According to HuffPo, the Phelps clan plans to picket the funerals for the six victims of the recent shooting in Arizona. The Cleaveland Leader has the church’s flier:
“Your federal judge is dead and your (fag-promoting, baby-killing, proud-sinner) Congresswoman fights for her life. God is avenging Himself on this rebellious house! WBC prays for your destruction–more shooters, more dead carcasses piling up, young, old, leader and commoner–all. Your doom is upon you!”
How did I not see this coming? Seriously, we know that these people are complete attention whores. As soon as the shooting became a national news story, I should have started a countdown.
Edit: Whoops. Figures Daniel would beat me to it.
I’m sorry, but if they were to picket the funeral of that little girl, I’m afraid I’d be tempted to do some shooting of my own.
They had vowed to picket funerals of AZ children some time ago.
Wouldn’t it be a shame if somehow all the security cameras in their area were down for maintenance that day?
If I were the Devil, the damned in Hell would be continuously subjected to stories and musical numbers delivered by audio-animatronic Phelpses.
Hey, I might be tempted to repent then!
Do what we did in Canada, organize a counter protest of a hundred people or so who would peacfully and respectful form a baracade between the funerael and the protestors, it scared the Pheleps enough that the did not show up to protest.
Can we lay off the use of “whores” and other gender slanders here?
kthx
I thought about it, but I couldn’t come up with a another phrase that quite captured that way that Westboro will do just about anything to grab another minute of the spotlight.
Well, there is “hound”, but it doesn’t carry the same degree of pejorativeness. And both “whore” and the more learned “prostitute” have long had nongendered metaphorical uses that extend well beyond references to women in engaging in the sex trade for money. I understood exactly what vorjack meant, and saw why he chose that term (however crude, it does say exactly what he wanted to say) and did not attach any connotations of gender slander to it.
Frankly, my beefs on pejoratives are elsewhere. I’ve never understood the use of the words “pr*ck” and “c*nt” as pejoratives, as if the anatomical structures that they refer to are somehow intrinsically dirty, crude, or shameful.
I disagree about connotations of gender. Seriously.
I understand that you do, but I don’t see your reasoning for it. First off, there are plenty of male prostitutes, so where is the gender specificity? Second, English is full of words that have long since expanded beyond their original, literal meanings. This is a tide that you cannot hold back.
I think in the sense that “whore” is always taken as a pejorative – whores, prostitution (literally or figuratively), as a negative thing. Slut-shaming. Fast women or women who take money for sex are “bad,” so the word “whore” means something bad, like attention whore…. means a bad thing. In defense of enterprising women who sell sex for money and having no problems with it, who aren’t exploited, or women who like sex and are comfortable having a lot of it with a lot of different men, it shouldn’t be used in the pejorative.
Go on and tell us how you like the phrase “that’s so gay.”
“That’s so gay”? It’s often meant as a pejorative, no doubt about it, although sometimes it’s used playfully, and without any apparent hostility towards gay people on the part of the speaker. Context is all-important. But I’m not about to tell other people that they can’t use it for whatever reason they want, because I think censorship is a much worse alternative than putting up with it. And if I could wave a magic wand and ban it, what would I have accomplished? Nobody would like gay people any better if they couldn’t use the term. And I wouldn’t know where they stood. I vote to keep it in the lexicon, thanks.
With that reasoning, we know where you all stand?
There’s a difference between censorship, saying – you can’t say this – and bringing it to your attention exactly in which way saying it is insensitive, and it’s really up to you if you still think there’s a good reason to use it, you just want to and you don’t care what it implies, or that you do care and you understand why it’s a poor choice.
I have learned from my teenage nephews that “gay” now means something very stupid. As in “taking out the garbage is gay” or “driving the speed-limit is gay” etc.
My point being that words certainly change in meaning over time, sometimes a very short period of time.
In the original post, when I read “attention whores”, I did not think of a woman who has sex, I took it as intended, that these wackjobs like any kind of attention they can get and will do anything to get that attention.
Sorry, I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at here. Can you rephrase?
Censorship is saying “You can’t say this at all”.
Discussion is saying “I think you shouldn’t say this, and this is why”.
Error is assuming that Word X always means the same thing to everyone.
I would ordinarily think so too. How did the word “gay” come to mean homosexual?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gay
So “gay” means promiscuous, but no longer in the pejorative, it just means homosexual (adj. or noun). Except that as youth slang, it means “bad.” Because being gay is bad?
Normally I would have seen “attention whore” in non-sexual terms, but the usage of the word “whore” to mean that, means what they do is bad, the choice of word “whore” because whores are bad, whoring your body for money is bad. I would just call them asshoIes, but maybe that I shouldn’t because a lot of people use their asshoIes for more than just pooping.
It is my understanding that the current use of the word “gay” stems from its use as a code word by closeted homosexual men in the 1950s. “I’m feeling gay tonight” was a safe way to put out a feeler in social situations without giving yourself away to the heterosexual crowd if you made a mistake about someone’s presumed sexual orientation. This could be an apocryphal story, however.
What would you think of me if I started to say “that’s so gay” about this or that. I mean, you’re not censoring me from saying it, but you would probably think I was being insensitive and oblivious if I demanded that you accept my usage with a smile on your face instead of being insulted.
The “free speech” to say whatever I want no matter whose feelings it hurts… yeah, we know where people stand when they do it. I’m not in favor of censorship anymore than you are. However, “political correctness,” bothersome little phrase that it is, means that you care enough about, say, Chinese people not to call them Chinks. If we said, these WBC are a bunch of “attention chinks” or say, taking out the garbage is “so chinky,” we’d certainly sit up and examine that phrasing and how inappropriate it is. Wouldn’t stop people from saying it, but the matter is, would you defend people who use the term as it has nothing to do with being Chinese at all, and how offensive it is.
‘Political correctness’ is based on the idea that we should be aware of what we are saying and that we should avoid giving gratuitous offense to other people- but this is not a new idea. It’s called “manners”. It’s when it gets hijacked to promote a particular political ideology that I have a problem with it.
It gets especially bad when something like vorjack’s use of an evolving term with multiple meanings (and in a generalized sense far removed from any association with women and denoting people instead) is called on the carpet because the use of the word to refer to women in other contexts is offensive. He’s talking about self-aggrandizement and attention-mongering, not engaging in sex for money, there is no hint that he is referring specifically to women (or even actual sex workers in general), and this is all very clear from the context. I see no reason why he should be taken to task for using the word “whore” in this way, or accused of gender slander because of it. If the context had been different, the accusation might certainly be a fair one. But it was not, and is not.
If you have a problem with this argument and are seriously committed to gender-neutral language and sexual equality and stopping the evolution of terms dead in their tracks, then you should be consistent and reject the word “girl” in its modern, evolved sense of “a young human female” and insist that everyone must use it in its original meaning of “a young human of either gender”. Much more gender-blind and less sexist, don’t you think?
The horse is already out of the barn on this one. It’s too late to lock the door.
It’s been a very common tactic to communicate exactly what is wrong with someone, what is bad they are doing, by applying a gender-specific epithet on it, the horrible things we call women who are either enjoying a lot of sex, selling sex or exploited by someone other than herself, i.e. a victim. The horrible way we judge people who are doing something icky. It’s out of the barn, but that doesn’t mean we can’t look at it and wonder why it got out of the barn so fucklng easily and without protest.
A fair point, which is probably the position I would take if somebody were to use the phrase “attention chink” or some similar racial or gender epithet clearly meant to imply that the referent is dirty or immoral by mere association with the race or gender specified. Scatological terms are understandable for expressing disgust, but why do we also focus so often on race and gender and reproductive body parts when we want to call something dirty? I would not be surprised if there was some deep psychological foundation for this phenomenon.
