Penn Jillette is a douchebag. We knew that, we know that, and some of us argue that it’s one of the main ways he’s risen to stardom in our community. Myself included. So it wasn’t a real surprise to any of us that, with his steadfast defense of showing women as tit-and-ass buffets, and his stalwart support of Mallorie Nasrallah’s open letter to the skeptic community, that Penn would find nothing wrong with calling a woman a cunt for the crime of not amusing him. But why? What context justifies this?
Lindy West posted about this year’s Superbowl ads and the takeaway lessons these ads give the average viewer. Penn did not watch the ads, but thought the article was unfunny, and therefore felt justified to post on his friend Emily’s Facebook wall that she was “a remarkably stupid cunt”. He evidently did not feel it necessary to view the ads to suss out why Lindy was annoyed by them, but felt qualified to comment on her post nonetheless.
Some skeptic communities, Freethought Blogs included, said “that’s totally fucked up.” We took Penn to task for being a douchebag, and the Offense Brigade, the winged monkeys who flit about our community and swoop in to defend sexism and misogynist behaviour, could be heard echoing about the hills with their cries of “context!” before they even descended upon Jen’s blog. Penn’s friend Emily, and Penn’s wife Emily Jillette (separate people evidently), both defended Penn as being in no way a sexist, and characterized this as a hit job about a remark taken out of context. The “context crowd” offered so many different contexts where it’s supposedly justified to say “cunt” that Jen was able to build a Bingo card out of them.
But despite all the defense offered, and the number of times “context” was brought up, nobody’s actually offered the context in which Penn’s use of the word is actually somehow acceptable.
So, knowing the following facts, what is the context here?
1) Lindy West, Emily, and Penn Jillette are all American
2) The word “cunt” applied to a woman in America is a sexist slur, used in exactly the same vein as calling a black person a “nigger”
3) Lindy’s crime was of not amusing Penn Jillette
4) Facebook is not a private messaging system — anyone with Penn on their friends list would see his posting on Emily’s wall on their own timelines
5) Penn is not a woman, and could therefore not have been owning the slur
Bear in mind also that when Michael Richards called a black person a “nigger” for heckling him at a stand-up routine, his career imploded. For the crime of failing to amuse Richards, for the crime of trying to show him up, he used a racist slur and thereby committed career suicide. Why is sexism okay, in that Penn Jillette is still around, but racism is not, in that Richards can’t get a job for the life of him?
I await your justifications, and do hope you’ll take into account all of the above.
Take your time.
Here’s something I don’t see, Tristan actually responding or trying to meet the challenges posed by other posters.
Marshall #14
You are incorrect. Penn is not calling all women “cunts”, he is calling the one specific woman he is mad at a “cunt”. He is not being misogynistic, he is being an asshole. They are two different things.
When an asshole is mad at someone, in the heat of the moment they will call the other person names which are offensive. That is their goal:
“You bald fuck!”
“You fat bastard!”
“You dickhead”
“You prick”
That doesn’t mean that they hate bald people, or fat people. It means that the person they were mad at had those traits. Women have vaginas, so he called her a cunt. If a guy isn’t fat or bald, you go with dick.
I’m not defending Penn – it is a despicable word – but it is absolutely wrong to imply that it equates to sexism.
We gnu atheists keep saying that if there’s evidence for a god then we’ll start believing in a god. If some god could arrange for John Greg to make a post that wasn’t smug, arrogant and patronizing, then I would definitely have to consider worshiping that god. Because without divine intervention, there’s no way John Greg cannot be smug, arrogant and patronizing.
Utter bullshit. Please post quotes, because I have never seen that and I’ve been reading FtB since it came into existence and many of the blogs currently on it before that. What you may have seen is women saying that because they don’t personally feel demeaned by ‘cunt’ that nobody else should either and then having it pointed out that they don’t get to make that determination for all women, but that’s entirely different, isn’t it?
