| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2003 : 08:08:25
|
| Oh yeah, kudos just means something like 'good job'. |
 |
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6194 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2003 : 06:51:53
|
no I didn't do anything
of course
Uhm are you sure the last name is Ter Voert
Or does it only sound like that?
I mean is this the right spelling
Because it's unusual. But I have to admit I don't know
all the dutch last names. There are 16 million people over here
so it could be right
''it's not a box, it's a submarine'' |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2003 : 08:12:41
|
| Ya it is spelled Ter-Voert, its not my last name but it is for a lot of my relatives. I was just curious to see if that is a common last name. |
|
|
|
blackpurse
= Cult of Ray =
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2003 : 10:43:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by billgoodman
carolynanna,
I'm sorry, I do admit women have suffered from society standards and stuff, we men oww the women big time and we can never call it even.
But what you wrote is a bit too much in my opinion.
You maybe got a point and all, but those words don't have that meaning any more, they did have and maybe with the wrong reasons you mentioned.
[snip snip]
Feminist's should fight the more serious problems, like
the lack of women in the top-bussiness. Or in Hospitals where all treaded like a nurse even when they're a doctor.
But I guess the feminist's already do that and so they should.
[snip snip]
Just a few thoughts -- a) it seems to me that Carolynanna was trying to explain the history of why the c-word (which to some, is as equally hurtful and offensive as the n-word) has the sting as it does. And it still has that sting. I've said it before in this forum, when talking about across-the-board issues, people need to get out of these academic ivory towers we seem to be in. In the real world, today still, you mention "cunt" to a lot of women, and it stings. Really stings, the way "nigger" stings a black person. (Randall Kennedy's "Nigger - the Strange History of a Troublesome Word" should be required reading, and a similar lexicology of "cunt" would be a good research project).
b) When you become a woman, and deal with our issues first hand, then you can have a hand in deciding what our agenda should be. Until then, you would do well to lay off the "feminists should do this... feminists should do that" language, if only because it really comes off as condescending. You have never been called a cunt. You have not faced this kind of discrimination. Oh, there's a bit of gender-based job discrimination out there, but face it, as a man you don't know the half of it. And you skipped a whole slew of issues that don't apply to you because (presumably) you have not faced them, leaving me to question just how qualified you are to be determining my gender's political agenda. You have never been in fear that your "lover" might beat the crap out of you if you try to leave, or even express an opinion. You have never had to explain to an athletic director why your daughter is entitled to participate in sports in a publicly funded school under title IX, and why her participation is just as important as some star football player's. -- and then be called a "bitch" for simply asserting yours (or your daughter's) rights under the law. What I'm trying to say is that until you've walked a mile in our shoes, don't be telling us whether or not the heels are too high.
Language IS an EXTREMELY powerful tool for both good and evil -- it IS used against women and if explaining how certain words can hurt us and demean us puts a dent in that, then working on language is indeed an important and crucial part of the feminist agenda. Language is another tool that oppressors use to keep their victims down. Think Hitler's use of words to turn hatred against the Jews. Think of how words are used to keep blacks, jews, women, the list goes on and on and history shows us again and again that the oppression BEGINS with language.
Just a few thoughts, not trying to stomp on you.
|
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6194 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2003 : 11:17:03
|
I'm sorry
Let's stop this discussion
But I guess I get a say
when it comes to feminist should do this
and feminist should do that.
Ok I'm no woman
But do you I have to
What's the pure meaning of being a feminist?
Is it I'm a woman and the guys are bad...
Then I will bugger off
Is it we're all people and we should respect
eachother and stop the unfairness when it comes to sexuality
Maybe men en women should work together on this one
I mean that's the only way it can work
Women have made clear that there was something wrong last century
alright? Abortion, Pill (you know the unpregnant thing), the right to vote, etc. And I guess they had great results. But not enough! And we (men and women) should work those out together. I'm serious....
Ohh yeah,
I've never been called a cunt because over here
we don't say cunt to a person
here we say cunt as in shit
which is no good, of course! (But's no way as bad calling a person a cunt or pussy)
But in Holland
Mean Girls are called 'trut' (=bitch)
Mean Guys are called 'lul' (a very ugly word for penis, worse than dick) or 'Klootzak'(you know that sack the balls are in) or 'Hondenlul'(which means Dogpenis)
When men are weak we call him a 'Homo' (as in homosexual)
or in general when a man does something wrong we call him a
'gay'
So over here it's not that kind of an issue
There are more penis words
then vagina words
and the penis words are called to men
and the vagina words are called in general
as in shit. That's shitty music is called Kutmuziek (vaginamusic, which is awfull but women and men say it, it's not compairable to the english situation)
I really think the problem over here is
the discrimination of gays.
and please don't ever say
'Oh, there's a bit of gender-based job discrimination out there, but face it, as a man you don't know the half of it'
that just hurt me
I mean it
I'm only trying to understand
But if you say I shouldn't try to understand it
because I'm a man
That's ok...
But that's where discrimination is born (misunderstoodment, if that's a word)
It's of the benefit of women and men that the job discrimination ends.
