To Swear Or Not To Swear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

In order to for something to be 'special', there has to be something else in the same sort of categorical area that's not 'special'. 'Special' is necessarily relative.

So men should regard women as 'special' relative to what?

---

Relative to men. I would sooner call a man a bastard than a woman a *****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Relative to men. I would sooner call a man a bastard than a woman a *****.

---

Okay - so to pursue the logic here - all women are special, relative to men. Specialness is intrinsic to womanhood. Unspecialness, relative to women, is intrinsic to manhood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Okay - so to pursue the logic here - all women are special, relative to men. Specialness is intrinsic to womanhood. Unspecialness, relative to women, is intrinsic to manhood.

---

Yes. I don't see what is wrong with that. I don't curse at women, haven't in years. I don't hit women, never have. I've cursed at a lot of men and hit a number of them in my time.

If a man called your sister a whore you would have words for him and might go so far as to hit him. If a woman said something nasty about your brother not only would you not strike her, you probably wouldn't even cuss her out.

I've never understood this thing about people getting upset about their mothers or sisters being insulted. A guy in a bar in the US once said to me something along the lines of,

"Your mother, she ***ks ***ks in ****ing truckstops, man."

And I said,

"As you have very little idea who I am, and absolutely no idea about my mother, it seems really unlikely that that's anything more than a speculative punt on your part which, if untrue, is just silly, and if true is hardly something I'd argue with you about, but in either case, it's a bit irrelevant to the issue of whether or not I nudged your elbow as I walked past on my way to the restrooms, isn't it?"

He seemed a tad nonplussed by that response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

I've never understood this thing about people getting upset about their mothers or sisters being insulted. A guy in a bar in the US once said to me something along the lines of,

"Your mother, she ***ks ***ks in ****ing truckstops, man."

And I said,

"As you have very little idea who I am, and absolutely no idea about my mother, it seems really unlikely that that's anything more than a speculative punt on your part which, if untrue, is just silly, and if true is hardly something I'd argue with you about, but in either case, it's a bit irrelevant to the issue of whether or not I nudged your elbow as I walked past on my way to the restrooms, isn't it?"

He seemed a tad nonplussed by that response.

---

I'm guessing he then grabbed you by the scruff of the neck and challenged you to fisticuffs. You responded no doubt by dignifiedly brushing off your collar, smacking him with a leather glove and proposing a duel.

"As you have very little idea who I am, and absolutely no idea about my mother, it seems really unlikely that that's anything more than a speculative punt on your part which, if untrue, is just silly, and if true is hardly something I'd argue with you about, but in either case, it's a bit irrelevant to the issue of whether or not I nudged your elbow as I walked past on my way to the restrooms, isn't it?"

He seemed a tad nonplussed by that response.

Yeah... you really put him in his place with that retort.:rolleyes:

Or he assumed you were gay.:smilewinkgrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Or he assumed you were gay.:smilewinkgrin:

---

Many people do, especially Americans. I can't say it worries me much.

What would you have done if someone had said that to you? Or Darcy, what would you have done?

The idea of the stay at home wife is itself a late 19th century middle class pretension. Most women at most points in history (with perhaps the notable exception of the 1950s and 60s in the west) have worked on top of being mothers anyway, because there was no way for the household to stay afloat otherwise. It's a fantasy that the wives of poor people sat around the house taking care of the children, in most cases they would either be doing piece work, working fields, or increasingly in the 19th century they might even be factory workers. The main difference was that women at that time could not gain long-term employment of any value, and most of their labour went unpaid since it was involved in the maintenance of the household and amounted to slave labour for their husband's benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

The idea of the stay at home wife is itself a late 19th century middle class pretension. Most women at most points in history (with perhaps the notable exception of the 1950s and 60s in the west) have worked on top of being mothers anyway, because there was no way for the household to stay afloat otherwise. It's a fantasy that the wives of poor people sat around the house taking care of the children, in most cases they would either be doing piece work, working fields, or increasingly in the 19th century they might even be factory workers. The main difference was that women at that time could not gain long-term employment of any value, and most of their labour went unpaid since it was involved in the maintenance of the household and amounted to slave labour for their husband's benefit.

---

My great-grandmother stayed at home. My grandmother stayed at home while her 4 daughters all got themselves careers. Maybe my family is out of the ordinary, I don't know.

Quote:

---

most of their labour went unpaid since it was involved in the maintenance of the household and amounted to slave labour for their husband's benefit.

---

It was also for the benefit of their children. And its not exactly like my great-grandfather spent his long days in the mine lounging on a feather-bed being fanned and fed grapes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

All I really said was that men should respect women and regard them as special. And yes, my statement that "women may not be weak, but they will always be in need of good men to protect them from the bad, whether that means a brother or husband acting out of love or a cop just doing his job" is true and I don't see how it can be disputed.

---

How about because it isn't true? Women can protect themselves just fine. Mace, pepper spray, and, get this, they can even use guns. And here's another shocker--women can exercise and become physically fit and even take men in a fight! And (sit down for this one) there are many women cops. *gasp*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

are capable of doing pretty much anything a man can do, and should be allowed to do whatever they want

---

Except protect themselves, right? They must find big, strong man to protect then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Then at the opposite extreme you have a feminism which posits that whatever differences that exist between men and women are purely cultural and looks down with utmost disdain on those women who assume traditionally female roles and don't mind depending on a man to take care of them physically and financially.

