NOTE: Today is Day Two of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.
Thanks! (And thanks again to all who’ve already donated.) Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
So the other day, the atheist blogger Rebecca Watson, aka Skepchick, had this little conversation on Twitter:
Watson, you may recall, got herself onto the Men’s Rights radar a few months back, after a brief comment she made in a podcast — suggesting that perhaps it wasn’t such a good idea for a guy to hit on woman he’s never spoken to before while the two of them are alone in an elevator at 4 AM – somehow turned into a Big Fucking Thing on the Internet, because how dare she say such a thing, it’s creep-shaming, she must hate men, bla bla bla.
So, anyhoo, one Men’s Rights Reddit noticed this little Twitter exchange, and posted it to the Men’s Rights subreddit. And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. MRAs hating women? How dare she suggest such a thing!
Here are some of the things that assorted Men’s Rights Redditors posted in response, to remind us all that the Men’s Rights movement isn’t all about shitting on women. Let’s start with this lovely rebuttal, boasting nearly 60 net upvotes:
This comment inspired a long and winding discussion of the word “cunt,” and why it’s like totally ok to use it all the time, because in England the UK people call men “cunts” as well.
Some got a little carried away:
This little exchange came with a side order of irony:
Speaking of fantasy, here’s a strange bit of paranoia, which nonetheless drew upvotes from the very same people who are outraged that Watson was a bit creeped out by a dude she didn’t know asking her to come to his hotel room at 4 AM:
And here’s still more evidence that MRAs, despite their many egregious flaws, do at least have vivid imaginations:
Some other comments, all of which got at least a few upvotes from the MR regulars:
Let’s end with this eloquent plea for people to not give a shit if MRAs hate women:
The folks in the Men’s Rights subreddit are currently debating whether or not to change the subreddit’s slogan, which is currently: “Mens’ Rights: Earning Scorn from Bigoted Feminists and White Knights Since 2008.”
So let me humbly suggest:
Mens’ Rights: Like it’s even relevant if mens rights is anti women in regard to if mens rights is a movement about addressing mens issues.
Or the even punchier:
Men’s Rights: i’m tired of not using the term “cunt”.
MRAs, you’re welcome.
Wait, wait, wait… I’ve got it! Steers thinks that misogyny only means hatred of the classification “women,” rather than.. you know… women. As if, when a misogynist thinks that women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, the misogynist would be happy to let this woman have a job and a career and an independent life.
This is too stupid for words… And yet I’m drawn like a moth to a candle flame.
@Steersman:
Seems like you are, yet again, wrong. You are in the habit of denying a particular definition exists (one specifically referring to women, and in fact is disparaging because calling someone a woman is an insult). Others are in the habit of recognizing that a particular definition does exist, alongside the rest. One of these is glaringly obvious, the other is willfully obtuse.
(hint: you are the obtuse one)
This is just gold…
Yes, it is. Because “cunt” is singular. Having a singular word refer to a plural group is just bad grammar.
(everybody do the goalpost dance! Shimmy to the left, shimmy to the right. Refuse to acknowledge your opponents points while pretending you agreed with them all along but had a slightly more specific objection that they haven’t addressed yet and fight fight fight!)
kirbywarp,
Seems like you are, yet again, wrong. You are in the habit of denying a particular definition exists (one specifically referring to women, and in fact is disparaging because calling someone a woman is an insult).
No. The insult is because of the “obnoxious” part, not the “woman” part. Although you seem to think otherwise. Personally I would be a lot more offended at being called obnoxious – although only if it was justified – than being called a member of a particular group.
Steersman, that’s why it’s called a slur. Because it associates something bad with a particular group.
Steersman,
my dictionary says:
offensive: a woman
Sounds like you’re the one insisting on the idiosyncratic definition.
Everyone else,
anyone playing CUNTO? I’ve spotted N1, U4, C4, C3, and N3 so far…
kirbywarp,
Yes, it is. Because “cunt” is singular. Having a singular word refer to a plural group is just bad grammar.
Go to the head of the class Junior; yes, it is singular. But do check the definition again:
Offensive slang: a mean or obnoxious person
Note the “person” which, if I’m not mistaken, is singular; the word is not referring to any “plural group”. You are the one who is insisting that the word “cunt” is applying to all women; not me; not the Editors of the Collins English Dictionary or the American Heritage one.
This one will fill up the whole bingo card soon. He’s obtuseness cubed.
Snowy,
Steersman, that’s why it’s called a slur. Because it associates something bad with a particular group.
Noooo …. It – at least many published definitions of the word – associates something bad – obnoxiousness – with one, singular, individual person – generally a woman, but not always.
Ponkz:
Indeed. And while it’s almost exclusively a term of abuse directly south of the Scottish border, whether or not it’s misogynist depends on context. My wife and I both frequently refer to the present Education Minister Michael Gove as a cunt, and Googling the name and the expletive produces 56,600 results, some of the linked pages expressing that opinion in their very title.
Now that’s clearly not misogynist – but calling a woman a cunt usually is, unless there are clear mitigating circumstances (for instance, sarcasm or satire, or – in some but not all cases – usage by a woman). And I can’t think of a plausible non-misogynist interpretation of the usage of the word “cunt” in the examples quoted in the OP.
Yes – it depends on context, and the context is very rarely especially hard to divine. Which is why I’m puzzled as to why Steersman is being so peculiarly obtuse over this – especially as he’s already lost this argument once already.
