CSNbbs

(01-27-2021 12:16 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think that phrase carries the same historically sexist roots as something like "throws like a girl" or calling someone a "sissy". That said, I find it offensive when teachers or class parents only email my wife about something since she is the mom. The same thing happens with my daughters' dance teachers, even though they know I am the one who does 90% of the drop-offs and pick-ups from dance! I also find it a little offensive when memes/jokes go around praising moms for all they do around the house, when many men (myself included) do most of those things in their households.

But why would they do that unless there were the same historically sexist roots that you don't think they carry? They aren't doing it because they like women better than men... they are doing it because it is the historically accepted gender role. It was once considered 'unmanly' to be what we now accept as a man's (potential) role... and 'unwomanly' not to be.

I think the difference is that women are (or perhaps men, FOR women) are more sensitive to the slights of women than we are to the slights of men. While men may recognize slights against us, we accept them on some levels as being historical norms and that while education may be necessary, no offense is intended by sending the letters to 'mom' and not 'dad'. In fact, great respect is often intended to men or women who take on the opposite historical gender roles.

You might be slightly offended as you say, and I have been as well.. but I would not feel right attacking a woman over such a slight... and if a man were to do it to a woman, on a base level I would feel compelled to support her.

(01-27-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I clearly noted that some girls throw well and some boys don't. I guess you can attribute that to lack of training, but I think physiology also plays a part. perhaps next time you could just say "I disagree" rather than "that is not true". Sounds somewhat like you are calling me a liar.

I am not trying to call or insinuate that you are a liar. My point was that the phrase "throws like a girl" does not exist because of physiologic differences and is clearly intended as an insult to people who do not throw well (typically someone with "beginner" throwing mechanics).

(01-27-2021 11:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I can kind of sympathize with you plight at home, though. I became a single parent when my eldest was 17(a senior) and my twins were 14(Freshmen). I did the cooking, cleaning, laundry, all the parent things while running two businesses This lasted until the twins went to college.

One of my most bittersweet memories was the senior day ceremonies for my son's soccer team. They had each set of parents come forward and the player presented his mom with a rose. When it came my son's turn, my name was announced alone and he came and gave me a rose - with a big grin on his face that saved the day for me.

But even before my divorce and my ex moving away, I was the one who took the kids to school, had the parent conferences, took them to the doctor, etc., since my wife worked in a town 22 miles away and I, being self-employed, could always make the time needed for my kids. So I coached three sports, went to grad school at night, ran multiple businesses, etc. maybe this is why I take the "I was busy" statements with a grain of salt. I had a very busy life from 20 to 60. Much more leisurely now, but I earned it.

So, been there, done that. Hats off to you.

Hats off to you as well!

(01-27-2021 03:23 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I clearly noted that some girls throw well and some boys don't. I guess you can attribute that to lack of training, but I think physiology also plays a part. perhaps next time you could just say "I disagree" rather than "that is not true". Sounds somewhat like you are calling me a liar.

I am not trying to call or insinuate that you are a liar. My point was that the phrase "throws like a girl" does not exist because of physiologic differences and is clearly intended as an insult to people who do not throw well (typically someone with "beginner" throwing mechanics).

No, I clearly understood you were not trying to call me a liar. But that is the way "That's not true" comes off, and so I suggested "I disagree" as a better alternative.

Enough of that. Moving on.

I am interested in the bolded statement above and what evidence you have for that. There are physiological differences between male and female skeletons - that is how forensic examiners determine if a skeleton is that of a male or female. Wider pelvis, for one. And I have heard that female athletes are more prone to certain injuries, notably a torn ACL, than males. I said "I think physiology plays a part", and skeletal differences could be a basis for that. What is your basis for saying there is no physiological basis?

