What constitutes Misogyny?

[brekin]

wintler wrote:

but theres no denying that PC has become an effective attack meme. It occurs to me that there are parrallels with Conspiracy Theorist - both are used to shut down the consideration of inconvenient truths, prevent challenges to the status quo.

I think that is very key. I've noticed many people use PC language to immediately assert their superiority (moral, intellectual, activist, etc) in a dialogue and
anyone who doesn't choose to speak their language is immediately less progessive, enlightened, compassionate etc. I can't remember where I read it but I think
either in the 30's or 50's "politically correct" in most progressive circles originally meant your views were current with the ever changing main line from Moscow.

While much PC language stems from the well intentioned purpose of taking back control of discourse for supposed less oppressive purposes it seems obvious that "non-PC" individuals end up with less individual expression by having to continually explain their choice of words, while the politically correct individual can simply choose from pre-fabricated choices with little to no chance of personal risk. With less risk, comes less spontaneity, freedom and diversity of opinion.

[barracuda]

Blah. Understanding the underlying message and repercussions of the language you choose is hardly an avenue to a lack of freedom or spontaneity. One can slump into using the available cliches on either side of political correctness/incorrectness - that's just laziness. But I'd say in most instances a careful choice of words leads to a fuller expression of thought rather than a stifling, and is generally the riskiest manner of extemporisation. It does, however, require the speaker to actually take responsibility for what is spoken.

[23]

It's all about accommodation. or the willingness to accommodate.

To someone who expresses a sensitivity towards certain words, no sweat... I'll accommodate. To someone who doesn't, I don't feel compelled to.

Different strokes (sensitivities) for different folks.

I don't spend a lot of time assessing if their sensitivities are valid or not.

If I can accommodate 'em, I will.

[brekin]

barracuda wrote:

Blah. Understanding the underlying message and repercussions of the language you choose is hardly an avenue to a lack of freedom or spontaneity. One can slump into using the available cliches on either side of political correctness/incorrectness - that's just laziness. But I'd say in most instances a careful choice of words leads to a fuller expression of thought rather than a stifling, and is generally the riskiest manner of extemporisation. It does, however, require the speaker to actually take responsibility for what is spoken.

I doubt most people who resist being constrained my too much PC talk don't understand the underlying messages and repercussions of
language. In fact they probably understand it all too well and that is why they resist it. They see it as a power game.
I agree about slumping into available cliches and pre-fab words. I'd say it's easier when people are choosing (or limiting) your words for you
on whatever spectrum. Do you think most people who regularly use PC talk are taking responsibility? Or avoiding it? Just to be provocative I'd say
they are avoiding it because they think by trading certain terms they are automatically on the side of the oppressed and not the oppressor any more.

23 wrote:

It's all about accommodation. or the willingness to accommodate.
To someone who expresses a sensitivity towards certain words, no sweat... I'll accommodate. To someone who doesn't, I don't feel compelled to.
Different strokes (sensitivities) for different folks.
I don't spend a lot of time assessing if their sensitivities are valid or not.
If I can accommodate 'em, I will.

I play the accommodation game all the time as I think most others do.
And I think you recognize there is a certain reasonableness involved.
After a certain point accommodation can slide towards appeasement, submission
and then surrender to someone elses preferred reality. Sometimes,
in fact many times, those people can be the most "sensitive". And their
preferred reality is not something that is reasonable. Words are thoughts,
and there are a lot of thoughts I don't want have to run through my mind
to satisfy someone elses usually not very well thought out notions.

[23]

23 wrote:

It's all about accommodation. or the willingness to accommodate.
To someone who expresses a sensitivity towards certain words, no sweat... I'll accommodate. To someone who doesn't, I don't feel compelled to.
Different strokes (sensitivities) for different folks.
I don't spend a lot of time assessing if their sensitivities are valid or not.
If I can accommodate 'em, I will.

I play the accommodation game all the time as I think most others do.
And I think you recognize there is a certain reasonableness involved.
After a certain point accommodation can slide towards appeasement, submission
and then surrender to someone elses preferred reality. Sometimes,
in fact many times, those people can be the most "sensitive". And their
preferred reality is not something that is reasonable. Words are thoughts,
and there are a lot of thoughts I don't want have to run through my mind
to satisfy someone elses usually not very well thought out notions.

You raise an interesting observation. I chose the word accommodation deliberately. It is very distinct from appeasement, submission, surrender, etc.

