened to slap you. A bitch is not a person who made a comment you disagreed with who also happens to be a woman; a bitch is a woman who happened to make a comment that you disagree with and so forth and so on. That is reality. No matter what your intent is, on a meaningful, larger scale, calling someone a "bitch" is not an attack against any negative trait, which is honestly evidenced by the simple fact that "bitch" is a catch-all term applied to women for anything you disagree with or is applied to any man displaying any trait deemed both negative and feminine. You keep throwing up the words "malice and spite." The bottom line is that the term is a an umbrella term for women, not simply a synonym "malicious and spiteful person." Your wife is your bitch. The cashier that looked at you funny is a bitch. The girl crying for reasons you aren't privy to is a bitch. Etc, etc. I don't really now how to phrase this to better illustrate that the term is used to attack things that are deemed feminine and thus negative. I was randomly listening to the radio the other day and heard, "Up next, we have Godsmack with "Cryin' Like a Bitch." We know that the term bitch is reserved for women or men behaving in a manner deemed feminine because all things that scream "woman" are negative. We know that crying is one of these things. In this example the word "bitch" is obviously a substitution for "woman." Because, you know, women cry a lot. And that's one of the many horrible things about being a woman. I just honestly don't know how else to communicate that being a woman or womanly is the key negative point of the word "bitch." A bitch is not a person who does anything and happens to be a woman. A bitch is a woman who happens to do anything. This really does exemplify the disconnection. I'm far too diction-centric and perhaps overlooking the larger application of the term, and that's definitely a problem when examining its use. My experience has been... muddled, perhaps? I don't want to excuse anything due to my environment; that my best friends are all female and that I use "bitch" synonymously with "asshole" doesn't change how the term gets actual use. Again, I didn't mean to sidetrack anything with my reference to the term being used in a genderless manner (that was mostly to express that I do make casual use of the term), but you do bring up an important point: I have heard it used to describe a man as womanly in a negative fashion. This whole conversation stemmed from how I see the word used, but that isn't really what's central to the argument, is it? It is rather sexist, once you get past simplistic definitions. I never really saw it as such; my analogy to "waitress" above is a clear indicator why. That's why I stopped to examine whether or not clarifying a sex in this manner caused a problem. And it does, especially in this context. I've been following this, it's interesting. First of all, rc, I do get what you're saying. While Casey referred to your "unexamined white male privilege", it seems to me that this conversation started because you're doing exactly that: examining your very privileged standpoint and trying to gain some insight into the perspective of other groups of people, specifically women. And I respect you for that. Okay so that said, I did want to answer your main question. But this is purely from my standpoint. What I'm stating is that the terms are used to add extra description to the MALICIOUS AND SPITEFUL person, not to determine the cause of such hatred. What I am attempting to compromise is whether that extra description draws too much attention away from the MALICE AND SPITE. Personally, the idea that you would used gender-specific terms as an "extra description" is something I disagree with. It's related to where this originally stemmed from: calling a woman a "slut" just because you don't like her. Choosing that word makes out like that part of her personality that you don't like is directly related to her gender. If her behaviour has nothing to do with her gender, then it shouldn't be necessary to highlight it. I'd almost liken it to saying "so I saw this black guy..." when the rest of your story has nothing to do with the guy's colour. Does that make sense? I don't know if you saw my outline many posts above, but this is what stopped me to think (before running off on various tangents). I was equating that classification of sex to any and every other classification of sex, but when the quality of the individual is the defining function, noting the sex of a person (or race, etc.) drags that in as being part of what creates the quality or lack thereof. Again, with my waitress example, as that term discusses only the occupational function of a person, gender-association doesn't pose an issue. Obviously I'm fond of semantics, and you're absolutely right: a person's quality and features have no place in the same term. I haven't been sexist; I've been discussing sexism and language. Advocating the use of "bitch" to describe anyone as malicious and spiteful is sexist given the term's history of being used toward WOMEN to describe them as mean and vindictive. Just because you don't recognize that/choose to ignore it doesn't make it any less sexist. We could make it simpler. If you don't think the word identifies with a gender, then lets look to the word's definition in the dictionary. " Female dog." Again, the genderless use was a sidenote that got carried away and had little to do with my bulk point. But you're correct that I wasn't seeing the actual usage for what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Jessticles on Sept 7, 2010 20:38:45 GMT -5
...So how about that Harry Potter?
|
|
|
Post by kr on Sept 7, 2010 20:40:56 GMT -5
-_-
|
|
|
Post by rc on Sept 7, 2010 20:42:22 GMT -5
I was actually going to suggest moving this all to another thread. Sorry for hijacking.
I'm so excited for Mark to read HBP. And so sad that a bounty of tears await him.
|
|
|
Post by sbr on Sept 7, 2010 20:56:02 GMT -5
Eh, I think it's completely relevant to Harry Potter because these very issues are discussed and addressed to varying degrees (among other important social issues) by Rowling at various points throughout the 7 books. It would be hard, in my mind, to discuss Harry Potter without eventually having these types of discussions, because social equality and justice as such massive elements of the world created and explored within the books.
|
|
|
Post by rc on Sept 7, 2010 20:59:40 GMT -5
I agree, and that's basically why I didn't come to suggest it. Besides, this thread has been dead for too long. >.<
|
|
|
Post by Super Nintendo Chalmers on Sept 7, 2010 21:05:20 GMT -5
I've been called "bitch" before. I'm sure many men had. Every time I've been called those things, it wasn't simply because I was "malicious and spiteful." It wasn't because I was an "asshole." It was because, in the view of the person calling me that, I was engaging in some activity that was, by their definition and standard, feminine in nature. We know that the term bitch is reserved for women or men behaving in a manner deemed feminine because all things that scream "woman" are negative. We know that crying is one of these things. In this example the word "bitch" is obviously a substitution for "woman." Because, you know, women cry a lot. And that's one of the many horrible things about being a woman. I know I'm always late to these debates, but I wanted to chime in with how much I agree with this. I also acknowledge the fact that sometimes it takes a while to come to these kinds of conclusions; I know it did for me. When using a word in that way is so ingrained in what you say and what other people say, it's hard to look at it objectively and see how it's problematic. Hell, I've struggled with it myself, and I'm trying to phase it out of my vocabulary (yeah, I know, "what do you want, a medal?" but it's the truth). And it's even harder because I like the word "cunt" :/
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Sept 7, 2010 21:14:57 GMT -5
I used to love "cunt" but it really is awful. Anyway, is Tommy tj back from the dead? Or does he still work for the government.
|
|
|
Post by Super Nintendo Chalmers on Sept 7, 2010 21:20:56 GMT -5
I...kind of doubt TJ would have a Pokemon avatar. Hahaha. Unless he's REALLY trying to stay incognito.
And I only like "cunt" because it's the only word that's still sort of verboten anymore (at least here in the states).
|
|
|
Post by Tommy on Sept 7, 2010 21:24:51 GMT -5
no, my name used to be "deadmilklizard", but I changed it because I thought it was dumb. cunt is the FUNNEST word to say in the english language. if only it meant sandwich or something cool, then I'd be able to use it all I wanted
|
|