(01-27-2021 01:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Part of it depends on whether or not the term is intended as an insult. The words and context you use here are clearly intended to demean someone... and not based on an intentional act of theirs, but based on something they are not really in control of. My son used to be praised for his hair that people said looked like a girl's. The women loved it and were often jealous of it. If someone said your daughter threw the ball like a man, that would likely be a complement. The 'sexism' in the comment is the association that a woman throwing a baseball is a 'weak' event. Calling someone a dick isn't any less sexist than calling them a pu$$y, is it? Somewhere along the lines in associating women with 'the fairer sex' (which has often been a term of affection and not derision) these stereotypes took on positive and negative connotations. Is a good looking boy pretty or is he handsome? Is it an insult to call a boy 'pretty'?? It was at one point in our history... and a 'handsome' woman would not have been as desired as a 'pretty' one.

Bottom line, society and individuals can choose to make anything an insult... or not. I can't say the n word, even if I intend the same affection that my black friends intend to each other.... but I can call my friends a-holes and mean it with great affection... or not.

I don't disagree with anything specifically and you make some good points. I'm generally in favor of using language that does not carry gender-specific stereotypes (positive or negative). This is particularly true when there is not an equal-but-opposite term. So a male can be a "stud" or "have balls" and those are good things. But I can't think of an equally complimentary gender-specific term for a female. I did tell my wife that she "had some ovaries" when she did something bold once and we both had a good laugh. I think we decided that "have gonads" would be a solid gender-neutral term. My son wasn't a big fan though since he and I had eaten some sea urchin gonads the week before thinking they were sea urchin eggs and not gonads.

(01-27-2021 01:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]Growing up, I was told (by peers) that ***** and Bastard were gender specific words for the same person/qualities. A ***** is also a female dog (not a bad thing) while a bastard is an illegitimate child (a bad thing). One the surface, it seems bastard is actually a worse term... since it carries not only the slang definition of a complete a-hole but also a 'real world' definition that is arguably derogatory.... BUT it ALSO could be an accurate term for someone's situation... while no human is a female dog.

I'm am less bothered by (but still don't love) terms like "b!tch" and "ba$stard" because I view them as essentially equal-but-opposites. Males and females can both be called a$$holes and there is no gender stereotype associated with a term, so I'm a big fan!

(01-27-2021 03:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2021 03:23 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I clearly noted that some girls throw well and some boys don't. I guess you can attribute that to lack of training, but I think physiology also plays a part. perhaps next time you could just say "I disagree" rather than "that is not true". Sounds somewhat like you are calling me a liar.

I am not trying to call or insinuate that you are a liar. My point was that the phrase "throws like a girl" does not exist because of physiologic differences and is clearly intended as an insult to people who do not throw well (typically someone with "beginner" throwing mechanics).

No, I clearly understood you were not trying to call me a liar. But that is the way "That's not true" comes off, and so I suggested "I disagree" as a better alternative.

Enough of that. Moving on.

I am interested in the bolded statement above and what evidence you have for that. There are physiological differences between male and female skeletons - that is how forensic examiners determine if a skeleton is that of a male or female. Wider pelvis, for one. And I have heard that female athletes are more prone to certain injuries, notably a torn ACL, than males. I said "I think physiology plays a part", and skeletal differences could be a basis for that. What is your basis for saying there is no physiological basis?

I think the point is that most of us agree that if a girl is taught to throw and catch a ball at an early age (like many boys are) then you typically don't see much of a difference between the throwing motions of the two genders. That's why it seems that it is more of a nurture rather than a nature issue when it comes to how people throw a ball.

Also... if you ask most boys/men to throw a baseball with their nondominant hand then they will often throw a ball "like a girl". Again... points to nurture rather than nature.

(01-27-2021 03:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2021 03:23 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I am not trying to call or insinuate that you are a liar. My point was that the phrase "throws like a girl" does not exist because of physiologic differences and is clearly intended as an insult to people who do not throw well (typically someone with "beginner" throwing mechanics).

No, I clearly understood you were not trying to call me a liar. But that is the way "That's not true" comes off, and so I suggested "I disagree" as a better alternative.

Enough of that. Moving on.

I am interested in the bolded statement above and what evidence you have for that. There are physiological differences between male and female skeletons - that is how forensic examiners determine if a skeleton is that of a male or female. Wider pelvis, for one. And I have heard that female athletes are more prone to certain injuries, notably a torn ACL, than males. I said "I think physiology plays a part", and skeletal differences could be a basis for that. What is your basis for saying there is no physiological basis?