But you will never stop the process of semantic drift in a language’s vocabulary. Shocking terms become less shocking the more they are used, and become generalized. Innocent terms meant as polite euphemisms for a taboo word become taboo themselves by association with the concept (“ass” is a good example; it’s a taboo deformation of “arse”, and has taken over the naughty connotation to the extent that the original “arse” is now misunderstood to be a polite euphemism for “ass”, and we’ve come full circle).
Translation: So it’s useless to try, you silly woman.
Seriously ask yourself why words drift the way they do, and why insulting terms for women persist in common language, I am talking about behavior judgments, objectification, infantilization, all of that, why these terms help fluently describe something else that may be gender-neutral, and if we were using terms like that from any other group, we would agree we should probably be more sensitive and conscientious of how we spread those usages.
Each person is responsible for their language usage. If inclined, each person can be responsible for informing others exactly what is wrong with their terms and defense of usage. You are just folding your arms and shrugging: It’s the language! I don’t know how it spreads, I have no idea, like talking or writing or choosing to use finer and more elevated words to describe what exactly you mean, and using discussions like this to learn and grow, rather than lean on some lazy words everyone already uses and nobody seems to mind.
The metaphorical usage of “whore” is old and well-established. When Shakespeare called Fortune an “arrant whore,” he did not mean that she was literally a prostitute.
The non-gendered usage is more recent, but still fairly accepted. Check, for example, Webster’s definition. Sense 1 is a female sex worker, and sense 2 is a male sex worker.
But the term in question here isn’t even just “whore.” It’s the term of art “attention whore” which is much more recent but still extremely widespread, and is not necessarily gendered, depending on where you go on the internet. On sites already known for their extreme (and humours) sexism, such as 4chan or urbandictionary, you will obviously find it generally (but not always) attached to girls posting pictures or videos of themselves online. In most other places, it is a gender-neutral term referring to anybody who is willing to “sell-out” for attention, good or bad (think of has-been celebrities). Now which sense do you think vorjack was using? Did he mean that the WBC was full of young girls posting pictures of themselves online? No, I don’t think he did. I think he meant the latter.
And that’s what really makes these complaints absurd–claiming his usage was gendered even though he used it to refer to people of both genders, but primarily the opposite gender.
I don’t see how you think this makes it better.
Women are still called “whores” for no reason, not that being a prostitute is a good reason, but for any man’s insult on a woman, he may choose to call her a “whore.” Shakespeare’s usage as a defense just reminds me how much sense the bible makes and we should apply it because it’s old and well-established.
I agree with Michael. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Translation: what women think doesn’t matter.
If you’re going to misrepresent what I meant, then go fo the gusto….
True translation: What? Women think? Doesn’t matter.
There is also the problem of attribution of malice where none is intended. Now, I don’t advocate the use of deliberately inflammatory or sexist language in debate (in fact, once this happens, you are no longer in a debate, but a mud-slinging match), but I despise the whole concept of “political correctness”. It is nothing more than a not-very-thinly veiled attempt by one group to impose its preferred values on everyone else through censorship of terms that they find offensive.
Sure, we still have issues as a society about equality of all sorts and it sometimes shows up in our language choices, no doubt about it. They’re getting better, slowly. And some of us have moved already moved beyond them. If somebody calls me a faggot, I’m not going to tell them “no, you can’t use that word, it’s offensive and you shouldn’t ever utter it in my presence!”. I’ll just own it by saying “That’s Mr. Faggot to you, thank you very much” and move on. Words that you refuse to take offense at are about as deadly as a ping-pong ball, and will soon loose their weaponly connotations.
I like to think we’re friends enough that I would never call you a faggot. I mean, just because you have a way to answer if I did doesn’t mean that I meant anything good by it if I did call you one, and you know it. If I called you a faggot, or reserved that term for gay guys who get on my nerves or even just anyone who does something “gay” (like take out the garbage), but never called you a faggot, I think you wouldn’t want to be my friend because you would take that as a demonstration of how I really feel about gay guys.
So you’re either saying you would love it if I called you a faggot, or you are saying you tolerate it as part of the language but judge people who use it as an insult.
I’m saying “whore” in the latter sense – I tolerate that it’s part of the language, but I still don’t think it’s very nice. If you want to be nice, you don’t use it, and if you want me to know you’re not nice and you think women are whores, even so casually as to think I should just get over it and say “That’s Ms. Whore to you!” whenever you do, I will simultaneously be able to know where you stand.
Amen.
I’m saying “faggot” holds no sting for me when somebody tries to use it as an insult, and it lets me know where they stand. But genuine friends of mine have used it playfully, with humorous intent, and I did not construe it in any other manner when they did so. It bears repeating: words are not just words. Context is everything.
Just to be clear, I think the more traditional uses of the word “whore” are crude and derogatory and intended to denigrate women or imply that they are inferior and I understand completely why women are insulted by it when it is used this way. I do not use the word this way. I’m not sure that I’ve ever used it outside of a discussion like this one. And personally, I don’t have a problem when I see someone use the phrase “attention whore” because I don’t associate that term with the devaluation of women. It is etymologically related to the original, but distinct from it. Your mileage with it may vary.
You can’t control what people are going to say to you, you can only control your own response to it. Personally I find it a lot more productive to let it roll off my back than let it ruin my day. On carefully chosen occasions I will point out if something is insulting to me (and it’s never over something trivial like “faggot”), if it appears to me that my opinion might actually matter to the speaker, otherwise, why waste my time trying to educate a closed mind? It works for me. What you do with an insult that someone throws at you is up to you.
I didn’t think we were trying to educate closed minds here.
To me, the difference between “faggot” and “whore,” is that “faggot” (or “gay” in the sense of taking out the garbage) is applied to people and intended to insult them by virtue of the fact that it means homosexual.
On the other hand, the central meaning of “whore” is “sex worker,” and it only implies feminine gender attributes — crucially, it doesn’t entail them the way “b*tch” does. If I ever insulted someone by calling them a whore, the basis of the insult would lie in the implication that they have sex for money.
For that reason, I find “faggot” much more offensive.
The reasons you list that cause you to find the word “faggot” more offensive should cause you to find the word “whore” equally offensive.
Especially as you’re not a woman, you have no way of calculating how offensive it would feel to be called one, and if you are a man called a “whore” you would be proud and not made ashamed of your sexual activities.
With all due respect, Elliott, I think the attempt to develop a differential calculus of insult is doomed to failure.
Let me put it this way: in a world without sexism, the word “whore” would still be an effective insult. In a world without homophobia, “faggot” would not.
Have you ever heard the term ” Man Whore”? No longer a gender issue. Case in point, Charlie Sheen in Two and a Half Men.
It would be nice if business owners knew what their vehicles and some of their key members looked like. Then they could refuse to sell them gas, food, or lodging.
Thanks for thinking. Unfortunately you’re right – there are a zillion insulting terms for females that don’t have gender-neutral equivalents. That’s one of the reasons they jar me every time. Junkie has come to imply someone who watches media to soothe perverse inner cravings, rather than standing in front of the camera. Would parasite work? Exhibitionist? Too many syllables? Peacock? Toady? Bootlicker? This is a bummer of a way to start my day.
None of those mean what he was trying to say. Junkies are addicted to drugs or other passive entertainment. The WBC are parasites, since they leech of other people’s lives, but that is independent of their attention whoring. Exhibitionism is not generally a derogatory term. Peacocks are just show-offs, which is clearly different. Toadies and bootlickers are brown-nosers, the exact opposite of the Phelpses.
And it just doesn’t make sense to try to create some new combination of words that might mean the same thing when one already exists.
Whore in the pejorative sense implies that women who have a lot of sex or enjoy sex or sell their bodies for money are bad people. They are either exploited by men or they do it because they like it.
Yeah, sometimes whore is used that way, and it sucks when it is. It’s a good thing it isn’t being used that way here.
