WS 2012 Sandbox: ws in the sand

Judging women on their femaleness first (as in the case of "actress") and their

Milo, there's this whole book by Dale Spender, called Man Made Language about ~exactly~ this issue. Perhaps you could read it, and digest some of its points about the way language is used to constrain women (and also men but mostly, problematically, women) before you attempt to "mansplain" "gender" in "language" to me, OK? Thanks.

enough of the girltalk in this thread.

There is an intrinsic judgement in mansplain, manbag, etc. (that can be sexist against women - or against men) that does not exist in "actress" or "lady doctor." Lady doctor or female musician can be diminutive, but that derives from the context of whatever else is said ('female musicians can only be bass players' or w/e) - identification by gender is not inherently judgemental.

Actress, more than the others, is a strange word to bring up in this argument.

Not true. Like I said, read Dale Spender and get back to me. I really cannot have this conversation with you until you actually know what the hell you are talking about.

Or you could make the argument you're alluding to, rather than relying on authority.

What is sexist about 'actress,' beyond being gender-identified?
How does that work in languages where basic nouns have genders?

Never understood why there need to be actresses when I've never been to the doctress

bags are for women, men have "manbags"
hair removal is for women, men have to "manscape"

etc.

I'm conflicted on "man crush." On one hand, I like that it opens up the normal-guy discourse to intimations of homoeroticism. On the other hand, the word "man" does a lot of work in signifying that it's not a REAL crush.

Dear Milo: I am not ILX's personal Womens Studies Professor. There is like 30 or 40 years of research and documentation on this stuff that you would find if you just used your eyes. And what is just a fun entertaining diversion for a Friday afternoon is the stuff of my actual life. And I would rather spend that life looking at photos of Thom Yorke's belly.

Also, you are doing this, right here:

http://derailingfordummies.com/#educate2

That's just pretty shitty - you start the discussion, then appeal to authority, then claim I'm derailing.

Read what it says in the link. I have told you where to find the information you're asking for, you just want me to spoon feed it to you, instead of actually reading it, and I'm tired and I want to go home but I haven't finished my actual work because I've been having this conversation for the 10,000th time.

Post pictures of mostly naked women if you must, but don't let's be completely dense? She answered you. You aren't entitled to a crash course in why you're not checking your own privilege.

Kate, while I pretty much agree with you on the subject, I think it's bad form to first argue something (that those words are sexist), then when someone asks you to explain it, you just say "why don't you understand it, go read these books you fool!". If you're not willing to back up you arguments, you shouldn't bring them up in the first place.

(particularly given that we don't disagree nearly as much as you think we do)

"Go read this book" is not dialogue.

"explain 30 years of research to me in an afternoon" is not a dialogue either, Milo.

But, iirc, he wasn't asking for that, he was asking for you, personally, to explain your feelings/thoughts.

ie the disagreement is extremely narrow - the problematic nature of and how easily gender identification can be diminutive and sexist (lady doctor, male nurse) is undoubtedly true and certainly worth talking about, but you can't raise them as exact analogies to new neologisms that carry prejudices built into the word itself.

No one is asking for 30 years of research - you made an argument and are unwilling to discuss it in any way. You can't demand that I agree with you because you say so.

But, iirc, he wasn't asking for that, he was asking for you, personally, to explain your feelings/thoughts.

true, but I think K has already explained her feelings/thoughts!

She's not usually the bashful type

Could draw some lol parallels between womensstudiessplaining and mansplaining here, tbh. The privilege of perceived academic credentials abrogates any need for explanation beyond 'I said so.'

the problematic nature of and how easily gender identification can be diminutive and sexist (lady doctor, male nurse) is undoubtedly true and certainly worth talking about, but you can't raise them as exact analogies to new neologisms that carry prejudices built into the word itself.

I think "lady doctor" carries a prejudice (as well as male nurse) built into itself: the whole idea behind adding the lady prefix is that woman being a doctor is an exception from the male norm.

