Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Our old buddy Pat is back and he's taking his racism out for a walk again, this time in response to the shooting of the alleged cop killer in Seattle. This is a rant that has to be seen to be believed.
For putting a hamburger-headed looking Negro thug out of his own damned misery, the Seattle Police Department deserves a metal of freedom. That is right, I said it, I am glad as hell, that this black thug is dead. Truth is, this black bastard should have been executed, long ago, for his damned crimes in the first place. This is why; I believe that death penalty is a sane solution to our Prison overcrowding system. However, because we live in a liberal society, that believe that dirtball thugs like this have rights too; most States in America do not have a death penalty in them and dirt bag black bastards like this continue to roam the streets and fill our already overcrowded prisons.
Pat's a little confused. The death penalty is imposed by courts after someone is convicted. What this police officer did is not the death penalty. Which doesn't mean it wasn't entirely justified, of course. Sometimes the police are going to have deadly confrontations with bad guys and the bad guys are going to get shot. Given that this guy had already killed several cops, the officer was understandably not going to take a chance with him. But that really has nothing to do with the death penalty.
And rest easy, Pat fans; he's prepared for you dirty liberals and your logical arguments:
I know, some of you, most likely liberals are going to say that this is a racist posting. I got one thing to say; I am a white and proud motherfucker and I am sorry that you are not. Besides, we all know that the black race is not exactly made up of civilized human beings anyhow.
Let me get out my imbecile to English translation guide: "I know you liberals are going to call me racist, so let me duck into the punch by saying something really racist."
But here's my favorite part:
Now to sit back and watch the liberal race baiters heads explode and laugh all the way to the bank.
Uh, Pat....you aren't going to the bank no matter how many people point and laugh at you. You need a job first. And a car.
Politics
Comments
He also might not want to refer to himself as a "motherfucker" when he's living in his mom's basement lest readers get the idea that he's living there for ease of access.
Posted by: Lynxreign | December 4, 2009 9:28 AM
At the rate Pat is going; our kneecaps are going to be shattered and our thigh bones broken from the amount of slapping hilarity we have got out of this. And without Ed mentioning the lack of car; I would have thought Pat committed a Fruedian slip.
Pat please get help now before someone test Family Guy's theory of suing people if we die laughing. I'm almost gone already.
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | December 4, 2009 9:43 AM
Ummm, actually Patty girl, most states in the US have the death penalty, including Arkansas where this guy was originally convicted prior to being released by Republican Governor Michael Huckabee. Only 15 states don't have the death penalty, interestingly enough, those states are the ones with, on average, lower per capita murder rates and lower violent crime rates.
So you have a hat trick of wrongness there Patty girl, one of your conservative darlings is the guy who let this sociopath loose. Most states have the death penalty, and the death penalty is not, as you pretend it to be, a deterrent against violent crime or murder.
----------
[note: This comment in no way implies that the officers were in any way wrong to put down this murderous asshole regardless of the color of his skin.]
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 4, 2009 9:48 AM
Also, what's a "metal" of freedom? Does he even have his own version of the periodic table, free of liberal influence?
Posted by: Raven | December 4, 2009 9:57 AM
Pat is like Palin: The gift that keeps on giving. And so close to the holidays. Thanks for the yuks Pat, you racist pig.
Posted by: MikeMa | December 4, 2009 9:59 AM
Is a "metal of freedom" the hammer that Trini Lopez used to sing about?
Posted by: Thony C. | December 4, 2009 10:03 AM
I'll agree with Pat on one count: he is a proud, white motherfucker.
I wonder if he becomes as enraged and indignant when caucasians commit crimes every day too.
Posted by: CHV | December 4, 2009 10:07 AM
That's not an award, that's a name for a rock band.
You may be white, but you showing any pride here (though you may be a motherfucker; I don't really know). Pride isn't exhibited by spewing hate at other people; that's more commonly a sign of bitterness and fear.
Posted by: DaveL | December 4, 2009 10:07 AM
Just to pile on... I hate to break it to you, Pat, but yes, dirtball thugs like this do have rights too. The fact that we accord them these rights is what sets us apart from them. The US's collective sinking to the terrorists' level after 9/11 was a greater tragedy than the attack itself, since it has affected (and will affect) many more people over a greater period of time.
Posted by: Squiddhartha | December 4, 2009 10:08 AM
This alleged cop-killer was released by Mike Huckabee? If so, it's probably because he pretended to be sweet little Christian lamb, and the Huckster fell for it. Again. He'd probabbly make a good candidate to run against Sarah Palin for the loony-right vote -- but he'd probably fall for her BS too, in a haze of starbursts (didn't that used to be a sin?), and let her get away with being as stupid and disgraceful as she wants to be.
So much for Christianity making people more moral. Oh, and so much for good Christians having a better ability to judge the character of others.
Ed, at the risk of sounding like a killjoy, I really think it's counterproductive to give Pat any more attention here. He's a racist dirtbag and a classic piece of trailer-trash, just another uneducated loser, unique only because he has a blog. We could use him as a representative sample of a significant demographic, but if we thereby feed his mental illness and delusions, we could be doing more harm than good, at least to him.
Didn't we ban Larry Fafarman because (among other factors, of course) he'd proven himself deranged and we didn't want to feed his derangement or poke a wounded animal with a stick? So why should we bother with Pat, who's even less educated and less insightful than Larry?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 4, 2009 10:08 AM
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 4, 2009 10:11 AM
wow, talk about low hanging fruit. Pat is too easy to mock. At least try to give us a challenge.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | December 4, 2009 10:14 AM
Drat, broken blockquote, my comment is actually:
I don't want to devolve into an argument of attributes, but an overweight, unattractive, unemployed, aggressive, ignorant, arrogant, and apparently racist jerk who lives in his mommy's basement? I realize that there is no man nor dog so bad that some charitable woman wont fall in love with him, but I'm pretty sure Pat disproves that hypothesis.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 4, 2009 10:15 AM
This pedestrian takes issue with your last sentence. I walk to the bank just fine, thank you ;)
Motorists of the world: stop trying to run me over at crosswalks.
Posted by: Adrian W. | December 4, 2009 10:16 AM
@1, ROTFLMAO!
Posted by: Owen | December 4, 2009 10:18 AM
Lynxreign, another possibility is that his mother does not, in fact, let him live there rent-free.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 4, 2009 10:18 AM
What the hell is a "hamburger-headed looking Negro"? Does Patty coin his own insults or is this just one I've never heard before?
Posted by: Dogbert | December 4, 2009 10:19 AM
I'll never understand the idea of being proud of your race. If you're going to take pride in something, take pride in what you've done, not in something you had absolutely no control over. Of course, since Pat is jobless and lives in a basement I can understand why he latches onto his race as his source of pride. He's got nothing else, except for the fact that he is a man, but then I should really not being giving him ideas for new blog posts.
PS: Ah, screw it! Pat, you breath oxygen too! 02 Power!
Posted by: Imrryr | December 4, 2009 10:19 AM
Pat talks a good line, but the fact he uses the word "negro" belies his obvious guilty knowledge about his own feelings and behavior.
Posted by: rpsms | December 4, 2009 10:20 AM
dogmeatib: Ummm, actually Patty girl...
Hey, quit trying to insult a man by calling him a female. Cease and desist now or the Wrath of Isis might smite thee!
But seriously, what's up with trying to insult Pat by calling him a "girl"? Isn't that a tad juvenile? Why not just call him a looney racist dirtbag? Isn't that enough?
Posted by: Adrienne | December 4, 2009 10:27 AM
@18:I'll never understand the idea of being proud of your race.
Roger that, and add to that the idea of being proud to be a citizen of the country into whose citizenship you were born.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 4, 2009 10:28 AM
@1 and @16 - Ouch! LMAO!
Posted by: Tony | December 4, 2009 10:33 AM
Ed,
This is like picking on a handicapped kid. This Pat guy is literally an overweight, jobless loser living in his mom's basement. You are an educated man with an educated readership. There is no reason to continue giving this guy the attention he craves. You cannot debate an idiot. Time to move on.
Posted by: MassHole | December 4, 2009 10:35 AM
May I have an Orly Taitz fix, please?
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | December 4, 2009 10:36 AM
Seriously?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 4, 2009 10:36 AM
I'm with Adrienne on this: what's the point of calling Pat a girl? If Pat were a girl, would that make him even worse than he already is? Besides, there's no attribute of Pat that's even remotely "female," in either a good or bad way. He's not like any of the best women I've met, nor does he conform to any of our most negative female stereotypes. In fact, the only stereotypes he conforms to in any way are the most negative MALE stereotypes. It's embarrassing to say it, but Pat is definitely, unequivocally in MY half of the human species. (Besides, any hint of androgyny would be too much for someone like Pat.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 4, 2009 10:37 AM
Does anyone else find it unbelievably ironic that Pat calls Black people uncivilized, all the while showing himself to be a complete barbarian?* A hint, Pat: civilized people don't dismiss entire vague racial groups, they don't use veiled racial slurs, and they don't revel in the deaths of others.
Dogbert, the mental image I got from "hamburger-headed" was something like a hammerhead shark. I have no idea what Pat was getting at.
*Not to insult barbarians, of course.
Posted by: KristinMH | December 4, 2009 10:43 AM
To quote Garth Ennis from the "Ku Klux Kretins" issue of Preacher, "Why is it that the champions of the white race are always the worst examples of it?"
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 10:44 AM
Pat talks a good line, but the fact he uses the word "negro" belies his obvious guilty knowledge about his own feelings and behavior.
Au contraire. Pat is one of the finest minds of the 14th century; "negro" was a downright progressive term in those days.
Posted by: Solly Hofman | December 4, 2009 10:48 AM
Adrienne - a) Pat's an 'internet tough-guy'. His whole existence is wrapped up in convincing others that his genitals are unfeasibly large (to compensate for his total failure in the real world, in this case). Emasculate him virtually and he will resort to infantile, ever more lame, name-calling before flouncing. Calling him a girl is more of an insult to his tiny, fragile ego then any women's sense of pride in her identity.
b) Are we sure the Pat is a citizen of the US? Don't recall ever seeing his 'long' or 'vault' Birth Certificate posted on the Internet anywhere, do you? (Not to mention Pat has never denied shooting and eating Ol' Yella.) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 4, 2009 10:49 AM
Does anyone else find it unbelievably ironic that Pat calls Black people uncivilized, all the while showing himself to be a complete barbarian?*
Pat busted the irony meter ages ago, when his stalking/threatening of Ed's uncle came on the heels of his complaints that posting mean comments about Pat on this blog constituted "stalking," for which Ed should be reported to the authorities.
Posted by: Solly Hofman | December 4, 2009 10:51 AM
Raven "Also, what's a "metal" of freedom? Does he even have his own version of the periodic table, free of liberal influence?"
Americonium. Obviously. On the table it stands alone, in the Patriotoid group.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 4, 2009 10:51 AM
(Not to mention Pat has never denied shooting and eating Ol' Yella.)
This might explain his delusions and frothing at the mouth. Old Yeller gave him the hydrophobia.
Posted by: Solly Hofman | December 4, 2009 10:53 AM
To Modusoperandi: Bravo! LMAO!
Posted by: Athena | December 4, 2009 10:58 AM
See Pat, here's the proof that the initial posting is racist... you can remove all references to race and it reads just as accurately and cogently.
"For putting a hamburger-headed looking thug out of his own damned misery, the Seattle Police Department deserves a metal [sic] of freedom. That is right, I said it, I am glad as hell, that this thug is dead. Truth is, this bastard should have been executed, long ago, for his damned crimes in the first place."
I say just as cogently, really with those words removed it's still just as much of an insane rant, but it is NOT racist, and is just as accurate. Why does the fact that the guy was black enter into it at all? It shouldn't.
Posted by: ThatOtherGuy | December 4, 2009 11:03 AM
At first I thought this was about Pat Buchanan-- now there's someone insulting to be compared to.
Posted by: Emily | December 4, 2009 11:05 AM
I second Adrienne about the offensiveness of invoking the female gender as an insult. It seems to me that the only reason one would call someone a "girl" as an insult is if that person somehow thought that being a "girl" was a bad thing. I've come to expect such bullshit from a misogynist like SLC, but seeing dogmeatib resort to it (whom I generally highly respect as a commenter) is disappointing.
Back to the topic at hand, I think the most hilarious element of Pat's latest online vomiting is his apparent impression that a cop shooting someone in self-defense is the same thing as the death penalty.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 4, 2009 11:08 AM
I am not sure that this is the case hear. From the reports I heard, the police officer had not positively IDed the perp and the prep was trying to escape, not confront the officer. Other details about the shooting may have emerged but I stopped paying attention to the issue once people started using the deaths of four police officers to make partisan point.
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | December 4, 2009 11:14 AM
Much as I'd enjoy 'piling on' someone who desperately deserves it, I just can't get enthused about it after reading Raging Bee's post.
So no, I won't insult Pat. His latest post, however is fair game. Hate-filled, misspelled, factually wrong in almost every detail, poorly reasoned, grammatically incorrect, and not even remotely amusing, except for the 'metal of freedom' bit.
Rt
Posted by: Roadtripper | December 4, 2009 11:28 AM
Sadie posted "It seems to me that the only reason one would call someone a "girl" as an insult is if that person somehow thought that being a "girl" was a bad thing."
Ah yes, but Pat does think being a "girl" is a bad thing. It affronts his fragile sense of masculinity (and pricks his little 'Internet Tough-Guy' persona), while reminding him being called as girl on the Internet is as close to a female he's going to get in his lifetime.
He ain't ever gonna get laid, ever, (well outside of his mother, of course). - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 4, 2009 11:30 AM
Come on guys; give this poor kid a break. He has to be proud of being white because has absolutely nothing else to be proud of. Since he has no accomplishments to be proud of, he has to resort to being proud of an intrinsic quality that he did nothing to get. And since he has no talent, intelligence, or basic grammatical ability to be proud of, that only leaves his skin color.
Posted by: catgirl | December 4, 2009 11:33 AM
Does Gribbit still have a radio show? These guys really need to hook up and swap Ed stories and job hunting tips.
Posted by: carlsonjok | December 4, 2009 11:37 AM
No, I don't find it ironic. However, I do find it extremely hypocritical.
Posted by: catgirl | December 4, 2009 11:38 AM
I was going to make some crack about us building fighter jets out of the "metal of freedom" but modusoperandi just won the hell out of that disussion.
