adjective
(of a man) deprived of his male role or identity.
Seems fine to me.
In any case, I could argue that you are not using the right definition of ■■■■■■■ You see the problem with this argument?
Well that seems like quite a reach.
Like alleged bias based on country of origin.
2 Likes
Since Trolly @'d me, I guess I’ll weigh in.
-
I usually try to take the sticks and stones approach to policing language, but on the list of words that wind me up, this is pretty high up there. In American parlance, it is a gendered term and it is almost always meant in that context. It’s been directed at me IRL a few times and in those times it was absolutely meant to demean in a specific way.
-
I understand that it has both a different/softer meaning and is used more commonly in other parts of the English speaking world. So, I try to keep that perspective in mind when it gets used here and that makes it pretty easy to gloss over it.
-
I agree with some of the earlier posters who pointed out that this now seems like it’s become the battleground for a US/ROW power struggle, and I get the sense that some posters may be using it more than they normally would simply because of the reaction they expect to get. Maybe that is a misread, but to the extent that it is true, I guess my big ask would be that the folks who use the word limit it to the ways they typically use it IRL or on other forums, and not use it simply as a way of stirring up drama here.
Bottom line: if something is part of your vocabulary and you do not intend it to be harmful, I will try to extend some generosity. But, if you’re just trying to troll, then, well, you know what you are…
10 Likes
Just for the record, Bronn and Tyrion’s solution to the problem is to provide Joffrey with prostitutes (as in make him more of a man), which fails spectacularly. I mean “There’s no cure for being a ■■■■■ is a funny line but overall it seems the author is mocking Bronn’s mentality.
Maybe implicitly, but they’re working on the theory that the aggression is due to pent-up sexual energy. Bronn’s use really just doesn’t jibe with the American sense of the word.
1 Like
I don’t really think my opinion matter much, but this shit been going on for over a month and it’s nothing but a silly beef between a group of like 8 users.
What is the purpose of all this? If you enjoy the forum keep writing. If you don’t enjoy stop writing. These fake issues keep coming up. No one should care about PM’s (if you don’t like the pm, you block them). No one should care about the “c-word”. It’s not an actual issue we are experiencing here. It’s a gotcha moment spiraling out of control.
This is dominating the feed for a month now. I know I can block all of this too, but I dunno, I guess I have some unfounded faith this can all go away soon.
8 Likes
How is this going for hundreds of posts.
Everyone agrees the word has a different meaning in the UK and US.
This is forum with like 90% US members. It would seem the US meaning should take precedent.
Even if we know a custom we have is not offensive, when we visit another culture decency says we adopt their custom. If I am in parts of west Africa giving them thumbs up is the same a giving the middle finger in the US. Should I run around giving the thumbs up because it means “good” in the US?
As has been said many times, zero is lost not losing the word. We are suppose to be progressives. We care if our fellow citizens are offended. If I know I am offending someone it’s on me to stop doing the offending behaviour. That’s called being a culturally sensitive progressive.
6 Likes
Here are my thoughts, since I’ve been quoted and @-ed. This post is going to both disappoint and please all of you, for different reasons, but also serve to demonstrate that human beings can hold conflicting views in their path toward working out the right approach to behavior.
- In my private life, and I mean my deep down personal thoughts, I don’t give two goddamn flying fucks about the word ■■■■■ I don’t know why I don’t care about it, but I don’t. Society and friends and family have all indicated that I should, and yet, I still don’t. It doesn’t bother me in the slightest, even, shockingly, if it’s directed at me. It makes me laugh when people choose to insult me that way, especially from behind a keyboard. I guess I’d probably not laugh if some dudebro was screaming it in my face, but that has never happened.
Brits/Aussies/etc -1
US - 0
- Fortunately, I have enough self and societal awareness to know that this is not the norm, at all. That many others DO take issue with that word, and that there are layers upon layers of meanings that can be applied to the word ■■■■ across the spectrum, from blatant extreme misogyny to fuck yes female empowerment play me that scene from the Vagina Monologues where we take back the word ■■■■ and turn it into a word of power.
Brits/Aussies/etc -1
US - 1
- Well fuck, we’re tied. What the fuck should I do? Should I choose the “fuck your feelings” approach or the “respect others’ wishes” approach? Both feel good at different times of the day/moods/hunger level/weather/horniness/etc.
Now, some other factors creep in.
First, I have admined and participated in large forums before…and not a single one of them, lightly or strictly modded, would ever let a thread like this happen in the first place. It would be gone, the instances of the word would be filtered, and people who insist upon using it or trying to get around the filter would be banned (temp or permanent).
Second, I have evolved my position on this over the years, like my position about sexist jokes, to be less “suck it up and deal” to a more understanding place.
Third, I now understand how uses of slurs against one group as insults to another are problematic at best, when my thinking was never so nuanced before.
Brits/Aussies/etc -1
US - 2
Sorry to all the people quoting my earlier post as proof that I don’t care about this. I posted my full, uncensored thoughts. If they offended anyone, please think about that, then consider that someone egregiously using the word ■■■■ might, just possibly might, make someone else feel the way you do now.
Finally, you might have noticed my little running tally. Did you think it was bullshit? Yes? Of course you did. It’s as silly as thinking there’s some kind of pogrom against the non-US members of the forum.
I don’t care where you’re from. It does not matter. Respect and care for the sensibilities of your fellow posters here is an international language, or it should be. Imagine something like this argument occurring at the UN or Amnesty International or Doctors without Borders. Laughable, right? Somehow those organizations manage to employ people from many different cultures without breaking down into petty squabbles like this.
So what to do? Easy. We’ve asked people to stop using the word, so stop using the word! Not because we’re dictators, or because we hate the rest of the world (LMAO, this concept is absolutely the most ridiculous part of this whole thing: there is no pro-US conspiracy here!), but because many of your fellow posters, members of a community, have indicated that it makes them upset/uncomfortable.
10 Likes
Right. Emasculation is not an insult because masculinity is better than femininity, but because stripping anyone of their gender identity against their will is demeaning. And you know this.
Seems like you should start with the Americans who voted no biggie.
I’ve never heard of effemination, is that a thing?
That word means what your troll post would imply the definition of emasculation was: for a man to acquire feminine characteristics.
It’s not a (totallly) troll post. You are saying that the word “emasculation” is fine, because it means to lose one’s gender characteristics. But that is not a neutral-gendered word, it means for a man to lose his masculine characteristics. Is there a similar word for when a woman loses her feminine characteristics? Because it seems that the natural candidate (“effemination”) also applies to men.
I am obviously just demonstrating how pretty much any word that has any connection with gender, race, political affiliation, religious affiliation, etc. etc. can be quite easily demonstrated to be in some way prejudicial or discriminatory.
I’d like us to agree that the debate about the word ■■■■■■ is one of degree, not of kind.
1 Like
When I called the president a ■■■■■ it was deserved
I really don’t get why the fainting couches have come out for this.
1 Like
That you can engineer some sort of perceived offense out of gendered terminology is not compelling when no one out there is actually claiming there is one in good faith.
Yet.
So, you think ■■■■■■ is just a different category, to, say “bitch”?
So? If someone or some people do come forward and say that another term is prejudicially loaded and demeaning, the correct answer is to talk with them about it and gain understanding, not erect a fortification for the sanctity of your right to offend them.
2 Likes