My comment was that the phrase "throws like a girl" does not exist because of physiologic differences between the average male and the average female. I agree that there are physiologic differences. But that doesn't lead to "throws like a girl" because "throws like a girl" isn't just referring to some physiologic issue where a female's shoulder capsule or rotator cuff or labrum (or whatever) literally cannot go through the same motion as a males.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement - when someone says someone else "throws like a girl" it is usually is either intended as an insult or carries a negative connotation (i.e. "you suck at throwing").

(01-27-2021 03:55 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2021 03:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2021 03:23 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2021 12:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I clearly noted that some girls throw well and some boys don't. I guess you can attribute that to lack of training, but I think physiology also plays a part. perhaps next time you could just say "I disagree" rather than "that is not true". Sounds somewhat like you are calling me a liar.

I am not trying to call or insinuate that you are a liar. My point was that the phrase "throws like a girl" does not exist because of physiologic differences and is clearly intended as an insult to people who do not throw well (typically someone with "beginner" throwing mechanics).

No, I clearly understood you were not trying to call me a liar. But that is the way "That's not true" comes off, and so I suggested "I disagree" as a better alternative.

Enough of that. Moving on.

I am interested in the bolded statement above and what evidence you have for that. There are physiological differences between male and female skeletons - that is how forensic examiners determine if a skeleton is that of a male or female. Wider pelvis, for one. And I have heard that female athletes are more prone to certain injuries, notably a torn ACL, than males. I said "I think physiology plays a part", and skeletal differences could be a basis for that. What is your basis for saying there is no physiological basis?

I think the point is that most of us agree that if a girl is taught to throw and catch a ball at an early age (like many boys are) then you typically don't see much of a difference between the throwing motions of the two genders. That's why it seems that it is more of a nurture rather than a nature issue when it comes to how people throw a ball.

Also... if you ask most boys/men to throw a baseball with their nondominant hand then they will often throw a ball "like a girl". Again... points to nurture rather than nature.

Your second point is better than your first, IMO. But how do girls do with THEIR nondominant hand?

One of my twins was left handed but batted right. I tried to teach him to bat left as well. Couldn't do it. He still golfs right handed.

And of course, we have all seen "The Bad News Bears".


Still awaiting some evidence that there is no physiological basis for the differences. "NO' as opposed to "some".

I asked my GF of her opinion of "throws like a girl", "runs like a girl", "pu$$Y", and "sissy".

Bottom line, depends on intent and/or context. Not automatically negative.

(01-27-2021 01:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]How do you think it would go over on this forum if I repeatedly referred to Kavanaugh as "Kavanaugh the rapist"? Cool? Do you think Tanq might come in hard on my use of that term in light of the lack of clear evidence to support my claim?

SInce rape is a crime, I hold such a claim to a higher standard... which is why I usually refer to Harris' charge that as a prosecutor of such crimes, she KNOWS Trump is a sexual predator. I don't recall her getting much push-back on that; certainly not from the left.

As to Kavanaugh... he's not in the media as much as the others so its not really as similar. I think we've had 4 years of people on here calling Trump a racist and a liar... However you think that has gone over, I would expect similar. Why not?

Quote:How am I not arguing the facts? I am arguing that #'s is clearly using the word wrong and even if he had used a better word he doesn't have the facts to back up his assertion.

David Duke is a racist. I don't know better terms to use to describe his opinion that white people are superior to people of other races.

Who would you refer to as a slut? Please give me an example. My guess is that whoever you come up with the term "slut" would be unnecessarily derogatory/cruel.

You're not arguing the facts because you don't have them any more than numbers does. You're arguing perspectives and opinions, based somewhat on facts and opinions about those facts.

