Relationships

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Relationships

Postby Rhiannon » Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:47 pm

I don't think my posts on the profanity topic were made in an offensive or condescending manner, but judging from a couple of the responses offense was taken. That wasn't my intent, so I apologise. I was attempting to explain my point of view as uninflammatorily (doubt that's a word) as possible, as when it comes to matters of linguistics I believe personal context and interpretation plays a huge part.
Rhiannon
 
Posts: 1061
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:17 am

Re: Relationships

Postby Fivelives » Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:35 pm

Sabindeus wrote:
Fivelives wrote:Channel the energy into something positive, maybe take up a sport or start putting in the effort to get a promotion at work. Go back to school, learn a new skill or language. There are a million different ways to vent that don't involve calling your ex an "ungrateful cunt" (even if she is. Particularly if she is).


Tangent time!

I've never understood the whole "channel anger into something positive/constructive" thing. Like, I've never once been able to do anything constructive unless I'm calm. When I'm angry the only things I can do are destructive, like punching something or someone. How does one accomplish this?


Time for practical advice:

The way you do this is by fixing the thing that made you angry in the first place. If someone says or does something to you that makes you angry, there is a core of truth in what they said or did. When you get angry, that means you've admitted that someone was right about what they said/did to you.

Say for instance, you're struggling to lose 20 pounds. Someone calls you fat, and this angers you. Take that anger to the gym. Or maybe you were a mediocre student and someone calls you stupid. Take that anger and use it as a "whip" to keep you on track while studying a new subject. Perhaps someone tells you that you'll never amount to anything - again, this angers you. Use that anger as fuel to get a promotion at work. It works on compound issues just as well as on simple issues, but first you have to examine it to see what simple issues comprise the compound issue. Or put more simply, break down the mountain one rock at a time.

I'm not saying you should sit down when you're angry and try to make beadwork necklaces or whatever other bullshit people say you should do with it. Use it for practical purposes that will show results. That's the thing about anger; it tends to focus our attention on itself. It can, left unchecked, feed itself until it consumes everything - or it can be purposefully aimed for good purposes and let out a little bit at a time. See, the more you work on fixing whatever it is that made you angry in the first place, the less that thing can control you in the future.

So lose the weight, get the degree, get the promotion, get whatever use you can out of it. Then one day you wake up and realize - you're not angry anymore. Because there has been a measurable change in your life and the root cause of the anger (that core of truth behind every insult that "stings") no longer applies to you.

As far as the language debate is concerned, it's the thought behind the word that counts. Calling someone a cunt is essentially telling them that they are not a person, but rather a vehicle for their reproductive purposes. It dehumanizes them. But flip that around - personally, I use terms like that as pet names rather than insults and I don't care if others use them. Why? Because it will always backfire when you insult someone using "Those Words" and instead of insulting the person you were aiming the jab at, you're just proving that you yourself are an ass.

I also don't believe that censoring words does any good. Again, it boils down to meaning - substituting the word "fork" for "fuck", for instance, just turns the word fork into a "dirty word".
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3110
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Relationships

Postby Arnock » Tue Aug 20, 2013 8:20 pm

Lieris wrote:Thank you for mansplaining to me...



I'm not entirely familiar with that term, would you mind explaining it?
Image
Courage not of this earth in your eyes
Faith from far beyond lies deep inside
User avatar
Arnock
 
Posts: 3678
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:36 pm
Location: Everywhere and nowhere

Re: Relationships

Postby Koatanga » Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:13 pm

I believe that the term "pussy" is not so much a derogatory term toward women as it is a reference to an emasculated male. It's a reefrence to the equation of penis size with prowess/bravery such that lacking prowess or bravery is equated with lacking a penis. So calling a man a "pussy" doesn't have anything to do with women lacking anything - it's entirely about the man's lack and has nothing to do with any slight toward women. A woman can also be called a "pussy", again referring to an emasculated male.

Which is why I am a bit bemused that another term for the exact same anatomical part has an entirely different meaning and is in fact quite sexist.
Retired. Koatanga, Shapely, Sultry, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 2014
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Relationships

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:29 am

Slightly odd reasoning there. If "pussy" is insulting to a man then that's through the assumption that being a woman is an inherently bad thing, which is indeed sexist and insulting to women.