Well I’m sorry you manufactured that ridiculous straw-perception of the ‘accepted wisdom’ around here, but no, that isn’t it. Nobody said ‘cunt’ is the ‘worst of all possible insults’ and nobody said that it’s because they consider it to refer to ‘the worst of all possible body parts’. What you might have seen is people pointing out that because ‘cunt’ is a pejorative term for female genitalia it carries with it the connotation that female genitalia are somehow bad, and thus it is misogynistic in the connotations it carries with it.
Since the things you’ve said are either terrible strawpeople you’ve built deliberately, or you’ve failed massively at actually understanding what people have been saying, I recommend you go back and read for comprehension. I really want to write this all off as a lack of understanding, because it certainly seems that way, but whether it is or isn’t you can’t just attack straw versions of people’s arguments.
Hey, that reminds me of something…
Oh yeah, I thought that might happen. Please, explain how using ‘cunt’ as a synonym for ‘woman’ is not misogynistic.
Maybe I have the wrong impression of feminism. Isn’t it supposed to mean that we don’t treat women specially? That they are equal?
If this story was about Penn Jillette calling a man a stupid and unfunny prick, would you have written this blog post?
The argument could be made that you being sexist in having to come to the rescue to defend poor, weak women who obviously aren’t smart enough to stand up for themselves.
Oh it could, but it would be just as bad an argument as the one you made above that you have yet to defend. I’m not coming to anyone’s ‘defense’, I’m responding to arguments you made.
Seriously, how is using ‘cunt’ as a synonym for ‘woman’ not misogynistic? Really, answer the question, don’t dodge it, don’t try to change the subject, answer the question.
I only ever use “cunt” when it’s used as an example, or I’m directly referencing the word. Oh, and when I’m quoting George Carlin’s “Seven Words”, of course.
Other than that, I, personally, don’t particularly care if someone uses that particular word or not. YMMV.
Tim Buterbaugh, #57: Maybe I have the wrong impression of feminism. Isn’t it supposed to mean that we don’t treat women specially? That they are equal?
Well, I could have the wrong idea of feminism, but to me feminism is the recognition that currently women don’t have an equal place in society, that the structures the maintain women in an inferior position run deep and are often hidden, that it will take a lot of work in restructuring the basic institutions and culture before every human being can live in equality and dignity, and that many of these structures include our own beliefs and attitudes, even when we may not recognize it.
And it is possible that when we are oblivious to how the words we use maintain the unequal power structures in society, we end up helping the continuation of the hidden assumptions that maintain the traditions and institutions of inequality.
julian said:
“What the fuck do you care what someone may have believed x years ago, John Greg?”
I don’t.
“Aren’t you a skeptic?”
Yes, I like to think so, hence my questioning of most of the ideological ranting and rhetoric that I see on FfTB blogs (and elsewhere, including, quelle surprise, ERV).
“Why the fuck would a skeptic WANT to reprimand someone for changing their mind?”
I don’t. I was simply asking a question.
“… the power language can have better than you all who pretend words like nigger, cunt and faggot have no impact on others.”
I am not referring to words such as nigger or faggot. But more to the point is your statement regarding words. Words, of and by themselves, are powerless. It is the context and intent that gives a word its power. By itself, i.e., without context and intent, a word is fundamentally powerless and does almost nothing.
Jason said:
“I can call you bigoted, mean-spirited sophists who aren’t afraid to stretch the truth, or even lie, to make the case that certain people are calling out as bad behaviour certain behaviours that you yourselves enjoy far too much.”
Jason I present you with a formal request that you show me an instance, just one instance, of where I have lied about anything — and for that matter, I request you show one instance, just one, of where I have used the word cunt (or nigger, or faggot, or any of your sundry sexist bad words), in an intentionally harmful way. You can’t, can you. I would also like you to present me with evidence of my bigotry.
As to mean-spirited sophist, hell, I can’t argue against that in good faith, now can I.