David Duke was Grand Dragon or whatever of the Klan. I think it accepted as fact that he at least DID believe that. He can argue that he's changed... like a lot of old Dixiecrats, but I'd accept that as hard to believe/accept. I suppose he can argue that and its true that we don't know for a fact that he isn't 'changed'... but I would personally have to have a compelling reason in another area to accept that on face value.... what I mean is, given the choice between him and a moderate dem or another rep, I'd pick either of the others.... between him and a radical leftists? I'd have to look at those other areas and consider. Since racism is illegal in this country and there is a lot of disclosure these days, I DO have some faith that any attempt to pass a racist law would be thwarted. Not that you can't argue that some laws have an unintended racial bias... but even that could be worked out/smoothed/considered.

Whom would I personally refer to as a slut? Well, I already mentioned the woman who screwed over my daughter and created a situation where my daughter felt at least for a time that she had to do similar to succeed. I don't think that unnecessarily derogatory or cruel. I think what her actions did to my daughter to be unnecessarily cruel and demeaning.... not just to my daughter but to ALL women. The woman didn't need to do that (other than to get a promotion over my daughter). She had a job. I don't know Harris well enough to call her that myself... but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't accept someone else's opinion on it. More to the specific point, much was made about holding Trump to some higher standard because he's the President... One of the issues that Harris faces is that as the first female executive, it is not a good message if she engaged in using sex to advance her career in a time where men are being denied (or at least threatened with denial of) advancement based on their engagement in similar activities during that same period.

I think Biden sexually assaulted the woman who clerked for him and accused him. He was an adult. He was an elected official. He has since stood in judgement over other men on similar charges. I could be wrong, but didn't Clarence Thomas merely 'talk inappropriately' to his accuser? I don't recall him being accused of doing what Biden was accused of (hand up the skirt). Unless I'm wrong, Kavanaugh was 21 or under during his accusation. Doesn't excuse it, but I think we'd all expect less from a 21yr old than a sitting Senator.... and I'm unaware that he's been asked or would be asked to preside over a sexual assault allegation... so PART of my position regarding these allegations has to do with... 'how does that impact his potential to do his job fairly'.

It's the 'position of power' that is particularly troubling in both Clinton and Biden as opposed to Thomas and Kavanaugh.

I don't know what Harris thinks about women who do what she is alleged to have done. I would think that if she hadn't done so, that she would be willing to condemn those actions as I have and I think that would be quite powerful to women. Biden's allegations make that a bit problematic for the party because OF COURSE, you condemn the men more... but its a bit like prostitution, going after the pros instead of the johns. Aren't BOTH at least to some degree culpable? Certainly if the woman has other options?

To avoid skirting the question (though I don't know if it adds any value to the conversation)... my definition of a slut is someone with a cavalier attitude towards sex and not someone who uses it as a tool. I don't know a word for that person that doesn't gloss over the broader social issues we're talking about here. A woman's choice to sleep with a man for whatever reason is not the issue... Its when that choice impacts other women in a way that encourages them to do the same/inhibits them if they don't that is the issue. A woman who prostitutes herself because her child starves if she doesn't is not a slut. A woman who has sex with 'anyone' is a slut. A woman who through her actions places my daughter at risk to her self-worth/value... if those actions are sexual, slut works... but its not enough.

(01-27-2021 03:55 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I'm generally in favor of using language that does not carry gender-specific stereotypes (positive or negative). This is particularly true when there is not an equal-but-opposite term. So a male can be a "stud" or "have balls" and those are good things.

Maybe it is just my farm-based rural upbringing and history, but I always connect "stud" to sexuality.

and I often hear that a tough, aggressive woman has balls, and that is still a good thing.

ANECDOTE, NOT MEANT FOR DEBATE:
A woman I knew, fed up with the phrase "motherf--kers", started using her own made up opposite - "Fatherjerkoffs".

(01-27-2021 04:01 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2021 03:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2021 03:23 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I am not trying to call or insinuate that you are a liar. My point was that the phrase "throws like a girl" does not exist because of physiologic differences and is clearly intended as an insult to people who do not throw well (typically someone with "beginner" throwing mechanics).

No, I clearly understood you were not trying to call me a liar. But that is the way "That's not true" comes off, and so I suggested "I disagree" as a better alternative.

