I’m sure the phrase we’re dancing around here is ‘term of endearment’.
2 Likes
Well, since there isn’t entrenched sexism going back hundreds or thousands of years against men, I’m not sure how that is relevant. You’re focusing on the “genitalia” aspect instead of “comparing people to women as an insult” part.
Sometimes. I prefer calling people cholostomy bags.
1 Like
It is relevant because calling someone a cunt, isn’t “comparing people to women as an insult”. The word doesn’t mean woman, it specifically refers to a woman’s genitalia. Is that sexist? That depends on the context, and the context I’m discussing is the Australian context, where the words “cock” and “dick” (also genitalia) are used in similar frequencies and in very similar contexts.
Also, as stated many times above, and as is the case in the interview that has spawned this entire discussion, the word is frequently not used as an insult. The interviewee could have said “anyone” in place of “no cunt” and his meaning would have been exactly the same. In many other cases, as @miasm has pointed out, it’s also frequently a term of endearment.
1 Like
No, it doesn’t but I’m done with this. I’m well aware of the basic sexism women run into in Australia, having had family that lived there and friends who did grad school there. I shouldn’t expect Australians to be reflective on how the word is perceived by others.
Isn’t that part of what people mean by “context”?
Is it healthy for women to assume that there is something wrong with their genitalia? I’d rather inspire them to have some confidence.
Why do you assume that’s the basis of the insult? The insult is “being compared to women is bad” alongside a centuries long history of patriarchy.
But, please, tell me how that doesn’t matter because they make their own reality now.
1 Like
I was merely being literal.
Not everybody subscribes to this outlook on women. Considering that most people are women, it seems likely that most people wouldn’t agree.
Something that you and some others here seem to struggle with is that social reality is largely subjective, and that to the extent it is objective relies upon consensus. This obliges the individual to vote with their voice and actions to participate in consensus reality. Instead, many seem to be tempted to frame it as a one-way interaction between “the individual” and “everybody else”, which is not how social participation or creating consensus seem to work.
Yeah, all subjective. Women don’t have any issues in society or how they might be treated.
I do notice you excised the second half of my statement with “centuries long history of patriarchy.”
1 Like
You are taking what I said out of context, which was not me saying that “women don’t have any issues”, but that each person participates in creating the consensus of social reality. I think that recognizing people’s agency to do this is an empowering process.
I thought about it, but it seemed too culturally specific to comment upon with specificity.
Oh, there are cultures without this history of patriarchy? Certainly not Australia, the USA, the UK, or any European derived nation.
The social, behavioural construct motivating the use of the term also serves an endearing function.
well thats like, your opinion, man.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
