It was funny how they turned on Emma Watson. I remember hearing people locally discussing that it was on Sky News one afternoon.
British University bans all offensive words and phrases
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pc gone mad
It was funny how they turned on Emma Watson. I remember hearing people locally discussing that it was on Sky News one afternoon.
Soldato
What happens when these people get offended? Do they cry themselves to sleep that night because someone said the word "whiteboard"?
If so, shouldn't we be treating these people for mental illness instead of catering to their desires?
If so, shouldn't we be treating these people for mental illness instead of catering to their desires?
Soldato
People who don't understand feminism decided that she'd done something un-feminist.
Soldato
Doesn't seem especially practical, an 'equality' rating. Films are only a couple of hours long, hard to fit all the equality in.
Most films are pretty good to white men, it's somewhat unusual for them to be centred on women or other ethnicities. Marking where that is so seems OK to me.
Caporegime
Is your understanding of feminism based on copies of the sun from the 1980s?
In
The rest is just the usual insanity
Indeed, i haven't heard the term Christian name for many years now, it's always been Forename
The rest is just the usual insanity
This feminism thing today, I'm getting the impression this movement is from the people that are not so pretty? The ones I see that are kicking up the stink never seem to be the pretty ones while they seem to hate what the pretty successful ones achieve?
Caporegime
Pretty much, although those are the 3rd wave feminists.
Feminism had its time when the movement did great things for equality, now it's far removed from that with these 3rd wave crazies.
Soldato
How does the feminist Emma Watson, linked in your previous post, fit into that hypothesis?
Soldato
20 years ago people were resistant to the 'pc gone mad' move away from using 'christian name' too.
What's deemed "feminist-friendly" is mentioned in the article:
Engadget said:
Feminist-friendly means two female characters talking about something other than a man. That's all it takes and yet people will still scream that it's sexist.
Soldato
Are non famous feminists kicking up a fuss any more ugly and jealous than any other type of non famous people who like to kick up a fuss about issues?
Can't imagine your average DM-reading PC-gone-mad citizen is typically very attractive. And jealousy is kind of the name of the game for DM readers.
Soldato
Labels, labels, labels. I hate the American approach that instead of trying to dismantle labels instead decides to enshrine them and make everything right with the world by saying how great all the labels are. The European approach to racism was to try and stop people seeing Black and White as significant - to reduce it to the level of someone being blonde or brunette. The American approach - because of their history with slavery and because American Black people were searching around for a cultural status, became one of trumpeting at every opportunity how great it was to be Black. Or homosexual. Or Trans. Or female. Or disabled. Instead of saying "maybe we should stop judging people by some label," the American majority - who are primarily driven by a massive cultural guilt complex - found themselves unable to drop something as meaningless, but had to 'make amends' by doubling-down on those labels and championing them. The natural process of stupid distinctions being eroded away is actively fought against. I myself have been verbally attacked on multiple occasions for saying that race or sex don't matter. My position is the best possible end goal for race and sexual equality. And it is despised by some of the very people who see themselves as champions of those causes.
Anyone who ever refers to me as an "alternative male" is going to get a very black look indeed! (Or perhaps that should be chalk-look at the university of Cardiff?
). I hate such language-mangling because - aside from fouling a language which I love dearly - implies there's something wrong with being a woman that you have to somehow disguise. I don't need euphemisms for being a woman. I'm not ashamed of it.Looks like some over sensitive Doris got her knickers in a twist, should leave the rule making to the men from now on and get back to the kitchen.
Yes. The recorded history of our species is a long string of examples of good decision making. Well done, men!
. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of males who support the Cardiff policy or contribute to such things you know? Are you really *that* confident in this day and age and our culture as it is, that things like this are just coming from women? Hmmm?The masculine version, through common usage, is "house-husband". I knew someone who self-described as that and both he and I were comfortable with the term. It was slightly amusing but didn't feel derogatory.
Tragically and destructively so.
Disabled doesn't refer to someone's function as a human being. It refers to the disablement of some capability - the ability to walk or see or hear. I've had multiple disabled friends and colleagues over the years and they've all been comfortable with the phrase and honestly, I would cringe with embarrassment calling any of them "differently abled". In fact I'm certain that at least two of them would feel pretty bloody patronised by it. Disabled is a simple term, long-used that doesn't overly-focus on someone's condition. I can say someone is disabled when relevant though usually it would be something more specific ("James is in a wheelchair - are there a lot of steps at your building?") because the only reason to bring it up normally is to smooth away the things that make it a problem as simply and as matter-of-factly as possible. But using an awkward and unfamiliar term like "differently abled" feels like it's just shining a spotlight on someone's disability and making a big deal of it. If people with disabilities start preferring "differently abled" then of course I'll use that term. Their wishes trump your mis-attribution of what "disabled" is referring to (a capability rather than someone as a human being). But the only people with disabilities I've come across who dislike the term are the deaf, where there is a specific and militant sub-culture that really hates the term. Frankly, I find the elitism of the sub-culture pretty offensive to other people with disabilities ("Oh, you're disabled but we're just deaf" sort of attitude).