@Raging Bee - as much as I hate to defend Huckabee, he wrote an essay in Human Events explaining why he commuted Clemmon's sentence in which denied that religion had anything to do with it. Even if that's not true and religion played a part all the other factors he lays out are very persuasive. The guy had served 11 years of a 106 year sentence for burglary. He was 16 when he was sentenced. Huckabee felt that 106 years was excessive for a 16 year old convicted of burglary and I tend to agree with him. At the time, no one else involved objected to the commutation; even the trial judge supported it. Huckabee also noted that more affluent white people convicted of the same crime had received much shorter sentences.
Obviously this whole thing is tragic but I don't see how Huckabee can be attacked for letting this guy out based only on the information he had 9 years ago. (I mean, I can see how the crazy wingnuts will attack him for it but I don't see it from Ed's readership.)
Posted by: Peaches | December 4, 2009 11:39 AM
On the other hand, we should be relieved that the Huckster has effectively kissed his presidential bid goodbye. He was already on shaky ground with social conservatives, and his releasing a cop-killer (particularly one who's African-American; Willie Horton, anyone?) is not going to go down well with his remaining fans.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 4, 2009 11:41 AM
He was approaching the police car from the rear, and the officer, noting that he greatly resembled the person that was the object of a state-wide manhunt and was considered "armed and dangerous," asked him to show his hands. He refused and began to circle around the police car, reaching for something in his pocket. He was later found to have the gun of one of those officers on his person and a bullet wound from a police handgun in his belly.
What would you have done?
Posted by: Jeff | December 4, 2009 11:42 AM
Yeah, seriously dogmeatib. Using "girl" as an insult is fucking sexist. People railing against racism but then using blatant sexist language are hypocrites. I am a woman and I find it highly fucking offensive that calling a man a woman or a girl is somehow an insult. IT IS NOT AN INSULT TO BE A GIRL OR WOMAN.
This isn't a difficult concept.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 11:46 AM
Racial Epithets: Because you aren't finished describing a criminal until you mention that he's black. Even if he isn't.
Posted by: xebecs | December 4, 2009 11:46 AM
"Truth is, this black bastard should have been executed, long ago, for his damned crimes in the first place."
Except, of course, for the fact that prior to Sunday Maurice Clemmons hadn't even been accused, let alone convicted, of anything that *any* state has the death penalty for.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | December 4, 2009 11:50 AM
On planet earth, yes. In la mente di Pat, "black" and "criminal" are all the justification he needs.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 4, 2009 11:58 AM
Any links to factual information about the shooting? I know we can't rely on little Pat* to provide factual information, but perhaps others can fill-in us clueless foreigners. -DJ
---------
* Maeilove - how do you know 'Patty' isn't simply a diminutive, not a female name?
Posted by: Dingojack | December 4, 2009 11:58 AM
@Sadie - True enough. As much as I hate to see a politician get punished for making a good but politically dangerous decision I don't feel all that bad for Huckabee. If you're going to court the crazy right wing for votes you'd better understand just how reactionary they can be. And how quickly they'll toss you out on your ass.
Posted by: peaches | December 4, 2009 11:59 AM
Re Sadie Morrison
Sadly, I am going to have to take exception to the characterization of myself as a misogynist by Ms. Morrison. Apparently, this accusation is based on my calling attention to Ann Coulters' somewhat ambiguous sexual identity. I hardly think that that justifies the epithet misogynist.
Posted by: SLC | December 4, 2009 11:59 AM
Let me add mine to the chorus of voices saying that one shouldn't use "girl" as an insult term. It's no different than using "fag". It sets off a whole segment of society and associates them with something negative.
If the goal is to call into question his internet tough guy persona, there are plenty of non-gendered terms one can use. What's wrong with calling him a weakling or a coward?
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 11:59 AM
You aren't making any fucking sense, DingoJack. Yes, it IS insulting to women to insinuate that by being a woman or girl, you are somehow less-than. Stop trying to rationalize your sexism, and stop trying to speak for women: "It's not sexist toward women, I SWEAR!" Sorry, but I'm a woman: Yes.it.is. Using "girl" or "woman" as an insult is sexist, was always sexist, and will always be sexist. Period.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 12:01 PM
The postscript in my post above was directed to marilove.
Total edit fail on my part. Mea Culpa. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 4, 2009 12:03 PM
I don't see why Pat should be proud of being white, even if it is his only non-accomplishment. What, too damn lazy even to produce any melatonin? Since when is that an achievement?
Posted by: Pen | December 4, 2009 12:04 PM
Um, dingo jack?
Direct quote from dogmeatib: "Ummm, actually Patty girl"
He didn't just call him Patty; if he had, it wouldn't (necessarily) be sexist, just patronizing (which I am fine with, because Pat deserves to be patronized), but by sticking girl on the end, dogmeatib is clearly using girl as an insult.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 12:05 PM
dogmeatlib:
You say you're insulting that idiot racist by calling him a girl, but in so doing you're insulting girls by comparing them to an idiot racist.
What you're doing is baiting him. Doing so this way is reasonable only if angering a worthless racist shit a little more is more important than contributing another rant to the atmosphere of misogyny that we have to deal with every day. Maybe, if you were talking to the racist in private, it might be a reasonable tradeoff; doing so in a place where you know that anti-racist women are reading, and your target may not be, is "collateral" damage with only a low chance of hitting your target.
Posted by: Vicki | December 4, 2009 12:06 PM
Americonium. Obviously. On the table it stands alone, in the Patriotoid group.
Americium, actually.
Adrienne - a) Pat's an 'internet tough-guy'. His whole existence is wrapped up in convincing others that his genitals are unfeasibly large (to compensate for his total failure in the real world, in this case). Emasculate him virtually and he will resort to infantile, ever more lame, name-calling before flouncing. Calling him a girl is more of an insult to his tiny, fragile ego then any women's sense of pride in her identity.
It's a fine line to walk, and anyone who does has to be prepared to be misinterpreted. Another way to do this would be to question the sexuality of people like Pat. Even if you don't see anything wrong with being female or gay, Pat certainly will. You're letting him make his own insult. For instance, try something like this:
"Say Pat, date any women lately? Er, sorry. Shouldn't have been so presumptive. Date any people lately?"
Trust me, that'll get to him. It'll still prompt a few comments about going over the line, but I'd say it's a bit more defensible than just calling him a girl. Refusing to make an assumption of heterosexuality shouldn't be a problem, but the wrong type of person will read a problem into it. The construction of that line will imply more of an insult, though, so you might still have to be careful.
Posted by: Infophile | December 4, 2009 12:11 PM
Besides, there's no attribute of Pat that's even remotely "female," in either a good or bad way.
He probably has "moobs".
Posted by: green thumb | December 4, 2009 12:16 PM
This argument doesn't work. For instance, Pat is racist. But that doesn't make it a good idea to call him black.
Even if you intend it as an indictment of Pat's own racism, you'll inevitably come across as a racist yourself (even if you aren't). And regardless of how you intend it, it will still result in marginalization of black people.
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 12:17 PM
Infophile "Americium, actually."
Hardly. So-called "Americium" was ...named for the Americas..., which include a bunch of foreign countries, many of which aren't the good ol' US of A. You should be using Conservapedia's Periodic Table of the Elements. The so-called "real" periodic table was made by liberals and is, therefore, infested with liberalism. I mean, just look how they're grouped together, collectively! That's SOCIALISM!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 4, 2009 12:22 PM
"Calling him a girl is more of an insult to his tiny, fragile ego then any women's sense of pride in her identity."
Also, this in itself is insulting. It has nothing at all to do with our "sense of pride." It has to do with the fact that it's sexist. To assume that the only reason we care that it is sexist is because our pride is hurt is insulting and shows me that you don't have any understanding of sexism.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 12:23 PM
Letting this poor and obviously disturbed guy ridicule himself so completely is against human rights, I think.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 4, 2009 12:27 PM
Jesus Christ. Pat has responded:
So Pat is reveling in the death of a race he views as uncivilized and inferior, but we're the fascists. And making fun of him for being a racist idiot violates his free speech somehow.
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 12:33 PM
@ Infophile - I did exactly what you suggest once with a co-worker, though it was in no way intended as an insult. He was a new guy and we went out to lunch. We were having a get accquainted conversation and I asked if he had a girlfriend. Quickly realizing that I had no idea if he was gay or straight I added "or a boyfriend?" He was youngish, around 25 and he seemed cool so I really didn't think he would take offense at the question. I was wrong. He didn't blow up or anything but he was very offended by the implication that he might possibly be perceived as anything other than 100% hetero. So, as you say, it's quite possible to insult a bigot without actually insulting them at all. Just give the impression that they aren't self-evidently the total opposite of what they hate and they'll freak.
Not that we would have gotten along anyway, turns out he's a crazy conpiracy nut.
Posted by: peaches | December 4, 2009 12:36 PM
I really, really love when people who have no idea what free speech actually means. Apparently, he is allowed to spew his racist bullshit, but we must keep quiet! LOL
And this is actually a good example of why you shouldn't use gender OR sexuality as an insult:
You are essentially at his level if you do. Replace "gay" with "girl". He is an ignorant racist, clearly homophobic, and likely misogynist. He would have no qualms about calling YOU or anyone else a girl (or fag) as an insult. Why would you want to be like him?
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 12:39 PM
Peaches, that is WHY it's not a good idea to (intentionally) use sexuality or gender as an insult, even if it's "subtle". Because it just further perpetuates the myth to these bigots that being gay or a woman IS an insult. It really, really doesn't help the cause against racism or sexism at all, and instead just promotes it. Don't do it. There are plenty of other ways to insult someone without using gender or sexuality.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 12:43 PM
Posted by: BdN | December 4, 2009 12:47 PM
Pat The Bigot "responds":
---Look like some idiotic liberal fascist Blog and my gay stalker [meaning Ed] are not happy with this post. I find it so amazing that liberal fascists only believe in freedom of speech…..when it suits their political ideology. Truth must hurt, aye? Deal with it. Further more, how is it, that a Black Man can say that he is black and proud; but yet, if a White Man like me says that I am white and proud, I am automatically penned as a racist? Double standards are such a tragic thing. But then again, that is the sick and demented world of Liberalism. White men must be ashamed of themselves for things they had nothing to do with. It is a truly sad state of affairs.---
#1- You are right Pat; we aren't happy. We are laughing our asses off from the hilarious rants you are delivering.
#2- BWHAHAHAHAHAHA! Projection much there Pat?
#3- Don't want to feel shame? Stop being a bigot. It's not too difficult. Although that is on a sliding scale
#4- The only sad thing is that at some point; someone is going to die from laughing at your blog and someone's kin MIGHT test the Family Guy's tagline. Not that they would win; but considering the type of arguments you present in your blog; you just never know....
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | December 4, 2009 12:47 PM
You really don't have a grasp on Pat's psychology do you?
Pat is a former truck driver who has been laid off and now lives in the basement of his parent's home. He has few prospects for employment or meeting others (particularly of the opposite sex). He feels disempowered and helpless. In order to compensate for this, he has constructed this ultra-masculine personality (an 'Internet tough-guy') to regain control, power and purpose.
Calling him 'black' doesn't affect his position, but calling him 'a girl', well, that hits him in the gonads, (if indeed that was SLC's intention, but only SLC can speak to that).
If I can't speak for women (which is, I concede, a fair point) neither can you. You can be outraged on your own behalf, but not speak for all females everywhere. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 4, 2009 12:55 PM
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 4, 2009 12:55 PM
Also, if you are a man who uses sexist language and are called out on it, don't be a fucking asshole. Admit your mistake. Make an effort not to use such sexist language. If you had just done that: "Woops, my bad, I'm sorry! I'll work on that!" We would have just passed it off as you making a sexist remark on accident. No big deal, sometimes men forget that they live in a privileged world. It's okay, it really is. No human is perfect. But if when a man continues to argue against the several women who are telling you it IS sexist and clearly stating WHY it is sexist, but you refuse to listen, it quickly becomes clear that you are not willing to listen, or learn, and further makes me think that you have no regard whatsoever for women or what we have to deal with on a daily basis, and that you should just be allowed to say whatever you want without consequence. I mean, sure, you can say whatever you want, but we have every right to call out sexist language. And if you continue to use sexist language even after being called out on it (very nicely, I might add), we have every right to consider you a sexist jackass.
Also, yes, he does consider being a "girl" a bad thing. But he also considers being black a bad thing. Are you going to use racist language to insult him? Are you going to call HIM a "negro" since he clearly understands that "negro" is an insult? NO! Because you know it's racist and you aren't racist!
The fact that you would use sexist language but not racist language is very interesting, actually, and is really common: It's still acceptable to be sexist, even among the most liberal.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 12:58 PM
Oh, I see DingoJack. Because HE finds being a "girl" insulting, it's totally okay for you to use it, since it clearly hits him where it hurts! *eye roll* That makes no sense whatsoever.
So essentially you are a sexist jackass. Good to know.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 1:00 PM
What, too damn lazy even to produce any melatonin?
I think you mean "melanin," but "melatonin" is way funnier. :-)
Posted by: Solly Hofman | December 4, 2009 1:08 PM
Pat is never going to be able to wrap his feeble mind around the idea that freedom of speech does not grant you freedom from mockery. And this is very telling:
Black men on the other hand...
Posted by: Imrryr | December 4, 2009 1:09 PM
@ marilove - I was not suggesting that people practice such behavior, merely confirming Infophile's point that if someone is a bigot they will take offense at utterly non-offensive things regardless of the intent of the speaker. I didn't intend to offend the guy but I did anyway because he's a bigot.
Posted by: peaches | December 4, 2009 1:09 PM
I extend my sympathies to white motherfuckers for Pat sullying their name.
Posted by: ruemara | December 4, 2009 1:14 PM
I think Pat actually believes that liberals having freedom of speech violates his own freedom of speech.
And what is with the numerous idiots and wingnuts going by the name Pat?* Pat Buchanon, Pat Robertson, Pat Donahue (on the off-chance that he's not a Poe), the moron who's the subject of this thread...