To me whore is a man or woman. Words change. But they can be offensive to some people. For instance my mom is offended by “suck”. It’s not offensive to me, but it is to her. I don’t think most people are offended by “whore” (but some people are of course), but we can’t not use words on here that offended a tiny minority — otherwise the writing would be boring and we’d always be qualifying everything.
I recommend people who are offended by certain words to replace them in their own minds. It’s not usually worth the energy trying to convince people they are wrong, because most offense is subjective.
Words only change because we let them, and we nice, polite women wouldn’t want to interrupt men while they create the language. I’m not offended by the word “whore” either, much, but I do listen when people are explaining why it’s a poor choice, a bad habit, lazy and indefensible – really. Too easy to think of an easy word for an easy lady.
“replace the word in their own mind”?
Sorry? Sorry I spoke up? Sorry I didn’t do what I’m supposed to do?
To me whore is a man or woman
Oh, please. *eyeroll*
Do you consider your women readers “a tiny minority”, Dan? I’m not claiming to speak for -all- women who read this blog, but 100% of the self-identified women who have chosen to comment on this thread found the word inappropriate. I’d actually welcome more women commenters and perspectives on this, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to conclude that most women would not be a fan of the word choice, even if some care about it less than others.
Frankly, Dan, if you got called a “whore” more regularly, you might be more offended by the casual use of the term. Women get called this all the time, for a variety of reasons not related to actual literal whoring. But guys rarely, if ever, get called whores. I’d bet good money you’ve never been called it in your life, even when you’ve cut people off in traffic, snatched a coveted parking space, worn less clothing than usual, or done other things similarly selfish or self-centered.
The fact that you’re so dismissive of your women readers’ reactions to this is a bit upsetting. Since this is your blog, people here follow your lead, and what you’ve just said is that you consider women readers “a tiny minority” whose opinions on what is and isn’t personally insulting others can feel free to ignore. It sends a message, whether or not you meant it, that you don’t really care whether women feel welcome on this blog or forum.
And that hurts, Dan. It’s not that uncommon a perspective, but I didn’t expect to find it here.
Perhaps it even is a tiny minority. There are a lot of women who would say to you or I or Oakley that we should lighten up. However, liken this to atheism itself. We should keep quiet and not mind how systemic Christianity is. Some atheists think so, we should all just shut up and get along and tolerate.
How did these words get out of the barn, so common and effective to communicate, and men and women both have no problem with it? We’re just being shrill.
Sounds familiar.
It probably -is- a minority, though I’m not sure how “tiny”. Women are generally more religious and more spiritual than men according to most public opinion surveys, so I’d wager women are a minority in the atheisphere. But if the people on this blog want atheism to spread, women are going to be a part of the target audience, and it stands to reason that people committed to spreading atheism would want to listen and be respectful of the perspectives of the few women who are already here.
There seems to be a lot of gendered stereotypes about “logic” and “emotion” tied up in these discussions. Which I don’t want to unpack here.
But the ultimate point is: I, as a woman, would like to know that if someone on this blog says something that’s sexist, or even has sexist overtones, even if it’s only a little bit, and I say something, I’d get the response of:
- “Huh, I didn’t think of it that way. I’ll try to be more considerate in the future.”
- “Huh, I didn’t consider that perspective. Could you explain?”
- “Well I tried to think of another way, but I couldn’t. Got any suggestions?”
- “I disagree, but I can see where you’re coming from. How can we meet in the middle, since I wasn’t trying to be insulting?”
All these responses suggest that the person did not want to be insulting, may even disagree with my interpretation, but is respectful of me and not dismissing me.
Men dismiss women as unimportant all the time. Namely by acting like the way they see and experience the world is not different from the way women see and experience the world, so when women bring forth information or perspectives that are outside their experience, they think they are anecdotal or made up or something (even if other women back it up, -confirming- that it is not anecdotal!). If people on this blog care about women being and becoming atheists, they have to at least be open to what women have to say about sexism, even if they come to a different conclusion.
We called my daughters cat an attention whore because she was always pawing for attention. I am woman hear me snore. Time to go pay CityVille or something.
Dan, really? Why don’t you read the Westboro Baptist Church signs and just “replace them in [your] own minds” with less offensive thoughts? That advice sounds kind of smug from someone who responded to WBC words with: “Are they insane? Or just despicable?”
Maybe you can explain exactly how and why some offensive words matter and others don’t. Is it really majority rule and “tiny minority” go piss off?
Whoa, I see this is a explosive issue. I’ll let you guys and gals sort it out. Let me know what the final consensus is and if or when I am allowed to use the word “whore.”
A smart whore like you should be able to figure it out for yourself.
Seconded.
Am I a prostitute now? If so, I should be making more.
However, I have been an attention whore a number of times…
Not only do insults against women slide easily into the lexicon and protestation seen as making mountains out of molehills, most insults about a man have in some way to do with being like a woman, rather than in some way be a bad sort of man. A bad sort of man = a woman or insulting term referring to a woman. These are easy and effective ways of communicating in exactly which way we disapprove of a man or a woman. Even if there is a male-equivalent term, those terms do not seem to catch on, do not become part of our lexicon, do not provide easy terms to reach for when we want to illustrate a behavior.
The problem isn’t the words, it’s how thoughtlessly they are reached for and perverted to mean other things – that shouldn’t be insulting to women as they tend to be used gender-free. They are within easy reach for a reason and people know what they mean for a reason.
So what’s a derogatory term for a man prostitute?
I think the problem is the perception and judgment of people who are prostitutes or are sexually promiscuous, likened to prostitutes.
I personally (and I don’t think Kodie is, either) am not arguing that there should be derogatory terms for both…or either. The solution to bad words about women isn’t making more bad words about men. Or judging people who are sex workers or like sex, of either gender.
Coming back to the beginning of this, I think the word “junkie” would have conveyed a similar meaning without the gender-related stigma.
I don’t think there should be derogatory names for sex workers, right. The other point you made somewhere else in this thread is how women are called whores about a lot of other things they do besides being sexually active, sexually promiscuous, or sex workers, like, just being. A man who is unhappy with something you’ve done, like cut him off in traffic, may call a you a whore (or a litany of other insults) simply for being a woman that he would not call another man, or possibly even mind as much if it was a man instead of a woman.
I’d just like to point out that the first couple posts here are about as bad as what many of us complained about the right/left doing in the oringinal blog about the shootings. Sorry Oakley that you see the terms used above in a purely sexist way,considering they do not seem to be intended as that….which of course relates again to the 155 posts(last I looked) about the shooting, that is almost everyone will be offended by something…and I think most of these posts are an attempt to show that offense and disgust,often via what some( though I do not) would consider offensive terms. No offense ment, but I think you are taking the terms too personally and somewhat out of context.
I didn’t say anything about how vorjack intended them, but UrsaMinor, Michael and WarbVIII claim to know a whole lot about what I think and what I should think. I’m surprised to find such lack of empathy from you three. Can I conclude that you fully support all free speech and find no cause for concern about possible connections to Saturday’s incident? That’s a question. Don’t flame me.
I honestly don’t see how they’re trying to tell you what to think. Furthermore, I find the term “attention whores” an extremely apt description of the Phelpses – a group of people who will do almost anything to get attention. As a matter of fact, right after I submitted a post earlier today about them craving attention I realized that I should’ve used that exact phrase since it captures perfectly what they’re about.
Even though the pejorative “whore” has historically been attached primarily to women, I find that by combining it with another word it attains a new meaning which isn’t gender-specific (a fact I think is also reflected in the common use of the term “attention whore”, which AFAIK is being applied to men and women equally, much like, say, “drama queen”).
Your not being bothered by stealing pejorative terms about women and applying to men illustrates the point. The WBC is being a specific kind of non-gender-specific whore. Whores are a bad thing, whores do bad things, whoring is bad. They are not selling sex though and some of them aren’t women!