Enough of that. Moving on.

I am interested in the bolded statement above and what evidence you have for that. There are physiological differences between male and female skeletons - that is how forensic examiners determine if a skeleton is that of a male or female. Wider pelvis, for one. And I have heard that female athletes are more prone to certain injuries, notably a torn ACL, than males. I said "I think physiology plays a part", and skeletal differences could be a basis for that. What is your basis for saying there is no physiological basis?

My comment was that the phrase "throws like a girl" does not exist because of physiologic differences between the average male and the average female. I agree that there are physiologic differences. But that doesn't lead to "throws like a girl" because "throws like a girl" isn't just referring to some physiologic issue where a female's shoulder capsule or rotator cuff or labrum (or whatever) literally cannot go through the same motion as a males.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement - when someone says someone else "throws like a girl" it is usually is either intended as an insult or carries a negative connotation (i.e. "you suck at throwing").

Usually. What do you think of the phrases "White men can't jump" or "average white band"? Racist?

And my comment clearly did not imply that the differences were 100% physical, but possibly greater than 0%.

The "Throw Like a Girl" Myth | MythBusters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD5Xm5u7...e=emb_logo

(01-27-2021 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2021 01:56 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]How do you think it would go over on this forum if I repeatedly referred to Kavanaugh as "Kavanaugh the rapist"? Cool? Do you think Tanq might come in hard on my use of that term in light of the lack of clear evidence to support my claim?

SInce rape is a crime, I hold such a claim to a higher standard... which is why I usually refer to Harris' charge that as a prosecutor of such crimes, she KNOWS Trump is a sexual predator. I don't recall her getting much push-back on that; certainly not from the left.

As to Kavanaugh... he's not in the media as much as the others so its not really as similar. I think we've had 4 years of people on here calling Trump a racist and a liar... However you think that has gone over, I would expect similar. Why not?

Quote:How am I not arguing the facts? I am arguing that #'s is clearly using the word wrong and even if he had used a better word he doesn't have the facts to back up his assertion.

David Duke is a racist. I don't know better terms to use to describe his opinion that white people are superior to people of other races.

Who would you refer to as a slut? Please give me an example. My guess is that whoever you come up with the term "slut" would be unnecessarily derogatory/cruel.

You're not arguing the facts because you don't have them any more than numbers does. You're arguing perspectives and opinions, based somewhat on facts and opinions about those facts.

David Duke was Grand Dragon or whatever of the Klan. I think it accepted as fact that he at least DID believe that. He can argue that he's changed... like a lot of old Dixiecrats, but I'd accept that as hard to believe/accept. I suppose he can argue that and its true that we don't know for a fact that he isn't 'changed'... but I would personally have to have a compelling reason in another area to accept that on face value.... what I mean is, given the choice between him and a moderate dem or another rep, I'd pick either of the others.... between him and a radical leftists? I'd have to look at those other areas and consider. Since racism is illegal in this country and there is a lot of disclosure these days, I DO have some faith that any attempt to pass a racist law would be thwarted. Not that you can't argue that some laws have an unintended racial bias... but even that could be worked out/smoothed/considered.

Whom would I personally refer to as a slut? Well, I already mentioned the woman who screwed over my daughter and created a situation where my daughter felt at least for a time that she had to do similar to succeed. I don't think that unnecessarily derogatory or cruel. I think what her actions did to my daughter to be unnecessarily cruel and demeaning.... not just to my daughter but to ALL women. The woman didn't need to do that (other than to get a promotion over my daughter). She had a job. I don't know Harris well enough to call her that myself... but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't accept someone else's opinion on it. More to the specific point, much was made about holding Trump to some higher standard because he's the President... One of the issues that Harris faces is that as the first female executive, it is not a good message if she engaged in using sex to advance her career in a time where men are being denied (or at least threatened with denial of) advancement based on their engagement in similar activities during that same period.