*Apologies to the sane Pats out there, Pat Condell being one example I can think of.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 4, 2009 1:15 PM
"You aren't making any fucking sense, DingoJack. Yes, it IS insulting to women to insinuate that by being a woman or girl, you are somehow less-than. Stop trying to rationalize your sexism, and stop trying to speak for women: "It's not sexist toward women, I SWEAR!" Sorry, but I'm a woman: Yes.it.is. Using "girl" or "woman" as an insult is sexist, was always sexist, and will always be sexist. Period." - marilove
Calm down, bro.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 4, 2009 1:18 PM
You don't know what a fascist is, do you?
I'm afraid Ed, though he isn't gay, won't be offended by this like you hope. As far as being happy about your post, I'm sure it made his day.
[Inigo]You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means[/Inigo]
You are being mocked. Freedom of speech does not mean you will not be mocked. It does not mean others are not allowed to speak in opposition to what you say. It couldn't - that would be a logical contradiction. What it does mean is that the government won't step in to silence you, which it hasn't.
You're not automatically penned as racist. You're penned as racist because you spew hatred and prejudice against black people.
You had nothing to do this?
Or this?
Or this?
I thought conservatives were supposed to be all about "personal responsibility".
Posted by: DaveL | December 4, 2009 1:18 PM
Sharp as a marble, Pat. Keep 'em coming.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | December 4, 2009 1:20 PM
I'm with Paul Lundgren on this one: Orly update now!
Posted by: Dave M | December 4, 2009 1:20 PM
I have to disagree with the piling on of dogmeatib, especially marilove's comments.
Let's imagine that Pat actually was Patty, a homophobic, racist female. Say that dogmeatib's comment began,
"Ummm, actually Pat boy, most states..."
Would you construe this as meaning dogmeatib finds being called a male an insult?
If so, then I guess kudos to you for consistency, but I disagree. True, it's a crude tactic, and it is baiting. Obviously. It's nothing more than insulting someone in a way that will affect them, a childish, playground-y tactic. But I think someone can do this without ascribing (secretly or not) to the positions that makes the insult effective. Calling a homophobe homosexual, a racist a racial epithet, a misogynist female, Skeletor He-Man, etc.—I believe these all to be necessarily derogatory in the recipient's worldview only.
In this case, as DingoJack points out, since Pat is such a bloviating pseudo-masculine asshole, the obvious insult will be to highlight his misogyny/homophobia. Doing so doesn't make the insulter a misogynist/homophobe, it marks his/her descent into childishness. I suppose you could take this further and make an argument along the lines of, "Well, since you allowed yourself to be childish here, that means you're secretly ok with..." but I think that's a stretch. I think being childish proves you're...ok with being childish. Reading more into it gets into murky psychological ground, for me.
Personally, since they're just baiting techniques, I refrain from them since I'd rather just insult someone on the facts.
Posted by: Kris | December 4, 2009 1:25 PM
It should be a no-brainer that saying "So-and-So is an X!" to insult So-and-So is also an insult to people in group X, whatever X happens to be. But comparing men to women in order to insult them is near-ubiquitous in our culture, and people-- both male and female-- internalize it to the point that it really seems to come out reflexively. So point it out, but don't be mean about it, and follow Jay Smooth's advice on having the "thing you said" conversation and not the "who you are" conversation (that video really should be on everybody's speed-dial).
The internet is full of laws these days....is there a law which says that in conversation with an authoritarian, as time passes the inevitability that he/she will claim that criticizing his/her speech amounts to opposing his/her freedom of speech reaches 100%? Because there should be.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 4, 2009 1:29 PM
Captain Mike, did you call marilove "bro," after she's repeatedly revealed that she's a woman, as a backhanded insult (i.e. only a guy would put forth such a heated argument)?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 4, 2009 1:29 PM
The banner ad at the top of the Political Byline homepage just now was for online anger management classes. Priceless.
Posted by: jeeem | December 4, 2009 1:30 PM
He didn't blow up or anything but he was very offended by the implication that he might possibly be perceived as anything other than 100% hetero. So, as you say, it's quite possible to insult a bigot without actually insulting them at all.
Actually, he may not have been "insulted," just disturbed at the notion that he might have been giving a false impression of his character without knowing it. I'm not a homophobe, but if someone asked me if I had a boyfriend, a part of me would be a little upset and wondering what I might have done to make him think I was gay when I'm not. I'd also be a bit worried about what other problems I might be causing myself if people thought I was something I'm not.
I don't hate Marines either, but I still wouldn't want to be mistaken for one. (Like that's gonna happen...)
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 4, 2009 1:42 PM
Gretchen @ 86: "It should be a no-brainer that saying 'So-and-So is an X!' to insult So-and-So is also an insult to people in group X, whatever X happens to be."
This is why I think it's childish, because I think someone can say "So-and-SO is an X!" without considering whether or not it's insulting to group X. Not making this consideration allows them to make the comment while simultaneously not ascribing to the insult of group X. Sloppy and not consistent intellectually, obviously. But I think going from dogmeatib's comments to labeling him misogynist/sexist is an awfully big leap (I'm not implying you made this connection).
If the comment is made in childishness and not in misogyny, is it still misogynist? That's probably an argument lots of people have had. If you teach a non-English-speaker the word "fuck" without telling them what it means, is it still a swear word when they say it? I dunno; I'm just an internet voice.
Posted by: Kris | December 4, 2009 1:44 PM
No, Captain Mike, I won't. I'm really tired of men telling women to calm down when we try to tell them to stop being sexist jackasses. It'd be one thing if he had been like "Oops, you are right" but he just keeps trying to rationalize his sexist language. It really isn’t my fault if he’s acting like a sexist jerk.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 1:46 PM
When I went to the PoliticalByline.com site to read Pat's drivel, I noticed that the ad banner at the very top of the page was for an online anger management class. Something that I think Pat should enroll for, but this requires money and since Pat is probably unemployed and no doubt blaming "hamburger-head looking Negro thugs" for his plight, I doubt this will happen.
So typical... a racist screed is posted and then we usually get some pseudo-scientific bullshit justifying it. "Hey, I'm not a racist because it's a scientific FACT that negros are prone to criminalit!!!" Of course no such evidence exists...
Pat's racist rants are sadly all too similar to the various comments that I see posted to the Seattle Times website or other newspaper websites. I share Ed's concern that folks like this are able to vote.
Posted by: Brian W | December 4, 2009 1:48 PM
Peaches: your correction on Huckabee at #44 is noted. Thanks.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 4, 2009 1:51 PM
Kris said:
If you say a sexist thing to be childish, it's still a sexist thing. You may not, however, be a sexist person, and analyzing to death whether you are or are not is a fruitless task which just tends to get everybody's hackles up. That's what I was trying to get across in my previous post.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 4, 2009 1:53 PM
It'd actually be both homophobic AND sexist, because you would be trying to insinuate that she's not really a woman because she's a lesbian. But being called a man in our society is NOT considered an insult because being a man in our society is the default, and because men have not been oppressed, both in the past and present.
You really don't understand sexism. It doesn't just affect him. By using female pronouns as insults, you are insinuating that being female is an insult. Period. You are essentially giving him the go-ahead to say: “Well you said it! Why isn’t okay if you did it! Why is it only not okay if I do it!” It’s NEVER OKAY!
I ONLY make this connection when men don't listen and continue to use such words when they are WELL AWARE that it's sexist. Once your ignorance has been taken away, there is no longer any excuse.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 1:54 PM
I usually try to distinguish between casual sexism and outright misogyny. I seriously doubt that dogmeatib is a misogynist. However, I do think his using the term "girl" as an insult is mildly sexist, probably through no intention of his own. We get so accustomed to these kinds of things that often-times we don't realize the built-in bias.
Example: The other day I informed my German-immigrant history of biology professor that I wasn't able to hand a paper in because my printer was "on the fritz". It later dawned on me that "fritz" is an ethnic slur against Germans. D'oh! Luckily she wasn't pissed at me, and gave me an A on the paper. :)
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 1:56 PM
So men who use sexist language, even on accident, shouldn't consider why it's sexist? Look, I am not going to jump down someone's throat if they accidently toss out a sexist term here and there, but I WILL get pissed if they CONTINUE to use it and CONTINUE to rationalize and defend their behavior after being told it's not cool, with clear and logical reasons as to why it's not cool. At that point it's apparent to me that they really don't give a shit that they used sexist language, and it's clear to me that they probably use it on a regular basis, and probably have no intentions on changing.
At that point, I start to go from "well, he just used sexist language, but that doesn't mean he's actually sexist" to "he is sexist and delusional about it."
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 1:58 PM
@Raging Bee - That's certainly a possibility but I got the impression at the time that the offense to him went a little deeper than just concern for the image he projected.
However, this gives me the chance to bring up a totally off topic question people here might be able to answer. I've mentioned this guy is a conspiracy nut. In describing him I often say his reasoning is the opposite of Occam's razor - if there are several possible explanations for a phenomenon he'll invariably pick the most outlandish and convoluted. Is there some catchy name for this like there is for poe, goodwin's law, etc? Or do we just stick with "conspiracy nut"? We started calling him Dale Gribble around the office, but not that many people got it.
Posted by: peaches | December 4, 2009 1:59 PM
It is very important to call Pat a girl.
Otherwise we wouldn't be able to follow-up by calling Pat a shrew.
Posted by: Rob Jase | December 4, 2009 1:59 PM
Wait, so it's sexist and homophobic to call a man "boy" because by implying he's male you're saying he's actually a woman who's actually a lesbian and therefore not really a woman at all?
I understand the rest of your arguments on this thread, but please tell me that was some kind of parody.
Posted by: DaveL | December 4, 2009 2:00 PM
Pat say,
Is there a Godwin-type rule that people claiming that criticism is an attack on free speech automatically lose the debate?
Posted by: Mr. Upright | December 4, 2009 2:04 PM
No no no. It's sexist and homophobic to call a lesbian woman a boy/man, when she identifies as a woman, because you are implying that she's not *really* a woman because she doesn't conform to rigid gender roles.
It wouldn’t be homophobic or sexist to call a man a boy, though it would be patronizing. It would be racist to call a black man a boy, because of the racial history when it comes to that word and black men.
It is entirely possible that I misunderstood something, so hopefully I made that a bit clearer for you.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 2:07 PM
marilove said:
Of course they should-- which would be why I bothered to explain why it's sexist. I would, however, suggest that if you're going to point out that somebody said a sexist thing, you should take pains to emphasize that you're talking about what they said rather than who they are. If you make that distinction and they still brush you off, screw 'em. It's not worth it.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 4, 2009 2:13 PM
Re Gretchen @ 94: Yes, sorry. My post should've been subtitled, "...in addition to agreeing with your post."
Re marilove @ 95: I want to state that I agree with you fundamentally: bigotry, latent or not, should be brought to light and discouraged. That being said, I think we're speaking somewhat past each other: I think this is making an awfully big deal out of it because it was fundamentally childish, while you (for reasons you explain) do not. If dogmeatib serially made comments in the vein of the above, I would be more in agreement with you. I haven't seen this so far.
I'm confused by this:
Where did her being a lesbian come from?This is where we're somewhat talking past each other, as illuminated by Gretchen's comments. What's being said versus the intention behind the words, etc. etc. For me, calling a boy a girl goes back to the playground, where you did it because girls were icky. Since Pat is childish, that was how I took dogmeatib's comment initially.
Again, I think we're in fundamental agreement. I objected to what I viewed as over-reaching denunciation of dogmeatib, via his comment. For which, again, Gretchen points out the distinction.
Posted by: Kris | December 4, 2009 2:15 PM
I'm pretty sure Kris was recasting dogmeat's reply to Pat, a self-identified heterosexual male, so I would think only the second case would fit this mold.
Your commentary on why being called a man is not an insult in our society still applies, though.
Posted by: DaveL | December 4, 2009 2:17 PM
Sorry, missed the part where Kris was referring to a hypothetical female Pat.
Posted by: DaveL | December 4, 2009 2:21 PM
I'm actually not taking much issue with dogmeatib anymore, Kris, because he hasn't really being replying. Sorry that I haven't made myself clearer, but I've been refering to DingoJack, who doesn't seem to get it, and who keeps trying to rationalize the sexist language.
But it's actually sexist when boys find girls icky on the playground. It's not their fault, since they are kids and lack a lot of self-awareness, but it IS the fault of our sexist society for drilling it into them that girls are icky. By using such language, you are just reinforcing that thought process, and you are just reinforcing the idea that girls are icky. I don't care who the gendered insult is aimed toward, or who is saying it,it is not okay, and no matter how much you try to rationalize it, it is still sexist.
And it's all good, DaveL. I thought maybe *I* missed something. :)
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 2:33 PM
marilove "...but it IS the fault of our sexist society for drilling it into them that girls are icky."
It is not sexist. Everybody knows that girls are vectors for cooties and that contact with boys can harm the poor lads, up until sometime around puberty, when boys become immune to cooties.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 4, 2009 2:44 PM
So is this thread turning into "Shrew Wars II: The Wrath of Pat"?
Posted by: Adrienne | December 4, 2009 2:45 PM
Or, "Pat displays racism; commenters display sexism; Pat gets hopelessly confused".
Posted by: Adrienne | December 4, 2009 2:48 PM
Not necessarily; X may just be insulting to the insultee. If you are someone who strives to be as feminine as possible and I say, 'Gretchen is such a man', that would be insulting to you, even though it implies nothing necessarily that that is an insult to men. (and vice-versa calling masculine men 'such a woman'). Alternatively, if you tried to be masculine, 'Gretchen is such man' may be a compliment.
Posted by: Spartan | December 4, 2009 2:50 PM
Nah, Adrienne, at this point it seems like a pretty civil discussion, and most people are in agreement that using "girl" as an insult is sexist. Except for DingoJack. As for dogmeatib I can't say, because he hasn't yet replied to the explanations of why using "girl" as an insult is sexist. It's possible he really didn't know and that now he sees the light, and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because other regular commenters say he isn't prone to using blatantly sexist language.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 2:50 PM
Marilove @74 , Ido take issue with people Claiming that we live In a male privaleged Society .
Current trends in many areas show , That each gender has Areas where they are Privaleged , I thinks its wrong in either case , for example in family courts, Mother have an advantage , in criminal courts , women most often get lighter sentences . in the area of domestic violence , women have far more resources . in any case we are all Humans regardless of gender or race . and we should all be treated equally .
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 4, 2009 2:59 PM
WOWO!!
Pat Buchannan said that on national TV?! I knew he would slip up sooner or later...
did the rest of the panelists laugh and did Racheal M say.. "Now Pat...."