But really, it's up to people with disabilities what they want used so I'm just going to leave that one there for the people in the thread who have a right to say what should be used as I don't. I'm just following what seems to be the state of things to me.
Which is why I, as a feminist, don't freak out about words like "humanity" having the syllable 'man' it it rather than insisting it be "humanorwomanity". Words have history and origins that don't always match up with modern understanding. If you start cutting words apart based on flawed understanding, you're going to butcher the language horribly for no gain. Fight the battles that matter - like how women in many Islamic countries don't get to go to school or have a career - not declare a War on Syllables.
That's very interesting to me. Can you give me an example of that? I'd like to learn more.
Amen to that. This goes right back to how I began this post with the two different approaches to -isms. One side wants to diminish the distinctions and render the labels meaningless. The other wants to solidify the labels (now matter how badly they fit) and make sure both "sides" are properly rewarded. I think it's obvious from this point in my post that I hate the latter approach.
She has given speeches on feminism at the UN and is, quite frankly, someone I greatly admire. She's intelligent, sincere and forthright. The way some so-called feminists have attacked her makes me angry. In the Sixties and Seventies, feminists fought hard for sexual liberation, for women to not be held to some double-standard but to have it accepted that women can also be sexual without being condemned for it. Frankly, that fight is still ongoing. As this whole topic is about language we might as well recognise that whilst there are many stupid examples of language manipulation like Cardiff's guidelines, there also exist actual double-standards and language issues. There's not really a male equivalent to "****" in common usage. N.b., I freely accept that women are as much enforcers of the double-standard as men, I'm just pointing out that the fight for female sexual liberation has been a huge part of feminism that many women have suffered and struggled for. It was a key part of feminism and still is. And now we have people calling themselves feminist whilst attacking one of our best proponents over (very mild) sexual expression.
Emma Watson ran slap-bang headfirst into one of the key divisions in feminism. Which you can sum up with "are strippers empowered or exploited". One group of feminists wants to have the cake, the other group of feminists wants to eat it. Personally, I think what it comes down to is the individual and opportunities. Feminism is, to me, making sure people aren't discriminated against based on their sex. People should be able to do what they want, their abilities willing. Including, should she wish, Ms. Watson dressing how she wants on a magazine cover. I'd lay money if she were a Trans male posing in that outfit on the cover of Vanity Fair the same people would be hailing it as a great triumph.
Feminism still exists and is still important. There are many countries around the world where women are treated very badly because of their sex. There are numerous countries where young girls have their clitorises sliced off. There are cases here in the UK where it has been done. There are still cases of sexual discrimination in the UK often enough - especially in the financial sector in the City of London. It's not gone, it's not solved. But yes, there are increasing numbers of people whose goal no longer seems to be sexual equality yet describing themselves as feminists. It breaks my heart as a lifelong feminist.
I like to think not! V.F. is just repeating the very old and worn idea that women who seek equal opportunity are doing so because they're angry at pretty girls stealing the men. The exact same attitude was expressed about the suffragettes and again in the Fifties suggesting that women who wanted careers were just doing so because they were too ugly to get a husband. It's a stupid, misogynistic attitude long worn out and you already exploded it very adequately with your Emma Watson reply, imo. Thank you.
This has been a very long post for me. It combines several subjects I care about greatly - sexual equality, racial equality, disability prejudice and even the English language (which I love and am very protective of). This obsession with labels and enshrining words as sacrosanct reminds me of an old play / film. For anyone who has the time (it's about six minutes long) the below is strangely appropriate, I think. In 1992 a play was published called Angels in America and later turned into a TV series with Al Pacino, Meryl Streep and Emma Thompson. It was about the AIDS epidemic. It was weird but it was also complex and clever. Shortly after the play, Tom Hanks starred in the movie Philadelphia which was none of these things and played every emotional note with a sledgehammer. Philadelphia ate up academy awards like a pig and I think Angels in America is largely forgotten. However, there's a very powerful scene in it which very much has to do with how labels are used and misused and this whole discussion has brought it to mind. I'll link to the relevant part for any who are interested.
https://youtu.be/98fBiOVEcyI?t=109
Soldato
*Autistic screaming*
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,593
This.
I feel like a lot of these individuals are just bitter people. They just hate everything and look for something to attack. Ever seen hot woman at these rallies? nope me neither.