Ciroptera said:
“Around here among whom? As I’ve been looking around Free Thought Blogs, I see women who are standing up for themselves and men who are standing by them.”
Well, yes, but you discount all those women who stand up for themselves and insist that the word cunt is harmless, don’t you? One of the great features of editorial censorship, deletion, and banning, as practiced in most FfTB blogs, is that it provides folks like you with the opportunity to cry “Show me the evidence” when you know full well that the evidence has been deleted and is therefore not to be found. Vive la freedom.
‘Tis Himself said:
“Because without divine intervention, there’s no way John Greg cannot be smug, arrogant and patronizing.”
God’s teeth, s’truth.
Marshall said:
“Utter bullshit. Please post quotes, because I have never seen that and I’ve been reading FtB since it came into existence and many of the blogs currently on it before that.”
Some linkies for Marshall:
Tee Corinne (author of the book, Cunt Coloring Book):
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tee_Corinne) (http://www.lastgasp.com/d/1120/)
Dictional Anaylsis:
(http://jezebel.com/300003/why-is-the-word-cunt-still-such-a-big-deal)
Inga Musico:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inga_Muscio)
Marshall also said:
“Oh yeah, I thought that might happen. Please, explain how using ‘cunt’ as a synonym for ‘woman’ is not misogynistic.”
Because, you silly little hymen … erps, human, “woman” is singular. It is neither global, nor generic, nor all-encompassing.
Tim Buterbaugh said:
“If this story was about Penn Jillette calling a man a stupid and unfunny prick, would you have written this blog post?”
Absolutely not. It would not have warranted even a passing note. Jason explained on one of his other blog posts a few weeks ago why masculine/male gender epithets are completely harmless, tons of fun, and when judiciously applied quite appropriate, whereas feminine/female gender epithets are bad, bad, bad mojo and proof of indefensible horribleness.
What a mess that was.
Sexist and misogynist undoubtedly. I can’t think of any other explanation. Has Penn tried to weasel his way out of this yet? Perhaps it is too much to hope for an apology.
Chiroptera said:
“… it will take a lot of work in restructuring the basic institutions and culture before every human being can live in equality and dignity….”
Except, of course, MRAs, gender traitors, Sommers sophists, theists, non-skeptics, and … well, the list is almost endless, isn’t it, batman.
Can we agree on this:
Most heterosexual (is that word allowed?) males, and most homosexual (is that word allowed?) females (is that word allowed?) love cunts, being as they are juicy, lubricious, likerish (is that word allowed?) delights non pareil (is that word allowed?) and beautious and bequeathed with a pungent pithy reek of profound yet mundane pleasure wholly unconstrained.
(Which is a damned sight more than I can say for the grannies herein.)
Run rampant ye old world word police, but never shall you restrain or constrain the thinking mind and the expressive heart.
A POMPOUS WINDBAG APPEARS!
IT’S CONFUSED!
POMPOUS WINDBAG ATTACKS POMPOUS WINDBAG
IT’S SUPER EFFECTIVE!
Context is important here too, and if I have to explain why ‘hymen’ in this context isn’t really appropriate, you’ll just have to wait until I have a greater stockpile of PATIENCE POTIONS on hand.
Go back to your cave, troll.
You do know that Blag Hag is a play on the term fag hag which is used endearingly by gay men and their best friends who are women, don’t you? And for that matter, I don’t think I’ve ever heard fag hag used disparagingly against a woman unlike hag by itself. And anyway, a troll beat you to that remark by miles on Jen’s own blog. You really need to put down Sommers and start thinking more critically.
That seems superstitious of you, given that they are Just Words ™ and the only thing that gives them power is the “hysterical rage” some “thin-skinned folks” are throwing at them.
After all, the words “nigger” and “faggot” are singular, and hence cannot be global or generic, and hence aren’t bigoted. Right?