(Doesn't mean you can't still use these words. Context is key.)
Temporarily playing WoW again.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6962
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Relationships

Postby Nooska » Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:31 am

Kysen: actually, its not necessarily on an assumption that being a woman is a bad thing, its is more along the assumpton of female genetalia being opposite to male genetalie, and the general (wester, I'd better add) assumption that the size of the males genitalia is a direct measure of how manly he is (and that is not sexist, a man striving to be manly is not a bad thing, nor is a woman striving to womanly - that is the default for socieital standards - what "being manly" or "being womanly" entails may be different based on cultural context).
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Relationships

Postby lythac » Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:03 am

bldavis wrote:i have to give mad props to the kid playing Joffery...i have never hated someone so much as i do him..hell of an actor to play that role so well

Image
Ryshad / Lythac of <Heretic> Nagrand-EU
User avatar
lythac
Moderator
 
Posts: 2694
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:10 am

Re: Relationships

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:20 am

Nooska wrote:(and that is not sexist, a man striving to be manly is not a bad thing, nor is a woman striving to womanly - that is the default for socieital standards - what "being manly" or "being womanly" entails may be different based on cultural context).

What I think you're missing here is the fact that the societal standards are fundamentally sexist in attitude, even if those who perpetuate them don't consider themselves to be so.

No, it is not sexist for a man to strive to be "manly". In and of itself. But when society considers men who are not trying to be "manly" to be unacceptable, and signifies this by comparing them to women, that is sexist. The traits that make up "manliness" do not really have any connection to which genitalia a person has - but the culture has created an image whereby gender is an essential part of the stereotypes it tries to enforce.

When you look at what are considered "manly" traits, and "womanly" traits, you can't really say that society enforcing those roles, insulting and degrading those who fail to fill them, and using gender to define those roles, is not sexist.

When a person demonstrates bravery, confidence, strength, we refer to them as "having balls". Because to have balls is to be masculine, and to be a man is to be strong, as far as our culture is concerned. To be weak and ineffectual is to be a pussy, feminine. I don't see how you can claim that isn't sexist.
Temporarily playing WoW again.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6962
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Relationships

Postby lythac » Wed Aug 21, 2013 3:47 am

KysenMurrin wrote:When a person demonstrates bravery, confidence, strength, we refer to them as "having balls". Because to have balls is to be masculine, and to be a man is to be strong, as far as our culture is concerned. To be weak and ineffectual is to be a pussy, feminine. I don't see how you can claim that isn't sexist.


"Having balls" doesn't just have positives as it also includes recklessness and foolhardiness. I always thought the expression related more to testosterone (rather than the actual balls) given the possible emotional side-effects of low testosterone can be a decrease in motivation, lack of self-confidence and depression.

When something "is bollocks" or someone is "talking bollocks" it generally isn't good. So overall our testicles have positive and negative attitudes attached to them.
Ryshad / Lythac of <Heretic> Nagrand-EU
User avatar
lythac
Moderator
 
Posts: 2694
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:10 am

Re: Relationships

Postby Nooska » Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:46 am

I've heard the refrence to having balls (or gonads or whatever euphemism used) used more negatively than positively - or at least ironically - in cases relating to doing stupid stuff (I wouldn't have the balls to do X)

Also, while societal standars could be viewed as sexist (depends alot on where you are), they are, by definition not, as it isn't sexist to do what your culture expects of you - it may be sexist to do so in other cultures, but if it is, by definition, the norm, then it is also, by definition not sexism.

For sexism to be an applicable label, it has to be an attitude and/or thoughtpattern that is not simply a result of the normal societal standards.
It wasn't sexist in the middle ages that women belonged at home taking care of the kids and the house, while men were out doing whatever (lets ignore for a second that the commmon folk did not have that much of a real gender gap, aparty from where it was a pratical application, like men being stromnger than women, so better suited for some tasks in the manual labor 'department' on a farm for instance)

In general I think that we today put too much stock in mmen and women having to be equally proficient at everything, there are biological differences, and while we accept that not everyone can be equally proficient at mental stuff (I don't want to use the phrase equally intelligent, but I'm putting it here so people get the general idea of what I'm saying), we for some reason can't accept that something that has such a profound phenotypical effect on us can actually have implications as to what the body is suited for in general.

Remember generalisations are true in general, but says nothing about any given individual; example, men are generally taller than women - that doe snot mean that the worlds tallest person could not be a woman, or that any given woman is shorter than any given man - using height as that is the least inflammatory example I can come up with.
In general men will also tend to be stronger than women, for example, but there are some exceptionally strong women out there that are stronger than men in general.
Main Characters:
Nooska, Blood Elf BM/SV Hunter on Argent Dawn (EU)
Morosin, Bloody freezing orc death knight on Argent Dawn (EU)
Niisca, Shady forsaken "priest" on Argent Dawn (EU)

Keeper Emeritus of the BM hunters guide on Elitist Jerks and the wowhead version untill patch 5.3.
User avatar
Nooska
 