Speaking only from personal experience, I generally experience the latter sentiments when I attribute a strong pride of authorship to the thought(s) that I want to express. Absent that, they don't appear as much.

[barracuda]

I doubt most people who resist being constrained by too much PC talk don't understand the underlying messages and repercussions of language. In fact they probably understand it all too well and that is why they resist it. They see it as a power game.

Naw - that's an excuse on a number of levels. If you're disgusted with the formulations of available PC-terminology, there are any number of eloquent and satisfying work-arounds. Most people who resist avoiding offensive language simply wish to offend, or feel they don't want to be told how to speak, but are too lazy to form their words in a more specific fashion. The cliche is easy. If you mean something different, then say it. Interpreting bigoted speech isn't some kind of a fox hunt.

I agree about slumping into available cliches and pre-fab words. I'd say it's easier when people are choosing (or limiting) your words for you on whatever spectrum. Do you think most people who regularly use PC talk are taking responsibility? Or avoiding it? Just to be provocative I'd say they are avoiding it because they think by trading certain terms they are automatically on the side of the oppressed and not the oppressor any more.

It's a courtesy, really. A formulaic signifier of good manners and intent. Courtesy is a manner of expression that everyone should expect from themselves, most of the time. I don't recommend tailoring your language to suit anyone's expectations. Just say what you mean with good intent, a characteristic I do, in fact, find to be of great importance. If your heart is in the right place, your words and actions will bear that out.

[JackRiddler]

.

My empirical conclusion after many years of informal observation is that "PC" is

1. not an effective attack "meme" even remotely comparable to "conspiracy theory."

2. Furthermore, it is almost never asserted. It is almost always imputed.

The accusation of "PC" is frequently used to attack, and often quite effectively. In other words, almost no one, ever, accuses others of being politically incorrect. Rather, it goes the other way. In the middle of an argument, the usually losing side suddenly claims they're being subjected to draconian "PC" strictures because they're just innocent little people who aren't elites and never had a racist/sexist thought in their lives, etc. etc.

I'm saying exactly the opposite of brekin, in this case. It's been about 20 years since anyone has seriously demanded the use of "politically correct" language, using that phrase. Even at its height, the use of the phrase was limited to certain college campus subcultures. Their reach was vastly exaggerated. I mean, exaggerated on an astronomical scale, like if their reach was 1, it was called 500,000.

For the most part, this originated with the usual suspects, the kind of people who say ACORN fakes elections rather than Diebold, or who decry the supposed grip on the media of George Soros, not Rupert Murdoch.

Calling someone PC is a shortcut for not having to deal with the substance of what they say. Just like "conspiracy theory."

Oh, my god, in the late 1980s/early 1990s there were efforts on campuses to learn about long-ignored and devalued cultures, to show sensitivity for the feelings of people who identify as something other than white, American, mainstream, to be aware of power and history. There were efforts in workplaces to reduce the still pervasive sexual harrassment. Sometimes there exaggerated behavioral codes were proposed, or ideological opportunists tried to ride the little wave and ban hugging or some such. We keep hearing these stories about some crazy rule, like the 6-year-old boy prosecuted for kissing a girl in his class, and rather than see the force of arbitrary authority as usual, we're supposed to associate that with feminism or leftism. (Like the Unabomber, by the way!)

By the 1990s, the top-down, mainstream cultural reaction to the supposed radical offenses of the 1960s and early 1970s had been in full swing for more than a decade. With the right wing ascendant but angrier than ever, they claimed that American culture was in the grip of "PC" totalitarianism, just as they continued to advance the false claim that media are "liberal" in the sense of leftist. They spoke of PC fascists and yes, feminazis.

Want to dress your racist assumptions as scientific conclusions, Mssrs. Herrnstein and Murray? You should strike that victims' pose yourselves. If anyone critiques your book, have your defenders decry how they're just brainwashed by political correctness and deny science and progess.

The right pose to strike was to pretend you were wildly politically incorrect. You still gets points for this today. Oh, how daring, your commercial grinds up babies! You're a macho man, Ted Nugent! Or you're a tolerant woman, and you won't let some comparative literature professors tell you what language to use.

This passed into the mainstream culture (thanks in part to media pandering). Everyone was proud not to be "politically correct." Remember, Bill Maher's first show was called Politically Incorrect. Damn he's so fucking daring, he's a maverick!