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | December 4, 2009 2:59 PM
What the fuck is up with the spaces before your punctuation and your weird insistence on capitalizing random words, Vic Vanity?
If you're a man, you are inherently privileged in our society. Period.
I didn't say that sexism doesn't hurt men, either, because it does, as you've clearly stated. That doesn't mean women are more privileged than men. They aren't.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 3:04 PM
Spartan,
How the person being insulted responds to the comparison really isn't relevant. It's the intention of the person making the comparison that matters. I've been told I think like a man before (by Ed, actually) but it wasn't meant to be an insult so I wouldn't call that sexist.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 4, 2009 3:05 PM
Pat isn't ducking into the punch.
He's walking right into the bombing range as the nuke goes off.
What a maroon.
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | December 4, 2009 3:08 PM
You've all fallen into Pat's cleverly-laid trap. By tricking you into directing your anger toward each other instead of at him, he has brought the schism among fascist, pointy-headed, free-speech hating liberals to the forefront.
Nice going.
Posted by: Mandrake | December 4, 2009 3:09 PM
Actually, Mandrake, I'd rather him not get any more attention. That's what he wants. He gets off on this attention, I would bet anything.
That's why using gendered insults toward him is not a good idea, because it doesn't *really* insult him -- no, by giving him such attention, you are just giving him what he wants.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 3:12 PM
Mandrake By tricking you into directing your anger toward each other instead of at him, he has brought the schism among fascist, pointy-headed, free-speech hating liberals to the forefront. Nice going."
No problem. I'm brewing some chai tea to unruffle our liberal feathers. Later on, we'll play "hide behind the Constitution" and maybe listen to NPR or get gay-married.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 4, 2009 3:15 PM
Mandrake "By tricking you into directing your anger toward each other instead of at him, he has brought the schism among fascist, pointy-headed, free-speech hating liberals to the forefront. Nice going."
No problem. I'm brewing some chai tea to unruffle our liberal feathers. Later on, we'll play "hide behind the Constitution" and, if time permits, maybe listen to NPR or get gay-married.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 4, 2009 3:16 PM
I also hear that Michigan gets only a fraction of the federal hurricane relief money that Florida gets.
Posted by: DaveL | December 4, 2009 3:17 PM
Quick logic lesson. The following argument is not valid:
Some X is not Y.
Therefore, most X is not Y.
The unfairness of family courts--they're tendency to side with the mother as a default in almost all cases--are well documented. I won't deny you that one--a friend of mine got absolutely screwed in his divorce, so I've seen it with my own eyes. He's paying alimony and child support to a woman whose income is three times larger than his, and he still cares for the kid half of the week and pays for half of the kid's expenses himself. It's an extremely unfair situation, and he's frequently broke because of it. So I sympathize.
But that doesn't change the fact that, for the most part, we live in a male-dominated society, not a female-dominated society and not a gender-neutral society. For every example you can come up with where women have it easier than men, it would be easy to come up with several instances where men have it easier than women.
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 3:18 PM
Gretchen I was responding to your 'So-and-so is an X' equation. If I say, 'Gretchen is such a man', you think I've insulted men? If so, how so, and what is the further translation of that insult? Your equation does work for many statements, but I don't think all.
Posted by: Spartan | December 4, 2009 3:18 PM
Marilove @115
Marilove, two reasons for my horrible puncutation spelling and typing , 1. i suck at typing, two i have a form or dyslexia.
Marilove , as a male i have not seen one instance of my male privilage,
for instance i have been homeless on a number of occasions(and most of the homeless are in fact MALES.) currently the largest number of unemployed are men.
in Pats case(i am not defending pat cause he is nucking futs) he gets mocked for living at home. now if pat was a female, nothing would be said about his living at home. as i stated previously, each gender has specific ares were they are privaleged, and it shouldnt be the case since we are all people. we should all be treated as equals and thinks shoudl be based on merit not genitalia, skin color or sexual orientation.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 4, 2009 3:21 PM
Peaches: The Huckabee article is full of lies. Starting with the fact that Clemmons was 17 and not 16. Clemmons had an extensive record of violent assaults and robberies. Clemmons had attempted to kill his trial judge by stealing a weapon from a guard. Clemmons was not sentenced to 101 years for a burglary. He was sentenced for 8 different felonies, several of them violent. Clemmons would have been eligible for parole in 2015. But Clemmons claimed to be a new person. He claimed to have converted, that he was saved. That is why Huckabee released him. Huckabee is simply full of shit.
http://www.examiner.com/x-22564-Des-Moines-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d4-Huckabee-is-lying-about-cop-killers-criminal-record-in-Arkansas
The other question is, what the hell was the judge in Washington thinking when he let Clemmons out on bail? Clemmons was being charged with raping a 12 year old along with several other felonies and was facing life with no parole if convicted.
Posted by: Tom | December 4, 2009 3:22 PM
Spartan said:
If you say it to insult me, then yes. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a man, but if you call me a man in order to imply that I'm hot-headed, or sexually promiscuous, or refuse to read a map, or any other negative stereotype about men, don't you think that's insulting to men?
Posted by: Gretchen | December 4, 2009 3:25 PM
DingoJack and dogmeatib:
They have a point, but the response is overblown.
Other than that... <Robert Clotworthy voice>Don't let it get to you, man. This happened to me once.</Robert Clotworthy voice>
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 4, 2009 3:27 PM
To Sadie Morrison @ #86:
No. I was attempting a joke. Sorry it wasn't...
a) clear
b) funny
For the record, my view is that calling a man a woman (or a woman a man) as an insult is sexist, as it implies that there's something wrong with one of those groups.
On a related topic, there was a very long time when I considered it okay to call a woman a cunt, because after all she could always call me a dick. This logic broke down completely on the day I realized that it meant I had a license to call someone a nigger, simply because they could call me a cracker. I'm ashamed to say I was 35 years old when I had this epiphany.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 4, 2009 3:27 PM
"as a male i have not seen one instance of my male privilage, "
Then you have no idea what male privilige is.
Plenty of women are homeless. There probably are more homeless men, but that's because it's still considered the societal norm that men are the breadwinners, and so when they lose that status, they generally don't get much support. That is one reason how sexism hurts men, but that doesn't mean women are more privileged than men.
Again, that's because men are still considered the main breadwinners in our society, and so it only makes logical sense that when we have a high unemployment rate, more men will be unemployed. That said, women STILL make 75% (I can't recall the actual #) less than men. Again, just because more men are unemployed does not mean men are less privileged than women.
And, once again, that's because men are still considered the breadwinners in our society.
Just because it SHOULD be doesn't mean that's the way it is.
You really have no idea what male privilege is.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 3:31 PM
Wes @ 123,
Wes i dont disagree that men have the advantage in MANY areas , for example it is far more easier for a man to obtain succes in Business. and as you pointed out for every instance i can name were women have it eaiser than men , you could point out were men have it easier , of course the opposite is true . I do hope for the day when we are Gender nuetral and we judge everyone based upon their individual merit.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 4, 2009 3:33 PM
Marilove,@130.
Obviously , i do not have any idea of what you think Male privalge is, but i am more than willing to listen to you explain it. and i am always willing to admit if my current views are wrong. when someone does take the time to educate me on why my views are wrong. (Ed has taken the time in a good number of areas to explain thinsg and has changed my views. (its one of the main reasons i have great respect for Ed) rather than just say i am wrong he showed me why.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 4, 2009 3:38 PM
I'm hesitant to wander in to this discussion given the recent "shrew" brouhaha, but I have to agree with Gretchen and others here. Clearly dogmeat intended to insult Pat by calling him "Patty girl." That clearly implies that being a girl is a bad thing and is therefore an insult to actual girls. For the same reason that saying of every bad thing "that's so gay" is clearly implying that being gay is a bad thing.
I won't go as far as to say that someone who uses such language is therefore sexist because I don't believe that's true. Sometimes we just reach for a cliche without thinking about it and then get defensive when challenged on it (and I should know).
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 4, 2009 3:39 PM
Gretchen, I specifically put in my first comment that *if you were someone who strove to be as feminine as possible*, calling you a man is insulting to you but not (in general) to the group 'men', as most men do not consider being masculine insulting or a negative quality.
(to be clear, I don't find you masculine nor am I trying to insult you; you are in fact one of my favorite Dispatches commenters)
Posted by: Spartan | December 4, 2009 3:42 PM
Ed,
This has gone on long enough. I do not think you are fooling anyone with this "Pat" sockpuppet alter ego. I know you put a lot of work into creating his blog, but no one is falling for it any longer. Do you actually expect your readers to believe that there exists such a person, admitting to living in his parents' basement, claiming to be an adult, yet posting screeds and rants that even Eric Cartman would label "lame"?
Surely this Pat creation needs to be allowed to fade into oblivion. You must have better things to do than play Victor Frankenstein and vivify this pseudo-adolescent's blog with rambling posts that would not even meet the standards of the notorious Happeh (http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Happeh, http://www.happeh.com/).
(Tounge now removed from cheek).
Posted by: sirhcton | December 4, 2009 3:51 PM
I understand your point of view. If you've struggled with homelessness in your life, it would be extremely difficult to see how you're "privileged" (because, obviously, you never got a piece of that privilege yourself).
However, you should seriously consider marilove's point that the disproportionate homelessness of men may actually be a product of male privilege, not female privilege. The misogynistic assholes who treat women like second class citizens also tend to be heartless bullies towards less dominant men. It's the whole, "Suck it up! Be a man!" attitude that you hear again and again from privileged men when justifying their own bullying behavior.
I know it seems paradoxical, but the unfairness you and other homeless men experienced might actually be the result of the fact that you live in a male dominated society. You just had the misfortune of not being one of the dominant males. (I don't intend that as an insult. I ain't dominant either, not by any stretch of the imagination.)
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 3:52 PM
"But it's actually sexist when boys find girls icky on the playground. It's not their fault, since they are kids and lack a lot of self-awareness, but it IS the fault of our sexist society for drilling it into them that girls are icky." - marilove
Hmmm...then why do girls also think boys are icky? I vaguely recall hearing Desmond Morris droning on about this at some point, but I can't remember what his explanation was.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 4, 2009 3:52 PM
Vic, white men don't see white male privilege, because it's simply how we're used to being treated.
I know how you feel, as the phrase tends to get my hackles up too. I sure as heck don't feel privileged. But I am.
I'm also probably one of the dominant males Wes references above. I'm about as alpha as they come, although I try hard not to be a misogynistic asshole. As for bullying other men...well, let's just say Wes has given me some food for thought. Thanks.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 4, 2009 3:58 PM
Wes @ 136,
That does make some sense , Could you please explain further ?
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 4, 2009 3:59 PM
To explain marilove's comment a little more, it's part of the nature of privilege that the beneficiary isn't even aware of it. Not having to notice Privilege is itself one of its perks.
Posted by: DaveL | December 4, 2009 4:02 PM
Male privilege as in where your Dean tells you that if you want to hire a new physical science faculty member in your department, it has to be a woman? Not the best person, just a woman.
I sure wouldn't want to be that woman, and know I got hired just because I had a vagina and not a penis.
How about male privilege in physical science faculty, where women get disproportionate numbers of interviews, disproportionate numbers of offers, and have disproportionately higher rates of getting tenure? I would rather know I got tenure because I deserved it, not because I had a vagina.
Posted by: Rob | December 4, 2009 4:07 PM
I might also point out that it's quite common for women who would otherwise be homeless to enter into a sexual relationship with a man solely to have access to food and shelter. They call it "survival sex". Alternatively, they may wind up in outright prostitution, essentially slaves to their pimps.
In both cases, they stop counting as "homeless", but as a man you don't see their sexual servitude, just that they aren't homeless.
Posted by: DaveL | December 4, 2009 4:08 PM
Captian Mike ,
I think i was simply lucky to grow up in a household, that taught me everyone is equal, of course this tends to make me see the world through blinders. my parents friends while limited were of all walks of life. and i have alwasy Responded to people based upon the way they treat me.
perhaps this is one of the main reason i do not see my "privalege" .
that and the fact that i personally have never experienced any privalege and have earned any respect from others i have been given..
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 4, 2009 4:08 PM
Chemical and Engineering News, June 8, 2009, p. 9
from a report from the National Academies of Science.
Posted by: Rob | December 4, 2009 4:09 PM
Davel,
I am not sure i see that as sexist , nor male privalge, i see that more as a biological factor. people generally do what it takes to survive , regardless if it is to lie cheat or steal.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 4, 2009 4:12 PM
Vic, Wes explained it waaaay better than I did. :) And DaveL's point on comment #140 is also good.
Because in our society, Men and Women Are Different and of course a girl and a boy can't be friends because they are SO DIFFERENT!!!! Girls don't like boys because they are icky and do dirty boy things, and boys don't like girls because they are icky and do icky girly things. Or rather, that's what our society tells them: You are different species, you can't get along!!! In fact, I'd say the tendency for boys and girls to exaggerate that point ("EEWWWW GIRLS!" "EWWW BOYS!") just further proves my point – kids are generally naturally very honest about how they feel, because they don’t have a filter like most adults do.
It's just a different side to the same sexist coin.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 4:15 PM
I think that Gretchen's first comment in this thread was spot-on. We have (rightly) criticized dogmeatib's choice of insult, and given the fact that nearly every female commenter in this thread (and a number of males besides) agrees that it's a sexist insult, I'm guessing that dogmeat at least understands where we're coming from. And no, I don't think that he is automatically a sexist just because he fell back on an insensitive trope in this instance.
Oh, and Ed, just to keep track, Pat has now called you a fascist, a pedophile, a stalker, gay, an asshole, and an asshat. It's almost as if you've struck a nerve.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 4, 2009 4:16 PM
Yes, but before I brought it up, it was just "more men are homeless", as if this were some advantage women enjoyed over men, as if you would have been better off as a woman. Privilege allows you to pretend this is the case and simply not see what women go through at the bottom of the socioeconomic barrel.
Posted by: DaveL | December 4, 2009 4:19 PM
Thanks, Ed. And for the record, I don't automatically think someone who off-handedly uses sexist language is necessarily sexist. But I do start to wonder when they continue to argue and try to defend such sexist language when they are told that it's sexist, and told WHY it's sexist.