Posts: 1551
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:55 am

Re: Relationships

Postby KysenMurrin » Wed Aug 21, 2013 5:22 am

...I got very sweary around the middle of your post, so I think I'm gonna take a time out from this discussion before I say something inadvisable.
Temporarily playing WoW again.
Donnan - Nangun - Kysen - Kysen - Mardun - Timkins

Mostly-Book Blog.
KysenMurrin
 
Posts: 6962
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 am
Location: UK

Re: Relationships

Postby Amirya » Wed Aug 21, 2013 8:32 am

Nooska wrote:Also, while societal standars could be viewed as sexist (depends alot on where you are), they are, by definition not, as it isn't sexist to do what your culture expects of you - it may be sexist to do so in other cultures, but if it is, by definition, the norm, then it is also, by definition not sexism.

...what?

I'm tired, I'm grumpy, people generally annoy the everloving fuck out of me so it's worse this morning because of idiots on the way to work. So I may be misreading this entirely. But...what?

As for the rest:
Whether or not you consider the phrase "having balls" to be a positive or not, it is still tied to masculinity. And, at least around here, generally said with awe and not a little envy, regardless of how stupid the action itself is.

I don't know that anyone is actually disputing the biological differences between males and females. But the problem is how Western society treats males and females.

Men are studs, women are sluts. Men are breadwinners, women are homemakers. Men are forceful, women are bitchy. Alternatively, if you take a male/female couple, and tell a group of, oh twenty people, "this couple is in an abusive relationship," almost without fail, "why doesn't she leave him if he's hitting her?!" In this case, man is the aggressor, the woman is the victim - even if it's the opposite. But we can't say that, because that makes him look weak.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3985
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

Re: Relationships

Postby bldavis » Wed Aug 21, 2013 10:22 am

lythac wrote:
bldavis wrote:i have to give mad props to the kid playing Joffery...i have never hated someone so much as i do him..hell of an actor to play that role so well

Image

hated her too, but it was just a character...after watching a episode or 2 of GoT i would punch joffery if i saw him somewhere
Image

Brekkie:Tanks are like shitty DPS. And healers are like REALLY distracted DPS
Amirya:Why yes, your penis is longer than his because you hit 30k dps in the first 10 seconds. But guess what? That raid boss has a dick bigger than your ego.
Flex:I don't make mistakes. I execute carefully planned strategic group wipes.
Levie:(in /g) It's weird, I have a collar and I dont know where I got it from, Worgen are kinky!
Levie:Drunk Lev goes and does what he pleases just to annoy sober Lev.
Sagara:You see, you need to *spread* the bun before you insert the hot dog.
User avatar
bldavis
 
Posts: 7407
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:04 pm
Location: Searching for myself. If i get back before I return, please have me stop and wait for myself.

Re: Relationships

Postby cdan » Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:01 pm

Amirya wrote:
Nooska wrote:Also, while societal standars could be viewed as sexist (depends alot on where you are), they are, by definition not, as it isn't sexist to do what your culture expects of you - it may be sexist to do so in other cultures, but if it is, by definition, the norm, then it is also, by definition not sexism.

...what?

I'm tired, I'm grumpy, people generally annoy the everloving fuck out of me so it's worse this morning because of idiots on the way to work. So I may be misreading this entirely. But...what?

As for the rest:
Whether or not you consider the phrase "having balls" to be a positive or not, it is still tied to masculinity. And, at least around here, generally said with awe and not a little envy, regardless of how stupid the action itself is.

I don't know that anyone is actually disputing the biological differences between males and females. But the problem is how Western society treats males and females.

Men are studs, women are sluts. Men are breadwinners, women are homemakers. Men are forceful, women are bitchy. Alternatively, if you take a male/female couple, and tell a group of, oh twenty people, "this couple is in an abusive relationship," almost without fail, "why doesn't she leave him if he's hitting her?!" In this case, man is the aggressor, the woman is the victim - even if it's the opposite. But we can't say that, because that makes him look weak.



..and to think Western society is actually the most progressive in terms of how women are treated.
cdan
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 am

Re: Relationships

Postby Amirya » Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:14 pm

I also forgot: Men are supposed to be stoic, women are supposed to be emotional crybuckets.

Case in point - Hannah Anderson. I follow discussion threads on yahoo and cnn because they entertain me. Almost without fail, she must be involved, because she's not grieving properly. Whatever the hell that means.
Image

Fetzie wrote:The Defias Brotherhood is back, and this time they are acting as racketeers in Goldshire. Anybody wishing to dance for money must now pay them protection money or be charged triple the normal amount when repairing.
Amirya
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 3985
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest