British University bans all offensive words and phrases

[CREATIVE!11]

The article reminds me of this gem.

This is exactly the kind of insanity i'm talking about. Some people will go "haha it's just a joke mate calm down, probably fake", no... no it's not. They are 100% serious.

 

[Tunney]

Would be interesting to see the box office performance of "female focussed" films.

I tend to believe the market will be delivering the kind of films people want to see and there aren't more of those sorts of films purely because there's more money to be made elsewhere.

Creative industries are really difficult to analyse. 90% of the output is a commercially unsuccessful and propped up by a handful of runaway hits. Often what's critically acclaimed isn't commercially successful either.

IMDB allowing viewers to make a more informed choice can only be a good thing though.

 

[cheesyboy]

It was a mys

Unreal.

It was a misogynistic statement, to be fair.

 

[diamount]

A lot of ********** in here.

 

[Angilion]

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.

Feminism has never been any different in that respect. Take the most famous feminist ever in the UK - Christabel Pankhurst. She was a violent seperatist who thought (or at least claimed to think) that men were engaged in a secret biological war against women. Absolutely a crazy. You can also find examples of people taking on the label "feminist" and pretending feminism wasn't really feminism and that the feminists running the show were just a tiny fringe and feminism wasn't like that really. Same as today. They were making the same "distinction" you're making at least as far back as the 1920s (e.g. Winifred Holtby's writing about "old feminism" and "new feminism") and they were just as wrong then.

What's different is the usual rosy spectacles and history being written by the victors.

No, that's not quite true. Modern feminism is less physically violent towards men (as a movement - individuals can of course be violent) than the earlier strains you (and many others) wrongly think were about equality.

 

[Angilion]

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.

If you mean that, why do you define and describe and label yourself as a feminist, i.e. an advocate of one sex? That obviously requires believing that everyone is defined by their sex - you can't advocate for one sex without viewing humanity as being defined into two groups - the "right" sex and not the "right" sex. That is very much the enshrining and doubling down on labels and championing the "right" label(s) that you have just eloquently opposed.

I've been verbally attacked on multiple occasions for saying that sex is irrelevant in almost all circumstances and that race isn't even a real thing. By feminists, mainly. Sometimes by masculists/MRAs/whatever, which isn't surprising since they are the same as feminists/WRAs/whatever. Sometimes by racists, but they're usually feminists first and foremost.

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.

Referring to men as "failed women" would be more likely, given which ideology is dominant. We're already at the stage where "everyone knows" (i.e. it's commonly believed to be true even though it isn't) that all humans are initially female and male people (or "males" as they're increasingly referred to in order to avoid calling them people) are a later side-road. Not far to go from that to male=failed to be female.

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.

In common usage, yes, but the etymology doesn't match up and that niggles at me. It should be "housewere". Also, "househusband" should be considered an ungendered term because in terms of language it is ungendered. Ahah! So that's what could replace "housewife"! "Househusband" for everyone who looks after a house, since that's what the word means.

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.

When it's used to refer to a person, it refers to a person. When it's used to refer to some capability, it refers to some capability. It's almost always used to refer to a person.

I acknowledge that using the word incorrectly is common and thus from a strictly descriptive point of view the incorrect usage is now the correct usage. But it grates on me that the most insulting way to refer to a person is the one that is expected and required.

"handicapped" was a much better word, since it means "carrying an extra weight". Originally literally, but the meaning expanded to cover anything that would be any kind of hindrance.

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.

If a person specifies a term for themself, I'll go along with it. If they specify a term for millions of people because they want the same label applied to them, I won't. Either way, I'll retain my own opinion and continue to think I have a right to one.

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.

In addition to that, it's a parading of ignorance. The 'man' syllable in 'humanity' has no known relationship to the word 'man'. It's highly plausible that there was a link in prehistory, but of course that can't be tested. It might be complete coincidence. There are a limited number of convenient syllables. 'human' comes from Latin, 'man' from German and they both predate any known contact between the two languages. They both had the same meaning ("person") so a prehistoric connection does seem likely.

As a feminist, you should be advocating for female people only in everything, including language. Perhaps especially language, since language shapes thought and thought shapes everything else.

That's very interesting to me. Can you give me an example of that? I'd like to learn more.

'wergild' is what comes to my mind immediately. It was a fine imposed for wrongdoing against a male person, first established in the Anglo-Saxon period in an attempt to reduce the amount of blood feuding. It was specifically about male people. The fines for wrongdoing against a female person were different (and smaller - sexism was rather common at the time).