So I can do my cleaning and help old handicaped people
and that my girlfriend can be a manager of an oil company or run for president.
''it's not a box, it's a submarine'' |
Edited by - billgoodman on 05/20/2003 11:30:27 |
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6194 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2003 : 11:25:22
|
quote:
But I guess the feminist's already do that and so they should
I didn't really say feminist's shouldn't complain about the swears
and badnames people are called which are related to the female gender
I said they should attack other problems, but after that I said this quote, which actually means: Forget this post, I'm telling feminist what to do, when they're already do it. And so they should.
''it's not a box, it's a submarine'' |
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2003 : 11:45:55
|
Mostly I was just trying to bring attention to the fact that when swearing (to insult others), a great deal of the words tend to be derogatory to females and/or something to do with their genitalia. Especially when males are insulting other males. It is definitly not a coincidence that these words are chosen.
Jop, things and phrases may be quite different in North America than they are in the Netherlands, these things I don't know |
|
|
|
blackpurse
= Cult of Ray =
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2003 : 11:57:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by billgoodman
quote:
But I guess the feminist's already do that and so they should
First, if I came off as hurtful, I sincerely apologize, I certainly didn't mean to do so. But I do stand by my assertion that those being directly affected by certain sociopolitical issues should be the ones determining the shape and priority of the agenda to do something about them. For instance, I don't tell black people what the racially-based civil rights agenda should be. Why not? Because I'm white. I can only take a vague GUESS as to how it feels to be called a "nigger" with all the baggage attached to that word. And whether that is more of a problem for me than knowing that if my first name was a ethnic sounding name like Shaniqua my resume would be passed over for a Mary or a Bill (as proved in a recent University of Chicago study). Being white, being middle class, I really don't know what my priority is in that case. So I'm not about to say "Blacks should worry more about this."
And carolynanna's right -- we come from two very different environments -- I spose if we spent some time in each other's countries we'd both have a ferocious case of culture shock. I'm just trying to help explain the significance of using certain words, and how they do indeed fit into the big picture. Maybe this one doesn't do anything in your country, but it does here. And the original objection to referring to Madonna as just some lame cunt was indeed offensive because it reduces her (as the original writer of this topic apparently intended) to one part of her anatomy in a vulgar fashion, blaming her inability to make a recording that the poster deemed worthy simply on her gender and used gender-based words and assumptions to make his point, thus reducing his credibility in that post.
In the meantime, I highly recommend the book I referenced in my post, Randall Kennedy's "Nigger -- the strange history of a troublesome word." It helped me to somewhat understand just how big of a sting one stinkin' word can make. Especially as a white person, I knew this word was bad, but this book makes the case for how powerful one epithet can be. Kennedy is a (I think federal court of appeals) judge, fairly high ranking in this country, and his approach is naturally legal, but he does touch on the cultural. I tend to be sensitive to language/words because it is partically how I make my living. So in theory from my perspective, if words mean nothing, then my vocation is meaningless!!!!
I do appreciate your detailed thoughts on the subject. Like I said, just wanted to give you something to chew on. Friends? |
|
|
|
billgoodman
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Netherlands
6194 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2003 : 12:19:59
|
Friends Forever!
I'm gonna burn all my Stranglers records
just to show my friendship
(if you don't have a clue what I'm talking about, don't read their lyrics. I repeat. Do not read their lyrics. 50% is lame music anyway)
''it's not a box, it's a submarine'' |
|
|
|
Erebus
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1834 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2003 : 15:44:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by blackpurse
... those being directly affected by certain sociopolitical issues should be the ones determining the shape and priority of the agenda to do something about them. ... So I'm not about to say "Blacks should worry more about this."
While I wouldn't want tell anyone how they should feel about their experience as black, female, or whatever, I do feel entitled to weigh in on policy, especially when it impacts me. For example, I feel a duty to weigh in on issues such as slavery reparations, illegal immigration, and alimony/child support payments. And whenever a group or an individual advocates social policy that argues from a moral perspective, such as a universal altruistic obligation to fellow beings, of course everyone has the right to argue back from their own distinctive moral position. An individual has a right to object that he feels no such obligation and furthermore rejects the idea that others have a right to force him to behave has though he does, for example by acquiescing to "lawful" extraction of a portion of his wages for furtherance of social ends he does not endorse. It is also possible for an outsider to possess sound insight into the likelihood that a policy will indeed have intended effect. I do not need to be black to hold a rational opinion on impact of affirmative action laws. I would not need to be black to argue that such laws are most counterproductive for the very groups they were designed to help. Finally, by full extension of the logic of "walk a mile in my shoes", one could assert that no one should ever voice an opinion that impacts others, to include impacting individuals, for one would not know what it means to walk in his shoes. By this standard, since I can't truly know why Smith became a jerk, who am I to voice an opinion on the behavior of Smith? "Smith should set his own agenda", which he does by being a jerk. I would submit that, as a white male, while I cannot understand what it means to be black or female, I can empathize with the humanity of blacks and females, and to the extent of that empathy can, and should, be involved in the setting of any resultant social agenda.
|
|
|
|
blackpurse
= Cult of Ray =
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2003 : 05:05:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus I would submit that, as a white male, while I cannot understand what it means to be black or female, I can empathize with the humanity of blacks and females, and to the extent of that empathy can, and should, be involved in the setting of any resultant social agenda.