I asked for some consideration and vorjack acknowledged the problem. I appreciate that and consider it a small issue that’s not worth hijacking the thread for, except that the thread also relates to freedom of speech and consequences of hate speech.
trj, here’s where I see people telling me what I think and what I should think:
UrsaMinor: “English is full of words that have long since expanded beyond their original, literal meanings. This is a tide that you cannot hold back.”
Michael: “And that’s what really makes these complaints absurd–claiming his usage was gendered …”
WarbVIII: “Sorry Oakley that you see the terms used above in a purely sexist way,considering they do not seem to be intended as that…. I think you are taking the terms too personally and somewhat out of context.”
Get it now? None of their statements about what I see or think is true. None of their statements about how they see it proves anything about how I see it. They sound dismissive to me. That’s not the quality of discussion I’ve seen so far on other topics. What happened?
Note that I said what I think about what you said in response to what others said,not what YOU think,I can be and probably about 50% am wrong,that does not change what I think about what you were saying,again it’s what I thought…not what you thought. I would also suggest by saying that I was sorry that from what you said it appeared to me that that you were making a mountain out of a molehill…which is not dismissive but a matter of a difference of opinion. Not to mention most or many of these words and phrases have been used before in comments and in the forum without a comment asking some to change the way we express ourselves…again I am sorry that this bothers you, but again I said nothing about what you actually think or should think, and I do not think selectively quoting parts of what I wrote out of the context of the whole post is a good way to make your point…I could go through your posts in this comment section and make them say something else as well. Though I find that more offensive than anything anyone here has said so I won’t do it yet you have no problem doing that…much like fox news. I have no said I am sorry for nothing I did twice…I expect an apology from you for editing what I said to say what it did not(and still did not make the point you were trying to make,for the record).
WOW…”I expect an apology from you…”
That’s rich. No one else here has asked for an apology, including us oversensitive women. And we are the ones who started the objecting in the first place.
By the way, you haven’t “said I am sorry for nothing I did [twice]“, because saying “I’m sorry you were offended” (the only “sorrys” you’ve issued) is not an -actual- apology. It’s “I’m sorry for you”; it’s pity, at best. You said nothing regarding your actions and whether or not they were something you regret. (Note: I’m not a fan of your perspective, but I haven’t seen anything you need to apologize for; I’m not sure why you said you’re sorry in the first place. It’s an odd compulsion, I think.) So don’t worry, you haven’t apologized!
And since Oakley QUOTED YOUR COMMENT directly, I think it’s a bit much to say she was editing you. She quoted you (“Sorry Oakley that you see the terms used above in a purely sexist way,considering they do not seem to be intended as that…. I think you are taking the terms too personally and somewhat out of context.” which you did say) and said, and I quote, “They sound dismissive to me.” Which is her perception of your tone. Which is legitimate, since it’s -her- perception. She didn’t say you -were- dismissive, something which I’ve said flat out several times, she just said you -sounded- dismissive -to her-. And hey, it sounds dismissive to me too! Her perspective is not unique!
I’m going to take a page out of your book and say I’m sorry that you felt like you needed to say you’re sorry. It’s clear to me that Oakley was not trying to convey the meaning that you took out of it. I think you were taking our objections a little too personally and a little out of context.
What? Does that sound insincere and dismissive, even a little bit insulting? Almost like I think your perspective on the issue is that of an oversensitive person and the problem isn’t the topic, it’s just you and your silly little head?
Huh, that’s kind of rude of me. I probably shouldn’t do that.
But don’t worry, I -won’t- demand an apology from you. Feel free to not say you’re sorry to me.
Oakley quoted pieces of my post to attempt to say I made a comment about what and how she should think, when I was saying AGAIN what I thought which is a misquoting and connecting phrases out of context go back up and read my whole first post…I also did NOT use said words that she was offended at but defended peoples right to use them. She purposely removed this bit of text between what she quoted….….which of course relates again to the 155 posts(last I looked) about the shooting, that is almost everyone will be offended by something…and I think most of these posts are an attempt to show that offense and disgust,often via what some( though I do not) would consider offensive terms. No offense ment, ….So how did SHE NOT take what I said and try to make it say something else? Why if she is asking for some consideration can’t I ask for an apology for her mis representation of what I said? Also how is that a direct quote with all of the connecting text removed? I said I am sorry this bothers her,what was said,and said I am sorry that others words caused her a problem…granted something I shouldn’t do since I didn’t do it thus it comes off sounding condescending. In any event I realise it’s a waste of time on this issue to persue it any further, I will just not respond about how I think in regards to such things with you both from now on…all three of us will probably be better off that way.
I’m sorry, whaaaaa?!! You want to write things but not be quoted? You’re welcome to show how the quote I chose was changed by its context, but I thought a premise of dialogue is to stand up for our words. If you want to “go through my posts…and make them say something else” I’ll explain the misunderstanding, rather than, as you say, making a mountain out of a molehill. Not being dismissive at all…no way.
I didn’t mean to hijack the thread either, but it is something I’ve been prone to notice a lot lately. I don’t care much for the dismissive arguments. There would be no issue if we were using a word like “chink” as I said above, not a lot of people would even start to use racial or ethnic epithets in such a lazy way that the language could just “take over”. We all know why whores are bad, and we all agree (right???), so we should apply it to anyone. Also, men aren’t whores, they are man-whores. Even men aren’t prostitutes (as a profession someone might have, like doctor or sanitation engineer), they are male prostitutes. The easiest way to insult a man is to call him some kind of woman. Even garbage collectors want some lofty title, prostitutes are whores and so is anyone who whores.
But it’s the language, let it go, change the word in your pretty little head and don’t worry about it. Don’t make us worry about it.
I thought true man whores were giggalos….and for the record my wife calls me a whore all the time,but I correct her and tell her I am a slut cause she doesn’t pay me….so I will admit my wife and I call each other names often in a very joking manner so I only get offended by words in context not as words in and on their own,I think Carlin had several routines based on this idea.
It’s nice that you and your wife have this comfort level, but that’s something that is part of your interpersonal relationship. If anyone else called you a whore, especially someone you did not know, I doubt your reaction would be the same. Or if anyone said “All men are whores,” even if they weren’t addressing you specifically. Even if it was the same words, the meaning behind them would be different. Not one of affection, which is what happens with you and your wife.
So that thing you have with your wife doesn’t mean it’s OK to use the word all the time with anyone.
I’m going to be the asshole here saying I don’t really care what you think. It is totally impossible to avoid offending everybody, especially when they insist on interpreting words as offensive when they are not intended that way. I would rather have people express their thoughts in ways they are comfortable using words that mean what they say rather than worrying about every other meaning people could derive from those words. The use of “attention whore” here was obviously supposed to be derogatory toward the Phelpses and it was obviously not a gendered or sexist term. The fact that it sometimes historically has been really should not matter. You can choose to be angry anyway, but you are making you angry, not vorjack.
To quote my own post:
At the end of the day, I could decide that all sorts of words aren’t offensive in my mind and start using them – but that wouldn’t alter the fact that they are offensive to a lot of people and there would be consequences to me personally for using them.
I’ve been very guilty of gender-based (and genitals-based) insults in the past, but it it something I’m trying not to do anymore because, on reflection, it’s shocking how many of our most offensive prejoratives are based on negative comparisons with some aspect of the female gender.
Yes, and at the end of the day I could decide to be offended at nearly anything, but does that mean you should prune your vocabulary to suit my whim? The question is whether it’s reasonable to indulge someone’s offense-taking, and you have to draw the line somewhere.
I support eschewing truly insensitive epithets, but I think putting someone’s diction under a microscope goes too far. It just pigeonholes people into defending positions they’d rather not, and it’s needlessly polarizing in a community of such well intentioned people.