So now the phrase is used promiscuously to attack -- just like conspiracy theory. In fact, the two are commonly used by the same attackers:

"I know it's politically incorrect to fly our flag with pride, by golly by gum, but I'm not going to let these conspiracy theorists blame the victims and excuse the terrorists!" The image of besieged patriots!

.

[brekin]

brekin wrote:
I doubt most people who resist being constrained by too much PC talk don't understand the underlying messages and repercussions of language. In fact they probably understand it all too well and that is why they resist it. They see it as a power game.

barracuda wrote:
Nah - that's an excuse on a number of levels. If you're disgusted with the formulations of available PC-terminology, there are any number of eloquent and satisfying work-arounds. Most people who resist avoiding offensive language simply wish to offend, or feel they don't want to be told how to speak, but are too lazy to form their words in a more specific fashion. The cliche is easy. If you mean something different, then say it. Interpreting bigoted speech isn't some kind of a fox hunt.

I agree there are more eloquent and satisfying work-arounds but I don't see many people extending the courtesy you speak of to people they believe
don't speak PC. Or even sometimes people who use the "eloquent satisfying work-arounds". See the fox hunt isn't in "intepreting bigoted speech" but in ferreting out the supposed bigots. How do we discover them? By seeing who doesn't conform to a finer and finer obtuse double speak that becomes more and more personalized over time. Really, it is courtesy. The end of they day you have to ask is my attempt to use and pressure others (harass even) to use an un-offensive mode of speech offending well-meaning others?

It's a courtesy, really. A formulaic signifier of good manners and intent. Courtesy is a manner of expression that everyone should expect from themselves, most of the time. I don't recommend tailoring your language to suit anyone's expectations. Just say what you mean with good intent, a characteristic I do, in fact, find to be of great importance. If your heart is in the right place, your words and actions will bear that out.

This from Mr. Blah and Nah? That is a beautiful sentiment. barracuda in all serious I suggest you may want to read your quote to yourself above before you post sometimes. You have a great mind, but as for courtesy? I'd say your more in the dismissive intellectual model then expansive host. But I'm not about consensus, so shine on you crazy diamond.

[brekin]

Jack Riddler wrote:

My empirical conclusion after many years of informal observation is that "PC" is

1. not an effective attack "meme" even remotely comparable to "conspiracy theory."

2. Furthermore, it is almost never asserted. It is almost always imputed.

The accusation of "PC" is frequently used to attack, and often quite effectively.

I'm saying exactly the opposite of brekin, in this case. It's been about 20 years since anyone has seriously demanded the use of "politically correct" language, using that phrase. Even at its height, the use of this phrase was limited to certain college campus subcultures. Their reach was vastly exaggerated. For the most part, this originated with the usual suspects, the kind of people who think ACORN fakes elections, not Diebold, or who decry the supposed grip on the media of George Soros, not Rupert Murdoch.

Oh, my god, there were efforts on campuses to learn about ignored cultures, to show sensitivity for the feelings of people who identify as something other than white, American, mainstream, to be aware of power and history, and in workplaces to reduce the still pervasive sexual harrassment. At that point, cultural reaction to the supposed radical offenses of the 1960s and early 1970s had been in full swing for more than a decade. With the right wing ascendant but angrier than ever, they claimed that American culture was in the grip of "PC" totalitarianism, just as they continued to advance the false claim that media are "liberal" in the sense of leftist. They spoke of PC fascists and yes, feminazis. Want to dress your racist assumptions as scientific conclusions, Mssrs. Herrnstein and Murray? You should strike that victims' pose yourselves. If anyone critiques your book, have your defenders decry how they're just brainwashed by political correctness and hate science and progess.

The right pose to strike was to pretend you were wildly politically incorrect. You still gets points for this today. Oh, how daring, your commercial grinds up babies! You're a macho man or a tolerant woman who wasn't going to let some comparative literature professors tell you what language to use. This passed into the mainstream culture (thanks in part to media pandering). Everyone was proud not to be "politically correct." Remember, Bill Maher's first show was called Politically Incorrect. Damn he's so fucking daring, he's a maverick!

So now the phrase is used promiscuously to attack -- just like conspiracy theory. In fact, the two are commonly used by the same attackers. "I know it's politically incorrect to fly our flag with pride, by golly by gum, but I'm not going to let these conspiracy theorists blame the victims and excuse the terrorists!" The image of besieged patriots!