But you HAVE experienced it. Just because you don't notice it doesn't mean you haven't experienced it. For the record, I do NOT think you are sexist. Quite the opposite. But I don't think you quite understand male privilege yet. There are plenty of resources online. I'd point some out but I'm about to take off. Perhaps someone else can elaborate. :)
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 4:21 PM
Basically, male privilege hurts certain males too. Not all males benefit from male privilege--only a certain subset of males do. Other men might be harmed by it (gay men especially, as misogyny and homophobia often go hand in hand). That's why I believe you when you say you haven't experienced it (and I'm not going to condescend to you and say that you have, you just didn't realize it).
A lot of the heartless attitude towards the poor, the homeless, the mentally ill, etc. in this country is being pushed by the very same males who oppose gender equality, women's reproductive rights, etc. That is, the people who set up the system which gave you so much difficulty in the past are the same people who benefit most from male privilege.
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 4:24 PM
That's just yet another product of our male dominated society. I know it's a tough thing to reconcile, but the problem is that women have been routienly ignored in many male-dominated fields for generations, and some places are now trying to play catch up. You need to realize that for many years (and it's still the case in many places), that "best person" was, essentially, "the best man" because they rarely ever even considered women.
That said, how do you know that the woman they may end up hiring isn't the best person for the job? There are probably several someones of either gender that would fit the job just fine. As long as that woman IS qualified for the job, I don't think it should matter. It would only matter, imo, if that woman wasn't qualified and yet was still hired.
Citation? Because as far as I know, science is still a male-dominated field.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 4:26 PM
Hey Vic. I was raised pretty much the same way. Oddly enough, it seems to have made it a lot harder for me to spot sexism and racism when I encounter it.
It can be hard to spot privilege. It will rarely be as obvious as "Tom is a man. Tom gets the promotion. Jane is a woman. Jane gets scorn and beatings."
A big problem is that things often used to be that obvious, but we drove those attitudes underground. From the perspective of a lot of white men (and probably men generally), the problem appears solved. In fact, I know quite a few women who believe the problem to be solved as well, and that today's feminists are simply whining.
The problem isn't solved, and it won't ever be solved if we don't confront it.
Personally, I hope to live in a truly gender neutral society one day, as I believe that it will vastly increase the potential for truly insane levels of sex play.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 4, 2009 4:28 PM
I'm really not trying to be condescending, but I honestly do believe that he has experienced it and just hasn't realized it. If he is a white male, he has most certainly experienced it. Even the small shit, like being able to go to a mechanic without being scammed or lied to. Or just the very fact that he likely isn't a sexual assault statistic (which includes much more than just rape), like the majority of women are. I'm sure he's not experienced getting leered at and grabbed just because he's walking down the street or taking public transportation. I can wear sweats and a stained shirt and still get harassed. And it’s not because I’m Hot Shit. It’s because I am a woman in a male dominated society.
Of course, I’m NOT saying that male privilege hasn’t hurt him, for many of the reasons you’ve stated, DaveL. Sexism hurts men too. That is clear.
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 4:32 PM
And here we have the obligatory whining about affirmative action. But what Rob fails to point out is that despite this alleged bias towards hiring women, women still make up far less than 50% of the faculty in many departments. In other words, they are not an honest, representative sample of the population.
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 4:34 PM
Basically, DaveL, Wes, and Captain Mike are spot on. :)
Posted by: marilove | December 4, 2009 4:35 PM
Spartan said:
Right. But in such a case, you wouldn't really be calling me a man to insult me, would you? I mean, you might (or might not) be saying it to hurt my feelings, but I don't think that's quite the same. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but the original claim I was trying to make was that if you're comparing person X to members of group Y in order to disparage X by suggesting he/she has some negative (in your eyes) trait of group Y, then you are by default insulting group Y. (Complicated enough? ;-))
It's like Pat calling Ed gay-- whether or not Ed is offended by that, and whether or not Ed sees himself as stereotypically straight, it's insulting to gays because it's clear that Pat, the insulter, thinks there's something wrong with being gay. If Pat didn't think that, and was just saying that Ed is gay because he's a great dancer or has good taste in fashion or whatever, that might be stereotyping but it's not really insulting to homosexuals.
This probably looks like a classic case of over-thinking things, but accusing people of using bigoted language is a serious thing to do and I think there needs to be a clear logical justification for it.
Why, thank you.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 4, 2009 4:35 PM
I'd like to point out that just about everybody has enjoyed some form of privilege. Take, for instance, the plight of little people, or the very tall, or the morbidly obese. I myself stand at 5'7", short for a man but close to dead-nuts average for adults in general. When I get into a car, it's a given that I'll be able to see over the dashboard with a comfortable clearance above my head, and all the controls will be within easy reach. Things like pictures (or warning signs!) intended to be at eye level will be at my eye level. When I sit in a chair my feet will rest comfortably on the floor. Ladders will both bear my weight and have rungs I can easily scale. Everything from sinks to drawers to chest freezers are built around someone roughly my size.
These are all advantages, advantages I did not earn. Advantages I don't even have to notice in order to enjoy. That's the essence of privilege. Being privileged doesn't make you a bad person, but recognizing privilege could certainly help make you a better one.
Posted by: DaveL | December 4, 2009 4:38 PM
It's unquestionably true that males are privileged with respect to females in society. But it should also be pointed out — and too often isn't, which can illicit a response from some people — that privilege is not an exact thing, and there are lots of males that are less privileged than females.
How so? Because a male is only more privileged than a female if he is similar to her in all or almost all other respects. So a black male is more privileged than a black female, if their circumstances are very similar. However, it is not at all clear whether a black male is more privileged than a white female (I honestly don't know). In some cases, that may well be the case, but in others, probably not.
In my own situation, as a straight, white, middle-class, male, I understand all too well that I enjoy privilege over the vast majority of females, homosexuals, people of color, as well as the poor, which is why I have taken the time to try and understand inequality, and more importantly, to support anything that has a chance of closing the various inequality gaps that exist.
However, I suffered with mental health problems when I was younger, which "counts against me", if you will, and that would likely mean that many women who haven't suffered with a similar illness are in fact better off than I am. But that isn't the point. I am more privileged than almost all women who have suffered with mental health problems, and that is simply because I happen to have been born a male.
And that just isn't right, now is it?
Posted by: Damian | December 4, 2009 4:41 PM
Sorry. "Condescending" might have been too strong of a word. What I meant to say was that I understand why he doesn't feel "privileged" at all, given his background. From his point of view, that's understandable. I just wanted to say that I understand why a formerly homeless man finds it difficult to see how he's "experienced" privilege. It was poor word choice on my part.
As for sexual assault, you're definitely right in most areas. A woman on the streets is extremely more likely to be sexually assaulted than a man. I walk the streets every night without the slightest fear of sexual assault, and that's entirely because I'm male.
However, we shouldn't underplay sexual assault on males. It happens frequently, but often goes unreported. I consider most of the "hazing" that goes on in fraternities, for instance, to be sexual assault. But the males are expected to "tough it out" and "be a man" and all that bullshit. And sexual assault against males is ubiquitous in prisons, of course. Sometimes the guards even encourage it. Just more examples of the kinds of bullying I was talking about earlier.
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 4:42 PM
"Hamburger headed negro", "metal of freedom", and "glad as hell" are all in one sentence- this guy is priceless!
Posted by: Pat | December 4, 2009 4:43 PM
That reminds me of this Louis CK bit on being white. "I'm not saying white people are better. I'm saying that being white is clearly better. Who could even argue with that?" ;-)
Posted by: Gretchen | December 4, 2009 4:45 PM
Marilove, again yes those are horrible crimes against women, and of course as a society we ALL should all work towards stoping them. of course men also have many worries when it comes to being victims , as males we are the highest rate of murder victims. as well as Assualts. to assume men are not victims of sexual assault in large numbers is simply crazy , however, we are conditioned to feel like we are some how lucky to have it happen to us. for example its not uncommon for a woman to grope a man she finds attractive while in a bar. now most of us on this board will say that the Man was simply lucky , or young boys who are sexually taken advantage of by their teachers we often say this is every males fantasy , yet we neglect to mention that many females often have fantasies about male authority figures while growing up. ..
DaveL, i really like your post @157 it defianlty is food for thought
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 4, 2009 4:51 PM
Vic--
Another angle on the unemployment statistics. Suppose a heterosexual couple in similar jobs: they might even work in the same factory or the same retail store. If the man is laid off, he will almost certainly be counted as unemployed, even if he is taking care of their children. If the woman is laid off, there will be people suggesting she stay home with those kids. So there's more pressure on the man to find work, but there's also more support for him in job-hunting. He is unlikely to be asked "but if you go back to work, won't you spend more on child care and commuting than your take-home pay?" and if he says that he just doesn't feel like a proper member of society without a job, that will be understood and respected. A married woman, especially one with children, is still likely to be told that her "real" or "important" work is her marriage.
Also, a lot of privilege is invisible because those of us who have it believe, often correctly, that it is how everyone should be treated--and don't always notice that it isn't how everyone is treated. I can wander into just about any retail store and have the staff assume that I am there to buy something. My best friend has often been followed around by staffers who assume that she is there to steal. The difference: I'm white. She's black. It was years before I knew this, because you're not likely to hear it unless your friend trusts you not to dismiss that experience as "it was probably how you were dressed" or accuse them of imagining things.
And no, I shouldn't be treated that way, and neither should you--not because I'm white and you're male, but because nobody should be.
You may never have ignored what a woman said in a group discussion, then restated it ten minutes later and claimed credit for the idea. But you've probably been part of the pattern of either unconsciously ignoring what women said, or vaguely noticing that the idea had been mentioned earlier but not saying something like "Yes, Mary had a good idea there" when another man re-introduces the idea. Being listened to and given credit for your good ideas shouldn't be exceptional or privilege--and nobody should have the privilege of being given credit for other people's good ideas or hard work. But it happens, and it doesn't happen randomly: men, and especially white men, are listened to, and get to talk over women.
Posted by: Vicki | December 4, 2009 4:56 PM
Thank you Wes, for your last paragraph. I've been sexually assaulted five times over the course of my life, and never reported any of them, pretty much for the reasons you outlined.
I suspected then, as I do now, that had I pressed charges against any of the women who assaulted me, I would have been laughed at or called a fag. My objections at the time were certainly laughed off.
I know I should have spoken up anyway, but I didn't. Cowardice? Probably.
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 4, 2009 4:59 PM
Vickie,
Thank you that was By far one of the best explanations.
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 4, 2009 5:02 PM
I actually had a very similar experience which woke me up to racism when I was in high school. I lived in New Orleans, and my best friend was a black guy named Phil. One thing I noticed was that when we walked down the street by cars sitting at a red light, you could hear people locking their doors the moment they saw Phil. Phil joked about it, saying stuff like "No need to worry, folks. Just a black kid walking down the street." But it that was the first time I noticed how even little day-to-day experiences were very different for me than they were for Phil, simply because of our skin.
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 5:04 PM
I don't suppose the following counts as reverse-male privilege, but here goes:
Despite the fact that I'm an extremely involved parent for my three girls; that I taught a fatherhood class to new and expectant fathers at a local hospital for five years (and always told the dads that there's nothing they can't do parentwise except to breastfeed); that I'm active in my daughters' Girl Scout troops (including being the camping coordinator; that I do most of the cooking in my house; that I often take my girls to and from their dance classes and helped apply make-up and do their hair from their recitals; despite the fact that I've always considered myself to be a parent rather than as a father, I still receive emails entitled "Dear Ladies" from the Girl Scout troops. Then there's the time that the dance teacher gave me a note to to take home and very directly told me to give it to my wife. Or when I see TV commercials showing how only mom can choose the right cereal (Kix) or peanut butter (Jif) or be the family medic (Robitussin's Dr. Mom) or that if mom is sick with the flu, the kitchen is a huge mess (I do most of the kitchen clean-up) and the kids go out to the school bus in the winter dressed in shorts and t-shirts because dad is in charge (can't recall the flu medicine--and I also know how to do laundry). *That's* perpetuating a stereotype of the incompetent man. And I know plenty of fathers who are as involved as I am.
Employment-wise, several years ago while working at a federal agency, my supervisors who considered me to be a very competent and valuable employee suggested that I should not apply for a particular job opening within the agency because I wasn't the right color (I'm white).
I recognize that I'm definitely not underprivileged. Other than being competent and responsible, I haven't had to fight to get or keep jobs. I don't believe I've ever been discriminated against. However, there still is a perception in society, including among many women, that men are seemingly less competent in the non-business arena.
I think we all need to take a look at our perceptions and prejudices of and against the opposite genders.
I apologize for the off-topic rant. As you were.
Posted by: Mandrake | December 4, 2009 5:06 PM
Mandrake ,
On top of that you probably get a look of suspcion for being an Adult Male who is around alot of children ,
our society tells us to fear men who like to be around kids as potential pedophiles (we have a society that has certianly allowed our fears to overcome us)
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 4, 2009 5:11 PM
Haven't read all the comments but I see that this discussion has taken some turns already so let me add this:
Pat is clearly a racist fucktard (and does anyone actually read that blog?), but his employment status is all too common in Michigan and especially greater Detroit (where he, Ed Brayton, and I all reside). So it kind of set my teeth on edge just a bit to see him mocked for being jobless and living at home. A lot of good people around here are in more or less the same boat. It's nothing to joke about these days.
I'm in my mid 50s and out of work. So yeah, it's personal, not concern trolling. And sometimes I find my frustration and anger going in directions that give me pause in calmer moments - not necessarily racist, though. Thank goodness. More like CEOs and Republicans swinging from lampposts. >:-)
Posted by: bcoppola | December 4, 2009 5:27 PM
Oops, sorry - Ed's actually from the other side of the state, right? I was thinking of Orac - they look so much alike. :) A bit better economically over there but still no picnic.
Posted by: bcoppola | December 4, 2009 5:29 PM
More disappointing than the usual PC-nonsense that plagues SB like AIDS in Africa is the response of the perpetrators. Guys, when you cause epic amounts of butthurt, the proper response to turn the volume up a notch and say something worse, not rationalize it or apologize or any other moralfag bullshit.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 4, 2009 5:29 PM
Yes! You're right! Pat should respond by becoming even more of a racist douchebag! Good to see you sticking up for him!
Wait...who are you referring to again?