From a linguist’s perspective, you’re never going to get rid of words as long as they’re useful (or perhaps more appropriately, utile). If we want “whore” to go away, we should work hard to make it obsolete. Until then, you’re screaming into the wind.
If a world without sexism should ever obtain, then would you be OK with the word “attention whore” being fossilized into the language as a dead idiom; an etymological stamp of our lowly origins? I probably would be. Kind of how “vagina” means “sheath”: there are obvious sexist implications there, but nobody thinks about it because its derivation is opaque to lay analysis.
This might make more sense if only one or a few people were being insulted. Though I would argue that if just being more careful in word choice helps keep even one or a few people from being upset, it’s beneficial to be considerate. But if you don’t care about offending just a few people and alienating them, fail to choose your words away.
But it wasn’t just one or two people who objected. That’s part of the reason I stepped in and seconded it, because I didn’t want Oakley and Kodie to seem like they were howling into the void alone. Many other commenters have objected to the use of this term, just some of us more strongly than others. I think that should reinforce that since many of us thing “whore” is insulting, and most of us don’t -want- to be insulting, all of us should avoid using the word “whore”, since we all want to avoid insulting people, even if some of us individually think it’s not that big of a deal.
Yeah, that’s why farther down the thread I said it’s a point worth ceding. Obviously it’s not just one person who’s offended here. My point is partially that there are other things worth considering in the discussion:
1) Number of people who take offense (unfortunately most the individuals here are already self-selected feminists or feminist supporters [myself included], so it’s an inadequate sample body)
2) Pragmatic implications: whether it furthers any greater cause, or is just pointless and polarizing. Telling people what words to use as fruitless an endeavor as telling people not to swing their arms when they walk.
See, this is what I’m talking about with the pigeonholing. Vorjack deliberately used the phrase “attention whore” in a non-gender-referential manner, after considering its potential ramifications. It’s a far cry from stringing together words at random, completely disregarding others’ feelings. I’m defending Vorjack, here. I’m not defending profligate epithet slinging.
Yeah, but no one here has had a problem with Vorjack or his response. And I didn’t mean you as in you, Elliot, I meant you as in the generic “you”, as in “you all”, in case that previous post came off at accusatory.
Sometimes I wish that English still had the word endings in declining nouns and verbs. It would make for less misunderstandings.
Then I remember my Latin class and change my mind.
Just to be clear, it’s not just a small handful of people being offended on one blog over one use of the phrase “attention whore,” for which to falsely conclude that it’s “no big deal.”
I tried in several places to draw this discussion as an argument over atheism. Atheists have a small but righteous argument to make, that doesn’t mean Christians shouldn’t pay attention because of history, tradition, or that they don’t feel like it’s that big a deal. In the same way we argue they should examine their beliefs, or should examine how intrusive their beliefs are in the culture to non-believers or alternate-believing people, and that they should mind that; in the same way they call us shrill for even speaking our minds or even just saying we’re an atheist, and that they should not continue to do that. In the same way that religion seems to be “off-limits” in any discussions about -isms and systemic bigotry, and that atheists challenge that, it really seems off-putting and unreasonable that anyone should react with the lame arguments they have for supporting a framework that is demeaning to women. OH – shut up you females, oh, I mean I’ve heard it before. Let’s just let it be how it is.
Can you or anyone tell me how this is any different? I don’t think the men here are absolutely misogynistic, horrible people, but to reason with them over their defense of the word does feel like it’s being dismissed, let the men cling to their wants, never mind what opinions women may have… more than the defense of the word “whore” in a gender-neutrally-intended phrase like “attention whore”, the attitude is depressing and insulting.
Kodie: BINGO! Why do some words matter (like Westboro Baptist Church’s) but others are supposed to be ignored? I’m smelling hypocrisy.
I was worried that my point would eventually come to be construed as support for “whore,” or for men to say whatever they want… That’s not what I intended.
It’s just depressing to me that the arsenal gets wheeled out in instances like this. I support sensitivity as much as anyone here, but not when it degrades into a lexical witch hunt.
Whoops, that was meant as a reply to Kodie.
To touch on your point about atheism, Kodie, I like to think I’m consistent. There are times I think it’s necessary to decry systemic prejudice towards non-believers, but when it becomes a crusade to take down every cross on public land, or when the rhetoric balkanizes around Christmas time, I kind of feel ashamed for associating with the cause.
“Lexical witch hunt?!” Are you conducting your own witch hunt by hoisting that straw man and blaming me for it? Back up that claim.
Well, we’re just talking here. I don’t like that atheists are called “strident” for voicing their opinions, and I don’t like it when feminists are called “feminazis” or “humorless.” The problem for me is that when we don’t discuss things because we’re afraid of being seen as “humorless,” well, I’m not really being myself. We’re letting it lie, so to speak. This is not a sociological -isms blog, so I’ve kept my voice fairly quiet on the subject and yet, I know most of the men and women here who aren’t relying on the bible for their standards are fair-minded with the big misogynistic issues, like abortion and birth control and abstinence-only, and marriage equality, etc., as well as abhorring racism and the heteronormativity of our culture; things need to be more inclusive.
So a “little word” shouldn’t bother me that much, but it’s how it gets in the system, how it gets used, how it was a type of person wanted for a term and a term was easily got – easy as some whore. I don’t mind once it’s been brought up, really hashing it out why it bothers me. It’s not a matter of that I am offended by the word but offended that I speak and people shush me, or tell me it’s my fault they love to use the word so much. I’m communicating not to censor people, but to see if they care enough to censor themselves, to examine the language and how they feel about it. It’s not that the word is already out there, and it’s so handy vorjack couldn’t think of a better one. It’s not that you’re not offended when you hear it and I am. It’s that it’s brought to your attention now that maybe you yourself won’t continue to use it or lean on it so heavily to communicate. Whysoever there is no other word in the English language that so effortlessly communicates this behavior as “whorish.”
If it was just one word, but it’s dozens of hundreds of words.
Oakley, when I typed the bit about witch hunt, I was picturing spelling women with a “y”; I didn’t mean to say that’s what you were doing. That’s a witch hunt.
IMO, decomposing “attention whore” is in the same class of things, but to a far less insane degree.
FWIW, my consciousness has been raised to the use of “whore.” I personally always saw it as far more gender neutral than it apparently is.
Kodie, I understand what you’re saying about shushing. I don’t mean to be a shusher, but in my observation, the magnitude of the negative reaction to “attention whore” was disproportionate. But who am I to say? I frequently find myself in the “shushed” seat with regards to a couple topics, most notably circumcision, and I find it infuriating.
Elliott, glad you understand. I’m getting a bit jumpy myself after a day of this. I don’t think the reaction to the word approaches the magnitude of the shushing going on, but I fully expect to be classified as a hysterical b*tch by those who can’t be bothered to follow logic. I’m glad we all agree that we don’t like the shushing. Thanks for that.
@Michael:
vorjack is not making me angry at all. You’re not either, especially now as a self-admitted asshole. If you “don’t really care what you think” then I wonder why you waste your time reading comments. I do care what other people think so I’ll stay in the comment boards. Should I assume you’ll be leaving?
Could we keep slang terms for rectal orrifices to a minimum? Not that it bothers me, but the spam filter keeps catching it and I can’t be bothered to keep checking to see what’s pending approval :p
LOL! Sorry. :)
Tip: I spell it with a capital I for the L so it doesn’t catch in the spam filter.