---

The idea that differences between men and women are only cultural is structuralist feminism. The opossite, Essentialist feminism, argues that women are indeed born with inherent traits that make them a woman and different from men, and that those

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

The idea of the stay at home wife is itself a late 19th century middle class pretension. Most women at most points in history (with perhaps the notable exception of the 1950s and 60s in the west) have worked on top of being mothers anyway, because there was no way for the household to stay afloat otherwise. It's a fantasy that the wives of poor people sat around the house taking care of the children, in most cases they would either be doing piece work, working fields, or increasingly in the 19th century they might even be factory workers. The main difference was that women at that time could not gain long-term employment of any value, and most of their labour went unpaid since it was involved in the maintenance of the household and amounted to slave labour for their husband's benefit.

---

There is actually now more of a trend of working women looking down on women who decide to become stay-at-home moms. And it's not any better for stay-at-home dads, either.

Zounds what a thread!

I think the key to swearing is that it’s meant to offend: The person swearing means to offend somebody, either directly or indirectly. And the offended person knows the swearer intended to offend him. And the swearer knows that the offended person knows that the swearer meant to offend…and so it goes. And you just can’t let that sheet slide.

True swearing is tailored to the audience. In certain circles the F-bomb has about as much heft as Zounds has with me. But then again, you can say just about anything to Sancho (the crass bastard), unless he happens to be standing there with his mother, in which case I’ll be forced to defend my mother’s honor by any means necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

How about because it isn't true? Women can protect themselves just fine. Mace, pepper spray, and, get this, they can even use guns. And here's another shocker--women can exercise and become physically fit and even take men in a fight! And (sit down for this one) there are many women cops. *gasp*

Except protect themselves, right? They must find big, strong man to protect then.

---

No, women rarely carry guns or mace while at a bar, a party, at school or walking a street. The average Canadian man outweighs the average woman by 40 pounds, well over double the difference between weight divisions in the ufc. I suppose it is sexist whenever I offer to walk a girl home at night. My neighbourhood is somewhat crime-ridden, I suppose I should be a good feminist and send any female visitors on their way alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

No, women rarely carry guns or mace while at a bar, a party, at school or walking a street. The average Canadian man outweighs the average woman by 40 pounds. I suppose it is sexist whenever I offer to walk a girl home at night. My neighbourhood is somewhat crime-ridden, I suppose I should be a good feminist and send any female visitors on their way alone.

---

You made the claim that all women need the protection of men. That just isn't true. SOME women might, just as weaker men may need the protection of other men, or even women.

Plus, how do you know know women rarely carry mace? Maybe it's different in America, bug there are a lot of women who carry macs or tazers. But that's not really the point. The very fact that the can pokes holes in your claim that women need to be protected by men.

And there's a difference between being a sexist, feminist, and a decent human being, which I think walking woman home falls under. (There really is a straw-man epidemic going around on these boards.) That's being nice, not some sort of admission that you think women are weak. It's safe for two men to walk the streets than one man alone, after all.

What would you have done if someone had said that to you? Or Darcy, what would you have done?

Considering that I'm over 6 ft. tall and over 250 lbs and often sport a rather surly-looking beard there aren't too many guys that would actually take the chance of saying something like that too me.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7203/6...bc62f5ec_z.jpg

My students on the other hand...? We'll they all know we can't touch 'em... We can't cuss at them. The best we can do is write their butts up for an office referral and call their mommas...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi

You made the claim that all women need the protection of men. That just isn't true. SOME women might, just as weaker men may need the protection of other men, or even women.

Plus, how do you know know women rarely carry mace? Maybe it's different in America, bug there are a lot of women who carry macs or tazers. But that's not really the point. The very fact that the can pokes holes in your claim that women need to be protected by men.

And there's a difference between being a sexist, feminist, and a decent human being, which I think walking woman home falls under. (There really is a straw-man epidemic going around on these boards.) That's being nice, not some sort of admission that you think women are weak. It's safe for two men to walk the streets than one man alone, after all.

---

If I had a female friend over I would not let her walk through my neighbourhood alone. A male friend I would not be very concerned. I don't see how this can be controversial. If you had twin 17 year olds, a son and a daughter, and you lived in a rough neighbourhood would you be equally wary of letting your daughter go for a walk after dark as you would be your son?

That original statement of mine you took issue with was an afterthought I added at the end. I did not mean it to stand as an absolute truth but rather as a generalization that in many circumstances holds.

Quote:

---

That's being nice, not some sort of admission that you think women are weak.

---

I made sure to say that I didn't think women are weak, but keep in mind that the record women's bench press is 530 pounds while the men's is 1075.

Here is my original statement:

Quote:

---

Furthermore, women may not be weak, but they will always be in need of good men to protect them from the bad, whether that means a brother or husband acting out of love or a cop just doing his job.

---

Throughout much of our history and even in many instances in our relatively safe and heavily policed western world that statement holds true. How many muggings or assaults or rapes of women might not have happened if that woman had not been walking some dark street alone. One happened not far from my town last Halloween, a young high school girl raped and murdered. I'm not so retarded I think women totally helpless and vulnerable if left to their own devices. But just think of a war-zone or a riot let alone any dark alley in any big city.