This would never have happened, Tuomas, if you'd known who Zooey Deschanel was

That can very easily be so - but it can also be innocuous. It is possible to use that language solely as a gender identifier, without malice or negativity. Maybe only a small percentage of time, and maybe even problematic in ways then, if you think that gender should be eliminated from conversation.
But there aren't innocuous uses of manbag or bromance that can be separated from the feminine/gay-panic angle - they're built into the words themselves.

Like I said, FT's reaction surprised me because my reading is that it's 95% agreement, aside from the analogy she drew.

It is possible to use that language solely as a gender identifier, without malice or negativity.

Maybe, yeah, but in this case there's no commonly used male equivalent to "lady doctor" or "female musician". If only one gender needs the identifier (because it's assumed to be an exception from the norm), then there's inherent prejudice in choosing to use those terms instead of just "doctor" or "musician".

It might be possible for you to use it that way, milo, but it's not possible for some people to hear it that way, and in the case of things that have a history of being derogatory or limiting, the burden falls on the speaker to be clear if possible, or at least to accept someone else's objections reasonably graciously.

Milo, it is this idea that I have some moral ~obligation~ to go on at length and explain an argument for which I have already drawn out my basic position and told you a place where you can find 30 years of discussion on that very thing that you brought up, if you're interested in learning even more about it.

Instead of me, like, spending my entire afternoon having this conversation for the 8 millionth time - when really I should be finishing up my reports and preparing for a trip to Cornwall in like 10 hours time that I haven't even started packing for!

And that's not even mentioning how you demand my time and my attention and my discussion at length - then it's not you, but *me* that gets all the snide zings and the eye-rolling from people who reduce me to "omg that person who goes on about womens studies all the time!" and complain about the length of the discussion.

But, you know, you can claim the moral high ground about how I surrendered the argument because I chose to go and pack for Cornwall instead of talking to you. The last word! You can have it! All yours. Enjoy.

Also and this is the same point as an essay I read last week about rape jokes: that when you use words that you think it's time to de-nuance or "reclaim" even though you're not the recipient of them, or whatever, you can't help if some of your listeners HAVEN'T thought about it as much as you have, and you may be reinforcing their belief that the terms or ideas you're using are acceptable on their face.

Pyth, please shout at me, if you catch me on this thread again, instead of packing for Cornwall. The reports are now done and I'm going home. I'm sure I've forgotten something important.

Shit. Wrong thread.

http://host.trivialbeing.org/up/wolverine-nov27-maggie-q-silver-fox-preview.jpg

http://images.askmen.com/photos/isla-fisher/84218.jpg
remember when she made hilarious movies? I miss those days

http://www.ftape.com/media/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/AndrejPejic-HEMA-PushupBra-FTAPE.COM02.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/IWFoT.gif

With some pics it is hard to say whether you want to smash the person or just the picture.

xp that actually made me cheer

Christ, you guys really know how to fuck up a ws thread, jesus... way to go people, way to go...

Wish we had 77 back ~ at least people knew what a ws thread was meant for there. Bloody nora.

i'm pretty sure that if you go to tumblr.com/search and mash your keyboard for long enough u will get the unadulterated stream of ppl that ppl with avatar ponytail connections to the internet want to pork that you are looking for

some of you must walk sideways from the constant butthurt

maybe their assholes are large enough so that it doesn't hurt as much?

Rachel Sterne, Chief Digital Officer for NYC

― Mr Jimmy Mod, Tuesday, December 13, 2011 11:28 AM (3 days ago) Bookmark Permalink

lol a while a go i googled to find out if she really was as hot as she appeared in her twitter pic

http://www.outofaces.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Isla-Fisher-7.jpg

She's in the new Gatsby movie, apparently, which is only a shame becuz yeah the funniez but I guess that Shopping movie kinda killed her funny girl status.

Also that pushup bra ad is awesome trolling

Who she?

isla fisher, who might as well be a piece of sexy 'disney's tangled' fanart in that cool retro-styled pinup girl pic

The "cool retro-styled pinup girl" look works tbh

she was in the last couple episodes of bored to death s3 btw. which, I dunno, I thought it was funny

she's a babia majora and all but an angora sweater and andy's mom's skin looks good on everyone

mega push-up beha