 

[Angilion]

Based on your statements about women being feminist as a result of being unattractive to men, yes. I am. I thought that would be clear.

Well, that's nonsense.

If I said that I thought most whitists were ugly, would you think I hated "whites"?

I think VF is wrong, but your assumption that he hates women because he thinks most feminists are ugly just doesn't follow.

 

[scorza]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-un...ing-low-sweet-chariot-ignorant-expropriation/

England Rugby Union fans are disgusting, racist, cultural appropriators for singing Swing Low, Sweet Chariot according to a US University. Article also mentions a prominent member of the British Labour Party suggesting that Welsh RU fans are no better than prostitute murderers for singing Delilah. Happy days...

 

[krooton]

The fact is that now it's infecting Hollywood, it's ruined a number of young female actresses. It's the reason we got that god-awful Ghostbusters movie last year, every major movie that isn't a superhero movie has a female lead in the last couple of years, Emma Watson has lost her marbles and now Chloë Grace Moretz has gone feminist and pulled out all of her up coming movies. She was going to be in the live action remake of The Little Mermaid but pulled out of it because it didn't fit in with her new feminist view of the world :/

To be fair, The Little Mermaid is the most messed up Disney movie when looking at the message it sends to little girls.

Alter your body and make sacrifices to be with the handsome man that you don't know at all. 0_o

 

[Vonhelmet]

To be fair, The Little Mermaid is the most messed up Disney movie when looking at the message it sends to little girls.

Alter your body and make sacrifices to be with the handsome man that you don't know at all. 0_o

Most Disney films are pretty sketchy in terms of the roles women have.

 

[krooton]

Most Disney films are pretty sketchy in terms of the roles women have.

Oh I know, but this, and "Stockholm Syndrome and the Beast" are the worst offenders

 

[FortuitousFluke]

Oh I know, but this, and "Stockholm Syndrome and the Beast" are the worst offenders

[Devil's Advocate] Ah the film where a societies preconceptions about an individual influenced both his sense of self and his actions? Essentially the shunning of the beast led him to devolve to meet societies expectations of him, inclusivity and acceptance finally allowed him to break free from the metaphorical shackles placed on him by the regressive and antagonistic townsfolk. [/Devils Advocate]

I quite like that Disney films are a bit twisted and can be interpreted in a number of different ways, of course there is the strong possibility that we're all over analysing what is effectively a cartoon for kids.

In terms of gender roles the previous poster was spot on though.

 

[mejinks]

Cardiff Met isn't a proper University. Its a sinkhole for the vocational achievers staffed by hard left marxists who believe that its more important to teach women studies than actual subjects.

 

[Drizmod]

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?

If you've ever seen pics or videos of the S1ut walks this is completely true.

 

[Vonhelmet]

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?

Maybe the "pretty ones" don't mind a system that works to their advantage. They're quislings in all this.

 

[Drizmod]

How does the feminist Emma Watson, linked in your previous post, fit into that hypothesis?

Is she really a feminist or did her PR firm advise her to attach herself to a cause that might give her publicity at a time when her career wasn't going the way she was anticipating?

 

[cheesyboy]

Is she really a feminist or did her PR firm advise her to attach herself to a cause that might give her publicity at a time when her career wasn't going the way she was anticipating?

When has her career been a problem?

 

[Drizmod]

When has her career been a problem?

I dunno. When was she last in anything successful before the upcoming Beauty & the Beast? Serious question I've not seen her anywhere since Harry Potter.

 

[krooton]

[Devil's Advocate] Ah the film where a societies preconceptions about an individual influenced both his sense of self and his actions? Essentially the shunning of the beast led him to devolve to meet societies expectations of him, inclusivity and acceptance finally allowed him to break free from the metaphorical shackles placed on him by the regressive and antagonistic townsfolk. [/Devils Advocate]

I quite like that Disney films are a bit twisted and can be interpreted in a number of different ways, of course there is the strong possibility that we're all over analysing what is effectively a cartoon for kids.

In terms of gender roles the previous poster was spot on though.

It also conveys a message that women should try to 'fix' broken men

 

[cheesyboy]

I dunno. When was she last in anything successful before the upcoming Beauty & the Beast? Serious question I've not seen her anywhere since Harry Potter.

Noah did rather well, and her smaller projects were mostly well received (I enjoyed Perks of Being a Wallflower)