If you read my post, it should be evident what I meant by the quoted statement. You claimed I “knew a whole lot about what [you] think or should think.” I was trying to say that honestly, it doesn’t matter what you “think or should think,” the argument stands on its own merit. Language does influence and is influenced by peoples’ understandings and expectations, I don’t disagree with that, but there is a difference between using making potentially discriminatory distinctions and using a word which has sometimes been associated with some distinctions, but just as often not been, and in a context where it is hard to see how it could possibly create them. You are not picking apart the intent of the post, the underlying assumptions of the sentence, the possible damage it causes, you are merely focusing on the way a word has been historically used, while fully acknowledging that that is not how it was used here, and even admitting that you immediately knew that was not how it was being used. Basically, you are saying, “everybody knows what he meant and that he didn’t mean offense, but because the word matches another word I hate, I will still be offended.”
There is nothing people can do against this kind of attack. Every phrase is potentially susceptible. And even if it were easy to avoid, it shouldn’t be necessary. Words themselves can only be offensive if they are used offensively. If I call somebody’s bright T-shirt “gay,” that is offensive because it implies that such a color choice is effeminate, that gays are effeminate, and that being effeminate is bad. That is the most consistent and common interpretation of the insult. It’s the only way it really makes sense. But if I call somebody my dog, I don’t mean that he is as lowly as an animal and my property, even if it could have been understood that way decades ago. If I found somebody or even many people were offended by this, I still would not blame people who used the phrase, as long as its proper interpretation were clear. Note that this has nothing to do with my own choice of whether or not to use the phrase based on empathy toward my audience.
That last point is an important one. I can simultaneously think people are wrong to be offended and wrong to be angry at the utterer of an allegedly offensive statement while still not using it myself because I do not want to cause offense.
@Oakley:
Please point out to me where I have told you what you should think, or made an assumption about what you do think. I believe I have responded only to what you yourself said that you think, and explained my reasons for thinking differently. I am not insensitive your position, but I do not interpret the data in the same way that you do.
You quoted me as saying “English is full of words that have long since expanded beyond their original, literal meanings. This is a tide that you cannot hold back.” I know a fair amount about the history of the English language, and this is simply a statement of the facts as I know them. I see nothing in it that can be misconstrued as “this is how you must think”. Your opinion on the matter (and mine) is irrelevant to its existence. Whether we think it good, bad or indifferent, this is what we observe.
I’m glad to hear that you didn’t mean to tell me that my discomfort is irrelevant. I do still agree with Kodie that the derivation of a million insults from words associated with women is significant of an underlying problem that includes dismissing women. It’s alarming how resistant the comments have been to our simple request to be considerate.
No, Oakley, I did not mean to tell you that your discomfort is irrelevant. I’m sorry if it came across that way.
I think it’s incredibly telling that this discussion has polarized along gender lines.
That’s a big relief! I like your posts and I really was not comfortable thinking that another guy I admire just can’t be bothered to care a gnat’s eyelash about anything I think. Emphasis on “another.” It’s really helpful that you asked me to clarify. Thanks!
You’re welcome. I don’t like to leave these things hanging when I think there has a been a miscommunication.
And you’re absolutely right- many insults are derived from words associated with women. Not just in our culture, but pretty pervasively across the planet.
Shorter gals on UF: Please stop using “whore,” esp. like it’s a bad and dirty thing because it’s offensive to some of your readers, namely me, thx
Shorter guys on UF: OMG whore could be a guy or a girl I SWEAR and no one automatically thinks “girl” when they say “whore” NO ONE AT ALL everyone or at least most people I mean I certainly think of male AND female prostitutes when anyone says “whore” it’s totes gender-neutral, I am not a sexist don’t call me sexist CENSORSHIP stop telling me what to think and stop being so sensitive, you with your ladybrains and emotions gah. Freakin’ sensitive girls, amirite?
That is how all the above posts read to me.
Seriously, though. Guys, Oakley was not being accusatory or rude when she pointed out that “whore” is generally used as a slanderous term (which it WAS, here) and generally has female implications, which despite all your weird history-of-the-term jiu jitsu it does and you KNOW it, or you wouldn’t have felt the need to do the jiu jitsu in the first place.
More important than this history-of-whatever crap, what the women here are saying (and -some- guys only appear not to be comprehending) is that it ALIENATES the women readers here. This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a guys club, but using words like “whore” puts off the women who read here and are a part of the community. And no, the appropriate response to that is not “Stop being offended by that word then!” Women who are atheists shouldn’t feel like we have to read past gendered insults (no matter how unintentional) in order to participate in this very excellent blog and community, and if you care about your women readers you will listen to what they have to say and try to work with it, even if you disagree, instead of dismissing it as something “in our heads” or “in our perceptions” or acting like WE are being insulting and attacking by asking you not to use terms -we- perceive as insulting.
Simply asking that we change the word choice was not accusing anyone of sexism, but it was taken that way, as an attack instead of a simple request.
But all of that, I’d like to note, is directed at the commenters above. Vorjack, I appreciate your response to Oakley in which you explained what went in to the word choice, and I hope you’ll consider some of the suggestions she made for possible changes in this post and others in the future. I think it’s telling that neither I, nor Oakley, nor Kodie have expressed any problem with anything you’ve said in regards to it. You’ve been respectful and responsive, and that’s all I (and, I suspect, Kodie and Oakley, though they can say themselves) really wanted.
Thank you, Ruthie and Kodie! Spot on.
Guys, I would add that you don’t know what personal histories we each bring to the discussion. Any one of us may have been assaulted and taunted with the plethora of insults out there or may have worked as a whore. Have a little compassion.
I suspect some women aren’t even that bothered by it. I never really thought about it too much before, which goes to saying how easily it’s become acceptable to use gender-oriented pejoratives against everyone, that we’re not even supposed to mind it, and if we do, we’re not letting the language change and be used “naturally” and without examination. Everyone is some bad kind of woman. Bad terms for all kinds of women communicate effectively what kind of person (whatever gender) or group of people are being.
I haven’t seen many usages of words slip in so easily into the lexicon that we’re steam-rollered by usage that have a lot to do with racial or ethnic pejoratives. I do think maybe there are too many words where “black” means bad and “white” means good, which can be taken racially, but taken for granted, although not sure those words are racial slurs to begin with, just a whole mindset of bad/good as aligns with black/white.
Really? You’re assuming that those who are objecting to “whore” and its variant usages are all women and those who are saying that language is malleable and changes over time are all men?
So far in this discussion, yes.
I’m going to alter that balance, I’m afraid. “Whore” is a prejorative which is used overwhelmingly to describe women; for that reason I think it is objectionable to use it. It’s misogynistic.
What’s a cogent paradigm…. It’s like caucasians who think they’re black (sometimes known as “wiggers”) who use the “N” word to refer to themselves and each other; the meaning of the word is, to them, not racist terminology – however, any black person would have every right to object, because regardless of their usage of it, in the mouth of a white person, the “N” word is racist in almost all circumstances. I mean, unless they’re reading aloud from Huckleberry Finn to a class of school-children and have fully explained the connotations of the word.
Edit: I’m not claiming to be innocent of the use of gender based insults, by the way. But I don’t use them consciously.
I also do not like the use of the term “whore”, for the same reason.
In this case however, the term used was “attention whore”. To me, that makes a difference. The term was not “attention-seeking whore”, which still comes round to “whore”.
Attention whore can just as easily refer to a man as to a women, meaning someone who will do pretty much anything to get attention. I see it as being non-specific regarding gender. And (in my mind) it describes these despicable people very well.
Well, I personally don’t associate the term “attention whore” with a specific gender, however I fully accept that there are people who do and who are offended by it. Since I have no wish to offend those people (for the most part), I take it as an act of basic courtesy to respect their sensibilities.
Because “whore” is such an easy word to reach for when you need to describe men or women who are seeking attention, we all know what it means and we all “agree” it is bad behavior to be whore-like. So it is not really gender-free – it relies on a gender-specific epithet to drive home the point of what they are doing as “bad.”
“and we all “agree” it is bad behavior to be whore-like”.