Feel free to mentally delete a redundant ‘already’ in that last sentence.
CassandraSays,
This one will fill up the whole bingo card soon. He’s obtuseness cubed.
I might say the same about you. And you don’t even have a printed definition to support your case. But have you ever taken a look at the spinning dancer illusion?
Haha, I see your extra o’s and I raise you a few more. Nooooooo latest troll, it is a slur against women. Pick and choose your definitions all you want.
Well, Cassandra, he hasn’t moved onto the point that cunt is a marked word; it is used to denigrate women wholesale as a oppressed group. And in such instances it most certainly gets pluralised. But that would be a feminist, anti-patriarchal interpretation, and I’m sure Steerstroll has all sorts of intellectual arguments to trot out to say that women aren’t oppressed! Or that language hasn’t been used to oppress people, or that it can’t hurt, sticks and stones and whatnot. (Angling for more bingo squares)
You’ve already been given plenty of printed definitions, trollboy. If you want to continue playing dumb then hey, go ahead, and we will keep making fun of you for it.
This is getting dull. We need a more interesting class of troll.
@ Xanthe
Apparently he’s now moved on to the “NO U” stage of his argument.
Yeah, this troll is so far up his own backside it’s a wonder his head isn’t reappearing out of his mouth.
Careful now. That comment refers to asses, which are apparently a male-specific trait in Trollandia.
See, when it says “a woman,” rather than (or in addition to) “a person,” it means that “woman” as a category is a key part; that women are more the target of the slur than others. This means that it is used as a slur against a woman because she is a woman.
Steersman, what non-misogynistic reason would you have for wanting to associate obnoxiousness with women?
@CassandraSays:
You just know he’s gonna pull out something like “If you’ll recall, it was Kirbywarp who gave the definitions, not you. Therefore I was correct when I said you don’t even have a printed definition.”
Printed definition… Is he now saying that internet definitions now aren’t good enough for him, that it needs to be on paper?
Hmm… Just saying “moving goalposts” isn’t quite profound enough…
There we go. 🙂
Oh, I quite like asses: apart from being nice to look at, if we didn’t have them, you’d have an internal blockage and ruptured intestines or something terrible. But yes, my point was that the linguistic contortions Steerstroll is employing to make his point resembles him trying to turn himself into a human Klein bottle.
Polliwog,
So, to be clear, Steer, if you call just one black person a n*gg*r, that’s not a slur, by your argument?
A good question – sort of, anyway. For starters, I see that “slur” means “a disparaging remark” so I can’t see that that is really the issue or is particularly relevant. It seems that both “c*nt” and “prick” (curious that one has to be coy about spelling out the word in the first case – are there children in the room? – but not the second) are generally defined as an “obnoxious person” [of either sex in some cases]. But “n*gg*r” seems not to have any qualifying adjectives which presumably makes it applicable to all members of that race. Although I notice that one definition has a relevant quote:
“You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nigger” (James Baldwin).
Which suggests some implicit connotations or adjectives, the primary ones which seem to be related to various forms of obsequious behaviour: Uncle Tom and Stepin Fetchit for examples. In which case calling a person – frequently a Black but periodically members of other races – a “nigger” may or may not be applicable depending on that person’s behaviour but it most certainly can’t be construed as applying to any whole race. And really idiocy – IMHO – to think that it is.
How about calling just one gay person a f*gg*t?
See Baldwin’s previous statement. Although there I’m not sure off-hand what attribute of those individuals is deemed particularly odious as the dictionaries don’t give any clues or suggestions. And to argue that all of any group is anything seems simply to be ignorant. Although I’ll have to give that one some more thought.
What, in fact, would qualify as a slur?
Really not a question, I think, whether something is an insult or not – of course all three words are insults, disparaging comments. The question is whether its application to one individual necessarily means that it applies to all members of a group whose members happen to share some attribute in common with the insulted person. And what attribute in particular is being considered particularly reprehensible.
kirbywarp,
This means that it is used as a slur against a woman because she is a woman.
If that was the case then “obnoxious” wouldn’t be a qualifier.
Steersman, what non-misogynistic reason would you have for wanting to associate obnoxiousness with women?
If “prick” didn’t also have “obnoxiousness” as a key and defining feature then you might have a case, but otherwise, no. Not obnoxious because being a woman but simply obnoxiousness that happens to be found in one particular woman. Or man as the case may be.
Gee, I just discovered more Steerscrap at the ‘Choice in Dying’ blog, which is where he patronised and insulted Ophelia Benson at length (presumably the reason why he then turned up at her blog). Call the language police! This guy’s a serial abuser of dictionaries. Bingo!
@Steersman:
blegh… It’s late and I need to go to bed… you really can’t argue with someone who’s this thick about language. Not only are you ignoring a history of women’s oppression behind the word, not only are you completely oblivious to the idea of a slur, but you are also frighteningly intent on missing the point of including “woman” in the definition at all.
And no, it isn’t included because of some simple statistical thing where more women are called a cunt than men, it’s because of the fact that the target was historically women, both reducing women to their genitals in an effort to suppress them (implying they are only good for babies) and associating various pejoratives with them (also a well-known and widely-employed oppressive tactic).
Ah well, at the end of the day, we have a troll who thinks that dictionaries know how people use words better than the actual people do. If you wanna keep debating, Steers-old-buddy, I’m not doing it under this idiotic framing you’ve set up.