I think Biden sexually assaulted the woman who clerked for him and accused him. He was an adult. He was an elected official. He has since stood in judgement over other men on similar charges. I could be wrong, but didn't Clarence Thomas merely 'talk inappropriately' to his accuser? I don't recall him being accused of doing what Biden was accused of (hand up the skirt). Unless I'm wrong, Kavanaugh was 21 or under during his accusation. Doesn't excuse it, but I think we'd all expect less from a 21yr old than a sitting Senator.... and I'm unaware that he's been asked or would be asked to preside over a sexual assault allegation... so PART of my position regarding these allegations has to do with... 'how does that impact his potential to do his job fairly'.

It's the 'position of power' that is particularly troubling in both Clinton and Biden as opposed to Thomas and Kavanaugh.

I don't know what Harris thinks about women who do what she is alleged to have done. I would think that if she hadn't done so, that she would be willing to condemn those actions as I have and I think that would be quite powerful to women. Biden's allegations make that a bit problematic for the party because OF COURSE, you condemn the men more... but its a bit like prostitution, going after the pros instead of the johns. Aren't BOTH at least to some degree culpable? Certainly if the woman has other options?

To avoid skirting the question (though I don't know if it adds any value to the conversation)... my definition of a slut is someone with a cavalier attitude towards sex and not someone who uses it as a tool. I don't know a word for that person that doesn't gloss over the broader social issues we're talking about here.

I'm confused because the woman in your example with your daughter doesn't seem to fit your given definition.

(01-27-2021 04:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]ANECDOTE, NOT MEANT FOR DEBATE:
A woman I knew, fed up with the phrase "motherf--kers", started using her own made up opposite - "Fatherjerkoffs".

Sort of like the joke in Legally Blonde 2 about how the word 'semester' is misogynistic. (the following is subject to debate but I really don't care that much about it....)

To me, the idea that a woman can be a slut but not a man is more meaningful in terms of gender specificity. Perhaps because my father was in the navy so I was raised a lot by my mother and I have an older sister (2 years, also a 'jock') and my uncle was openly gay when I was young and my kids participated in theatre, there are lots of words that may have a gender specificity to many but don't to me. I've heard men referred to as sluts and whores and ******* for as long as I can remember.... and women referred to as ballsy and studly and jock...

I will say this... and like your comment OO, just an observation not really subject to debate... I've found that when women my age refer to themselves as 'being like a man' in some regard, they mostly seem to mean it as the sort of 'man' that women complain about to each other, and not the sort of man anyone wants men to be.

(01-27-2021 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]my definition of a slut is someone with a cavalier attitude towards sex and not someone who uses it as a tool.

Mine is just the opposite.

(01-27-2021 04:30 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-27-2021 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]To avoid skirting the question (though I don't know if it adds any value to the conversation)... my definition of a slut is someone with a cavalier attitude towards sex and not someone who uses it as a tool. I don't know a word for that person that doesn't gloss over the broader social issues we're talking about here.

I'm confused because the woman in your example with your daughter doesn't seem to fit your given definition.

I don't know how many different times or ways I can say the bold italicised above. I believe I've said similar in every conversation about this issue dating back months.

I don't know how calling someone a 'bastard' if their parents were married or any human a 'female dog' (to avoid the asterisks and the lack of clarity) is any less of an acceptance that a word that doesn't fit linguistically is still used to describe someone.

Calling her a prostitute is no more correct and implies a simple business transaction between two consenting adults with no impact on someone getting a job, unless that job is as a prostitute. It doesn't describe the 'power' dynamics.

Calling her an opportunist would be like calling the guy who screwed over my daughter one. Opportunist has too many positive implications.

Is misogynist better? I don't like it because it implies a dislike for (according to the definition) women while what I'm describing is more of a selfish disregard for them.... but its perhaps the best I know.

What is the word for a man who expects women to sleep with him for advancement? Maybe when we come up with that one, we'll have a better word for the women who enable and encourage them.

Until then, even if I disagree that its the 'best' word (which I don't because I don't have a better one) I don't accept that we can't provide a word at all or that we have to provide a 'softer' one simply because this one isn't perfect.