Wait, I thought what gives words their power was the reaction of the silly hysterical people who consider some of them to be slurs. Now it’s “context and intent”, as though words have generally agreed-upon meanings and a speaker can anticipate the impact his words would have! Absurd, I say.
I have never seen such retarded arguments before I started reading FTB.
Wheeeee!
What fun it is to enagage circus clowns.
The Cage says:
“You do know that Blag Hag is a play on the term fag hag which is used endearingly by gay men and their best friends who are women, don’t you? And for that matter, I don’t think I’ve ever heard fag hag used disparagingly against a woman unlike hag by itself. And anyway, a troll beat you to that remark by miles on Jen’s own blog. You really need to put down Sommers and start thinking more critically.”
Aha! So, I see, “fag” is okay when used by some people, but not when used by other people, except when used by the people who think it is okay to use it so long as you are not one of the people who should not use it except of course if you are one of the people who can use it except when you can’t because you are no longer but once were or at least surreptitiously may once be at some obscure time or other one of the people who can or can not use it except when you are one of the people who can not or can use it or otherwise not the only way it can be but or might be could be should be would be but, um, er, ah, and yes, but, well, erp ….
Should, would, could not “cunt” have the same rules applied? Or does that particular combination of four wholly innocent wee little letters drive you to such vigorous distraction that your rationality falls out of your empty ears?
Cage, you are a very funny piece of inclement weather.
Forbidden Snowflake, you realy, really, reallly do need to attend some remedial English course, or logic course, or summat like that. Your post is beyond ludicrous. Perhaps a solid round of reading of the Dick and Jane series of books of profundity might help to expand your limited horizons. Poor fool. I weep for your lack of an overburdening supposition of reason.
Do you believe that we only get one life and that we should try to be good to ourselves and to others? I do. I’m all for strong rhetoric, and blasphemy, and profanity, and even being a complete asshole if it’s required, particularly when there ARE ideas in this world that do harm to people. That a person can be made to feel reduced to one derogatory word purely through careless usage on the part of another human is not a difficult thing to see. Not if you actually try to actively empathize with people.
Can you imagine living in a society where scorn and derision are heaped upon you simply for being whatever you are, reinforced by social structures that tell others that they are superior to you in all the ways that matter? Can you imagine what that would be like? To have your entire identity and social stature summed up in one or a few words, each with connotations that dismiss you as being inferior to others?
Not if you haven’t lived it. I have, in some ways, but not in many others that make my personal helping of scorn and hate seem insignificant in comparison. So suppose that there is a non-zero chance that someone could be made to feel that small simply by careless usage on your part of a really rather small number of words for which there are better, less dismissive alternatives. Do you really want to take the risk that you will make someone, possibly even someone you are addressing directly, feel that way just so you can casually throw around words that aren’t even particularly useful to begin with? Not if you truly empathize with people. Not if you really want to make your life and the lives of others better.
But the expectation is that people are ‘offended’ when you throw these words around, or that they’re just too sensitive and get sad when people use words they don’t like, or they’ll equate your very real and very tangible artificially lowered stature in society expressed as a single short utterance with words like ‘shit’ or ‘fuck’, words that are harmless entirely and really do only have the power that we give them. But what I mostly feel is anger. Anger when these words are turned on me, and angry when these words are turned on others. Because it isn’t necessary. You could have very easily expressed the exact same sentiment without using a word that represents and reinforces the prejudice, ignorance, fear, hatred, and condescension that people throw at mentally disabled individuals on a constant and consistent basis. Are you really so fucking attached to that stupid and useless word that you would be so unsympathetic to your fellow humans JUST to be able to continue saying it? Then fuck you, in my opinion. If you are so attached to these ridiculous words that you would ignore the way they’re used to demean and minimize people simply because of who they are, why the fuck do I want you around?