Jack, you provide some obvious talking points and provide a very nice condensed cultural history of PC. However I think your framing is too dualistic.
Almost Manichaein. The problem with critiquing PC at all is, you automatically have to go defensive and qualify everything with still how progressive you
are and still how anti-ism one is. Is it possible to think PC talk is counter-productive, a petty attempt at minor discourse turf wars instead of real action or analysis, the sometimes shtick of passive-aggressive individuals who want to dominate under the guise of enlightened inclusiveness, and still on be on the side of the angels (woman's rights, minority rights, etc.).

No doubt people have smeared unfairly and taken advantage of PC on both sides, but could that maybe because PC is such a useful idiot?

[barracuda]

The end of they day you have to ask is my attempt to use and pressure others (harass even) to use an un-offensive mode of speech offending well-meaning others?

Pointing out impropriety is perfectly proper in most contexts, though some people may take affront when you ask them to please stop spitting on you while they're speaking.

This from Mr. Blah and Nah? That is a beautiful sentiment. barracuda in all serious I suggest you may want to read your quote to yourself above before you post sometimes. You have a great mind, but as for courtesy? I'd say your more in the dismissive intellectual model then expansive host. But I'm not about consensus, so shine on you crazy diamond.

It's true that I am dismissive regarding your concern on behalf of the more sensitive purveyors of offensive and ignorant language. But that dismissiveness actually is a courtesy - the courtesy of not wasting your time. Brevity and directness have their charms.

[brekin]

barracuda wrote:

brekin wrote:
The end of they day you have to ask is my attempt to use and pressure others (harass even) to use an un-offensive mode of speech offending well-meaning others?

Pointing out impropriety is perfectly proper in most contexts, though some people may take affront when you ask them to please stop spitting on you while they're speaking.

I agree. I think you could see then if one finds some impropriety involved with PC talk you would recognize their right to address it. I
think you could appreciate the implied baggage that would cause and how most would shy from bothering with it.

barracuda wrote:

It's true that I am dismissive regarding your concern on behalf of the more sensitive purveyors of offensive and ignorant language. But that dismissiveness actually is a courtesy - the courtesy of not wasting your time.

See, I think the problem it is rather easy to label someone as "sexist, racist, etc" by considering their language offensive and ignorant if they don't
use the exact language one uses. And it becomes quite hard to defend oneself from such a charge. I've seen this happen lately in a few threads (not by you) and that is worrisome to me, and discussing it I think is a good use of ones time. Although it being Friday...

[JackRiddler]

See, I think the problem it is rather easy to label someone as "sexist, racist, etc" by considering their language offensive and ignorant if they don't
use the exact language one uses. And it becomes quite hard to defend oneself from such a charge. I've seen this happen lately in a few threads (not by you) and that is worrisome to me, and discussing it I think is a good use of ones time. Although it being Friday...

Except that I think this happens relatively infrequently compared to the number of times that people read such accusations preemptively. An example of the real political correctness is that you can barely talk about race in this country for all the people who seize up and right away feel personally accused (no doubt often with good reason).

.

[hava1]

Looking at where this is heading, just qualifying my rant, to a nuance.

The "Jack Riddler" comment opens the lense to nudie bars in Alabama, not my intention to join that crowd.

In a specific crowd that professes PC/Anti fascism/conspiracy theory, there are no checks and balances sometimes, and language acrobatics gets carried away. The good guys are so sure they are innately morally impeccable, they sometimes make huge mistakes.

This board also has a history, and I am refering to a very context specific situation.
--

outa here...

[JackRiddler]

The "Jack Riddler" comment opens the lense to nudie bars in Alabama, not my intention to join that crowd.

Huh? Before you go can you explain this to me? Thanks.

[hava1]

I havent read this thread, except here and there, so maybe this is redundant, but I saw that Jeff added a prohibition to discuss "feminism as NWO". Well, in my region, the Middle Ease that is, by and large, without calling it NWO, the theory is mainstream, even among middle classes, seemingly liberal groups. Its too bad those concepts cannot even be mentioned as in "lets dissect and refute" them. It kind of narrows it down to white christians, more or less.

Both Islam and Judaism, as a culture are resisting the premise of feminism in many ways, although accepting the general tenets of "improving the status of women". It sounds contradictory, but I guess that';s the best rough decription I can come up with for now.

The tendency to view feminism with suspicion is growing among ISraeli Jews with the trend to seek some form of "traditional religious identity" here.