Good point – and one that I hadn’t really thought about.
I see it like this: “whore” is without a doubt an extremely offensive and misogynistic pejorative. I doubt anyone will dispute this. This is also what makes “attention whore” a strong and usually rather offensive pejorative (although it can certainly be used in a humorous context, which is close to impossible with “whore”).
My level of disgust with the Phelps clan – plus that I find it describes their behavior perfectly – is what prompts me to call them attention whores. From my experience, people use this composite word in a rather gender-neutral way, applying it more or less equally to men and women (though I don’t live in an English-speaking country, so feel free to correct my perception).
Although the “whore” part has decidedly misogynistic connotations, I find these connotations to become insignificant in the new composition, “attention whore”. The fact that I and others used it to describe a lunatic group of persons consisting of, I assume, equal parts men and women should also give a hint. Would anyone think “attention whore” was intended to describe the women but not the men of this group? I doubt it. Their behavior is what this pejorative illustrates, not their gender.
Again, the point is that the term “whore” so readily describes what they are doing as “bad.” It relies on a sexist term to get that across rather than a gender-neutral one. The fact there is no readily available gender-neutral term all at the ready to be co-opted into a composite gender-neutral insult is telling.
You’re absolutely right about that. But I focus on the contemporary meaning of the word “attention whore” rather than what it is derived from. I do see your point, and it may well be that if I were a woman I’d have some reservations (I don’t think I’ve ever been called a whore, but it is an insult that is all too frequently applied to women).
I think this whole dispute is based on a logical fallacy:
Proposition: The word “whore” is used as a way to denigrate women.
Observation: John Doe used the word “whore”.
Conclusion: Therefore, John Doe is using the word “whore” to denigrate women.
Bzzzt! Sorry, that answer is incorrect. But thank you for playing.
It assumes implicitly that the word can only be used to denigrate women.
It denies the possibility- and the reality- that the word can be used in other ways without any such intent.
Bzzzzt – it implies ignorance on the user what this word really means and how it has been used, whether or not they are applying it to a gender-neutral situation.
Argument: I don’t care
Conclusion: Therefore, nobody should.
That’s an oversimplification — at best, if not a complete straw man — of our argument. If that’s what you really think we are arguing against, it certainly explains all your counterarguments, which from my perspective do nothing to address the issue at hand.
Also, intent is only half of the problem. Obviously, saying something insulting on purpose is worse than saying something insulting on accident, but the latter is still worse than -not- being insulting. And it doesn’t mean, “Oh, he didn’t mean it, why bother saying anything?” It means you should step in and say something so now the person -knows- he or she is being insulting and can choose to continue being insulting or not be insulting. Which is what Oakley was doing; she was letting Vorjack know that the use of “whore” was upsetting to her, and likely other women readers, based on the assumption that he didn’t realize that. So he can change his word choice accordingly if he cares about her perception. Which he said he did.
Here’s our argument, or at least mine:
Fact: The word “whore” is used as an insult.
Conclusion: Since that word also has negative connotations of femininity, sex work, and sex-for-pleasure, those connotations are crucial to its use as an insult.
Further conclusion: When “whore” is used as an insult or in a derogatory way, it further reinforces the idea that sex work and sex for pleasure are bad, particularly when they involve women.
Sub-argument: Since the word “whore” does not have a male connotation, as evidenced by the need to say “man-whore,” only women can be whores. While this does not mean all women are whores, it does mean that women are subject to a specific set of standards, judgments, and consequences that are not present for men displaying the same or similar behaviors; not all women are whores, but any woman can be, or be called and judged as, a whore.
Argument specific to this post: Using “whore” as an insult was intentional, even though it was not intended or explicitly referring to women only or in general, but because of the connotations of that word, using it as an insult reinforces all of the negative connotations, including the negative connotation about women, and that upsets women on this blog. Therefore, I respectfully request that we avoid using “whore” as an insult.
@Ruthie:
I don’t think my argument was a strawman (at worst, we’re arguing about two separate but related issues and have gotten them crossed), but I can accept the second paragraph of your argument on its own merits. When we get into the realm of perceived meaning and intent, everything becomes very subjective; there are very few words in the English language that are guaranteed not to insult or upset somebody, and no a priori way to predict what will insult or upset whom. I think we can both agree, though, that some words have a lot more obvious hot-button potential than others.
That when it’s brought to your attention, you don’t defend your man’s prerogative to use it any way you like, since it’s not your fault, it’s the language. Women have no business telling a man what he can and cannot say, after all. There’s a difference between censorship and asking if that’s what you really meant to say, and accepting that your answer tells a bit more about yourself than we knew before.
I have never asserted that I have a “man’s prerogative”. FWIW, that’s one of the phrases that I perceive as sexist.
It’s easy for you to say that. Will I have a valid reason to continue using it and that I don’t care how it makes you feel?
From my point of view, you don’t have a logical reason to use it yet.
Not even if I insist that it has historical backing, popular usage, the horse is out of the barn, and I don’t really think your opinion matters?
Nope. How else would you determine the semantic value of a phrase?
I am not -assuming- on the women, since me, Kodie, and Oakley have all identified ourselves as women, here and in the past. I do not know if nazani14 is a woman (though the handle suggests woman, but who knows), but his/her participation has not been as extensive (or explicit) as mine, Kodie’s, and Oakley’s. We are the only ones who have expressed explicit or implied objection to “whore.”
I am only partially assuming on the men, based again on their handles and avatars. So unless UrsaMinor and Michael have the unexpected habit of choosing a picture of a guy as their avatar even though they’re women, I feel pretty comfortable and confident in assuming their gender, here. Dan is a guy, again, unless he’s been choosing a male handle and male avatar despite his actual gender all this time. Warb’s picture is very small for me to tell, but the hairline and body outline suggest male to me. Only trj has a gender-neutral handle and avatar, but I am betting good money he is male too, and I’ll say why in a bit. Vorjack has identified as a guy, but Vorjack hasn’t been being dismissive.
Also, this argument is not, as you seemed to put it, “those who are objecting to “whore” and its variant usages” versus “those who are saying that language is malleable and changes over time”. Those two things are not opposite sides of the argument, as I’m sure many women here would acknowledge that words change over time. Framing it that way obscures the real issue here. The two sides of the argument are “those who are objecting to “whore” and its variant usages as largely offensive and insulting, and so must be avoided” versus “those who think that certain (possibly many) uses of “whore” are acceptable and those who object are just being sensitive, so it’s not anything to worry about.” The latter are using “words change over time” as support in their argument, and I am saying that particular piece of evidence is irrelevant.
“Oh, no, you see, I was using whore in the HISTORICAL sense.” Or whatever it is that argument is supposed to do.
But the reason I am assuming, more broadly, that it’s women are anti-whore and men are pro-whore in this discussion, is because in my experience, women are not fine with the word whore (though levels of discomfort vary; many seem indifferent) and those who are fine with it are men (though not all men are fine with it, just that the majority of those who -are- fine are men. The -vast- majority…80%+). And I’m betting that I have a couple more decades of experience in being a woman that you, and also that I have a couple more decades of being called a whore than you, ergo, I am more of an expert on the subject of being called a whore and noticing who else is being called a whore. Just a guess.
But hey, feel free to prove me wrong. You’d be the first “I’m totally OK with the word ‘whore’ because words’ meanings change over time!” woman I’ve ever met. EVER.
Fortunately for us, Skippy is a guy, so he probably means he is a guy who is not ok with the word “whore” and doesn’t like being lumped in with men who defend the usage, which seemed to be a generalization, but I would say there’s an equal chance it was also accurate based on who posted so far at the time you wrote it.
Either that, or the common arguing technique called “tu quoque,” you’re a sexist for generalizing men and women, so shut up. I hope not, though.