It’s really simple: I will call you an asshole, I will joke about and mock your ideas, I will attack the things you say with full force, I will insult you if required, but I will almost NEVER result to personal attacks, and I won’t demean people who live through experiences that I can’t possibly imagine through the careless use of words that serve no purpose. If you do, don’t be surprised if I get angry, and don’t be surprised if I call you out for it, because apparently that’s what is going to be required for people to stop casually and passively demeaning people.
@John (not the crapper) Greg
Yes, “erp” indeed! Were you trying to say something intelligible? Maybe a mime act would work better for you.
But I think I kind of see where you were going with that rambling. The word fag is a lot like nigger in whether it is a slur or not. You first have to consider how it was used because it really doesn’t matter who uses it when it is meant to disparage someone. But when it isn’t outright meant to disparage someone, then considering who said it is important because some people might not realize it is a slur and need to be corrected about their usage of it. And of course, if you can create an artificial environment where fag takes on the meaning of rude, noisy biker and loses its homophobic meaning completely, then good for you.
I think the same usage guidelines should apply–that is, if you don’t want to hurt people by using the word cunt et al. I do approve of efforts to make people ashamed of using those terms as slurs, too. Hurting people by verbally attacking their biological self is an act of dehumanization; we’ve already seen where that gets us (slavery/war/torture/genocide) and so it’s not something we should strive for.
What’s the matter? Didn’t Sommers cover all this in her books?
Cage said:
“Hurting people by verbally attacking their biological self is an act of dehumanization….”
Oh for crying out loud, grow up and grab a taste of reality. To paraphrase whomever, stop policing the language and start using it for something meaningful. Milquetoast pseudo-feminists are becoming so busy purging their speech of any words that might offend anyone (except chosen enemies who are free targets for any form of dehumanization that is convenient) that they have no notion of using language to be profound, meaningful, pithy, or useful.
Marshall, stop whinging about imaginary assaults and fabricated dystopias; grab a life and stop contradicting yourself; join the rest of us in the real world.
Whatever, John. I’m actively choosing to make a pretty damn small and unobtrusive change in the way I speak and write to avoid disparaging people for what they ARE in a society that has too much of that going on as it is. You’re childishly refusing to do this and mocking those who do while providing no valid reason to find your self-important excuse making to be anything other than selfish and uncaring expressions of someone convinced that his lack of consideration for others makes him superior to the rest of us. I really could not give less of a shit what you think at this point.
so, a woman can call a man a dick, and a man can not call a woman a cunt?
that’s sexist.
Chiroptera #60
I agree that women have not yet achieved an equal place at the table. In fact, I agree with everything in your post. But they will never achieve it as long as they allow a simple word to derail them (and their supporters). Everyone needs
Men who call women cunts are just assholes. An asshole will call anyone any name they can think of to piss the other person off. Those people don’t count. They are not the problem.
The hidden structures that hold women in an inferior position would never utter the word “cunt”. They will use their holy books and history to do it. They will profess that they love women and fully support them, but god simply made them subordinate to man, and they will maintain that they cannot defy god’s holy word. Much the same way that they use bullshit like “love the sinner, hate the sin” with gay people. They will never treat a gay person with respect. However, you’ll likely never hear them calling anyone a fag or a dyke.
In the business world, it is the old boy’s clubs that don’t view women as equal (but at the same time, they also don’t view any minority as equal). Again, you will never hear one of them use the word “cunt” in public.
These are the real enemies of women, not “douchebags” like Penn Jillette.
Marshall #56 and #58
“Seriously, how is using ‘cunt’ as a synonym for ‘woman’ not misogynistic? Really, answer the question, don’t dodge it, don’t try to change the subject, answer the question.”
(Sorry that I don’t know the hotkeys to do a proper quotation from a prior post. If someone would like to share them, I would appreciate it.)
Here is my answer:
Misogyny is the hatred of women (or girls). All of them. Penn called one specific woman a cunt. Not all of them, one of them.
Misogyny: Women are worthless cunts with no redeeming value.
