Quote:
Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 21 2005, 09:04 AM
It is sexist MMM. I don't care what your junior edition pocket dictionary says. Poll some women in Canada and see how they view the term. It is derogatory to women, and you would have to live in a cave in Afghanistan not to know that.
I'm sure when peope use it to describe men, they like the fact that it also demasculates.
No one who called her a "whore" or "slut" can tell me that they didn't know what the excepted meaning is and the specific insult it is to woman - and I'm also sure that is why they chose it. Choosing a derogatory word and then arguing semantics to try and make themselves look good is pretty lame.
|
It can be a derogitory term towards women but in the context that the term has been used when describing Belinda Stronach it is an insult towards her and her alone. It is a way of not describing women, but rather describing the actions of a specific woman.
It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman, but rather it has to do with the fact (or at least what I consider a fact) that she bailed on the party which she was elected under and as compensation recieved a very nice job in the caucas.
I have used that term to describe men, not to desmasculate them, but to describe them and their actions. No one has said she walks the street for money, or that she is a dirty VD carrying tramp. People have said that she recieved something in this case power in exchange, or while comprimising principles.
I know what the other meaning is, but at the same time you know damn well that isn't the message that was being conveyed. Everyone knows that. The term whore was used in conjunction with the term power which has different implications than the definition you are trying to argue. It seems to me as though you are looking for a fight to defend your political point of view (more left wing) than you are defending womens rights.