As I said, I (as a man) am very happy to see women standing up and objecting to the use of their gender as an instult.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you Custador.
Thanks, Kodie. For the record, I was perturbed by the seemingly off-the-cuff assertion that all the “men” on the blog were a-ok with the usage of the word whore and that all the “women” on the blog weren’t, as signified by “shorter men” and “shorter women.” I wouldn’t go so far as “you’re a sexist for generalizing men and women, so shut up”; that’s far stronger than what I was thinking–rather, “Whoa–were you cognizant of the sexism you’re possibly deploying in order to decry sexism?”
Ah, that makes sense, Skippy. But at the time that I posted that message, all the people who had objected to the use of “whore” were women, and all the ones who had been arguing that we were too sensitive I reasonably identified as “men”. No women said it didn’t matter, and no men (save Vorjack) said it was a problem. That said, “Shorter men” and “Shorter women” was probably -too- short, because I generally assume that most men AREN’T sexist jerks (at least not on purpose; accidental sexism is quite common). Still, some of the men’s reactions here surprised me. Dan’s, in particular.
The gender-line divide has changed in the minutes since I posted. Glad to see you’re on the let’s-not-use-whore side. Though I wish you’d said so in your original comment, because I would have responded differently to ally-pointing-out-a-possible-problem than I did to my perception of opponent-trying-to-use-your-own-words-against-you.
So sorry for the snapping. Hope you can understand where it was coming from.
Weeeelll…I’m not necessarily on the “let’s-not-use-whore” side. Nor am I on the “let’s-use-whore-with-reckless-abandon” side (I’m being a bit facetious, here). I don’t think “attention whore” is as problematic as “whore.” I’m also perturbed by the presentation of strictly demarcated lines. I think I find myself agreeing more with trj here: the term “attention whore,” while it has roots in a much more problematic “whore,” is itself far less gender-specific.
Yeah I’m a guy couldn’t crop the picture to make it larger…or was incompetent when I tried…hmm or was and am incompetent at the cropping function via gravatar.
Not incompetent; I can see a brown wall, a V-shaped shirt, and facial hair.
…I think. These avatars end up really small; that’s the real reason. The only reason we can see some others clearer is that it zooms in on our faces so far we’re missing necks, chins, parts of forehead and hair, etc.
This discussion should have ended with Oakley’s first post and Vorjack’s response.
Personally, I’m not of the opinion that “whore” warrants the Feminist Scrub in the way that “b*tch,” “c*nt,” and all the rest do, but I’ll cede the point. What bothers me is that this discussion is enough to make Oakley’s day start off as a “bummer”: the real bummer is that a misogynistic, homophobic, racist a-hole is going to protest these people’s funerals.
The horse is out of the barn.
And racing through the fields.
Well shouldn’t we lock the door now?
I was regurgitating an argument Ursa used as to why it’s ok to use the word “whore”.
@ Vorjack
You didn’t see this coming because you have a non-impaired center for morality.
Pingback: Attention Whore? | Unreasonable Faith
This is a slow response, but I want to post it anyway, even though the conversation seems to have mostly died down.
***
Shocked by how heated this has gotten, especially for this community. While I think it says volumes about how seriously gender issues are taken here (which is excellent), I have to admit – somewhat nervously – that I’m solidly in the “’attention whore’ as gender neutral” camp. Many people have already said this, but in my mind, the most salient reasons for this are 1) the context – i.e., who the term was referring to: the Phelpses, a family with a mix of both male and female members who have consistently done their best to garner attention whenever and wherever they can, often through entirely inappropriate means, 2) vorjack’s intent in choosing a phrase that was both uncomplimentary and dismissive towards those he was targeting, and 3) what the combination of these two words together mean. I do not think that you could find very many people, if any, who would hear the phrase “attention whore” and immediately think “a promiscuous female seeking attention”. I’m not even sure how much the etymology of the word “whore” without the specific modifier “attention” even enters into it, though I could be wrong.
As a note, also, I think I’ve seen a whole lot of comments misinterpreted and their tones misconstrued during this discussion. I don’t think it’s been intentional, but it has caused both a division and escalation that, on the whole, really doesn’t seem necessary. I also don’t like the way the gender lines have been drawn – I’m female, a feminist, and hardly (at least in my mind) ignorant as to the way gendered language both shapes and is shaped by past and current gender Zeitgeist.
Most of the frustration I’ve seen through the day is about people not allowing the objection to be raised. I did not see the objection itself escalating at all, except as straw men lofted by the “shushers.”
I’m puzzled, though, by your position. Do you think it’s fine to use a word denoting women and/or women’s behavior in order to be “uncomplimentary and dismissive”? As the “oldest profession” do you doubt that whore refers to women as a default?
If you honestly think that “attention whore”, when being used to describe the Phelps family, was in any way meant to belittle women, I have nothing but contempt for you. You’re far too easily offended to be on the internet, much less in public.
Seriously, grow up a little… attention whore.
You guys are overthinking this, the word “attention whore” is a common word, get with the picture, it’s nothing sexist… No one would’ve even thought twice about it had Oakley not been stuck up and said something. There is a much more important thing to discuss.
Overthinking is what we do best! In any case, I don’t think it was “stuck up”; she had a passing objection, and she voiced it. Nothing wrong with that. What followed was mostly annoying, but that’s unavoidable when you’re overthinking things on teh ‘nets.
Overthinking can be fun for some people. What more important thing should they be doing, playing “World of Warcraft” and going broke?
On teh ‘nets, there can’t possibly be anything more important to do than this, as I think someone mentioned earlier, and you can’t do that unless you overthink.
Way more fulfilling than WoW.
I agree. I don’t even have to click on the link anymore, I think we should agree that “386ing” someone is more important than sleep.
You join this discussion hours after it’s already died out, add nothing substantively new, repeat the dismissive attitude and add in personal insults, and you don’t even do it on the new post created for this exact discussion.
Your actions say a lot about you. Hope you enjoy the message you’re sending other people.
Wish there was a way to turn OFF email notifications about new comments after ward. Any mod know if there’s a way to do that?
If you hit the log-off link next to your name in the reply field, the next comment that you make should pop up with a prompt check-box at the bottom reading “Notify me of followup comments via e-mail”. Untick it, make the comment, and the emails should stop.
It might not undo if it was ticked for comments you’ve already made that are tagged with “notify me…”, I don’t know. But it’s worth a shot.
No I think she was being stuck up. Like she’s too good for a conversation with that word in it. And that she has the right to tell someone not to use it. When discussing things like this you’re bound to see words like that. I don’t mean to sound immature but the saying fits well here. Whoever is arguing that that was a sexist saying needs to get over it.
Ruthie… I’ve never been on this website so I don’t know exactly how it works, and to write back to me and argue, you’re just as bad. I can write a comment on whatever I want but I won’t sit here all day and argue. I have a life. Maybe you should try something new.
Amanda, I bow in the face of your irrefutable logic and unquestionable evidence. Why didn’t I see the light before? All this time, and it’s just that I’m a stuck up sexist for calling the word whore possibly sexist. D’oh! Oh, if only you’d been a part of this discussion from the beginning!
Kodie, I urge you…SEE THE ERROR OF YOUR WAYS. REPENT. JOIN US…RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.
And hey, if you switch sides, then you too can get a copy of the removable “I SURVIVED THE ATTENTION WHO(AR)RE” tatoo that I will be sending Amanda as soon as she sends me her shipping address/PO Box.
Like I said, get a life girl! I’m done with you crazy women! Hahaha. I won’t be reading what you say back so don’t bother!
Jesus said:
“Let the dead bury the dead” – Matthew 8:22, Luke 9:60
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION:
“The right of the people to bury their dead in accordance with their beliefs and traditions may not be infringed by individuals or by government authority.”
STOP WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH FROM PICKETING FUNERALS!