Not Misogyny: That cunt just flipped me off!
Tasteless, moronic, childish, mean? Yes. Misogyny? No.
I’m surprised some people are making the lazy argument that words only have as much damage as you give them – what a load of shit. Yes, a word is just a unit of sound, but it’s the cultural significance and underlying meaning of a word that’s important. If a slur could be taken to mean, “I hate you and everyone like you and think your kind should be obliterated from the species”, you can’t just refuse to accept that meaning.
Anyway, I’m surprised I only just remembered this now: Larry David sympathises http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E_7q4hzWFc
What bullshit.
Pro-lifers, those who insist on abstinence only education, men who “protect” the “honor” of women, they all readily and eagerly demean women through the language they use. They call them harlots, whores, cunts, bitches, feminists and do so often to contrast them from ‘good’ women.
They’ve always done it and continue to do it today.
See? If you reduce women to their genitalia–but only one at a time–it becomes magically different!
And no, misogyny is not “hatred”. Don’t confuse etymology with meaning.
A vapid response, as was to be expected. Offending people isn’t a problem and not at all what I was addressing. One wonders if you read what I wrote at all or just typed out pre-formed buzzwords and talking points.
Julian #77
Pro-lifers fall into the category of assholes who don’t count. I agree that they commonly call women whores and harlots – often on giant billboards. They also routinely issue death threats against people who disagree with them. They also rejoice at the thought of someone literally burning in the fires of hell for all eternity and call that “god’s love”. They are lunatics. And many of them are women.
I put them in the same category as the Westboro Baptist Church.
Perhaps you meant the Cheneys and Roves and Nixons and Limbaughs and Murdocks, etc. of the world then? (This is me laughing at you.)
The word ‘cunt’ is certainly a potent swear word, it is therefore also an interesting one.
There is asymmetry in how it is applied to the sexes. It is considered much worse to call a woman a ‘cunt’, than to call a man one. Calling a woman a ‘cunt’ is not only vulgar but it’s also completely without class, as well as the aforementioned tones of misogyny.
There are contexts in which ‘cunt’ loses some of its power, and that is primarily in positive swearing.
Positive swearing, as I mean it, is to use ‘cunt’ as certain Americans have been known to use ‘guy’ or ‘dude’, or ‘bastard’ – that is almost affectionately. For example: “Any of you cunts seen my keys?”, “, “You’re a funny cunt, you are.”. Its clearly offensive language, which means language that offends some people, but its meaning in context is to be somewhat neutral. It is not implying the person is bad because they are a cunt, thus not making the implication that being a cunt is bad. This is generally only acceptable in any way between those who are very familiar and it is mutually agreed to be acceptable and safe to call each other nasty names.
The second circumstance that I can think of is if it used by a to refer to genitalia. This seems less offensive than calling someone ‘a cunt’, and although it maintains much of its power it loses some in this case. Not everybody will like using it to describe there own genitalia, but I certainly wouldn’t argue with a woman that likes to use it especially referring to her own parts.
‘Cunt’ isn’t universally regarded by feminists as a terrible word. There are feminists who are perfectly comfortable with the word in its own right. As an outspoken feminist, Germaine Greer gives her view on the word:
http://youtu.be/GDJutaFuVD0
She is of course, defending its use as a label for female genitalia. There are after all, a lot of other words for ‘cunt’, but many of them are also taboo. I don’t think she likes it being used as an insult – as she says in, The Female Eunuch, (On men):,
Though I understand that there are many who dislike the word in its own right and that if you are one of those people you will feel offended whatever the context. It is these people that I’m sure caused some nervousness for English speaking Sports Commentators who have had to comment on people with names such as such as Stefan Kuntz.
And finally, although I basically dislike the word in most contexts, I do like the exclamation ‘Juno’s Cunt!’, made famous by HBO’s Rome, which I think is no more contentious than ‘Fuck’. I think I’ve written that word more often than I’ll write it for the rest of the year.