If women who do this are offended by being called it, then the word has served its purpose. If they aren't, then it hasn't. Women who don't want other women encouraging men in this way but are offended by the word even if it isn't directed at them, I don't know how to help that. Please help me come up with one that would offend you if you WERE that, but wouldn't if you weren't.

Coming full circle, I don't care if you think Trump is a racist... I mean we can debate the evidence etc etc etc,... but I really don't care. What I mean is I don't care to debate opinions. If he proposes something that I agree with but it has potential racial inequities like voter ID then I would amend it to address that. If he wanted to deport people of Mexican descent here legally, I would be upset. If he wants to deport UNDOCUMENTED people (a lot of whom are of Mexican descent) that's something else. I care when one starts to imply that if I don't disagree with him on everything or if I ever voted for him that I too am a racist. Calling me 'conservative' isn't a slight. Calling me a racist is. So why, with absolutely NOBODY suggesting that even if she did what she is accused of doing that this somehow reflects on all Democrats or all women or anything else (which I've seen nobody suggest, correct me if I'm wrong) does the left imply that all of these other people would/will/are internalizing such a comment??

93

New post rather than editing...

It was my intention to make that clear that I agree that the word doesn't specifically describe the alleged acts... but because I don't have a better one and it elicits the intended response (that people don't want to be considered that/don't want to engage in behaviors that result in that label) then I do not disagree with the use of it, especially in an attempt at brevity. I accepted the use of the term against the woman who screwed over my daughter... who did almost exactly what is alleged against Harris for that specific reason.

Its not a word I use in serious context to any degree. I jokingly called my son one because he always had a different date. If I thought someone were that, I really wouldn't have much to say about them... and wouldn't elect them to public office.

One more thing I disagree with Ham on. Take note, lefties - we are not all the same.


I absolutely would vote for a slut - if she espoused solutions I endorsed to problems I deemed major. Especially if she were running against somebody espousing bad solutions to relatively minor issues. Even if that opponent was a saint.

The demographics, including slut/Saint are less important than the stands they take on issues. It’s the ideas in their heads that are the most important.

Ham, I still think you are the best poster here.

(01-27-2021 07:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]One more thing I disagree with Ham on. Take note, lefties - we are not all the same.


I absolutely would vote for a slut - if she espoused solutions I endorsed to problems I deemed major. Especially if she were running against somebody espousing bad solutions to relatively minor issues. Even if that opponent was a saint.

The demographics, including slut/Saint are less important than the stands they take on issues. It’s the ideas in their heads that are the most important.

Ham, I still think you are the best poster here.

Thanks, OO... The check is in the mail lol.

One correction to my comment though... I didn't proof-read... I meant that I wouldn't vote for someone who slept their way to the top... regardless of what word someone used to describe them. I would vote for a slut (based on the traditional definition... like perhaps JFK or Bill) if they earned their way to the top. My issue with Kamala is that it does seem that she advanced her career through a relationship, and then built that career by doing much of what is being protested so vehemently right now. If we can't see past WMR for being a slave owner who endowed a University that now provides scholarships and an INCREDIBLE educational opportunity to descendants of the very people he 'owned' more than 100 years ago, how is it okay to select to 'lead us out of sexual and racial inequity' someone who certainly exploited racial inequity and appears to have exploited the other as well within my lifetime?

I'm just popping some more popcorn and watching what a kerfuffle has sprung out of one word.

(01-28-2021 09:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just popping some more popcorn and watching what a kerfuffle has sprung out of one word.

Isn't it funny? Just goes to show the value the Party of Identity puts on identity. Especially after all the mean and inaccurate words they have hung on Trump and associates over the years. They don't care about the people they elect, just the labels.

Personally I am much more concerned with Harris' politics than her morals, and her identity as a liberal rather than her identity as a black woman. But I am just one voter.

It has made me think of one certain woman I dated for about six weeks thirty years ago. I never thought of her as a 'slut', but definitely she was at least a libertine and probably a nympho. In terms of numbers of sex partners, she was easily into the high triple digits when I met her. Sort of a Don Juanita. But she never had sex with anybody for monetary or professional gain.