General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Misogynistic language.... [View all]NanceGreggs
(27,818 posts)And you have every right to express your opinion on the matter. As do I.
But I do have a problem with "let's not use certain words because of how they might be perceived". Words are words - and even the most innocuous terms can "be perceived" as something not intended nor conveyed. At the same time, some words convey a specific meaning that is fully intended - and expressing that meaning in no uncertain terms is often far more honest than using more "politically correct" terms that serve to couch true meaning behind cutesy phrases that "won't offend".
What it comes down to is that eliminating "words" does not eliminate the thoughts behind those words. The suffragettes were not called "ball-busting bitches" in the polite society of the day - that doesn't mean that that's exactly what they were thought of by many. And you and I have the vote today - as a result of a full focus on RIGHTS and little concern for what words were bandied about, crude or otherwise.
I am for EQUAL RIGHTS and EQUAL TREATMENT - and claiming that the word "c*nt* is somehow more offensive than words like "prick" or "dick" just doesn't cut it. You can't argue that one reduces a woman to a body part while arguing that the other two don't do exactly the same thing where males are concerned.
It is what it is. And pretending that it's okay, because men don't face the same issues is a cop-out.
Women have been, and continue to be, denied their rights by a certain faction in this country. And whether they are called certain names, or identified by certain words, has nothing to do with it. It is the mindset behind those words that needs to be changed - and eliminating certain phrases from our national vocabulary isn't going to change the thinking behind those words.