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 5:40 PM
Actually, he should, but he's too retarded to actually be an effective troll, so his comments have invariably been full of fail.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 4, 2009 5:44 PM
Gretchen said:
Hmmm, I guess I see insulting and hurting feelings as pretty close to the same thing. If I intended to hurt your feelings and you do not like being compared to men, isn't it correct to say that I've insulted you by calling you a man?
That definitely makes sense. My example has a trait of group Y that is not negative to group Y but it is negative in X's eyes. This example came immediately to my mind, but as I think through more examples, almost all of them agree with your logic. My insult relies on a huge lack of specificity, as I'm singling out 'masculinity' out of the numerous stereotypical negative traits of men including the ones you mentioned. Which is of course another complication, that words like this and even 'fag' can be intended in many ways and can lack specificity.
With that I full agree, and was my main problem with the whole 'shrew'-aganza. I think that word is very murky, does not have a very strong history of being used as an epithet, contains within it's definition qualities that are negative in all people. I don't think the default interpretation of it is 'sexist', partially because the word is archaic and many people do not even know specifically what it means. And I don't applaud the efforts to ensure that 'shrew' keeps whatever sexist connotations it presumedly had or has.
Posted by: Spartan | December 4, 2009 5:47 PM
That should say, 'My example has a trait of group Y that is not negative to group Y but it is negative in X's eyes when applied to X. Yes, complicated enough...
Posted by: Spartan | December 4, 2009 5:50 PM
So you actually think that the best response for someone who's called out for racism or sexism is to become more racist and/or sexist?
Taking this to its logical conclusion, the best response to this...
...should be to become more nostalgic for patriarchy and more in favor of a bizarre hodgepodge of law of the jungle economics. Is this what you're going for?
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 5:53 PM
Totally. Get those cumdumpsters back where they belong. And the only thing the government should do is put poor people in camps, VIVA IL CAPITALISMO!
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 4, 2009 5:59 PM
Thank you DJ for picking up and understanding my point. I wasn't insulting "girls" or women, I was insulting Pat by challenging his puffed up ridiculous ITG pseudo manliness. I wasn't attempting to use "girl" as a insult any more than questioning a homophobe's sexuality is an insult to homosexuals. Pat has made it quite obvious that he is very concerned about what people think regarding his "manliness," an obvious button to push with an idiot like that is to challenge that which they hold most dearly.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 4, 2009 6:20 PM
dogmeatib@178:
Pat has made it quite obvious that he is very concerned about what people think regarding his "manliness," an obvious button to push with an idiot like that is to challenge that which they hold most dearly.
Then why didn't you also call him a "lispin', watermelon-eatin' faggy nigger?" Why stop with pushing his sexist buttons, when there were obviously so many others you could have pushed?
And more importantly, why do you keep defending your use of insulting someone by calling him a girl, pushing buttons or not?
Posted by: Adrienne | December 4, 2009 7:03 PM
Wes @62 made the best response to DJ/dogmeatib's defense of insulting Pat by calling him "Patty girl" just because doing this allegedly pushes Pat's buttons:
This argument doesn't work. For instance, Pat is racist. But that doesn't make it a good idea to call him black.
Even if you intend it as an indictment of Pat's own racism, you'll inevitably come across as a racist yourself (even if you aren't). And regardless of how you intend it, it will still result in marginalization of black people.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 4, 2009 7:10 PM
Sorry, that last paragraph quote in 180 is Wes's too.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 4, 2009 7:13 PM
Damn. When I saw 181 comments, I assumed Pat himself had shown up to entertain us. I am saddened.
dogmeatib: I think everyone understands what you meant to do (ie - belittle Pat). But the (presumably-unintended) consequence was that you insulted 51% of the world's population. Man up* and apologize already.
* The phrase "man up" is used ironically and is not meant to be insulting to any gender or genders.
Posted by: WScott | December 4, 2009 7:18 PM
Keep defending? I made one comment, 178, that's it. Feel free, read through the thread, you'll see I didn't say a thing after the reply "seriously?" until I explained my intended slight towards Patty boy and his personal sense of self-worth. I see him as a very small individual, calling him a girl (or a little boy) would have accomplished the same thing as far as I'm concerned, gender is, and was, irrelevant to my comment.
As was also pointed out in the thread, my comment was childish and was intended to jab at Pat in a more emotional than intellectual way. Personally I doubt, if Pat bothers to read many of the comments made here, that he really fathoms the arguments that are based on intellect.
With the exception of you Adrienne, I am more than willing to apologize to those on this thread who found my comment offensive. I didn't intend to insult women in any way, insulting your gender wasn't actually a consideration, my mental image of Pat was that of a small whiny, spoiled child, male or female really didn't matter to me as much as the barb was intended to deflate the puffed up pseudo manhood of the Internet Tough Guy Pat. I suppose I could have referred to him as Patty-boy, Little itty bit Pat, whatever, the simple intent was to point out the sentiment that many of us have expressed on previous threads (and on this thread) that Pat's tough guy posturing is utterly laughable.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 4, 2009 7:21 PM
My apologies, then, dogmeat. I should have said, "Why do you appear to be defending..."
So now do I get the right to an apology from you now for your inadvertent use of a female-degrading insult? LOL.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 4, 2009 7:29 PM
Spartan,
I could get super pedantic and start listing things you could say that would hurt my feelings without being insults (e.g. "I slept with your boyfriend"), but I'm not sure that would serve either of our purposes. ;-)
Your suggestion of comparing me to a man was actually a really good one, because certainly saying that a woman resembles a man physically is almost never a good thing, but doesn't imply anything negative in general about men. So that would be a case, as you say, of comparing a person to a group in order to insult the person but without insulting the group.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 4, 2009 7:49 PM
Nope. That was actually my primary point with the "seriously" comment. GIven your arguments against Islam and Muslims in general, the rank hypocrisy necessary to call me out for calling Pat "Patty-girl" is utterly ridiculous.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 4, 2009 8:29 PM
...the rank hypocrisy necessary to call me out for calling Pat "Patty-girl" is utterly ridiculous.
Personally, I consider the logic and merit of the argument itself, not the person who made it.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 4, 2009 8:50 PM
I realize that, as our culture currently stands, pointing out that a woman looks like a man or that a man looks like a woman is taken to be a bad thing. But it shouldn't be. There's quite a bit of variation in hormone levels. Some men have very low testosterone and might appear rather feminine. Some women have very high testosterone and might appear rather masculine. And that's just the tip of the iceberg--cultural norms about dress are entirely arbitrary.
It's just natural variation, and it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the person.
Also, I don't think dogmeat has anything to apologize for. His minor faux pas was clearly inadvertent. He's not sexist and he didn't intend to say anything sexist. This is just kind of a learning experience thing. Like I said above, I've accidentally said things which implied a kind of bias without realizing it, too. We all do it sometimes. Live and learn.
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 8:52 PM
Can't add anything to that, Wes.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 4, 2009 8:58 PM
Amen, Wes. In fact, I've always preferred men who look a little bit feminine. Broad shoulders and muscles don't do it for me, nor does a lot of facial hair. Call me a metro-loving gal!
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 4, 2009 9:12 PM
Pardon me if I am more than a bit skeptical of this claim at this time.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 4, 2009 9:24 PM
Wow.....
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 4, 2009 10:00 PM
We're talking about relatively minor sins here. The discussion is worthwhile, but returning to the subject of indisputably bigoted clowns:
Dan Reihl
Posted by: Dr X | December 4, 2009 10:30 PM
From the link Dr X posted:
Jesus fucking Christ. I don't think it's Sullivan that needs help.
Pretty much the only redeeming thing about that page is that the commenters seem to be mostly sane.
Posted by: Wes | December 4, 2009 10:56 PM
Gretchen,
Ha, true, but then we'd have to argue over, since it's not just normal pedantic but *super pedantic*, whether my argument-escape-hatch/weasel words 'pretty close' cover my ass.
Posted by: Spartan | December 4, 2009 10:59 PM
Marilove, Adrienne, great job.
Dogmeatlib: "If anyone was offended by what I said, I'm sorry..."
DJ: "Just because all the women on here are saying they were insulted doesn't mean his comment was insulting to women."
Wes, Captain Mike, DaveL, all the guys who "get" male privilege--THANK YOU. We can't do this without you.
Posted by: Diane G. | December 4, 2009 11:17 PM
Folks, Holy Flyin' Spaghetti Monster, can you imagine how hard PAThetic is laughing at all of us right now? You know he is sitting in the 'rents basement rubbing his hands (or something else) together, drooling all over his keyboard, kicking cans of Natty Light out from under his knobby feet, as he giggles like a meth head about to rip off the local 7-11. Because you know he is reading this. Even though he doesn't have the stones to show up here ever again. Please, no one was trying insult anyone BUT Pat. Remember who the real bad guy is. Thanks, James P.S. Check out www.operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com for more of Pat at his most shrill. Some may remeber I got a dose of this awhile back. Sometime I'll post the whole archive, including the response from my IP. Hilarious!
Posted by: James M. Phillips | December 4, 2009 11:18 PM
"Amen, Wes. In fact, I've always preferred men who look a little bit feminine. Broad shoulders and muscles don't do it for me, nor does a lot of facial hair. Call me a metro-loving gal!
Posted by: Sadie Morrison"
Sadie
i myself always preferred women who were females and if they were not females, atleast that they be able to keep a secret
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 4, 2009 11:26 PM
Diane,
At first I was going to expand upon my apology but then I paused for a moment and realized, why the fuck was I bothering?
If any of you believe that I am a sexist or misogynist after the stances I have supported over the years while I've been a part of the community here, no matter what I say or do, I can't change your opinion, so honestly, I'm not going to even try but I am going to try, one more time, to explain myself.
From the beginning I was trying to deflate a puffed up little tin-pot whose overcompensation for his lack of a life makes him truly laughable. I actually regret the entire post because, as was pointed out in this thread, it was akin to kicking someone with a disability while they were down.
In a very real sense I descended to Pat's level and I don't mean because of the use of a single word. I clearly stated that my intent was to insult Pat in a way that I knew would bother him. I could have called him a "little baby boy," I could have implied he was gay, but instead I referred to him as "girl." My intent was in no way to imply that being a girl, being gay, or being a child was a bad thing, that any of the three constituted an insult, or anything else I have been accused of by people who I really thought had some inkling as to the type of person I am. My intent was to challenge Pat to recognize that his overcompensation wasn't fooling anyone. That all of his bravado was false; deep down inside he is really a scared little child lashing out at everything he hates to hide the fact that he is terrified of everything. To someone like Pat, pointing this out can be shattering to their (lack of) character, which is actually why I feel pretty bad. In effect, I was really striving to provoke someone who seems to be more than a little unstable which is, upon reflection, rather cruel.
If you honestly believe that I am a sexist, so be it. I am not going to immolate myself on a pyre in some doomed attempt to convince you otherwise. I have to ask though, is my use of the phrase "girl" really grounds for such an assault? Do you really want me purged from the ranks of those who favor equality, civil rights, and progressive reform? I also have to ask, had I questioned his sexual orientation, along the lines of "methinks he doth protest too much," or some other rather benign statement suggesting that he had same sex tendencies, would you be as up in arms to defend homosexuals? I know, given his mentality, to suggest any of those options, homosexuality, childishness, or femininity rather than masculinity, were insults to Pat, that was the (rather childish) point. They aren't insults to me, but then I'm not homophobic, pedophobic, or sexist; on the other hand I'm 99.9% certain that Pat is all three.
So in the end I have to ask, do you honestly believe that I think calling someone a "girl" is insulting, or do you have your own issues with the word?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 5, 2009 1:28 AM
For what it's worth, dogmeatib, I thoroughly accept your apology, and I don't believe that you're sexist.
On the other hand, this comment from Dingo Jack:
is problematic. So it doesn't matter what women think about a comment they view as insulting, it only matters what Dingo Jack thinks? Wow, there's nothing remotely condescending about that.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 5, 2009 1:50 AM
Sadie Morrison - you can, of course, link to the place where I actually typed that, can't you? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 5, 2009 2:12 AM
Dang, I'm sorry I got here so late...
raging bee @ 89:
Does this mean I shouldn't ask you out on a date?
Sorry, bee, you walked right into that, as I had already concocted the example to apply to Pat.
Calling an X a Y, such as "she is such a stud" to indicate that the subject has some superlative characteristic - this is an actual example referring to programming prowess - implicitly demeans women as it implies that they, as a class, lack some desirable male characteristic.
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | December 5, 2009 3:08 AM
I don't follow the comments here often enough to have an opinion on what you think. I do know that calling someone a girl as an insult is sexist.
Actually, it was DJ who whipped things into a putrid foam, but when you came back on, grasping with relief the explanation previously offered for you by someone else, your ever-expanding self-defense posts quickly took on the nonpology format I posted. BTW--since you "could have used" "boy" or "baby," why do you think you just happened to use "girl," huh?
Sadie--I contributed that phrase in an attempt to encapsulate what I was hearing from DJ. I really should have used the more familiar blogspeak "Short ____:" (Short DJ, in this case) and it would have been a lot clearer. Sorry.
But BTW, that's my perception of DJ in this thread.
Posted by: Diane G. | December 5, 2009 3:44 AM
The link about Pat @ 197 is classic comedic gold. However the link is to the blogger's homepage, not the permalink to the blog post itself. Here is that link; highly recommended reading: http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/2009/12/keyboard-kommando-retreats-from-e-mail.html
Thanks James Philips!
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 5, 2009 6:50 AM
Update on Pat:
Wow. You know you've got a problem when your attempt to calm your blog down means getting "a little more O'Reilly sounding." That's like saying, "I'm trying to be less of a child molester--a little less Gary Glitter, a little more like Michael Jackson."
Posted by: Wes | December 5, 2009 7:21 AM
So which is it, 'liberal left' or 'fascist left'?
If one must identify with the Left to critique idiotic hate-filled diatribes and their authors rather than support censorship by way of civil suits as Pat proposes below, then I'm guessing the Left will be comfortable and proud with that distinction.
And what is it with conservatives falsely conflating others exposing their idiocy and critiquing such with 'censorship' while projecting their fierce desire to censor others? It's a common pattern and while I'm aware it's fueled by the modern day Christian persecution myth, it still takes a particular form of delusional idiocy for Pat to write in a link Wes posts above
contrasted with the email/blog post James Philips links to where Pat responds to Operation Yellow Dog's blog post:
Pat - I got news for you: The people criticizing you aren't just liberals and your slur-filled impotent attempts to disparage them. It'd be pretty much everyone except deluded racists, including many conservatives. I also can't see Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas finding any meaningful insight in your rants. Given your career status I think they'd instead find you to be a conservative poser of the worst rank.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 5, 2009 7:53 AM
One question: Why does it upset Pat so much to be called a racist? I mean, he clearly has a low opinion of black people, and he seems to take pride in being "politically incorrect*". So why not own the label?