Good point, but let me make an admittedly subtle distinction, and then let's agree to disagree here. I'm not saying that anybody shouldn't be involved in setting a social agenda, or support any agenda because of general empathy or opinion on how things should be run (we all share this planet after all), what I object to is somebody telling ME (as a woman) what "feminist priorities" should be, after all You Know What's Best For Me, right? Maybe I don't, but at the risk of sounding like a trekkie, every time in history somebody has "violated the prime directive, even with the best of intentions" it has been disastrous. Those who are opporessed are best qualified to determine which ways are the best ways to alleviate that oppression.
That's not to say I agree with, and support all "minority" agendas. For example, I am a staunch supporter of civil rights, but I have issues with affirmative action as practiced in many instances (quotas and lowering of standards to ensure minority participation, I believe, exist only to perpetuate a fundamentally racist notion that says if these quotas did not exist, a person of color would not gain admittance without otherwise lowering of standards) and this is contrary to many civil rights' leaders agendas. I'm not about to say "Take that off your agenda -- I know better than you what you need and how to accomplish your goals", because perhaps I'm not clear on what the goal is, and also because it would be extremely presumptious and condescending of me. In affirmative action for example, I'm assuming the goal is eventual equality of opportunity, where the goal of the minority groups might simply be reparations (and making up for the fact that a white, good ol boy network has resulted in opportunity for some substandard white folks -- see "Bush, George W -- Yale University") If that's the goal, perhaps quotas and lowered standards ARE the answer. However, since I don't agree with that, I put my time and resources into supporting part of the agenda with which I do agree and contribute to real social change. Very subtle difference, I admit, but it really is in attitude -- the difference between setting an agenda and priorities, and supporting it. I happen to be a staunch believer in self-determination for community problem solving (again, very Prime Directive), and I guess I'll agree to disagree. But as I said, you do make a good point, and as emotional as I can get (I am a woman after all :) ) I have enjoyed this conversation/argument and it has made me think, which is why I even bother.
|
|
|
|
Carolynanna
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Canada
6556 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2003 : 08:52:49
|
I'm not quite sure how affirmative action works in the states but I'm starting to think that its not quite the same in Canada. I took business in school (don't hate me, I needed to get a good job to support my child),and I was always more "laissez-faire" than anything else but not on this topic. Anyways, in Canada they use ratios, people need to hire employees in ratios that represent the labour pool for those jobs. Simplified example, if you checked out the graduates from Engineering and there were 99 men and 1 woman, then 1% of your engineering employees should be women. I think this is fair.
In a management course we took we checked out the fact that managers tend to hire those most like themselves. Mostly because they are delegating resposibility to others and the quality of the work the hirees perform is most likely to be reflected on the hirer. So it is easiest for people to trust others who are most like themselves, it is easier to predict how they will perform. This is probably partially why we have 'the old boys club', but don't worry they're bound to die out someday. Anyways, this makes it hard for a great number of individuals to get their foot in the door. It has to become "normal" to have any person of any race/creed/colour blah blah blah to work in any environment and I believe that this is a fair practice that will speed this process up. I would be interested to hear your arguments against EOE, I could just be looking at it from 1 side. |
|
|
|
blackpurse
= Cult of Ray =
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2003 : 09:49:02
|
I don't have a problem with EOE -- I have a problem with quotas and lowered standards, which is how EOE is practiced at many firms and universities. Where I've worked, we actually did follow the spirit of the law -- where we showed that we made a concerted effort to recruit and hire minotiry candidates (for example, by advertising in newspapers with a minority readership, etc). What's happened is that a lot of people dont "get it." Look at JAyson whatshis name, the black reporter for the NYT who was finally fired after fabricating stories, lying to his editors. He was let slide in the name of "building a diverse newsroom" at the NYT. Instead of demanding the same documentation and discipline, he got away with shit because the NYT didn't want to be seen "firing the black guy". You're left thinking, You mean of all the hundreds of black journalism graduates (Jayson didn't even have a degree, normally demanded by the Gray Lady of Gotham), not a ONE had better qualifications than this lying, degree-less scoundrel that should have been canned the first time he was caught? That's unfortunatley the conclusion many people will draw, making it more difficult for those hundreds of talented black writers graduating from j-school looking for jobs. That's affirmative action not as law, but as practiced in many corporations in the United States. It's sad -- editors can't help now but look at black applicants and see Jayson or Janet Cooke (remember her and her fabricated stories at the Washington Post?) and tense up and then hire the white guy. We need minority reporters in our newsrooms to get that sorely needed perspective in the news, so that we do indeed get the full story, but we need to ensure that we hold them to the same standards. Otherwise it's racist.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