Stephanie Zvan #78
I think you are the one confusing etymology with meaning. The meaning of misogyny is the hatred of women. Look it up in any dictionary.
I believe this is highly relevant and adds significant perspective http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTifRi3qDkU
Atarina #81
And have you ever heard the Cheneys and Roves and Nixons and Limbaughs and Murdocks, etc. use the word “cunt”?
Please refrain from wasting our time responding to a post that you obviously don’t understand or didn’t take the time to read. Don’t you have a spelling test or something you should be studying for?
This is why England is the free space on CUNTO. Invariably, when someone disparages a woman as a cunt, people pop up to defend England at all costs against their right to say cunt and mean friend. But that is not the usage that is problematic. It’s not what sparked this conversation. The same goes for the people slopping over here from ERV right now; they aren’t calling you-know-who a cunt or twat because they are friends with her or because they have affection for her. So let’s not forget that we are not talking about using the word cunt to mean BFF.
OK, Tim, then who counts? LOL.
@Aratina Cage
I believe my very point was that there was some uses which were less problematic than others. Did you not catch that? I was providing some contexts within which ‘cunt’ need not be cause for feminist concern. I choose not to try and even find a context in which calling a woman a ‘…stupid cunt’ is acceptable in all but the most familiar of exchanges.
jon, #73: so, a woman can call a man a dick, and a man can not call a woman a cunt?
that’s sexist.
Actually, a good sign that your sexist is if you really thing those two things are exactly the same.
I didn’t say you were wrong. I said that that usage is trotted out every time to excuse away the usage of cunt et al as misogynistic epithets. It’s really simple actually: unless you are using cunt affectionately or to refer to genitalia, then don’t use it without acknowledging the misogyny you are simultaneously espousing.
I want Lousy Canuck to dress down PZ.
‘PZ not having a problem with ‘cunt,’ and making fun of Bill Donohue for freaking out over its use.’ (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/bring_me_the_heads_of_penn_and.php)
I want Lousy Canuck to dress down Skepchick.
‘Watson defending Penn saying that it was his style of ‘humor’ and ‘Mother Theresa was a hag. Deal with it.’ (http://skepchick.org/2006/04/mother-theresa-was-a-hag-deal-with-it/)
Now lets have less of the hypocrisy from “your side”, and stop attempting to define context on YOUR terms so that you are free to abuse certain werdz, and other are not.
Why do I get the feeling that Commander Tuvok is “andyet” from that 2009 thread?
No one here is defending what Rebecca Watson wrote in that 2006 post. It was misogynistic. But guess what? None of that excuses disparagingly calling women (one or more) cunts et al!
What’s the matter, John? Still upset over that time we had an argument and your hypocrisy got exposed?
“English, or logic, or something”. Brilliant. Calling people stupid instead of arguing is what I would expect from you, but could you at least try to pretend to have a specific, coherent criticism?
I love how you go from pretentious moron to condescending buffoon and then to babbling lunatic, all in the space of four sentences.
Snowy said:
“I love how you go from pretentious moron to condescending buffoon and then to babbling lunatic, all in the space of four sentences.”
Well, I have to keep you entertained, don’t I.
“Calling people stupid instead of arguing is what I would expect from you….”
Actually, I have presented several arguments throughout this thread, and you know it. Ignoring them for the sake of trying to make weak points is intellectually dishonest.
Jason, you frequently call me anti-feminist. Could you post some quotes or something like that that actually show me espousing an anti-feminist argument, or anti-feminist position?
Also, you called me a liar. I repeat my request to have you provide evidence of my actually telling lies, even just one, single, lonely little lie would do.
C’mon, Jason, wave the pale pipe you are so seemingly mutually proud and ashamed of, and pony up with some evidence of my telling lies.
And if you cannot post such evidence, because it does not exist, perhaps you could be adult enough to provide a small apology for the slander.