*Pat doesn't realize he's politically incorrect in the same sense he's linguistically incorrect, historically incorrect, logically incorrect, etc.
Posted by: DaveL | December 5, 2009 8:25 AM
dogmeatib: If you honestly believe that I am a sexist, so be it.
You fail to get the distinction between calling YOU a sexist (which I don't think anyone here did) vs. calling what you DID sexist.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 5, 2009 11:16 AM
Enjoying this much Adrienne?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 5, 2009 11:28 AM
Adrienne - love the sinner, hate the sin? :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 5, 2009 11:30 AM
Actually more like love the hypocrite hate the hypocrisy. Unfortunately for Adrienne the parallel breaks down almost immediately because unlike her effort to defend her anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim statements as accurate portrays of both Islam and Muslims, I'm not trying to defend the [false] argument that being a "girl" is bad and that my statement was a correct argument of the status of women, etc. which she spent the better part of a couple of days trying to argue with Islam and Muslims.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 5, 2009 11:51 AM
He's a lot like this guy, who is delighted when stories about crime confirm his ideas about race. He doesn't see it as racism, as the stories he reads confirm his beliefs and doesn't get why he should be all PC about it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dostoevsky
Posted by: Owen | December 5, 2009 11:54 AM
Not touching that one. One load of misquoting is enough. :) -DJ
---------
PS Anything you want to say to me Sadie?
Posted by: DingoJack | December 5, 2009 11:55 AM
For what it's worth dogmeat, I wasn't offended by it. That sort of thing does bother me, but I got what you were doing.
I think we should go back to insulting Pat now.
Posted by: Leni | December 5, 2009 12:05 PM
Leni @ 214:
Amen.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 5, 2009 12:23 PM
@Dingo Jack: I'm deficient at linking to actual comments, and a quick perusal upstream doesn't show the exact quote I referenced. It was evidently someone's paraphrasing, and being reticent to pore through 200 comments, I assumed it was a direct quote. Mi dispiace for the confusion and oversight.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 5, 2009 12:46 PM
Sadie - Thank you. It was in fact Diane G's paraphrase of her impression of my comments. These remarks were enclosed in quotation marks in error.
I apologies to to all who may have been offended my apparent attitude to Dogmeatib's original comment. No offense to you was intended, nor was my intention to belittle you in any way. I am sorry. - DJ
-------------
But I still think you missed my point ;)
Posted by: DingoJack | December 5, 2009 1:00 PM
Apologies. My aim is notoriously bad, particularly on Saturday mornings (or is it afternoon already?), and my assumptions also lead me astray. ;)
P.S. Is it summer down there already?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 5, 2009 1:39 PM
I wonder if this thread would be so long and off-topic if a woman had called Pat "Patty girl?" Would that be a sexist comment? One that was offensive to all women? Would everyone be ragging on the commentor in that case?
Posted by: Rob | December 5, 2009 1:50 PM
@Rob: I certainly wouldn't let that slide, either.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 5, 2009 1:52 PM
Rob,
I don't think it would make any difference.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 5, 2009 2:00 PM
+1
Sadie: please see comment # 203.
Posted by: Diane G. | December 5, 2009 2:30 PM
No harm no foul, Diane.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 5, 2009 2:52 PM
For some features of the Site, you may be able to submit information about other people. For example, if you wish to e-mail an article from the Site or send an e-postcard to a friend, you will submit.
Posted by: sikiş | December 5, 2009 3:55 PM
I bet that Turkish spambot is a sexist racist asshole. ;)
Posted by: Wes | December 5, 2009 4:18 PM
Well, he does seem to be the dominant type. "You will submit"?! What, don't I even get a safeword to use?
Posted by: Gretchen | December 5, 2009 4:23 PM
This blog does seem to attract Turkish spammers for some reason...anyone remember to insect repellent guy?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 5, 2009 4:29 PM
The insect repellent guy, that is.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 5, 2009 4:31 PM
Rob @219:
I wonder if this thread would be so long and off-topic if a woman had called Pat "Patty girl?" Would that be a sexist comment? One that was offensive to all women? Would everyone be ragging on the commentor in that case?
If anything, I think the castigation would have been slightly worse.
And I don't see discussing the sexism of dogmeatib's comment as off-topic on a thread discussing racism. If anything, this comment thread illustrated the invisibility of sexism in insults when compared to racist insults. Do we really think it's an accident that dogmeatib chose to insult Pat by calling him "Patty girl" instead of "Patty fag" or "Patty negro" or even "Patty retard"? I personally don't, just because dogmeatib probably already realized at some level that these other three insults are inappropriate and degrading, yet completely lacked that insight when choosing to insult Pat by comparing him to a female.
I will also say that I've typically been on the "Oh, come on, that's really not SEXIST" side in debates like the recent shrew wars here. Many times I've rolled my eyes at posts by Isis or Zuska highlighting allegedly sexist behavior. But, I must say, I did see some excellent and reasoned comments on Isis's thread about the shrew issue that made me reconsider some of my previous opinions on the subject of sexism in common or workplace speech. I still think that the claim that "shrew" was historically used to keep uppity women down is dubious, but I do think it's absolutely true that the word "bitch" has been used to that end. And still is!
So, a few days after Shrewgate, with my feminist consciousness primed by Isis and marilove et al to recognize subtle sexism, I a read a comment by dogmeatib in which he happens to insult a man by comparing him to a girl...and the rest is this comment thread.
Kudos to marilove, Gretchen, Sadie, and Diane, and Wes for their thoughtful comments on this thread.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 5, 2009 8:29 PM
Sadie (#218) - Yep, it's summer here. Currently 26.2oC (68.68oF), 54% humidity (or that's the situation nearer the coast, here it's probably hotter). Is it any wonder I get short tempered sometimes? ;) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 5, 2009 10:26 PM
Nice summation, Adrienne, and accurately portrays my reaction as well in light of other recent threads...Just when you'd think people would be especially cognizant of casual sexism. Sigh.
Posted by: Diane G. | December 5, 2009 10:36 PM
Oops...meant to add:
And the irony is, from now on I'm gonna be tagged as some hypersensitive feminist...after such a long time of refraining from saying anything at all about it...
(Dogmeatlib, if you're getting the feeling you misspoke at just the wrong time, you're probably right...)
Posted by: Diane G. | December 5, 2009 10:40 PM
Diane G. - I certainly won't think that way of you. - DJ
-----------
I note you avoided the word 'hysterical'. ;)
Posted by: DingoJack | December 5, 2009 10:46 PM
re-199
So in the end I have to ask, do you honestly believe that I think calling someone a "girl" is insulting...?
well duh, else you'd have chosen a different word in your insult.
re-219
"I wonder if this thread would be so long and off-topic if a woman had called Pat "Patty girl?" Would that be a sexist comment? One that was offensive to all women? Would everyone be ragging on the commentor in that case?
first, what is your point? how would one person unjustifiably being excused for poor manners be a reason for another to exhibit poor manners?
second, ragging? Is this calculated or are you just stupid?
Posted by: Nom | December 5, 2009 11:07 PM
25/70 sounds pretty nice to me, DJ :P It's about 2C here, so you shut it!
Dianne G wrote:
I didn't tag you that way :) I don't agree with you 100% but I certainly understand were you are coming from. You should have seen what happened when I asserted that the pro-life position, insofar as it advocates for abortion bans, is inherently misogynistic. Not pretty.
Posted by: Leni | December 5, 2009 11:16 PM
Leni - except for the humidity, I'm not complaining. But it has been very hot and dry here (Adelaide had over two months of temperatures well over 40o (104oF* with extremely low humidity. Bush fire waether, and with Black Saturday fresh in our minds it was worrying (I have relos down there)). "Everyone complains about the weather..."
As for Pat (remeber him?) I notice after the lambasting he got last time he's not even daring to poke his nose in, perfering to bravely snipe at a distance. Too bad. He was the gift that kept on giving. - DJ
-----------
* sorry bad conversion of oC to oF. 28.6oC is in fact 83.48oF.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 5, 2009 11:58 PM
I'm a Pharynguloid and after reading this entire thread, I can't even remember how I got over here. But I'm glad I dropped by.
To all the kickass skeptical women who have rationally and clearly made their cases for what it's like to be condescended to, patronized and marginalized because of their gender, thank you. As a gay man, nothing has pissed me off more than some bigot telling me that I "chose" to be gay. I can only imagine how it feels to be told "what I said wasn't sexist". I've served up a lot of stupid, sexist comments in my day and gotten very defensive when called on it.
In this respect, I've learned more from the commenters of SB than the bloggers themselves. Thank you.
As a privileged, white, male professional (I can "pass" on the sexuality part) thanks to DaveL for this quote . . .
Cheers Dispatchers, I'll be back again . . .
Posted by: Pareidolius | December 6, 2009 12:15 AM
Don't convert for us DJ, make us work for it :)
And it still sounds pleasant to me. 26/70 sounds damn near perfect. 40 is pretty effing hot though. I sometimes have to work in 40/75 controlled environments. Not fun. Totally gross, in fact. It's nice for about 3 seconds and then it's just nasty. And downright evil when you have to walk out of that into a 2C windstorm. Then you go back in and it feels really nice for 3 seconds...
OK I am clearly bored and killing time talking about the weather. Carry on!
Posted by: Leni | December 6, 2009 12:26 AM
Leni - If I may ask, what kind of 100oF controlled environment. lab, hothouse, animal house, bathhouse, outhouse, doghouse? (OK the last three were just me channeling Deputy US Marshal Sam Gerard). :) - curiously DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 6, 2009 1:14 AM
Oh, I can imagine. Had I been around for that, I'd have supported you. Agree totally.
Nice to see you here, Pareidolius. And thanks for highlighting that DaveL remark. Definitely a keeper. I know I have "white" privilege...& other sorts...
Posted by: Diane G. | December 6, 2009 4:12 AM
"Ragging"
Nom, what's your point? You have some problem with use of the verb "rag?" Do you find this offensive?
rag [rag] verb, ragged, rag⋅ging, noun Informal.
–verb (used with object)
1. to scold.
2. to subject to a teasing, esp. in an intense or prolonged way (often fol. by on): Some of the boys were ragging on him about his haircut.
3. British. to torment with jokes; play crude practical jokes on.
Origin: 1790–1800; orig. uncert.
Posted by: Rob | December 6, 2009 9:27 AM
DJ- it's a lab. We test pharmaceutical packaging and stability. The high temp and humidity accelerate degradation so we can see what happens to the compounds without having to wait 10 years. It also mimics ambient conditions for places that have such miserable weather. (I don't know how people can live like that. I can barely take 10 minutes of it!)
I appreciate that Diane, it would have been me and you against the world ;)
Posted by: Leni | December 6, 2009 10:20 AM
Rob - oooh but I am INSULTED, and therefore everyone else is INSULTED too (OK I don't actually know that, but hell, I'm insulted, so everyone else damn well ought to be).
You meant that as an INSULT (OK I've no evidence of that, but hell my thoughts are the same as all humans on the planet, therefore I can read your real intent, and determine that all humans are INSULTED too) and no amount of you actually revealing your thought processes, (or 'rationalisation' as I like to call it), or me thinking about context or using commonsense, will convince me otherwise because I"M INSULTED!
You don't know how that makes ALL HUMANS ON PLANET EARTH feel completely diminished and belittled (well, me anyway) But because I"M INSULTED; all humans on Earth are too (did I happen to mention that?)
Of course 'Rag' means many things in differing context BUT I'M INSULTED so I'll go for the most INSULTING context no matter how ridiculous that is.
Sorry, any use of the word 'rag' ever is henceforward will be treated with HORROR and SCORN because I'M INSULTED (and so is everyone else), therefore I'll prevent you from contributing to any conversation, 'cause every human being is OFFENDED!. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 6, 2009 11:06 AM
DingoJack,
quit yer bloody ragging on me!
Posted by: Rob | December 6, 2009 11:15 AM
Adrienne,
Do you mind not putting your thoughts into my head to explain my actions? As for your examples they say much more about your thought processes than they do mine.
Patty-girl: fit with his Internet Toughguy bravado, that's it. No need to explain away the idea that I thought this was okay but your other examples weren't, because I wasn't thinking that even at some deep mysterious level. The simple fact is that Pat puffs himself up, threatens people, talks a lot of trash, but in reality is a rather pathetic, small man. Pat is a name that could be male or female, the contrast of his actions with his reality suggested a reassertion of Pat in the female gender, that's it.
Pat-"negro": is utterly moronic given that there is no social convention by which you would call a racist by the race or races they insult. Please provide an example where it would be even remotely recognized as in any way a legitimate slight or barb. Please explain what I would be trying to do by calling him Pat-"negro." Would Pat even recognize that as a slight or insult?
The last two examples are disingenuous at best. Over the last few weeks any number of commentators have pointed out that Pat is, very likely, a "retard." Other than a few joke comments that might have suggested that this is an insult to people with below average intelligence and/or cognitive disabilities, no one has (to my knowledge) suggested that these comments are inappropriate or insulting to the disabled. It has also been mentioned a number of times that Pat's fascination with homosexuality and 'teh gay' might be indicative of a suppressed same sex urge. Again, I don't recall seeing anyone suggesting that such a comment was an insult to homosexuals.
The fact that you point these out as examples suggests, yet again, a certain level of hypocrisy to your commentary. This is especially true given that one example is idiotic and the other two have actually been used profusely in the commentary on Pat.
I'll explain it one more time:
Pat, internet tough guy: Major insult to him would be to reverse or overturn this bravado. Perfect way to do so is to portray him, not as a big "tough" man, but instead as a small whiny child. If you prefer the amorphous blob to be wearing a little boy's sailor cap versus a blond wig and pigtails, so be it. The point is that his bravado is an act trying to hide the small scared child he is.
Were Pat attempting to present an air of authority and responsibility that he didn't have, calling him a clown would have been a similar insult. Were Pat trying to act more mature, or younger than he actually is, calling him a "smart-alec kid," or an "old fart" would be similar slights.
Obviously each of these examples proves that I have a deep seated bigotry towards children, clowns, young people, and old people.
----------
Actually the longer the commentary lasts, the more hypocritical it becomes. I'm certain that everyone on this thread who has been so up in arms about my use of the word "girl" also is deeply offended every time someone refers to something bad as "gay." They make certain to call people out every time they refer to an ignorant person as a "retard." I'm certain that they're all horrified by the fact that the professional football team in our nation's capital is the "Redskins." I'm just certain that no turn of phrase, comment, or statement that could be construed by any person, gender, group, or ethnicity as offensive, regardless of the intent of the speaker, goes unpunished, right?
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 6, 2009 12:52 PM
dogmeatib
No one can claim that you're niggardly with your words. You do appear to nag at this somewhat, but your latest response is certainly not at all hysterical.
Posted by: Rob | December 6, 2009 1:29 PM
Rob,
I kind of feel like you Jewed me with that comment. I mean you were kind of an Indian-giver with your praise. At first it seems like you meant it, but then you bent me over like a Greek school boy.
[disclaimer: given the state of this conversation, all the above was intended as sarcasm]
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 6, 2009 1:35 PM
digmeatib,
The difference between my post and your post is that your words are offensive in any and all contexts, whereas my words have a well-defined definition that is inoffensive.
Posted by: Rob | December 6, 2009 1:40 PM
Yes. Aren't you?
Most of the time. Don't you?
Not horrified. Sad.
You win. You get the last word. You're right and everyone who expressed offense is wrong. Right?
Posted by: Exhausted | December 6, 2009 4:42 PM
No, everyone who expressed offense is entitled to feel however they want about this comment. Anyone who expressed offense on behalf of an entire subset of the population is NOT entitled to speak on behalf others.
Posted by: Rob | December 6, 2009 4:50 PM
IIRC, no one has been saying that. Anyone who doesn't know that there are plenty of non- & anti- feminist women & men isn't paying attention.
Posted by: Diane G. | December 6, 2009 5:30 PM
"it IS insulting to women" by marilove @ 55
" you're insulting girls" by Vicki @ 59
" it will still result in marginalization of black people" by Wes @ 62
"It should be a no-brainer that saying "So-and-So is an X!" to insult So-and-So is also an insult to people in group X, whatever X happens to be." by Gretchen @ 86
etc. with generalizations and speaking for entire subpopulations.
Posted by: Rob | December 6, 2009 5:57 PM
Rob,
Saying that something is insulting to a group ! = expressing offense on behalf of that group, and a statement which is insulting to a group ! = a statement which every member of that group finds insulting.
"Women are stupid," for example, is insulting to women regardless of how many are offended by it, and my saying so does not mean that I am speaking for women in general.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 6, 2009 6:08 PM
Rob, does your argument hold up if you replace the sexism with racism? I somehow doubt that you would try to claim that a black person noting that the term "nigger" is an insult directed at all black people is "trying to speak on behalf of all black people." Yet sexist insults are very often viewed as different than racial insults. Doesn't make much sense, does it?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 6, 2009 6:15 PM
Yes, I took all comments like that into consideration when I responded to you. Maintaining that calling Pat a girl in order to insult him is insulting to women does not mean that one is speaking for all women. Those are separate concepts.
Think of it this way. Some liberals may state that everyone deserves health care. Nevertheless there will still be people who can't get healthcare who side with the conservatives. Ergo, said liberals are not speaking FOR all people who can't get healthcare.
Posted by: Diane G. | December 6, 2009 6:19 PM
Saying:
"As a woman, I am insulted by that comment."
is very different from saying:
"That comment is insulting to women."
Unless you can speak for ALL women and know their collective thoughts and perceived insults, the second statement cannot be true. There are certainly a sub-set of women who do not find calling a macho guy girlish to be insulting whatsoever.
Look at comment #243.
Also not comment #234. Personal attack, much? What does the verb "to rag" have to do with sexism?
Health care is a non-sequitur.
It might be appropriate at this time for someone (Pat, here's your cue) to point out that anybody who criticizes the use of "girl" as an insult is a femi-Nazi, and invoke Godwin's Law and be done with the thread. Not that I would want to do so, but it would be an amusing end to an interesting thread.
Posted by: Rob | December 6, 2009 7:13 PM
Also, as a chemist, I must assume that the metal Freedom is abbreviated Fr, which is actually Francium, and we all know about those French, don't we? Wonder if Pat is secretly a Frenchman? (Sorry to insult the entire country of France on that one.)
Posted by: Rob | December 6, 2009 7:16 PM
dogmeatib:
Do you mind not putting your thoughts into my head to explain my actions?
I wasn't. I was *speculating*, as I clearly indicated in that post.
But anyway, all of these are really side issues. So how about you stop making excuses for your sexist choice of words, dobmeatib? You've gotten defensive repeatedly, acted hurt that anyone would dare consider you sexist (which nobody did; we were focusing on your ACTION in your particular choice of insult) and your latest "defense" basically amounts to, "Hey, other people use racial/sexist/other inappropriate insults, and I bet you don't jump on them for it, so why is what I did wrong?" Exhausted @249 did a great job of taking that latest excuse of yours apart.
Pat, internet tough guy: Major insult to him would be to reverse or overturn this bravado. Perfect way to do so is to portray him, not as a big "tough" man, but instead as a small whiny child. If you prefer the amorphous blob to be wearing a little boy's sailor cap versus a blond wig and pigtails, so be it. The point is that his bravado is an act trying to hide the small scared child he is.
And by the way, isn't calling Pat "a [hidden] small scared child]" your attempt at "getting into his head"? Speaking of hypocrisy....
But anyway, the fact that you keep on repeating your intention in calling Pat "Patty girl" as an attempt at defending yourself just shows once again that you just. Don't. Get it. We're not interested in the intentions (at least, I'm not) you had in insulting a man by calling him a "girl". Even if you had the best of intentions, it doesn't change the fact that what you DID (not ARE) is sexist and therefore wrong and hurtful. Not HUGELY wrong, only very mildly wrong, but still wrong. Why not just acknowledge that you were wrong, say you're sorry (in a real way, not in the nonpology way that Diane G. rightly called you out for), and stop being defensive about your actions?
Posted by: Adrienne | December 6, 2009 7:32 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake Rob. Expand your mind enough to note that "that statement is insulting to women" can mean "that statement disparages women" as well as "women are offended by that statement." Then re-examine the comments you've seen in light of that difference.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 6, 2009 7:33 PM
Gretchen,
I just don't believe you or anyone else can speak, as an individual, for women as a gender. I certainly cannot speak for anyone other than myself, and to represent myself as speaking for others, and particularly for a specific sub-group of the population, assumes a specific homogeneity of opinion within that subgroup that is non-existent. For you to say that speaking for women as a gender is the same as stating that a specific statement is disparaging to women specifically, that these two statements are equivalent, is simply wrong.
Posted by: Rob | December 6, 2009 7:59 PM
Rob said:
Neither do I. Nor, so far as I can tell, does anyone else who has commented in this thread.
Good thing I didn't say that. What I actually said was that the same statement can have two different meanings, and you chose the wrong one.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 6, 2009 8:02 PM
Your statement:
"women are offended by that statement"
implies that you, as an individual, speak for women, generally, as a group.
Your statement:
"that statement disparages women"
is either true or false, depending on one's opinion. It does not generally require the knowledge of the viewpoint of a group.
Posted by: Rob | December 6, 2009 8:11 PM
Dogmeatib@245:
Over the last few weeks any number of commentators have pointed out that Pat is, very likely, a "retard." Other than a few joke comments that might have suggested that this is an insult to people with below average intelligence and/or cognitive disabilities, no one has (to my knowledge) suggested that these comments are inappropriate or insulting to the disabled.
Well, I must have missed that, then. If I see Pat being called a "retard" in comments, I'll be sure to point out that using "retard" as an insult is hurtful.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 6, 2009 8:15 PM
Rob, do you have some ulterior motivation for splitting hairs like this? I ask that in all seriousness.
Gretchen, I admire your patience.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 6, 2009 8:19 PM
Rob said:
...which I mentioned only to point out that it's not what people here are saying.
Exactly. Though there isn't much difference of opinion on what disparages women, as it tends to be pretty obvious.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 6, 2009 8:20 PM
Yes. Aren't you?
Actually yes. I tend to give my students a hard time when they use the word in a negative connotation, asking them why [whatever they didn't like] was extremely happy? But, to be quite honest, I doubt that many (let alone all) of the people who have been so vociferous in their objections do the same.
Most of the time. Don't you?
Yes, but as I pointed out and asked, did you see any such objections on this or the previous "Pat" threads?
Posted by: Exhausted
Hmmmm, post after posts ascribes various reasons for my comment, Adrienne explains the inner workings of my mind and provides utterly idiotic reasons why I didn't choose other ways to phrase my comment, and you're fine with it. I reply and you're exhausted and sarcastic? Gotcha...
----------
I realize what you were trying to do. My reply intentionally pushed the envelope of "acceptable" because I would argue that, much like the people on this thread who were so upset with "girl" many of the phrases and comments that both you and I mentioned pass every day in conversation and few say anything. At the same time though, how do we establish which meaning is being used, and how do we determine if the usage is offensive or not? I have friends who would find "niggardly" more offensive than "Jewed." Whose opinion do we go with? Interestingly enough, how do we decide if it is a Jewish friend who finds "niggardly" more offensive or an African American friend who finds "Jewed" more offensive? When you use the phrase "nag" do you mean an old complaining woman or an old complaining horse? What if I refer to someone as a "whiny bitch?" Do I mean that they're an annoying woman (which I agree would be offensive) or am I referring to them as if they are as annoying as a female dog in heat? Again, who decides?
The ultimate irony of this entire discussion is that my own personal background makes the whole debate really quite amusing and sublime. The strongest person I ever knew was my mother who was both parents to me after my father died. She raised me, finishing college and grad school while doing so. The second strongest person I knew was my grandmother who, despite leaving school after 8th grade, sat up night after night reading textbooks she barely understood to my mother who, in addition to all I listed previously, was also blind. Aside from the point I have made numerous times that it would upset a dipshit like Pat (who is ridiculously macho), I don't consider the term "girl" a negative or an insult.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 6, 2009 8:21 PM
....and dogmeatib's reply just about sums up the reason why it's important to stress the difference between the "you said something sexist" conversation and the "you are a sexist" conversation: because not doing so causes people to come up with the most ridiculous defenses and red herring arguments one could possible imagine.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 6, 2009 8:33 PM
Speaking only for myself, I have been very vocal about the derogatory use of the term "gay" since I first heard it used back in 2000 (and calling put my fellow high school freshmen did nothing to score me popularity points). I consider it every bit as offensive as racial and gender slurs, and I even take my young cousins (ages 12 and 10) to task when they use it. Unlike my former schoolmates, they still love me. :)
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 6, 2009 8:34 PM
Between dogmeatib and Exhausted:
I'm a frequent reader, and I have a serious aversion to "retard" as an epithet (I have two special needs children, although neither can properly be called "retarded"). My students, for instance, know my feelings on the word used in contexts like "That's retarded" and often catch themselves quickly after saying it or at least realize their error after I shoot them my patented Teacher Look™.
However, calling out people for using "retard" in such a way on the Internet is the ultimate exercise in futility in a way that calling out people for saying things like "Don't be such a girl" is not.* I would still think that the general readership of scienceblogs should be above using "retard," "gay," etc., and so I support coming down on anyone who feels that their use is perfectly acceptable and not reinforcing bigoted attitudes by their use, but I even recognize the extent to which complaining about people calling Pat a retard will be seen as concern trolling. (And of course, the fact that fewer people will be vocal about epithets like "retard" than ones like "shrew" is a fine example of one relatively unsurprising kind of selection bias around here.)
_______________________________
*I'm not saying that you (dogmeatib) really said something like this; I'm simplifying for ease of reference.
Posted by: Mr. B | December 6, 2009 11:03 PM
Yikes, are we still arguing about this?
dogmeatib said something he thought was valid in order to insult Pat. Various people disagreed that it was valid, on a variety of fronts. Wes makes some good comments. dogmeatib, as far as I can tell (I'm not trying to misconstrue anything), insisted that while it may not have been the best recourse, it's not something worth people getting upset over. Other people disagree with lots of words an technicalities. Tyler DiPietro makes a thoroughly regrettable entrance. And so forth.
I'm not looking to marginalize people here, but I think there are much bigger fish to fry than the girl-calling epithet. Yes, I whole-heartedly agree, it's something to be discouraged by able-intelligence people. But with people like Pat still roaming around the swamp, I sincerely don't think our resources are best spent excoriating dogmeatib when we could be lambasting Pat's ilk.
I for one at this late hour think dogmeatib's original comment deserves, at most, a sarcastic along the lines of, "Thanks for the vote of confidence and respect--a woman".
Because honestly, associating Pat with either sex is an insult to each, right?
Posted by: Kris | December 7, 2009 1:57 AM
That's, "Thanks for the vote of confidence and respect --signed, a woman," in case that wasn't clear. Sorry.
Posted by: Kris | December 7, 2009 1:59 AM
I disagree, Kris. Off-the-cuff comments that demean women are every bit as in need of addressing as anything that Pat says (more so, arguably, because we regular Dispatches commenters should know better). I find it very encouraging that this thread has reached nearly 300 comments. This is a discussion that we absolutely have to have; the days of sweeping casual sexism (intentional or not) under the rug are over.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 7, 2009 10:58 AM
Gretchen @267:
....and dogmeatib's reply just about sums up the reason why it's important to stress the difference between the "you said something sexist" conversation and the "you are a sexist" conversation: because not doing so causes people to come up with the most ridiculous defenses and red herring arguments one could possible imagine.
Except that even if you DO go out of your way to stress that distinction, as many of us have attempted to do on this thread to dogmeatib, that doesn't mean the person to whom you are trying to make the distinction will actually get it. Sadly, as in dogmeatib's case, some still won't, no matter how many times and how clearly you attempt to make the what you DID vs. what you ARE distinction.
Posted by: Adrienne | December 7, 2009 11:17 AM
Sadie @272:
I find it very encouraging that this thread has reached nearly 300 comments. This is a discussion that we absolutely have to have; the days of sweeping casual sexism (intentional or not) under the rug are over.
+1
Posted by: Adrienne | December 7, 2009 11:19 AM