By-the-by, I promise you that if you can find and post a quote of me telling an actual lie, I will own up to it.
Thanks CommanderTuvok. I wish I could have found that post the other day when people were jumping on me for saying PZ’s hordes have been ignoring misogyny when it was directed at Christians. I was upset it took this long to call out the Amazing Atheist when he’s been suing similar tactics on creation women he’s “pwning” for years.
Not that I agree with you. I was upset people haven’t been doing more to call out misogyny when directed at acceptable targets.
Callum James Hackett said:
“I’m surprised some people are making the lazy argument that words only have as much damage as you give them – what a load of shit.”
It is neither a lazy argument, nor a load of shit. And actually, your argument more than proves my point in that to define how nasty a single word could be, you had to use 17 words to do so.
You appear to not understand how a word on its own, without context, without intent, means almost nothing.
Here is a challenge: Prove to us how evil the word cunt is using only one word to do so. You cannot say something like “Well, cunt is bad because….” and then use your one word to explain yourself. Your entire defense must rest upon one word, and one word only.
C’mon, let’s see you do it.
“Yes, a word is just a unit of sound, but it’s the cultural significance and underlying meaning of a word that’s important.”
Yes, but that cultural significance and underlying meaning is defined by context, use, and intent. It is not defined by the word alone. And that is easily proved by the many different contexts in which a word can be used. Using the word cunt in this instance, i.e., expository or explicatory renders it almost devoid of meaning, as also happens with words like faggot, or nigger, and so on. When used in an expository or explicatory sense they are rendered harmless and virtually meaningless. Therefore, that shows you that context and intent are not just of passing fancy, but are fundamental and essential to meaning.
“If a slur could be taken to mean, ‘I hate you and everyone like you and think your kind should be obliterated from the species’, you can’t just refuse to accept that meaning.”
Yes, but as I said, it took 17 words for you to define that the word means what you want it to mean. You cannot do so with only one word. Furthermore, to ensure that a slur “be taken to mean, ‘I hate you and everyone like you and think your kind should be obliterated from the species'”, requires that it be specifically understood beforehand that that is precisely the meaning the slur must have, and to do that requires that someone, like yourself, pre-define the slur. Otherwise it is just an empty word.
Like many FfTB bloggers and commentors, you can repeat as many times as you want that a word is evil of and by itself, but if we abide by the rules of English and linguistics, such repetition does not make you right.
Pretty much: don’t question it, if you do you’re sexist.
Why is cunt a sexist word? is it because it reduces a female to a single sexual organ? If this is the case as Stephanie Zvan argued, then yes it is exactly the same.
For fuck’s sake, Ace, don’t be a fool and fall for Commander Tuvok’s sniveling drivel. (You must have no idea who Commander Tuvok is, and I assure you that you do not want to know!) Read again what PZ wrote. The topic was Bill Donohue’s child-rape apologia, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-atheist rage, not whether or not Penn was being a sexist pig.
Isn’t it at all possible that people change and grow over time as they learn more about the world around them? I probably wouldn’t have seen the problem in what Penn was saying two years ago, but I certainly do now. There has been an upward trend in calling out misogyny WITHIN atheism over the past few years, because it has become more and more apparent that this is a problem.
In any event it further highlights Penn’s consistent usage of ‘cunt’ to describe women. The only thing it highlights as far as PZ and the Pharyngula comment regulars is that they’re views and scope of activism have changed and grown over the past few years, which is LAUDABLE in my opinion. Far better than those in this very thread who refuse at every turn to do the same.
It doesn’t matter who he is. The post speaks for itself. If PZ had any problem with what was said, he gave no indication. He was, in fact, very supportive. I’m not saying he supports such tactics. He’s never used them himself, but he was willing to overlook the fact the Penn was attacking Mother Teresa using misogynistic tactocs because he was attacking Mother Teresa.